Pathfinder 3.x classes that you'd like to see in PF [Archive]

Vhaidara

2014-12-15, 02:07 AM

Well, to your requests...

Duskblade: Magus is basically Duskblade. An armored mage who casts spells through his sword

Spellthief: Nothing confirmed, but Ssalarn mentioned possibly making a rogue archetype for doing this with Dreamscarred Press' upcoming Akashic Mysteries (and possibly including straight up spell thieving)

Beguiler: I believe this is covered by either a bard or inquisitor archetype, but I'm not familiar with the all.

For my part, I would like to see Marshal, Dragon Shaman, and, most of all, Shadowcaster ported.
Marshal and Dragon Shaman are both extremely flavorful aura-based classes.
Shadowcasting, meanwhile, is the only 3.5 subsystem that hasn't been ported to PF. Radiant House updated Binder into the Occultist, and DSP has/is updated/updating Tome of Battle (Path of War), Psionics, Incarnum (Akashic Mysteries), and Truenaming (that unpronounceable thing Fax is making)

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-15, 02:15 AM

Duskblade: Magus is basically Duskblade. An armored mage who casts spells through his sword

Indeed. And if you want full-attack channeling, there's always the Myrmidarch archetype.

I'm also in agreement regarding the aura classes. Auras are nice.

Snowbluff

2014-12-15, 02:16 AM

Magus is a dumber DB in a lot of ways. So many missteps there (Not full BAB but many fiddly bonuses, a damage mage that's not spontaneous, stupidly specific channeling mechanic, arcana is just bad and could have been replaced by the class's own casting). Ugh, DB should be converted. Did you know that you can shadow pounce to trigger a DB's full channel? Do you know why that is important?

ETA: @Snowbluff I'm not sure I understand your point. What do you mean by "numbers game"?

Fighter and to some extent paladin got flat numerical bonuses as their buff. Stuff like that. Classes should be build smarter, not harder, and most of you damage and the like should come from how you're built as an individual, not because "oh, I'm a paladin." Fighter got some versus fear only good for for trading out for ACFs, even though 3.5 managed to do that without that.

Beguiler's flat DC bonus bothers me, but the class is full a good design otherwise, so it's fine. Aslo, not being able to alter stuff like that via stats is annoying. I also strongly dislike Dragon Shaman for this reason.

TL;DR: Qualities over quantities.

Psyren

2014-12-15, 03:41 AM

We still need a good Warlock and DFA. (Kineticist scratches the "all day blasting and minor magical effects" itch, but not the "craft and trick any magic item in the game without being broken" itch.) You could make DFA ready for PF just by smashing it into DS and calling it a day for the most part.

Marshal should be a Fighter or Cavalier archetype.

I'd like a better spell-less Paladin (Temple Champion is... bleh.) Skirmisher Ranger is all right.

I'd also love a port of the Shadowcaster, or at least a sorcerer archetype that loses access to some schools of magic entirely in exchange for free silenced spells.

Snowbluff

2014-12-15, 03:45 AM

You could make DFA ready for PF just by smashing it into DS and calling it a day for the most part.

You know what, screw finesse, let's mash more things together. How about Marshal or Shadowcaster and Warlock?! YEAH!

*crushes red bull can with head*

Ow. :smallfrown:

torrasque666

2014-12-15, 03:54 AM

All my favorite classes are for races that don't exist in Pathfinder.
Warforged Juggernaut. Nope.
Weretouched Master. Nope(though Skinwalkers could sub)
Spellcarved Soldier. Again, nope.
No Quari Nightmares.

Psyren

2014-12-15, 04:04 AM

You know what, screw finesse, let's mash more things together. How about Marshal or Shadowcaster and Warlock?! YEAH!

*crushes red bull can with head*

Ow. :smallfrown:

*winces*

No Quari Nightmares.

Well, the Noral (UPsi) are kinda Kalashtar-ish, if you're looking for that "I have a strange psionic entity trapped inside me" kind of fluff.

torrasque666

2014-12-15, 04:07 AM

Well, the Noral (UPsi) are kinda Kalashtar-ish, if you're looking for that "I have a strange psionic entity trapped inside me" kind of fluff.

I don't use 3rd party as I've never found a group that allows it. As nice as DSP are, a lot of groups still distrust 3P. Frankly, in my opinion, if it was really the kind of stuff that Paizo wanted in their game, they'd either do the weird Dragonlance thing or make their own version.

Psyren

2014-12-15, 04:18 AM

Paizo is doing their own version - Psychic Magic, which will come out next year when Occult Adventures releases.

But they also used DSP's stuff in at least one of their official adventure paths, so clearly they were at least a little impressed.

torrasque666

2014-12-15, 04:22 AM

Psyren

2014-12-15, 04:27 AM

Which AP? I'm interested.

Dragon's Demand

avr

2014-12-15, 05:19 AM

The Sandman archetype for bards is close enough to a Spellthief. OK, it doesn't have the Master Spellthief option for multiclassing, but that was the source of some weird exploits in 3.5 so I can understand the omission.

Sayt

2014-12-15, 06:19 AM

Dragon's Demand

That's a module, not an AP

We still need a good Warlock and DFA. (Kineticist scratches the "all day blasting and minor magical effects" itch, but not the "craft and trick any magic item in the game without being broken" itch.) You could make DFA ready for PF just by smashing it into DS and calling it a day for the most part.

Marshal should be a Fighter or Cavalier archetype.

I'd like a better spell-less Paladin (Temple Champion is... bleh.) Skirmisher Ranger is all right.

I'd also love a port of the Shadowcaster, or at least a sorcerer archetype that loses access to some schools of magic entirely in exchange for free silenced spells.

Conversely, I want a PRC-Paladin, like Pious Templar.

Kurald Galain

2014-12-15, 07:12 AM

Duskblade: Magus is basically Duskblade. An armored mage who casts spells through his sword
Indeed. Plus the Magus is actually better at gishing than poor old dusky, and gets his core ability (i.e. swordcasting) online straight from level one, which dusky does not.

Spellthief: Nothing confirmed, but Ssalarn mentioned possibly making a rogue archetype for doing this with Dreamscarred Press' upcoming Akashic Mysteries (and possibly including straight up spell thieving)
There's a bard archetype that's a spellthief, but unfortunately it has some needless constraints on it so it doesn't work too well (you have to first start your bardic performance, then make a touch attack, and then the victim gets a save too; the whole process takes too long).

Beguiler: I believe this is covered by either a bard or inquisitor archetype, but I'm not familiar with the all.

The beguiler doesn't really have any unique mechanics to it, so any enchantment-focused wizard or sorcerer can already do that.

atemu1234

2014-12-15, 08:27 AM

I think I'd rather backport the PF classes I can, to allow the archetypes. That's something I'd like to do.

peacenlove

2014-12-15, 09:35 AM

I'd also love a port of the Shadowcaster, or at least a sorcerer archetype that loses access to some schools of magic entirely in exchange for free silenced spells.

If I redid shadowcaster now, I would do it as a witch archetype, integrating hex and patron choices with the unique mysteries presented in ToM. there are 69 of them so plenty of material to choose from. plus the usual conversion of spell -> spell like -> supernatural (supernaturals at PF waste components and are ineligible for Spell perfection and other strong spell boosters.)
As a drawback I would cut down the familiar, regular hexes and summon spells from the witch and induce some of the MADness of a shadowcaster (int governs bonus spells / max level of spells, cha governs save DC of hexes/spells)

I really want the binder's vestiges redone and rebalanced for PF use with the occultist however and a better hexblade or knight of the weave (arcane paladin).

Psyren

2014-12-15, 09:51 AM

That's a module, not an AP

AP, module, po-tay-toe... Point is it's a Paizo product.

The beguiler doesn't really have any unique mechanics to it, so any enchantment-focused wizard or sorcerer can already do that.

The Mesmerist is basically this anyway, it just needs the shadow spells.

I really want the binder's vestiges redone and rebalanced for PF use with the occultist however and a better hexblade or knight of the weave (arcane paladin).

I might try to homebrew conversions for them. Not until after the PMU3 overhaul though.

ericgrau

2014-12-15, 10:12 AM

So many awesome classes in 3.5 with great flavor that have not been transferred over to PF.

Is there a reason? Copyright issues?

Some off the top of my head that would be awesome if in Pathfinder....
Core classes:
Spell Thief
Dusk Blade
Beguiler

Prestige classes:
Dagger spell mage
Vigilante

What about all f you? Which classes would you like to see converted without excessive modding by us?
Yes anything not in 3.5 core is copyrighted. Why not take the class and play it in PF yourself? Many people do, and it's not hard.

Psyren

2014-12-15, 10:19 AM

stack

2014-12-15, 12:28 PM

Master of many forms. Started brewing a baseclass for it, never quite finished it up.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-15, 01:30 PM

Note that they've gotten around this in the past by making some PrCs or classes into archetypes. For example, they made Scout into a Rogue archetype that functions thematically similarly (i.e. "you get bonus damage by moving") and Sacred Fist into a Warpriest archetype.

Yeah, Sacred Fist is one of my favorite archetypes; I like it better than core Warpriest.

The Scout archetype, however... ech. Do not like. Why? First, they don't have skirmish online from level 1. They get it from level 4 on charge attacks and on level 8 with attack actions (even if you have a means of free movement, you can't skirmish+full attack). They never get the ability to deal skirmish damage multiple times per round.

Barstro

2014-12-15, 01:30 PM

On a non-legal side; the more material you have, the less equal things become. Things like Tippyverse exist because spells/feats/abilities work well in a closed system, but unforeseen interaction creates problems.

That reason might not be why things are so limited (after all, there are glaring issues that they fail to address) but I like to pretend that's the reason.

I, personally, like how limited Pathfinder is. But, I'm just one man.

PsyBomb

2014-12-15, 01:35 PM

Psyren:

Viziers with Path of the Crafter might scratch your style of warlock itch. Check it out, they even get blasting too depending on your Veils. The class is my fave in PF for a reason

Psyren

2014-12-15, 01:59 PM

Yeah, Sacred Fist is one of my favorite archetypes; I like it better than core Warpriest.

The Scout archetype, however... ech. Do not like. Why? First, they don't have skirmish online from level 1. They get it from level 4 on charge attacks and on level 8 with attack actions (even if you have a means of free movement, you can't skirmish+full attack). They never get the ability to deal skirmish damage multiple times per round.

Scout's Charge can arguably work with Pounce; even if it can't/you only get the precision damage once, (a) you can still get sneak full attacks the normal ways (e.g. by flank + full attack or smokestick + fogcutting lenses + full attack), and (b) you can optimize single/standard action attacks to do as much damage as possible as well.

Psyren:

Viziers with Path of the Crafter might scratch your style of warlock itch. Check it out, they even get blasting too depending on your Veils. The class is my fave in PF for a reason

I know about Vizier (and helped playtest it even), but I was hoping more for a subsystem-agnostic way of doing this. Crafting is universal while 'Akashum' is not; I don't need to know anything about essence or chakras to play a Warlock, or a Kineticist for that matter.

On a non-legal side; the more material you have, the less equal things become. Things like Tippyverse exist because spells/feats/abilities work well in a closed system, but unforeseen interaction creates problems.

You can make Tippyverse in core. Self-resetting traps, Teleportation Circles, PAO, it's all there. Without the Joy-harvesting you have to actually get crafting XP from adventuring, but some binding traps to pull in CR-appropriate fodder at clearly marked dungeons can do the trick. (e.g. "CR 1-6, suitable for beginners.")

Xaragos

2014-12-15, 03:31 PM

I would like to see the Archivist and Dread Necromancer classes and the Swiftblade PRC.

Haelfyr

2014-12-15, 03:45 PM

In all honesty, I'd like to see the PrC rainbow servant, just to see how they handle the 8/10 vs. Full casting. But in all actuality it probably wouldn't need a port, as it's more or less fine as written.

Nightraiderx

2014-12-15, 03:50 PM

Tbh I find some of the prestige classes lacking because they made it more desirable to stay in the class.
Magus for example, gets more magus arcana's and better arcana abilities. There would be little reason for magus to leave for a prestige class
because there's no (progress x class feature) the same with ki/ ki abilities and panache/grit.

Manly Man

2014-12-15, 04:00 PM

Sort of embarrassingly, I want to see the Frenzied Berserker as an archetype for Barbarians; I've actually been homebrewing this up myself, but I forget whether I've gotten the rough draft finished yet or not. I should probably go have a look.

Also, while we do have Path of War already, I would like to see the Tome of Battle classes get adapted to Pathfinder. Have updated abilities (probably a few extra class features added properly), get their maneuver and stance progressions corrected, and have some archetypes for them. However, that would all have to come from homebrew. The different classes do, in fact, have much different feels compared to those in Path of War, so they don't just replace one another.

Psyren

2014-12-15, 04:15 PM

Sort of embarrassingly, I want to see the Frenzied Berserker as an archetype for Barbarians; I've actually been homebrewing this up myself, but I forget whether I've gotten the rough draft finished yet or not. I should probably go have a look.

Wild Rager (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo---barbarian-archetypes/wild-rager) is sort of the PF Frenzied Berserker.

Ssalarn

2014-12-15, 04:57 PM

Indeed. And if you want full-attack channeling, there's always the Myrmidarch archetype.

I'm also in agreement regarding the aura classes. Auras are nice.

For a class that takes the Marshal and Pathfinderizes and builds on that concept, check out the Battlelord from Amora Games' Liber Influxus: The Book of Communal Influence (http://paizo.com/products/btpy9ahm?Liber-Influxus-Communis-WorkinProgress). It's a full BAB Int-based class with auras, drills, and military specialties.

Fatal Rose

2014-12-16, 01:48 AM

I love the class diversity available in 3.5, however I prefer the pathfinder system.

Equilibria

2014-12-16, 02:31 AM

I want my dragon fire adept!!!!

AOKost

2014-12-16, 02:55 AM

Overall? Virtually everything that hasn't already been ported over yet to official PF.

Specific cases?

Warlock (with an expanded and improved/revised selection of abilities), Hellfire Warlock, Swordsage (along with all of the stances and disciplines, there's some really great stuff there!), Dervish, Tempest, Kensai (Both), Deepwood Sniper, Psychic Weapon Master, Disciple of Dispater, Rainbow Servant, Archivest, Savant, Psion (and the entire 3.X psionics system in general), Mind Flayers (and Illithid Savant of course, or a class, not necessarily race bassed that can do something similar), Champoin of Correllion, Radient Servant of Pelor, Combat Medic, Dread Necromancer, Bone Knight, and so so many more that I would almost literally have to start a new thread to list everything...

Something else that would be super nice would be a supplemental book that contained every known substance/material in the games, such as Mithral, Adamantium, etc. for item crafting, templates that can be added to items such as Dwarf-Craft, Elf-Craft, etc. Or Serrated, Laminated, Hardened, Dragonbone, etc. I know that for tons of people that would be one of their favorite go-to books for materials reference, as I personally scour the net constantly for those kinds of things... It's a real pain in the ars to say the least, and if they were all in one place, that would be a godsend!

I know that many feats are considered too weak or too powerful, but the Multiweapon Fighting feat tree is a must for those that have many arms such as the Kasatha, Thri-kreen and others. It adds a unique flavor and asthetics that's currently lacking. Marilith, Xill, and many others have better attacks due to their inherant ability to do so, so are more of a threat if they take these feats, but they already show what is possible. Feats in general should be imported, or improved/revamped.

Magic and Psionics with an interchangable point system similar to the Psionics system is very handy. I run a similar system in my homebrew games and my players love it.

I know some of my suggestions have been covered in 3rd party material, but I felt they generally deserve to be official PF material.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-16, 03:04 AM

if they were all in one place, that would be a godsend!

Wait, what? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/special-materials) You're welcome :D

AOKost

2014-12-16, 03:11 AM

Wait, what? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/special-materials) You're welcome :D

That is a good resource, but it doesn't even cover half of what D&D has, like Solarian True Steel, and MANY others. There are sorces that are not part of the official D&D that should be recognized as well, and that source does not cover templates added to items such as Dwarf-Craft, etc.

Extra Anchovies

2014-12-16, 03:15 AM

That is a good resource, but it doesn't even cover half of what D&D has, like Solarian True Steel, and MANY others. There are sources that are not part of the official D&D that should be recognized as well, and that source does not cover templates added to items such as Dwarf-Craft, etc.

Oh, I thought you were referring to Pathfinder special materials (after all, this thread is about both systems). Sorry.

AOKost

2014-12-16, 03:28 AM

Oh, I thought you were referring to Pathfinder special materials (after all, this thread is about both systems). Sorry.

No worries! :D I hope I didn't sound snappish. It would be awesome to have a reference book that contained all of the materials from all sourcebooks that things could be made of from A to Z, and all the ways items could be modified during their creation. Such as an Elf-Craft Dragonbone Longbow, or a Dwarf-Craft laminated Breatplate made of Orgacraft Living Metal... As an example of course... I'm not even sure that that would be possible, but it would be very interesting none the less. Or a material and templates from another source: Heartstone Masterpiece Ballanced Damascus Serrated Bastardsword...

Nightraiderx

2014-12-16, 10:39 AM

I got a few, Ordained Champion and Ruby Knight Vindicator,

Manly Man

2014-12-16, 04:31 PM

Wild Rager (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo---barbarian-archetypes/wild-rager) is sort of the PF Frenzied Berserker.

It is close, true. I might use it for a bit of inspiration.

Ssalarn

2014-12-16, 05:08 PM

Overall? Virtually everything that hasn't already been ported over yet to official PF.

Specific cases?

*** Psion (and the entire 3.X psionics system in general),***

I know some of my suggestions have been covered in 3rd party material, but I felt they generally deserve to be official PF material.

Paizo has been pretty clear that if you want 3.5 psionics, you should use Dreamscarred Press because they're never going to do it, both because DSP did such an amazing jo and because it's just not something their design team is interested in getting into. Their Occult Adventures release for next GenCon with their new "Psychic Magic" classes is their version, and it really has nothing in common other than some terminology.

They're fairly adverse to new subsystems in general, viewing that as the intended purview of the 3pp community.

AOKost

2014-12-16, 07:19 PM

I have yet to get any DSP material as yet... I've heard that Piazo doesn't want to get into Psionics, but the thread was about what would we like to see in PF, and it would be nice, at least in my opinion, to see an oficial release of Psionics.

My group uses Psionics regardless, but some groups don't allow it because 'it's not official, so therefore no' attitude is a bit too strict on many things.

Petrocorus

2014-12-16, 09:31 PM

I will add my voice to those who said Warlock and Aura-based classes. But fixed of course to be actually relevant at high level, about T3.

I will also add the Sha'Ir, just because i like that class.

Prestige classes:
Vigilante
I second the Vigilante

Magus is a dumber DB in a lot of ways. So many missteps there (Not full BAB but many fiddly bonuses, a damage mage that's not spontaneous, stupidly specific channeling mechanic, arcana is just bad and could have been replaced by the class's own casting). Ugh, DB should be converted. Did you know that you can shadow pounce to trigger a DB's full channel? Do you know why that is important?

According to me, not being spontaneous is not bad, since it also means no limit on spell known. The Magus has out-of-combat spells. Contrary to the DB. And the Magus has more combat option than the DB.
The DuskBlade is a good idea totally spoiled by a very poor and inconsistent spell list. Inconsistent with the flavour and the logic of the class. The Magus, even with its flaws, is not a 3 tricks pony.

Psyren

2014-12-17, 09:43 AM

Plus, you can make Magus spontaneous if that really rustles your jimmies :smalltongue:

Snowbluff

2014-12-17, 09:57 AM

According to me, not being spontaneous is not bad, since it also means no limit on spell known. The Magus has out-of-combat spells.

It doesn't necessarily mean that. Magi don't need complete access to their spell list anyway, because most of the spells aren't ones you'll be needing. People make this mistake a lot when they think about 6/9 casters. They treat them like full casters while forgetting basic things like how to properly weigh stats.

The problem is that they made magus kinda-spontaneous through a point system, when they could have had the Arcanist method that isn't exactly rocket science and would have streamlined the class.

DB did have a crummy list, but it had a ton of options for expansion, and their abilities worked with all of their spells innately. Full Channeling is a full attack, allowing it to be combined with other attack methods.

Psyren

2014-12-17, 10:07 AM

The "Arcanist method" was developed/tested with, well, the arcanist, which came out years after Ultimate Magic. After the debacle that was the Summoner you can't fault them for being a little more cautious with new casting classes and especially methods.

Also, there's nothing wrong with blending spontaneity (point system) with prepared casting. Indeed, Spell Recall created a lot of synergy between the two.

Ssalarn

2014-12-17, 10:09 AM

DB did have a crummy list, but it had a ton of options for expansion, and their abilities worked with all of their spells innately. Full Channeling is a full attack, allowing it to be combined with other attack methods.
Per the FAQ, Spell Combat is a type of Full Attack and benefits from things like haste that only enhance full attacks. IMHO, Magus is vastly better than the Duskblade, with better integration of all his class features right out the gate.

Snowbluff

2014-12-17, 10:25 AM

Per the FAQ, Spell Combat is a type of Full Attack and benefits from things like haste that only enhance full attacks. .
Oh, cool. Does activating take a full attack or a full round action?

The "Arcanist method" was developed/tested with, well, the arcanist, which came out years after Ultimate Magic. After the debacle that was the Summoner you can't fault them for being a little more cautious with new casting classes and especially methods.
It wasn't that hard. Other classes before it, like the Spirit Shaman, had done it before. 3.5 starts you with classes that blend spontaneous and prepared casting. In fact, the only casters that aren't spontanenous in the PHB are the Wizard, Paladin (not really much of a caster), and Ranger (same). Exclusively preparing spells is unusual.

It also doesn't make sense when you have a relatively few spell slots per day compared to a wizard, and not many bonus spell slots because pumping Int would have meant lowering Str/Dex and Con. You can repeat spells with your points, but you can't expand the variety of the spells you cast in a day.

And FYI, you could say the same about DB and its channeling abilities. "They were being cautious" isn't really helpful to... well, anything.

Also, there's nothing wrong with blending spontaneity (point system) with prepared casting. Indeed, Spell Recall created a lot of synergy between the two.
Nope. It means you have another resource to manage with no benefit. "Okay, I have these spell slots and then these spell slots." Additionally, making your spells dependent on your points (casting the same time sometimes requires this) means you have less points available for the other class features. So yeah, there is something definitely wrong with it.

Kurald Galain

2014-12-17, 10:49 AM

Per the FAQ, Spell Combat is a type of Full Attack and benefits from things like haste that only enhance full attacks. IMHO, Magus is vastly better than the Duskblade, with better integration of all his class features right out the gate.

Correct. What's more, the dusky's full attack channel works only from level 13, and the Magus's goes online a whopping ten levels earlier (with e.g. a natural weapon). And there are a lot more campaigns that run at level 3 than that ever get to level 13.

I think that's the core of the disagreement here. With a theory-op maxed out build at level 20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=4024408&postcount=5), there's probably some things the dusky does that the Magus doesn't. But almost nobody plays theory-op maxed out level 20, ever. So in actual gameplay, Magus wins, hands down.

Snowbluff

2014-12-17, 11:01 AM

Correct. What's more, the dusky's full attack channel works only from level 13, and the Magus's goes online a whopping ten levels earlier (with e.g. a natural weapon). And there are a lot more campaigns that run at level 3 than that ever get to level 13.

I think that's the core of the disagreement here. With a theory-op maxed out build at level 20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=4024408&postcount=5), there's probably some things the dusky does that the Magus doesn't. But almost nobody plays theory-op maxed out level 20, ever. So in actual gameplay, Magus wins, hands down.

1) Your statements are in conflict. "Let's give a Magus Natural Attacks!" "Don't optimize the DB or account for all levels." Not to mention that if we optimize it, the DB gets options for pounce, his own natural attacks, and 3.5 Arcane Strike. So this argument is a pretty good one to toss out the window when comparing the classes as wholes in their systems.

2) Before optimization, Magus doesn't get another attack until level 8. For a lot of levels you're only making 1 or 2 attacks with spell strike while not moving.

It is a good point about how DB is built toward optimization. The way that full channeling works is pretty damn good. There's a just a huge problem with the spell list. When I first read it, I said "Is this a joke? Do they have any touch spells?" In general, I prefer classes that take some work and have a high ceiling. The DB is definitely a worse designed class than the Beguiler, which is future proof.

Psyren

2014-12-17, 11:20 AM

In general, I prefer classes that take some work and have a high ceiling.

See, and this is fine. But then you come into a discussion on... well, any PF class really and say "nah this is dumb, because it's less powerful than {3.5 class + specific 3.5 PrC and feat selection} or {T1/T2 class engineered to do X in addition to doing everything else, because T1/T2}" without acknowledging this preference or even appearing to believe that it may deviate from the PF norm.

Lots of folks don't want "work" or high ceilings, rather they prefer to just pick up and play. This is exactly what classes like the Magus, and the later hybrids in ACG based on it, are designed to do.

Ssalarn

2014-12-17, 11:26 AM

2) Before optimization, Magus doesn't get another attack until level 8. For a lot of levels you're only making 1 or 2 attacks with spell strike while not moving.

Spell Combat comes online at first level allowing the Magus to "two-weapon fight" with sword and spell from level 1. At level 2, he gets Spellstrike and can blend the extra spell with his weapon attack, borrowing the weapon's crit range. That means for the first 5 levels of play he's actually capable of making more attacks and functionally casting more spells than the Duskblade (since every Spellstrike crit is essentially a second application of the applied damage spell). The Duskblade's full BAB is actually just helping him try to play to play catch-up to the Magus

1) Your statements are in conflict. "Let's give a Magus Natural Attacks!" "Don't optimize the DB or account for all levels." Not to mention that if we optimize it, the DB gets options for pounce, his own natural attacks, and 3.5 Arcane Strike. So this argument is a pretty good one to toss out the window when comparing the classes as wholes in their systems.
It is a good point about how DB is built toward optimization. The way that full channeling works is pretty damn good. There's a just a huge problem with the spell list. When I first read it, I said "Is this a joke? Do they have any touch spells?" In general, I prefer classes that take some work and have a high ceiling. The DB is definitely a worse designed class than the Beguiler, which is future proof.

I didn't see him say "Don't optimize one but do optimize the other in a comparison" I saw him say "Someone with a lot of system mastery might be able to come up with a few things the Duskblade can do that the Magus can't at the highest levels, but most people don't play there" which is true. The Magus blends sword and spell better than the Duskblade at far more levels of play, and those levels are the levels that more people play in. This is part of why the Magus is a much better designed class; it hits the ground doing the things it's supposed to do. It's also fairly foolish to compare a 20th level 3.5 class to a 20th level Pathfinder class - the design philosphies are different in both editions and 3.5 had many more high level exploits than Pathfinder. Even so, I'd generally still rather play a Magus than a Duskblade at 20th level. By that point I've been able to cherry-pick my favorite spells off of the Wizard spell list, Spell Combat all day long with Wand Wielder, and pick up a substantial array of abilities to enhance whatever idea it is I've got for my Magus.

Snowbluff

2014-12-17, 12:30 PM

See, and this is fine. But then you come into a discussion on... well, any PF class really and say "nah this is dumb, because it's less powerful than {3.5 class + specific 3.5 PrC and feat selection} or {T1/T2 class engineered to do X in addition to doing everything else, because T1/T2}" without acknowledging this preference or even appearing to believe that it may deviate from the PF norm.

Lots of folks don't want "work" or high ceilings, rather they prefer to just pick up and play. This is exactly what classes like the Magus, and the later hybrids in ACG based on it, are designed to do.
It's not just that, Psyren. It's dumb because the class design assigns a resource management mechanic to a class type that already has one. Most of the class features cover what would have been easily fixed with 1 decision, or fill in for spells.

Spell Combat comes online at first level allowing the Magus to "two-weapon fight" with sword and spell from level 1. At level 2, he gets Spellstrike and can blend the extra spell with his weapon attack, borrowing the weapon's crit range. That means for the first 5 levels of play he's actually capable of making more attacks and functionally casting more spells than the Duskblade (since every Spellstrike crit is essentially a second application of the applied damage spell). The Duskblade's full BAB is actually just helping him try to play to play catch-up to the Magus
The problem here is that you probably shouldn't in a lot of cases. It is TWF as a second level feature after you've use your 2-3 melee attack spells, which is if you're into that. However, the damage per regular hit on a magus is lower (no 2 handing), and with the TWF penalty the to-hit is lower, so I would say use your move action to provide a flank for a spell strike instead. A 20% difference is handy, especially at lower levels.

DBs do have the blades of blood spell at first level, which functions like channeling a spell at first level.

Ssalarn

2014-12-17, 01:03 PM

DBs do have the blades of blood spell at first level, which functions like channeling a spell at first level.

Except it doesn't get the crit benefits, so it's still inferior to Spellstrike, unless you're taking 1/2 your hit points in damage.

The problem here is that you probably shouldn't in a lot of cases. It is TWF as a second level feature after you've use your 2-3 melee attack spells, which is if you're into that. However, the damage per regular hit on a magus is lower (no 2 handing), and with the TWF penalty the to-hit is lower, so I would say use your move action to provide a flank for a spell strike instead. A 20% difference is handy, especially at lower levels.

Spell Combat comes online at first level. So pretty much every time you cast a touch spell right from character creation, there's not much reason not to take your weapon attack (unless you've moved that round, of course). If you're fighting opponents who you really can't afford a to-hit penalty against, you use Spell Combat to tag your boosters onto attacks immediately; things like true strike and vanish.

Petrocorus

2014-12-17, 01:11 PM

DB did have a crummy list, but it had a ton of options for expansion, and their abilities worked with all of their spells innately. Full Channeling is a full attack, allowing it to be combined with other attack methods.
What ton of options?
What other attack methods?

It is a good point about how DB is built toward optimization. The way that full channeling works is pretty damn good. There's a just a huge problem with the spell list. When I first read it, I said "Is this a joke? Do they have any touch spells?"

That's the core of my point. The spell list is so lame and limited, it make the DB limited too. I don't really know if Arcane Channelling is better than Spellstrike / Spell Combat; I don't know if the DB would be better or worse than the Magus if it had a decent spell list, but as it is, it does not have a decent spell list. Mostly blast and a few debuffs, and Vampiric Touch, only a handful of BFC and buffs, and not the best ones. The DB end up being a 3 trick pony: Cast a blast or a debuff, melee attack while channelling a blast or a debuff, melee attack with Arcane Strike. The Magus can do that, but can also use other things, notably using buffs spell before attacking, using some BFC, and because it has no limit of spell know, still has out-of-combat thing to do with some utility spell. Because of this, i would play a Magus over a DB any time. If i want to play a DB without PF, i would build a Wizard / Spellsword with a lot of CL lost or go psionic with a PsyWar.

GreyBlack

2014-12-17, 01:43 PM

Regarding the duskblade, there is one thing that duskblades can do that magi can't: TWF. Magi are forced into a single combat style (one-handed fighting), whereas the duskblade can be more varied.

Snowbluff

2014-12-17, 01:48 PM

It's a bit of a wash on that. You can TWF, but you can't channel with it until 13. If you have Arcane Strike, you will destroy your targets pretty fast.

What ton of options?
What other attack methods?
Anything that grants spells known in 3.5, like Arcane Disciple or Wyrm Wizard, depending on your needs and available options. Arcane Preparation adds the Sanctified and Vile spells. Mother Cyst, but I think that uses a lot of saves. It's been pointed out that that's not really relevant. Actually, now that I look at it, DB does have a ton of buffs and debuffs on their spell list. It just doesn't have any of the good touch spells.

Anything that gives a full attack, like Shadow Pouncing. By using a different attack action, the DB makes itself more available for optimization. Shadow Pouncing is definitely the most notable and powerful option, IMO.

Kurald Galain

2014-12-17, 02:11 PM

Regarding the duskblade, there is one thing that duskblades can do that magi can't: TWF. Magi are forced into a single combat style (one-handed fighting), whereas the duskblade can be more varied.
Actually a number of Magus archetypes solve that issue.

The point still stands that all the duskblade tricks mentioned so far require level 13 plus probably multiclassing, whereas the Magus tricks work from level 1 or sometimes 2. Theory op all you like, but in actual gameplay that's a huge twelve-level strike in favor of the Magus.

Nightraiderx

2014-12-17, 02:19 PM

Regarding the duskblade, there is one thing that duskblades can do that magi can't: TWF. Magi are forced into a single combat style (one-handed fighting), whereas the duskblade can be more varied.

it's so annoying that it is that way too. Pathfinder core only you can only twf if you use a double weapon (a staff magus is already lined up for this)
with path of war expansion if you have high dex you can use the Lightning Swap manuever to get around the 1-h restriction, but at that point a warpriest is just better at two weapon fighting (dual enhancement feat)

Psyren

2014-12-17, 02:20 PM

Regarding the duskblade, there is one thing that duskblades can do that magi can't: TWF. Magi are forced into a single combat style (one-handed fighting), whereas the duskblade can be more varied.

Archetypes let your Magi do other fighting styles (TWF, archery, staff, sword and board) if you truly must. They each give up things baseline, but if you find any of them too restrictive, just get your DM to tweak them upwards.

Ssalarn

2014-12-17, 02:27 PM

it's so annoying that it is that way too. Pathfinder core only you can only twf if you use a double weapon (a staff magus is already lined up for this)
with path of war expansion if you have high dex you can use the Lightning Swap manuever to get around the 1-h restriction, but at that point a warpriest is just better at two weapon fighting (dual enhancement feat)

Considering the fact that what the Magus gets is mechanically superior to TWF, I've never had an issue with it. You get an extra attack that also delivers a spell (normally a standard action in and of itself) and that spell uses your weapon's crit range, which more than compensates for not being able to gain Improved and Greater TWF. You also save on WBL since you get to use your primary weapon for your "off-hand" attack, knocking out one of the biggest weaknesses of the TWF style.