Honestly it sounds like Unicore is the one who likes playing on hardest difficulty settings for the feeling of accomplishment. Not everyone's into that, some of us just want to play normal mode, rather than having to fight uphill to meet the baseline of other classes.
I really like Reload as an incentive for Shooting Star, as it creates a major break between Eldritch Archers and Shooting Star Magus. You could use a bow, but then you get less benefit than a crossbow. And my read is that you can't use crossbows at all with Eldritch Archer.#3 Fine a way to allow some variety of action in Striking Spell rounds. This can be more 1 action spells, Sliding type actions for all synthesizes or something similar. I'd rather not be locked into a immobile play style if I want to use the signature ability.A nice idea I've seen being floated around is to allow every Magus to Step as part of Striking Spell, with each synthesis adding another action you can choose to do instead, like Stride for Slide Casting, Reload for Shooting Star and a Raise a Shield equivalent for Sustaining Steel. Could also add draw a weapon for Shooting Star, so throwing characters can pull out another throwing weapon to use.
I've suggested something similar. Give the basic Striking Spell a free step action or something, and then add more options for the various synthesis. Things like a sword+board style getting a free raise shield action, or a ranged synthesis getting a free reload or draw weapon, or such. Add some more special abilities like Spell Parry or Raise a Tome as options via feats rather than synthesis. What you end up with is a short list of things you can do while casting a spell, and the ability to decide which to use based on the situation.
I expect that casting a Spell or Cantrip through Striking Spell is superior to just casting it normally. Either it costs less resources, takes less actions, is more likely to hit, or at the very least is on-par while activating useful rider abilities.
Edit: I just don't see this happening with a 2 action activity that lets you cast a 2 action spell and make an attack because that is just clearly better than a full caster can do, especially if the spell gets to use a full martial's weapon attack bonus + item bonus. I don't really see a problem with it. For one thing a Wizard could do the spell in 2 actions at range, with a similar to-hit bonus (higher proficiency, higher stat). Nothing wrong with being equal or slightly better in a very narrow area than a pure caster, especially if the narrow area is "hitting things with weapons while casting spells in melee". However, if 2-action cast+Strike is too powerful, we could see a flexible free action attached to the 3-action cast+Strike, similar to Slide Casting. For example as base allow Step, then with feats or auto-progression move to allow things like raising a shield, Stride, casting a 1-action cantrip (shield), reloading a ranged weapon, or other options. Heck, if the free action is part of the base ability, you could attach various options for it to the Synergies. Such as the 2-handed synergy allowing casting shield, a sword+board style allowing raise a shield, free-hand style allowing a full Stride (or possibly activating Spell Parry), and Shooting Star allowing a reload action.
Everything you mention as a positive is something I hate about the mechanic. 1) You don't need to use it every turn.
2) Massive swinginess makes successes feel better!
4) Every +1 matters more!
was I the only one who used the close range arcana to just stab people with ray of frost (or, very occasionally, disrupt undead)? That's exactly what I did, never even crossed my mind to try and find a non-damaging cantrip with touch range to (ab)use.
I really like the idea of using Message to call out the name of your techniques when you hit people. I'd just have mine scream out the sound effects from old-school Batman TV show/ comic book. SOCK!
super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction. Comet Spell requires casting a spell from a spell-slot, it does not work with cantrips. Heck, it doesn't even work with Focus spells...
In general, I'd like to see some feats/abilities that just straight up let you do magical things with your sword. Not "when you use Striking Spell", just abilities that stand on their own. The Spell Parry line is a good example of what I'd like to see more of. It starts off as essentially a "raise a shield/buckler" ability, but then gets upgrades that make it unique from other equivalents. Maybe they get a Cleave equivalent, except the second hit is lightning chaining off the first target. Then upgrade to allow it to make additional attacks against multiple targets. Maybe an attack feat that sticks people to the floor with ice when you hit them with your weapon, or a high-leveled one that inflicts short-term paralysis. There's a bunch of status effects that are too "magical" for Fighters to inflict, but aren't something overpowered to cause for a round. Also, I don't think that Portal Slide would be overpowered if it was implemented as a magical alternative to Tumble. Make an Arcana check, move up to half-speed via teleportation as a single action.
Just going to point out, swapping Eldritch Shot to Eldritch Strike, the latter should get some sort of bonus. There's a big advantage of Eldritch Shot that would be lost. Free "reach" metamagic: your spell's range is now your bow's range. Even for touch spells. So, as a melee variant would instead be reducing your range on any spell to melee, rather than increasing your range, it should get something else to compensate.
This was clarified in another thread, they used an older Template for Magus and it's intended that their Unarmed proficiency scales alongside their Simple and Martial proficiencies. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ga?Lets-Talk-About-Arcane-Fists-Athletics-a nd#5
I am 100% in favor of removing the stupid crit mechanic, at least as a base part of the class. It's become obvious that so long as it's there, everything will be balanced around it, which means that we end up with abilities that are very "swingy", as in high highs, and low lows. I'd much rather it be reserved for a synthesis, so that people who want a reliable class can play a Magus that's not forced to go for buff/flanking/true-strike builds. By all means, leave it as an option for people who want it, but please don't make it a default ability that's costing feature budget to everyone else.
The Magus gets more benefit from to-hit bonuses, and more penalty from to-hit reductions. They are much more sensitive to enemy AC than any other class so far. That, and the fact that there is only currently one efficient build for them (sliding and crit-fishing) means that something needs to change. Both to make the rest of the game easier to balance (because bonuses and penalties have inordinate effect on a single class), but also to make the class itself viable across multiple playstyles. Like every other class in the game. --- Anyway, thanks for doing the probability trees to calculate this out.
I'd be fine with being worse in terms of spells/day, versatility, or spell level than an archetype if they had a class feature that really let them capitalize on cantrip usage. The way I see it, Magus in 1e was all about splashing a bunch of low-level (1-3) spells constantly in combat while swinging at enemies. In 2e, scaling low-level attack magics have been replaced by auto-scaling cantrips. We all understand that at higher levels low-level slots are not useful for attack spells, only utility/buff. So, I think focusing the Magus' combat on the effective use of cantrips would be a good focus. If they can use cantrips better than an actual Wizard or Sorcerer it's fine, because the Wiz or Sorc can be better with spell slots.
I would be ok with magus being the highest damaging class if it is the highest damaging class a few times a day. then maybe a little below for the rest of the day. How many times per day is a bit more debatable. Right now it's more like Magus might get to be the highest damage class once or twice per day, on average, if built specifically for crit-shenanigans and they take a set-up turn for buffs...
What do people think of the following? Remove the crit-bump aspect of Striking Spell.
Then, we remove the Slide Synthesis, and replace it with a synthesis which re-adds the crit-boost to Striking Spell. This makes crit-fisher Magus builds possible, but not mandatory. It also lets you now be a 2-hander Magus who can stride into combat while casting and attacking, and then Cast+Attack+Shield spell on subsequent rounds. Or an Archer Magus who reloads a crossbow. Or a Thrown Magus who can draw out a weapon after throwing their Spell. [edit] We can also make the Crit-based synthesis add the [Fortune] tag, and then modify Striking Spell to deal with the spell-attack bonus issue now that we don't have to worry about True Strike boosted spell-crits.
Funny enough, Devise a Stratagem would actually be quite strong in the hands of a Magus (via multi-class). Start off the turn with a free Devise (or spend an action if you're hasted).If you crit, cast your biggest spell via Striking Spell, and then use your pre-gen attack roll to crit on the melee strike to deliver it. Which then bumps the Spell's success level up by one. Now it suddenly feels much better, since you've saved your limited resource (spell slots) for a situation in which they will be very effective.
Hot take: Make the free Stride a base part of the class, and pull the crit-fishing aspect of Striking Spell out and throw it into a synthesis?
Taking two turns to set up a high probability crit on the weapon strike with a top level spell slot that does nasty things is absolutely worth it and fun. That would be fine if it was a way to play the class, rather than the only way to play the class. Frankly, I'd prefer if the crit-fishing aspect got stuck in one of the sub-classes, and the free stride (or other action economy) moved into the default ability list.
Up to interpretation.
My personal read is that it requires the spell to have the text "1 creature" or "1 object" in the spell's "Target" entry. Which means you could use for instance Electric Arc "1 or 2 creatures", but not Fireball which has no target entry at all.
It's not super great for normal casters either, Wizard just makes it work by throwing True Strike on their spells, or having so many prepped that they have something with the right saving throw. There's a reason why buff spells, spells which don't require opposed rolls, are so good. AoE also gets a pass, since the whole point is to target enough enemies with the spell that statistically one or more are likely to fail their save, so it at least does something. Single target spells... They are definitely a gamble.
Well, you've at least shown that one should absolutely not be playing a magus if you're in a game where the GM isn't letting you get exactly the magic items you want/need. I've been in a few of those games. On the other hand, if your GM lets you go past wealth per level, with total freedom to get whatever items you want, Magus will probably get a larger boost than other classes. Seeing as they can take advantage of both Caster items and Martial items.
We shouldn't HAVE to be roided out on buffs and trying to hit a hamstringed opponent to have a reasonable chance of our core class feature working. That's not good design even if it's "balanced". Professional Poker, to my understanding, is primarily about bluffing and reading the other player(s), with a side of basic probability. It's not gambling like Roulette, or a slot machine.
Out of curiosity, what if you just true strike the spell on the first round? No striking spell.49 chances to miss, 240 chances to hit, and 131 chances to crit, for 12% miss, 60% hit, and 28% crit. Don't forget you're also paying at least 1 additional action to do so. I can think of much better ways to use those actions. Like just hitting them with a sword, or casting another cantrip. Or raising a shield, or Spell Parry, or striding. Because you're an 8hp class, with only medium armor, and 3 other stats you need more than Dex. You're going to be squishy AF with all that standing still.
So, looking at the 1e Magus, and thinking back to how it played, what I recall is: Spamming lower-powered attack spells through a weapon attack.
So, in an effort to make Striking Spell more useful, without being overpowered, I'm proposing splitting it into 2 effects.
The first one mirrors the Magus spamming endless shocking grasps in 1e. The second mirrors the ability to self-buff without giving up attacking. Though in this case it's without giving up the 3rd action for Stride or Raising a Shield (or Spell Parry). Honestly, I feel this might not be OP if you just made it *all* spells from slots or Focus, but might be too much given 1-action Focus spells and Maguses with extra slots from Wizard Dedication. What to people think of this approach, separating out Striking Spell between Cantrips and Slot spells? [edit] Alternate idea: what about just letting any-spell be cast through a strike, with the strike being free, and one roll applying to both spell and strike? Then allowing self-targeted spells to be cast free as a reaction when you crit an enemy? Or on some other appropriately rare/situational trigger?
considering my DC proficiency as a magus, even with 16 INT, id rather just hit something and do my damage. but i get what you are saying. Also, anyone can just cast a save spell and then shoot with a bow. Which is effectively the same thing, just without the chance of losing the spell...
Here's the core issue: Mathematically it makes no sense to use Striking Spell unless you're triggering something off of it.
So, now the question is why is the class designed around use of Striking Spell, an ability which makes your spells worse? The class could ditch striking spell, and just attach the various abilities to the cast a spell action, or perhaps 2+ action casting, or attack spell casting. As the class currently exists, Striking Spell isn't a benefit, it's a speed-bump. It's like if Rage only gave you the AC penalty, and not the damage bonus, but you had to activate it anyway to use your Rage abilities. That's, unfortunately, not a well designed class feature. Look: Hunters Mark, Rage, Flurry of Blows, Panache, Sneak Attack. These are core features. All of them are things you absolutely want to use as much as possible, there's no question. Why is Magus the class with a core feature where you DON'T want to use it?
Making the Strike's degree of success count directly for the spell also helps alleviate the Magus' reduced Spellcasting proficiency, but only when they're casting via Striking Spell. Which makes Striking Spell good for that reason as well.
Meanwhile, Adventure paths like to do things like throw Vrocks (AC28) at lvl 6 parties.
Unfortunately we then are at the point where it's not really a complete design if it needs to spend half its feats on an archetype to be good. In fact, that sounds a lot like an archetype.Some of the feats that only trigger on a slot spell are definitely rude, though. There are four of the dang things per day Agreed, it just feels like a lot of the Magus balance is done with an eye to keeping Magi with dedications in line. Since Magus does mesh better with archetypes and dedications that other classes.
Then they... Yeah, they ARE considering the spell crit, thats why the proficiency of spell attack is so low. Im not necessarily agreeing with the logic, Im just saying that is most likely for that reason. What kind of things are you fighting if they only have AC 27 at lvl 9? My groups are fighting things with that kind of AC as early as level 6. With attack bonuses 6 lower.
Some of the feats that only trigger on a slot spell are definitely rude, though. There are four of the dang things per day The Magus, as a whole, does come out a lot better when you look at adding in a dedication or archetype. Fixes the issues with limited spell slots. Can add damaging focus spells (or healing focus spells). Can add martial feats to buff up their weapon attacks directly. Can improve their spell proficiency track somewhat.
In my experience playing Modules, hitting on less than a 10 is uncommon, unless you're fighting mooks. Frankly mooks are just there to bulk out the adventure, like the baking soda in drugs. It's not worth wasting spell slots on them. If your GM is frequently throwing low AC enemies at you, then yes the ability to bump your spell via critting is nice. But you need to be on a situation when you're hitting on a natural 9 or lower before it comes into play at all.
I don't think Magus needs any better spell proficiency. They already get effective bonus from bypassing MAP for Attack spells, and Melee Crits (which they can maximize with True Strike) upgrade spell chance for Crit or normal Hit or Save fail (so even if they CritSave spell they still get partial Save effect), with spell persisting until end of next turn in case 1st Strike misses. IMHO that is worth more than +2 from proficiency, and getting both would be too much. Ignoring that Monk/Champion have nothing like that mechanic, and only looking at vanilla Spell proficiency, is so distorting as to be irrelevant. That is how the Magus is supposed to fight with spells from Level 1, so fact they aren't as good as other casters for other generic spellcasting is irrelevant to their core schtick. That's at odds with both their action economy (no spare actions for True Strike) and their general lack of spell slots (needing to spend 2 slots on each spell, with a base of only 4 or 6 slots total!) Not to mention there's a much better method for bypassing MAP, which is to just use saving-throw based spells (targeted at the enemy's low save) to begin with. The benefits are too marginal to really overturn the fundamental issue of being unlikely to hit with spell attack rolls, and needing to hit with a strike prior to even get a chance to make a spell attack roll.
Copied from somewhere else I posted it: For reference, I put together an excel sheet of the cumulative miss/crit chances. Assuming an agile weapon (best case). Base D20 roll needed to hit // Miss chance across 4 attacks (2 w/o MAP, 1 at -4, 1 at -8) // Chance that a Crit was scored. Base // Miss // Crit
As you can see in the above, if you hit on a natural 14, you only have a 66% chance to even get to roll your spell attack. Not counting actually hitting with it. There's a 10% chance you'd crit within that 66%, meaning your spell attack would be 1-step higher. Honestly, in that circumstance you'd be better off just casting and then striking, using a save-based spell. Also worth considering, if you hit on the 2nd or 3rd attack of the round to deliver the spell, you're still eating a -5 or -10MAP to the spell's attack roll. Because you only ignore the MAP from the delivering strike, not any prior (missed) strikes.
So we are ignoring that they can use cantrips with the Striking Spell?I think the main question is why you would want to? That's pretty much my take on it. You're pretty much universally better off using a save cantrip cast separately rather than trying to cast it (or even worse-an attack roll cantrip) through your weapon. The exceptions being when you want to trigger a class feature.
But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason. The problem there is Bespell Strikes only triggers on non-cantrip spells. So your 4/day spell slots and your focus spells.
Interesting, I feel like this is highlighting the problem casters in general have with attack-roll based spells now that they're targeting the same ACs as the item based party members rather than Touch AC. I do have to ask, though, what you're using for weapon vs cantrip damage, or are you going straight off of the attack rolls? At 5th level, for example, a Psychokinetic Strike will deal 3d6+4 (14.5). While a weapon could deal anywhere from 2d6+4 (11) to 2d12+5 (18). In case you're interested in folding it in, I put together an excel sheet for calculating the miss and crit chances, cumulative, over the 4 attacks made before your spells go poof into the aether. Weird thought: what if Striking Spell had Failure and Success effects? Such as on Failure make the spell attack/save as normal, on a Success make them with a bonus to attack or DC, and on Crit Failure the spell poofs?
So we are ignoring that they can use cantrips with the Striking Spell? I think the main question is why you would want to? For an attack-roll based spell, it lets you ignore MAP. For a save-based spell (like electric arc), there's no real benefit aside from triggering effects that only go off when you use Striking Spell. Neither the spell, nor the Strike, gain any advantage. Also the Spell has an increased chance to do nothing (via missed Strikes). I guess that's the main issue, thinking about it. Striking spell feels like it makes your cast spells WORSE, rather than better. You may get an advantage, by getting a free Stride or Temp HP or triggering some other effect, but the spell itself feels like it was made worse.
It really feels like the Magus was balanced around taking Wizard dedication. Being limited to 4 spells per day? Pretty harsh. However, dumping another 5 feats into dedication and picking up 2 each of 1-6, plus a 7th and 8th, on top of 2x 8th and 2x 9th, feels better. As far as Cantrips, honestly I don't see the advantage of casting Electric Arc via Striking Spell rather than normally.
After reading through the Magus, it really, REALLY, feels like it was balanced primarily with consideration to players taking Wizard dedication on top of it. With Wizard dedication it feels close to on-par with a Fighter that takes Wizard dedication, but mainly feels like it's just Fighter+Wizard with worse martial proficiency and slightly better spellcasting. Mainly, Striking Spell just doesn't feel distinct from casting and then hitting someone normally. With Slide Casting you do get a free stride action, but otherwise it's just the same Cast+Strike that anyone with a cantrip does. Striking Spell is supposed to be the centerpiece of the class, but frankly I think I'd avoid using it as much as possible, due to the upsides being so limited (no MAP and the crit effect), and the downsides being an added chance to just waste the spell (and 2-actions taken to cast it). |
