| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello! So about a week ago I made the thread "What do YOU want to see in a Magus?", and to be honest? I'm rather happy with the amount of discussion and attention it's gotten. As someone who's always had a lot of love for the theme of the Magus- even though I've never gotten to play one- it's heartening to see that so many people are passionate and have a favorable opinion of what is probably my favorite class.
However, while at first it was just as much part of the discussion as anything else- because the thread is about what people want to see in the Magus- talk of proficiency and how proficiency should be balanced has been superseding everything else, like discussion of possible feats, skills, and capabilities. So following the suggestion of one "Puna'chong", I decided to make this thread specifically for the focus of discussing Magus proficiency options.
But then I thought "why stop there?"; after all, there are a few other "gish" classes that I'm sure people want to see coming back, like the Bloodrager, the Skald(?), and any others I might have missed. They're gish casters in a similar vein to Magus, so why exclude them from the discussion? And so I've made this discussion for not only the Magus, but for all potential returning gish classes as well. Hope it helps, and keep it constructive!
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a class has as much casting as a Bard, Cleric, or Druid, then it should not get a better weapon proficiency than all three of those. The non-spell features those classes get (pretty much all at first level) aren't worth an unqualified +2 on weapon attacks.
A gish class either needs less casting than Bard, or expert weapon proficiency as its cap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a class has as much casting as a Bard, Cleric, or Druid, then it should not get a better weapon proficiency than all three of those. The non-spell features those classes get (pretty much all at first level) aren't worth an unqualified +2 on weapon attacks.
A gish class either needs less casting than Bard, or expert weapon proficiency as its cap.
I don't think you'll find anyone believing that gish classes should be able to cast at legendary proficiency, or that they should get 10th-level spells by default. Personally, I'm in the "master/master each" camp, without any bonus spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So picking directly up off the conversation in the other thread:
I still think tying the magus's full attack bonus to a bladesong-like magic warrior state (Takes you from Expert to Master)that also does other things for you is a good option. We have other classes, like the Oracle that 'block off' their own focus points for main class mechanics, in ways that make normal focus spells not a great idea.
It can be tuned in all sorts of ways to negate the concerns being brought up, none of them seem especially disqualifying. One option is to tie it to casting a spell, in the way Swashbucklers gain Panache by taking an action to do a thing that has other benefits-- you could be 'riding the energy' of the spell to enter the form at no additional action cost, or at high levels, enter it on initiative. You could go i nthe other direction, of making that action less of a 'waste' by allowing it to offer an automatic shield with a feat, one that improves with more investment, so that the action another character might 'raise a shield' is the same one you use to enter your form. What if a feat said you could teleport some distance for free when you enter the form? Then suddenly its the same as your initial move action you would have normally taken, or that you could draw a weapon? you're as efficient as if you had quick draw on the attack that would follow.
I don't even think the 'penalty' is disqualifying, Set up actions are really common in this game-
Rage, Hunt Prey, Monk Stances, Wildshape
In the case of Hunt Prey, Twin Takedown Rangers can't even use their main attack without using this first,and the whole setup takes all three actions with no movement, the game is designed to create these 'problems' and then solve them as a form of power progression. While it's not necessary on every class, I feel as if its essential to the gameplay of a magus to have them spend time actually enhancing themselves magically in combat.
If we attach enough to 'Arcane Form' in the first place, it wouldn't just be a hit patch either, but also offer other benefits, then the class feats, or 'paths' or whatever can just layer other benefits on-- energy damage to reflect you infusing your weapon, teleporting move actions to avoid AoO, and so forth.
Action Economy manipulation is actually a big tactical area in character building for this edition, so I don't think it should be avoided.
I just really want it as a mechanism that makes everything I do Magic/Martial. The 4e Swordmage is my favorite class ever in an RPG, but the way spellcasting works here precludes what that class did to infuse everything they did with magic. I want to hew away from solutions that leave the Magus deciding to do something Martial or something Magical with their turn most of the time, and instead toward solutions where the two are one in the same.
This solution actually does that and isn't a waste of design space, because it not only makes you martial inherently magical (which should be a design goal) it also offers a platform for customization, and a clear identity for the Magus that isn't just "Fighter/Wizard but better" which it sorely needs, since it was originally designed as a patch to pf1e's gish problems.
Hell, designed correctly, you wouldn't even be useless without your form. Warpriests can already hit things with the proficiency level we're talking about-- the penalty to-hit vs. other martials just means you want to avoid MAP, by casting a spell in the same turn.
In truth, you'd be setting up a powerful buff on yourself with multiple riders that you chose, of which hit would just be one.
My vision sees the Magus able to use the Arcane Form to blitz around combat as a magically enhanced warrior, but able to fall back to a 'swing once and cast' dynamic if they're caught with their pants down, which leaves them not much weaker than a Warpriest in their weakest situation (but probably a little weaker, since it technically has to be fully balanced with a warpriest).
To answer another concern, if the form can be customized with class feats to offer utility features, it could even be used outside of combat-- the ease of 10 minute refocusing actually really works for us here, since if you don't have the 10 minutes to refocus, there's a solid chance that you'd just be entering combat with the form on anyway.
Out of combat, they would also have their full complement of spell slots for utility stuff, just like any other spell caster, so even if it was a bad idea to enter arcane form for utility, you'd have plenty of resources you could devote to that in a build.
Given that it would be tuned to ease any possible pain points, it would be a pretty ideal compromise in terms of proficiency that really makes it feel like a Magus.
Edit: Heck, if you wanted, you could create a set of 'Arcane Forms' that function as class paths chosen at level 1, so it would never be *just* a +2 to hit. One Defensive, One Mobility, and probably others I'm not thinking of.
I don't think you'll find anyone believing that gish classes should be able to cast at legendary proficiency, or that they should get 10th-level spells by default. Personally, I'm in the "master/master each" camp, without any bonus spells.If a class has as much casting as a Bard, Cleric, or Druid, then it should not get a better weapon proficiency than all three of those. The non-spell features those classes get (pretty much all at first level) aren't worth an unqualified +2 on weapon attacks.
A gish class either needs less casting than Bard, or expert weapon proficiency as its cap.
I am not in favor of getting full spell slots or even master/master... Expert/Master seems fair like the warpriest.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a class has as much casting as a Bard, Cleric, or Druid, then it should not get a better weapon proficiency than all three of those. The non-spell features those classes get (pretty much all at first level) aren't worth an unqualified +2 on weapon attacks.
A gish class either needs less casting than Bard, or expert weapon proficiency as its cap.
I think literally everyone advocating Master in weapons has paired it with dropping Spell Proficiency from Legendary to Master, which is a straight up trade of equally valuable Proficiencies.
I'd also strongly argue that Inspire Courage is, for a party with two martials plus the Bard, probably better than the Bard being one Proificiency level up on attacks. Inspire Courage is a deeply absurd ability.
So picking directly up off the conversation in the other thread:
I still think tying the magus's full attack bonus to a bladesong-like magic warrior state (Takes you from Expert to Master)that also does other things for you is a good option. We have other classes, like the Oracle that 'block off' their own focus points for main class mechanics, in ways that make normal focus spells not a great idea.
Okay, you're equating two different things here.
#1: A Focus Spell needed to buff the Magus for a fight, possibly with a non-traditional Focus Point structure.
#2: An action needed to buff the Magus for the fight, but one without a cost. Like a Barbarian's Rage, it's just a thing you do.
Those are really different things, and need to be discussed separately.
For #1, the biggest problem is just that Magus works really well with a traditional Focus Point structure and an offensive Focus Spell or two. That really hits the sweet spot for the kind of abilities a Magus should have, and destroying that possibility for a math fixer strikes me as a terrible choice on just about every level.
For #2, the issue is a lot less clear cut. I personally don't think it's remotely necessary, and find it counter to the themes of the Magus to be worse than Rogues at hitting without the use of magic, but it's not as crippling and unfortunate an idea mechanically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are a master/master class (and as a sidenote, they get legendary in defense). It is just that they don't have spell slots, and only have focus spells that use the spell proficiency.
I heavily support giving the magus a mix of bread and butter melee range cantrips and focus powered nova spells, and otherwise following the paladin model.
I'm offering distinct possibilities that could be fused but don't have to be yeah, when I originally proposed it in the other thread it was "a mechanic like rage, or maybe using focus point like wildshape" basically going off of what Druids do.
I'm comfortable with either really, and would leave that up to tuning-- the focus spell option has the benefit of integrating the class with refocusing as a limiter on it's ability to go ham, thereby making space for martials that can naturally do it all day-- without dumpstering the Magus as a martial by relegating it to Expert all the time.
As for #2 thing, I think that if the Magus is as good as a proper warrior at martial stuff e.g. a Rogue, then what makes them not just better in every way? You're basically telling me you want a rogue/fighter/barbarian/ranger who also has awesome spells, without paying anything for it. Even if we factor in the other abilities they have, those are already just compensation for the +2 the fighter gets over them in the power budget, and for you to actually be as good at hitting, we'd have to manufacture something very similar to keep your DPR abreast-- which would probably be spell casting related, and cost resources.
Spellstrike, or something, would be your Flurry Edge/Sneak Attack/Whatever in that model, you'd still be worse at weapons, just because your blows wouldn't land as hard without magic.
Whereas for me, the drawback for a good spellblade is that they spend resources to use magic to elevate their fighting style to the level of the other classes. This gives them special things that others can't do (like teleporting around, magical shields, better access to AOE), but they aren't as skilled without their magic, because if they were, their magic would just make them better. This transformation mechanic would be a good way to express the 'magical aid' they get to their warriorship.
If you really want to be say, a Rogue who can cast spells too, well, the Eldritch Trickster should be available in a couple of weeks, or you can always just MC a fighter into a Wizard?
If a class has as much casting as a Bard, Cleric, or Druid, then it should not get a better weapon proficiency than all three of those. The non-spell features those classes get (pretty much all at first level) aren't worth an unqualified +2 on weapon attacks.
A gish class either needs less casting than Bard, or expert weapon proficiency as its cap.
I think literally everyone advocating Master in weapons has paired it with dropping Spell Proficiency from Legendary to Master, which is a straight up trade of equally valuable Proficiencies.
I'd also strongly argue that Inspire Courage is, for a party with two martials plus the Bard, probably better than the Bard being one Proificiency level up on attacks. Inspire Courage is a deeply absurd ability.
So picking directly up off the conversation in the other thread:
I still think tying the magus's full attack bonus to a bladesong-like magic warrior state (Takes you from Expert to Master)that also does other things for you is a good option. We have other classes, like the Oracle that 'block off' their own focus points for main class mechanics, in ways that make normal focus spells not a great idea.
Okay, you're equating two different things here.
#1: A Focus Spell needed to buff the Magus for a fight, possibly with a non-traditional Focus Point structure.
#2: An action needed to buff the Magus for the fight, but one without a cost. Like a Barbarian's Rage, it's just a thing you do.
Those are really different things, and need to be discussed separately.
For #1, the biggest problem is just that Magus works really well with a traditional Focus Point structure and an offensive Focus Spell or two. That really hits the sweet spot for the kind of abilities a Magus should have, and destroying that possibility for a math fixer strikes me as a terrible choice on just about every level.
For #2, the issue is a lot less clear cut. I personally don't think it's...
Not necessarily. It depends on how much the Magus relies on his weapon proficiencies compared to his spell proficiencies, and that's where the big disconnect comes from. If a Magus were to utilize spells, do the bonuses to hit come from weapon or spell proficiency? What about if they are infused into his weapon? If one is better than the other at any given point in time, players will simply avoid using one tactic over the other simply because they are worse at it with no actual way of increasing it outside of "Give it a couple levels," and if we have proficiencies which can't increase past a certain point (a glaring flaw for all the base class dedication feats), it becomes a dead proficiency, and skills unlocked this way (like the initial Lore skill you get from your background) can be equally problematic here.
Sure, we have feats like Channel Smite from the Warpriest for precedence, but that seemingly overwrites the whole point of spell proficiency being relevant when the effect is based on your melee capability and not your spell capability, meaning a reduction in spell proficiency doesn't matter unless you merely just cast spells, but a Magus being better at weaving spells in the heat of combat because they ignore the need for save DCs or utilizing a different ability score to hit or deal damage is huge in and of itself. And with Magus having access to spells like True Strike and Heroism, they can basically be a Bard while likewise having very high accuracy similar to a Ranger or Barbarian.
Inspire Courage is strong because it can be done basically at any time, doesn't completely ruin/interrupt spellcasting (though the "supplement" feats like Harmonize certainly do), and stacks with characters who already utilize high/the highest proficiencies, and serves a means of bending math to the players' advantage. The fact that it's constant and can be raised to higher levels via Inspire Heroics is the major selling point of the class. Another good one which changes the math the other way, Dirge of Doom, can't be similarly adjusted, which is why it plays second fiddle to Inspire Courage. (Yes, pun intended.)
One little idea I just had that could be kind of neat is mixing proficiency with 2e's action economy. And by that I mean using an action to gain proficiency in casting temporarily, almost like a magical version of a barbarian. You advance much like a martial but you can open a connection to magic through an action and gain better casting abilities.
If a class has as much casting as a Bard, Cleric, or Druid, then it should not get a better weapon proficiency than all three of those. The non-spell features those classes get (pretty much all at first level) aren't worth an unqualified +2 on weapon attacks.
A gish class either needs less casting than Bard, or expert weapon proficiency as its cap.
I think literally everyone advocating Master in weapons has paired it with dropping Spell Proficiency from Legendary to Master, which is a straight up trade of equally valuable Proficiencies.
I'd also strongly argue that Inspire Courage is, for a party with two martials plus the Bard, probably better than the Bard being one Proificiency level up on attacks. Inspire Courage is a deeply absurd ability.
For the bard, the action cost you really have to consider. In terms of its expected impact for the party on a fight, inspire courage is about as good (better if you have more attackers) as telekinetic projectile. Giving it costs 1 action, that's great for the bard, and the focus powers work really well with it. Now +2 for a weapon user contributes about 60% of telekinetic projectile usually, so it looks worse than inspire courage, but that takes no extra action, so really it's quite a bit better.
All that is to say I think increasing a maguses proficiency for one step is worth more than inspire courage.
Now if you give a magus no other classes features, just spells and proficiencies, it's probably close enough, and I think that would be fine. But if you want to give the Magus any other class features, you'll really have to reduce it's casting.
I was think 1/2 slots a spell level, and it could be held back a level at 5 when it gets expert weapons to max out at 9th level spells. But that really depends on what class features it would have…
Now an action/stance that boosts proficiency just seems annoying and unnecessary.
As for #2 thing, I think that if the Magus is as good as a proper warrior at martial stuff e.g. a Rogue, then what makes them not just better in every way? You're basically telling me you want a rogue/fighter/barbarian/ranger who also has awesome spells, without paying anything for it. Even if we factor in the other abilities they have, those are already just compensation for the +2 the fighter gets over them in the power budget, and for you to actually be as good at hitting, we'd have to manufacture something very similar to keep your DPR abreast-- which would probably be spell casting related, and cost resources.
They are paying for it. They'll have less HP, worse saves, worse perception, worse initiative, and fewer action/activity options than every other martial in the game. And worse To-Hit even if they have identical proficiency, due to their key ability score being neither Str or Dex. You could even give them 3 skills instead of 4 baseline.
I don't want to see Magi using spells to patch themselves to get to expected baseline. What's the point of them having spells if they have to spend all those spell just to do what a Ranger or Champion can do out of the box?
Most of the stuff in your first post? That sounds very cool. I hope THOSE are their spell options. Not a +2 to hit after 5th level.
I think literally everyone advocating Master in weapons has paired it with dropping Spell Proficiency from Legendary to Master, which is a straight up trade of equally valuable Proficiencies.
I disagree on the equally valuable thing. Low weapon proficiency pushes you away from using weapons. Low casting proficiency pushes you away from blasting and save-or-suck/debuffs, but leaves open buffs, illusions, movement/terrain, healing, utility, and summoning.
I'd also strongly argue that Inspire Courage is, for a party with two martials plus the Bard, probably better than the Bard being one Proificiency level up on attacks. Inspire Courage is a deeply absurd ability.
I feel saying its better with the bard and two martials is ignoring the action cost every round, which is effectively -1 AC for the Bard (its casting probably takes the place of casting Shield or using a physical shield). But I can concede "even". And, there will probably be another character who will sometimes benefit- maybe another caster who will sometimes get the bonus to spell attacks.
I do feel it would be unbalanced to trade something that helps out the martials in the party more than you (the Bard is the one paying the action cost) to get their accuracy yourself.
Or, maybe I'm wrong and party benefit shouldn't have a discount when compared to character benefit. Then you'd have a fair, but boring trade. I don't really think so, but that's also moving the goal posts a bit by me. You'd still need to put back in a level 1 feature of decent interest without it being worth much power.
Well, this discussion (unsurprisingly) got very technical, and in some ways it's kind of hard for me to track. Nonetheless it's good to see that people are passionate about this.
As for TMS' post, it sounds relatively similar to an idea I had:
"Arcane Trance"
1 action
As you channel arcane energies throughout your body you enter a heightened state of mind, one in which both weapons and spells flow together as an extension of yourself. While using Arcane Trance you gain various benefits and can use Trance Cantrips.Arcane Trance lasts for one round, but you can spend an action to maintain the effects as if sustaining a spell. Alternatively you may expend one prepared non-cantrip spell to extend its effects for one minute."
As I discussed earlier in the prior thread, the idea followed up that some feats would give benefits based on sacrificing higher level spells. But first of all, there's the matter of considering Bloodrager (which can arguably be brought back as a focus caster) where this would arguably be a better fit as the functionality of blood rage. There's also the fact that Magus has a LOT of ideas and design possibilities as-is, which have more precedence and foundation.
I for one am very much of the "master/master, but sacrifice in terms of spell flexibility and baseline stats" camp. In that situation there's no way a Magus will be able to outdo the sheer amount of power and potential martials and casters currently have, especially if their feats focus on what makes a Magus.... well, a Magus.
Paladins are a master/master class (and as a sidenote, they get legendary in defense). It is just that they don't have spell slots, and only have focus spells that use the spell proficiency.
I heavily support giving the magus a mix of bread and butter melee range cantrips and focus powered nova spells, and otherwise following the paladin model.
monks are also master/master with focus spells, and legendary defense.
monks are also master/master with focus spells, and legendary defense.Paladins are a master/master class (and as a sidenote, they get legendary in defense). It is just that they don't have spell slots, and only have focus spells that use the spell proficiency.
I heavily support giving the magus a mix of bread and butter melee range cantrips and focus powered nova spells, and otherwise following the paladin model.
Good point. We have several examples of non-spell magic users, and monks already have a history of pf1e as a source of inspiration for the magus.
|
|
I'll restate it here since it's on topic.
I would REALLY like to see a set of Magus Class Abilities (NOT FEATS) that grant them the option to Increase either their Weapon or Spellcasting Proficiency. Grant this twice, once at level 15 and again at level 19 which can be used to raise either of these two things from Expert which should have been granted around 7 in BOTH Weapon and Spellcasting Training to give them three options which could even be retrained.
After level 19 they could be:
Master Spellcasting Training & Master Weapon Training
Expert Spellcasting Training & Legendary Weapon Training
Expert Weapon Training & Legendary Spellcasting Training
Create a handful of Master & Legendary Training Prereq feats and you're good to go in terms of allowing a greater degree to which each given Magus can focus on their skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a magus being able to be legendary in weapons or spell casting.
That's the cost of dabbling in both rather than specializing.
Especially since most martials don't get to the level of legendary proficiency, but instead have something to "compensate" for it.
Magi will probably have class options that make up for it, like probably be a master is both spell casting and weapon proficiency.
I'm curious how delayed spellcasting would work in this system. If a Magus gets 1st level spells at 3rd level instead of 1st what does that buy you?
I think the bloodrager is pretty doable as a spell casting archetype that has the ability to rage as a prerequisite and then lets you make cast offensive spell attacks using your weapon proficiency in some form.
The issue with the magus is that it will be pretty awkward for its offensive proficiencies to bounce up at different levels. It the class gets spell slots and is a 9 level spell casting class it can’t have better than expert weapon proficiency, but it could have ways to get to use a different proficiency occasionally when making an attack.
The model for this is MCD.
But the whole reason for having Gishes is so you can have a class that is better at magic and worse at fighting than a Fighter with the Wizard dedication, or worse at magic and better at fighting than a Wizard with the Fighter dedication.
MC pairings are like 80/20, or 70/30 splits. A Fighter MC Wizard is a fighter who can do a useful amount of Magic, a Wizard MC Fighter is a Wizard who isn't hopeless in a fight. What we want is something that hits that 50/50 sweet spot.
The model for this is MCD.But the whole reason for having Gishes is so you can have a class that is better at magic and worse at fighting than a Fighter with the Wizard dedication, or worse at magic and better at fighting than a Wizard with the Fighter dedication.
MC pairings are like 80/20, or 70/30 splits. A Fighter MC Wizard is a fighter who can do a useful amount of Magic, a Wizard MC Fighter is a Wizard who isn't hopeless in a fight. What we want is something that hits that 50/50 sweet spot.
except the fighter needs to spend a lot of feats to get those slots that the magus will not. And the Magus feats will (presumably) let you cast + attacks on most turns.
And keep in mind, most spells do not affect MAP. Electric arc + a no penalty weapon attack (+ movement via a feat) seems like a pretty good mix to me.
It seems Proficiency will depend on if the class is designed primarily as a caster or martial first. I would love to see a Master/Master with Bard spell progression; but a comment from PaizoCon made it sound like that might tread too much on Martial's shtick.
Question: Is Expert proficiency going to be a hard cap for gish-type characters going forward as a design choice, or is there the possibility of archetypes that will allow an 'Arcane Archer' wizard to reach Master proficiency in bows for example?
Mark Seifter: A new class can do whatever it is meant to do, but we would be very unlikely to print a new archetype that gives anyone who takes it master proficiency in weapons because that would not be respecting martial characters.
To be fair, Mark was addressing Archetypes specifically; and said Classes get more wiggle room. Though my take away ends up being that they don't want Gishes to blur the line between Caster and Martial too much. Giving Magus an easy access to a +2 status bonus, similar to a Druids Wild Shape, seems the simplest way to balance the numbers; and can give more design space to lean into new concepts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are a whole different kettle of fish. I'm a strong advocate for Master in weapons on Magus, but I'd be completely against an Archetype that gives you that since such an Archetype could go on a Wizard or Bard and really screw up game balance quite a bit.
Since archetypes are theoretically open to anyone, they have to be much more careful about giving out proficiency bonuses, as it could really imbalance things.
But if it's a single class chassis, they can pretty finely tune it.
Bringing up the comparison to fighter MC wizard and wizard MC fighter is very appropriate. The class should land someone in between these two I think. Less good at fighting than a fighter MC wizard, and less good at magic than a wizard MC fighter.
I think being a master in (at most) in weapon and spell proficiency is going to be the cap.
However I'm worried that if you have master weapon proficiency, and master spell proficiency, and the same spell progression as all non-MC caster...the you don't have much room for class abilities because you're already getting quite a lot.
Fighters, who get 11 fighter feats will spend 5 of those feats on the multi-class archetype just to keep their spells up to par but a magus wouldn't spend any feats on it (we assume)
I have a feeling that perhaps the class will get expert progression baked in on both and be able to spend class feats to increase their effective proficiency to master in both spells and weapons.
Spell combat is likely to be the main class power that's baked in.
Something like spell recall is likely to be another feat option that would allow you to spend a focus point to cast a spell you've already expended today (probably like two levels below your maximum).
Giving Magus an easy access to a +2 status bonus, similar to a Druids Wild Shape, seems the simplest way to balance the numbers; and can give more design space to lean into new concepts.
Couple of things: 1, using a spell to patch instead of buff still seems wrong. That was how PF1 got through the day, and it worked for that system, but in PF2 I think we can design better. If the class is expected to act as if it had full martial proficiency in most cases, it is easier and cleaner simply to give the class full proficiency, since you have to balance around that either way.
2 If in the end they are restricted to Expert weaponry, then I would expect instead of a patch that they instead get other class features that makes fighting work without that extra +2. They can hit harder, get to swing twice and take the higher, have feats with some kind of effect on a miss but not critical miss, use Str as their casting ability (mostly kidding on this one), easy access to a debuff that benefit everyone instead of just the Magus, something. Heck you can do different things and have that be your class path (I'd be much more sanguine about a patch-buff if it was an option and not the default, in fact).
3 I don't think the status bonus on Wildshape is intended to make up the proficiency gap as much as keep the spells relevant past their pre-written heightened conditions, but I could be wrong. It will admittedly have that effect, more or less, though the interaction with Inspire Courage is unfortunate.
I think being a master in (at most) in weapon and spell proficiency is going to be the cap.
However I'm worried that if you have master weapon proficiency, and master spell proficiency, and the same spell progression as all non-MC caster...the you don't have much room for class abilities because you're already getting quite a lot.
I will defer to Deadmanwalking's analysis in the other thread, because I think counting a class's proficiencies above expert is an interesting way to see how the classes balance against each other. 3 above Expert seems standard for casters, except for Bards who get 5 and playtest Oracles who got 4. Master Weapons, Master Armor, Master Casting, and 1 Master save is strong, but not too far out of line.
Warpriests get Master Casting and 2 Master saves, in comparison. And also 3-5 max level Heal spells on top of 3 slots per level of your other spells. Capping the Magus, or any other Gish, at a Warpriest's proficiency suggests that they would need a similar pool of max level spells to be balanced, perhaps an updated Spell Recall? That would likely make Wizards cry though, and quite rightly. Master Armor/Weapons and 1 less Master save seems more balanced than 1+Cha per day extra max level shocking grasps.
I think the bloodrager is pretty doable as a spell casting archetype that has the ability to rage as a prerequisite and then lets you make cast offensive spell attacks using your weapon proficiency in some form.
The issue with the magus is that it will be pretty awkward for its offensive proficiencies to bounce up at different levels. It the class gets spell slots and is a 9 level spell casting class it can’t have better than expert weapon proficiency, but it could have ways to get to use a different proficiency occasionally when making an attack.
Another alternative is that you can be a Fighter with Wizard or Sorcerer dedication, whom gets Legendary weapons, Expert/Master Armor, and Master spellcasting, but only up to 8th level spells, and reduced spell slots, Legendary skills, and actual Fighter class feats to compensate. While this is certainly the superior route proficiencies-wise, it will certainly be lacking in flair and flexibility compared to a straight Fighter whom will have numerous class feats providing malleable gameplay.
|
I agree that Master Proficiency in both Weapons and Spellcasting is a high bar goal, and should make concessions in other areas of Chassis. I think the Monk's "Path to Perfection" progression is worth looking into in terms of modeling.
That said, I don't think Saves (including Perception) should have to balance that offset.
Instead, I think halving Slots is the most fairest option. Meaning alternating One or Two slots at Odd and Even levels respectively. This is "50%/50%" to me.
This leaves sufficient room for cool Class Feats, some of which could be designed to compensate for the lower number of Slots in creative ways.
Master/Master is the one that makes most sense for a Gish.
They cant stop at expert Spellcasting because it would mean an Archetype would be a better caster. They cant be below master Weapons because it would mean they are worse at combat than Rogues.
Well, being better at traditional spell casting might not be an issue, since the magus has always been about the interplay of melee and magic. So a magic ability that is a rider on a successful melee hit (ie- if it hits, add +X damage) might work for the traditional 'shocking grasp' playstyle. So a spell save might not be necessary.
But master/master is the more likely way this would end up. Even if you get the damage as a no save rider, there will likely be other effects that would get saves. We've seen it on all the elemental stuff so far- setting things on fire for more damage, jumping electricity, freezing, etc.
IMO:
Master in weapon, spells, and medium armor.
8hp.
Level 9 spells, but only 1 slot per level.
Then you add...
Spell Recall (level 4): once per day, you can cast a level 2 or lower spell that you already cast.
Improved Spell recall (level 8): once per day, you can cast a level 4 or lower spell that you already cast. This is in addition to Spell Recall.
Greater Spell Recall...
= Half of the slots that the bard gets.
Spell Combat (Level 1): flourish. When you cast an attack cantrip spell, you can also make an Strike against the same target as part of the same action. You can perform the Stike before or after the spell, but MAP applies as normal.
In addition, you get a +5 status bonus against opportunity attacks triggered by casting a spell.
Arcane pool, focus spell, gain a +1/2/3 item bonus to your weapon.
-upgrade to flaming, disrupting, and such with feats.
Spellstrike feat, use Dex for attack rolls spells and DCs. This does not apply for to damage or other aspects of the spell.
Strikespell feat, use Int for attack rolls with finess weapons. This does not apply to damage.
Knowledge Pool (level 8), feat, focus spell, free action. Cast any spell 3rd level or lower, using slots and actions as normal.
Greater Knowledge Pool (level 16): 6th level or lower.
Greater Spell Combat. You can use Spell Combat with any attack spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Magus is supposed to do more of "delivering spells through their weapons" than "throwing a ball of arcane nastiness across the room".
I'm wondering if we shouldn't leave the Magus's magic skill at expert with the rider that you use something else for saves when the spell is delivered through spellstrike.
Since the Magus basically should rely on two families of spells- things that keep you safe, and things that mess up people within sword reach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expert Spellcasting Training & Legendary Weapon Training
I don't see anything like this ever happening.
For the former, Master spellcasting is already achievable through MCD, which sets it as pretty much the baseline. Having a class that's supposed to heavily use spells but caps out at Expert would give them a weird incentive to multiclass in order to boost their proficiency, something that seems very much at odds with the rest of PF2's design.
For the latter, Legendary Weapons is, effectively, a fighter class feature. It looks like a general proficiency that only fighters happen to get, but in practice it's the fighter's version of a DPR mechanic. Barbarians get Rage, Rangers get Edge, Rogues get Sneak attack, Fighters get +2 to hit.
Given that dynamic, I think it makes sense when talking about class design to more or less just pretend that Legendary weapon proficiency isn't a thing.
For the latter, Legendary Weapons is, effectively, a fighter class feature. It looks like a general proficiency that only fighters happen to get, but in practice it's the fighter's version of a DPR mechanic. Barbarians get Rage, Rangers get Edge, Rogues get Sneak attack, Fighters get +2 to hit.
Yup yup. When I did my spreadsheet, I originally pegged fighters as another "oddball" class with Warpriests and Alchemists, and had fighters listed as having only 1 lvl 1 class feature (AoO + shield bonus feat), until I realized that if I counted the proficiency bump on certain weapons as a class feature, fighters line up with the rest of the martial classes.
By contrast, Armor proficiency seems to be all over the place, with the majority of classes getting Expert at 13 but Master just popping in wherever they can fit it.
Edit: Which suggests another way to analyze the classes: assign points to class features and proficiency bumps, and see how much each class "spends" by
each odd level.
Master with martial/simple, master with spells and class DC, and master with medium/light/unarmored seems like a workable baseline to me.
Nothing that could reasonably be touted as "mixing martial prowess and magical might," in my opinion, should ever have less of a base chance to hit than a Rogue, nor be worse at spells than just taking an MCD (as discussed; it'd be counter to P2e's design).
For lack of a better comparison, master in weapon attacks is, effectively, full BAB for martials, with Fighters getting Full BAB+. However, master is not full BAB for spellcasting, because every spellcasting class (besides Warpriest) gets to legendary. Even Bard, and arguably Warpriest's bonus features don't really make up for the lack of proficiency. Having less than master proficiency in weapon attacks is like having 3/4 BAB, while having less than master in spellcasting is like having 1/2 BAB.
Where the spellcasting classes differentiate themselves from one another is their focus spells and their extra features. After starting with a baseline of solid proficiency--full BAB in weapons, 3/4 BAB in spellcasting--this is where I think the Magus should be balanced. Martial classes are not only their proficiencies. In fact, I think every martial class seems to have master weapon proficiency as a given, with their main feature (i.e. rage, sneak attack, flurry) being balanced around also having a bevy of combat feats.
Another gish, like Occultist, might be balanced with lower martial proficiencies and have stronger features, but to me the Magus is a package that relies on using simple tools well. I think they should have 2 spell slots per level, Spellstrike as a feature, a variety of focus spells, with limited combat-focused feats.
TLDR; Magus should have master proficiency and 2 slots but have its features and feats balanced around that. Their martial "always on" ability to use spell slots and focus spells would be inherently limited and not the same as other martials (flurry, rage, sneak attack, etc.), and their spellcasting much more limited and less interactive than what a typical caster would have.
I am a little curious how the new Rogue and Bard subclasses will go. That will increase our knowledge pool on how Paizo sees gishes considerably, rather than us all trying to triangulate from a single data point.
Edit: Which suggests another way to analyze the classes: assign points to class features and proficiency bumps, and see how much each class "spends" by
each odd level.
When I looked at doing this, one of the big hangups I ran into is that "every class gets at least M in class DC/spells" but that proficiency is massively more useful if you're "casting arcane spells" than for like "Fighter class DC".
The other thing I keep running into is whether "proficiencies you're not likely to use" matter. Like monks and champions are the only legendary armor classes- Champions get it in all armor types and Monks only get it with unarmored defense; but does that matter? Fighters getting Legendary proficiency in simple weapons doesn't seem to matter much, nor does "proficiency in kinds of armor you're not wearing." So do we budget "the champion advances proficiencies in all armors" or just "the champion advances proficiency in the armor you want"?
Turning away from the Magus just a little bit, I'm curious what people think about Bloodrager. It's a 4th-level caster, the same way Paladin and Ranger are. But come 2e, Champion and Ranger were converted from casters to only using focus spells- and even then, Ranger is only getting focus spells come the APG.
With that precedent in mind, it seems that "low" casters will be converted to using focus spells instead. Assuming that's the case- as we currently have no reason to believe 2e will bring back partial casters, since so far they've all been either full casters or not at all- then does the Bloodrager have enough to stand on its own? Or would it just be subsumed as an type of instinct for the Barbarian? Or would it end up being an archetype in itself?
There's also the matter of Skald, which- like Bard and Magus- is a 2/3rds caster in 1e. The Skald has a lot of interesting but really downright weird stuff. But on the flipside, they've been mentioned by name in actual world-building materials published by Paizo themselves. So does that mean the Skald is an eventual shoe-in to return? If so, how will it function?
Didn't get time to look at the original Magus thread, but felt like throwing in a few opinions (assuming class-style gish/Magus, though I personally support archetype more).
I'd lean towards using the same baseline as the Warpriest (Expert/Master for weapons/spells). Especially considering something like a Magus is highly likely to fall under arcane, and True Strike alone seems like it can pull up any slack on accuracy and could even be too good if automatically provided along with full weapon proficiency (especially if it could be used the same round as Spellstrike and make the martial class wonder why they're around).
Regarding Master/Master proficiency for weapons/spells, I don't think Monk/Champion are a good comparison considering they only get limited focus spells (often via expense of class feats) compared to casting which gets new spell options every book and doesn't typically remove feats beyond 1st level. I could only see this happening if the Magus became a focus caster which didn't have any real spellslots and couldn't combo spellstrike with actual spells gained from multiclassing.
IF a Magus/gish ended up with Master/Master proficiency, I'd at least expect their proficiency increases in each to get delayed a number of levels compared to a pure Martial or Caster along with other compensation in their build. I don't think getting one less spell every level is enough, since you're still getting up to 9th level spells without using up any class feats (unlike Multiclassing which takes several feats to cap at 8th level magic).
On the same note - making any class feats less powerful to account for the amount of stuff based into the core chassis of the class would just encourage the class to use archetypes (multiclass and otherwise - possibly to grab more spell slots to combo with spellstrike) instead of their own feats while making the gish multiclass archetype undesirable to everyone.
I'm curious how delayed spellcasting would work in this system. If a Magus gets 1st level spells at 3rd level instead of 1st what does that buy you?
I don't see delayed spellcasting as viable in PF2's setup - especially for something like a Magus.
Generally, spellcasting seems to have become fairly standardized in how it progresses, and I doubt paizo wants to significantly change that as it seems they're trying to avoid the PF1 method of every class doing the same thing differently.
For the Magus specifically, many of the class-advocates seem to dislike the archetype suggestion partially because archetypes come on at level 2 - so I don't see delaying casting further as something that would make anyone happy. Additionally, a full class means having a class archetype - which would end up very unsatisfying when another class took the magus multiclass archetype and essentially had to deal with casting portion of the class being delayed twice before they could actually feel like a gish.
Especially considering something like a Magus is highly likely to fall under arcane, and True Strike alone seems like it can pull up any slack on accuracy and could even be too good if automatically provided along with full weapon proficiency (especially if it could be used the same round as Spellstrike and make the martial class wonder why they're around).
Except True Strike is a spell, which means it is inherently limited in how many times per day you'd get it. Even making it a focus spell would still result in you only getting the buff a couple times per combat.
Like, okay. A Magus gets his one True Strike in. The Martial wonders what they're even doing there. Next round, the Magus is out that spell and the Martial is still at the same efficiency. Heck, let's move it up to level 5, where the proficiency divergence either will or won't happen. The Magus with 2 slots per level now has 5 True Strikes, assuming that was prepared in every single one of their slots. I don't think the martial is going to be too jealous of the Magus getting 5 rounds of nova when THEY get their own scaling combat buffs like Rage, Sneak Attack, Divine Ally, and the like.
True strike also usually isn't a buff… it's usually better to attack twice than to attack once with true strike…
|
You can cast a lot of True Strike per day, especially when you start using a Staff of Divination (perhaps in a different form with better weapon traits, thanks to a Shifting rune). So yeah, any magus has to be balanced around the possibility that you have a lot of True Strike available.
A naive solution would be giving Spellstrike a fortune trait - perhaps justified, if you're substituting a much stronger melee weapon attack for a weaker spell attack. But then you wouldn't be able to use Hero Points on it either, and that wouldn't be right either for your main attack form.