| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I know back in the pathfinder 1e days, the magus was considered an arcane caster, but given how sorcerers, witches, and the bew summoner broke out of this mold in 2e by getting to choose their casting list, I have to wonder why the magus is still locked in to being arcane only.
The concept of a magic knight in fiction and character concepts is not limited to "wizardly" magic, and a lot previous character options from 1e can be replicated well by a magus with different list. Playing something like the puppetmaster would really be best done with the occult list, and someone looking to get the feel of the hexcrafter might also enjoy occult magic. Someone seeking the feel of the elemental knight and nature bonded magus would definitely be benefitted by having the ability to choose the primal list. And for those of us (like myself) who really enjoyed the playstyle of the 1e warpriest, holy vindicator, or simply desire a more magically inclined champion could achieve that with a divine list magus.
Imo, it was a huge win for character concept variety and flavor to decouple the sorcerer, witch, and summoner from specific lists in favor of allowing them to access a list the messes best with their concept, and I think the same is true for the magus
Because it's a playtest, I assume. We'll likely get archetypes later down the line.
I don’t really see a magus getting access to healing in-class. They already straddle the caster/martial roles.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The lore of the Magus is basically a wizard who split his time between learning magic and hitting things.
Wizards are arcane. Ergo Magus
Because it's cool for some classes, but not for all of them.
About Magus specifically, their defining class feature is Spell Strike, and it wouldn't work as well with, say, the Divine spells. Also, they probably wanted to keep the spellbook, and spellbook smells Arcane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's cool for some classes, but not for all of them.
About Magus specifically, their defining class feature is Spell Strike, and it wouldn't work as well with, say, the Divine spells. Also, they probably wanted to keep the spellbook, and spellbook smells Arcane.
Spellstrike would work great with heal/harm just off the top of my head. The divine list is filled with buffs that are also really good for combat. A magus who spellstrikes with heal/harm/daze/divine lance and boosts with heroism and the like sounds just fine for a divine magus
Spellbooks aren't even inherently arcane; the bard can get an occult spellbook, and not seeing how a theurgist studying scripture to get battle magic, or an elementalist studying primal magic through a book or scroll seems kind of short sighted
In addition to Magus basically representing a wizard who preferred the battlefield to books, the class really lacks a thematic justification as to why they should get to pick a list.
Sorcerers have a bloodline originating from a magical creature of potentially any tradition.
Witches have a pact with a Patron, which can also be a magical creature of potentially any tradition.
Even Summoners have a link to their Eidolon, which again represents a magical creature of potentially any tradition.
The Magus doesn't really have anything linking them to a concept that touches on every magical tradition - they just study magic like a wizard, which is also limited to arcane. I originally supported the idea of Magus as an archetype rather than a class partially because of this, since an archetype could add onto any tradition of caster class - but a standalone class really needs a justification if they're going to choose their casting tradition.
Also, they probably wanted to keep the spellbook, and spellbook smells Arcane.
Please be careful with your spellbooks when they start to smell arcane. There many be more going on with your spellbook at that point than just being a repository for the spells you know and the risk of preparation injuries increases significantly at the point the book can start casting its own spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the game needs less 'Just pick a spell list' classes. I'm quite happy that Magus is an arcane caster.
Agreed. I firmly believe that making too many classes "pick a list" is a grave mistake, and will result in a lot of unintended consequences. Only a select few classes should have it, and only with a LOT of work put into making the list choice suit the selected class path.
Call me the old woman shaking a stick and yelling about doom, but I swear it's a bad idea.
Now, class archetypes that change things up are fine, because it gives the designers the ability to make the different options feel distinct, and support the pros and cons of each list better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually kind of agree they should be pick a list, though I worry about having too many pick a list classes. Like, it absolutely feels right that the ready made gish should be multiple lists to cover as broad a space as possible.
I guess really they should do it this time, to bring the number up to four total and then stop? (Sorcerer/Witch/Magus/Summoner)
I dunno, maybe its ok to have spell list chiefly be something that is picked somewhere under class, but then make the classes that are one list get the most support for actually using the strengths of the list? Cleric font is a good example of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are far too past the point for a different "pick your build type" mechanic.
The current magus has already been developed around the style that you use with your weapons. It has focused on the martial aspect of the class to define the broad categories of builds.
While there are cool things that 'could' be done with a different spell list... the archetypal magus is still going to be the 'shocking grasp' style magus focused on heightening a useful spell. Paizo valued different ways to benefit that playstyle- different weapons to use to smash that spell into the enemy's face. Admittedly, the 2 handed style needs work, but the one handed and ranged styles function well enough.
Having two "pick your build" mechanics (as in having both a 'blood line' and a 'racket') would take up a lot of design space, and you will only pick one 'bloodline' while the desginers would ahve to add in a dozen options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are far too past the point for a different "pick your build type" mechanic.
The current magus has already been developed around the style that you use with your weapons. It has focused on the martial aspect of the class to define the broad categories of builds.
While there are cool things that 'could' be done with a different spell list... the archetypal magus is still going to be the 'shocking grasp' style magus focused on heightening a useful spell. Paizo valued different ways to benefit that playstyle- different weapons to use to smash that spell into the enemy's face. Admittedly, the 2 handed style needs work, but the one handed and ranged styles function well enough.
Having two "pick your build" mechanics (as in having both a 'blood line' and a 'racket') would take up a lot of design space, and you will only pick one 'bloodline' while the desginers would ahve to add in a dozen options.
We've been told time and time again that the playtest matters and that major reworks arent out of the question if there's a will in the community for something very different than this draft. So this isn't really accurate at all, though i have no idea what the feedback is actually telling them needs to be done in aggregate.
We've been told time and time again that the playtest matters and that major reworks arent out of the question if there's a will in the community for something very different than this draft. So this isn't really accurate at all, though i have no idea what the feedback is actually telling them needs to be done in aggregate.
Not out of the question, but at that point, you are practically throwing out the entire class other than spell strike (and many would have the current version of that throw out too), including a large core of the feats relating to the three weapon styles.
I think they "could" do it. But it seems like pulling teeth at this point.
We've been told time and time again that the playtest matters and that major reworks arent out of the question if there's a will in the community for something very different than this draft. So this isn't really accurate at all, though i have no idea what the feedback is actually telling them needs to be done in aggregate.Not out of the question, but at that point, you are practically throwing out the entire class other than spell strike (and many would have the current version of that throw out too), including a large core of the feats relating to the three weapon styles.
I think they "could" do it. But it seems like pulling teeth at this point.
The class isn't exactly in great shape, the feedback I've seen seem to agree spell slots and spell strike, and 2/3 synthesis need work. Thats almost everything to begin with.
I think player uncertainty right now makes sense because we don't really know if class archetypes are something that is definitely going to happen yet, or what they will look like if they do. The frame work is laid for them, but it is a little surprising they didn't show up in the APG, which means if they do happen they are either going to be introduced piece meal over the course of many different books, which could be really weird, or they are still several years down the pipeline.
In that state, I get why their feels the need to push for every new caster class to have a pick list of spells, because PF1 had class archetypes for just about every possible combination there was, and a class like the magus is either going to have to have its spell strike feature available through MCing, (Which will present a lot of its own challenges depending entirely on what direction they go with it. It'd be beyond useless on any full caster right now, since weapon proficiency is the key proficiency of the ability), or else have a specific archetype designed around giving different casters a similar ability but not one so dependent upon weapon accuracy.
All that said, in a game with class definition, I want the class lore to be meaningful and "Divine Magi" is a massive problem as far as fitting in around champions and war priests, even though Harm would be the number one spell of most striking spell magi if they could have full access to it. But hopefully new spells that are built from the ground up to be good for striking spell is something that we should be able to reasonably expect from secrets of magic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of PF2's design goals is not invalidating older options with new options. If you want to be an armor-wearing, weapon wielding divine caster, there's already the Warpriest Doctrine. A Divine Magus would be just as good at spellcasting while simultaneously being better with weapons. Yeah, they may not have as many spell slots, but the better weapon proficiencies would more than make up for it, which is why you'd want to be a Warpriest. Few people would want to play a Warpriest Doctrine Cleric again - if full-level spellcasting was that important, they'd just make a Cloistered Cleric, since the Cloistered Cleric has better spellcasting proficiency.
For a Primal Magus, most of the elemental options on the Primal list are also available on the Arcane list, and the Magus could easily train Nature and Survival. Call yourself a Nature Warrior, and flavor-wise no one needs to know you don't use the Primal spell list.
As others have said, spellbooks are predominantly associated with arcane spellcasting. The bard's occult spellbook is only an option if you choose the Polymath muse and take the feat for it. The flavor of the Divine spell list is based around the idea that you pray for your spells each day - technically a Cleric knows every spell at once and can just pray for different ones as they like. Druids and the primal list have much the same flavor, except framed as communing with nature as opposed to praying to a deity. The only class that has a required spellbook is...the Wizard, who is an Arcane only spellcaster.
I also think there's a symmetry that Paizo is observing for spellcasting classes. Namely, they plan to create a Prepared, Spontaneous, and Limited (Magus casting) version for each tradition. They've already checked all three boxes for choose-your-own spell list: Witch (prepared), Sorcerer (spontaneous), and Summoner (limited). The Magus fills the Arcane limited option, while leaving room open for a spontaneous Arcane caster of some variety (perhaps the Arcanist?).
I don't think a...
I'm not sure if I agree that a divine Magus would invalidate a War Priest. As you said, War Priest get significantly more slots, which is a huge boon. That's 1 more than the Magus of their top 2 spell levels, plus 3 for each lower spell level, which the Magus doesn't even access to. Plus clerics get Divine Font for some free Heals/Harms. That's wayyyy more casting potential than Magus.
Being a gish is a spectrum with full casters on one side and martials on the other. Magus fall more towards martials while war priests fall more towards casters. I don't think one invalidates the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I can get why people like the flavor of half wizard, half fighter, but the design principle of the game seems to favor making the classes more broadly defined and focused through feats and archetypes. You dont actually lose the flavor of a student of both the arcane arts and blade if you allow the magus to pick their tradition, but you do lose countless concept options by not allowing them to pick their tradition.
Now, it's true the arcane list has a lot of the elemental blasts the primal list has, or the mind affecting illusions and enchantments the occult list has, but my arcane list using nature bonded magus still can't use the more plant, animal and nature themed exclusive in the primal list, like entangle or wall of thorns, nor can they cast heal and other positive energy spells. Likewise, the arcane list doesn't have neat spells like phantom pain, synesthesia, or heroism.
If you want to refute my statement about 1e warpriests by pointing at the 2e cleric doctrine by the same name, then why was there such a clamor for the magus to return when wizard could always simply multiclass into fighter. The 2e warpriest doesn't fit the niche of the original; which isn't to say it's bad, but it doesn't scratch the same itch.
The strength of 2e is it's modular setup to give us a toolkit we can use to define a wide range of character concepts (magic wielding warrior), and capture more specific flavor notes (battle wizard) through our character progression choices.
And, as a quick inb4 it comes up, multiclassing is a thing, but non arcane casters would have to use a casting class chassis, and therefore be stuck at expert weapons, so that's not really a choice, and likewise, the magus dipping into another class is still arcane first, other list second
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the design principle of the game seems to favor making the classes more broadly defined and focused through feats and archetypes.
Is that really true? Fighters are broadly defined and can use their feats to focus an idea, but other than that? Bards, Barbarians, Champions, Clerics, Druids, Investigators, Monks, Oracles, Rangers and Swashbucklers all seem to have some fairly specific expectations about what they're supposed to represent conceptually and mechanically.
Even classes with built in variation often have that variation defined on narrow terms: Ruffians and Thieves can look pretty different, but both have rules and mechanics in place that nudge them in specific directions, which makes it less of a broad chassis that you can narrow down and more like two specialized offerings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a class can really only support one class path in my opinion. I'd much rather it be something playstyle-defining like Synthesis than merely a pick-a-list.
but the design principle of the game seems to favor making the classes more broadly defined and focused through feats and archetypes.Is that really true? Fighters are broadly defined and can use their feats to focus an idea, but other than that? Bards, Barbarians, Champions, Clerics, Druids, Investigators, Monks, Oracles, Rangers and Swashbucklers all seem to have some fairly specific expectations about what they're supposed to represent conceptually and mechanically.
Even classes with built in variation often have that variation defined on narrow terms: Ruffians and Thieves can look pretty different, but both have rules and mechanics in place that nudge them in specific directions, which makes it less of a broad chassis that you can narrow down and more like two specialized offerings.
Agreed. I come from 5e so my perception might be off, but to me, for 5e WotC tends to design classes that encompass broad themes and concepts, which leads them to almost never introducing new classes. Meanwhile, Paizo tends to make new classes more frequently as their class philosophy is more narrow. Swashbuckler and Investigator are good examples of this difference. In 5e, these are rogue subclasses. In Pathfinder 2e, there are new classes with unique mechanics that differentiate them from Rogues.
Multiclassing is here to cover broader stuff, same with archetypes.
Though variety should be within the class with feats and stuff. A ranger is still a ranger, wether they use a bow, swords or an animal companion, they will always hunt their prey to trigger their edge and mostly focus on dealing with one target at a time. They just have a lot of different ways to do it within the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the design principle of the game seems to favor making the classes more broadly defined and focused through feats and archetypes.Is that really true? Fighters are broadly defined and can use their feats to focus an idea, but other than that? Bards, Barbarians, Champions, Clerics, Druids, Investigators, Monks, Oracles, Rangers and Swashbucklers all seem to have some fairly specific expectations about what they're supposed to represent conceptually and mechanically.
Actually yes, it is true. The bard chassis by default only gives you two composition spells and occult spellcasting; you can fine tune whether you're a performer with magical music, an esoteric scholar, the commander of an army, a magic wielding scoundrel, or any number of other takes by picking your muse and feats. Each barbarian instinct gives you a different approach to battle, allowing for concepts ranging from Conan, a lycanthrope learning to harness their curse, a dragon cultist, or countless other ideas. I could go in depth on each of those classes on how the base chassis of the class represents just base, general ideas, and how you get specific flavors through your feat selections and the like.
For GM OfAnything, I'm not asking for the removal of synthesis; I'm asking for a choice in addition to synthesis. Synthesis options are probably my favorite part of the new magus, because it allows for more character concepts for the class besides "one handed weapon, no shield caster mage"
For GM OfAnything, I'm not asking for the removal of synthesis; I'm asking for a choice in addition to synthesis. Synthesis options are probably my favorite part of the new magus, because it allows for more character concepts for the class besides "one handed weapon, no shield caster mage"
I know what you are asking for. I’m telling you that it is exceedingly unlikely for a class to have two class paths.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t know, while I like the Syntheses, I am not sure they wouldn’t be better implemented as Stances. While they have interesting effects, thry don’t scream subclass enough. Maybe use the vacant design space for more thematic choices, such as wether one would like to be a more castery, a more dexterous magus etc and then move the Syntheses to 1st and 2nd level feat-stances...
GM OfAnything: Maybe, but that doesn't make it impossible, or even unreasonable. The wizard, after, makes two choices (thesis and school), so it's not even unprecedented
Richlenvh: an interesting thought! It could also allow for some mixing and matching like bard muses or druid orders