Talk:Magus (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
Put your comments about this class here, I'd love to get some more feedback! Ideally, I'd also love people to do some playtesting and post their findings about balance comparisons, etc. -Astrimedes- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts!
- This sounds a lot like a wizard with the spell points variant from Unearthed Arcana. -Drago Nero —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 March 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts!
- It is a lot like that. However, I was unhappy with the numbers derived for their spellpoints system, and couldn't really find the way they went about determining them. Also, I figured this was a really good way to differentiate a sorcerer variant from the wizard, letting the spellpoints represent a much more "natural" spellcasting feel, as opposed to the wizards' regimented "X spells of level X per day" system. It's essentially my idea of a sorcerer replacement, truth be told. Also, I attempted to give them some much-needed flavor. -Astrimedes- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 March 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts!
- Overall, I say this is a good class. I haven't delved into the balance of the mana points yet and compared it to a sorcerer or wizard (or other arcane caster). I like the concept and the mechanics. I do like that it is similar to the "spell points" system.--Skwyd 16:16, 3 May 2007 (MDT)
This class seems good in essence, and I took a look at the bonus spell point chart and I couldn't discern any detectable pattern. I would suggest making a new one that would make more sense and including more benefits to a 20th level Magus whose charisma is only 17 (Though at that point I don't know why it would be so low.). --AnimeOtaku137 8:49, 18 January 2011 EST
 Great spell point system!
I love the spell point system, I had been thinking of something based on the cost of a scroll for the spell (e.g. 1 point per 100 GP, and then giving points based on what spells a mage could cast), but that gave a mage a LOT of 1st level spells... On a completely unrelated note, The feat which gives an AC bonus from the aura is probably broken, that much AC is pretty impressive. I could see 1/2, rounded up...Aaror 18:26, 28 January 2007 (MST)
- Hm... This is a spellcasting class, however I see what you mean. The reason I see this feat as broken is because this feat does not apply a static benefit, it increases as the character increases. To balance this out I would say make a lesser, normal, and greater version of this feat. The lesser would have prerequisites of Magical Aura +2, and would grant up to a +2 AC because of magical aura. The normal version would do up to a +3, and the greater up to a +4. Do you think this would balance it, or do you like you way more? --Green Dragon 18:59, 28 January 2007 (MST)
- hmm, well now you really have me thinking, compareing this to dodge, it is already good with a plus one, and there is no such thing as greater dodge. So I would have 4 feats, in sequence, allowing +1 at 1st level, +2 with +1 as prereq and which can't be taken until aura +2, etc. This is still better than many feats, but is reasonably balanced as the aura itself has some negatives.Aaror 16:29, 29 January 2007 (MST)
- Alright, go ahead and fix them then. By the way, I like the first one starting at a +1 to AC not a +2 like I said above. Making it only a +1 would balance it with Dodge (like you said above). --Green Dragon 21:54, 29 January 2007 (MST)
- Looks better, however does the overwhelming work when epic? If so it should be changed to make it only work with a certain bonus as well so the benefit is not ever-increasing. --Green Dragon 18:19, 30 January 2007 (MST)
- fixed--Aaror 08:44, 31 January 2007 (MST)
- Looks good, thanks for doing that. --Green Dragon 10:36, 31 January 2007 (MST)
 Ill effects
"Using solely his own essence to repeatedly channel high-powered magic can harm the magus. The magus may only cast his highest level known spells a number of times per day equal to 1/3 of his Charisma score without ill effects." Looking at the table, it doesn't look like he can get more than 3 of his highest level spells at one time anyway... so unless a character playing this class has an 8 or lower in CHA it doesn't seem like this would matter. Could you clarify this? Cool class anyway ^.^ Furbuggy 06:39, 16 April 2007 (MDT)
- Look at the channeller in Player’s Options: Spells and Magic (AD&D2, some say 2.5). Really worth it. And for a more “hardcore” variant, considers either Advanced d20 Magic or Dragon Warriors’ Mystics (page, direct download).
David Latapie (✒ | @) — blog 16:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)
- Does it make sense now or do you think it needs to be worded better? --Green Dragon 23:16, 16 April 2007 (MDT)
 Class name
Magus refers to a Zurvanist Zoroastrian priest, most famously said to have visited Jesus as an infant. Its use to designate this class is most random.Indikun Zeo 12:02, 30 June 2007 (MDT)
- Well, I don't think it is as simple as that. The term "magus" has a very deep and complex history and though the Zurvanist Priest may be the most commonly known or accepted use of the term, it is by no means the only possible meaning. Here's a wikipedia article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magus --Skwyd 14:23, 1 July 2007 (MDT)
- I wouldn't expect that it would have to exactly mean a Zurvanist priest…but the class designates an intuitive sort of spellcaster, sort of a "psionic" magic-user - pretty much the opposite of what the learned and ritual-oriented magician-priest which comes to mind when I hear "magus." Not that I have a better idea offhand.Indikun Zeo 00:41, 12 July 2007 (MDT)
- I suggest we rename this class, "Talent." A talent is someone with a natural ability. That makes total sense.Indikun Zeo 01:24, 16 August 2007 (MDT)
- Everyone agree this class should be renamed? --Green Dragon 22:38, 26 August 2007 (MDT)
- I actually like the current name, but if it is changed, that won't be a big deal to me. I was looking at some of the synonyms for "magus" and I found that "magician", "sorcerer", and "astrologer" are all listed. And even the terms "sorcerer" and "wizard" are considered interchangable in the English language. And those two words define two different classes that have very different ways of accessing magic. I have found that the D&D game usually has its own spin on fantasy. Some of the game terms are just what we've been using for decades and so we don't change them. Others have some actual historical "accuracy" and others are just made up on a whim. So, if everyone wants the name changed, I say go for it (although I don't care for the name "talent" so much). But I wouldn't change it just because of the connotation it has from a particular definition of the word. Or at least that's my 3.5 cents! >:) --Skwyd 15:26, 30 August 2007 (MDT)
- You make a valid point—I now feel that this does not need to be renamed... I am for keeping the current name. --Green Dragon 23:26, 30 August 2007 (MDT)
 Rating - 8/10
It could use a little game balance, but overall, the article is very well worded, and contains pertinent game information about the character class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 July 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
- This rating has been nullified with the implementation of the new Rating System. --Green Dragon 22:47, 20 February 2008 (MST)
Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the increase in ability to cast spells is still countered by the classes vulnerabilities. --AnimeOtaku137 20:14, 17 January 2011 (MST)
Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because it is very long worded and at times redundant. --AnimeOtaku137 20:14, 17 January 2011 (MST)
Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this is an excellent alternative method of spellcasting. --AnimeOtaku137 20:14, 17 January 2011 (MST)