Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kalaam wrote: 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.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CaffeinatedNinja wrote: 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.Yeah no I'd like Spellstrike to be more than just 5e Divine/Eldritch Smite please. 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?
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nodachi and Falcata. Specifically, Falcata is a d8 Fatal d12 1 handed sword.
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
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ElementalofCuteness wrote: 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.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Reach is good when large. REALLY good. For example. A medium character with 10 feet of reach can cover 24 squares. A large character with reach 10 covers 32. So a human with a polearm can cover 24 squares with a d10 weapon. A minotaur can cover 32 with a d12. Minotaurs are going to be the minmaxers choice for a lot of things now. Large is really good. And they can still move down 5 foot hallways, just at half speed.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Starlit span has always been the best magus. And with psychic now, their weak focus spells aren't even a weakness anymore, as they can just spam psychic focus spells. Getting rid of AoO on spellstrike and making cascade much easier would only benefit melee magus.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I allow magus to use arcane cascade as a free action (or just have it always on) and not trigger AoO with spellstrike in my games. Class plays much more smoothly and they are not remotely overpowered. A lot of people overestimate magus damage because they give too much weight to an occasional big crit. Fighters and barbs consistently outdamage magus, they just aren’t quite as flashy.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Easl wrote:
I don't think you understand the issue people are having. It isn't that the spell is in your spellbook. It is that you have a low level slot you HAVE To prepare one of those "dead" spells in. Low level slots aren't your power hitters later, but they are valuable utility. There are a lot of low level spells that are useful to have all game. Unfortunately, with the curriculum, specialists have a slot they can't put any of those "useful all game" spells in. Instead they have a slot they can only prep a spell that is literally useless later. Hence, a dead slot.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Agree. Give 1 top level bonus slot that has to be your curriculum. The bonus spell system is a holdover from 1e that was already kind of restrictive, now it is super restrictive.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Blave wrote:
Can confirm, one of the first things I checked. I was REALLY hoping INT would get at least a little love in the remaster so it isn't a dump stat, but alas. Also wizard feats were not improved, with the exception of Silent and conceal spell being rolled into one feat. Oh and Scroll Savant (now scroll adept) no longer requires expert crafting. Honestly, just MC and skip 90% of wizard feats. The Witch MC is crazy overpowered now (they buffed it, starts with 2 familiar abilities instead of 1) so take that or Psychic. Witch also has a really powerful level one potion ability you can poach with MC easily. And since spell proficiency is just one stat now, you can get spells from other schools at full proficiency.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:
I hope they bring em back. Lvl 13 ancestry feat, should be good. Can always add a line that if you are sanctified to evil can't use holy strikes, and vice versa.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The scaling is all over the place and it is bizaare. Let us take Armor Proficiency. It now scales to expert at lvl 13 now, yay! Good improvement, nice for casters. For martials, it gives them scaling heavy armor.... except for lvl 11-12 and 19-20 for most classes, when they get their proficiency bumps early. Why on earth? Just make it scale. It is clunky, akward, and makes zero sense to have it scale except for a few levels. Weapon proficiency is equally strange. A lvl 1 ancestry feat will give you scaling martial/advanced proficiency AND crit spec. A general feat will give you caster scaling only. A lvl 12 class feat with fighter archetype gives you expert? It makes no sense that these things co-exist.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I don't know if this is exactly errata, but the shield rules are a little unclear with strapping now. All shields need to be strapped unless they say otherwise. Player Core page 274 "All shields, unless specifically noted or described
But nowhere is there mention of what is required to strap on a shield. It is an interact to unstrap we know, but to put on a shield do you have to draw it then strap it? Also, there are the following weird interactions Lightning Swap, Fighter Feat - Lets you change your weapons and draw a shield. But with this rule the shield still needs to be strapped, right? Also, the strapped rule seems to say that you can have a shield strapped to your arm and use the hand for anything, even wield a weapon, unless you want to raise the shield, at that point you grip it. So there is nothing stopping you from having a steel shield strapped to each arm while you swing a greatsword, lol. These rules could be cleaned up a bit.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Page 403 of Player Core, under Spell Attack Modifiers If you have the ability to cast spells, you’ll have a proficiency rank for your spell attack modifier, so you’ll always add a proficiency bonus. Like your attribute modifier, this proficiency rank may vary from one spell to another if you have spells from multiple sources. Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare. Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty. The bolded line is no longer correct. Spell proficiency rank doesn’t vary anymore since the remaster consolidated it into one proficiency.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
That is why the familiar tattoo exists:)
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Nope
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The witch archetype now gives a familiar with 2 abilities for the dedication, in addition to the cantrip and skills. It goes up to 3 abilities with basic lesson. None of the other caster archetypes got a boost. I find this super confusing as witch was already considered an amazing archetype that many considered to obsolete wizard archetype. Now they boost it but leave the other caster archetypes alone? The others should give 3 cantrips to let them keep up.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The new raise emblem ability is much better than spellguard shield. It is better than sparkling targes class ability. Spellguard only works on spells targeting you, no AoE spells, no spell like effects. This new ability works on everything. Every spell, every save, even against trip and grapple. It is really really good.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Argonar_Alfaran wrote: So the actual necessary amount of times a wand needs to be used to be more profitable than scrolls is half of the listed amounts (so depending on the level 5 to 8 times, instead of 10 to 15) You know, I never thought about that. But you are absolutely right.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:
Bond conservation isn't that good. It takes an action for each usage, basically turning you into a turret. Then it just gives you an extra use of your bond at -2 tour spell level. So in your above example, if the one spell you used from that spell level was tongues, that is the ONLY spell you can use drain bonded item with.So all that work to get an extra -2 spell of limited selection is.... not great?
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Wizards should't have to take spell blending for get sufficient power. And while sorcerers have a lot more options with their upper spells, tons really with signature spells. Also, you can't really equate bond conservation to full value, making that actually work is super tricky and not that awesome. Scrolls cost extra actions to use. Also, by blending away your lower slots, you give up some versatility. That being said, spell blending is the most powerful wizard thesis.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:
I don't think we should consider class balance based on lvl 20 feats hah. Most characters will never see them, and those that do have them for a handful of fights. Plus not sure chain lightning is the best example, good single target damage but you miss all the bounces!
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Personally I always liked the idea as Arcane being the one for people that really understood magic. Divine magic is granted by a god.
Arcane is the one for people that have none of that. They tap it by willpower and understanding and shape it themselves. But that is more head canon than game lore hah.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:
Even then it is still far worse than the lvl 4 sorcerer feat Arcane Evolution. I was really hoping wizards would get some from of the magus feat "Stanby Spell" but no, we got Knowledge is Power (who cares lol) instead.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MadamReshi wrote:
Nope. I mean it would be better than a sorcerer if they could cast any spell, but still worse than a bard or cleric I think.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hmm, there are a lot of different things. Not saying all of them should be implemented, but here are a few thoughts. 1 - More Flexibility - I would love to see some form of flex casting without the massive cost, even if the flexibility is reduced. For exacmple, magus gets Standby Spell, which lets you pick a spell to convert a slot into. This would be a great way to help wizard pick niche spells they may never use. 2 - Feats - Lord they are bad. Take a look at split slot, lvl 6, vs the lvl 4 Arcane Evolution sorcerers get. Split slot is 10x worse and higher level. Way too many wizard feats are too limited or too many caveats to be practically good. 3 - 4 slot caster - The bonus slot system is unduly restrictive and is just a legacy from DnD. Just make them 4 slot casters, do something else with the schools (like let you use those spells as standby spells, etc) 4 - Focus Spells - They are bad, as many here have stated. They should be consistently useful and reliable. Like Force Bolt, how about you can cast it as 1-2-3 actions or something instead of just the 1 action filler. Wizards also don't even get a third focus point, which means everyone is going to archetype for it. 5 - Intelligence - It is an awful primary stat. This has been said many times by many people, but it is basically a dump stat for anyone else. Trained is easy to get (not to mention wizards start with -1 skill for some reason?) So their main stat is mostly useless. This should be fixed with either class features, or preferably errata actually making intelligence a good stat.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I agree that we shouldn’t speak ill of the devs. I often disagree with them but that is the nature of things, no one is going to agree with anyone all of the time. People acting in good faith can disagree. I am hoping there are unreleased wizard buffs that help, like spell sub being a class feature, but who knows. I do think just making curriculum bigger would have helped a lot of these concerns. If they were 4 spells a level, and picked with a kind to having lower level spell slots that don’t become dead it would help a lot. I think spell blending is going to be even more popular to ditch the now useless slots.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
I am hopeful, but I suspect you are right. Not sure why cleric needed a buff and wizard… well, let’s wait for the final release.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Frpom everything we have seen, the basic slot structure hasn't changed. 3 splot spellcaster and 1 bonus slot, just like we have now.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
With respect, having a bad spell slot per level is pretty awful. Might as well be a witch then, or a bard. This is REALLY going to push people into spell blending.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:
Issue with this ruling is now this spell ties up a hand. You have to be holding a metal item just to use it, even if not using a special metal. Odd as the spell is explicit that it has to be in your possession, not taking up a hand. Do gauntlets count?
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Magus DC can be painful even if you focus on int, this is true. I find it a sometimes frustrating part of this system with how stingy it is giving good DCs, given how important every point is with the +10/-10 system. It just pushes magus into using spells that are just as powerful but don't care about DC.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
True as to dex. Another reason starlit is really good. But Str magus doesn't natively get access to heavy armor so that is archetyping instead of taking psychic or something. Or being human and spending a general feat up till lvl 11. So yeah, heavy armor is great on magus but not part of the kit.
|