What if spellstrike works via:
-You spend actions and a slot to prime the spell.
-When you hit with an attack, you can spend a reaction to trigger the spell (or just as a free action).
That would let people wait for crits which would mitigate some of the issues with lower spell proficiency.
Wouldn’t that wind up spending with you spending 3 actions and your reaction do that? I suppose it could be broken up over multiple rounds, which helps mitigate it.
Edit: to use my format, that would look like:
Spellcharge
{Magus}{Metamagic}{Spellstrike}
Free Action
Requirements You are holding a melee weapon.
Trigger You are about to cast a spell with the attack trait or requires a saving throw.
You are able to hold the spell instead of attacking with it immediately, letting you wait to combine it with a weapon attack. Instead of making the spell attack roll as part of your spell cast, the spell is "held" in your weapon for up to 1 minute. When you make a successful strike with that weapon within that time, you can as a reaction release the spell, treating that strike as your spell attack roll (if required). If the target is required to make a saving throw, they gain a -2 circumstance penalty to the saving throw. If the spell would normally target an area or multiple targets, it only targets the target of your Strike.
If you cast another spell before you have expended this charge, the spell is released harmlessly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my idea would be that the primed spell would stay primed until it is expended or the fight ends (perhaps some mechanism to let the Magus regain the spell slot at the end of a fight could be used).
Since with the number of spells that even the full casters get, "cast a spell every round" isn't going to be a workable strategy for the Magus unless adventuring days are very short.
Heh, I just remembered Spell Storing Rune is a thing. Which at least gives us an idea on power level.
I'd like to see the Magus have a focus point mechanic like Wildshape, that confers a bunch of bonuses (higher attack proficiency?)for a minute, that way, they can make the Magus super capable as a martial, but link that capability to a "magic super form" that is more fragile, since if you don't have time to recharge focus between encounters, you're s+$% out of luck- your focus point progression would award you more robust sustain, as would the familiar focus recharge and such.
I always thematically loved the idea of Bladesong, and while I know the Magus isn't a Bladesinger, the idea of "magical warrior mode" is super iconic.
Maybe the class feats would then further customize this form in different styles to stack other neat tricks into it-- short range teleporting, elemental blade infusions, repositioning on spell delivery.
The trick would be figuring out their base niche when they don't have focus points, expert-tier martial attacker with full casting ala the Warpriest?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even so the divine list is way below the average.
At what? It's a pretty good buff list and good at healing. It's probably the weakest list over all, but at the specific area of compensating for low Proficiency in attacks and AC I think it's probably the best list. Bard can compensate better, but with compositions, not their spell list.
Which is not necessarily to say Warpriest is good. It's to say that having the Arcane list and Warpriest Proficiencies would be vastly worse than Warpriest at least in terms of actually engaging in melee. 'Vastly worse than Warpriest' is not where you want to put a melee Class's melee capabilities.
Not to say that you just took the divine font without considering anathema, weapon and spell list.
Weapon is pretty meaningless. Sure, they only get one but most martial weapons are available and that's as good on most individual characters. Anathema are likewise a roleplay restriction rather than a meaningful mechanical one in most circumstances. And Magus would have a spell book, which is probably more restrictive than Anathema anyway.
So the comparison stands.
No, you're listing additional differences, not additional similarities. My point is not that Warpriest is vastly strong, it's that it's too different from our hypothetical Magus to be readily comparable. All your listed differences only reinforce that point.
Which doesn't mean that divine font is not good, but that's not too important if we consider the limits of the class.
Again, I'm not really arguing that Warpriest is powerful. I'm arguing that what it does and what Magus should do are so vastly different that comparing them at all in the way you're doing is a mistake.
I very much doubt that the Pathfinder Design Team is willing to give Master Attacks/AC and full 9 or 10 level spellcasting to the same class. I could see a class that got Dedication-level spellcasting as part of its chassis, without needing to spend Class feats on it, however.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very much doubt that the Pathfinder Design Team is willing to give Master Attacks/AC and full 9 or 10 level spellcasting to the same class. I could see a class that got Dedication-level spellcasting as part of its chassis, without needing to spend Class feats on it, however.
I still think Master attack and AC is plausible with only Master Proficiency in spells, bad other Proficiencies, and crappy number of spells per level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone here tried to make a melee wizard in the current system?
I have. It's a bit of a pain, but it can be pretty fun when you get it up and off the ground.
Swinging a weapon is a good use of your third action (provided you avoid spell attacks for MAP reasons) each round and can provide a nice alternative/supplement to cantrips against weaker enemies.
But, like cantrips, because of your inherent accuracy issues and lack of internal damage buffing mechanics, you generally want to put your weapon away and focus on spells when you're dealing with tougher encounters, especially if that tough encounter revolves around a higher level foe.
That's been my experience with classes in PF2 that cap at Expert. It's not the end of the world, but that -2 is enough of an issue that it makes it feel like weapons can't really be a primary part of that character's routine and the Magus should absolutely not feel like that.
Ofc, I think the best fix here would have been to give every Martial legendary (and just given the Fighter a unique mechanic of their own instead) and kept Master as a middle ground that you could buy into in the same way you can buy into Master Spellcasting or go one step further and ditch accuracy gating as a mechanic altogether because this is more evidence why it's kind of awful, but Paizo's probably not interested in putting out errata that expansive.
I still think Master attack and AC is plausible with only Master Proficiency in spells, bad other Proficiencies, and crappy number of spells per level.
I dunno. Bad other proficiencies can only go so far; as a Int-based caster skills won't be a problem, and Canny Acumen can make up for either Perception or save difficulties.
Looking at a Warpriest: they get Master casting at 19th level, later than Dedication casters by one level. And they still only get Expert weapons/armor. Now, I'm not saying that Magi would be bound there; I agree that Expert weapons/armor would be deeply unsatisfactory.It will be interesting to see what class-build innovations are present in the APG. Maybe one of the classes with show off a new design dial, somehow.
I see a lot of- somewhat unsavory- comparisons to Alchemist and Warpriest Cleric, and I have little experience with either class. So, what's the problem with them?
In fact, expanding on that question; what do people not want to see in the Magus? Particularly boring/unsatisfactory arcana and 1e features, changes you'd absolutely hate?
I don't want to be super limited in what weapons I can use, and at least want to be able to use any martial melee weapon. I don't like the limit to one handed weapons present in 1e.
|
I see a lot of- somewhat unsavory- comparisons to Alchemist and Warpriest Cleric, and I have little experience with either class. So, what's the problem with them?
In fact, expanding on that question; what do people not want to see in the Magus? Particularly boring/unsatisfactory arcana and 1e features, changes you'd absolutely hate?
The problem is they don't hit things good. Magus needs to hit good. We don't want something mediocre at their core features, we don't want to need or have "math fixer" feats like 1e or alchemists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of- somewhat unsavory- comparisons to Alchemist and Warpriest Cleric, and I have little experience with either class. So, what's the problem with them?
I wouldn't say there's inherently a problem with them (in the context of this thread at least) so much as that neither of them are primarily weapon users, while a Magus should be, which means a Magus having fighting capabilities like a Warpriest, Alchemist or Wizard doesn't sound sufficient.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of- somewhat unsavory- comparisons to Alchemist and Warpriest Cleric, and I have little experience with either class. So, what's the problem with them?
As others note, the problem isn't exactly that they're bad (though Alchemist isn't great and Warpriest is debatably worse than Cloistered Cleric), it's that neither can actually use un-buffed attacks as their primary combat option, and the Arcane list has no long-lasting buffs to to-hit (as I recall they have True Strike and nothing else).
That combination of facts would make the Magus, if it only had Expert in attacks like those two Classes, actively bad at attacking. And being actively bad at attacking is pretty much not what you want in a Magus.
In fact, expanding on that question; what do people not want to see in the Magus? Particularly boring/unsatisfactory arcana and 1e features, changes you'd absolutely hate?
I think I've made it pretty clear I'd hate to see them no longer be a prepared, Int-based, spell slot caster with a spellbook, I think they need that thematically. I also think they need Master in attacks, or some other equivalent bonus, and likewise for AC and spells, so having only Expert in any of those three things would be a definite red flag. Likewise, they definitely need spellstrike, so lacking it would be bad.
Most of the rest is probably negotiable as far as I'm concerned as long as they wind up mechanically effective in combat, able to cast spells from the arcane list, and have spellstrike.
So generally speaking, the Magus absolutely has to be able to hit things, both with spells and martial prowess. Alright, so looking at it at level 20.....
=Master in unarmed, simple, and martial weapon attacks
=Master in spell attacks and spell DCs
=Master in light armor, medium armor, and unarmored defense
=9th-level, three-slot caster without any bonus spells
=Expert in Perception
=Expert in any two saves
=Master in one save
As a barebones baseline for the class, without adding in things like Magus unique class features or trying to theorycraft the power of feats, does that seem balanced well enough as a starting point?
I think 10th level with two slots is fine. Balancing around 10th level slots is goofy to me; most campaigns will never get there, and if they do they might as well have powerful characters. It could use focus spells for longevity and use its limited slots for oomph or versatility. While it can hit with its attacks and spells, it'll have notably fewer raw slots and fewer combat actions from feats.
This doesn't prevent them from using scrolls, wands, staves either, so I think leaning towards more limited slots, less potent combat-focused class feats compared to strict martials, and few ways to adjust their action economy (assuming something like a 2-action Spellstrike) would work well.
A magus (or any other "not as good at spell casting, but better at other stuff") class should never get 10th level spell slots.
That's where the stuff that should be the province of the true specialists (e.g. Wish) lies. Remember 10th level slots already work differently than the other 9 levels; the Wizard gains one from a class feature distinct from "Arcane Spellcasting" for example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So generally speaking, the Magus absolutely has to be able to hit things, both with spells and martial prowess. Alright, so looking at it at level 20.....
=Master in unarmed, simple, and martial weapon attacks
=Master in spell attacks and spell DCs
=Master in light armor, medium armor, and unarmored defense
=9th-level, three-slot caster without any bonus spells=Expert in Perception
=Expert in any two saves
=Master in one saveAs a barebones baseline for the class, without adding in things like Magus unique class features or trying to theorycraft the power of feats, does that seem balanced well enough as a starting point?
That's a good question. Let's start out by looking at the wizard:
WIZARD
Fortitude -> Expert(9)
Reflex -> Expert(5)
Will -> Master(17)
Armor -> Expert(13)
Weapons -> Expert(11)
Perception -> Expert(11)
Spellcasting-> Legendary(19)
Note also that the wizard's weapon selection is somewhat crippling. If you at least get all simple weapons, you can use the ancestral weapons feats to sneak in some martial weapons. The wizard's lack of any kind of armor profiency beyond unarmored is also big liability as it forces you to lean on Dexterity for AC, which makes it harder to get enough Strength and Constitutition. So it pigeonholes you into lower damage finesse weapons. We don't want that, so we require Medium armor proficiency, to open up enough different possible builds. Finally, we need a better hit die if we're going to survive in melee. So we need:
- Increase weapons to All Simple, All Martial
- Increase armor to Light, Medium
- Increase weapon proficiency to Master
- Increase armor proficiency to Master
So the question is, does dropping Spellcasting down to Master and losing level 10 spells "pay" for all of that? I don't think you're really paying enough for that.
So what else do we have to trade?
- We can pick only a couple of martial weapons, just like the Rogue, and if you want more options you can use the ancestral feats.
- We could make it a light armor class with a low level class feat to get medium armor that progresses at the same schedule.
- We could reduce the number of spell slots per day.
- We could reduce the amount of spell levels/speed gained, to be somewhere in between regular wizard and wizard multiclass. The speed at which multiclass magic is gained can be adjusted, compare for example the Magaambyan archetypes to wizard multiclass archetypes.
I understand that being a prepared arcane caster with most of the arcane list at your disposal is a key part of the magus. But the 1E magus didn't really have the entire wizard list at their disposal either; the Magus spell list was a bit more limited and their spells per day were too. Spell Recall (or pearl of power cheese) made up for that. But we can do a lot of that with focus spells and scaling cantrips now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So generally speaking, the Magus absolutely has to be able to hit things, both with spells and martial prowess. Alright, so looking at it at level 20.....
=Master in unarmed, simple, and martial weapon attacks
=Master in spell attacks and spell DCs
=Master in light armor, medium armor, and unarmored defense
=9th-level, three-slot caster without any bonus spells=Expert in Perception
=Expert in any two saves
=Master in one saveAs a barebones baseline for the class, without adding in things like Magus unique class features or trying to theorycraft the power of feats, does that seem balanced well enough as a starting point?
Yes, this seems fine to me. Maybe slightly lower than I was thinking (I could maybe see another Save at Master), but then again maybe sticking with this is good.
Looking at some objective comparisons, this totals 4 ranks above Expert (the relevant amount...everyone gets to Expert in everything at a minimum).
Wizards, to be clear, have a final total of 3 ranks above Expert (Legendary in spellcasting, Master in Will Saves), which is typical of spellcasters and all other spellcasters have about the same (though, with a Feat, Bards and Clerics can get to 4 by getting Legendary Will Save), so any exchanges being made for Proficiency shouldn't be too onerous as it's only one rank of Proficiency and an amount of Proficiency achievable with a single Feat by some very good Classes.
In contrast, martials have about 7 ranks above Expert pretty much across the board if you count Class DCs (okay, Ranger has 8). Alchemists have only four counting Class DC, which is a large part of why they're not great mechanically. So looked at objectively, the above selection of Magus Proficiencies is much closer to a caster's than a martial's.
Now, the hypothetical Magus does also have Proficiency with Medium Armor and Martial Weapons, as well as likely 8 HP per level, something many casters do not...but so does the Warpriest, and while they aren't great in some ways, they still wind up with the standard 3 Proficiency ranks and as many spells as other Clerics.
All these calculations do admittedly count Saves and Spell proficiency as equally valuable to Attacks and AC, but I think that's true of spells, and the above solution actually has the same Saves as a Wizard, so that's an academic distinction for this purpose.
I want Magus to hit as often as a Rogue or Ranger, and no less.
As much as the Rogue, sure, but the Ranger is a bad comparison here. The PF1 ranger was a fully BAB class unlike the PF1 magus. In PF2, the Ranger is probably the second most accurate martial over a full attack progression what with the flurry edge and twin takedown (and hunter's aim for those of us trying to make crossbow rangers work.)
As often as the Barbarian maybe, since that's the "make one big hit" martial but definitely not the ranger.
Snipped
An important fact to keep in mind is that Wizards also get an extra spell slot for their school (or a bonus feat from Universalist), a focus spell from their school, and their arcane thesis. As well as 10th-level casting.
This hypothetical Magus? They would get none of that. Just baseline prepared arcane casting up to the 9th level along with extra martial proficiencies.
SnippedAn important fact to keep in mind is that Wizards also get an extra spell slot for their school (or a bonus feat from Universalist), a focus spell from their school, and their arcane thesis. As well as 10th-level casting.
This hypothetical Magus? They would get none of that. Just baseline prepared arcane casting up to the 9th level along with extra martial proficiencies.
I feel this won't do anything.
Since the magus is supposed to have everything:
- Master AC
- Master weapon expertise
- Master Spellcasting
- Master in 2 saves
- Higher HP pool
- All simple and martial weapon proficiencythe lvl 10 spell would be the last problem.
Instead, I think the magus should be 1 step behind pure combatants and spellcastes "DURING LEVELING".
Something like
Magus weapon expertise lvl 7 ( instead of lvl 5 )
Magus weapon mastery lvl 15 ( instead of lvl 13 )Magus armor expertise lvl 15 ( instead of lvl 13 )
Magus armor mastery lvl 19 ( instead of lvl 17 )Magus Spell expertise lvl 9 ( instead of lvl 7 )
Magus spell mastery lvl 17 ( instead of lvl 15 )Same goes with saving throws
The higher the magus level, the more powerful the class.
But during leveling it would suffer not being a pure caster nor a pure combatant.As for spells, I am not sure that giving the same bard treatment ( from 6 to 9 ) would be accurate for 2e. I'd go with lvl 5/6 and the possibility to expend focus point to enhance spells like they were "heightened" ( you could use the feature X times per day ).
Partial casters aren't a thing anymore outside of multiclass archetypes. You're either a full caster, or you get focus spells instead. And generally speaking, really low-level casters like Champion (and come the APG, Ranger) got focus spells while 2/3rd casters (Bard, in this case) became full casters.
Doing it your way would go against the general design philosophy of Second Edition, which intended to reduce the barrier of entry by keeping classes more simplified and uniform at a baseline while also allowing huge amounts of customization by way of class feats.
|
|
So generally speaking, the Magus absolutely has to be able to hit things, both with spells and martial prowess. Alright, so looking at it at level 20.....
=Master in unarmed, simple, and martial weapon attacks
=Master in spell attacks and spell DCs
=Master in light armor, medium armor, and unarmored defense
=9th-level, three-slot caster without any bonus spells=Expert in Perception
=Expert in any two saves
=Master in one saveAs a barebones baseline for the class, without adding in things like Magus unique class features or trying to theorycraft the power of feats, does that seem balanced well enough as a starting point?
Yes, this seems fine to me. Maybe slightly lower than I was thinking (I could maybe see another Save at Master), but then again maybe sticking with this is good.
Looking at some objective comparisons, this totals 4 ranks above Expert (the relevant amount...everyone gets to Expert in everything at a minimum).
Wizards, to be clear, have a final total of 3 ranks above Expert (Legendary in spellcasting, Master in Will Saves), which is typical of spellcasters and all other spellcasters have about the same (though, with a Feat, Bards and Clerics can get to 4 by getting Legendary Will Save), so any exchanges being made for Proficiency shouldn't be too onerous as it's only one rank of Proficiency and an amount of Proficiency achievable with a single Feat by some very good Classes.
In contrast, martials have about 7 ranks above Expert pretty much across the board if you count Class DCs (okay, Ranger has 8). Alchemists have only four counting Class DC, which is a large part of why they're not great mechanically. So looked at objectively, the above selection of Magus Proficiencies is much closer to a caster's than a martial's.
Now, the hypothetical Magus does also have Proficiency with Medium Armor and Martial Weapons, as well as likely 8 HP per level, something many casters do not...but so does the Warpriest, and while...
I did comparisons of most of the classes to figure out what seemed reasonable. It's pretty clear to me that armor, weapon and spellcasting proficiency get rated higher than perception and saving throws. For evidence, just look at the Uncanny Acumen feat; nothing quite like that exists for weapons or armor. Feats that increase your armor proficiency above Trained will generally raise the proficiency for a new armor type to the same level as one of your best armor types.
The truth is that Paizo rates full spellcasting as a really really big class feature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did comparisons of most of the classes to figure out what seemed reasonable. It's pretty clear to me that armor, weapon and spellcasting proficiency get rated higher than perception and saving throws. For evidence, just look at the Uncanny Acumen feat; nothing quite like that exists for weapons or armor. Feats that increase your armor proficiency above Trained will generally raise the proficiency for a new armor type to the same level as one of your best armor types.
The truth is that Paizo rates full spellcasting as a really really big class feature.
I don't disagree that Attacks and AC are rated higher than Saves. But in terms of Proficiency, we're talking going down one rank in Spellcasting, then one up each in Attack and AC. So that's only one Proficiency up as compared to other casters. The Saves and Perception being rated lower basically doesn't matter much because I'm not suggesting any exchanges between the two.
And yeah, full spellcasting is worth a lot, but we already have full casters with virtual 'Master' in attacks (most notably, Wild Order Druids), and various ways to increase AC. Doing so via direct Proficiency seems very possible on a caster that, unlike those we've seen so far for the most part, has lower spellcasting Proficiency and no real extra spell stuff (which, at the moment, almost all spellcasting Classes have).
I see a lot of- somewhat unsavory- comparisons to Alchemist and Warpriest Cleric, and I have little experience with either class. So, what's the problem with them?
In fact, expanding on that question; what do people not want to see in the Magus? Particularly boring/unsatisfactory arcana and 1e features, changes you'd absolutely hate?
In a system where a Rogue gets Legendary Perception and Reflex (At level 13, no less), Master on Will, armor and simple weapons, on top of gaining a skill increase AND skill feat at every level that nets them 6 legendary skills (other classes get 3) without any significant cost, on top of having cool feats early on and at higher levels that let them be great combatants as well, there is something to be said why Warpriests and Alchemists have such a s$#+ty proficiency progression on top of having their to-hit as secondary stats (WIS for Cleric and INT for Alch, neither can have max STR/DEX, I'm not against starting at 16 on your hit stat, but coupling that with meager expert proficiency at high level simply bypass any dice variance that was in your favor).
Basically, Fighters and Rogues have amazing (the best in their respective "niches") base features with great proficiency progression with no visible trade off (fewer feat options, especial hoops and limitations to jump through) while Warpriests and Alchemists just completely fall off the curve at level 13 because they only get to expert proficiency on their attacks, no legendary proficiency in their fields, like a Bomber being legendary (or at least master) in Bombs or a Warpriest having high proficiency it their deity weapon. No forgetting to mention that their progression is way slower, at least a Warpriest has spells, but the Alchemist only have low impact items at their disposal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think many people aren't giving Paizo enough credit for creativity. There are loads of imaginative ways to balance a real Magus, and they'd playtest the best options so we can weigh in on them too.
Just off the top of my head, they could get a class feature that gives them their improved weapon proficiency at the cost of their max spell level. Or they could have a stance that locks them out of casting their highest level spells in combat. Or Paizo could create a new progression model specifically for gishes.
I've got a whole lot of faith in their ability to create something satisfying and fairly balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, Fighters and Rogues have amazing (the best in their respective "niches") base features with great proficiency progression with no visible trade off (fewer feat options, especial hoops and limitations to jump through) while Warpriests and Alchemists just completely fall off the curve at level 13 because they only get to expert proficiency on their attacks, no legendary proficiency in their fields, like a Bomber being legendary (or at least master) in Bombs or a Warpriest having high proficiency it their deity weapon. No forgetting to mention that their progression is way slower, at least a Warpriest has spells, but the Alchemist only have low impact items at their disposal.
When I analyzed the proficiencies and class features of the current and playtest classes to make sure my homebrew was accurate, I arrived at 3 groups: Casters, Martials, and Alchemists/Warpriests. The last two are just weird. Warpriests especially are kittens in a husky costume, an attempt to monkey with proficiencies to make a hybrid out of a caster's chassis.
I think a class built to be hybrid from the bottom up will be cleaner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, a mindblade focus spell that manifests a sword that does mental damage. That's quite doable in this edition.
I do like that idea. Mindblade focus spell plus occult list, enchant weapon focus spell plus arcane, or elemental weapon for a primal list.
Or the animal/plant/terrain focus stuff from the Hunter Class. That was the original inspiration behind the "Blue Knight" Magus style I proposed (Blue Knight=Final Fantasy Blue Mage, if that wasn't obvious).
hen I analyzed the proficiencies and class features of the current and playtest classes to make sure my homebrew was accurate, I arrived at 3 groups: Casters, Martials, and Alchemists/Warpriests. The last two are just weird. Warpriests especially are kittens in a husky costume, an attempt to monkey with proficiencies to make a hybrid out of a caster's chassis.
I think a class built to be hybrid from the bottom up will be cleaner.
They would have been probably better than their counterparts.
War priest and alchemists are imo fine because they are not convenient nor above the average standards. We have one alchemist in out EC campaign and it rules.
We also have a druid with alchemist dedication which shines because of it.
The magus feeling should be, more or less, similar to the alchemists and war priests one.
Wasn't a criticism on the effectiveness of the class for what they do. I'm saying that drawing too many inferences from those classes on when or where a Hybrid "should" be might not be accurate, because those two classes are extremely different from every other class. And each other, really.
Like, we can assume Expert Weapon = Expert Casting, based on how they get flipped in Warpriests versus regular casters. But is Legendary casting and delayed Master casting worth an extra Master save, or did it just line up that way because that's the restrictions they gave themselves? That's what I meant by "cleaner"; they'll have all 10 odd levels to use to set proficiencies where they make the most sense, not just the 5 plus the 1st level class features/feats.
Partial casters aren't a thing anymore outside of multiclass archetypes. You're either a full caster, or you get focus spells instead.
That's the case right now, but I'm not sure why we're all assuming this is going to be the rule in perpetuity rather than just how the current classes are designed.
It'd honestly be kind of boring if every single class followed one of the two and a half or so basic class models we had right now. Plus we already have the Alchemist, which doesn't really fit into those basic models either, which I think shows Paizo is willing to experiment and might do so more as the game gets more established.
Note also that the wizard's weapon selection is somewhat crippling.
While true, I'm not sure this was really meant as a balance thing so much as "for fun" as other classes with similar kits to the Wizard all have full simple. Notably the playtest Witch was almost identical to the Wizard and had simple weapons.
I have to imagine when designing the spell progression for the Wizard, etc. that "how do we make a spellcaster who is less good at this than the wizard" was considered.
Alright, well combining magic prowess and martial might is the proverbial "core" of the Magus, but most people here are pretty keenly aware that's not all there is to the Magus.
Figuring out what would be best balance-wise when it comes to its spellcasting vs weaponry is important, but what about the other stuff that makes the Magus stand out? We've had a few suggestions on Spellstrike and Spell Combat, for example. What about Spell Recall? Or what Magus arcana to bring back?
I've said it before, but I could absolutely see the Magus class getting Fighter's "Disruptive Stance". It's pretty much exactly what counterstrike is, so it can be made available to Magus simple as that.
What if, instead of Master/Master the Magus is Master/Expert with the ability to switch between the two (like stance-based)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master weapons / expert casting would *probably* work, with the debuff on successful spellstrikes that we see in AoA.
I'm not convinced master/master is that far out of line in a game where bards exist though. Champions and Monks get Master/Master AND legendary in their respective armor.