Magus: "Staying the Course"

[pawsplay]

So, the word from Paizo is that they will be staying the course on several Magus issues. I'm starting a thread here to ruminate, basicaly because their playtest board is a no-ruminating zone and also because they've been locking threads that suggest changes they have ruled out (like changing the class name). I can appreciate they are not interested in certain kinds of feedback unhelpful to their goals, but I wish the Magus was in a more flexible state of being right now. A few things that I wish would change:

1. One-handed weapons

No quarterstaves, no glaives. This just makes me kind of sad. Although they can sort of do it by changing grips all the time, these weapons are not compatible with Spell Combat, their signature thing. I see this as unnecessary restrictive, as all they need to is redefine spell combat as letting the weapon count as an empty hand and defining the attack portion to rule out TWF (which I think it already does). For that matter.... isn't a TWF fighter-mage kind of a cool image? Alas, it is not to be.

2. Low offense

Medium BAB, very few bonuses to hit. Other than casting self-buffs, and a 3rd level option that snags some insight bonuses, this class is pretty light on bonuses-to-hit. Compared to clerics and psychic warriors, who self-buff, and monks and rogues who avoid penalties on their attacks, the magus is pretty hampered. I'm afraid the magus is repeating the sad mistake of the soulknife: a medium BAB class who gets "free gold" as an offensive buff.

3. The name

For the love of all that is holy, you don't name a fighter-mage after Three Wise Men. Has anyone noticed that Magus is the root word of, oh, MAGE? Magic, magician? That is has been used in D&D previously to mean a high level magic-user? That numerous prestige classes already include the word mage or magus to mean a dedicated caster?

4. Concept or ability?

Seriously. Being able to cast spells while fighting is an ability, not a concept. For evidence, consider that the Eldritch Knight can do it, simply by taking Combat Casting and Quicken Spell. The Havoc Mage did it better.

Why This Is Important

It's easy to look back with rose-colored classes, but here's the thing. I don't remember this level of criticism about the APG classes. I really feel like the magus playtest is half-baked. I don't think, in its present form, it's going to make or keep people happy. I don't think the name will wear well over time. It's probably going to languish in CharOp Hell as a weak class, until someone figures out a way to exploit Spell Combat to kill the Tarasque with a quadruple Wraithstrike Time Stop Double Fudge Whammy.

It's doubtful that this thread will make any real impact on decisions. However, if the Magus is published without substantial changes, I hope this thread will serve as a monument for future designers to gravely gaze upon. I think Paizo has done a really smashing job with Pathfinder so far, I would hate for something so clumsy as this design to mar their brand.

Thoughts?

 

[joebobodo]

Jason has explicitly stated on the Paizo boards that feedback so far has already proven that there is still a lot of work to be done on the class. He said, flat-out, that he's pretty much going back to the drawing board on Spellstrike, and there is still much work to be done on spell combat.

As to your first 2 points, these are issues that have already been addressed on the Paizo boards, and I agree with the explanations. They are vital balance issues and restrictions to keep the class in line, power-wise, with other classes. A full-blown spellcaster with high BAB is going to throw things out of whack right from level 1. Throw in 2-handed weapons (effectively eliminating the concept of somatic components) and things get crazy that much faster. It is no mystery to me why these concepts are closed off from further negotiation.

In terms of concept vs. ability, I think it call comes down to perspective. I, personally, think Jason did a fantastic job of crafting a fighter-mage class which succeeds in being its own concept as opposed to just a multiclass fighter/wizard. The combination of the "two-weapon fighting" style and the Magus Arcana abilities really work to bring the class its own flavor in a different way than could have otherwise been achieved.

I certainly think the class still needs more work, particularly where Spellstrike is concerned, but I also definitely think it's on the right track, and I look forward to seeing how it progresses.

As Jason has said multiple times on the Paizo boards, "This is why we playtest."

 

[Starbuck_II]

Well, I'm glad that you post this list. You forgot to note that many spells are missing from the list.

 

[joebobodo]

Well, I'm glad that you post this list. You forgot to note that many spells are missing from the list.

Many of the Magus' spells could not be included in the playtest because they are still being written/developed, as they too will be appearing in Ultimate Magic. It is for that reason that the playtest version of the Magus seems to have such a limited list.

 

[pawsplay]

Jason has explicitly stated on the Paizo boards that feedback so far has already proven that there is still a lot of work to be done on the class. He said, flat-out, that he's pretty much going back to the drawing board on Spellstrike, and there is still much work to be done on spell combat.

That's reassuring. The Alchemist went through a lot of changes, and I hope the Magus gets at least that level of turning up.

As to your first 2 points, these are issues that have already been addressed on the Paizo boards, and I agree with the explanations. They are vital balance issues and restrictions to keep the class in line, power-wise, with other classes. A full-blown spellcaster with high BAB is going to throw things out of whack right from level 1.

And yet it seemed to work with the Duskblade. I realize the Duskblade was limited in some respects, but I think the concept is not an impossible one.

Throw in 2-handed weapons (effectively eliminating the concept of somatic components) and things get crazy that much faster. It is no mystery to me why these concepts are closed off from further negotiation.

That I don't get. it's hard for me to discern how a Power Attack tree Magus, or one who diversifies into TWF, is going to break the curve. I'm not even sure they can brake even, but it would be nice if they could at least exist, in concept.

In terms of concept vs. ability, I think it call comes down to perspective. I, personally, think Jason did a fantastic job of crafting a fighter-mage class which succeeds in being its own concept as opposed to just a multiclass fighter/wizard. The combination of the "two-weapon fighting" style and the Magus Arcana abilities really work to bring the class its own flavor in a different way than could have otherwise been achieved.

YMMV, obviously. To me it looks like Bard + Havoc Mage, but there you go.

I certainly think the class still needs more work, particularly where Spellstrike is concerned, but I also definitely think it's on the right track, and I look forward to seeing how it progresses.

As Jason has said multiple times on the Paizo boards, "This is why we playtest."

Yes, indeed. My worry, I guess, is whether the reality has sunk in that this is a back-to-development kind of situation.

It's not my baby, of course, but I really want to see Paizo continuing to do what they do with success. Good folks.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The class needs a full bab. Otherwise it will end up like the monk. A class full of flavor that really has no role. A combat class that sucks at combat and a spellcaster who sucks at spells. But hey, if the party needs a crappy fighter or a crappy mage, he can suck at both! The answer is to give it a full bab, but it will never happen. Paizo has some secret formula whereby giving a full bab to a class with more than 4 levels of spells will cause the universe to cease to exist. They refuse to budge from that blueprint no matter the consequences. I suppose the magus (I agree, crappy name) will end up with some ultra fiddly patch to simulate a higher base attack without getting the 4th iterate attack which he'll never hit with anyway. They'll jump through hoops to stick to their blueprint and end up with the same end result instead of just giving him full bab and being done.

I look forward to the final version. It has a lot of potential and some good, if poorly implemented ideas.

 

[Shisumo]

The class needs a full bab. Otherwise it will end up like the monk.

Yeah, just like the inquisitor did.

Oh, wait...

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Yeah, just like the inquisitor did.

Oh, wait...

People are still claiming that. I don't buy it any more then I think this class needs it. Besides if this class had it, it would not have a single spell till level 4.

 

[Kaisoku]

Uh, yeah. The Bard, Rogue, Inquisitor, and Monk all do pretty well in combat.

As I posted over at the Paizo forums, it's due to having situational benefits that either increase the attack (Monks), drastically increase the damage (Rogue), or give a little extra in both (Bards and Inquisitors).

The Magus currently has a penalty. To both.

Arcane spells aren't that powerful that they need to be hobbled so much (see the Bard). Arcane blasting spells are especially not such an issue (especially with non-primary spellcaster dealing with spell DCs).

 

[pawsplay]

Uh, yeah. The Bard, Rogue, Inquisitor, and Monk all do pretty well in combat.

As I posted over at the Paizo forums, it's due to having situational benefits that either increase the attack (Monks), drastically increase the damage (Rogue), or give a little extra in both (Bards and Inquisitors).

The Magus currently has a penalty. To both.

Arcane spells aren't that powerful that they need to be hobbled so much (see the Bard). Arcane blasting spells are especially not such an issue (especially with non-primary spellcaster dealing with spell DCs).

"You must spread some Xp..."

You really nailed it. By itself, medium BAB isn't a deal breaker, but instead of situational bonuses, they face situational penalties.