I'm wanting to make a Kensai that uses a halberd as her weapon of choice. Seeing as how this kinda of makes Spell Combat kinda useless, I was wondering if it would be fair to remove Spell Combat to get rid of the Diminished Spellcasting restriction (which was honestly the only thing that I didn't like about the Kensai)?
I'm especially worried about the fairness as this will actually be my GMPC and I don't want her to be overpowered to where she overshadows the actual PCs. Thanks for any feedback. :)
My question to you would be: Why does it need to be a Magus in the first place?
Why not, say, a buffbot Cleric with a Halberd? Little chance of that overshadowing the party, and it gets to use a Halberd, and all around be a better choice for a GMPC than the combat caster class the Magus is.
If you don't mind me asking, why are you making a GMPC in the first place? They are almost always a bad idea and their role as a supportive party member is easily replaced by organic NPC integration.
@Rynjin
Honestly a flavor thing, though I was going to drop whatever character I wanted and make a Cleric if nobody else made some healer, but I think one of my friends is interested in trying a Cleric.
@Blakmane
I am well aware of the negative outlook many have on GMPCs, hell the main reason I haven't gotten around to GMing until now despite wanting wanting to play is because as much as I love world building and the like, I prefer to be the player so I can make a character and level them up.
However, it would appear that the only way I'll be able to play is if I GM myself, and honestly, I just one day a short while ago said, "**** it, I'm just going to make a character too, everybody that will be in the group is a novice player at best, so it shouldn't be too bad if I join in as well."
I'm wanting to make a Kensai that uses a halberd as her weapon of choice. Seeing as how this kinda of makes Spell Combat kinda useless, I was wondering if it would be fair to remove Spell Combat to get rid of the Diminished Spellcasting restriction (which was honestly the only thing that I didn't like about the Kensai)?
I'm especially worried about the fairness as this will actually be my GMPC and I don't want her to be overpowered to where she overshadows the actual PCs. Thanks for any feedback. :)
Depends on how you play the character.
I gave my players a GM NPC for two reasons:
1) Its nice to give the players a mascot / support character who can point them in the right direction if they're looking for clues miles away from civilization.
2) Players get VERY annoyed when you try to place a non-combative NPC in their party. Most players I've gamed with do not want to be responsible for someone who can't carry their weight. (I tried this once with a teenage paladin-in-training. He was the PC's level and was a decent healer in a pinch, but he couldn't hold himself well in a fight and so overall the party hated him because of his perceived uselessness.)
Now, my GM NPC is a switch-hitter. Smack'em with a bow and then smack'em with a sword. I was a little worried about how this would play out considering that the build I went with is pretty strong, but my players enjoy it, even in that rare situation where he's doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Why? Because Pathfinder is a team sport, and a well integrated GM NPC is just another teammate to the players.
Personally, I don't recommend spellcasters (especially magi) because of their versatility. Your players might get too reliant on you. Also, don't go rogue or your players might ask you to scout out your own encounters, which is awkward. A nice, numeric fighter is usually a safer bet.
Thank you for the advice Alexander. I'll actually take that into consideration.
However, to get off the topic of the morality of GMPCs, would anybody be willing to give me any advice on whether taking out Spell Combat in order to remove the Diminished Spellcasting restriction is a fair deal? Even if I save this character for use when somebody else (hopefully) does some GMing, I'd like to know going in that it sounds fair.
What level is the party at btw? I was under the impression the lack of armor proficiency can be a serious problem at the first few levels.
no- replacing spell combat with regular casting progression is not fair/balanced. the restriction on only using spell combat with a light or one handed weapon is there for balance- it limits how much damage you can do in a round... if you choose to do more damage than that (by using a 2 handed weapon) then trading that ability for another ability is just giving yourself extra bonuses...
i don't object to GMPCs, but don't go messing with classes/archetypes. it opens things up for players to feel like you're just giving yourself free bonuses (which, honestly, in this case you kind of would be), and it sets a precedent- "why can't i change my class, you changed yours?"
@The Shaman
I'm planning on using the free 1st level module with the Blackscour taint. I figured it would be a good way to have multiple elements to a game and see what my friends like and don't like, as well as give me a general setting that I can attach to anything I'd do later.
*edit*
As for the issue of armor proficiency, I remember reading that it can be a little harsh at first where you don't get much help to you AC aside from a (maybe) 1 point bonus from Canny Defense and whatever bonus Dex you may have. That being said, I'm not a min-maxer, never have been, never will be. This character is actually mainly flavor. I wanted a lightly to no armored warrior that used magic and might around equally. I happened across the Kensai and was happy as happy could be. :p
@Rod Millard & Nate Lange
Thank you both for answering my question. I was hoping for a unanimous yes or no, so I would know whether to skip it or give it more thought, but I suppose the idea having conflicting opinions from others is a good sign that I was right to inquire about the balance of the option.
If either of you don't mind, would you care to elaborate further as to why you feel as you do? If I don't get an answer I'll just take the safe route and not make the change (GMPC or regular PC if somebody else takes up the GM mantle for a while).
I will, of course, appreciate any more feed back from anybody here, but I ask that we drop the GMPC debate. To clarify on my own opinions, I'm actually wary of GMPC's as well, but since I haven't gotten to tabletop RP since probably '06-'07ish, I felt it wasn't too unfair to be able to make a character to tag along as well. But that's not the point of this thread, I just wanted to know what others felt about that change, and I will probably just ignore any further GMPC debate unless there is a legitimate point made that I would want to point out.
Again, thank you in advance. :)
Magus without spell combat would be underpowered imo. If your using third party you could use Enruned Great Weapon and its big brother. Not sure how powerful those two feats are however.
|
Hopefully, the magus will finally get a 2hw archetype in the upcoming ACG due out at gencon 14.
I am really iffy on the question. Cutting out the spell combat would cut down their nova ability which would decrease overall damage, even after 2hw bonuses. On the other hand, you could still spell strike every action when you have more spells per day. I hate spell combat be aide of the -2 on attacks on a class that is already 3/4 bab and had to.spend points on int, meaning less str/dex/con. I would jump all over that trade in but I am still not sure I'd it would be fair.
sure, i'll elaborate- spell combat is designed to give the magus an interesting way to up their damage besides just loading bonuses onto their melee attacks (like a fighter) or str (like a barb, alchemist, or druid); its limited to a 1handed weapon to keep the class' overall damage output from surpassing something like a fighter.
2nd level magus uses spell combat to attack with a longsword and then cast arcane mark; spellstrike lets him make a 2nd longsword attack to deliver it. for the sake of comparison we'll assume str build magus, so still 18 str- still use power attack, but not enough feats for furious focus: 2 attacks go off at +2 for 1d8+6 (avg 21, but 20% less likely to hit... so we'll call it 16). so the two's avg dpr is very similar
if the magus could use it with a 2hander it would match the fighter's damage per attack, but get 2/round with a 15-20% lower hit rate (a net dpr boost of about 60%!) and those numbers aren't even taking into account the rounds where you decide to cast a real spell (or up your enhancement bonus with arcane points)
because the limitation exists in order to limit the class, your choice to forfeit the use of that ability in exchange for a higher damage output combat style has already rebalanced the class. at this pointing giving up the ability that you can't use because of the superior combat style you've chosen in order to gain a new/better power is really just giving yourself something for free. it would be like a monk deciding to wear armor and then asking if they can trade the ability to add their Wis to AC for some extra/improved ability. i'm not shouting that, i just wanted to emphasize it because its sort of the main point and its hidden at the bottom of a mini-wall of text.
hope that's helpful. if you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.
edit: and in the interest of full disclosure, and to demonstrate my experience in the matter, I am currently playing a multiclass kensai who fights with a tetsubo. i have a battle axe (mostly in case of grease) but have never even been tempted to use it for spell combat because my damage output is so good with the tetsubo (though it is kind of nice knowing i have the option if need be some round).
You aren't saying a 3/4 BAB class without buffs is actually on par with a barbarian as long as he uses a 2 hand are you Nate? I'm not sure if I could honestly say that its been rebalanced.
no- i'm saying that a magus who chooses to fight with a 2-handed weapon (and is properly built to do so, and taking advantage of their buffs and whatnot) should be competitive enough with a fighter or barbarian that you don't need to start throwing new powers at them. i know that the nova damage won't be as high as it could be with spell combat, but (like i said) this is like a monk choosing to wear armor to be tougher and then wanting new abilities to make up for the ones they've chosen to be unable to use...
edit: remember, too, that you can still use spellstrike with a 2 hander, so anytime you have to move the 2hand magus actually has a damage advantage over a fighter or (non-pouncing) barb!
If you really want to play the character like that, just give the other PCs a boon to give them a minor boost in power, just to be *sure* you're being fair. And don't min-max the NPC to death, either. Just make a reasonably good character. If you catch yourself overshadowing the real PCs, it's time for some sort of change.
There is a 3rd party product from super genius games, Ultimate Options New Magus Arcana. It has an arcana that would allow you to weild a 2handed weapon while using spell combat. It costs an arcane pool point and is relatively short duration, but it at least makes it functional.
Personally I wouldnt remove spell combat from the magus because that it it's key feature. Its the point of the class. If you take that out, I dont see the point of the magus at all.
no- i'm saying that a magus who chooses to fight with a 2-handed weapon (and is properly built to do so, and taking advantage of their buffs and whatnot) should be competitive enough with a fighter or barbarian that you don't need to start throwing new powers at them.
No. Just no. Especially not with a halberd. Its not the best to hit and you don't get iteratives. You also lose the magus pounce and enjoying a large crit range. At best you'll just be tacking on your two handed swings to your touch attacks, but it'll be against full AC instead of touch so that's kind of a bum deal, especially with 3/4 BAB. You won't get the additional attack you would normally get from spell strike/spell combat unless you use a quickened spell.
no- i'm saying that a magus who chooses to fight with a 2-handed weapon (and is properly built to do so, and taking advantage of their buffs and whatnot) should be competitive enough with a fighter or barbarian that you don't need to start throwing new powers at them.No. Just no. Especially not with a halberd. Its not the best to hit and you don't get iteratives. You also lose the magus pounce and enjoying a large crit range. At best you'll just be tacking on your two handed swings to your touch attacks, but it'll be against full AC instead of touch so that's kind of a bum deal, especially with 3/4 BAB. You won't get the additional attack you would normally get from spell strike/spell combat unless you use a quickened spell.
Seconded. No rage, no weapon training, 3/4 BAB meaning less attacks and a lower damage bonus on Power Attacks. He may do slightly more damage on a turn where he moves than a Barbarian or Fighter focused on full attacks (provided he casts) but given that Spellstrike is incompatible with things like Vital Strike he'll do less than either of those classes would if focused on mobility.
On top of that using a Halberd means going with a strength focus which given the Kensai's lack of armour... I'd be less worried about the party getting annoyed about this GMPC overshadowing them, and more worried about them getting fed up with rez costs.
this particular PC's choice of weapon shouldn't be the deciding factor- the question is whether or not its fair/balanced to switch out spell combat just because he chose to use a weapon that's incompatible with the power. the answer is obviously no.
and, as i said, "a magus who chooses to fight with a 2-handed weapon and is properly built to do so... should be competitive enough..." i didn't say better, i said close enough they don't need bonus powers (you're obviously giving up some damage output for the better skills and out of combat flexibility). a kensai with a fauchard (that he gets free EWP for), for example, would have the same crit range as any fighter and, yes, he'll miss out on one iterative attack but spells like the monstrous physique chain (and transformation, which can actually be stacked with them) will keep him from trailing too far behind the fighter or barb. in terms of vital strike vs. spell combat, i'm sorry but you're way off- you could argue that its not sustainable (because you can vital strike all day but you'll eventually run out of spells...) but spell combat absolutely out paces vital strike
imp. vital strike at 11th- nets you +4d6 normally (as much as 8d6 with aforementioned buffs), intensified shocking grasp is +10d6 (and costs one feat, with other uses, instead of two)
anyways, this is devolving into a discussion of the merits of the magus class- that's not what its supposed to be. the issue here is should PCs be allowed to take a power to replace one that they chose not to use in order to gain the benefits of better weapons/armor/whatever. i've made my position clear and will leave it to others to do the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice is if you really must make a character for yourself, do not bend the rules at all. Your friendly NPC should be bound by the letter of the law at the very least. With players, it's ok to break rules so their character can work, but that's because the decision to break the rule has been made by an impartial referee.
I'd also advise creating a character built to support the others, not a powerful damage class. If your magus is even half decent, you'll be setting up bosses and then killing them.
a halfling bard focused on party buffs and using the aid other action can really help out a group- gives you a presence/voice (adventure hook) in the party, plenty of things to do during combat that are actually useful but certainly don't overshadow the PCs, and there's a bunch of options for how to play him (timid, out of place bilbo baggins type; super friendly, thoroughly helpful, nice guy; sarcastic smartass; napolean-complex braggard who helps others succeed and then takes credit for the whole thing...)
@Rod Millard
No worries bud, it wasn't your fault at all. I tripped that landmine when I mentioned that this was going to be a GMPC. Funny thing is, I pointed that out only in hopes that it would explain that I wasn't particularly trying to make a powerful character, and would also deter the min-maxers. I play all games for fun and flavor. I don't care about things like which weapon is technically better for this character, or what the most effective spell choice will be. I'm usually pretty good at getting my character concepts in games to be viable.
@Nate Lange
Thanks for taking the time to explain everything so well. After reading your post I've concluded that you are right in this regard. I can understand some of the supporting arguments when they bring up how limited some aspects of the archetype are, however, that isn't the problem of the game. I made a choice to go for a weapon that isn't necessarily meant to be in the Kensai arsenal, and as such, have to deal with the consequences.
Thanks again to everybody who posted in this thread. While I've RP'ed since around '05ish, I rarely have a chance to play, so despite how many years it has been, I have only gotten to play a handful of times, and balancing issues are something I'm still not entirely sure on.