Talk:Red Magus (3.5e Class)

Author Insight

Interesting thing here.

It can cast pretty much all the spells from the main casters, but can't cast beyond 6th. More importantly, the progression is slower, meaning level inappropriate spells later than normal. While this is partly offset by Enhanced Magic, it means the spellcasting is surprisingly weak. At first I was about to list it as High for that reason, but I forsaw that "they still cast like wizards at low level", which is true until about 4th, and they also had some martial prowess. The class features I added were not only to prevent horror vacuii and to give encouragement to stay in red magus instead of PrCing out, but also to push it from an uncomfortable High Rogue to what I forsee as a Low Wizard level. Going the other way would have requires cuts or nerfs, of which I am unsure how I would be able to implement it. -- Eiji-kun 09:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a 2/3 progression like this is flatly High balance, as long as you haven't done spell re-leveling (which you haven't). Their DCs are lower in general and the delayed acquisition pushes a lot of tricks back to after counters are more widely available. And while they gain access to a lot of lists, it is restricted in the same way as a sorcerer which limits their otherwise potentially problematic versatility. Casting like a wizard until 4th level just means that they are playing the game. Yes, a spell might end the encounter, but so might a luck greatsword crit or a well placed TWF rogue stabber. They get to do it more consistently, but once they're done they're out. At this level it's more likely to bring up 15 minute workday complaints at those levels, where they drop a spell for the encounter and don't have much else to do, than it is to point out how they're playing at a different balance.

The class features I've looked over (and I admit to glancing at most of them so I might have missed something) are not very problematic for a High balance game. Boosting the spell damage cap is a pretty small patch on people saving against it more often. And as those spells are mostly High or Moderate balance spells when they're granted on the wizard progression, the feature isn't a big deal to add to a delayed progression of them. The exception class feature is UMD. I have no idea what that's doing on here, as they already have a class list that gives them access to pretty much every item they would want. It doesn't need to be here, but its inclusion does point out the one possible place where the class could break into low VH - gear. Their class list allows them to grab scrolls that are stronger than intended, so dropping the class list to only include spells from the other classes up to 6 might be useful. You could take it one step farther if you wanted, and make their class list start at level 0 and 1 spells, and add level 2, 3, 4, etc. spells to the class list later on in the class in order to prevent them from circumventing the casting restrictions by grabbing scrolls or wands early.

tl;dr - I don't think the spellcasting alone is enough to push them up to VH. The class features amount to High balance "moar damages" things that I don't think pushes them up either. UMD should probably go, because they already have access to almost every wand and scroll ever made. Their class list should also be restricted to level 6 and under of the other lists, possibly broken down more to prevent early scroll / wand access if that's a concern. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Good point on DCs, those will be lower. Because of that, red magi are slightly gish-focused, or probably work on buffs and save-less spells. The action economy breaking of dualcasting is probably best reserved for combat buffs that need to be applied rapidly. On UMD, you think that pushes it over the top? I debated on it myself. On one hand, they have all the lists, but its true they don't have spells beyond 6th, so they would need to UMD a stave of druid spell 7 or wizard 8 or cleric 9 or whatever. With that in mind I thought, "I could see them using that." and knowing the unreasonable cost of high level spells, I figured it might be kosher. However, I'll consider removing it. Its not strictly required and I'm not sold on it myself.

I'd like to get some more feedback from others. What say you about this UMDery? -- Eiji-kun 20:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

UMD is entirely redundant with the class list actually. Since staves use the spell trigger activation method you just need the spell on your class list, and they have 9th level spells on their class lists as a result of your wording. Scrolls might trigger a mishap if you have a lower CL than scroll itself, but that can be avoided with a CL check that doesn't hook into UMD at all.

So I wasn't trying to point out that UMD pushed it up here so much as having 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells on their class lists despite never actually casting them might. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Touche. Removed and dropped to High. -- Eiji-kun 21:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot they kind of have UMD anyways with Jack of All Trades. Re-added UMD, but limited class list to 6th requiring UMD ranks to cast 7th and higher spells from items. -- Eiji-kun 22:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Caster Level

There is a problem with stated caster level. At 20th level, it states that his caster level becomes his character level, but nothing before it states that the caster level was otherwise. Is there something missing? - Kylem2013 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You're forgetting one thing and missing another. 1) His character level counts as his caster level as a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard for any prerequisites, 2) Multiclassing is a thing that exists. Presumably an epic Red Magus could dip out in non-caster classes or prestige classes, and when he receives the capstone, he makes up the difference. --68.187.81.126 01:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi ‎Dndmaster12345!

I see you're making mechanical changes onto my page. You should be aware that we tend to revert mechanical changes unless they're discussed on the talk page (this page) first, to give the author time to respond. Good news, I'm the author so I can go ahead and say I don't approve of these changes, but please discuss with me why you are trying to make them please. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)