Bard Class Preview

Felinus wrote:

Am I wrong in guessing that spells of a single essence may exist on multiple lists, where relevant, to limit refluffing a duplication?

You are not wrong. Spells with two adjacent essences (they rarely have two opposing essences) may even be on all three lists that border either essence, depending on how they work.

Will these essences limit the possibilities of adding more spell lists down the line when more classes are created/updated? I can see the witch possibly using the occult list, but having them use the same list as bards is a bit odd. Psychic maybe the occult list, but a dedicated psychic list makes more sense to me.

And I'm very curious how former 6 and 4 level casters are going to be dealt with now that all of the core classes are all or nothing for spell-casting. Magi with full 10 level casting? Inquisitors with only powers instead of normal spell slots? Summoners really need a list of their own or maybe it'd be something like all conjuration, abjuration and transmutation spells from the Arcane and Occult spell lists but nothing else.

Associating bards with the occult is a pretty weird leap to me. The conflict between performance (a public expression of artistic creativity) and occult knowledge (by definition secretive and insular) just doesn't work. I respect people trying to reconcile the concepts here, but if the connection isn't intuitive to readers, why use it? If you were to tell me that *any* major spellcasting class had a link to the occult, bards would have been last on my list.

That is because you are interpreting "occult" to mean something different than what Paizo has interpreted it as.

And truth be told, occult probably doesn't quite mean what you think it means. Its meaning is "to hide from sight." A meaning closer to its use here is "supernatural practices and techniques" - this is according to Dict.org, a website that does an excellent job of defining words, listing its sources, and finding alternative words.

Or in other words, "occult" is perfectly suited for this sphere of magic, especially given the range of "essence" includes mental magics which would in many ways be "hidden from sight."

I guess for some it is intuitive and others it is not. For me it makes sense perfectly and it's not really reconciling. I guess it's because I feel like certain limitations of both the bard concept and the occult flavor are being enforced by others, without it really being there in the rules/blog post.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Am I wrong in guessing that spells of a single essence may exist on multiple lists, where relevant, to limit refluffing a duplication?

You are not wrong. Spells with two adjacent essences (they rarely have two opposing essences) may even be on all three lists that border either essence, depending on how they work.

Will these essences limit the possibilities of adding more spell lists down the line when more classes are created/updated? I can see the witch possibly using the occult list, but having them use the same list as bards is a bit odd. Psychic maybe the occult list, but a dedicated psychic list makes more sense to me.

And I'm very curious how former 6 and 4 level casters are going to be dealt with now that all of the core classes are all or nothing for spell-casting. Magi with full 10 level casting? Inquisitors with only powers instead of normal spell slots? Summoners really need a list of their own or maybe it'd be something like all conjuration, abjuration and transmutation spells from the Arcane and Occult spell lists but nothing else.

I think one of the major design goals with spells in the playtest is to step away from the design concept of each class having its own individual spell list, and instead having them refer to pre-existing spell lists that are almost communal for certain classes.

In that respect, it's a pretty logical conclusion that, since the Bard, the one 6th level caster in Core P1e, is now a 9th level caster but with slightly less spells overall than its other spontaneous counter part, the casting-focused Sorcerer, that the other historically 6th level casters will follow a similar path, having less spells than historically-full casters and having more focus on their class abilities.

In example, I could see both the Magus and the Summoner having default access to the Arcane spell list, but with slightly less spells known/per day/slots, and more emphasis on their ability to use combat-focused magic in a skirmish and their ability to summon, respectively. Same goes for the Warpriest and the Inquisitor for the Divine analogy, except with being a spell-casting tank and delivering judgement to enemies of your faith, respectively - hell, now that Paladins don't have any conventional spellcasting, Warpriests and Inquisitors being the divine gishes is more justifiable, especially since the Warpriest and Inquisitor by themselves are pretty distinct in how they operate (IE Prepared vs. Spontaneous).

Associating bards with the occult is a pretty weird leap to me. The conflict between performance (a public expression of artistic creativity) and occult knowledge (by definition secretive and insular) just doesn't work. I respect people trying to reconcile the concepts here, but if the connection isn't intuitive to readers, why use it? If you were to tell me that *any* major spellcasting class had a link to the occult, bards would have been last on my list.

Arcane magic was always a stretch for bards. I like occult much better as it speaks to subtler magic that might arise from music in a smoky tavern.

For the muses, it's like if your witch patron choice you picked Shadow, you wouldn't say "Shadow" you would say "Count Ranalc" (or whoever). For the muses, your Maestro-themed muse might be Shelyn, or a powerful grig, or a choral angel, or just your own inner song, though you wouldn't say "Maestro."

Idea: Just rename "Muse" to "Muse theme". :)

Names are important. .o/

Mark Seifter wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

I mean

The Eldritch Abomination Went Down To Georgia just doesn't quite have the same ring to it, unfortunately... Maybe we can workshop it.

The Shoggoth Went Down to Georgia?

You can't forget the great musical A Shoggoth on the Roof. Tentacles!

By the way, this is brilliant! Now I want to do a set of songs based on the playtest. Huh...

I think one of the major design goals with spells in the playtest is to step away from the design concept of each class having its own individual spell list, and instead having them refer to pre-existing spell lists that are almost communal for certain classes.

In that respect, it's a pretty logical conclusion that, since the Bard, the one 6th level caster in Core P1e, is now a 9th level caster but with slightly less spells overall than its other spontaneous counter part, the casting-focused Sorcerer, that the other historically 6th level casters will follow a similar path, having less spells than historically-full casters and having more focus on their class abilities.

In example, I could see both the Magus and the Summoner having default access to the Arcane spell list, but with slightly less spells known/per day/slots, and more emphasis on their ability to use combat-focused magic in a skirmish and their ability to summon, respectively. Same goes for the Warpriest and the Inquisitor for the Divine analogy, except with being a spell-casting tank and delivering judgement to enemies of your faith, respectively - hell, now that Paladins don't have any conventional spellcasting, Warpriests and Inquisitors being the divine gishes is more justifiable, especially since the Warpriest and Inquisitor by themselves are pretty distinct in how they operate (IE Prepared vs. Spontaneous).

Oh, I understand the reasoning about simplifying spell lists. I just don't think these lists really fit some classes. I can see fewer spell slots replacing fewer spell levels in some cases. The idea of Magi, Inquisitors and Warpriests with full spell levels is rather interesting (even though I almost never used spells with my inquisitor). I could also see the inquisitor just going to powers instead of spell levels.

But I think some lists really should be different. Summoners just don't make sense to be casting all arcane magic, they're very focused on summoning and buffing monsters and their eidolons. Casting Fireball just doesn't really fit that niche. And witches, psychics and bards all have a rather different thematic niche as well. Maybe witches could use the primal list, but that doesn't really fit them fully either. Or maybe make them have a flexible list based on patron like the sorcerer with bloodlines. Shoehorning everyone into one of four lists seems like you'll lose a lot of flexibility, uniqueness and flavor in favor of simplicity. Simplicity of the spell lists is a good goal, but I just don't want it to become too limiting.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Am I wrong in guessing that spells of a single essence may exist on multiple lists, where relevant, to limit refluffing a duplication?

You are not wrong. Spells with two adjacent essences (they rarely have two opposing essences) may even be on all three lists that border either essence, depending on how they work.

Will these essences limit the possibilities of adding more spell lists down the line when more classes are created/updated? I can see the witch possibly using the occult list, but having them use the same list as bards is a bit odd. Psychic maybe the occult list, but a dedicated psychic list makes more sense to me.

And I'm very curious how former 6 and 4 level casters are going to be dealt with now that all of the core classes are all or nothing for spell-casting. Magi with full 10 level casting? Inquisitors with only powers instead of normal spell slots? Summoners really need a list of their own or maybe it'd be something like all conjuration, abjuration and transmutation spells from the Arcane and Occult spell lists but nothing else.

The combination of the four essence types gives six potential lists. There is another thread that discusses and hypothesises this if you're interested in that side of things.

I agree that the Witch will probably be a prepared occult caster. I imagine the distinction will arise from class powers and patrons adding non-occult spells to the Witches spellbook/familiar much as it does now.

Some of those other casters you mentioned could probably be partially achieved using core classes and the right archetype and class/skill feats. Inquisitor as a stealthy, lored-up Paladin for instance. Magus would be harder, though a wizard would just need to dump a lot of feats into combat boosts. Down the line, I imagine magus would go the route of Paladin in 2e using class feats and spell points to give powers.

I'd love to see the Summoner go the way of Sorcerer, with a different spell list determined by what type of Eidolon it has (Primal-Beast, Arcane-Construct, Divine-Outsider, Occult-Aberrant).

You can't forget the great musical A Shoggoth on the Roof.

I meant for that to be the whole playlist not just Tentacles, but it's too late to edit.

For those interested in the discussion about essence

Doktor Weasel wrote:

You can't forget the great musical A Shoggoth on the Roof.

I meant for that to be the whole playlist not just Tentacles, but it's too late to edit.

Yeah, I found the other ones in the "next up." I wonder if Aladdin would be a good starting point for a generic playtest song list with its references to magic and other fantasy tropes in various songs. Here's a draft of a song sung in-character by a self-proclaimed god-wizard about how he feels none of the other classes are relevant, to the tune of Never Had a Friend Like Me:

Neriathale wrote:

I am now torn between a playtest bard with a blasphemous flute to up the occult flavour and a dwarf with bagpipes. Choices, choices....

I don't understand the distinction. ;)

OH... Bagpipes are a set of blasphemous flutes. So obvious in hindsight.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Doktor Weasel wrote:

You can't forget the great musical A Shoggoth on the Roof.

I meant for that to be the whole playlist not just Tentacles, but it's too late to edit.

Yeah, I found the other ones in the "next up." I wonder if Aladdin would be a good starting point for a generic playtest song list with its references to magic and other fantasy tropes in various songs. Here's a draft of a song sung in-character by a self-proclaimed god-wizard about how he feels none of the other classes are relevant, to the tune of Never Had a Friend Like Me:

** spoiler omitted **...

You, sir, are a bonafide genius!

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Doktor Weasel wrote:

You can't forget the great musical A Shoggoth on the Roof.

I meant for that to be the whole playlist not just Tentacles, but it's too late to edit.

Yeah, I found the other ones in the "next up." I wonder if Aladdin would be a good starting point for a generic playtest song list with its references to magic and other fantasy tropes in various songs. Here's a draft of a song sung in-character by a self-proclaimed god-wizard about how he feels none of the other classes are relevant, to the tune of Never Had a Friend Like Me:

** spoiler omitted **...

Oh, this is so wrong... But it's so funny...

And then Whole New World is too perfect for a new edition of a game, with not much change (this one is sung by a game designer or demoer).

You can't forget the great musical A Shoggoth on the Roof. Tentacles!

Thank you so much.

Occult flavour is about things like cults, rituals, invocation, forbidden practices, relics, sacrifice, drawing in power from outside, sympathy, spirits, old gods, ascension, etc.

Occult flavor is now more about bard stuff. New edition, new flavor.

I think the best way to understand the main inspirations driving how the Bard began and has evolved is to read the Riddle-Master of Hed (published 1976), which obviously influenced Gygax although the word "bard" doesn't appear anywhere in it.

You have magic harps, legends of harpists who can enchant animals, a riddle college where most of the powerful and educated go to learn and master riddles that are a mix between legendary historical anecdote and wise fable, disappeared wizards who left behind locked spell books that dabblers can use in limited ways, a "great shout" that some people do in stress or surprise that breaks things and can opens locks (including spell locked spell books), spells to make stones speak (magic mouth), spells to delve into and heal minds, archeology at legendary sites of lost civilizations, the search for truth behind scraps of legends and unanswered riddles, and druidic themed magic like shapeshifting, elemental control, and binding between rulers and the land and people/creatures in their domain.

Hoping we get options for a dancer-type bard who works without an instrument.

So all this talk about the bard and the occult and their relationship has reminded me of a certain book where a troupe of traveling performers are slain because their leader composes a piece that's a little too truthful about some demons who are supposed to be a mere fairytale, and said demons don't want the truth to be known.

The occult theme may not fit with the kind of bard that's just a street performer or a mere sweet talker with a lute, but that's not all a bard is. The occult does fit, in my mind, with the idea of an adventuring bard. The kind of bard that goes around the country getting little snippets of obscure folklore to add to their performances and stories, the guy who tells scary stories from some other land when everyone's sitting around the campfire and manages to make them just terrifying and, what's worse: very plausible. The guy who knows how the ten people who live in a remote village, just a couple days worth of walking south of here, where you can hear unsettling laughs coming from the nearby willows at nights when there's no moon, deal with their particular brand of supernatural creatures.

And that has made me, for the first time ever, consider playing a bard.

I am now torn between a playtest bard with a blasphemous flute to up the occult flavour and a dwarf with bagpipes. Choices, choices....

You could always play a playtest Dwarf with blasphemous bagpipes!

I'm going to skip heaping praise on all the the cool songs Mark is creating and focus on one thing:

Actual clear rules for hiding

Another thing I've really been hoping would be heavily updated. Can't wait to see those.

You could always play a playtest Dwarf with blasphemous bagpipes!

...or in other words, bagpipes. ;-)

Thinking about it more, Bard is actually a perfect fit for the Occult. After all, how many evil cultist rituals involve the leading of brainwashed followers in ominous chanting and demonic linedancing? How terrifying would it be to come across people singing:

"'Cthulhu fhtagn!' What a wonderful phrase!
'Cthulhu fhtagn!' Ain't no passing craze!
It means 'no worries, for the rest of your days (are numbered').
It's our problem-free end to humanity!
'Cthulhu fhtagn!'"

*Someone more familiar with Lovecraft can finish that.

"it means no morals! It's the end of all days!
It's the final spree... Of humanity!
Cthulu f'tagn!"

Also, at the risk of invoking tired stereotypes, there's no base class I'd associate more strongly with the 'eerie Romani fortune teller' archetype than the Bard, and that's the imagery that leads to mind when you consider tarot readings and seances and many similar occult trappings.

Also, on an unrelated note: fingers crossed that Bards get a spell or composition to animate objects or the dead for as long as they keep playing.

Milo v3 wrote:

Occult flavour is about things like cults, rituals, invocation, forbidden practices, relics, sacrifice, drawing in power from outside, sympathy, spirits, old gods, ascension, etc.

Occult flavor is now more about bard stuff. New edition, new flavor.

Also, even in PF1 the Occult was also about stuff like "predicting the future with harrow cards or similar" or "object reading" or "perceiving people's auras" or "hypnotism" or "faith healing", all of which are wholly in the bard's wheelhouse.

What Milo is talking about is the darker side of occultism, let's have the classic bard hero define the lighter side of occultism.

In 2001 I spotted the book Harry Potter and the Bible : The Menace Behind the Magick by Richard Abanes in my local library. The Harry Potter books were a new phenomenon then, a fantasy series so popular that youngsters were avidly reading them. The conservative Christian community usually objected to books with witchcraft in them, but some were praising the Harry Potter series. I was curious what this book by Abanes said.

Richard Abanes' bias can be seen in the title: he misspells "magic" as "magick" because some occult sources spell it that way. J.K. Rowling spelled it "magic." He spotted occult symbols in the Harry Potter books and admonished them as encouraging occultism. He ignored that this formerly secret occult knowledge had leaked into common folklore centuries ago, into the popular images of wizards and witches and goblins.

This complements our discussion here on bards wielding occult magic. Bards are purveyors of folklore, about the tales and songs that people love to hear again and again. Some will dig deep into folklore, as J.K. Rowling did, to flesh out details in their tales. Occult knowledge leaks into folklore. It probably spreads even more on Golarion, where adventurers return with tales of occult spells used by themselves and against themselves and the bards capture those stories in new songs.

But that still faces the same question: once occult lore is in the songs of the bards and has become folklore, is is still occult?

Jhaeman wrote:

Associating bards with the occult is a pretty weird leap to me. The conflict between performance (a public expression of artistic creativity) and occult knowledge (by definition secretive and insular) just doesn't work. I respect people trying to reconcile the concepts here, but if the connection isn't intuitive to readers, why use it? If you were to tell me that *any* major spellcasting class had a link to the occult, bards would have been last on my list.

I don't want to be that person, but if we're going off of definitions, Arcane is the one that is more strictly defined as mysterious, secretive, and insular. While the actual word Occult has its roots with the Latin word for "secret," most modern definitions tend to more closely tie it with explicit magical/supernatural beliefs or practices. Either way, both the terms "arcane" and "occult" are practically synonyms in practice, so you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Occult means hidden, the view to it covered up. Arcane means secret, shut away beyond common reach. Do we want two branches of magic to have the same meaning in their names? In contrast, primal means belonging to the earliest age, and divine means of the gods. Those names are distinct and meaningful.

Occult became the name for the mind-magic spells because it showed up 3 years ago in Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Occult Adventures. "Psychic" appears to be reserved for a casting method, so it is not available. Some of the related names such as "enchantment" and "illusion" are schools of arcane magic, so they aren't available either.

"Bardic" could serve as a name, but the return of the Occult Adventure classes in a few years will make it seem misnamed. We need a name that relates to folklore and the mind and forgotten lore.

How about "Dream"? Some of the eldritch stories, such as H.P Lovecraft's The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, relate to the otherworldly nature of dreams. Dreams also relate to the forgotten, because we often forget dreams. Dream interpretation is viewed as occult lore. Yet the other meaning of dream, about hopes and aspirations, fit the bard well. It does have the disadvantage that its adjective, "dreamy" means attractive, but we could use the backup adjective "dreamlike." "Visionary" and "fantastic" are similar.

And then Whole New World is too perfect for a new edition of a game, with not much change (this one is sung by a game designer or demoer).

** spoiler omitted **

Now that Bards use the Occult spell list, Friends on the Other Side is already an appropriate song.

Renchard wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Occult flavour is about things like cults, rituals, invocation, forbidden practices, relics, sacrifice, drawing in power from outside, sympathy, spirits, old gods, ascension, etc.

Occult flavor is now more about bard stuff. New edition, new flavor.

Also, even in PF1 the Occult was also about stuff like "predicting the future with harrow cards or similar" or "object reading" or "perceiving people's auras" or "hypnotism" or "faith healing", all of which are wholly in the bard's wheelhouse.

What Milo is talking about is the darker side of occultism, let's have the classic bard hero define the lighter side of occultism.

To be honest, most of what I have seen bards commonly do is really creepy and disturbing when you think about it. Whispering in people's ears, using charm/suggestion/etc spells to influence people's behaviour, creating vicious rumours, manipulating people through charisma, hurting people with insults, whatever the hell is going on with spells like Tasha's hideous laughter. They can very easily can get into pied piper type territory with the somewhat questionable and mysterious magics they use, and that seems very occult to me.

"Psychic" appears to be reserved for a casting method, so it is not available.

They could un-reserve it and rename the casting method. "Cerebral" or "cognitive" perhaps, depending on just what it signifies.

Put me firmly in the 'Bards = Occult is good' camp.

We acquired an NPC bard in book 1 of Strange Aeons, and he fits right into the occultish/Lovecraftian themes of that AP (albeit the poor boy has developed an irrational fear of books), not least because some of the bardic spells and masterpieces are in the twisted mind control area.

Anything that gets my second-favourite class away from the lute & goatee stereotype is good. Those characters are minstrels, without real power, bards should be something different and less frivolous, manipulators of minds and perceptions - which fits with my concept of the occult.

If anyone listens to the Magnus Archives podcast, there are a lot of what I think of as 'bards' in that - some of them work for the circus.

Down the line, I imagine magus would go the route of Paladin in 2e using class feats and spell points to give powers.

I don't know, the thought of the Magus not getting spellcasting seems really off to me, and it somewhat clashes with the concept of someone who melds arcane study with martial training. I feel like leaving the door open for a new Arcane Paladin-esque class in the future would be a better fit. I would suggest the Bloodrager would be a good fit, but considering the Sorcerer is no longer exclusively Arcane, it doesn't have as strong a fit into the concept anymore.

In encounter mode, we tend to lean into the abstractions of the game more to allow for predictable and precise choices, things like space in quanta of exactly a 5-foot square if you're using a grid, and time in quanta of exactly 6 second combat rounds. But in the world, not everything is exactly on a 5-foot grid (assuming that the world is measured on a 5-foot grid at all times caused issues in an infamous pit jumping thread, for instance), and magic doesn't bleed away on exact multiples of 6 seconds.

So only bards will be able to precisely time things with their magic? I always liked the concept of timing things by spell expiration.

Speaking of which, will it be defined if a caster knows when their spell is expiring?

Felinus wrote:

Down the line, I imagine magus would go the route of Paladin in 2e using class feats and spell points to give powers.

I don't know, the thought of the Magus not getting spellcasting seems really off to me, and it somewhat clashes with the concept of someone who melds arcane study with martial training.

I am pretty sure that Magus (aka Eldritch Knight) will be an Archetype, if and when they republish it. Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, and Arcane Tricksters don't really have enough of a niche to justify being their own Classes anymore.

Their stat-line is no longer a consideration with everything based in level, and limited casting is just as easily done using 3rd edition Multiclassing (I.E. Taking 1 level of Fighter for every 3 Levels of Wizard produces something close to a second tier caster like the Magus). All that leaves is their niche features really.

Something like Spellstrike seems more feat-worthy in PF2 (particularly as an Archetype), and Spell-Combat (Using the same Action to perform Somatic Casting and Strike with a weapon; preferably with the same hand so that you can have a shield raised too) would be a prize for most any martially focused caster given that even single-classed their accuracy isn't so far behind the Fighter's.

Seems to me that we're already halfway to Magus with the way casters are going to be interacting with the new proficiency and action systems. All you really need is an archetype giving you access to action economy boosts for melding spellcasting and attacks and weapon/armor proficiencies as class feats and voila.

Seems to me that we're already halfway to Magus with the way casters are going to be interacting with the new proficiency and action systems. All you really need is an archetype giving you access to action economy boosts for melding spellcasting and attacks and weapon/armor proficiencies as class feats and voila.

The thing is, you already have the action economy you need to make one attack at no penalty and cast a typical spell, so all you need is a way to easily get all the proficiencies (which there also is) and you can have an awesome magus character like Amanda's wizard in our office game.

Which begs the question, what are the bard weapon and armor proficiencies?

Revan wrote:

Seems to me that we're already halfway to Magus with the way casters are going to be interacting with the new proficiency and action systems. All you really need is an archetype giving you access to action economy boosts for melding spellcasting and attacks and weapon/armor proficiencies as class feats and voila.

The thing is, you already have the action economy you need to make one attack at no penalty and cast a typical spell, so all you need is a way to easily get all the proficiencies (which there also is) and you can have an awesome magus character like Amanda's wizard in our office game.

That takes care of a spell combat facsimile, but not spellstrike. Although with the way crits work now the main benefit of channeling a spell through your weapon is lost unless a PF2 magus concept could somehow make its to-hit against regular AC better than its to-hit against touch AC.

Revan wrote:

Seems to me that we're already halfway to Magus with the way casters are going to be interacting with the new proficiency and action systems. All you really need is an archetype giving you access to action economy boosts for melding spellcasting and attacks and weapon/armor proficiencies as class feats and voila.

The thing is, you already have the action economy you need to make one attack at no penalty and cast a typical spell, so all you need is a way to easily get all the proficiencies (which there also is) and you can have an awesome magus character like Amanda's wizard in our office game.

Multiclassing ? Which just might be the topic of next Monday's blog post ?

Revan wrote:

Seems to me that we're already halfway to Magus with the way casters are going to be interacting with the new proficiency and action systems. All you really need is an archetype giving you access to action economy boosts for melding spellcasting and attacks and weapon/armor proficiencies as class feats and voila.

The thing is, you already have the action economy you need to make one attack at no penalty and cast a typical spell, so all you need is a way to easily get all the proficiencies (which there also is) and you can have an awesome magus character like Amanda's wizard in our office game.

Would metamagics for making a weapon attack in place of an attack roll or a class feature that allows 1/turn the subbing of one somatic casting component for a weapon attack (similar action economy wise to a monk, though possibly with a "no more spells this turn" caveat if needed) be likely areas that might be relevant in the future?

Re_posts on Magus being possible as just an archetype:

NOOOOOOOooooooo...!

:p

Mark Seifter wrote:

Revan wrote:

Seems to me that we're already halfway to Magus with the way casters are going to be interacting with the new proficiency and action systems. All you really need is an archetype giving you access to action economy boosts for melding spellcasting and attacks and weapon/armor proficiencies as class feats and voila.

The thing is, you already have the action economy you need to make one attack at no penalty and cast a typical spell, so all you need is a way to easily get all the proficiencies (which there also is) and you can have an awesome magus character like Amanda's wizard in our office game.

That takes care of a spell combat facsimile, but not spellstrike. Although with the way crits work now the main benefit of channeling a spell through your weapon is lost unless a PF2 magus concept could somehow make its to-hit against regular AC better than its to-hit against touch AC.

In theory, since connecting two things on the same Strike and attack bonus is pretty useful, you could have a situation where you can deliver the touch attack with a weapon Strike so you can put the combined damage on a single Strike at your highest bonus. Not sure if balanced, though. There's also already a pretty strong spell-combat-esque-round encouragement feat out there for wizards and sorcerers, which is a must-have for the magus-ish build.

Might be fun to have the touch spell with weapon strike be, if you beat TAC you get the spell damage, if you beat regular AC you get the weapon damage. If you beat both you get both.

It's a little crunchy, but the fun kind.

Re_posts on Magus being possible as just an archetype:

NOOOOOOOooooooo...!

:p

Well, a central question which will resonate throughout PF2 is if we can replicate the mechanics of a PF1 class with a combination of choices in a different class, but not so much the thematics, what do we do with that thematic space?

Like a PF2 divine sorcerer can absolutely mechanically replicate an oracle from PF1, but cannot in any way replicate the Oracle's flavor and concept ("special blood" being an accident and "cursed/chosen by the gods for a mysterious purpose are sort of irreconcilable) and we've had several indications that the Oracle isn't going anywhere.

So the question we're going to keep coming back to is "what is to become of all these gishes" or "is there more to the magus than a warrior who magics or a magic-user who fights?"

"'Cthulhu fhtagn!' What a wonderful phrase!
'Cthulhu fhtagn!' Ain't no passing craze!
It means 'no worries, for the rest of your days (are numbered').
It's our problem-free end to humanity!
'Cthulhu fhtagn!'"

*Someone more familiar with Lovecraft can finish that.

It's actually already been done.

Might be fun to have the touch spell with weapon strike be, if you beat TAC you get the spell damage, if you beat regular AC you get the weapon damage. If you beat both you get both.

It's a little crunchy, but the fun kind.

Multiple DC thresholds like that doesn't play too nicely with degrees of success (imagine TAC is 3 lower and you beat the full AC by 7, which beats the TAC by 10).