Lack of Legandary

[Carey Stanley]

Unless I am missing something, both these classes join Alchemist as only classes that have no legendary in any of the following areas;
any attack
any save d/c
fortitude
will
reflex
perception or
A/C.
I think this is a mistake for the Alchemist and I think it is not wise for any base class for this to happen. Each class should have some area where they hit the top of the progression tree. It would be fine if for the Summoner it is for the eidolon in fact i would recommend that to change it from the druid. Also it is the classes standout feature. I think maybe the Magus should get a weapon group to legendary at 19, but I am not as set on that one.

[Vlorax]

There's no scenario where Magus should get legendary in weapons

[Tender Tendrils]

I suspect that being a hybrid between caster and martial is what deprives you of Legendary proficiency - That's just one of the trade-offs you make. The fighter is completely specialized into hitting things with a stick, so she gets to be legendary with said stick. The Wizard gets to be a legendary spellcaster because they are completely specialized into being a spellcaster.

The Magus does both things, so they don't do them as well.

Everyone gets very hung up on Legendary proficiency and seems to want Legendary proficiency in everything - it's not really necessary to have Legendary proficiency in things to be effective, and giving it to everyone would reduce the amount of ways to distinguish the classes from each other.

[Claxon]

Vlorax wrote:

There's no scenario where Magus should get legendary in weapons

Yeah, that spot should be strictly and privately reserved for the Fighter, and maybe some specific combat oriented archetype. And I really only say that because I'm unsure if there are any that currently exist. I actually think they should all stop at Master, but I could see leaving open a specific option for an archetype to grant legendary proficiency in a weapon (probably a weapon that would be really weak normally and the archetype gives you a bunch of stuff to fix that, like it has low damage die so the archetype boosts your accuracy to compensate).

[Martialmasters]

I agree with others. They don't need legendary proficiency to attack or ac.

[Voss]

Lack of legendary doesn't bother me at all.
Getting expert and master so very late, on the other hand... That's really bad.

[Dubious Scholar]

Martialmasters wrote:

I agree with others. They don't need legendary proficiency to attack or ac.

Eidolon AC may be an exception there, depending on the math at level 20. But that's the only place I can see it, and simply because it's the easiest way to handle "needs more AC" is bumping proficiency.

[Carey Stanley]

I understand that Attack may not be the answer since so far only full casters Fighters and Rouges get that, but i still think they need some aspect of legendary or maybe if not that a greater total number then normal.

If you give trained 1 point expert 2 master 3 and legendary 4 points in the stats other then skills that get improved during level progressions are the ones i listed before. Primary attack, primary D/C, A/C, Saves, and perception you get certain values that you can look at comparable worth. While this is not the only balancing value I think it is telling that Alchemist is lowest on this table at 20th level. and Magus especially is more on the lines of a true caster without getting full benefit from the true spell casting.

Summoner is harder to judge since there "primary" attack is obviously the eidolon's attack, but it does have 2 AC scores that are hard to account for. in my calculations. I have a full spreed sheet on it cause i know when you get a boost also matters in the math not just the end result. I just feel that without full casting they need more value in some of these areas.

[Claxon]

Carey Stanley wrote:

I understand that Attack may not be the answer since so far only full casters Fighters and Rouges get that, but i still think they need some aspect of legendary or maybe if not that a greater total number then normal.

Hol' up. Only fighters get legendary weapon proficiency.

So what are you talking about with casters, and rogues?

Now rogues do get more legendary skils. They also get legendary reflex saves, and perception.

Wizards get legendary spell attack rolls and spell DCs. Though I think every caster except the Cleric does this, and now the magus (and maybe summoner).

[Carey Stanley]

Level 20 Values if adding Saves, perception, primary attack, primary d/c, and A/C.
Alchemist 17
Barbarian 21
Bard 22
Champion 21
Cloistered Cleric 19
Druid 19
Fighter 20
Monk 22
Ranger 21
Rouge 21
Sorcerer 19
Wizard 20
Investigator 21
Oracle 20
Swashbuckler 22
Witch 19
Magus 19
Summoner 20 or 22
If you count both A/C of eidolon and Summoner it goes to 22. We are not talking huge differences but I think they matter and without full casting they should be granted a higher bonus in some area.

[Carey Stanley]

Sorry i had rouges down wrong. but all primary casters get legendary in spell attack and d/c which is their primary attack.

[Captain Morgan]

Carey Stanley wrote:

Sorry i had rouges down wrong. but all primary casters get legendary in spell attack and d/c which is their primary attack.

They also don't get item bonuses to that primary attack. They run off different math.

Part of the problem is there isn't really anything the Magus SHOULD be legendary in. They shouldn't be better with weapons than martials, and they shouldn't be better with spells than casters. Nor, thematically, is there any big reason for them excel at perception or a particular save above everyone else.

The Magus is a class defined by straddling the line between other classes and apes their schtick. That pretty means they can't be as good at either at one schtick and still be balanced.

People seem to get way too hung up on being able to fill in that legendary bubble, for some reason. This is like when someone complained they couldn't get Bards legendary in rapiers. Bards!

[Squiggit]

The lack of legendary in attacks isn't a problem because Master in attack is the standard. Legendary in weapons is effectively a fighter class feature, rather than normal proficiency.

The lack of legendary in spells is a bigger deal because Legendary is the standard for spells and lagging behind on your spell-attack accuracy is a pretty big deal for a class that's supposed to be attacking with spells as a central component of their character concept.

[TheCalicoKid]

I think they should get legendary on Spell Attack Rolls; especially if they need to hit with the weapon AND the spell attack roll when using spellstrike. Either that or allow the weapon's Potency runes to also work on their spell attack rolls when making a spellstrike. Note just in case someone misreads this: Just the potency runes. Not the striking runes or any others. Just the runes that +1,+2, or +3 to hit.

Either of these changes will help offset the swingy nature of dice without eliminating it, helps prevent the 1 hit double crit problem they seem to be trying to avoid while still making the double crit a possibility, and also helps with the problem of how spell attack rolls fall off at later levels since enemies' AC values are calculated with the assumption that the party's martial characters have potency runes and spell attacks have no access to anything like those (or at least as far as I'm aware).

[Darksol the Painbringer]

That would be a fair compromise, since you are indeed using a melee weapon (with a potency rune) to deliver the spell. It's not much different than using a weapon to perform an Athletics activity like Trip or Shove.

[TiwazBlackhand]

Based on my own unspecified weighted scoring system, I have now ranked all the classes (including breaking Cleric out into Cloistered and War Priest, and ranking the Eidolon as if it were it's own class) in a definitive and incontestable order of quality.

From best to worst:

Investigator
Fighter
Ranger
Rouge
Barbarian
Champion
Monk
Swashbuckler
Bard
Magus
Oracle
Alchemist
Eidolan
Druid
Cleric (caster)
Cleric (WarPr)
Witch
Wizard
Summoner
Sorcerer

So we clearly see that the Eidolon BY ITSELF is better than most of the Pure Casters, that Magus is better than Alchemist or Druid, and that I have NO CLUE what I'm doing and have basically just wasted two hours fiddling with a meaningless excel sheet.

Enjoy!

[Orithilaen]

Does the warpriest get legendary in anything?

[PossibleCabbage]

Legendary should really be reserved for "you are a specialist in this field."

Neither the "You do swords and magic" or "you bring a spirit buddy to fights with you" classes are specialists.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Nope.

But I am disappointed that classes don't at least get Legendary in their Class DC proficiency, though. Even as a level 20 feat to bump it up to Legendary would be fair.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like we're not going to get legendary in class DC until there's a "focus spell specialist" class (like the Occultist maybe?)

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Legendary should really be reserved for "you are a specialist in this field."

Neither the "You do swords and magic" or "you bring a spirit buddy to fights with you" classes are specialists.

If a class whose core, central, defining class feature is built around landing spell attacks isn't a specialist, then literally nobody is.

All issues of what you feel is appropriate though, the game's math doesn't really change. We know what the baseline caster math is (because we can see the proficiency progression casters use) and lagging behind on that math means the Magus' accuracy and as a result fundamental playability suffers.