Alkarius's page

I think the melee Magus is in a great spot personally, it requires some thought and strategy. IMO, the 'clunk' does wonders to prevent a repetitive rotation and promote tactical Action and item usage. I won't go into detail as I don't want to exacerbate the thread, and I do understand why some would disagree, but I love the class and don't think it needs any major changes. Only thing I dislike is wave casting, but I dislike that in general.

Constant critique is the best way to show dissatisfaction with the current state of the Wizard, influencing developers to make a change or fix a later iteration next edition. Granted it gets repetitive, but people can also just ignore these posts.

My 2 cents: I for one, agree the Wizard is one of the least fun/weakest classes in the game. In our party, we have a Wizard who is so stubborn to 'make it work' that he's borderline miserable with the lack of effectiveness outside of no-save spells: utility, archetype healing, and buffing. Which is all he does now, giving up on offense due to lack of success. We're currently only lvl 9, but if he hears "it will get better in later level's" one more time he's likely to quit lol.

I'd argue a Wizard's best trait is (shocking) versatility, specifically Spell Substitution, allowing any Wizard to have the ENTIRE arcane spell list at their disposal so long as the spells are learned. That isn't even a core feature, but a specific Thesis. That in itself is insanely strong, but outside of that (or if you picked any other Thesis), Wizards are vanilla spellcasters in a system that makes spellcasting difficult without help. Yes it is a team game so the party should be helping, but not all parties have optimal teamwork, and CHA casters at least have the option to Bon Mot / Demoralize on their own.

This places the Wizard on a higher 'difficulty' tier, but that also makes it a 'weaker' class to those who cant find a way to make it work with system mastery or teamwork. And, as others have said, there's nothing unique aside from the insane versatility. Which I feel is where many of the issues come from. Many people just want to be a Wizard because of a preconception, but then discover it has a high skill and teamwork requirement. Or perhaps some don't see the value in versatility and focus more on the difficulty to land offensive spells. When everyone else in the party is contributing and all you see is critical saves, it feels bad.

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing changed is wave casting. I thoroughly enjoy the playstyle and mechanics of the Magus, clunk and all, but my only real gripe is wave casting. You end up with a spell book full of spells that you mostly don't even think about anymore since you only have four slots and studious spells. I use cantrips exclusively with Spellstrike because spell slots are just way too valuable to me to blow on a bit of extra dmg. I use them for buffs or clutch utility like scouting eye or clairvoyance (Though having Howling Blizzard as a Standby Spell was solid). Along with archetyping, the ways to get spell slots are through items such as the Spellstriker Staff (staves in general), scrolls, Ring of wizardry, Grimoire, tattoo, etc. I know these items are supposed to alleviate this issue, but getting to keep a single spell slot per level under your 'wave' would go a long way I think.

People keep complaining about reactive strike, in all honesty how many melee players have eaten a RS while spellstriking? In 3 years across 3 separate campaigns and I've only ever had it happen once.

Considering RS is uncommon AND you need to be crit to lose the SS, I never got why it's so complained about. If it's a big concern, some possible strategies to reduce RS are Striding an extra 5ft to bait RS, delay if you think an ally can bait it, Steady Spellcasting (sucks I know, but it technically helps), or use a reach weapon. I started using a Breaching Pike on my Sparkling Targe, and I only made the swap because the extra 5ft range can sometimes remove my need to Stride. Plus Spartans are awesome.

To circle back to OP's question, I wonder if it might be a decent idea to make Expansive Spellstrike part of the core chassis? With the amount of spells losing attack rolls in favor of saves, it might open the variability to the Magus spell options. If it becomes a feat everyone feels they need, why not bake it in? The feat has grown on me, as the lower odds are somewhat of a wash since the spell will still do 1/2 dmg on fail, and a Howling Blizzard SS is beautiful. Just a thought.

First Trigger: An enemy hits you with a melee Strike. Reactive Shield may be used as a Reaction to Raise a Shield.

Second Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack. The damage roll happens AFTER the melee Strike roll, so it is a new Trigger, thus your extra Reaction for Quick Shield Block may be used.

Dazzling Block is an upgrade to your Shield Block so that happens immediately after the Second Trigger and the conclusion of the Shield Block.

Third Trigger: You Shield Block a melee Strike made with a held weapon. You may now attempt a Disarm as a Free Action after you have used your Shield Block Reaction, right after the Dazzling Block occurs.

This all assumes you are in Arcane Cascade, your AC didn't exceed the Strike roll after Raising a Shield (negating the Trigger for Shield Block), and the enemy is wielding a weapon. I would definitely run it by your DM so you dont surprise anyone, but yes you should be able to use all 4 of Reactive Shield, Quick Shield Block, Dazzling Block, and Disarming Block in response to a Melee Strike.

I guess I am envisioning an opening Spellstrike salvo followed by magus analysis. When the enemy closes to melee, Sword Spellstrike and stride away if they're still standing, or Shield if my party could finish it off. That would be the jist, swapping from ranged to melee depending on the enemy movement. I also can't see having enough true strikes to spam it reliably, without fused staff working on a bandolier. Would save them for tougher encounters.
I also built this in theory based on an Aldori theme, and have always wanted to play a Magus. My first two characters I ended up with a fighter and champion because the party just needed a tougher frontliner, but now I just want to play what I want. Haven't tried or seen one in practice, and what you mentioned is something I'm afraid of... if that rotation is all I would end up doing, I'd rather rethink the character and subclass. Range spellstrike seems awesome but just repeating that and recharge ad nauseum sounds boring.
I considered Laughing Shadow, finesse would likely be out but maybe that's the direction I should lean for a flashy Magus. Or Twisting Tree.

I hesitate to put my opinion out as I am no Pathfinder expert, but to the core of the thread, I never looked at the Monk as primarily a master of unarmed combat. A Monk is someone who has dedicated their life to religion (spirituality, ki, what have you), and the perfection of the body and mind. I believe the class represents this basis admirably. The class core bumps their fists to a larger die of dmg before considering stances or monastic weaponry, and it penetrates a lot of defenses... that right there represents their skill in unarmed combat. They have a slew of stances to fill almost any style you might envision. They also come with a lot of bonuses in the form of mobility, legendary AC, and a unique selective Save progression that also brings one to legendary. With all this I dont understand why legendary in unarmed is warranted. Why would they be better at hitting something than a Barbarian who's known combat since childhood, or a Rogue who knows how to target just the right spot. Their talent for martial arts is represented well, and adding +2 to hit doesn't add much, but upsets the balance that PF2e is so focused on.

Now, I am not stating that they dont need a bit of help. YuriP's suggestion to touch up Flurry is spot on IMO, and I agree it is too easy for other classes to snatch it. But combat for the sake of combat... fighting... is the province of Fighters and that is why they are the only class (aside from Gunslinger but I'm not going there) that gets to legendary, rightly so. A Fighter who archetypes Monk to be a Brawler should be better at unarmed combat when looking solely at to-hit and dmg. The Fighter focuses it's entire class on fighting, and that's what that +2 represents.

My point is a Monk is so much more than unarmed combat, so I dont agree they need legendary proficiency.

I replied to your concern regarding the falcata in the 'advanced weaponery' thread. I think you're making a mountain of a molehill

Sorry, I had posted them both yesterday in different threads before I got your response.

You are probably right, I am over reacting a bit. The OP asked about minor power creep, and though it is a very small overall dmg increase, and it is there non-the-less. That was just my personal opinion on it. Is it OP? You are right it is probably not, so I knee-jerked a bit too hard. Time will tell.