| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they did the magus as their own class I think the weirdest part would be the multi-class archetype for it. Not that I'm opposed to that.
So I think the thought process behind at least the initial next batch of classes is going to be doing something that cannot be achieved by the current game setup
And unfortunately for the die hard, very vocal magus fans here someone who can cast spells and fight with a sword can currently be achieved
I haven’t seen howls of rage (or at least an entire thread of vocal ones) over warpriest becoming part of cleric (something that could easily happen to inquisitor)
As has been alluded to the magus was based off of the Eldritch knight and how that was hard to make work easily. They even use the same iconic so you can see that was the intent. The magus iconic was an Eldritch knight in all of the council of thieves books
There are similar things for other classes, notably the hybrids
Brawler - a failure to have an unarmed fighter in the existing 3.5 chassis (this hasn’t quite made it into 2E yet but can easily get there with feats)
Swashbuckler - a failure of the original chassis to make a decent light weapon fighter / duellist even with the prestige class
Magus - as discuses re: Eldritch knight
Kineticist - controversial but arguably insufficient blasting output from existing spellcasters both in quantity and variety. From what I have seen discussed a large part of this seems achieved by the elemental bloodline sorcerer. The only area to be unsatisfied with is the concept of magical blood from an elemental source (but it was never overly clear how kineticists harnessed their power anyway).
Warpriest - a more martial cleric (although I am not certain why this was ever necessary - presumably the alignment paladin restriction and buff time for combat clerics. But cleric pathway and champion now gives two routes for this
The first two are going to be prime candidates for covering via feats and the magus could well be but looks more like a pathway as a few more things need to be traded
Some of the unique features of the above such as flexibility, panache and arcana were put in the solidly their standing as “new” classes when in an ideal they should always have been more achievable. New features distracts from the point that there were not enough options in the first place mostly due to system limitations
But I don’t expect to be able to convince people. Just don’t be surprised is magus isn’t high on the list. And if I am proven wrong I will be very intrigued as to whether some new ideas are applied to differentiate them from what can currently be achieved by multiclassing but just a level earlier - because there will have to be more.
*
Incidentally the Bard argument , whilst I can see where it is coming from, is not really relevant . Bards are a core book class from first edition . They were never going to remove any core book race or class. I assume that is a lesson from 4E where several 3.5 core book races and classes were dropped for Dragonborn, tiefling , warlord and warlock. Now I was never the biggest fan of some of the races dropped but it was illogical and to the best of my knowledge never really explained .
So they were never going to remove or merge any of the core book classes whether or not it seems like a bard is similar to an occult sorcerer
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off i’m Just going to stress that Magus is not an Eldritch Knight. In 3.5 and 1e Eldritch Knight was always the first option for players. Later in 3.5 they came out with Duskblade(a precursor for magus) and in 1e they came out with Magus. Magus was never labeled as a Hybrid class, but rather a Base class; regardless of its inspirations this is a simple truth. This at the very least shows that a Magus is not a Martial with Spells or a Wizard with a Sword but something more. There is certainly an argument about how high a priority a Magus would be on their list. They could release it with a 2e Ultimate Magic like they did for 1e; who knows? That wasn’t the point aside from OP suggesting it showing up in the first year, and based on popularity that could very well be a reasonable estimation; but you do have your points on showing what the system can do rather than recreating the past.
The part about the Bard is not based on an advocation to remove it. There have been arguments that a Magus would ‘be too similar to Wizard’ so should just be a Path at most or just an ‘objectively better Wizard’. Bard is identical to Sorc in base Caster Design, and has better weapon and armor Proficiencies like what a Magus might have, so my point is if Magus is ‘too similar to Wizard’ then a Bard is ‘too similar to Sorc’. Weather you want to argue on fluff or historical relevancy of the class is completely beside the point when a Bard or Sorc can MC into the other, grab 5 feats, and not change a thing about its class design and just get a straight buff in number of spells per day then the argument of ‘too similar’ falls flat on its face.
EDIT: Warpriest is a very special case that i have outlined in other posts, even in this thread, of why i believe it went the way it did. There has also been a vocal disappointment about it as well, but it is what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had only heard of Duskblade. I obviously never picked up that 3.5 book. I remember Hexblade which was an arcane paladin. That seems like something that would be Fighter/Occult Sorcerer (or ideally witch should it come out)
Not disputing the popularity claim but I am interested with where the popularity position comes from. It is obviously impossible to gauge because the best possible would be PFS data/surveys and loads of people play who don't play PFS. I asked this before because of the decision to put Alchemist in core was based on popularity. And I am sure it is mentioned somewhere that it is more popular than at least one core class
And Kineticist gets really vocal support on the forums but part of me thinks this is disproportionate to how well played it actually is
*
My point on the Bard was clearly based on a misinterpretation of the point you were trying to make. I read some of the posts in this threat a while ago. I think everyone is keen to see how sorcerer power level stacks up in practice
I do wonder what things a Magus may get as it's own class this time round. I feel spell strike may break the crit and action economy system but I guess that would be what a playtest is for
So fancier things like the old "Arcane strike" idea where your ability to use magic boosts your combat prowess but no necessarily through just casting spells
*
I missed the warpriest parts. I don't recall the vocal disappointment but I guess that happened when it was first revealed which I think was a bit before I started reading this board more closely.
I’ve been thinking you could tie Spellstrike to the focus pool so you don’t have to worry about power creep. The Arcane Strike idea is a good one too. I’ve been mulling over a homebrew to better illustrate what I see in the class, and now that I have the CRB i’ll Put a post up when I get the core concept ironed out.
When you say "flat" damage for spellstrike what do you mean? What would the alternative be? Do you mean just the weapon damage and not strength added to it? The danger is being able to do far more damage in one strike than anyone else with it all being doubled on a crit.
Given how spells scale this seems like it could quickly outstrip power attack. So would it need to be three actions? I assume it would because casting a spell and striking is usually 3...
Is "add x damage" instead of rolling weapon dice really that different from the magical striker feat?
Also, how would it interact with magical striker (which might not be in class, but you can still get it)?
Another issue, in PF1 to land a shocking grasp you made an attack roll modified by things which generally modify an attack roll (str or dex and BAB), so substituting a weapon attack is NBD. But in PF2, to land a shocking grasp you roll your spellcasting proficiency bonus plus your spellcasting attribute. If someone has an Int of 18 and master spellcasting proficiency but Str or Dex of 16 and expert weapon proficiency, they are significantly more accurate if they don't use a weapon. Using Int or Cha to hit with a weapon is a bag of worms I do not want to open.
When you say "flat" damage for spellstrike what do you mean? What would the alternative be? Do you mean just the weapon damage and not strength added to it? The danger is being able to do far more damage in one strike than anyone else with it all being doubled on a crit.
Given how spells scale this seems like it could quickly outstrip power attack. So would it need to be three actions? I assume it would because casting a spell and striking is usually 3...
Spellstrike in 1e said ‘replace your free strike actions with a melee strike action’, so the best thing would be keep it at as many actions as the spell. It would only work with Touch range spells unless modified.
As for Damage scaling, this is actually an interesting one. With Fighter’s Power Attack giving a 3rd bonus damage die then when you compare the Damage with Spellstrike doing a similar thing and both are using a Greataxe (d12) the fighter now wins out in damage when i was using Chill Touch(d8) for that example. There is certainly the issue of a 4th level Shocking Grasp outdoing an 18th level Fighter in damage die, and the one trade off is Spellstrike can only do it if you have the spell prepared and cast the spell; a Fighter on the other hand can power attack all day every day and not lose power, but i recognize that a balance issue is there.
|
And here we go again with the back and forth "No YOU'RE not listening to ME" nonsense with entrenched opinions again and no real discussion being had chock full with hyperbole and chatter demeaning other peoples perspective.
Really, there is no point even trying to debate someone who genuinely thinks that their post frequency (E.g Loudest voice) determines who "wins" a discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the long and short of it is that I believe Pathfinder will eventually have "less casty/more martial than casters, more casty/less martial than martials" as options. But I don't think Paizo is in a hurry to print them, since it is not immediately obvious how to do them.
In the meantime, I think the classes they are most likely to print are ones that mirror the existing classes we have in the CRB: specifically full caster, skilled martial, full martial, focus caster martial. Since "how to do a witch or an oracle" is pretty clear: use a similar progression as another 10th level caster, add thematic features (hexes, revelations, curses, etc.).
I think it's fairly likely that they are more likely to increase the former 6-level casters to full casters (like the bard), or reduce them to focus casters (with the right mechanics, this works well with the Occultist I think), because trying to walk the tightrope between opposed poles is hard. Like substituting attacks for spell rolls is tricky if the numbers don't line up, but topping out at master/master for spells/weapons is incredibly strong and topping out at expert/expert is pretty weak.
I fully agree. I only care about false equivalencies or incorrect hyperbole. Some only see it as an archetype. Others see it as a class. Until it’s released one way or another everything else is speculation and opinion.
I could really see Magus as a general archtype that basically makes the class into a spell sword basically. So it would kind of cover war priest in a way as well as maybe some druid rangery thing. Hmm I think it has enough variation to be its own class however.