It's not nearly as rough if you use defensive spells like Shield and Mirror Image.
That's burning actions in combat that you want to use to be burning the bad guys. It's the theoretical buffers dilemna i see all the time
Self Buffing character "Alright, I cast this defenseive spell, this one to power up, this one so I'm faster and...."
Bob The barbarian "Hey Buffy, you want this +1 sword the dead orc dropped? We're looting here"
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Self Buffing character "Alright, I cast this defenseive spell, this one to power up, this one so I'm faster and...."
Bob The barbarian "Hey Buffy, you want this +1 sword the dead orc dropped? We're looting here"
Magus: let's do both! Swift action to make my sword flaming and shocking, spell combat for Mirror Image to defend myself, 5'-step up to enemy, attack twice.
Or conversely: swift action for a defensive buff (e.g. Spell Shield, or arcane bloodline), spell combat for Frostbite, 5'-step up, attack three times.
That's the beauty of spell combat: you don't have to choose whether to buff or attack, you do both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's burning actions in combat that you want to use to be burning the bad guys. It's the theoretical buffers dilemna i see all the time
It sounds like you haven't actually played a magus before. It doesn't matter if you are strength or dexterity based, there are plenty of cases where casting some non-attack spells is just the superior strategy. And these cases happen most adventuring days.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you haven't actually played a magus before. It doesn't matter if you are strength or dexterity based, there are plenty of cases where casting some non-attack spells is just the superior strategy. And these cases happen most adventuring days.
Yep. He also appears to have missed that some spells can be cast well before combat starts and thus don't "burn" any actions. Like, it's pretty normal to start your day with Defending Bone and Protection from Arrows (and at higher levels, Overland Flight), or to have minute-per-level spells last all through the next combat.
That's the beauty of spell combat: you don't have to choose whether to buff or attack, you do both.
You're still picking attack attack buff vs attack attack ATTAAAAACK.
The dead condition is a heck of a debuff.
Yep. He also appears to have missed that some spells can be cast well before combat starts and thus don't "burn" any actions. Like, it's pretty normal to start your day with Defending Bone and Protection from Arrows (and at higher levels, Overland Flight), or to have minute-per-level spells last all through the next combat.
Among other characters I've had two brown furred transmuters go from levels 1 to 13/15. The PFS version went through the high level hard mode gallowspire. So your assertion that I have somehow "missed" that buffs can be pre cast is objectively wrong. Both of your examples were spells that generally have to be cast in combat to be effective, and magusflurry or not, are taking the place of a powerful offensive spell in both your action economy and your spell prep.
Minute per level spells staying active for more than one fight is very adventure and DM dependent. It's not something I would rely on.
I don't think I've seen protection from arrows used. By the time you're casting it the enemies will have +1 bows (Edit: the faq didn't change this part Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction - yup. protection from arrows is not going to get very far)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you haven't actually played a magus before. It doesn't matter if you are strength or dexterity based, there are plenty of cases where casting some non-attack spells is just the superior strategy. And these cases happen most adventuring days.Yep. He also appears to have missed that some spells can be cast well before combat starts and thus don't "burn" any actions. Like, it's pretty normal to start your day with Defending Bone and Protection from Arrows (and at higher levels, Overland Flight), or to have minute-per-level spells last all through the next combat.
Rods of lesser extend are fairly cheap too. My archeologist rarely didn't have extended heroism up, for example
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both of your examples were spells that generally have to be cast in combat to be effective, and magusflurry or not, are taking the place of a powerful offensive spell in both your action economy and your spell prep.
So what's your point exactly? If you invest spells or feats or whatnot in defense then you have less spells or feats left to invest in offense? Yes, that's what it means to have options :P
I don't think I've seen protection from arrows used.
Good for you. I have, in fact, seen that spell used. That certain players have used that spell is objectively true. Again, I'm wondering what your point is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the beauty of spell combat: you don't have to choose whether to buff or attack, you do both.
You're still picking attack attack buff vs attack attack ATTAAAAACK.
The dead condition is a heck of a debuff.
I think this is the problem with the disconnect here.
Action Economy is a huge factor in this game, and so getting off 2 attacks makes a big difference compared to 1 attack and 1 buff. However this is missing the nuance of what action economy actually means. Action Economy is not simply maximizing your own actions, its maximizing your actions relative to your opponent's actions.
Lets say you have 4 PCs vs 4 enemies. Each PC automatically hits once each turn and deals 1/3 of an enemy's health.
- Round 1: Your PCs kill 1 enemy and deal 1/3 damage to another. Then the enemies go and get 3 attacks against you.
- Round 2: Your PCs finish off the injured enemy and deal 2/3 damage to another enemy. Then the enemies go and deal another 2 attacks against the PCs
- Round 3: Your PCs finish off the injured enemy and then kill the final enemy.
Total: 3 rounds, the enemy got 5 attacks against the party.
But what happens if one of our PCs decides to use their turn to somehow negate an enemy attack instead of deal damage? Just as the other PCs automatically hit and deal damage, this PC automatically hits but does zero damage, instead dazing that enemy for 1 round after which that enemy becomes immune to the daze ...
- Round 1: You daze 1 enemy and the other PCs kill 1 enemy. Then the remaining enemies attack your party twice.
- Round 2: You daze another enemy and the other PCs kill the enemy you dazed the previous round. Then the last enemy with actions attacks your party.
- Round 3: You daze another enemy and your party finishes off the enemy you dazed the previous turn. There is 1 enemy left, but since they're dazed they can' attack.
- Round 4: Your party wipes out the final enemy.
Total: 4 rounds, the enemy got 3 attacks against ththe party. Even though this took longer the ratio of PC actions to enemy actions was much better.
Now I know what you're going to say: This is a random hypothetical situation and has nothing to do with actual play. Well think about what Bladed Dash does when you use it to move away from an enemy. You get a full attack plus a bonus attack from the spell, and then you leave the enemy's threatened area forcing them to use up actions moving toward you. This is exactly the same principal as the scenario I described above. Likewise your Shocking Grasp Magus could move up and attack, or you could use your first round casting a defensive spell or a debuff which negates 20% of the enemies' attacks against you, thus improving your action-economy comparative to the enemy. This is how you actually make the most of action economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both of your examples were spells that generally have to be cast in combat to be effective, and magusflurry or not, are taking the place of a powerful offensive spell in both your action economy and your spell prep.
The reality of combat is that there is no generalized, one-size-fits-all solution. Spell Combat exists precisely because different situations will require different solutions, and it provides the Magus the versatility necessary for them. Spell Recall exists to reinforce that versatility, allowing you to not regret picking one of each spell for each of the day's most likely eventualities.
I don't think I've seen protection from arrows used. By the time you're casting it the enemies will have +1 bows ...
Protection from Arrows is available to a Magus at 4th level. A challenging encounter for a party of that APL will amount to 1,600 XP. So, just spit-balling here, you're probably talking about one NPC/creature (going by the NPC Index and the more common Bestiary entries) from that encounter, at most, that will have access to a +1 bow or +1 arrows. Is the assumption that the Magus will be targeted by default--as opposed to, say, the archer in the group, or the Wizard?
Really, by the time Protection from Arrows starts losing the arms race, Displacement comes on line. Beyond that, the Magus--no matter his choices on armor--has access to spells and feats that make distance and mobility an afterthought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, minutes per level spells typically last for 2+ combats when you get up to around 10 minutes
Pre-buffing options vary so much from GM, Party and Adventure Type. I've had GMs that refuse to let you look ahead without starting combat. And I've had parties that were missing any kind of scouting and/or had party members who'd rather charge ahead, reducing the options for pre-buffing. And of course some adventures are based on the party getting into fights with no warning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are also some highly unreliable, yet very common advantages to wearing heavier armor. Many enemies are less likely to attack a more heavily armored character. It's baked into many pre-made adventures that the monsters attack the party member with the least armor.
This one is weird, but light armor builds are very popular in general, so this means that if you use a heavier armor, you have a very good chance of not needing to compete with your teammates for the heavier armor loot you are sure to find.
Pre-buffing options vary so much from GM, Party and Adventure Type. I've had GMs that refuse to let you look ahead without starting combat. And I've had parties that were missing any kind of scouting and/or had party members who'd rather charge ahead, reducing the options for pre-buffing. And of course some adventures are based on the party getting into fights with no warning.
Exactly. Mileage will vary, but the game assumes good faith "refereeing" by a GM, and cooperation between players whose classes are each designed with a certain niche or versatility in mind. There are feats, skills, and spells whose entire purpose is to ensure that an adventuring party doesn't wade into combat unprepared.
Optimization is all well and good, of course, and there's also a charm to designing characters that can more or less stand independently. Too often, though, that leads to a perception that other paths aren't optimal or even really that good.
So what's your point exactly?
My larger point is that the cookie cutter saranite dervish dancing kensai (and possibly blackblade) magus got to be the cookie cutter for a reason. You can buff while attacking is a mathematicians answer: technically true but not really the point. Your best option seems to be by far to spend the two feats, pump dex, have a good offense and defense on passively, and then actively use the spells to attack. When the musclemagus has to spend actions (even part of magusflurry) shoring up their weak defenses that screams at me that the cookie cutter made the right call. They both have roughly the same ability to buff before combat for in between combat so the comparison there is a wash.
When I compare say, My Brown furred transmuter or a healing oracle to the magus...I can't. The playstyles are completely incomparable. You can't compare damage and healing, much less direct damage vs. the insanity of turning the paladin into a pouncing princess paladin pony person.
But Muscle Magus to Dex Magus is a very direct comparison of the same play style and it seems to me one is better on an almost mathematical level.
The magus could have allowed x 3 weapons to do more damage ,k resulting in a greater variety of weapons than just the scimitar and rapier.
The magus could have allowed the armor to work at earlier levels, or maybe let them ceremonial change the armor they have resulting in less zig zagging with a plan of "how do i make it to level 4 without catching an orc in the face?"
My smaller point is that protection from arrows is a terrible spell and useless by the time you cast it. It only protects you against non magical ammo fired from a non magical weapon and anyone that ill equipped to fight someone that can toss fireballs is just gonna get steam rolled.
Now I know what you're going to say: This is a random hypothetical situation and has nothing to do with actual play
Nope. Its not a bad way of trying to model things out. What I would say is this is not how I see things work. So are people not being rational (entirely possible) Or is the model off somewhere? And...
This is exactly the same principal as the scenario I described above. Likewise your Shocking Grasp Magus could move up and attack, or you could use your first round casting a defensive spell or a debuff which negates 20% of the enemies' attacks against you, thus improving your action-economy comparative to the enemy. .
negating 20% of the enemies attacks against YOU is not negating 20% of their attacks unless you are THE parties dedicated tank (not saying a magus COULDN"T but I wouldn't assume it's the case). In practice, if your party is working together someone will be running up to engage and block the monster from getting to your squishies. Or more likely, your squishies are running up next to the monster like lemmings on a sugar bender because they want to do their cool thing too. (I'm rather skeptical of most "turtle tank" builds for that reason)
A smart opponent is going to recognize and identify some of the defenses and adjust to an aoo, or just hit someone else. Even an animal is going to bite off a mirror image or two, say "blech, this ones made of tofu..." and wonder off for a more substantial meal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few quick comparisons for you… at level 1-7.
Core dex magus: studded Leather armor, dex +5, AC=18
Core str magus: chain shirt armor, dex +3, AC=17
Kensai magus: unarmored, dex +5, int +3, AC=16-18, 20-22 w/mage armor
Armored Battlemage: breastplate armor, dex +3, AC=19, 20 w/arcane pool
Skirnir: chain shirt armor, dex +3, heavy shield, AC= 19, 20 w/arcane pool
Will you look at that… Str Magus isn’t actually any squishier at low levels than a Dex Magus… and they don’t need 2 feats and 3 levels to use their main stat for attack and damage… and they have the freedom to choose whatever weapon they want.
And, by the way, Mage Armor is something none of those Magi will get without Spell Blending... which they're not getting until level 3.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: Dervish Dance is great for a Magus that more-or-less HAS to be Dexterity-based, but it's a borderline trap for everyone else. You get a minimal bump in AC and become slightly less MAD in exchange for two feats.
Even if you drop the core Strength-based Magus's Dexterity to 14, we're only talking about a difference of 2 points in AC. That gap grows by a whopping 1 per 8 levels!
If the core Strength-based Magus opts to not wear medium armor between levels 7-13 (and thus avoid the mobility issue altogether*), he sacrifices 2 points of armor bonus**.
Bottom line, the pros that Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dance ultimately deliver are quite simply not meaningful enough to concern most players.
* Of course, thanks to Armor Training a Myrmidarch has to worry about none of these things.
** Well, that is unless he invests 9,000 gp in mithral heavy armor, plus the cost of enhancing, or he gets really lucky both with what treasure the party finds... and what treasure the rest of the party is willing to let him keep..
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
negating 20% of the enemies attacks against YOU is not negating 20% of their attacks unless you are THE parties dedicated tank
One of the problems of your position is that you aren't speaking of a cookie-cutter magus that is superior, but a cookie-cutter magus in a cookie-cutter party where he plays cookie-cutter DPs while another cookie-cutter character plays cookie-cutter tank (and I suppose there a cookie-cutter spellslinger and a cookie-cutter healer) that is superior.
Do you see the problem? Maybe you like playing in that kind of setup, but to me, it seems awful. Plus, I have never seen a whole party making a set of cookie-cutter characters like that.
In a total vacuum, your setup can be superior, in real play, it is theoreticraft that rarely will work as advertised.
A few quick comparisons for you… at level 1-7.
Core dex magus: studded Leather armor, dex +5, AC=18
Core str magus: chain shirt armor, dex +3, AC=17
You have a strength magus with a 16 dex, a higher strength score presumably, and what int and con?
and they have the freedom to choose whatever weapon they want.
Ok, so they can chose the OTHER 18-20x2 one handed weapon , because the way the class is set up there's no point in using anything else.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so they can chose the OTHER 18-20x2 one handed weapon , because the way the class is set up there's no point in using anything else.
That's nonsense.
Off the top of my head, you can make a viable Magus with
- (a) bastard sword for higher base damage;
- (b) whip or another reach weapon;
- (c) gun with Eldrich Archer archetype;
- (d) staff with Staff Magus archetype; or
- (e) natural attacks with the Monstrous Physique line of spells.
Off the top of my head, you can make a viable Magus with
Again. My complaint with the class isn't that you can't achieve viability outside of the cookie cutter. It's that the cookie cutter was so much better than the alternatives that it lead to the cookie cutter. The Muscle Magi's ability to chose any weapon isn't that great when the dex dervish can chose the best weapon.
I ran 150 games of PFS1 and played at least that many. I think i saw one or two non cookie cutter magi (they were a whip magi). With no other class did I see that level of specific uniformity.
I had a dwarf blackblade magus who's grandmother was in his axe. Liked to cast shocking grasp on his hedgehog familiar and chuck him at people. (he has a bucket of Hit points and defense out the wazoo he was fine...) Yeah sure it worked. But It didn't work nearly as well as the other options. I was fine with that, but it would have been nice if the class had more benefit to weapons with a smaller range and higher crit mod.
a) bastard sword for higher base damage: Burning a feat for 1-2 average damage. still plays the same.
(b) whip or another reach weapon: Not sure what other reach weapon they can use but this at least plays somewhat differently. Trip/disarm magi can be pretty deadly. Course then you fight purple worms...
(c) gun with Eldrich Archer archetype: I recall this one popping up at the end, probably off of a chronicle sheet but didn't see one. This would also not help the strength magi, as this too would be dex based.
(d) staff with Staff Magus archetype; Seems a lot like two weapon fighting, you're burning resources just to be as effective as the guy doing it the regular way. Didn't see an advantage to this.
(e) natural attacks with the Monstrous Physique line of spells: Hits way too late.
I think we already covered that in most campaigns I've seen, heard of, and been in waiting till level 7 for your plan to come completely together is not a viable plan. Most adventures aren't going to let you use a one minute per level spell to get through the whole dungeon.
Don't get me wrong I LOVE the spell. It was a staple for the brown furred transmuter. But it took a lot of resources to have it running in between/for more than one fights.
(arcane pool, transmuter of korada, an orange ioun stone, extend spell, ..Justin had that thing lasting nearly an hour and kept his old agile amulet of mighty fists around ) More than I think a gish character can really use.
That's nonsense.
Off the top of my head, you can make a viable Magus with
That's not an exhaustive list, either. It's actually rather funny how people can make a long list of 50 options, and then someone will come by and say "NO!!! 49 of those options DO NOT EXIST!! There is only ONE WAY to play this class, EVER!!" :D
- (a) bastard sword for higher base damage;
- (b) whip or another reach weapon;
- (c) gun with Eldrich Archer archetype;
- (d) staff with Staff Magus archetype; or
- (e) natural attacks with the Monstrous Physique line of spells.
What’s particularly glaring about the “only 18-20 weapons” angle is that one of the key points from earlier was about the importance of attacking, but Monstrous Physique and Natural Spell Combat open the door to getting 7-8 attacks (including Haste and Spellstrike) while other Magi are getting 3-4… AND they solve the mobility issue decisively via access to Pounce.
Ironically, you can still use your 18-20 weapon in conjunction with Monstrous Physique… but not having two extra feats might force you to choose between Natural Spell Combat and other Arcana or Feats.
I think we already covered that in most campaigns I've seen, heard of, and been in ...
Emphasis mine.
And with that in mind, an Eldritch Scion with Skill Focus, Eldritch Heritage, and Improved Eldritch Heritage can grab the Shapechanger Sorcerer Bloodline to get hour/level duration on his Transmutations.
A few quick comparisons for you… at level 1-7.
Core dex magus: studded Leather armor, dex +5, AC=18
Core str magus: chain shirt armor, dex +3, AC=17You have a strength magus with a 16 dex, a higher strength score presumably, and what int and con?
and they have the freedom to choose whatever weapon they want.Ok, so they can chose the OTHER 18-20x2 one handed weapon , because the way the class is set up there's no point in using anything else.
Ideally you want to target Str18+, Dex16, Con12+, Int16, Wis10+, Cha dump.
Depending on your point but, stat array, or dice roll luck this may be easy or hard. To hit those numbers exact you need a 35 point buy, which I know most games will not do. So lets look at the 20pt buy of PFS.
Str magus: Str16(+2 racial), Dex16, Con12, Int12, Wis10, Cha7
Int starts out low but as long as you hit 13 by 7th, 14 by 10th, 15 by 13th, and 16 by 16th (easily doable through level advancements) you wont have any problems.
Dex magus: Str10, Dex18(+2 racial), Con12, Int14, Wis10, Cha7
Minor bump to damage output after you get Dervish Dance, and easier time getting to 16 int by 16th… or you can start with 12 Int and go 14 Con for an extra 1HP per level…
The difference is minor… the only real advantage Dex has is being able to start with a higher Int with point buy. If you are willing to drop your Con a little, Str magus can get a 13 Int with 11 Con at 20pt buy, unfortunately 14 int 10 con results in 21pt though.
Ideally you want to target Str18+, Dex16, Con12+, Int16, Wis10+, Cha dump.Depending on your point but, stat array, or dice roll luck this may be easy or hard. To hit those numbers exact you need a 35 point buy, which I know most games will not do.
Yeah.. do you think your expectations of an unreasonably high point buy, 10 full points above what the rulebook calls Epic fantasy, a point buy the books don't even LIST might be skewing the value of a MAD class contracting its ability score needs a fair bit?
And you didn't think that the assumption was worth mentioning when you "Ran the numbers" on their respective ACs?
So lets look at the 20pt buy of PFS.
Str magus: Str16(+2 racial), Dex16, Con12, Int12, Wis10, Cha7
The difference is minor… the only real advantage Dex has is being able to start with a higher Int with point buy.
Its a higher int, a higher to hit, and a higher con if you dump strength a little and a little more damage once the dervish kicks in. I have yet to see what someone is going to do with those two feats that would be remotely as good.
I have yet to see what someone is going to do with those two feats that would be remotely as good.
That's the thing about subjective opinions: this debate is happening because the people you're engaging with don't see the investment in Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dance as being particularly worthwhile, or your arguments on behalf of it as particularly convincing.
That's not meant to be snarky or anything. It just is what it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you were optimizing for combat, I'd expect this 20 point array before racial modifiers:
STR 17 / DEX 14 / CON 13 / INT 14 / WIS 8 / CHA 7
Then level 4 ability increase in strength and level 8 in constitution.
Personally, I prefer something more well rounded like this:
STR 16 / DEX 14 / CON 12 / INT 14 / WIS 10 / CHA 8
With ability increases going to strength.
But I also don't think a dexterity build can reasonably go below 13 strength, so they are in a similar position. The carrying capacity needs are just too high for a character carrying weapons and armor along with their gear.
Strength 13 gets you 50 lbs before you take penalties for a medium load
Chain shirt is 25 lbs.
Scimitar is 4 lbs.
Clothing is around 4 lbs.
Spellbook 3 lbs.
Spell Component pouch 2lbs
So, that's 38 lbs. without adding anything else you're expected to carry. You could maybe get by with only an 11 in strength like that. But really, you should likely carry some ranged weapon for cases where melee won't work, especially in low level.
But as you add in the nickel and dime items like magical and mundane gear, you get a lot closer to needing that 50 lbs from a 13 strength. As an example, consider the Magus's kit, a grouping of items your 1st level character is expected to have on him. That's an extra 31 lbs. At that point, even 13 isn't enough to just carry around what you need.
And I'm not even going to mention the weight of your coins, because that is an amazing pain to track and most people don't seem to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally you want to target Str18+, Dex16, Con12+, Int16, Wis10+, Cha dump.Depending on your point but, stat array, or dice roll luck this may be easy or hard. To hit those numbers exact you need a 35 point buy, which I know most games will not do.
Yeah.. do you think your expectations of an unreasonably high point buy, 10 full points above what the rulebook calls Epic fantasy, a point buy the books don't even LIST might be skewing the value of a MAD class contracting its ability score needs a fair bit?
And you didn't think that the assumption was worth mentioning when you "Ran the numbers" on their respective ACs?
Do you know what a target value is? Its not necessarily the value you start with, but it is the values you are aiming for. Your starting values should be as close to those targets as you can comfortably get with your point buy, array, or dice rolls. Did I in any way state that it is a reasonable expectation to start with those exact stats? No, quite the contrary I straight up stated most groups are not going to get these stats right away since a 35pt buy is highly unlikely. So I gave a rough 20pt buy that comes close.
Personally, I’m used to using a rather generous stat array… so I’m not very good at optimizing point buy… the group I play with has been running an array of 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 for years… which on its own is equivalent to 32pt buy… Melkiador seems more accustomed to point buy so… lets use what they posted….
If you were optimizing for combat, I'd expect this 20 point array before racial modifiers:
STR 17 / DEX 14 / CON 13 / INT 14 / WIS 8 / CHA 7
Then level 4 ability increase in strength and level 8 in constitution.Personally, I prefer something more well rounded like this:
STR 16 / DEX 14 / CON 12 / INT 14 / WIS 10 / CHA 8
With ability increases going to strength.
Using either of these point buys only lowers the AC numbers I gave for my str magus examples by 1… not a big deal at all, and by mid-late game you can still reach the target values easily enough.
Oh also… by what standards is a scimitar “the best weapon”? 18-20/x2 crit? Ok, str magus with exotic weapon prof estoc would like a word. Average roll of 5 from 2d4 vs average roll of 3.5 from 1d6. Both are one-handed weapons with 18-20/x2 crit. And one of them doesn't have to wait till 3rd level (or retrain a feat at 2nd as a human) to get their primary physical attribute to damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf I was going to nitpick a bunch of things you've said, but I don't think that's really productve. Instead I want to go back to your base assumptions about the class and nitpick those ...
The class only cares about crit range on a weapon and not the multiplier. Meaning every magus wants an 18-20 weapon.
needing the free hand means you need a 1 handed weapon
These are true. Whether we like it or not the Magus is deigned around 1-handed weapons with a high crit-range. You absolutely can play without them, but the class mechanically rewards you for choosing these options. I will say that there are other ways to take advantage of Spellstrike besides a high crit-range but this is noche enough that I think the base assumption of a 1-handed weapon with an 18-20 crit-range actually is the default.
Getting heavier armor later in your career means you have to build to do without it which means.. you do without it.
This is also true.
Building without it means a dex build.
This is not.
There is only one handed 18-20 weapon that can be used with dex to damage.. the scimitar. You can only do this as a worshiper of saranrae with dervish dance. So you have a non religious arcane class that plinkos into worshiping one specific deity And every magus winds up looking the same.
This is blatantly untrue. You can get DEX-to-damage with the Agile property or by multiclassing. There are a number of weapons that will give you the option for a DEX-based 18-20 crit-range besides the Scimitar.
Further, the assumption that you Need DEX-to-damage - even when playing a DEX-build - is another leap. DEX-to-damage is likely ~+4 damage by level 5, meanwhile you can use your Arcane Pool to make your weapon Flaming/Frost for +7 to damage, and you can add another ~5d6 damage with your favourite damage spell, or 2 × 1d6+5 damage with Frostbite, or 5d4 damage to a bunch of enemies with Burning Hands, or hell you could even do something besides damage that would still be helpful ... the point is that the Magus has a ton of ways to add damage, and even more ways to help the party that don't involve Dervish Dance or DEX or even damage at all.
Also while it wasn't part of the message I'm quoting you seem to be of the assumption that most games are over by level 10 or so, and this assumption seems to come from your time spent GMing Pathfinder Society games. This makes sense since most PFS games finish by then, but this is not the case for people playing home games. This also probably explains why you see so many cookie-cutter builds, but PFS builds don't necessarily reflect the standard for other games.
So your base understanding of the class is coming from these core assumptions, but you haven't really proven any of them. You're arguing a set of truths without proving that there they are in fact true. Some of them have even been demosnstrated to be untrue, but for the sake of the argument, prove these things first and then we can go from there:
1. Starting with only Light armour means you have to build a DEX-Magus.
2. A DEX-based Magus must have DEX-to-damage.
3. The only feasible way to get DEX-to-damage is Dervish Dance.
4. The game will be over by level 10, so you need your build online by level 3.
All of your arguments seem to stem from these assumptions, and I can see no evidence that any of them are true. This is the reason people are arguing with you, your base assumptions about the class differ from ours.
This is blatantly untrue. You can get DEX-to-damage with the Agile property or by multiclassing.
The agile property requires a +1 weapon to enchant, which means its a
+2 weapon, which means you can't do it till level 6-8. It also requires either the DM placing it for your especially or a magic mart system that may not be in place in a home game.If you're going to multiclass the dervish dancing bard is right there...
Further, the assumption that you Need DEX-to-damage - even when playing a DEX-build - is another leap. DEX-to-damage is likely ~+4 damage by level 5, meanwhile you can use your Arcane Pool to make your weapon Flaming/Frost for +7 to damage, and you can add another ~5d6 damage with your favourite damage spell,...
The theoretical set up I'm seeing is multiple rounds of prep, minute per level spells lasting the entire dungeon, action economy and rounds spent on buffs, and then still having spells left over to cover up for non damage.
That does not work till higher levels if at all. It screams characters that were made on graph paper at higher levels and theory crafted through the dungeon but not played through the lower level swiss. its schrodingers wizard.
Also while it wasn't part of the message I'm quoting you seem to be of the assumption that most games are over by level 10 or so, and this assumption seems to come from your time spent GMing Pathfinder Society games. This makes sense since most PFS games finish by then, but this is not the case for people playing home games.
It is not an assumption. It is a conclussion. Yes, PFS is A data point in that conclussion but it is only one datapoint.
This also probably explains why you see so many cookie-cutter builds,
This is absolute, utter, unmitigated, balderdash. Society is where people unleash their weirdest rube goldberg creations that require a country mile of red string connecting their character in one serial killer conspiracy board of interacting parts.
Seeing what unholy duct taped monstrosity the players had frankensteined together was one of my joys as a PFS Dm. (making them was my favorite part of being a player...muahahahaha)- Not usually the MORE DAKKA part of things, I usually liked the weird factor.
Because the players aren't challenging or beating up on the DM for making the scenario I'm doing weird things to the writers creation.. not the Dms, the dm doesn't have to take it personally.
and this assumption seems to come from your time spent GMing Pathfinder Society games.
That conclusion. And you're being completely disingenuous for your assumption that it's an assumption. comes from
Yes. Society play is a data point. But so are...
Gaming for 35 years with different groups
25 years on various gaming message boards from 3.0 till now saying "hey does anyone do high level play? And people say no. The system breaks after 10, groups break up, the DM gets tired of the campaign, people go to college...
Talking to gamers at conventions accross several states
Looking at the games available at those conventions
Look at the spread of available published adventures (which are mostly made FOR home games btw) You don't have an equal number of level 3's and level 20s.
If you search for high level play on this forum most of the results are either it doesn't happen it doesnt work or it doesn't happen because it doesn't work.
The company who's board we're talking on doesn't even MAKE campaigns that go that go all the way to 20. You're supposed to kill of the runelords at 16.
Posts on this forum, that people in this conversation were in , complain that high level play just doesn't happen.
So yes. I will buy that some people lucked out and manage to usually game from 1-20. When someone tells me its not unusual, or they've never heard of a campaign failing to get to 20? Yeah no. Someone's plotting their graph then getting the data they want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The oracle: I just don’t like it, in some undefined way.
The sorcerer: Cool idea, but you have to dump intelligence; which means few skills. That’s no fun.
Cleric and Paladin: A high charisma really helps these two out, but to get it you have to go with less in other needed attributes.
Wizard: To get that insane high intelligence, you gotta dump both strength and charisma. So all wizards are frail, stinky, and ill spoken. Talk about a tedious archetype…
Likewise, all fighters are dumb, and ugly. And probably not too wise either.
Point is: It’s not just the magus that can be built in a very boring way.
BigNorseWolf, by now I completely get that this debate is effectively a dead end, as you are (understandably) committed to your own experiences and opinions, while the people you're debating with are also (understandably) committed to their own.
What I don't get, though, is this need to validate your experiences and opinions on campaign length with inaccurate references to official material. Every single 1E Adventure Path goes well beyond the typical level ceiling you argue for (10th). All but three or four (if I recall correctly) conclude at at least double the level you can reasonably get an Agile weapon--which you deem to be too late in the game. I think all but two continue past your maximum level ceiling (13th), while at least two Adventure Paths qualify they are intended to take parties to 20th level--one of them to the maximum Mythic Tier, as well.
And that's just Adventure Paths, right? Paizo have also released six Bestiaries, an NPC Codex, a Villain Codex, and many more supplements besides, with literally dozens of monsters and NPCs intended for 20th level adventurers. Surely there was some intended audience for these? Surely they weren't catering just to GMs starting their players off at higher levels?
One parting shot:
The theoretical set up I'm seeing is multiple rounds of prep, minute per level spells lasting the entire dungeon, action economy and rounds spent on buffs, and then still having spells left over to cover up for non damage.
That's not theoretical. You've had I think at least four people in this thread alone tell you that what they're proposing reflects the characters they've played. Maybe ask them for specific examples rather than generalize their positions.
In particular, Knowledge Pool lets you eventually fill out your spellbook with your whole list for only the cost of spellbook writing materials. So nerf that.My GM decided that the spell I prepared using Knowledge Pool could not be written down, as I had skipped a passage needed to add a spell to my spellbook:
I think it is a reasonable ruling.
Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
I paid attention to what you quoted, and it looks to me like Rules As Written, you could eventually use Knowledge Pool to get spells into your spellbook if you didn't have to cast them for something else. It's not guaranteed to work each day, and for any given spell you have to wait a week if you botch the wizardly learning task, but after enough weeks go by, you're eventually going to get it in.
Now, I think your GM's house rule (explicitly forbidding writing the Knowledge Pool spells into your spellbook) is indeed reasonable, but as things stand it is a house rule and not what is in the Rules As Written.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok let's see.
1. Starting with only Light armour means you have to build a DEX-Magus.
As far as I can tell you didn't address this at all.
2. A DEX-based Magus must have DEX-to-damage.
Your response was:
Further, the assumption that you Need DEX-to-damage - even when playing a DEX-build - is another leap. DEX-to-damage is likely ~+4 damage by level 5, meanwhile you can use your Arcane Pool to make your weapon Flaming/Frost for +7 to damage, and you can add another ~5d6 damage with your favourite damage spell,...The theoretical set up I'm seeing is multiple rounds of prep, minute per level spells lasting the entire dungeon, action economy and rounds spent on buffs, and then still having spells left over to cover up for non damage.
So to start with I showed how a Magus can deal damage without DEX-to-damage. Your response wasn't to show that I was wrong, it was simply to tell me that my setup took to long to get going, so here's a run-down of the action economy I was proposing:
Level 5 Magus, round 1:
- Swift Action: Spend 1 Arcane Pool to enchant my Rapier. Since I'm level 5 this gives me a +2 modifier, but I can "spend" those enhancements on enchantments if I choose to. I choose to spend them on the Flaming and Frost enchants.
- Full-Round Action: I use Spell Combat to cast Frostbite and full attack. This nets me 2 attacks this round, and each one deals 1d6+1 damage from the Scimitar, plus 1d6+1 damage from the Frostbite spell, plus 2d6 damage from the enchantments I added as a swift action. This gives me a total of 4d6+6 damage on a regular hit and 6d6+12 damage on a crit. Perfectly respectable damage for a 5th level Magus.
This was all done in a single round with no pre-buffing and the only thing I had to prepare in advance was the spell being cast, so I really don't know how it comes across as "Schrodinger's wizard". It comes online at level 5, which is hardly "higher levels".
3. The only feasible way to get DEX-to-damage is Dervish Dance.
Your response:
This is blatantly untrue. You can get DEX-to-damage with the Agile property or by multiclassing.The agile property requires a +1 weapon to enchant, which means its a
+2 weapon, which means you can't do it till level 6-8. It also requires either the DM placing it for your especially or a magic mart system that may not be in place in a home game.
So there are 2 parts to that.
The first is that level 6-8 is too late for DEX-to-damage to come online. This depends on the idea that the game will end before a certain point. If you can prove that as a truth then this is a fine argument, but if not then this is circular logic . I actually do see this as a semi-relevant point because some games do stop at level 10. If you're playing in those games then level 8 really would be too late for this to come online. However assuming that as the default is decidedly not an argument that can be made without backing it up. This essentially comes down to how you answer point 4, so we'll come back to it.
The second point you make is that the Agile property is not something that can be reliably assumed since it "requires either the DM placing it for your especially or a magic mart system that may not be in place in a home game."
I do understand this, but how often do GMs restrict this kind of material? You could find an Agile weapon in the wild, you could find a blacksmith to craft it for you for coin, or you could craft the weapon for yourself by taking a feat. This feat would of course mean spending the same number of feats as a Dervish Dance Magus, but would also help the rest of the party in the long run as well, making this a better option in the long run.
Also while its true that weapon properties could be restricted, the Dervish Dance feat also requires that GMs allow certain materials into the game, and is possibly just as restrictive in home games since it technically has links to Paizo specific lore.
I will concede half a point here since there will be games with no access to crafting or the Agile property, but without data on how common those games are it doesn't hold much weight.
4. The game will be over by level 10, so you need your build online by level 3.
Your response:
Also while it wasn't part of the message I'm quoting you seem to be of the assumption that most games are over by level 10 or so, and this assumption seems to come from your time spent GMing Pathfinder Society games. This makes sense since most PFS games finish by then, but this is not the case for people playing home games.It is not an assumption. It is a conclussion. Yes, PFS is A data point in that conclussion but it is only one datapoint.
Great. Show me your data. I'm not saying this facetiously, you've used this point to prove this point and another point. Without evidence to back this up you're making spurious claims about both the duration of games and the need for a non-Agile DEX-to-damage option.
I realise you probably meant "data" in more of a metaphoical sense , but the point here is that without data to show me I can talk about my own "data". According to my "Data" the obvious "Conclusion" is that most games go well beyond level 10, and level 8 is a perfectly fine level to get your Agile weapon.
I would also posit that reduced damage - especially at low levels - might be the balancing factor between STR and DEX builds. Perhaps if you are unwilling to wait that long you should try a STR-build, that would come online at level 1 with zero feats invested.
Now to address my asumptions:
This also probably explains why you see so many cookie-cutter builds,This is absolute, utter, unmitigated, balderdash.
Fair enough.
I made this assumption after reading through your posts and seeing you mention it a few times, but I will concede that I could have read through them more thoroughly. I retract my assumption. If that isn't where your assumptions come from then where do they come from?
Finally, just 1 more base assumption that I want to challenge.
You don't seem to be arguing that the Dervish Dance Magus is a good build , or even that its the Best build . You're arguing that its the Only viable build - that the STR-Magus, the INT-Magus and even other DEX-Magus builds aren't worth making because they aren't good enough. This is an extreme position to take, which is why the onus is on you to prove your position. I realise that you aren't even the one who started this thread, but whether you're continuing their premise or simply arguing about the viability of non-Dervish builds the burden of proof lies with you.
If this is NOT the position you are taking then please make that clear, as that is the position people are arguing against.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The agile property requires a +1 weapon to enchant, which means its a +2 weapon, which means you can't do it till level 6-8.
This is blatantly untrue. You can get DEX-to-damage with the Agile property or by multiclassing.
Level 6, based on the default character advancement rules, and the default rules for magic item availability in cities. If your campaign allows crafting, you can get it at level 5; and since you mention PFS as a datapoint, in PFS you can absolutely do this at level 6.
And to offer an alternative, if you play an unarmed Magus (there's like three archetypes for that, or any race with a claw attack, or just take the IUS feat) then you can use an Agile AOMF, which is only 4000 gp and available at level 4. That sounds like a reasonably low level to me.
So, you can get dex-to-damage with dervish dance at level 3, and you can get dex-to-damage without dervish dance at level 4. That's not a big difference. And as MrCharisma points out, you haven't established that a Magus needs dex-to-damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even the swashbuckler wasn't really intended to have dex to damage. It's the kind of thing that just sort of snuck its way into Pathfinder over time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even the swashbuckler wasn't really intended to have dex to damage. It's the kind of thing that just sort of snuck its way into Pathfinder over time.
Very true, it's why the class initially gets a bonus to damage via Precise Strike at 3rd level. Honestly, it is entirely reasonable to build a swashbuckler without dex to damage and be perfectly competent. You just have to wait until 3rd level for the damage bonus to kick it. Sure, you're a bit behind on damage compared to some brute using power attack and high strength, but you can use Piranha Strike or the other one (the name of which I'm forgetting but doesn't have the restriction to light weapons) and be relatively close. You also can afford to invest str a little, the way strength based builds can afford to invest in dex a little if you really want some bonus damage.
If you're willing to dip you can go dervish dancing bard and get dex to damage at level One.
This was all done in a single round with no pre-buffing and the only thing I had to prepare in advance was the spell being cast, so I really don't know how it comes across as...
Because what are you doing for the other 15ish rounds you're doing in combat that day, assuming 4 4 round combats a day? Not every day will be like that. Some will be better, some will be worse, but I'm calling your setup shcrodingers wizard because you're burning limited resources and assuming that they'll still be there after you burned them.
You don't seem to be arguing that the Dervish Dance Magus is a good build (which I would agree with), or even that its the Best build (which I would disagree with but still understand). You're arguing that its the Only viable build -
Repeatedly refuted word for word.
Other builds are certainly VIABLE. The thing is that they are the worse without being substantially different (The gun magus would be too different to really be comparable)
It's not that other builds aren't viable enough to be played, I just consider it bad class design if there is one cookie cutter build and any deviation from that is just getting worse.
. Sure, you're a bit behind on damage compared to some brute using power attack and high strength,
Until you come across something immune to precision damage, which is half the critters authors like to throw at the party.
You don't seem to be arguing that the Dervish Dance Magus is a good build (which I would agree with), or even that its the Best build (which I would disagree with but still understand). You're arguing that its the Only viable build -Repeatedly refuted word for word.
Other builds are certainly VIABLE. The thing is that they are the worse without being substantially different (The gun magus would be too different to really be comparable)
It's not that other builds aren't viable enough to be played, I just consider it bad class design if there is one cookie cutter build and any deviation from that is just getting worse.
You keep making this claim but you can’t prove it or back it up. It has just been YOUR personal experience that dervish dance magus is “the one and only cookie cutter build” for magus and YOU personally have seen it played in games you’ve participated in a lot. The rest of us have had a very different experience. I’ve rarely actually seen Dex magus played. I’ve heard it discussed a lot on theory crafting boards, but in actual play it has almost always been Str magus. Its no different than the previously mentioned “god tier divination wizard”. People theory craft and discuss how amazing it is, but it isn’t actually played that often.
Think about this for a second too… you are arguing your view and not just one or two people are saying your wrong, but almost everyone who’s posted in this topic are. If dervish dance dex magus were as overplayed as you claim it to be don’t you think you’d have more support in this argument? Based on what we’ve all been saying, you have had the minority experience on this.
Just to be perfectly clear here… the issue isn’t that you believe dervish dance dex magus to be “the only magus build” or anything like that… the issue is that you are arguing it as a fact when it is your personal experience and opinion. It isn’t a fact. We’ve all had different experiences on this and none of us can say for certain what is “the fact of the matter”. We can all only give out opinions and experiences and let eachother decide for ourselves what we believe to be the fact.
Umm this is what spell recall is all about. "Oh I spent this spell let me just get it back".
Which is still a limited resource.
And at low level you can just do TWF with Arcane Mark, even if you run out of spells. So it's not like you ran out of magic.
That's one of the tactics that makes dex to damage so good. Since you don't have a shocking grasp on it more +hit and more +damage makes more of a difference when you're running on fumes.
Because what are you doing for the other 15ish rounds you're doing in combat that day, assuming 4 4 round combats a day? Not every day will be like that. Some will be better, some will be worse, but I'm calling your setup shcrodingers wizard because you're burning limited resources and assuming that they'll still be there after you burned them.
This is a topic that interests me: the factors that drive encounter frequency and duration. I think it’s fair to say PFS has shaped the culture, with its 3-4 encounter per session standard, but the core rules are an almost a counterpoint to that. Nothing I can recall in the GameMastery Guide sets up expectations for a minimum number of encounters/rounds per day. On the contrary the Guide consistently advises GMs to play to their players’ strengths, to challenge them without stymying them, and—if anything—to allow them to enjoy new class features, feats, and spells.
So when we’re talking about Schrödinger's Wizard, I have to ask: at what level? Under what GM and style of play? In what kind of encounters and setting?
So when we’re talking about Schrödinger's Wizard, I have to ask: at what level? Under what GM and style of play? In what kind of encounters and setting?
Schrödinger's Wizard becomes real at high level play I mean, you don't need to carry a weird magic item into combat when you can literally teleport to your favorite shop in absolom grab the item from the shelf drop a bag of gold on the counter as a free action and teleport back in the middle of combat. That also makes it really hard to stop the 15 minute adventuring day without EVERY session being an episode with a ticking clock.
But fourish encounter design guidelines definitely predates PFS. Or pathfinder. It's been a rough guideline for decades and the system has been based around it. If you're going off model yeah, things will change a bit.
I think "my dm" or "a well balanced home brewed adventure" varies entirely too much for the differing values of my or an opinion of well balanced to be meaningful.
Don't those creatures usually have massive weaknesses as compensation? The only one that is actually an issue that I can think off is Golems, but those are a pain for everyone and also have pretty big "this spell shuts them down" weaknesses.
Golems / constructs were immune to precision in 3.x? But not pathfinder. Not making the Entire monster manual immune was a step pathfinder made in the right direction.
Elementals, oozes, plants, elementals, anything incorporeal, swarms, elementals... they're all favorites by authors because they can be really really old and don't need a reasonable ecology in the dungeon. And don't get one shotted anti climatically by the barbarians scythe. Swarms are weak vs AOE but the rest... no. Elementals come with DR / Haha you CAN"T get through with physical damage of any type.
How much your individual dm will completely avoid the monster, randomly grab a monster, or deliberately throw in a monster you can't damage varies a lot by DM. But I think published adventures at least give a baseline different groups can use as a comparison.
|
|
In particular, Knowledge Pool lets you eventually fill out your spellbook with your whole list for only the cost of spellbook writing materials. So nerf that.My GM decided that the spell I prepared using Knowledge Pool could not be written down, as I had skipped a passage needed to add a spell to my spellbook:
I think it is a reasonable ruling.
Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.I paid attention to what you quoted, and it looks to me like Rules As Written, you could eventually use Knowledge Pool to get spells into your spellbook if you didn't have to cast them for something else. It's not guaranteed to work each day, and for any given spell you have to wait a week if you botch the wizardly learning task, but after enough weeks go by, you're eventually going to get it in.
Now, I think your GM's house rule (explicitly forbidding writing the Knowledge Pool spells into your spellbook) is indeed reasonable, but as things stand it is a house rule and not what is in the Rules As Written.
RAW, a Magus need to understand a spell before writing it into a spellbook, and I don't think he can do that with a memorized spell, but, still RAW, there is no need to understand a spell when you write it into a scroll (a wizard don't understand a cleric spell when he helps him writing a clerical scroll), so I think the correct procedure is to have the Magus memorize an unknown spell, write it in a scroll (takin a feat or with the help of another character) and then learn it from the scroll.
More costly than learning spells from another caster's spellbook, but still useful.
Failing the spellcraft check to understand a spell is practically impossible, with a DC of 15+spell level, as you can take 10 on the check.
Being able to Scribe scrolls is one of the solutions to the "limited" number of spells available to a Magus. Most spells with a duration of 1 minute/level or more can be written into scrolls and cast before a battle.
,
|
|
You don't seem to be arguing that the Dervish Dance Magus is a good build (which I would agree with), or even that its the Best build (which I would disagree with but still understand). You're arguing that its the Only viable build -Repeatedly refuted word for word.
You have never refuted that, you have simply stated that as an argument of faith again and again.
"I know better." don't refute anything, it simply makes you less and less convincing every time you say that.