So K is any of this based on playtest or just fluff.You do realize that when it comes to mechanics there is no real reason to actually sit down and roll dice, right?
Not entirely true. You can discover that a set of mechanics are wonderfully ballanced but no fun at all to play.
So K is any of this based on playtest or just fluff.You do realize that when it comes to mechanics there is no real reason to actually sit down and roll dice, right?
If you guys where professional statististicians, i might half way agree with you, in so far as full blown statisticial analysis can tell you a lot about certain outcomes under sterile conditions, but actually there is a whole range of infomation that can only be discovered through play, related to novel interactions between classes, interesting side effects of organic multiclass builds, how the characters perform when eviroment, monster selection and play style is an issue.
Theory craft tells you almost nothing about how a character really plays, and is actually rather biased as those who are most interested in it all tend to be of one very specific bent...you know the the munchkinie one ;)
That would be spell strike.Which is not worth using in combat without spell combat because he doesn't get the attack for free.
PS. I think that the most natural way to play a class given the fluff should be a good way to play it.
It's perfectly worth it, especially for a brush fire fighter, who is likely to spend a turn getting into position. The a lvl 5 magus can hit a CR7 recommended ac monster on a 3+, for 1d8+5d6, if he spends on turn preping.
Paizo's playtest standard = did you have fun playing your character, instead of finding out if the mechanics were sound?
No, but there if the character has the flavour of a cardboard box, that is just as much an issues as if it plays like a falling brick, or "full BaB, full caster, lesbian stripper witch, complete with trench coat, katana and Lazorz!!!!!"
So K is any of this based on playtest or just fluff.You do realize that when it comes to mechanics there is no real reason to actually sit down and roll dice, right?If you guys where professional statististicians, i might half way agree with you, in so far as full blown statisticial analysis can tell you a lot about certain outcomes under sterile conditions, but actually there is a whole range of infomation that can only be discovered through play, related to novel interactions between classes, interesting side effects of organic multiclass builds, how the characters perform when eviroment, monster selection and play style is an issue.
Theory craft tells you almost nothing about how a character really plays, and is actually rather biased as those who are most interested in it all tend to be of one very specific bent...you know the the munchkinie one ;)
So your set of letters and numbers on paper somehow performs differently than my set of the same letters and numbers on paper?
yeah -4 for bypassing the action economy.
Don't forget to add in the -4 for the Magus that is attempting to use it's class feature, for a nice +9...
As opposed to the summoner, who bypasses action economy for free with his eidolon.
The summoner is already a class that bypasses action economy to simultaneously contribute spells and melee attacks. If the magus is supposed to be better at this than anyone else, spell combat needs to be more effective than a summoner and eidolon working in tandem.
At the very least, spell combat should impose no concentration penalty and work like flurry of blows (the magus uses his level as his BAB and takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls).
Now this is true, if the point of the Magus is to be the best combat/caster, at the same time, the end. It probably does need to have this be better.
But, it is possible that "being the best"tm isn't the point, and that the point is more along the lines of rapid responce, in which case, i am not sure it does need it, though it probably does need something more on the movement and debuff effects front.
So K is any of this based on playtest or just fluff.You do realize that when it comes to mechanics there is no real reason to actually sit down and roll dice, right?If you guys where professional statististicians, i might half way agree with you, in so far as full blown statisticial analysis can tell you a lot about certain outcomes under sterile conditions, but actually there is a whole range of infomation that can only be discovered through play, related to novel interactions between classes, interesting side effects of organic multiclass builds, how the characters perform when eviroment, monster selection and play style is an issue.
Theory craft tells you almost nothing about how a character really plays, and is actually rather biased as those who are most interested in it all tend to be of one very specific bent...you know the the munchkinie one ;)
So your set of letters and numbers on paper somehow performs differently than my set of the same letters and numbers on paper?
The term your looking for is character.
And yes, because the variables change. Which is why Theory craft doesn't really tell you anything about how the class functions in game.
The variables, from play style, and build, right through to enviromental effects, tarrain layout and tactics, all alter how the underlying mechanic acts.
So if I roll nothing below 14 all through the playtest, the class is balanced?
No, which is why you take large sample sizes, to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the results.
At the same time, this community could undertake theory craft for the next three years, making changes to make the class 'balanced' and it wouldn't nessiccarily be balanced in actual play.
Besides, Paizo have specifically asked for playtest, they have specifically stated that they will give that greater weight than theory craft.
to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the results
o.O
No only if you roll under 10.
Hey can rogues get a +4 to sneak att because Mr. Fishy's misses his sneak att and that is the rogue primary ability. Also Mr. Fishy's cleric needs a bonus to healing spells because the Healing Domain is a domain tax.
So you aren't dumping charisma and wisdom to get your strength and Int up?
20 points
S16 D14 C13 I16 W7 CH7
That's without stat mod for race.
Elf would have a 16 Dex and a 18 Int.
No only if you roll under 10.
Hey can rogues get a +4 to sneak att because Mr. Fishy's misses his sneak att and that is the rogue primary ability. Also Mr. Fishy's cleric needs a bonus to healing spells because the Healing Domain is a domain tax.
So you aren't dumping charisma and wisdom to get your strength and Int up?
20 points
S16 D14 C13 I16 W7 CH7That's without stat mod for race.
Elf would have a 16 Dex and a 18 Int.
I'll give you a +4 to sneak attack as long as you only use a stick to do so.
DONE!
It's perfectly worth it, especially for a brush fire fighter, who is likely to spend a turn getting into position. The a lvl 5 magus can hit a CR7 recommended ac monster on a 3+, for 1d8+5d6, if he spends on turn preping.What is recommended AC? Real AC for CR7s is ~20.
Attack bonus for the Magus is 3 +4 (strength, more is unrealistic given the amount of MAD) +2 enhancement = 9 ... how does he hit on a 3 again? Even with Arcane Accuracy he won't get there, he would be far better off just casting 2 DD spells.
A 5th level 15 point elven Magus can have a +13 to hit (+3 BaB, +4 dex[weapon finesses, +6 with cat's grace], +1 weapon focus, +1 Arcane Weapon, +2 magic weapon[saving from not having to buy belt]) Requires 1 turn to get upto speed.
So hits a AC twenty on a 7+ normally. One round of prep to cast the spell, then charge into a flanking position, so 3+ to hit.
The only correction i have to make is that the weapon damage is D6, not d8 as i said before. Even so it isn't to shabby, especially with the wider crit range of a rapier.
to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the resultso.O
to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the resultso.O
Luckily since D&D is a dice game, we can calculate probabilities without having to pay it 5000 times in reality to tell how things will go statistically.
How about we ignore who wrote the message, stop challenging him or demanding he roll a billion dice for no given reason, and, in general, stop being douches, and instead focus on the actual post and if it's correct or not.
This is a playtest. It's meant to examine the mechanical chasis of the class and determine if it's balanced, too strong, too weak, what have you. "I had fun" is a meaningless statement. I had fun in my statistics class last semester, but I doubt that inspires all of you to go take the same class.
I agree with K that the Magus needs help, and badly.
A 5th level 15 point elven Magus can have a +13 to hit (+3 BaB, +4 dex[weapon finesses, +6 with cat's grace], +1 weapon focus, +1 Arcane Weapon, +2 magic weapon[saving from not having to buy belt]) Requires 1 turn to get upto speed.10,500 WBL, a +2 weapon is not realistic. Being dex based is REALLY unrealistic too, even with strength a base 18 is completely unrealistic at 15 point buy.
Also seriously ... assuming that being able to charge into a flanking position is something to use for a default combat situation?
I have 10,500gp to spend making the character, and +2 weapon is what i want for the character, and dex 16, int 14, everything else ten, with an elf is entirely possible, and actually fairly thematically appropreate. The loss to HP and concentration is painful but entirely do able, and relatively easily aliviated in the long run. It is an entirely makeable character.
Also, Strength is a terrible choice for this class, as it is light armour based, and lowish hit points. It need to hit and avoid being hit, and has a weak save in ref, so by going Dex+finesse you cover a weakness, make yourself seriously difficult to hit and fuel a whole bunch of skills which will be really useful for you. So no, Dex 18 is not at all unrealistic.
Luckily since D&D is a dice game, we can calculate probabilities without having to pay it 5000 times in reality to tell how things will go statistically.to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the resultso.O
But doing that does not turn up the variable which actual play presents.
"There are three kinds of lie. A lie, a damned lie, and a statistic" Mark Twain
Mr. Fishy can make a statistic say anything he wants. Hell the government does it all the time.
"There are three kinds of lie. A lie, a damned lie, and a statistic" Mark Twain
Mr. Fishy can make a statistic say anything he wants. Hell the government does it all the time.
Abusing statistics is naughty bad and wrong Mr. Fishy, stop it at once.
Name some variables that "actual play" brings up that are not the result of DM fiat and thus are not applicable to the game as a whole.
Go for it.
|
In my level 3 playtest, my two Magus villains did what they were meant to. They hit the party fairly regularly enough (and when they hit they hit HARD). I didn't fudge their dice on their concentration checks (one magus had to use her Concentration arcana, but that's what it's for).
Neither of them had combat casting either. They went down eventually, but they gave my PCs a run for their money, and that's what NPC villains are meant to do. My only problem that I could see was that they used up their spell-slots entirely too quickly.
Name some variables that "actual play" brings up that are not the result of DM fiat and thus are not applicable to the game as a whole.
Go for it.
Player build, inter-class interaction/party composition, tactical choices by players, are three examples.
And your not talking about the game, your talking about the rules.
The actual game is an emergant property of the interaction between rules, individual player, Dm and setting.
You could run the numbers for a generation and still be no closer to seeing how the class actually functions in game, than you where at the end of day one.
Name some variables that "actual play" brings up that are not the result of DM fiat and thus are not applicable to the game as a whole.
Go for it.
1. Mr. Fishy is smarter than you.
2. Mr. Fishy would stay off the strength to up the dex and maybe take finesse, that eases the MAD Dex/Int is easier than Str/Dex/Int
3. Archery is a viable path, arrows and fireball. save the spell combat for flanking. Invisiblity gives a plus +4 to hit.
How's dmg for the class work out? I consider the Concentration effect a non-issue...you take Skill Focus (Concentration) early on, then sub it out at later levels when you don't need it. Spell+ sword should do dmg roughly equal to a full attack action, but you are effectively using two weapons...there should be a TH penalty. Touch Spell dmg also scales nicely by level.
This isn't a duskblade ripoff...plenty of classes out there with spell channeling, and this is a better spell list. I do agree that they need more slots...if they are going to be channelling magic every round, they need the slots to do it.
I suggest using Str to pay for bonus spells and Spell DC's...Int for just determining if he can cast them. That means max Int of 16, lets him avoid MAD. And possibly using the enhancement of his blade to up DC's, who knows?
I don't see anything in Arcane Bond allowing the sword to exceed +10 total enhancements. Since he gets +5 for free, and that represents 150k in gold, that's pretty good. If he does get a +10 sword, he's gone modular...he can mix and match effects by subbing stuff in his list for stuff on the sword.
==Aelryinth
This should be good. *makes popcorn*
make some for me too.
Name some variables that "actual play" brings up that are not the result of DM fiat and thus are not applicable to the game as a whole.
Go for it.
1. Mr. Fishy is smarter than you.
2. Mr. Fishy would stay off the strength to up the dex and maybe take finesse, that eases the MAD Dex/Int is easier than Str/Dex/Int
3. Archery is a viable path, arrows and fireball. save the spell combat for flanking. Invisibility gives a plus +4 to hit.
Woot!
Player build, inter-class interaction/party composition, tactical choices by players, are three examples.Name some variables that "actual play" brings up that are not the result of DM fiat and thus are not applicable to the game as a whole.
Go for it.
How about you give some examples.
And your not talking about the game, your talking about the rules.
The game IS the ruleset. Literally - without the ruleset, you are just playing a more organized version of pretend, and at that point, just play AMBER.
The actual game is an emergant property of the interaction between rules, individual player, Dm and setting.
This sentence doesn't actually mean anything.
You could run the numbers for a generation and still be no closer to seeing how the class actually functions in game, than you where at the end of day one.
Sure you can! We've done just that!
1. Mr. Fishy is smarter than you.Name some variables that "actual play" brings up that are not the result of DM fiat and thus are not applicable to the game as a whole.
Go for it.
You really aren't.
2. Mr. Fishy would stay off the strength to up the dex and maybe take finesse, that eases the MAD Dex/Int is easier than Str/Dex/Int
And now you don't do any actual damage with your melee attacks, so why bother?
3. Archery is a viable path, arrows and fireball. save the spell combat for flanking. Invisiblity gives a plus +4 to hit.
Archer is not a viable path. Spell Combat only works with a melee weapon.
Good try, though.
to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the resultso.O
I'm afraid you misunderstood what that comment was about.
The Magus Playtest:
Who shall wear the "I'm Right" crown?
"You're doing it wrong"
You really aren't.
1. Mr. Fishy is smarter than you.
Yes, Mr.Fishy is or you would not have justified that with a response.
Mr. Fishy is also more childish than you. Mr. Fishy is proud of that too.2. Mr. Fishy would stay off the strength to up the dex and maybe take finesse, that eases the MAD Dex/Int is easier than Str/Dex/Int
And now you don't do any actual damage with your melee attacks, so why bother?
FIREBALL!
So if a character doesn't do 30 damage per hit he sucks? Mr. Fishy though that melee types were weaker than the casters?
3. Archery is a viable path, arrows and fireball. save the spell combat for flanking. Invisiblity gives a plus +4 to hit.
Archer is not a viable path. Spell Combat only works with a melee weapon.
Good try, though.
Duh, fireball the enemy then shoot the survivors. Why focus on one thing a class can do.
When you play a rogue does he run from shadow to shadow to insure a sneak attack? The Magus wears armor, carries a weopon and cast spells. The only thing he doesn't do is taxes so get off his tailfin.
|
That being said, he should be doing fine in levels 1-8 when even a Commoner can be a decent melee combatant at those levels using Pathfinder's combat-focused feats and level-appropriate magic equipment. By level 11, he's so far from being what a real spellcaster or fighting guy could be doing that he might as well be your cohort's cohort.
I love the art, though. That artist is awesome.
Could you provide support from the above from your playtest? I'd especially like to read what your players said about the class.
THERE'S A CROWN! This could get ugly...is the crown magical, does it give a bonus to spell combat?
But doing that does not turn up the variable which actual play presents.Luckily since D&D is a dice game, we can calculate probabilities without having to pay it 5000 times in reality to tell how things will go statistically.to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the resultso.O
But here is your problem....in a dice based game the maximum variance is fixed. Therefore theorycraft with solid math will produce a far better representation of a set of mechanics than even an absurdly large amount of actual play.
How's dmg for the class work out? I consider the Concentration effect a non-issue...you take Skill Focus (Concentration) early on, then sub it out at later levels when you don't need it. Spell+ sword should do dmg roughly equal to a full attack action, but you are effectively using two weapons...there should be a TH penalty. Touch Spell dmg also scales nicely by level.
Under Pathfinder, Concentration is not a skill, so you can't take Skill Focus (Concentration). You can take Combat casting that adds +4 to casting defensively and when being grappled.
But, Concentration checks are also a lot harder under Pathfinder in a lot of situations. For example, being grappled by anything even decent at grappling basically means you don't cast spells.
So if you are level 10 and a Fire Giant tries to grapple you while you cast a 3rd level spells, you need to make a DC 35 with a d20 + 10 + stat mod.... which for a Magus who is dividing his stats points among four stats and his equipment among the role of melee guy and mage guy, this means his chance to make that check might be as high as 15-25% and as low as 5%(nat 20) depending on how much of your character resources you focus on making Concentration checks.
And if you focus your character on making Concentration checks, you'll be a terrible melee combatant.
And it gets even worse against any monster designed to be good at grappling.
Most spellcaster avoid this problem by simply moving out of melee combat range, but for a caster designed to wade into melee this is a critical issue.
So K is any of this based on playtest or just fluff.You do realize that when it comes to mechanics there is no real reason to actually sit down and roll dice, right?If you guys where professional statististicians, i might half way agree with you, in so far as full blown statisticial analysis can tell you a lot about certain outcomes under sterile conditions, but actually there is a whole range of infomation that can only be discovered through play, related to novel interactions between classes, interesting side effects of organic multiclass builds, how the characters perform when eviroment, monster selection and play style is an issue.
Theory craft tells you almost nothing about how a character really plays, and is actually rather biased as those who are most interested in it all tend to be of one very specific bent...you know the the munchkinie one ;)
So I guess that means my new CHUCKNORRIS class can't be called imbalanced until you playtest it thoroughly with a bunch of people to remove all the statistical outliers? It gets +2 BAB per level, casts 9th level wizard, druid, and cleric spells (with separate spell slots for each), and has an at-will ability to use a standard action to attack an adjacent character for an automatic 1,000,000 damage with a roundhouse kick.
It's obviously not unbalanced, because you havn't playtested it to see how the nuances interact with other characters!
So K is any of this based on playtest or just fluff.You do realize that when it comes to mechanics there is no real reason to actually sit down and roll dice, right?If you guys where professional statististicians, i might half way agree with you, in so far as full blown statisticial analysis can tell you a lot about certain outcomes under sterile conditions, but actually there is a whole range of infomation that can only be discovered through play, related to novel interactions between classes, interesting side effects of organic multiclass builds, how the characters perform when eviroment, monster selection and play style is an issue.
Theory craft tells you almost nothing about how a character really plays, and is actually rather biased as those who are most interested in it all tend to be of one very specific bent...you know the the munchkinie one ;)
So I guess that means my new CHUCKNORRIS class can't be called imbalanced until you playtest it thoroughly with a bunch of people to remove all the statistical outliers? It gets +2 BAB per level, casts 9th level wizard, druid, and cleric spells (with separate spell slots for each), and has an at-will ability to use a standard action to attack an adjacent character for an automatic 1,000,000 damage with a roundhouse kick.
It's obviously not unbalanced, because you havn't playtested it to see how the nuances interact with other characters!
Look I'll have you know that I had fun playing your CHUCKNORRIS class and ergo it cannot be unbalanced.
Furthermore my teammate playing the monk who never actually did anything in combat had fun smoking a blunt while we played ergo no imbalance at all my game test proves it QED NERDS.
I have said too much.
The Crown is not "magical"
but is quite fetching.
|
So if you are level 10 and a Fire Giant tries to grapple you while you cast a 3rd level spells, you need to make a DC 35 with a d20 + 10 + stat mod.... which for a Magus who is dividing his stats points among four stats and his equipment among the role of melee guy and mage guy, this means his chance to make that check might be as high as 15-25% and as low as 5%(nat 20) depending on how much of your character resources you focus on making Concentration checks.
Actually...concentration checks have no auto failure or success. So the low is 0% if your int isn't at least a 20 without combat casting.
But doing that does not turn up the variable which actual play presents.Luckily since D&D is a dice game, we can calculate probabilities without having to pay it 5000 times in reality to tell how things will go statistically.to prevent statistical anomylises producing outlayers which will squee the resultso.O
But it does because it is a dice game.
Saying you can't is like saying you can't have any statistics or probabilities classes ever unless you physically perform the actions.
I think you guys miss the point. Statistical annaylsis has its place. It is very good at doing comparisons on some things. I have used a lot fo it the past couple days to look at how frequently the magus can hit, for how much damage, and for how often he can spell combo and am in the process of comparing this to other classes. It is very difficult to to do statisical annaylis on others. It is really good at comparing damage between classes. The problem is that there is not really a good baseline for how much damage needs to be done in order to be effective as a damage dealer. There has been some discussion, but the baselines I have seen have all been based arround user perceptions of what should be acceptable, and thus irregardless of how much number crunching you do playtests may yield different results.
Other things are extremely difficult to predict with statistics but can come out clearly with playtest. For instance, the beta test Summoner has about the same potential to have pets as a druid statisticly, so its number of summons shouldn't be an issue. But the overall feel of the class is different and promotes the use of those summons more, which resulted in summoners spamming summons onto the field more often. This slowed down games, reduced enjoyment, and proved to be more powerful than desired. As a result, the number of pets that the summoner can produce has been reduced. Number crunching would not have told you there was an issue, but playtest did.