|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it needed to be in the Core?
Most of our favorite classes wont be in 2e for some time.You think waiting for magus is bad?I am waiting for the kineticist.Which will take at least 2 years for it to be realeased and another one for the needed support.
EDİT:It shouldnt be that hard to make a magus with wizard/Fighter.Eldritch knight might be in the CRB.With new action economy rules and new feats you will probably be able to do a good magus build.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets make it simple OP.
It didnt make the cut.
Alchemist was simply a much more popular class, that is why it is core and the magus isnt. If magus was so loved that everyone wanted and played all the time in PF1... it could be core now.
I disagree. I think the Alchemist was made core simply due to the Goblin being made a core race.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I think the Alchemist was made core simply due to the Goblin being made a core race.Lets make it simple OP.
It didnt make the cut.
Alchemist was simply a much more popular class, that is why it is core and the magus isnt. If magus was so loved that everyone wanted and played all the time in PF1... it could be core now.
They’ve mentioned a bunch of reasons Alchemist was chosen. Popularity (one of the two non-core classes to be as popular as some core classes), distinctness (sets Pathfinder apart, hard to get anything close with other classes), the value of being core (Alchemist suffered more from being tacked on), and reusability of material (alchemical items can be used by any class, unlike features for Oracle, Witch, or Magus).
If anything, I’d expect the influence to go the other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To expand on what QuidEst said above, they also wanted to define the "alchemy" subsystem right from the start. Things like the Oracle, Witch, and Magus can all use existing magic systems along with new class abilities, but for the Alchemist to avoid being tacked on they needed alchemy in the core rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the desire for a Magus, but I firmly disagree with the idea that it should be in Core.
As has already been stated, a magic-using character that can fight with a sword exists already within Core. Rangers, Bards, Paladins - all of them are magic-capable characters who can battle with a sword (and depending on specifics, Clerics and Druids might be able to manage), and with what we currently know about weapon proficiencies and combat bonuses, it doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possiblity that a wizard can use a sword.
What makes the Magus more than "a wizard with a sword" is how their abilities fit into the action economy of PF1. We don't know enough about how that action economy in PF2 is really going to play out yet, and trying to fit the Magus as we currently are used to them in while still playtesting the basics of the system seems insane.
I want the Magus. I think they're awesome.
I also want a Magus that works well in this new system. I'd rather wait than get a Magus that doesn't play right.
Spell strike would make a good feat and I'd like to see that in core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the mechanics of the PF1 Magus to be pretty clunky.
"My character hits things with a sword, once per round."
"My character makes a concentration check, casts Arcane Touch, and then hits enemies twice with a sword."
"Why can you cast a spell and attack twice in the time it takes me to attack once?"
"Because magic, that's why."Just make "deliver a touch spell through a weapon attack" a feat. That should be all that's needed.
Yep. The magus only ever existed as a class to manipulate the ability to deliver a spell attack as part of a full attack with a weapon.
But we're completely revamping how action economy works.
The only thing "needed" to make the magus is an ability to deliver touch spells through a weapon. The rest will be on the character to choose proficiency that will make him better at combat and wielding a weapon. I bet you could do it with a core wizard, of they add a feat as suggested.
But the most important thing, IMO, is not to start a trend of allowing anyone to subvert action economy rules. Just don't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the bard was supposed to be the core book magus.
Since the bard is the chassis for the magus, I plan on play testing the bard in my initial tests. The 3.0 bard had a spell list much more similar to the magus and it would be nice to see the PF2 bard get magic weapon, mage armor and shield or their PF2 equivalents.
I love the Magus so sure why not, I sign on the "petition".
If we want to argue what is “core” and what is not, then we can say how many roles do you need on computer mmo game you say tank, healer and dps.
BUT this is not a mmo. CORE is the classes you can play at launch so I’ll say I want to play a magus at the play test.
So I love alchemist as a day 1 class, it’s different and fun. That doesn’t rely on magic.
I don’t know which classes will be at launch but I guess this are the ones.
Non magical users Alchemist, Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian and Monk.
Divine Magical user Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Druid.
Arcane Caster user Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer.
If you ask me ill drop one class to add the Magus I would drop the monk so we have 4 arcane classes.
I love monks, but it’s always hard to say what they bring to the table.
But that’s just me.
We're also going to want to see how cantrips interact with weapon attacks. I think Magus and Kintecists are going to be stepped on hard by how cantrips will work, especially if we're able to substitute weapon strikes for somatic components with spells via a feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All they really need to do to enable "Magus" in the CRB is a single feat:
Spellstrike
You can use an attack with a weapon or natural weapon in place of the Somatic component of your spell. You must still provide any other components.
There, you now have a PF1 Magus. And the Magus class, if it still exists, can appear in the APG as something completely reworked and different. A class that really leans into its Arcana abilities for maximum animu Jedi, and does things like using supernatural foresight to parry attacks, or zooming down a line of people with a blazing aura striking each person you pass, or teleporting to strike someone then teleporting somewhere else before they can react, or slashing your weapon to create an "air blade" projectile.
The Arcane Pool still had its role, to add versatility and slightly balance the wealth of a Magus who had to buy spells and a secondary spellbook as well (as minor point). Magus Arcana play a big role in customisation and efficiency.
Actually, many classes are now going to get a "Spell Points" pool that sounds pretty similar to the arcane pool. And every class will have class feats every other level to add customized features... So they really just need some appropriate class feats that simulate some of the Magus Arcana.
BAB (IMPORTANT Question (at least for me) is BAB still a thing?)
No, proficiency to hit seems universal among classes and every class can make 3 attacks at level 1. Accuracy and damage buffs seem like they will come from class features and potentially higher ability scores.
I think if you want the Magus to feel distinct then we need to let the dust settle post release. If this was competitive gaming, it would be waiting for the "meta" to develop. I'm not sure what the term would be for Pathfinder, but it is the same logic. Wait and see how the core stuff interacts so you can figure out how to make the Magus unique.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure the PF2 Magus is going to be less "the action economy class" and more "the can magic user who can wear armor and use weapons, offensive version" anyway.
There's also room to create new spells which include a weapon attack as part of the casting. "Your blade is wreathed in energy" type stuff. Though I'm sure that won't be as appealing as the flexibility of being able to strike with any touch range spell.
Although I like the concept of the magus and spellswords, I think the class would require a complete revamp before it gets released into 2e, especially considering the new action economy and how spells work now in regards to scaling and how you have to spend higher level slots to make a spell stronger.
Although I like the concept of the magus and spellswords, I think the class would require a complete revamp before it gets released into 2e, especially considering the new action economy and how spells work now in regards to scaling and how you have to spend higher level slots to make a spell stronger.
That is gonna hurt half casters a lot! They used to get full caster level for the power scaling of spells. Now it's tied to their spell level progression which is way weaker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to be honest, the talk of "you can just do that with a few feats" is one of those concerns I have most about Pathfinder 2E. If classes become just a bag of feats, I worry about them feeling a bit too homogenized. Same with ancestries, if they also become bags of feats.
|
That is gonna hurt half casters a lot! They used to get full caster level for the power scaling of spells. Now it's tied to their spell level progression which is way weaker.
This assumes partial casters work in remotely the same way. I'm not sure that's actually a good assumption.
One current theory is that full casters get spells from two of the essences mentioned in the Spell Blog (Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital), and if that's true partial casters might go from having lower level spells to instead only having spells from one of them instead (ie: Rangers could only cast from Vital).
That's obviously pure speculation, but so is any other idea for how partial casters work in this edition.
Yeah, I think we might see bards get bumped to full casters with how few spell lists there are, and being the only formerly 6th level Caster in the test. But that doesn't answer how the Paladin or Ranger will work...
That is gonna hurt half casters a lot! They used to get full caster level for the power scaling of spells. Now it's tied to their spell level progression which is way weaker.This assumes partial casters work in remotely the same way. I'm not sure that's actually a good assumption.
One current theory is that full casters get spells from two of the essences mentioned in the Spell Blog (Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital), and if that's true partial casters might go from having lower level spells to instead only having spells from one of them instead (ie: Rangers could only cast from Vital).
That's obviously pure speculation, but so is any other idea for how partial casters work in this edition.
Mark already said those "essences" are just for flavor in the thread... People like the idea too much and choose ti ignore it, I guess!
Let us not forget that the magus was the first of a few classes designed to snuff out prestige classes. The iconic for Eldritch Knight is the same character as the iconic for magus.
We know prestige classes are being reworked into something else from Logan in the Know Direction podcast. It's far more likely that the old hybrid classes that were meant to be full class versions of prestige classes will not need to exist, either because there's a single chassis to represent multiclassing that settles it, because the new manner of prestige classes makes them unnecessary, or both.
|
|
Mark already said those "essences" are just for flavor in the thread... People like the idea too much and choose ti ignore it, I guess!
No, he didn't. What he said was:
The spell lists are certainly based on the essences in some way. Is it exactly what you guys predicted in this thread? Well, now's not the time to confirm or unconfirm; we have more tricks up our sleeves to share with you in future blogs. I predict if you liked the essences bit in this blog, you will really like a few more of the things to come!
Which is an 'I can neither confirm nor deny' response with a side of 'but you're on something resembling the right track'.
When it comes to popularity in PF1, it was a close call between alchemist and magus, at least according to this survey: 3.8% vs. 3.4%. This includes dips, though - if you assume alchemist is a way more popular dip than magus in PF1, then the magus catches up in real popularity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "magus" concept——aka a gish/ martial spellcaster——does need to be in the Core Rulebook. But magus the class does not.
Much the same way there should be a viable Dexterity based fighter option, but there doesn't *need* to be a swashbuckler class.
Many of the secondary classes of Pathfinder (cavalier, ninja, samurai, gunslinger, magus, swashbuckler, skald, bloodrager, warpriest, summoner) exist not because they HAVE to exist as a separate class, but because designing those concepts using the existing class framework was problematic.
They could easily be folded into existing classes if more flexibility is baked into the core. Especially with multiclassing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing *needs* to be in core. Within a year of the launch, there will probably be another hardcover with more classes and ancestries so people can play their Kitsune Oracles or Aasimar Magi.
Did someone ring?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing *needs* to be in core. Within a year of the launch, there will probably be another hardcover with more classes and ancestries so people can play their Kitsune Oracles or Aasimar Magi.
Obligatory "Hi there!" post.
There's also room to create new spells which include a weapon attack as part of the casting. "Your blade is wreathed in energy" type stuff. Though I'm sure that won't be as appealing as the flexibility of being able to strike with any touch range spell.
I was reading the new weapon qualities like Agile, Forceful, Deadly, etc, and was thinking it'd be awesome if the Magus was a class that could manipulate the properties of their weapons. Like, spend a point of your arcane pool, and suddenly your club of banality becomes swift. THAT would be an interesting divergence from a fighter; fighters could be the players with 7000 weapons so that they always have just the perfect one for the situation, but Magi have one weapon. It is always perfect.
Probably more steelbender class than "Sword and Sorcery" but its a niche that I can see being available.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did someone ring?
I knew I could count on you :D
In all honesty that's the thing that makes me mostly not worry at all about what's in Core and what's not. Part of me playing Pathfinder is still that I'm a big fan of the OGL movement, and I can't wait to see the things you'll all come up with after the launch of PF2.
The magus, as it existed in PF1, has been rendered redundant by the new ruleset. I suspect we might see the class again someday in a different form, but I can't really think what the magus' shtick would be in PF2
Redundant! Well said.
I expect that there will be a couple cool feats that allow a wizard, sorcerer or other spellcaster to be a cool magus clone.
I mean, how can we ask for a gish dual-wielding with a spell in one hand and a weapon in the other when we don't even know how normal dual-wielding will work?
In one of the most recent playtests, the guy playing Valeros decided to start the first combat with sword and dagger in hand. The only bonus he got from this combination was that a second or third strike using the dagger was at -4 and -8 instead of -5 and -10, and that was only because the dagger has the "agile weapon" property. I saw no specific advantage from dual wielding on display.
Only once we see some specific advantage from dual wielding in play, probably from some clever feat or other, can we begin to imagine how a class like the magus would work in the new action economy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core rulebook needs classes that aren't just retreads of what we could play in the core rulebook of PF 1st Edition, D&D 3rd Edition, D&D 4th Edition, D&D 5th Edition, Fantasy AGE, etc..
Nothing saps my enthusiasm for this game more than knowing that core won't offer any character concepts I couldn't accomplish better in other games. This is one of the reasons 5th Edition disappointed me. Why would I play a ranger, druid, or paladin when I can make one in Pathfinder 1.0 that's more fun to play?
The core rulebook needs classes that aren't just retreads of what we could play in the core rulebook of PF 1st Edition, D&D 3rd Edition, D&D 4th Edition, D&D 5th Edition, Fantasy AGE, etc..
Eh, while I can see why you would want this, Pathfinder's core branding has always been about going for the iconic classes of old. PF2e is a big departure from a lot of old traditions and mechanics, but I just don't think their business model can get away from including the basic classes.
Nothing saps my enthusiasm for this game more than knowing that core won't offer any character concepts I couldn't accomplish better in other games. This is one of the reasons 5th Edition disappointed me. Why would I play a ranger, druid, or paladin when I can make one in Pathfinder 1.0 that's more fun to play?
Because the new system makes even the old classes play very differently, mostly? Regardless of what class name is listed at the top of the sheet. Let's use 5e for comparison. The difference between a 5e Barbarian and a PF1 Barbarian is more than the difference between a PF1 Barbarian and PF1 Bloodrager. Heck, you could argue the 5e Barbarian is further apart from the PF1 Barbarian than any other full BAB PF1 class.
Now, if you will have more fun with an older edition or be better able to realize a particular concept, that's more subjective. I will say PF2 will in all likelyhood pump out new options (both retreads and originals) far faster than 5e has. So if core Alchemists, a new action economy, and new alchemical and magical item systems don't excite or inspire you, you can probably skip buying Core and wait for more content to be released. It won't take long.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did someone ring?I knew I could count on you :D
In all honesty that's the thing that makes me mostly not worry at all about what's in Core and what's not. Part of me playing Pathfinder is still that I'm a big fan of the OGL movement, and I can't wait to see the things you'll all come up with after the launch of PF2.
Real talk time, I’m really hoping that all the PF1 races get converted into PF2 ancestries by the fine folks at Paizo very early on in PF2’s life cycle. Personally, I think that ancestry is more important to developing a character than her class; your ancestry shapes your upbringing, culture, and life experiences. I think that getting all those peoples back into the game fast is essential to maintain Pathfinder’s feel going into the new edition.
While I’ll do what I can as a 3PP to help bring cool things back into the game as they’re needed, I am hoping that we’ll see an Advanced Ancestry Guide within PF2’s first few months as a result that “gives us our toys back,” so to speak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say PF2 will in all likelyhood pump out new options (both retreads and originals) far faster than 5e has.
Publishing houses that have been closed for the last five years are putting out player options faster than 5e has been.
Okay maybe that's a slight exaggeration. But only slightly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing the Magus really had going for it was casting a touch spell through your weapon. It would be relatively easy to add a feat or class ability that could be chosen to make this possible.
That's not the only thing the Magus had going for it!
The Magus should be CORE because of...
!!
;p
:)
Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core.
Don't forget Dwarf, Halfling, and Elf!
I'm wondering what classes really should be in the "first pass" of new classes.
I count: Magus, Oracle, Witch, and the Occultist (it's the resonance class). Anything else?
I'm wondering what classes really should be in the "first pass" of new classes.
I count: Magus, Oracle, Witch, and the Occultist (it's the resonance class). Anything else?
I don’t know that we need Occultist right away just because it uses one of the new mechanics. Sorcerer and Alchemist can have a while as the royalty of resonance.
I don’t know that we need Occultist right away just because it uses one of the new mechanics. Sorcerer and Alchemist can have a while as the royalty of resonance.
I feel like one could pretty easily slot the Occultist into "Mage-Knight- Defensive version" to be the counterpart to the Magus's "Mage-Knight - Offensive version" just based on how those two played in PF1.
Much like how the Fighter is the "good at weapons class" and "good at armor" was given to someone else, as per the fighter blog.