CaffeinatedNinja's page

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.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Looks like Dangerous Sorcery was moved from a class feat to a class feature. So RIP archetyping for it.

Is it accessible through archetyping?

No.

Wait, the Imperial bloodline can do what?!

Yup. RIP wizard man.

Oracle thing might be a misprint?

But yeah, wizards were done dirty in the remaster compared to every other caster. Kind of odd, literally no one thought they were too good.

Wait for 3e I guess, maybe wizard will have paid for it's sins in prior editions by then lol.

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.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I will track inexorable iron magus versus a fighter and two-weapon ranger using falcatas. See how it goes.

I have a quality build plan and will explain it when I track the damage comparisons.

So far I'm 100 percent sure the starlit span magus is a top tier damage dealer and the best archer in the game.

I'm less sure of the comparison against a melee magus as clearly the top, though I'm fairly certain they are on par with the top. I will record the data as my current opinion is based on effect on the game.

This is playing the magus not to spellstrike every round, but to use other tactics between spellstrikes to sustain and then boost damage during spellstrike rounds. Even with Starlit Span I did not spellstrike every round as I had to move or do something else like cast a self-buff.

I agree with the approach, I think Starlit Span needs to be reigned in as is and shouldn't be our benchmark

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.

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.

YuriP wrote:

The dead curriculum slots from some curriculums needs to be heightened to keep working efficiently (or they will become weaker than even cantrips)-

Curriculum spells are added to your spellbook. They work like any other spell. So there is no special deadness about them different from any other spell. Agreed, rank 1 damage dealing spells need to be heightened to be useful at higher levels...but again, this does not make curriculum spells 'deader' than any other spell.

IOW what you are complaining about is the entire level-based spell system, where lower-rank spells are superceded by higher-rank spells as the character gains levels.

Nothing about the remastered Wizard changed that system. It did not make it better...but it in no way made it worse. To go to a system where that wasn't the case (e.g., where a 1st rank spell you gained at level 1 is still part of your standard rotation at level 20, because it autoscales in an impactful way) would be to radically alter the entire game's casting and magic system. That's maybe a 3rd edition move, it is certainly not something I think any player should have reasonably expected from the remaster. At least, IMO.

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.

I would have liked the Wizard to have 4 free spell slots, their curriculum spells added for free and a School Focus spell that synergized with their curriculum spells.

Maybe in Unchained Remaster. Or in PF3.

But I LOVE the new definition of Wizard's schools. So much more personal and flavorful.

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.

Arcane shroud was nerfed rather badly. More flexibility in what you cast but the spell now only lasts until the end of your next turn at best. It used to be end of your next turn or the spell's duration, whichever is longer.

Player Core Page 157

Hunted Shot just says the target must be your "prey" not your hunted prey. The intent is clear given the context but I am sure people will argue that means you don't have to hunt prey against your target before using it.

TheWayofPie wrote:

Kinda bummed Wizard feats didn't get a bit more sauce. Did they at least get put to regular amount of skills like everyone else? I wasn't a fan of them having one less skill just because they used Intelligence.

I asked that on discord and the answer I got was: No change to skills. Still trained in arcana and 2+INT additional skills.

Disappointing, to say the least.

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.

Another thing I can't say I'm a fan of even if it probably needs the ax for being OP: Blessed Strikes is now gone.

Yes I know you can houserule all the old aasimar and tiefling feats as being available for nephilim, but that feat was one of the core reasons to take the heritage.

It also meant you could be evil and still have access to good damage without enfeebling yourself with a holy weapon. And without burning a property rune

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.

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.

You know, it would be nice if this thread could be about actual critiques of the remaster and not endlessly going back and forth about the change to wounded. Maybe that could be its own thread?

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
otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one
hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and
Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that
hand is no longer free."

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.

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.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

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.

It was considered good because of its choice of tradition and its hexes. Not because it had a familiar that could be ruled that you lose the entirety of the archetype if that fragile body dies.

Does the Witch archetype still only give 1 cantrip? If so, then I really don't think the other caster archetypes need boosted to 3 of them.

That is why the familiar tattoo exists:)

Arachnofiend wrote:

I've heard the wording on Spell Blending hasn't changed at all, which would imply that Spell Blending away your low level school slots is still a thing. So there's that, at least.

Have any thesis options changed at all? I was hoping some of the less useful ones Metamagical Experimentation would have got more than an name update.

Nope

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.

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.

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.

As for bond conservation...eh. It just requires burning a lower-level slot before burning a higher level slot. That is pretty likely to happen during the course of a workday, and you can guarantee it by casting an all-day buff ( see invisibility , mind blank , energy aegis and tongues are premium picks, there are plenty more) at the start of the day.

Bond conservation isn't that good. It takes an action for each usage, basically turning you into a turret.

So all that work to get an extra -2 spell of limited selection is.... not great?

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.

And then there's the top-end wizard feats. Like spell combination . Spell combination is horrifying when used correctly. Combining chain lightning with itself gets you very silly blasting ("Why yes, I would like to deal 104 damage on a basic save out of an 8th level spell, thank you"), ditto combining rays with each other and then casting true strike . Or maybe you want a combo-buff so you pick up haste and 4th rank invisibility . Gets even more absurd with quickened spell so that you can toss out the equivalent of 4 spells per turn, and you can recharge them with Drain Bonded Item and bond conservation (multiple times as a universalist).

At least it probably doesn't work with multiclassing for spells on other lists...

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!

I actually agree with most of the folks who say that the real stumbling block of the wizard in PF2 is the Arcane tradition.

What really is the arcane tradition? Where does this power come from in the world? And what makes it unique? It is not coming from the gods. Is it magic pulled from a specific plane? I don't think so. Sometimes it seems like it is magic pulled from creatures but not consistently and even the most arcane power focus creature in the game, the dragon, is now being pulled away from being arcane only, so arcane magic is not even "the stuff dragons are made of" anymore. The Occult tradition has massively stepped on the toes of the arcane tradition narratively, stealing away all the "mysterious power" elements of arcane magic. Like what are the arcane secrets of the universe and how are they really different from the occult secrets of the universe? or the primal secrets of the planes and how they are all connected?

I really hope that the section of the core rule book talking about the traditions of magics does a good job filling in the giant chunk of lore that is now a confusing mess from secrets of magic.

Narratively we have the essences, but the arcane list never really was a good representation of matter and mind when it had to include spells from every school of magic. Traditions and the fixed schools were a bad fit from the start of PF2. We will see what the new spell lists look like in the remastery and where there is room to give the arcane tradition a lore that feels as powerful, interesting and purposeful as the other 3 traditions.

Personally I always liked the idea as Arcane being the one for people that really understood magic.

Divine magic is granted by a god.
Primal tapping into natural power.
Occult by some weird entities.

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.

Split Slot: Just remove the level cap.

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.

I think a good question to ask is: would prepared spellcasters break the system if they all had Flexible Spellcaster without losing spellslots per day, cantrips learned, or having a specific collection of spells to prepare from?

I would like that to be a variant rule presented in the GM Core - mainly to hear the designers' thoughts on it. Does that make prepared spellcasters too strong?

Here's another question: would Wizard be too strong if they had Flexible Spellcaster but with the same amount of spellslots and cantrips learned as of now, and being able to use any spell in their spellbook whenever?

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.

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.

The new magical shorthand helps. Skill feat that turns a success into a crit success for spells. Appears to work with assurance too.

That being said, it is a strange “benefit” as most other classes just know their whole common spell list.

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.

I feel like if they were adding some cool new thing to wizards they would be advertising it, not turning it into some secret thing people need to treasure hunt for clues to.

Makes more sense imo to just assume this is what wizards look like.

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.

What am I missing about the wizard? Do they get a free slot still for jsut those battle magic spells? How do their slots work? Their theses are the same? Anything new to give them a boost?

I do like the cleric flat 4 and less reliance on charisma. 4 is a good number. Never seen much more than that used in a day.

Frpom everything we have seen, the basic slot structure hasn't changed. 3 splot spellcaster and 1 bonus slot, just like we have now.

It is not level 5 that is the question, it is level 15,17,19, where you are still going to have to have a first level school slot spell that could get questionable for the battle mage. I mean, at least magic missile is automatic damage, so there will always be the "finishing off" ability with a level 1 Force Barrage spell, but I can see some players feeling down about it.

At the same time, Force Barrage is a nice option for filling many higher level school slot spells and it looks like the school of battle is keeping the evocation focus spells which were very good to begin with.

I don't think it is a spoiled milk situation for the evoker School of Battle. It is not like evocation had a great 1st level spell that everyone was transferring over to before.

Burning hands instead of the shocking grasp (or shocking grasp alternative) feels like a bigger deal...but again, this is one spell slot per level. You still have all the rest of your spell slots to fill with any spell you want. Even at level 19, having one unused level 1 spell each day is not a big deal and if there is a magic missile/fore barrage there, then you probably will use it at some point, at least as a 3rd action, automatic damage spell. Even just for zapping a confused ally or bursting a mirror image off an enemy caster.

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.

Yeah…. Was hoping for some more info on wizard to counterbalance the nerf that is curriculum. Nada. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist! Clearly willing to make changes like the flat +4 for clerics don’t (big early game boost)

Yeah I am not sure where the PFS ruling came from as the spell never even suggests you must be holding the metal. Just in your possession.

Needle Darts does actually have this to say: "PFS Note Any spells which require metal to function require the PC to be holding at least one chunk of that metal or an item made of that metal."

So you need to buy a chunk of each metal you plan to use - doesn't have to be high-grade though!

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?