RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the original eleven classes do not include a magic warrior, spelldancer, or Gish; and only allow you to play one through kludges like multiclassing fighter and wizard and some hybrid prestige class. Imho, one of the great inventions Paizo did in later books is making this actually work, and have a class that can reliably cast-and-fight in the same turn.
The prime example of this is the Magus, but the Bloodrager and Warpriest are other good examples, and numerous other classes have an archetype or two that let you play a magical warrior.
I would really like to be able to play one in the New Pathfinder as well. Ideally I'd love to see the Magus class in 2.0, but what could also work is have an archetype (or whatever the equivalent is) focused on playing this traditional character. If any of the playtesters can tell me how this could be accomplished, I'd appreciate it if you could share that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've taught the ropes to over 20 new players in Pathfinder. More than half of them had "Magic Warrior" as their first character idea. These are people that come from RPG videogames like Final Fantasy and Skyrim, where almost every character can do this. This is probably he market PF2 will be aiming for.
If PF really prides itself on allowing you to make the character you want, then I hope 2e can support the most over-used and beloved concept by newbies right out of the gate.
We know Magus wont be a class in the CRB, but maybe there's a core build or Magus comes in one of the first supplements (First 3 months).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't the Gith WotC Intellectual property?
Gish has since become a generic term for a hybrid melee fighter and arcane caster or psychic.
I read somewhere that BAB might not be a thing anymore. If that's true, a Wizard who invests in physical stats (perhaps with a boost from being a Transmutation specialist), uses spells to compensate for lack of HP and Armor, and maybe gets a weapon proficiency via Ancestry (e.g. as an Elf) might be able to fulfill this role without multi/prestige classing. With the new action economy it will be possible to attack and cast in the same turn without Spell Combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really feel like they could squeeze a 13th class into the core book and make it the Magus, because yeah, that is an incredibly popular character type. In the unlikely event that they really can only fit 11-12 classes in the book, I would actually say the Sorcerer could be sacrificed to a supplement to get the Magus in.
Aren't the Gith WotC Intellectual property?
That is why no officially published book will use that term.
But for the question raised by this thread, I think a lot depends on how many of the abilities of a class you can get from non-class resources at 1st level.
I, too, feel that Magus should be in sooner rather than later.
I am hoping that one of the archetypes in the core book will just give some arcane flare to your character. Letting you make a serviceable Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster from the get go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am hoping for archetypes that add casting to a class. e.g. play a fighter trade in a bunch of your class feats for an archetype that is basically VMC wizard to get half or one third casting and you are good to go. The new action economy makes casting a spell and attacking in the same round doable by default so there is a little less need for a specialized class.
There is an argument that says you have four basic classes/roles - Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, (combat, skills, arcane, divine) and the next other logical ones to include would be the hybrids of those, so Magus (F/W), Bard (R/W), Warpriest (F/C), Inquisitor (R/C), Brawler (F/R). Trouble is, I can't think of a Wizard/Cleric combo that isn't a prestige class or a really weird class like Shaman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The magus is my favorite character and I would like to see the PF2 version as soon as possible.
Im curious with all the modular class talk if the Magus just becomes an archetype? The forums will look like 5E with the Warlord :)
I thought we had agreed to allow that term to die?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is an argument that says you have four basic classes/roles - Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, (combat, skills, arcane, divine) and the next other logical ones to include would be the hybrids of those, so Magus (F/W), Bard (R/W), Warpriest (F/C), Inquisitor (R/C), Brawler (F/R). Trouble is, I can't think of a Wizard/Cleric combo that isn't a prestige class or a really weird class like Shaman.
Witch is a good example of W/C. Base is more W than C but that can be changed with archetypes and patrons. Some pretty great options for a support witch.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I am hoping that one of the archetypes in the core book will just give some arcane flare to your character. Letting you make a serviceable Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster from the get go.
The catch is that an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster can fight OR cast a spell each turn, whereas a Magus or Warpriest can fight AND cast a spell each turn. That is, the latter is a magic warrior, whereas the former is basically a wizard with a sword in his hand.
In 2.0 parlance, this could require e.g. some offensive single-action spells, some single-action self-buffs, and a feat or class feature that lets you cast touch spells through your weapon.
I am hoping that one of the archetypes in the core book will just give some arcane flare to your character. Letting you make a serviceable Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster from the get go.The catch is that an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster can fight OR cast a spell each turn, whereas a Magus or Warpriest can fight AND cast a spell each turn. That is, the latter is a magic warrior, whereas the former is basically a wizard with a sword in his hand.
In 2.0 parlance, this could require e.g. some offensive single-action spells, some single-action self-buffs, and a feat or class feature that lets you cast touch spells through your weapon.
The Fighter's special charge option of moving twice and attacking for 2 actions comes to mind. Have a similar ability to cast a spell and attack for 2 actions instead of 3.
I am hoping that one of the archetypes in the core book will just give some arcane flare to your character. Letting you make a serviceable Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster from the get go.The catch is that an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster can fight OR cast a spell each turn, whereas a Magus or Warpriest can fight AND cast a spell each turn. That is, the latter is a magic warrior, whereas the former is basically a wizard with a sword in his hand.
{. . .}
Unless, of course, you go fishing for Attacks of Opportunity. Although I'm not sure how that is going to work in Pafhfinder 2nd Edition, other than hearing that Fighters get easier access to these than the other classes.
I'm sure there are strict size limits for the new CRB but it would be great to see Magus 2.0 there.
I think it has been mentioned in some other Playtest-related thread or threads that one could make a functional magus-type character by using the material that will be in the Playtest CRB. Material such as the various categories of feats combined with how leveling up works and the three-actions-and-one-swift-action combat system.
I think it has been mentioned in some other Playtest-related thread or threads that one could make a functional magus-type character by using the material that will be in the Playtest CRB. Material such as the various categories of feats combined with how leveling up works and the three-actions-and-one-swift-action combat system.
Mark Seifter said it, i think in the actions blog thread.
Are Maguses overpowered? I've never seen one in actual play. I'm a bit worried about that because the Tank-Mage is one of the classical tropes for overpowerededness...
Aren't the Gith WotC Intellectual property?
The OGL calls that "Product Identity"..and I think they are?
I think it has been mentioned in some other Playtest-related thread or threads that one could make a functional magus-type character by using the material that will be in the Playtest CRB. Material such as the various categories of feats combined with how leveling up works and the three-actions-and-one-swift-action combat system.
I don't think there are swift actions any longer. There are however "Reactions". I'm not sure how many of them particualr character/classes get per round.
Are Maguses overpowered? I've never seen one in actual play. I'm a bit worried about that because the Tank-Mage is one of the classical tropes for overpowerededness...
Aren't the Gith WotC Intellectual property?The OGL calls that "Product Identity"..and I think they are?
Gith are off limits and I would not use the term gish either as it is tied to the Gith and appears in trademarked TSR and probably WoTC books. Its not a suitably generic term in the English language although it is in RPG circles (due to the 1E Fiend Folio).
Gith are off limits and I would not use the term gish either as it is tied to the Gith and appears in trademarked TSR and probably WoTC books. Its not a suitably generic term in the English language although it is in RPG circles (due to the 1E Fiend Folio).
If it's a registered trademark, it's definitely Product Identity and can't be used.
I think it has been mentioned in some other Playtest-related thread or threads that one could make a functional magus-type character by using the material that will be in the Playtest CRB. Material such as the various categories of feats combined with how leveling up works and the three-actions-and-one-swift-action combat system.I don't think there are swift actions any longer. There are however "Reactions". I'm not sure how many of them particualr character/classes get per round.
I think you are correct. There is a blog post about actions and such in PF2. I think there are three actions and one reaction per round.
As other people have said, this is now effectively every casting class now - most spells will require 2 actions, leaving 1 remaining action to attack. I'm if the Magus is around for 2E, it will get something special, like being able to spend 2 action to cast a spell AND attack, leaving their third action to either attack again, move, or whatever else. I believe they had something like that with the Revised Action Economy from Unchained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Love me some mid-casters who combine specialized magic with other skills, and the relative dearth of them is definitely one of the things that's disappointing about them sticking with the core class list. (Though hard to say a lot without knowing the implementation.)
As far as terminology, for fighter/wizard hybrids specifically, I like "spellsword" (or something similar) more than "magus," since the latter tells someone that the class is magical without telling them much else, whereas the former tells them pretty much the whole concept. (Out of context, when reading a novel say, I'd assume "magus" means "wizard" means "sorcerer.") "Eldritch knight" sounds a little conceptually narrower than "spellsword" but is still clear about what it is. Even if it were OGL-compatible, "gish" is completely meaningless to anyone who isn't highly enfranchised.
I think that at least all of my players tried the Magus once. It is one of the third most popular class with my groupe, and we got all flavor from DEX Elf to Staff to Psychic to Heavy Armor.
We had a few Transmutater/Eldritch Knight and Bloodrager too. So yes this is a class that is often requested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quite like the idea that all spellcaster classes could fight Magus style, maybe by taking a feat and a martial level dip. That way we could have spontaneous-casting magi, divine magi, druid magi...
Just chiming in to note that the Magus or an equivalent concept is important to me too. I liked having a character who was fairly agile, hit decently hard (not out-DPSing the Greatsword Fighter, nor should they do so), was decent durable (without out-tanking the tanks), was intelligent and could be sociable with the right traits (without out-socializing the bards), and do some long range attack magic and very limited healing without obsoleting the wizard or cleric.
Basically, I was going for a Final Fantasy style Red Mage. Very flexible, competent at all sorts of things, best at none. Hexcrafter Magus with a Dex build let me do it, and I liked that a lot. I don't need a 1 to 1 copy of the Magus, but I want the basic idea intact. Please make it happen, Paizo!
Something funny that I think about.
In the original D&D, you had three classes. The Fighter, the Wizard, and the Cleric.
The Fighter fought with weapons.
The Wizard cast spells.
And the Cleric was the original Gish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem proficiency is a choice, an bff it replaces BAB in PF2.
Coupled with the new action system, whatever iteration of Eldrich Knight we get will most likely be popular. Give them time to release the blogs, we might not need the magus if multiclassing is fixed.
This is certainly an area of concern for me, but until we know more it's difficult to say whether we're looking at a major problem or just a change in the nuts and bolts of how such a character is built. It remains to be seen what multiclassing looks like in PF2E, and exactly what kind of gishes we can build using that alone. It sounds like we won't be getting either Eldritch Knight or Magus, so that puts a lot of weight on the shoulder of the multiclassing rules.
I think we can be reasonably confident that the first hardcover which is not a bestiary, a GM book, or an adventure is going to have a number of new classes in it, and the Witch, Oracle, and Magus are near the top of the list for consideration.
I will probably be waiting a bit for my favorite Mage Knight - the Occultist.
Essentially a Witch is a Wizard who bargained for power (or perhaps stumbled upon it by finding an item) rather than learning it through study. I could see the Witch being a Wizard archetype (albeit maybe not in the CRB) with Hexes instead of School Abilities, a spell list based on Patron rather than on Arcane School, and an Arcane Bond familiar or item that also serves as a spellbook. In particular, I would like to see it opened up to items to facilitate a) the mechanics of an arcane warrior who wants to take this route, and b) concepts for characters who gained their power (at least in part) through an artifact weapon that they stumbled upon, were granted as part of a pact, etc.
In one (hopefully) elegant package you have your Witch, Hexcrafter Magus, and Pact Wizard.
Something funny that I think about.
In the original D&D, you had three classes. The Fighter, the Wizard, and the Cleric.
The Fighter fought with weapons.
The Wizard cast spells.
And the Cleric was the original Gish.
Gish was not around that early in D&D. It means a Fighter/Mage early on these days warrior type with arcane magic so it doesn't apply to Clerics, Paladins etc although in 5E the Paladin is the best "Gish".
Its arcane magic not divine anyway. I would not use it in a Pathfinder product. I don't think it is trademarked as such but Gith is not OGL and the term gish is in old TSR era product (which WotC own) so would not like to argue about it in court.
I own OD&D AFAIK the term is not in it, 1981 Fiend Folio is the earliest use of it IIRC.
Just checked its not in the FF I was wrong.
Something funny that I think about.
In the original D&D, you had three classes. The Fighter, the Wizard, and the Cleric.
The Fighter fought with weapons.
The Wizard cast spells.
And the Cleric was the original Gish.
Gish was not around that early in D&D. It means a Fighter/Mage early on these days warrior type with arcane magic so it doesn't apply to Clerics, Paladins etc although in 5E the Paladin is the best "Gish".
Its arcane magic not divine anyway. I would not use it in a Pathfinder product. I don't think it is trademarked as such but Gith is not OGL and the term gish is in old TSR era product (which WotC own) so would not like to argue about it in court.
I own OD&D AFAIK the term is not in it, 1981 Fiend Folio is the earliest use of it IIRC.
Just checked its not in the FF I was wrong.
I'm pretty sure it is in the FF, because I can't think of anything else I own that it might possibly be in. It's in the Githyanki entry and it's essentially a rank for a certain level of Githyanki F/M. No real idea how it caught on from that to mean any arcane magic using fighter types in general.
In technical usage, as far as that goes for jargon, you're right since it's come to be arcane only. Mostly because there wasn't an existing arcane warrior class (other than F/MU multi classes - or elves in OD&D/Basic).
But more conceptually in the very early days, though the term didn't exist yet, GWL is right. Clerics were the class that mixed fighting with magic. That's the prototypical Gish right there. It's because that already existed that no special term was needed for divine warrior.
Just read it 3 times and can't find it in the FF Githyanki entry.
G
Something funny that I think about.
In the original D&D, you had three classes. The Fighter, the Wizard, and the Cleric.
The Fighter fought with weapons.
The Wizard cast spells.
And the Cleric was the original Gish.
Honeslty, I'm still of the opinion that all you need is Adept, Expert, and Warrior classes for the chassis (what's the plural of chassis? chasses?), and use subclass options (or in the case of PF2, the new way they're doing feats) to further specialize. As an example, the "core 12" that will be in the new CRB;
Alchemist = Expert with Alchemy feats
Barbarian = Warrior with Rage feats
Bard = Adept/Expert with music-flavored Inspiration feats
Cleric = Adept that chooses the Divine Magic spell list
Druid = Adept that chooses the Nature Magic spell list
Fighter = Warrior
Monk = Warrior with Unarmed Combat feats
Paladin = Warrior with a dip in Adept and the Divine Magic spell list
Ranger = Expert/Warrior with a dip in Adept and the Nature Magic spell list
Rogue = Expert with Sneak Attack feats
Sorcerer = Adept that chooses the Arcane Magic spell list and Bloodline feats
Wizard = Adept that chooses the Arcane Magic spell listI know this will never happen with Pathfinder of course, but one can dream...
You'll have to wait about 12 years for Pathfinder 3rd Edition to come out . . . .
Just read it 3 times and can't find it in the FF Githyanki entry.Something funny that I think about.
In the original D&D, you had three classes. The Fighter, the Wizard, and the Cleric.
The Fighter fought with weapons.
The Wizard cast spells.
And the Cleric was the original Gish.
Gish was not around that early in D&D. It means a Fighter/Mage early on these days warrior type with arcane magic so it doesn't apply to Clerics, Paladins etc although in 5E the Paladin is the best "Gish".
Its arcane magic not divine anyway. I would not use it in a Pathfinder product. I don't think it is trademarked as such but Gith is not OGL and the term gish is in old TSR era product (which WotC own) so would not like to argue about it in court.
I own OD&D AFAIK the term is not in it, 1981 Fiend Folio is the earliest use of it IIRC.
Just checked its not in the FF I was wrong.
I'm pretty sure it is in the FF, because I can't think of anything else I own that it might possibly be in. It's in the Githyanki entry and it's essentially a rank for a certain level of Githyanki F/M. No real idea how it caught on from that to mean any arcane magic using fighter types in general.
In technical usage, as far as that goes for jargon, you're right since it's come to be arcane only. Mostly because there wasn't an existing arcane warrior class (other than F/MU multi classes - or elves in OD&D/Basic).
But more conceptually in the very early days, though the term didn't exist yet, GWL is right. Clerics were the class that mixed fighting with magic. That's the prototypical Gish right there. It's because that already existed that no special term was needed for divine warrior.
Search for "If a lair is found it will house 21-30 githyanki with typical distribution as follows:-"
The 2nd to last entry is "2 'gish': fighter/magic-users of 4th/4th level".
Something funny that I think about.
In the original D&D, you had three classes. The Fighter, the Wizard, and the Cleric.
The Fighter fought with weapons.
The Wizard cast spells.
And the Cleric was the original Gish.
Honeslty, I'm still of the opinion that all you need is Adept, Expert, and Warrior classes for the chassis (what's the plural of chassis? chasses?), and use subclass options (or in the case of PF2, the new way they're doing feats) to further specialize. As an example, the "core 12" that will be in the new CRB;
Alchemist = Expert with Alchemy feats
Barbarian = Warrior with Rage feats
Bard = Adept/Expert with music-flavored Inspiration feats
Cleric = Adept that chooses the Divine Magic spell list
Druid = Adept that chooses the Nature Magic spell list
Fighter = Warrior
Monk = Warrior with Unarmed Combat feats
Paladin = Warrior with a dip in Adept and the Divine Magic spell list
Ranger = Expert/Warrior with a dip in Adept and the Nature Magic spell list
Rogue = Expert with Sneak Attack feats
Sorcerer = Adept that chooses the Arcane Magic spell list and Bloodline feats
Wizard = Adept that chooses the Arcane Magic spell listI know this will never happen with Pathfinder of course, but one can dream...
You'll have to wait about 12 years for Pathfinder 3rd Edition to come out . . . .
...Something funny that I think about.
In the original D&D, you had three classes. The Fighter, the Wizard, and the Cleric.
The Fighter fought with weapons.
The Wizard cast spells.
And the Cleric was the original Gish.
Gish was not around that early in D&D. It means a Fighter/Mage early on these days warrior type with arcane magic so it doesn't apply to Clerics, Paladins etc although in 5E the Paladin is the best "Gish".
Its arcane magic not divine anyway. I would not use it in a Pathfinder product.
Found it derp derp.
With my understanding of the new action economy increasing, it should be fairly easy to create a PF2 Magus class. We will need a class feature that is similar to a Fighter's Sudden Charge. If the Magus gets to use the full Arcane spell list (speculation on my part since they haven't defined the 4 spell lists), it will drop the need to get spells added to the Magus spell list since it will be shared with the other arcane casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The plural of 'chassis' is 'chassis'. :-)
With my understanding of the new action economy increasing, it should be fairly easy to create a PF2 Magus class. We will need a class feature that is similar to a Fighter's Sudden Charge. If the Magus gets to use the full Arcane spell list (speculation on my part since they haven't defined the 4 spell lists), it will drop the need to get spells added to the Magus spell list since it will be shared with the other arcane casters.
I thought 4 spell lists was just what was going to be in the 2nd Edition Core Rulebook, not necessarily the maximum number of spell lists for all time or even for a complete year after the release of 2nd Edition.
Gith are off limits and I would not use the term gish either as it is tied to the Gith and appears in trademarked TSR and probably WoTC books. Its not a suitably generic term in the English language although it is in RPG circles (due to the 1E Fiend Folio).
The Gith races are among many examples (mostly from Fiend Folio) of creatures that WotC has the incontestable legal right to publish, but their legal status in terms of ownership is uncertain.
I'm not sure WotC has the legal right to sue anyone who publishes material for Gith... but using them is a violation of the OGL and removes any legal protection a publisher has from copyright claims on the basis of copying OGL material.