CaffeinatedNinja's page

I woul dalso like an answer for this. The changes to Magus really change how you want to build a character, everything from which stats you pick, to dedications, etc.

Full rebuild seems fair. Particularly as we can just make a lvl 7 character now, but that isn't as fun, and I don't want to abandon my magus that has done so much.

Also unclear, if we build a new character, what rules do we use for it?

Combat at lvl 15 tends to last awhile.

That, and it combos very well with classes that want to move anyways. Magus want to do a running recharge? Why not move through the enemy and do 4d12 damage too?

Split spellstrike currently doesn't spellstrike two targets.

Like knives slicing through magic itself, both your weapons carry your spell, delivering it to separate foes. Make a Spellstrike with a spell that can target at least 2 creatures or that has an area. You can make two melee Strikes instead of one, but each must be made with a different weapon and target a different creature. Increase your multiple attack penalty normally after each Strike rather than increasing it for Spellstrike as a whole. If you’re in Arcane Cascade, you can apply twofold tine’s extra benefit between the two Strikes.

It doesn't actually say that each strike carries the spell. It is missing some language that Spell Swipe has. Namely

"your spell affects whichever foes you hit, not just the first target"

and it also needs the expansive spellstrike language of

"If you use Expansive Spellstrike to Spellstrike with an area spell, apply the area as described in Expansive Spellstrike, choosing one of the two targets to determine the area."

Without that last one it is quite easy to double tag enemies with AoEs which I doubt was intended.

As a wizard fan, trust me, I would love a ground up remaster of my favorite class as well. But wizard and psychic aren't going to get remastered again.

Is what it is at this point.

Just wait for Pathfinder 3e hah.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Briny Bolt, the arcane spell, has odd critical damage language.

It says it does 2d6 on a succcess, and 4d6 on a critical success (so double damage) but the heighten doesn't mention critical damage.

It makes heightening it very weird, when it would be 10x easier to just say it takes "double damage" on a critical success.

(Accidentally posted this in a different thread, don't mean to double post)

For what it's worth, Hydraulic Push has always just been a flat +3d6 on crit at all ranks too. Briny Bolt on crit adds an unremovable Dazzled 1 minute on top of higher damage though, so... while it'd be nice if it was just double damage I don't know that it's a mistake.

Good point, but never made much sense. Why is a crit worth double at rank one but not much at rank 5, etc etc.

This is another thing I highly dislike about the Starlit span magus. People use it to attack the magus, when the melee class is far, far, far less powerful than the starlit span magus even with focus points. The way spellstrike interacts with a melee magus makes the melee version of the magus class not even worth talking about, while the Starlit Span magus is considered overpowered.

Yup. Starlit is boring but crazy strong compared to melee magus.

I mean, with all the extra damage from spellstrike, you are doing virtually the same damage as a str magus swinging a sword. But you do it from 60 feet!

And some of the abilities really favor ranged. Like expansive spellstrike is far more usable when you can fire a burst spell with a spellstrike, which you really can't with melee unless you want to fry yourself. Force fang is flat out superior if you are ranged, as it takes the range from your weapon for some reason.

Briny Bolt, the arcane spell, has odd critical damage language.

It says it does 2d6 on a succcess, and 4d6 on a critical success (so double damage) but the heighten doesn't mention critical damage.

It makes heightening it very weird, when it would be 10x easier to just say it takes "double damage" on a critical success.

(Accidentally posted this in a different thread, don't mean to double post)

Briny Bolt, the arcane spell, has odd critical damage language.

It says it does 2d6 on a succcess, and 4d6 on a critical success (so double damage) but the heighten doesn't mention critical damage.

It makes heightening it very weird, when it would be 10x easier to just say it takes "double damage" on a critical success.

I think the remaster change to focus points did add some areas for optimization, and isn't perfect. But it is greatly superior to the rules that came before.

I imagine it would have been done somewhat differently if it had been designed from scratch, but it wasn't and couldn't be, so overall it is a big improvement.

As for the time thing, I find most groups handwave it. I can't remember being in a group where strict accounting of time happens, although I am sure they exist.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Maybe the solution would be getting Steady Spellcasting as a feature and having the flat check get easier as the Magus levels up.

I guess a feat tax would work too, though I would prefer it be an innate part of proficiency increases for the magus. I may house rule it if Paizo doesn't do it with the remastered magus.

I don't need a disintegrate to be no chance of AOO, but cantrips are the bread and butter of the magus. No need to make them risky for the magus, especially at higher levels.

They didn't change anything about it in remastered magus sadly.

But hey, they just announced Runesmith actually doesn't need a free hand. Maybe they will errata spellstrike to not trigger RS!

The Runesmith change makes the class near universally more functional, while yours is much more situational.

Oh, I was kidding. It would be amazing if they did tweak it, but I don't actually expect them to.

I just find it a little funny sometimes, the starlit span magus vs the rest. It is ok to spellstrike with a spell from 60 feet away, easily doing it every turn. Even adding range to many spells! But doing it in melee, and actually reducing the range, should be punished by a RS.

Eh, it isn't going to change likely. I think the best solution is just for people in home games to homebrew a fix when there is a lot of RS around. Homebrewing a fix seems REALLY common from what I hear anecdotally, or just not realizing Spellstrike triggers.

The Raven Black wrote:

Maybe the solution would be getting Steady Spellcasting as a feature and having the flat check get easier as the Magus levels up.

I guess a feat tax would work too, though I would prefer it be an innate part of proficiency increases for the magus. I may house rule it if Paizo doesn't do it with the remastered magus.

I don't need a disintegrate to be no chance of AOO, but cantrips are the bread and butter of the magus. No need to make them risky for the magus, especially at higher levels.

They didn't change anything about it in remastered magus sadly.

But hey, they just announced Runesmith actually doesn't need a free hand. Maybe they will errata spellstrike to not trigger RS!

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Finoan wrote:

OK. To start with, I like the idea in general. Having a couple of melee cantrips would be great.

But this part:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Ignition. The classic firey cantrip. Also generally considered a very mediocre cantrip these days. Electric Arc always does more damage. Gouging Claw is better for spellstriking. Telekinetic Projectile hits harder at range. I could go on.

How are you counting that?

Both do 2d4 + 1d4/rank.

Yes, Electric Arc, when cast normally, can target two creatures while Ignition can't. But when talking about Spellstrike, you can't target two creatures with Electric Arc either (aside from the case where you also have, and can use, Spell Swipe).

And Ignition has the possibility of adding persistent damage.

The other spells you bring up in comparison are great. But I do have to question the idea that Electric Arc does more damage with Spellstrike than Ignition does.

Oh, fair point. I meant in general as a cantrip (used by casters) since when you aren’t talking spellstrike, a lot better to have a save than an attack roll.

If spellstriking, gouging claw is far and away the best, unless there is a physical resist or some particular weakness you need to target.

Ignition, despite being the quintessential “throw fire at the bad guy” spell is basically relegated to use in case of fire weakness these days.

Ignition isn't as good as gouging claw as melee, but it provides a ranged option as well. Telekinic projectile is better damage at range, but can't benefit from flanking. And having an attack roll means it can benefit from off guard and various status bonuses compared to Electric Arc.

Ignition is a versatile cantrip, and when you can only prepare so many there's real value in that. If I was building a regular squishy caster, I would probably pick ignition over gouging claw and might skip TKP as well. That frees up cantrips for things like shield, detect magic, light, and...

It leaves it too narrow a niche really. Basically electric arc is going to do more damage to a single target most of the time, and it does it to two targets! Really the only time produce flame might do more damage is if flanking in melee, which is a tiny niche, and gouging claw is way better at that. TKP is flat out better if you want a spell attack option, giving you three damage types to pick from to hit weaknesses.

I'm playing a Laughing Shadow Magus (Elf w/ Wizard Archetype) in Age of Ashes and the amount of Reactive Strikes is very high. Usually at least one enemy per fight has them. It definitely added a level of challenge to the play of a Magus. I didn't go all in on the "I must spellstrike every round" mentality so that makes it tolerable. Things like blur, mirror image (legacy), greater invis, etc usually are necessary defenses. It is painful, because you cannot use your main class ability without constant risk. Often only knowing you cannot use it safely until you are near dead from that critical hit reactive strike you just ate. The class is still fun though, and even knowing about the reactive strike volume in that AP I probably would still play the Magus again in it.

P.S. I am beyond thrilled with the new remastered class, even though we didn't get the no-manipulate boon we wanted.

Yeah I GMed that one. One reason I talk about how many RS are out there.

Also, I know people talk about using spells to stop reactive strikes, but there are like 3 in the game that do that? Laughing Fit, Roaring Applause, Crushing Despair? Primal doesn't get any of them, divine just crushing despair.

You can't have the caster babysit you all the time honestly.

I understand not wanting to let you get off bit spells with spellstrike without taking a reaction, fair enough. But cantrips? At least one cantrip? I honestly think you would hear even more complaining about it except a suprising number of people don't realize spellstrike triggers reactions heh.

I do like you suggestion of making the melee version concentrate only, but I don't think ignition is bad just because there are better and more universally useful ones. After all, part of the appeal of this game is not having to agonize over ivory tower design or optimizing.

That is fair. Honestly I suggested this because I really like attacking things with a flaming sword (quite basic of me I know) so ignition fit the bill. It was also well placed to be a cantrip that could safely have a little bump without being too good, and give it a nice niche.

It also helps out magus in those RS heavy games, without making it a universal rule for cantrips that might cause issues later with some new cantrip to come.

I would subscribe to a lot more books if I could didn't have to go physical for every one!

OK. To start with, I like the idea in general. Having a couple of melee cantrips would be great.

But this part:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Ignition. The classic firey cantrip. Also generally considered a very mediocre cantrip these days. Electric Arc always does more damage. Gouging Claw is better for spellstriking. Telekinetic Projectile hits harder at range. I could go on.

How are you counting that?

Both do 2d4 + 1d4/rank.

Yes, Electric Arc, when cast normally, can target two creatures while Ignition can't. But when talking about Spellstrike, you can't target two creatures with Electric Arc either (aside from the case where you also have, and can use, Spell Swipe).

And Ignition has the possibility of adding persistent damage.

The other spells you bring up in comparison are great. But I do have to question the idea that Electric Arc does more damage with Spellstrike than Ignition does.

Oh, fair point. I meant in general as a cantrip (used by casters) since when you aren’t talking spellstrike, a lot better to have a save than an attack roll.

If spellstriking, gouging claw is far and away the best, unless there is a physical resist or some particular weakness you need to target.

Ignition, despite being the quintessential “throw fire at the bad guy” spell is basically relegated to use in case of fire weakness these days.

The magus Zandre in my Strength of Thousands campaign is a Starlit-Span archer, so she never gets close to enemies with Reactive Strike. I told Zandre's player that in spellstrikes she could use the d6 melee damage for Ignition rather than the d4 ranged damage, because her longbow provides the range rather than the spell. I have heard that Starlit-Span is one of the strongest hybrid studies, partly because of avoiding Reactive Strike.

That is one reason startlit span is often considered the best magus, it isn't troubled by many things, RS chief among them, that melee magus is.

Adjusting ignition wouldn't matter there, as starlit uses ranged strikes, so if they are in range they would still trigger RS (they just have no reason to be in range hah)

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Riddlyn wrote:

Honestly how many times has this come up as a problem in a game you've played or seen played? Not white room theorycraft, but actually in a game

A lot. Like I said, it is very game dependent. Some people play with a lot of enemies with RS. Older Paizo APs have SO MANY reactive strike enemies.

Reactive Strike is an absolute rarity now, to the point that bringing up 1e is honestly irrelevant. Everyone had reactive strike. My dinky wizard had reactive strike. An animated broom was capable of reactive striking.

My own experience playing and running through AP's is that reactive strikes are not all that common at all. In strength of thousands we are level 15 and have fought a grand total of 9 enemies whom I recall being able to reactive strike, and that's pretty far into the AP. Season of ghost is much the same, with the only reactive strike enemies being ones I've added to spice up the random encounters.

It's just not the case in 2e and hasn't been made the case with recent changes. This might come off as harsh, but have you ever thought of applying some order of operations to your action economy, and maybe trying to bait out a reaction instead of fullsending a spellstrike against an enemy you know can hit you for it?

I was referring to early 2e APs, not 1e. I remember whole combats with enemies with reach and RS hah. Maybe it has become quite rare now, but it certainly wasn't with earlier adventures.

Honestly how many times has this come up as a problem in a game you've played or seen played? Not white room theorycraft, but actually in a game

A lot. Like I said, it is very game dependent. Some people play with a lot of enemies with RS. Older Paizo APs have SO MANY reactive strike enemies.

Alas, I must once again broach the topic of magus and spellstrike triggering Reactive Strike.

A non issue in some games, a crippling defect in others. I propose a "kill two birds with one stone" solution here.

Ignition. The classic firey cantrip. Also generally considered a very mediocre cantrip these days. Electric Arc always does more damage. Gouging Claw is better for spellstriking. Telekinetic Projectile hits harder at range. I could go on.

I propose one simple tweak. When you choose to make a melee spell attack with it, it loses the manipulate trait.

Simple. Suddenly the iconic but underpowered cantrip has a niche. You can use it to defend yourself without getting hit in the face.

Magi can use it to spellstrike with a cantrip when facing RS foes. Less damage than gouging claw, so there is a penalty, and no big spells, but you aren't completely shut down.

And fire is cool.

Yes, if you are up against fire immune foes with RS it won't help, but nothing is perfect right?

Teridax wrote:

A Drifting Shoebox wrote:

With exemplar itself not likely to get any deeper retooling to make other ikons more nuanced with how they interact and with a spark, just axing immanence from the archetype (or shunting it to a second feat) would just leave it kind of frustrating. Less so than psychic archetype's excessive beatdown, but still.

I feel like if the Exemplar itself needs help, then the best way to go about that would be to apply fixes to the main class, rather than keep its MC archetype strong. I do think the premaster Psychic MC archetype was too good and needed a change, even if gutting it was not the right move, and I feel excessively strong MC archetypes run the risk of devaluing the main class itself: if you can get the best bits of a class just by opting into its dedication, why go for the main class at all?

I don't even think the Exemplar needs to be a class. Should have always been an archetype to add to some other class to make it more mythic and heroic.

I think that was the role the mythic rules were designed to fill wasn't it?

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Kind of getting far afield of the point of the post, but mechanically that isn’t true that is just flavor text.

You know people on these boards keep saying that we can't ignore flavor text and that it's still rules text... Seems odd now to see someone coming out on ignoring the flavor text. I've seen such text vehemently argued as relevant that sounded far less like an actual rule.

I think it can get a little grey sometimes for sure.

In this case though, the flavor text doesn't say it returns after a strike, just a rather nebulous "successful throw." If we want to go real life, boomerangs, when thrown right, return if they DON'T hit anything. You hit someone upside the head with a boomerang, it isn't flying back to you.

And finally, from a balance perspective, it would be way overpowered. The boomerang is already maybe the best throwing weapon in the game, with 60 feet of range and the recovery feature.

Using the flaor text to say it also comes back when you hit would just make it a weapon with an built in returning rune.

Let common sense prevail here.

Anyways, happy to argue over the boomerang further, but can we make a new thread for it? Way off topic here.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like I'm inclined to leave the Exemplar archetype the way it is, since it doesn't have the problem of "you put this on another class and you outshine the original class at its shtick" since the Exemplar is not defined by one Ikon- it's defined by juggling at least two.

Plus things like Shadow Sheath remove so much friction in like "trying to make a thrown weapon character" that it feels like "I want to play my character concept ASAP" more than "I am trying to power game."

Using shadow sheath you can easily outdamge a shortbow with just one hand, and have the other free for a sword. Or throw two weapons with dual thrower for crazy damage.

It is absolutely broken.

The best thrown weapon is the boomerang and it doesn't need either shadow sheath or returning to work. If you are choosing to throw, I don't know, daggers and take shadow sheath then you are doing it entirely because of flavor because there's a much better thrown weapon alternative for that.

Boomerangs absolutely benefit from shadow sheath? They only return on a miss, and all the extra shadow sheath damage is nuts.

But here is the thing, sure someone can use something utterly sub-optimally for flavor. That doesn't mean that it isn't way overpowered. We can't balanced around someone just screwing around with it.

Boomerangs have this in their description "The boomerang is a carved piece of wood designed to curve as it flies through the air, returning to the wielder after a successful throw". They don't need returning or shadow sheath at all.

Kind of getting far afield of the point of the post, but mechanically that isn’t true that is just flavor text. Boomerangs have the Recovery trait which reads “ Recovery weapons are thrown weapons designed to return to the thrower when they miss the target. When you make an unsuccessful thrown Strike with this weapon, it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete, allowing you to try again. If your hands are full when the weapon returns, it falls to the ground in your space.”

So if you hit with a boomerang it doesn’t return, only when you miss.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like I'm inclined to leave the Exemplar archetype the way it is, since it doesn't have the problem of "you put this on another class and you outshine the original class at its shtick" since the Exemplar is not defined by one Ikon- it's defined by juggling at least two.

Plus things like Shadow Sheath remove so much friction in like "trying to make a thrown weapon character" that it feels like "I want to play my character concept ASAP" more than "I am trying to power game."

Using shadow sheath you can easily outdamge a shortbow with just one hand, and have the other free for a sword. Or throw two weapons with dual thrower for crazy damage.

It is absolutely broken.

The best thrown weapon is the boomerang and it doesn't need either shadow sheath or returning to work. If you are choosing to throw, I don't know, daggers and take shadow sheath then you are doing it entirely because of flavor because there's a much better thrown weapon alternative for that.

Boomerangs absolutely benefit from shadow sheath? They only return on a miss, and all the extra shadow sheath damage is nuts.

But here is the thing, sure someone can use something utterly sub-optimally for flavor. That doesn't mean that it isn't way overpowered. We can't balanced around someone just screwing around with it.

Like I'm inclined to leave the Exemplar archetype the way it is, since it doesn't have the problem of "you put this on another class and you outshine the original class at its shtick" since the Exemplar is not defined by one Ikon- it's defined by juggling at least two.

Plus things like Shadow Sheath remove so much friction in like "trying to make a thrown weapon character" that it feels like "I want to play my character concept ASAP" more than "I am trying to power game."

Using shadow sheath you can easily outdamge a shortbow with just one hand, and have the other free for a sword. Or throw two weapons with dual thrower for crazy damage.

It is absolutely broken.

I think expansive spell strike should be clarified if it is optional or not.

As you can now spellstrike just the target with a save spell, expansive spellstrike sometimes makes spells worse, if you just want to hit the target and not burst yourself.

The flavor text at the front arguably suggests it is a choice "You can blast the energy of a spell out around the target of your attack."

But the text of the spell just says if you use a spell with burst/cone/line it will have the area.

Making it clear you can CHOOSE to give the spell an area prevents this feat from actually being a downgrade sometimes, and I suspect is what was intended.

Exemplar:

There are many class feats that give the same damage bonus or better than the Exemplar feat can. +2 damage at level 2 that can scale to +8 is inline with many class feats that increase damage.

Really? I am unaware of any that aren’t part of the class baseline damage boost. Certainly unaware of any that can be easily poached and stacked on another class.

-1 circumstance penalty that an enemy takes when attacking though, that's pretty unique. Circumstance penalties to enemy attacks is a pretty rare thing to see. Still, -1 on a d20 roll means they'll hit you 5% less often.

Also crits less. That -1 penalty equates to roughly a 15% reduction in damage

The other examples you give are classes and archetypes giving options. Options are good, as they are competing against other options.

Exemplar and Runesmith are different though. They give passive, stackable, damage and defense boosts. They take no actions, they stack with everything.

The +2 spirit damage per weapon die exemplar, is a lvl 2 feat and scales all game. For a fighter using a d8, it is roughly a 20% damage boost. That works on every attack the fighter makes. Every meta strike, every RS, whatever.

If the fighter takes champion for all that great stuff, exemplar stacks with that. It doesn’t compete without, it just makes
It all better.

It is way, way too good. It is essentially letting other classes take a classes’s passive damage boost with the dedication. Imagine if fighter dedication gave you +2 to hit. Kind of like that.

I am not sure that Sprinting Spellstrike is operating quite as intended with expansive spellstrike.

Sprinting Spellstrike:
Magic propels you across the battlefield as you speed toward
your target. Make a Spellstrike, casting a spell that has a line
area. Before making your Strike, you Stride in a straight line to a
distance up to the line’s length; you can move through enemies
during this movement, and your movement doesn’t trigger
reactions. You can use Sprinting Spellstrike while Burrowing,
Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have
the corresponding movement type.
Special If you have the Expansive Spellstrike feat, the spell’s
area uses the line of your movement instead of the normal
method of determining the line.

Expansive Spellstrike
You can blast the energy of a spell out around the target
of your attack. When you Spellstrike with a spell that has
an area of a burst, cone, or line, the spell creates an area
instead of affecting only the target. The target must be in
the area, and Expansive Spellstrike has no effect if your spell
was disrupted (such as if you critically fail your Strike). A
burst is centered on any corner you choose of the target’s
square (or the corner of any square in its space for a Large
or larger creature). A cone or line emits from you and must
include the target

So, it is kind of weird, having expansive spellstrike is often worse here. If you want to use expansive spellstrike and this feat, you MUST pass through the enemy. Otherwise it can't be in the area of the line shooting back?

Champion archetype is an interesting comparison. Personally, I also think champion archetype is too good, largely due to the unlimited use of the best reaction in the game. Was really expecting them to make it once per 10 minutes or something, much like spellstrike via archetype or flurry of blows.

The major difference is, it is a reaction. It competes with, and uses, the limited pool of reactions. So by using it, you aren't using something else. Granted it is a VERY strong reaction, still think it should be limited, but there you are.

Exemplar is so powerful (and runesmith to a slightly lesser degree) because it is a passive buff that stacks with literally everything. It doesn't compete with anything. A character can get the champion archetype, or be a champion, and grab a lvl 2 dedication feat, and give themselves a huge bump in damage. It just stacks. It is also doesn't need a charisma investment or multiple feats.

I know a lot of people play free archetype, but it isn't the baseline. A lot of classes just want their class feats too, and it is way too easy to slip in a lvl 2 feat for a big damage boost, almost mandatory even it is so good.

Even with Free Archetype, darting out to snag exemplar is a huge buff. (Or getting it early, then retraining etc etc)

These stackable, easily obtained passive boosts are just way way too good.

A weapon ikon grants between +2 and +8 damage usually. The rogue archetype gives 1d6 sneak attack that on average is 3.5 damage, and unlike exemplar, has feats you can poach that work for every character build and Skill Mastery are extra expert and master skills for your character.

Yeah, rogue and champion take more feats to work and aren't as front-loaded, but the exemplar archetype begins and ends at its dedication which for free archetype games (which are the majority of PF2e games) means delaying other archetypes for at least 4 levels.

Sneak attack is a separate feat, and only works against off guard opponents, and only with ranged (much harder to off guard) or agile/finesse weapons. Far more conditional.

I sure wouldn't like that taking Horn Of Plenty would mean I'd lose the ability to use elixirs/potions in it on myself.

Yes. While I do think potion and elixir action economy is too restrictive, one level two feat fixing it is way too good. My fighter loses his spirit damage too sigh.

Don't really disagree. I'd suggest putting a shorter version of this in the Fall 2026 errata suggestion thread too.

Oddly, I did, but it appears to have been deleted. Maybe it was considered more of a suggestion of changes than an errata.

We had this discussion in the past multiple times already, but I feel people overvalue the exemplar dedication a bit too much taking into account that, by taking it, you are restricting yourself from taking other archetypes until you take at least two other feats from the exemplar archetype, and if you look at exemplar feats you'll notice they only pretty much only work for exemplars. For the rest of classes they are either bad or simply don't work at all.

In the case of the runesmith, the fact that its extra bleed damage means it doesn't stack with itself, and neither does with other characters if everyone wanted to poach runesmith dedication for it, so I personally think its perfectly fine. The splash damage is one I don't see people taking honestly since, even if you are immune to it, your allies aren't.

I agree the rest of the exemplar archetype has issues. But just the fact that any character, who doesn't care about the rest of the archetype, can get a major damage boost by taking a lvl 2 dedication isn't remotely balanced.

As for runesmith, bleed damage valuation varies. Some value it more than regular damage, some less. It is still a passive, always on damage bonus that scales, from a level 2 feat.

One of the core tenants of 2e, compared to earlier editions, is, in general, you don't take feats to just give you more damage/defense. Both of these archetypes violate that.

Exemplar, for a lvl 2 dedication feat, gives you ikons that PASSIVELY (as in can leave it always on, takes no actions) give you:
+2 spirit damage per weapon die (making a d8 weapon a d12 essentially)
-1 penalty to any melee attack against you
+1 AC aura around you for 15 feet
and more. In addition to a useful ability!

The +2 more or less bumps a basic martial attack to fighter damage, and stacks with their damage boosters.

Runesmith has similar issues.

The Runesmith dedication alone gives you a choice of
+2 bleed damage per weapon die on your weapon
+1 AC whenever you raise your shield
+1 bludgeoning slash damage per damage die on your weapon (and you are immune)
you get one of those and a useful activated ability (Although archetype is a little broke on some of those as currently doesn't grant Runesmith DC!)

Taking either of these, just the dedications, flat out boosts your martial damage or defenses a ton. And you don't have to do anything, they are passive, just leave them on.

My suggestion to fix them is fairly simple. For Exemplar's, the archetype should not grant the passive abilities of ikons. They can keep the active abilities, but granting the passive is like the fighter archetype giving +2 to hit.

The Runesmith archetype is the same. Do not allow the archetype access to passive abilities from etched runes (etched are the ones you prepare in the morning and last all day) Activated abilities are fine, and if you want to spend an action to get the bonus for a turn (traced abilities) that is fine too, you are paying in actions.

But completely passive, stackable, damage or defense bonuses are against the spirit of the game and make every martial class want to grab a lvl 2 dedication that boosts every attacks damage and scales all game.

Claxon wrote:

And people accounting for kip up is crazy to me. NPCs aren't built as PCs. You don't need to worry about a PC feat. How often do NPCs have a kip up like ability? I'm sure it exists, but I don't recall encountering it. Which to me says it's very infrequent.

I'm playing in Age of Ashes, and the answer is quite often. Like almost every significant NPC (not necessarily every random guard mook) who's humanoid and martial-like has it past level 12 it's felt like.

I think that might be your GM making life harder for you hah. I GMed that and can't remember a single npc with kip up, certainly not almost every significant humanoid having it!

The extra damage from fire ray is a pretty bad effect. The damage only triggers if the creature ends their turn there and there is almost no encounter where a creature probably shouldn’t spend one action moving. It will occasionally happen, but it is extremely rare in my experience, and it is not enough damage for a party to plan around keeping a creature in place unless that was already going to be advantageous to them. Hitting a second target with the remastered Imaginary Weapon is probably twice as good of a rider ability than the extra damage at the end of a creature’s turn from fire ray.

Lots of encounters the enemy may not want to move. Or it may be tripped, or grabbed, etc.

But besides that, the issue is fire ray has 60 feet of range vs the touch range of IW. That is a rather massive advantage, particularly on a squishy caster.

Seriously hope they do a better and more thorough job with Magus and Summoner than the treatment psychic got.

Particularly as they are in a new book we have to buy, not a remastered version where you get a free pdf if you have the old one.

It is just a very weird archetype, don't understand it. Every other casting archetype gives better casting, including eldritch archer, spellshot, etc. I don't know why they made the weird bounded casting archetype. Just give them regular casting, maybe no breadth.

I would like to renew my point that this needs improving now that spellshot gets wizard like multiclass casting.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

The other is more about what the vision for magus is. Is magus a spellstriker who hits hard and maybe occasionally casts another spell? Or is a magus a wizard like character with limited slots that also mixes it up in melee?

Is it really a bad thing that there's room left for the player to answer that question themselves with their build choices?

Not at all! But really a LOT of magus power and feats etc are tied up in the whole spellstrike routine.

I'd rather have more options within normal spells so that focus ones aren't so appealing

Sure, but this also gets into a couple issues. First, is class balance vs adventuring day length.

A magus in a one fight a day game is a VASTLY different beast than a magus in a dungeon crawl where you have to ration spells. Focus point builds help get around that.

The other is more about what the vision for magus is. Is magus a spellstriker who hits hard and maybe occasionally casts another spell? Or is a magus a wizard like character with limited slots that also mixes it up in melee?

Part of the issue is that, particularly once you hit mid game, spells are worth a lot more than just a bit more damage on a spellstrike. The right spell, even with slightly subpar DC, can win a fight outright. One spellstrike isn't getting that done.

True strike does kind of warp the game around it a bit. Every big strike has to be looked at with a "what if they use true strike and aid" etc etc.

My point about changing spellstrike to not being so literally dependent on spells is just that, as I pointed out, the game is moving away hard from attack spells. We have the illusion of choice now, and the class is more and more "take a dedication to get a focus spell" to use. And if you spam the same focus spell over and over, is that really choice?

I think the "focus point for damage" thing should be folded into the class so you don't have to archetype for it. Maybe you can use existing conflux stuff for free once a turn (some of them) without a spellstrike recharge.

Have damage and effect options on your spellstrike, it can be amped by a focus point.

The fundamental issue is that the magus relies on attack spells. There are very very very few of them though, and they seem to be moving away from them. So we basically have illusion of choice for the most part here.

Easiest way is just make spellstrike a damage ability. You do X damage when spellstriking at a given level. If you burn a spell slot, it increases it to y damage, if you use a focus point… etc etc etc.

It is already, just slightly different flavor. Now we just re-use the same couple of attack spells over and over or the same couple of focus spells over and over.

What is the difference?

Easiest way is just make spellstrike a damage ability. You do X damage when spellstriking at a given level. If you burn a spell slot, it increases it to y damage, if you use a focus point… etc etc etc.

A magus feat.. bad? The devil you say!!!

In all seriousness yeah it is awful. Sadly the best way to play magus is to 90% of their awful feats and just archetype.

Nodachi and Falcata.

Specifically, Falcata is a d8 Fatal d12 1 handed sword.
That is essentially equivalent to a d10 1handed weapon. (Sometimes a bit better, sometimes a bit worse, but that is essentially it)

Advanced weapons shouldn't be just a die bump over regular weapons.

Also, Nodachi. It has the opposite problem, way underpowered. It is a d8 Deadly D12. That is not as good as a d10. And Brace, while interesting, is not that good.

To put it in perspective, a simple Guisarme, D10, Reach, Trip, is a flat out better weapon, doing more damage, and an arguably better trait, and it is only martial.

I would LOVE to see a d10 reach martial sword. Just for fun. A d10 Reach Sweep Zweihander would be great.

I would also like to see a thrown sword, just so fighters using sword have something to throw. Side note, aren't daggers just tiny sword? hah

I would disagree, without damage property runes the game feels slower. I've done a high level game where property runes has saved 1-2 rounds of combat which otherwise might have party-wiped us. If you were to cap Property runes then you would need to boost the damage of all weapons or include a way to deal increased damaged on all of the martial weapon using classes!

As I mentioned, you can just add more levels of striking runes, or something like it.

Starfinder 2e seems to have copied the elemental property damage rune system from pathfinder 2e. Except there are 4 max runes now.

Please don’t. The rune ecosystem in 2e is not healthy. Property damage runes tend to crowd out everything else, since more damage is always good. Particularly on low damage die weapons. A 1d6 weapon, a property damage rune is as good or better than a striking rune!

Every weapon doesn’t need to do 5 types of damage. And let the other types of runes shine!

Please done duplicate this system. You can just add more levels of striking runes to keep balance leveled. Or limit property damage runes to 1 max, or one you upgrade, or whatever.

I think the Alchemist Archetype lvl 6 feat Voluminous Vials is in need of errata.

The dedication, at lvl 2, gives you 4 versatile vials. A lvl 6 feat (which you can retake at 12th and 18th) gives you 1... more...

I suspect this was written when the alchemist archetype had a way of regaining versatile vials during the day. But since it doesn't, I think it is in error now.

Possibly the Imperial Sorcerer Focus 3?

It extends blood magic on the next spell cast, but it itself causes blood magic lol.

Also super weak for the price so, maybe some errors slipped in there.