Secrets of Magic Playtest!

They can also completely change their spell known each levels without retraining.

Notably, if you read the Spell Repertoire class feature, their number of spells known never increases past 3rd level. So they have to change their spells known if they want to learn higher level spells.

Was really excited for both these classes, but the Magus is immensely dissapointing and should have just been an archetype (and will be at my table if it doesn't change).

The Summoner on the other hand looks baller (possibly too much?) and I very much want to play one.

The Summoner at least looks fun. The Magus basically is an archetype as the only people I've seen have a good time with it have been taking multiclass dedications.

I'm unlikely to get a chance to properly playtest the Magus, given the short window and the number of conventions I'm GMing at this month. So I filled out the survey checking the 'Did not playtest, but want to give feedback' option. The survey was rather underwhelming compared to the ones for the Playtest (don't know how it compared to the APG playtest surveys). No free-answer text. No ability to give nuance. Hard to express how individually pieces (aside from striking spell) might be ok, the union is still unexciting.

zergtitan wrote:

We got a new Iconic for the Summoner. Why?

Honestly not remotely surprised, was expecting Balazar & Padrig for a Sarkorian Godcaller but at the same time I thought they were going to be replaced by was going to be Alase Brinz-Widowknife & Tonbarse.

What's interesting about the fact that Balazar was replaced is that most of us believe this new Summoner to be a Godcaller, but the playtest suggests this to be untrue. Their Eidolon appears to be that of a dragon, which is Arcane. The splat for the Arcane Eidolons suggests that Padrig would likely be a "amalgam', a "scientifically crafted magical experiment built carefully out of astral thoughtforms."

So we traded one Arcane Summoner for another. One whose Eidolon, imo, seems a lot less interesting than Padrig, as it is simply a dragon. But, i look forward to see what they are about.

Should also be noted that the Beast Eidolon entry suggests that that is where the Godcallers fall, which is Primal rather than Divine. Which honestly, in hindsight, make sense.

I'm unlikely to get a chance to properly playtest the Magus, given the short window and the number of conventions I'm GMing at this month. So I filled out the survey checking the 'Did not playtest, but want to give feedback' option. The survey was rather underwhelming compared to the ones for the Playtest (don't know how it compared to the APG playtest surveys). No free-answer text. No ability to give nuance. Hard to express how individually pieces (aside from striking spell) might be ok, the union is still unexciting.

There are actually 2 surveys, one for multiple-choice, the other one for open responses.

The open response one: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SoMOpenResponse

Thanks, my brain just assumed it was one for Magus and one for Summoner with enough letters matching the class names that it filled in the rest.

So the Magus has level 1 class feats but does not seem to gain a class feat at level 1. Is that correct?

So the Magus has level 1 class feats but does not seem to gain a class feat at level 1. Is that correct?

Yep, it's like all the casters: you can pick up those feats through being human or having a feature that allows access [like universal school for wizard].

I was eagerly awaiting to see Magus, as it's my favorite class in PF1, but after reading the playtest, I was quite disappointed. There are three things that really inhibit it's ability to shine and make it a subpar class compared to existing classes. Note that all of these issues can be removed by changing the first issue.

First: The need to make two rolls to make its signature ability, Discharging Strike, work. RAW, you need to first make a melee attack roll then make a spell attack roll (both without a multiple attack penalty) in order for you to deal weapon and spell damage.

- "If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit. The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell attack roll."

The whole point of the magus imbuing their weapon with the spell is to be able to ensure the spell hits whenever they land a hit with their weapon. It doesn't make sense to be able to hit with a weapon attack but due to poor RNG on the second roll, not be able to expend the spell. I would recommend only making the weapon attack roll necessary to use the ability, but make following attack actions for the turn as if the magus had used two attacks (ie, one attack with spell at no penalty, then the next attack at a -8/-10 [finesse/normal]). That would keep the action economy equal with the other classes and make the class more playable. If you are worried about the players not putting points into Intelligence to keep the theme, you could set the duration of the Battle Spells with the Intelligence modifier (2xInt mod rounds, Int mod minutes, etc). In the event that the magus has no Int mod, the duration would be 1 round.

Second: Due to the class requiring melee and spell attack rolls for it's signature ability, and both are governed by different attributes (Strength/Dexterity for weapon attacks and Intelligence for spell attacks), the class is more MAD than any other class. This is easily fixed if the first issue is addressed. As of now, in order to work effectively, both the key attribute and Intelligence have to be as high as possible (which means both at 16 during character creation using the system creation rules). That's a -1 to rolls compared to other classes, which can easily have an 18 to their key attribute at level 1. Not only does this mean that they will be less likely to hit than the other classes, they could potentially waste precious spell slots (only 4 as of now).

Third: The fact that the magus melee proficiency ranks up faster than the spell proficiency. This is a real problem for discharging strike (as written if no changes are made) as well as normal casting. The melee proficiency ranks up to expert at 5th level while the spell casting proficiency ranks up to expert at 11th level. This means that the magus will be trying to hit enemies with expert to master training to their AC with only a Trained bonus. The worst is at level 10, where the average enemy AC is 31 and the magus will only have a +16 (10 [Level] + 2 [Trained] + 4 [Int mod]) to hit on the spell attack roll. This means they would have to roll a 15 to hit and have a 70% failure rate. For a main class feature to fail 70% of the time makes the class unplayable.

I know that this has been a long post, but I hope this explains my concerns with the class as is currently written.

Spellcaster MC dedication on Magus sounds good at first glance.

I was looking at an unarmed magus with a monk dedication.

Maliloki wrote:

Was really excited for both these classes, but the Magus is immensely dissapointing and should have just been an archetype (and will be at my table if it doesn't change).

The Summoner on the other hand looks baller (possibly too much?) and I very much want to play one.

The Summoner at least looks fun. The Magus basically is an archetype as the only people I've seen have a good time with it have been taking multiclass dedications.

Considering the playtest has been out for two days, how many people have you actually seen playing Magus?

~looks at all my other posts~ ...Sure.

Moving on...

What's interesting about the fact that Balazar was replaced is that most of us believe this new Summoner to be a Godcaller, but the playtest suggests this to be untrue. Their Eidolon appears to be that of a dragon, which is Arcane. The splat for the Arcane Eidolons suggests that Padrig would likely be a "amalgam', a "scientifically crafted magical experiment built carefully out of astral thoughtforms."

I wouldn't be so sure that she's not a Godcaller. If I recall correctly, one of the blog stories featured a Godcaller that almost certainly had a beast-type Eidolon. Despite being called "Godcallers", I don't think they are divine-only.

~looks at all my other posts~ ...Sure.

Moving on...

Ly'ualdre wrote:

What's interesting about the fact that Balazar was replaced is that most of us believe this new Summoner to be a Godcaller, but the playtest suggests this to be untrue. Their Eidolon appears to be that of a dragon, which is Arcane. The splat for the Arcane Eidolons suggests that Padrig would likely be a "amalgam', a "scientifically crafted magical experiment built carefully out of astral thoughtforms."

I wouldn't be so sure that she's not a Godcaller. If I recall correctly, one of the blog stories featured a Godcaller that almost certainly had a beast-type Eidolon. Despite being called "Godcallers", I don't think they are divine-only.

I imagine they're more likely to be primal. Lore-wise, they're definitely heavily against arcane magic, and their main religion was druidic in nature.

Too bad there is no eldritch scion. ES over Magus anyday. why take a book into a fight when you can be a Dragon blooded Brawler.

Considering the playtest has been out for two days, how many people have you actually seen playing Magus?

Tried a few encounters with the Magus and Summoner: one of the side benefits of hiding in a bunker, with high speed internet, until the plague goes away is that you have plenty of time on your hands. ;)

MaxAstro wrote:

Considering the playtest has been out for two days, how many people have you actually seen playing Magus?

Tried a few encounters with the Magus and Summoner: one of the side benefits of hiding in a bunker, with high speed internet, until the plague goes away is that you have plenty of time on your hands. ;)

By yourself or with people only ? I'd be down to do some test encounters/dungeons.

By yourself or with people only ?

I'm playing an online game and while us players where waiting for the DM to finish his online classes/'homework', we set up some simple encounters to take the new rules for a spin. It was one of the rare times I put on my 'DM' hat.

I'd be down to do some test encounters/dungeons.

Myself, I don't have any plans for scheduled testing. I plan to look for games opening up that'll allow playtest characters in but that's going to rely on a bit of luck as there are always more players than slots. ;)

~looks at all my other posts~ ...Sure.

Moving on...

Ly'ualdre wrote:

What's interesting about the fact that Balazar was replaced is that most of us believe this new Summoner to be a Godcaller, but the playtest suggests this to be untrue. Their Eidolon appears to be that of a dragon, which is Arcane. The splat for the Arcane Eidolons suggests that Padrig would likely be a "amalgam', a "scientifically crafted magical experiment built carefully out of astral thoughtforms."

I wouldn't be so sure that she's not a Godcaller. If I recall correctly, one of the blog stories featured a Godcaller that almost certainly had a beast-type Eidolon. Despite being called "Godcallers", I don't think they are divine-only.

I did point out that the playtest states Godcallers are Primal Beasts Eidolon. And given that her Eidolon is clearly a Dragon Eidolon, I think this would suggest that she is in fact not a Godcaller. Which is fine.

Just begs the question as to why change Balazar? The reason for Alahazra being changed was noted as the new mechanics behind curse werent reflected by her curse. So I'm wondering if it was something mechanical? Although, she was still presented as being the Flame Oracle; so that arguement seemed a bit moot. As it stands, I would have preferred Balazar being replaced by a Primal, Occult, or Divine.

But I digress. This isn't really about the mechanics of the class, which should be our focus atm. I haven't a real chance to examine the playtest mechanics in depth. But at a glance, I do think the Magus needs some work. Just not sure personally what needs to change.

Thanks, my brain just assumed it was one for Magus and one for Summoner with enough letters matching the class names that it filled in the rest.

There’s also the rest of the playtest forums to give long form feedback on, like here.

I really hope the new iconic is a God Caller. The lore is just so great, and the opportunity to explore that culture would be awesome. That said, I have my doubts along with others as it seems an odd choice for her Eidolon to be a dragon time.

Going to hold out hope though until we know for sure.

I really hope the new iconic is a God Caller. The lore is just so great, and the opportunity to explore that culture would be awesome. That said, I have my doubts along with others as it seems an odd choice for her Eidolon to be a dragon time.

Going to hold out hope though until we know for sure.

I can't imagine that she wouldn't be a god caller. If she isn't, why change it up? Why not just redesign the old one to better fit the categories?

I really hope the new iconic is a God Caller. The lore is just so great, and the opportunity to explore that culture would be awesome. That said, I have my doubts along with others as it seems an odd choice for her Eidolon to be a dragon time.

Going to hold out hope though until we know for sure.

I mean, there is the slim possibility that it is based on a Beast with a Dragons shape and abilities. This is highly possible with the way monster traits work now. Look at the Dracolisk, with both the Beast and Dragon traits. So it seems possible. But, I highly doubt it.

-----

Overall, I think maybe the action economy of the entire class needs to be reexamined? I mean, the class is meant to be a glass cannon if you ask me. But, it seems to me that a Magus could fall in as few as 3 rounds atm, since they spend all their actions just trying to use their main gimmick. I need to actually play with the rules to see if any of what I said if correct. But, at a glance, the Magus has some glaring issues at first level.

As a bonus, I would like to see a Synthesis that grants access to Arcane Fist from the jump. I want to be able to play an Unarmed Magus out of the gate, and currently I cannot. Still keep Arcane Fist as a Feat any Magus can take, give them an addition bonus from their Syntheis. First thoughts are to give them a free Stance Feat they can enter as part of their Spellstrike; or even a Magus only Stance that allows for Spellstriking. The other option is to simply grant them scaling Unarmed damage die. Right now, the only way one seems able to play an "Arcane Monk" here is to either be a Human or take the Arcane Fist at 2nd level.

Invictus Novo wrote:

I really hope the new iconic is a God Caller. The lore is just so great, and the opportunity to explore that culture would be awesome. That said, I have my doubts along with others as it seems an odd choice for her Eidolon to be a dragon time.

Going to hold out hope though until we know for sure.

I mean, there is the slim possibility that it is based on a Beast with a Dragons shape and abilities. This is highly possible with the way monster traits work now. Look at the Dracolisk, with both the Beast and Dragon traits. So it seems possible. But, I highly doubt it.

Godcalling eidolons come in many different forms and origins though. If I remember correctly, the founder of godcalling's eidolon was from the Elemental Plane of Water. It has also been specified that godcalling traditions are different between clans, and likely that Sarkorians fleeing from their homeland and being influence by new cultures.

Of course, could just be a character unrelated to godcalling all together, but I hope not!

Ly'ualdre wrote:

Invictus Novo wrote:

I really hope the new iconic is a God Caller. The lore is just so great, and the opportunity to explore that culture would be awesome. That said, I have my doubts along with others as it seems an odd choice for her Eidolon to be a dragon time.

Going to hold out hope though until we know for sure.

I mean, there is the slim possibility that it is based on a Beast with a Dragons shape and abilities. This is highly possible with the way monster traits work now. Look at the Dracolisk, with both the Beast and Dragon traits. So it seems possible. But, I highly doubt it.

Godcalling eidolons come in many different forms and origins though. If I remember correctly, the founder of godcalling's eidolon was from the Elemental Plane of Water. It has also been specified that godcalling traditions are different between clans, and likely that Sarkorians fleeing from their homeland and being influence by new cultures.

Of course, could just be a character unrelated to godcalling all together, but I hope not!

I'm hoping she is one. Otherwise the need for change seems moot. We traded one Arcane Summoner for another with no apparent reason. This is a silly thing to get hung up on, but a lot of us have come to adore the Iconic Characters. So, if she isn't a Godcaller, she seems infinitely less interesting than Balazar to me. I am basing my assumption off of what the playtest has to say about the Beast Eidolon. So, here is hoping your correct in that Godcallers don't have to have Primal Eidolon.

So, here is my challenge. My gaming group currently is in a 1e campaign, and doesn’t want to switch or anything to 2E at least not until that game is over. With the current COVID situation, it’s not like I can just get into someone’s home game to test this. And, since we don’t yet know if it’s going to be Society Legal for the play test, I don’t have any means to test it. There’s a segment of your player base that are going to be left behind with no chance to play test that.

I hope you’ll consider that in the future.

So, here is my challenge. My gaming group currently is in a 1e campaign, and doesn’t want to switch or anything to 2E at least not until that game is over. With the current COVID situation, it’s not like I can just get into someone’s home game to test this. And, since we don’t yet know if it’s going to be Society Legal for the play test, I don’t have any means to test it. There’s a segment of your player base that are going to be left behind with no chance to play test that.

I hope you’ll consider that in the future.

Could find a Play-by-post game on any forum. It's what I was considering doing myself.

Mark Stratton wrote:

So, here is my challenge. My gaming group currently is in a 1e campaign, and doesn’t want to switch or anything to 2E at least not until that game is over. With the current COVID situation, it’s not like I can just get into someone’s home game to test this. And, since we don’t yet know if it’s going to be Society Legal for the play test, I don’t have any means to test it. There’s a segment of your player base that are going to be left behind with no chance to play test that.

I hope you’ll consider that in the future.

Could find a Play-by-post game on any forum. It's what I was considering doing myself.

I have never done PbP, though I know people who have. Honestly, I hadn’t considered it because of the limited time to do the play test, though that’s a reasonable suggestion, thanks!

It's possible that the new iconic is just a Godcaller who deviates from the norm. Y'know, as adventurers tend to. ~w~

It's possible that the new iconic is just a Godcaller who deviates from the norm. Y'know, as adventurers tend to. ~w~

Eh. I doubt that. As far as the deviation portion anyways. The Iconic's are meant to represent each of the classes. To create an Iconic who doesn't follow the rules of the class they represent defeats the purpose. Plus, that would mean that the Iconic character has access to abilities that a typical player cannot access. Now, as long as it is something that can actually be done in game, it is fine. But the moment that idea isn't an applicable option, it again defeats to entire point of the Iconic's a class representatives.

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

It's possible that the new iconic is just a Godcaller who deviates from the norm. Y'know, as adventurers tend to. ~w~

Eh. I doubt that. As far as the deviation portion anyways. The Iconic's are meant to represent each of the classes. To create an Iconic who doesn't follow the rules of the class they represent defeats the purpose. Plus, that would mean that the Iconic character has access to abilities that a typical player cannot access. Now, as long as it is something that can actually be done in game, it is fine. But the moment that idea isn't an applicable option, it again defeats to entire point of the Iconic's a class representatives.

Deviates culturally, by having a dragon rather than a beast eidolon.

I believe the Magus should have been handled more like the Alchemist. Instead of giving it spells, it would have a list of spell like effects that you use arcane points to pull from. perhaps using it as a gateway to expand upon the idea of weapon talismen.

Spell strike crystal
A list of Talisman crystals that work in a tier system similar to alchemical bombs. an assortment of Offensive, defensive and utility.

Spell strike 2 action
When a Magus makes a spell strike they expand a prepared Spell strike crystal without the need to affix it to their weapon.

Spell shield 1 action
The Magus takes a defensive stance, if they have a Shield crystal prepared, they can activate Shield as a reaction

Perhaps a focus/Foci could be the method of storing these Talisman
"During daily prep, the Magus traces arcane symbols and glyphs onto a Focus"

and of course a feat that allows people to make these spell strike crystals similar to craft alchemy

I believe the Magus should have been handled more like the Alchemist.

"should have been handled more like the Alchemist" is a phrase that should never be uttered... :P

Instead of giving it spells, it would have a list ofspell like effectsa that you use arcane points to pull from.

Class specific cantrips and focus spells would be more likely. The only thing close would be Divine Font: I guess you could do something like it and then take feats to Spend a use for another spell.

perhaps using it as a gateway to expand upon the idea of weapon talismen.

That really isn't what people want from a Magus IMO.

"Caster who supercharges talismans" sounds more like a route to take the Occultist. It's definitely not the Magus.

The weirdest element for me when it comes to magus is the lack of focus recharging feat. I even checked to see if it was given for free, nope.

They will only ever be able to get one focus point back, despite being the class that wants to the most thanks to being so limited by spell slots and needing them for class features.

More / better cantrips could also change my mind on it.

As for folks going "Akchually I have played it and it sucks and everyone I know who played it thinks it sucks" and then mocking people who utter surprise at your confidence given that it hasn't even been 36 hours since the playtest released, well...
While I have no doubt people have played it, some in actual games. Let's be real, it takes longer to actually evaluate a class properly.

This isn't coming from a position of faith in Magus, I don't like it on first reading and doubt that will change but that isn't the point of playtesting.

"Caster who supercharges talismans" sounds more like a route to take the Occultist. It's definitely not the Magus.

The Magus is a spellsword. Weapon runes are how weapons are enhanced. inscribing temporary runes onto a weapon to activate spells is exactly the magus. these spell runes being made from arcana points similar to alchemist reagents is very similar to how it worked in 1e. The subclasses or whatever could then be Kensai, focusing more on the weapon enhancment and maybe getting some Fighter like feats. Eldritch scion. would get access to bloodline focus spells. Pure Magus would get a spell book.

I have a hard time agreeing with Paizo's decision to make Striking Spell the hallmark feature for the magus, but then have it function more like Spell Combat from 1e.

A better option, IMO, is to limit Stiking Spell to only function with spells that require a spell attack, but allow the magus to make a melee Strike (or ranged Strike for you shooting star magi) as part of the casting of the spell. This solves the proficency disparity and honestly makes more sense flavor wise. It essentially conveys the idea that the magus is most effective when blending sword and sorcery and spells cast outside Striking Spell simply aren't as effective. A later feat could then grant the option to use saving throw spells with a bonus to the DC if the weapon Strike hits.

The problem with that approach, Kilgorin, is that you are then effectively giving the Magus a class feature that just says "add your weapon damage to your cantrip damage", and that is going to throw the damage assumptions of the system all kinds of out of whack.

The problem with that approach, Kilgorin, is that you are then effectively giving the Magus a class feature that just says "add your weapon damage to your cantrip damage", and that is going to throw the damage assumptions of the system all kinds of out of whack.

Not really, cantrip damage is on or below weapon damage at most levels. It's basically Double Slice with an elemental aspect done that way.

Not really, cantrip damage is on or below weapon damage at most levels. It's basically Double Slice with an elemental aspect done that way.

It's not like Double Slice. You have to hit twice for Double Slice to deal the damage of both weapon attacks and you have to invest in a second weapon, which will either take a -2 penalty to attack or deal less damage. And it may not have the best runes.

The better comparison is power attack, and power attack damage definitely trails cantrips.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Not really, cantrip damage is on or below weapon damage at most levels. It's basically Double Slice with an elemental aspect done that way.

It's not like Double Slice. You have to hit twice for Double Slice to deal the damage of both weapon attacks and you have to invest in a second weapon, which will either take a -2 penalty to attack or deal less damage. And it may not have the best runes.

The better comparison is power attack, and power attack damage definitely trails cantrips.

You are correct, I was thinking of Power Attack. My mistake. You're also right about the attack rolls.

If a straight rider is too good, I'd really like better spell accuracy and for the spell to not discharge until it connects.

Ly'ualdre wrote:

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

It's possible that the new iconic is just a Godcaller who deviates from the norm. Y'know, as adventurers tend to. ~w~

Eh. I doubt that. As far as the deviation portion anyways. The Iconic's are meant to represent each of the classes. To create an Iconic who doesn't follow the rules of the class they represent defeats the purpose. Plus, that would mean that the Iconic character has access to abilities that a typical player cannot access. Now, as long as it is something that can actually be done in game, it is fine. But the moment that idea isn't an applicable option, it again defeats to entire point of the Iconic's a class representatives.

Deviates culturally, by having a dragon rather than a beast eidolon.

Yeah, I'm really not sure why the immediate assumption was that I was talking about mechanics in the context of Godcallers and an iconic who could be one. I would've been clearer if that interpretation had crossed my mind as a possibility. ●.●;

Let's just nerf spellstrike cantrip damage to bring it to a lower level than power attack, change it to two actions, and require one roll. Do whatever smaller nerfs are necessary to spellslot spellstrike for them to function this way too

I really feel that both of these classes would benefit from a faster spellcasting progression, so they'd get expert at 9th level and master at 17th.
I'm not as sure about the 4 slot casting, I think maybe the idea of giving them 1 slot of every lower level slot seems nice.
And I think Striking Spell should at least allow you to take your martial attack roll for attack roll spells, and hopefully give some kind of bonus to save spells DC.

For people wondering about Organized Play integration: We're currently working out some final considerations as to whether and to what extent the playtest will be integrated with Pathfinder Society. We're aware of the short time span for the playtest and will have more guidance by the end of this week. Thanks for your patience!

Hi everyone, update here:

One of the best ways to playtest classes is to push them to their limits—essentially, to try to "break" them, then report where and how they broke to guide revisions—which can be a little at odds with Organized Play, where you might be meeting people for the first time when you sit down at a convention table. Therefore, if you’re interested in playtesting these classes, we encourage you to build test characters and play them in other games, which can include playing PFS scenarios/bounties outside the official Organized Play program.

No matter how you play, please respond to the design team’s surveys to tell them your thoughts!

Unfortunate but understandable. Thanks for the update!

No matter how you play, please respond to the design team’s surveys to tell them your thoughts!

I don't like it, but this is 100% reasonable and understandable too!

Better than Paizo openly advocating for people to go to game stores to playtest the new classes, for sure. Online gaming it is!

Better than Paizo openly advocating for people to go to game stores to playtest the new classes, for sure. Online gaming it is!

Been doing that for a LOT of years before the plague hit...

I’ve seen a couple of people surprise at the change of Iconic; especially to one that is not a Godcaller. I will also ask why not pick Estra as the new iconic, as Spiritualist are a kind of Summoner?
The iconic looks like a child with his (not so) imaginary friend. I’m afraid that they might identify to it while the class seems to be mechanically more complicated.