Capn Cupcake's page

Personally I would love to know how Gunblades work. I'm a huge Final Fantasy fan, and I've got machinations (hah) to pitch a Gunblade wielding Magus to my DM when SoM comes out and I'd like to be able to do so without homebrewing, or at least as little as possible.

Even with feats, Gunslingers are still going to be having issues with reload soaking up their action economy.

I feel like they might need another class feature at 1st or 3rd level to compensate. Something like:

Rapid Reload (free action)
Trigger: Your turn ends
You may interact to reload one crossbow or firearm you are wielding.

End of turn means that it isn't automatically feeding Firearm or Crossbow Ace, and it helps ensure you'll have rounds in the chamber to use your reactions.

I saw somewhere on here where someone suggested instead of a patch feat like the one above, they find ways to make reloading itself more interesting and I really like that. Things like being able to make knowledge checks during reloading and other minor but valuable actions like that.

I definitely agree something should be done though. Personally I like the idea of reloading, I just don't like the idea of it feeling like a totally wasteful action.

Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

Since it has your attention I'm actually curious; what do you think of the Magus and the feedback you've gotten so far? (snip) Anything else in particular that's stood out as an issue for players?

I'll avoid talking about the solutions we're looking at. The main reason I appreciate this thread is that there are a few people saying the same things about Striking Spell and/or lower number of spells in every thread, which makes finding other information tough to find. Having a spot dedicated toward everything else gives room for the rest to get some attention.

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think some of that is primed by both the P1 magus and by eldritch archer. The playtest magus is a way to try broadening that formula a bit, but hits the action economy wall.

The posts of people who do like Striking Spell often rely on a pretty intense buff and true strike regime to get the results they want. That's not ideal. We don't really want players to only get full enjoyment out of the class with that level of complexity and, often, repetition.

I think this is slightly untrue. We're not *just* worried about doing damage, we're worried about general accuracy. Our saving throw spells are also quite inaccurate so we're running into a situation where both debuffs and damage options are lackluster. I would honestly love to play a non-damage focused hexblade style build, where I debuff and cripple the enemies with my Striking Spells, but my DC being a full -3 compared to "full" casters makes that an impossibility. I'm not going to use my spell slots on 30% accurate debuff spells any more than I will on 30% accurate attack spells. Neither option is attractive which leaves self buff and attack spam.

Stands have few options, but Eidolons are supposed to have many options.

That is the problem with the current system.

Eidolons are not supposed to be stands, they are supposed to be their own creatures with their own abilities.

You're moving the goal post. The initial argument was "What if stands were all similar" and the rebuttal is "they ARE all similar and they all feel completely different from each other".

I have said before and I stand by this, I think Eidolons could use *some* customization at level 1. Not a ton, just enough to make it feel more like mine from a mechanical sense. I honestly get where Verzen is coming from. Two things that are completely identical mechanically feel the same, at least to me. Right now, for my personal tastes, there's not enough to differentiate one Angel from another, or one Beast from another.

All that said, I do not think another subsystem is the answer. It's clumsy, inelegant, and honestly sounds like a headache and a hassle. I still think the correct, simplest option is a small list of keywords and you can pick 1 for each weapon. That would be *massive* in terms of making them feel different.

Pathfinder weapons are almost all the same aside from a couple keywords tied to each. Just apple the same philosophy to the edilon's attacks. Giving one trip or disarm or backstabber isn't going to break anything at level 1, and you get an entire layer of customization for a pittance of design space.

Jojo was the progenitor of a lot of shonen tropes. If there's an aspect of action manga you like, chances are Jojo did it first.

I'm so bored of seeing people say "But trying to stack every advantage under the sun to reach a baseline competency everyone else already has is fun!" And seeing swathes of people explain that it's bad design to deaf ears.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The math is about as debatable as wearing a mask, and everything else you've said has just shown how poorly the crit mechanic works for Striking Spell. The math is off if we can only under or over perform.

I think in general, people generally expect a bell curve of value. Most of the time decent, sometimes bad, sometimes really good.

Now, there can be hiccups and bumps in that bell curve, and its generally preferred that there is to create variation between classes. Circumstances then help vary the curve further.

I'm with you in feeling the curve may average to be a "good number" but that the curve feels inverted a bit for Striking Spell and a bit polarizing (in both senses).

Eldritch Shot is mathematically on point for instance, but if Striking Spell were to work that way and Class Paths were to stay the same I don't know that'd feel satisfying to me personally either.

Some people see the Magus as a big risk class (though I'd argue they should feel less "risky" than at least the Swashbuckler). I personally don't see them that way always (Kensai definitely) but they did derive a lot of value from Keen weapons and critical hits, so that theme was present.

How risky do you think the Magus should feel?

I think that would be a good indicator of how often each of us expect them to succeed and how great that success should be when they do succeed.

I personally want them to be a very low risk class. I want to feel like I outwitted and out maneuvered my opponents, not out lucked them. I think there's a place for high risk/high reward play as the default, but I don't want Magus to be it.

Thought of another simple, fairly obvious solution. Why don't we just make Boost last until the end of your *next* turn? This essentially makes it cost "half" an action and lets you mix up actions a lot more freely.

graystone wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure

And my interest suddenly fades after reading this.

We disagree here gray.

It's my favorite anime of all time and how I will imagine every summoner I ever make

I'm playing a Summoner tonight and it took all my will power to keep my Eidolon as a dragon and not a STANDO.

I think a quick and rough fix would be to just bump the damage dice to d10 and d6 and remove boost entirely. This gives the equivalent to a static +1 and no additional actions required.

Tangentially related since this is somewhat about damage math, I'd like to be able to get backstabber on one of the attacks either via feat or otherwise. It's a fun way to shore up the math further and adds an element of positioning into the mix.

Whenever I think of someone who casts and slashes I picture someone who's more of a spell fencer type. Rapiers, outwitting and out dodging, etc. To use Final Fantasy classes as an example, I think of Red Mage as the default way to do it, but that's not to say I can't appreciate a good, heavy armored Dark Knight type either. Bulky armor, big 2 handed weapon, unkillable and sending out waves of dark magic.

I would like to see more support for finesse builds, but that's largely because again I'm a sucker for lightly armored spell fencers. It's what I pretty much default to trying to make work in any TTRPG I play. I'm just a sucker for it.

I guess what I'm saying is, Yes, I think it's a fine tactic, BUT I would like something more viable that encourages diversity.

I remember GMing a lot of PFS games with Magi that all brought Arcane Mark to the table and them explaining it every time to the gathered party. Then me nodding, "Yes, it works, what sort of mark for you want to leave on them?"

I remember when I first learned about this, I got so excited. I wanted to play a Zorro style character who left his mark on his enemies. It just felt so cool and flavorful.

I think saying the design is bad just because it doesn't work for specifically evil characters who want throw away minions is a little hyperbolic. You can literally do that now. This is for a different type of playstyle, with a different type of relationship with the Eidolon. You two have to watch each others backs and shore up each others weaknesses. Nobody is expendable because if something happens you're both screwed. I find it very engaging and I'm excited to explore that design space.

And I mean if you really want that, you can still do it. Just play anything with an animal companion, or use the existing summon spells. This just isn't for that specifically, but there's still plenty of fun to be had if you're willing to explore the options presented. :)

sharkmanley84 wrote:

Also is the lack of a 1st class feat a typo?

...smh I've built 4 summoners and never realized they were missing the Lv1 Feat.

Real answer is probably yes, there are a handful of classes who skip the level 1 class feat.

I'm pretty sure it's only casters that skip it, so they didn't give it to the Magus or Summoner. Man they really piled on the drawbacks to these classes in this playtest huh?

im to the point where i view shared hp as the smaller issue

i find boost/reinforce eidolon to be a much bigger issue. as you feel like you are playing a bard (only one right answer for your third action) without the power of the bard.

feels bad to play

This I sort of agree with. I think Mark's proposed variable action version of Act Together helps and I think one more small tweak would make it perfect. Not sure what that tweak is currently but I really do feel like the class is close to being amazing.

Posted this in a couple of other threads but given that this has now devolved into arguing about Eidolons, I'm adding it here as well. For the record I think Eidolons could use a *little* more customization, but honestly I don't really want to go through a ton more than that. Just a choice or two would more than do it for me, which is why I came up with the below.

I think a lot of customization can be built in by just giving a small list of keywords you can apply to your weapons at level 1. Suddenly my 1d4 Bludgeoning Tripping Tail attack is completely different from your 1d4 Slashing Disarming Crab Claw attack.

Weapons in Pathfinder 2e are, largely, very similar to each other but they FEEL different because the mechanical differences carry enough weight for our imaginations. Just give us some keywords to play with so we can attribute some of that weight to our own Eidolons and make them feel that much more tangible.

Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.

That's a valid criticism I feel. I'm not sure how you'd fix that though. I feel like taking the higher of the two is too powerful but I'm not sure how else to tackle that.

To preface: I know some people don't, and they're entitled to their opinion. This thread is not to say they're wrong for feeling the way they do or anything of the sort. I just also want to share my own personal feelings on the subject and provide positive feedback for a feature I like.

I actually really like this feature a lot. It changes combat in a way that hasn't been done in 2e yet. It allows me to essentially occupy 2 spaces at once, each occupation bringing different values. I've got a meaty bruiser up front and a squishy caster in the back, and my positioning on both makes for a strong departure in traditional tactics. If an enemy crits my eidolon, the healer doesn't have mess up their own positioning to heal them. They can take a safer position in the back with me and heal me from there. That's *so* cool. Likewise, I can send my Eidolon up to beat some face while I shift to another part of the battlefield and provide buff support. Regardless of fluff, regardless of canon, regardless of previous lore, this is a mechanic that I really want to explore and work with. I'm a tactical person by nature and this is a whole paradigm that I've never gotten to work with before, and the possibilities are deeply interesting to me.

I do think the Summoner needs work. Act together needs a change. A couple days ago Mark suggested making it between 1-3 actions to allow you to still use spells with it, and I think that's a great, elegant way to free up actions and allow some more turn by turn versatility without actually giving it any more raw power or abilities.

I also think the Eidolons themselves could use just a hair of customization, but that can be as simple as "pick from this list of keywords. Apply 1 keyword to each of your Eidolons weapons" So now my 1d4 Bludgeon Trip tail feels different from your 1d4 Slash Disarm crab claw. It's a very small, very easy change that makes the weapons feel much more tangible instead of feeling like carbon copies of each other.

Capn Cupcake wrote:

I have to respectfully disagree. The fun of the class comes from having them work in tandem. The summoner gets, above the Eidolon:

More skills
Can wield equipment
More languages
Ancestry feats
Class feats (partial credit because some of them are evolution feats)
5 cantrips
2 spells of each level
The ability to multiclass to flesh out the Summoner in a variety of ways

There's a *lot* that the Summoner can do that the Eidolon can't, it stands to reason that they'd have to give up at least a little bit to give the Eidolon the sort of power that they do have. For me personally I'm really looking forward to giving my Eidolon Athletics proficiency with Dual Studies so he can handle the heavy lifting while I handle the social skills in the party which, bonus points, also comes with battle application in the form of demoralize, bon mot and the like.

There's a lot that you can do with the Summoner as long as you're willing to engage with the system. Skills and equipment and skill feats and such are still a part of the character. A character is more than just its class, and a Summoner is very much the main character vs the Eidolon.

But how much of that does the Summoner actually get to DO? Your actions are locked into buffing your pet or having it attack so your skills and skill feats either just sit there or your pet uses your skills. You only ever get 4 spell slots to cast from... Pretty much you have less options in combat and the exact same out of combat.

Well, I guess you have a pet to lift heavy things and reach those high shelves. :P

Except they're not locked into that at all? Shared action buff, demoralize, Eidolon attack-attack. Or electric arc, shared action move/buff and move/attack. Or the Eidolon can attempt athletics maneuvers if you take Dual Studies to get it Athletics Proficiency. You're not locked into anything, there's plenty to do with the action economy and the class.

And the argument was the summoner doesn't feel like the main character, to which I argue it very much does. It may only have 75%-85% of the options a "full" character does, but in return it gets the Eidolon which more than makes up for the rest.

I do agree it needs just a few more bells and whistles to play with, but I think the argument that it's not the main character is hyperbolic.

Let's try not to move the goalposts shall we?

I have to respectfully disagree. The fun of the class comes from having them work in tandem. The summoner gets, above the Eidolon:

More skills
Can wield equipment
More languages
Ancestry feats
Class feats (partial credit because some of them are evolution feats)
5 cantrips
2 spells of each level
The ability to multiclass to flesh out the Summoner in a variety of ways

There's a *lot* that the Summoner can do that the Eidolon can't, it stands to reason that they'd have to give up at least a little bit to give the Eidolon the sort of power that they do have. For me personally I'm really looking forward to giving my Eidolon Athletics proficiency with Dual Studies so he can handle the heavy lifting while I handle the social skills in the party which, bonus points, also comes with battle application in the form of demoralize, bon mot and the like.

There's a lot that you can do with the Summoner as long as you're willing to engage with the system. Skills and equipment and skill feats and such are still a part of the character. A character is more than just its class, and a Summoner is very much the main character vs the Eidolon.

Human to get my Eidolon trained in Athletics via Dual Studies, then going Str 10, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 16. I want to be the face of the party while my Eidolon is the muscle in a party full of dex based characters and a Witch.

I will say part of the reason I avoided Summoners in 1e was because I didn't really understand the Eidolon. It felt like a random amalgamation of features, not like "a dragon" or "an angel".

So I would say there is a non-zero benefit in having more pre-packaged summons that are easy to put a face to.

This is the first time I'm thinking of what kind of Summoner I might play.

I think there's a middle ground between the two. I think even something as simple as "Choose from the following weapon keywords, you can apply two of them divided as you see fit between your Eidolon's two attacks" would be enough of a step to making them seem different. Suddenly I've got a disarming, piercing jaw attack and you've got a bludgeoning, tripping tail attack. Now they feel extremely different, it's tangible.

I definitely support Undead. I thought it would be a sure thing to play a straightforward necromancer. And if we don't get it, it should be very easy to homebrew.

Mellored wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Making it 3 actions makes its use very complicated until you have access to Haste. Plus it's so... bland. It's not even a Spell Strike, it's just casting then Striking. Cool you avoid MAP if the spell had an attack roll, but that's really a very, very, very minor benefit not worth a whole feat.

You think +5 to hit is not worth a feat?

It's basically Double Slice.

It's not worth it when your spell attack modifier is normally about 5 less than your strike attack modifier without any MAP. It's basically like the magus is giving up all the unlimited use damage increasing feats or features of the other martial classes to get 2 uses of a feature that makes a spell attack -5 instead of -10.

Don't forget that

1) You don't even get to make the spell attack if you miss with the weapon (different from double slice)

2) The spell attack is still affected by MAP so if you hit with your 2nd swing instead of the first the spell is still at an effective -10 (-15 if you somehow hit with the 3rd attack).

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Permanent petrification I would assume means they're stuck petrified, you unsummon them and run like hell?

Wasn't a big threat in this case, luckily. One of those, "Incapacitation works in favor of the players." situations.

Was just a question that was asked at the table... and an interesting concern.

Yeah that's a really weird concern I hadn't thought of. I'm glad you caught this. The way I would run it is desummoning/resummoning them would sort of act as a cleanse for permanent/very long term statuses. For 6 actions I think that's fair, but it's off the cuff and just how I would do it.

I think the share action and HP are interesting but they dont work for the Summoner.

It should be given to another class that is built around that. The summoner is built around having two creatures. And the current system does not feel like that.

You know were sharing actions/HP would make sense? A Stand/Persona class. Now in that context yeah, shared action and HP would make a lot of sense.

Dude it's taken ALL of my effort not to just say screw it and play a stand user lol. I'm playing a dragon summoner but my heart says otherwise.

I think I actually partially agree with you on point 1. It doesn't feel so much like a summoned creature as it does an extension of your character. I think the key difference is that that's an interesting angle for me to explore because I have no attachment to the PF1 summoner and it's a frustrating departure from the types of characters you want to be able to build. I don't necessarily think either of us are wrong for feeling the way we feel.

As a thought experiment, how would you remedy this? Something like, 6/8HP per level for the summoner, Summons get their own HP pool, Synthesis summoners get 10HP per level but their summons function the way they do now?

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

I for one, love the direction summoner has gone in, barring the lack of customization in the playtest.

I really think Paizo should listen to people who buy their products and support it, rather than people who throw tantrums over playtest not being what they want and then admitting they dont really play the game anyways and have just waited for it to "get better"

I'm really tired of 1e grogs expecting everything ever created to be catered to 1e players only.

I supported PF1 for all the years it was out. Bought tons of books and APs. I guess I'm the customer they want to lose. The one who played the summoner 6 or 7 times. Bought all the books like Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, APG, so many books I can't even remember all their names I still have sitting in boxes at my house. Kingmaker, Runelords, Carrion Crown, Giantslayer, Wrath of the Righteous, Mythic Adventures, and the like.

Sure. I'm just some grog that shouldn't be listened to by Paizo.

That's an incredibly entitled opinion. They're not making the game for YOU specifically. If the summoner looked like the PF1 summoner I wouldn't have given it a second look, but this new direction and idea? I find it interesting, it tickles my imagination, I want to see what can be done with it. I don't think it's perfect, not by a long shot. It needs tweaks and work, but the core concept is enticing and enchanting and I want to play with it. I threw out my idea to play a Magus (my own personal PF1 favorite class) to play this instead in an upcoming campaign. But I certainly don't feel entitled to the Magus despite disagreeing with the current design choices. I realize its a bigger world than me, there are more people than me, and I'm willing to accept that things move on. I'm still gonna play the system because honestly it's amazing even if there are things I disagree with. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a great view. If you want

...

Sorry, I didn't elaborate properly. I think that would also be fun, and one of the things I would change about the current iteration would be better Eidolon customization. But the shared action pool and shared action economy are VERY interesting to me. Enough that I really want to toy around with it. I like your ideas quite a bit and wouldn't be disappointed at all if they implemented it at all. :)

Edit: Apparently your quote got eaten in the quote chain. This was directed at Verzen. I'm really, really bad at forums.

I was responding to when you asked me about my opinion on your evolution points. I want there to be more customization, I like the shared HP pool/action economy. Okay now I'm done lol <3

Honestly in the boot. I don't know why, but the image of someone kneeling down, and then rising with a huge honkin' sword is rad as heck.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

I for one, love the direction summoner has gone in, barring the lack of customization in the playtest.

I really think Paizo should listen to people who buy their products and support it, rather than people who throw tantrums over playtest not being what they want and then admitting they dont really play the game anyways and have just waited for it to "get better"

I'm really tired of 1e grogs expecting everything ever created to be catered to 1e players only.

I supported PF1 for all the years it was out. Bought tons of books and APs. I guess I'm the customer they want to lose. The one who played the summoner 6 or 7 times. Bought all the books like Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, APG, so many books I can't even remember all their names I still have sitting in boxes at my house. Kingmaker, Runelords, Carrion Crown, Giantslayer, Wrath of the Righteous, Mythic Adventures, and the like.

Sure. I'm just some grog that shouldn't be listened to by Paizo.

That's an incredibly entitled opinion. They're not making the game for YOU specifically. If the summoner looked like the PF1 summoner I wouldn't have given it a second look, but this new direction and idea? I find it interesting, it tickles my imagination, I want to see what can be done with it. I don't think it's perfect, not by a long shot. It needs tweaks and work, but the core concept is enticing and enchanting and I want to play with it. I threw out my idea to play a Magus (my own personal PF1 favorite class) to play this instead in an upcoming campaign. But I certainly don't feel entitled to the Magus despite disagreeing with the current design choices. I realize its a bigger world than me, there are more people than me, and I'm willing to accept that things move on. I'm still gonna play the system because honestly it's amazing even if there are things I disagree with. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a great view. If you want to stop playing because they didn't do one class exactly how you want them to, that's your prerogative but again, it's a very entitled position to take.

Thanks for the feedback folks!

I am pondering changing to a state where Act Together is a variable action activity (one to three actions), where one of the two characters can use all the actions, and the other one does a single action. So for instance, Act Together for three actions, the summoner casts summon animal, and the eidolon Strikes once. This would also allow Summoner two-action-spell via Act Together while eidolon Strides, then eidolon Strikes, so it increases flexibility significantly.

This sounds like an awesome change. I showed my GM and he's enthusiastic about it, so I think we're going to play it this way and see how it turns out. It's funny I went into this playtest super hype for the Magus (my favorite PF1 class) and ignoring the Summoner entirely and it's completely flipped for me. I find the Summoner to be oozing with flavor, and I really want to play one. :D

This thread has been a heck of a journey.

In PF1, magus is hands-down my favorite class and summoner is hands-down my least favorite, so this playtest is particularly wild for me. The former feels like a very fun hybrid with a lot of interesting flavor choices due to archetypes, and the latter feels like The Eidolon Show with a walk-on guest role for your PC.

So imagine my surprise when I read the playtest document and was more or less unimpressed by the magus and got the anime starry-eyed squee face when I read the summoner.

As to both classes, 4 slots a day poses some really weird issues, which I guess makes sense for a really weird design choice (but I love weird.) But the solution to one class's problem is not a solution to the other, I think. Granting more spell slots is a simple fix, but not necessarily the right one. I think it would grant the summoner the ability to over-buff on a given adventuring day, whereas a single slot at the "abandoned" spell levels would give the magus some much-needed opportunities to buff without adding to their blast options (while a 4th level shocking grasp will still do more damage than electric arc heightened to max at 19th level, it's probably still better used with, say, a second haste or slow spell for the day).

Until I get a chance to hop into the playtest and get behind the wheel of these classes (which may not even happen, due to life constraints) obviously everything is speculation, but just based off of the read-through, I feel like a few basic alterations would probably help even these classes out.

** spoiler omitted **...

Ooh I *love* summon spell as a focus spell, that would be so cool. Personally I would like that as a feat so you're not stuck with it if you want to go all in on Eidolon beatdown goodness, but I think it's a super cool idea :D

I feel like the general consensus (I'm certainly not saying everyone feels this way) is that Summoner with shared HP pool is interesting, but the Eidolons need more customization and I largely agree with that. I'd like to see more support like that currently. Right now Eidolon design reminds me a lot of the fluffier indie ttrpgs my friends prefer, with loose mechanics that can be reflavored how you want but my issue is the whole reason I like Pathfinder 2e is my decisions have a tangible, crunchy consequence to them. They mean something, and if I just scratch out unarmed claw attack and write in cool two handed sword from the heavens they both mean the same thing mechanically. I'd like to see just a little bit more crunch to the eidolons.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Cantrip damage dice scale faster than weapon dice, but cantrips are two actions. So as you point out, they should be compared to two attacks.

The question was if Produce Flame > Strike every beat the full 3 action Striking Spell, not if Produce Flame ever beat 2 weapon swings.

But yes, full agreement on the rest of your post. In fact, I hadn't accounted for the Flaming Rune, so that tilts things even more against my original argument.

One other thing to account for is static modifiers on spells vs weapons. Weapons also have the benefit of weapon specialization and, if you take it, Energizing Strikes. That pushes it beyond Produce Flame damage, at least at level 13. Produce Flame does an average of 21.5 per shot at level 13, A +1 Striking d8 weapon does an average of 17, 20 with Energizing. The difference isn't as wide as it first appears. It's still there mind you, but it's pretty small. Small enough that I would say it's appropriate for a damage bump akin to Sneak Attack, Panache, Rage, etc.

Edit: If it's a d12 weapon it becomes 21 and 24 which really crushes Produce Flames as a 2 action activity, doubly so with the accuracy problems.

Honestly, I actually really like the Summoner. I think it's undertuned, and it needs some more bells and whistles to play with on its turns, but I think it's *almost* there. I'm really excited to play one in an upcoming campaign.

Assuming 4 melee attacks is not realistic either. There is a difference between white paper and actual play.

Magus doesn't have the armour or HP to tank frontline and should probably not just stand toe to toe hoping to get their spell off. If that is the intended design goal (or what it is balanced around) then the Magus is gimped from participating from the much more fluid and mobile PF2e combat of moving in and out to attack.

Honestly I hate 2 attacks rolls to fail on a core ability especially as it gimps the spell to only work on a single target.

Magus should work more like eldritch archer, melee attack determines the outcome for spell attack and melee attack and improves save for save spells if it crits. Much more fluid and less clunky. Multiple rolls for 1 thing is not fun, it wastes time.

Legendary proficiency on the fighter is not the Magus' problem and it shouldn't be gimped by it. Just much the MC version of spellstrike work like the playtest one if Fighters with MC Magus are a worry. Oracle curse works differently for MC so there is precedent for MC being worse.

Also the MC Swashbuckler's finisher being bad, and Investigator MC not being able to swap Int for the attack roll. I think the current implementation would be fine for a Magus dedication.

I think it's reasonable to simply playtest the version that they gave us. Since the devs can do any number of "white room" simulations without our input, commentary a la "I calculated the probabilities,and got this" is less useful than "during one adventuring day I failed on three of my four attempts to discharge a striking spell using spell slots, which felt bad." They want anecdotes from actual play, not the math that they already did themselves.

This is after all a *play*test not a "who can use a spreadsheet" test.

I mean. I did run a playtest at level 8, in 12 total turns of combat I landed a single spell from Striking Spell. It lines up perfectly with the white room math that's been done.

I know this is probably a big ask, and I don't see it coming to fruition, but I think it would be a genuinely good idea, at least in the extreme case of the Magus.

I think it would be a good idea to give us a couple of potential fixes straight from the devs to try out and report back on. To at least give us a baseline to try out, see how they feel, and report back on. It's become mostly clear that Striking Spell isn't working at intended, and is only usable in extreme corner cases that require a fair bit of min-maxing and possible item abuse.

So rather than letting us test this version further, but instead of doing an entirely separate playtest, I believe a stickied thread of some alternate ideas to try from the devs would be a good middle ground. It allows us alternatives to test against a baseline (The Magus as is).

Those numbers don’t include the chance that the spell fails to hit/enemy succeeds at their save. That is a 13% chance that you never make that roll at all. It’s not the chance that the spell fails. It’s the chance that there is no spelll, despite spending 2 actions to cast it.

This. Spending 2 actions to never even cast the spell in the first place is the fundamental issue. If you got a *significant* boost (say, if the spell was automatically successful on a weapon strike) then it woudl be fine, but adding in a significant chance that you won't even actually cast the spell is terrible.

Edit: You know what this reminds me of? DnD 3.5e Arcane Spell Failure. For anyone who's unfamiliar, every piece of armor gave a chance that arcane spells would just fail outright even though you spent the time and actions to cast them. You got the benefit from the armor, at the expense of just outright losing spells for no benefit. That's *exactly* what this feels like.

graystone wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the speed at which people go from 0 to "literally unplayable"/abusive is a large part of why the developers assiduously avoid the boards thee days.

It wouldn't be as bad if there wasn't people that, in response to those people, go from 0 to "it's literally the best thing every and should never change!!! [and you're a bad person for think anything else]". When you have those diametrically opposed camps posting, it's like watching political ads... There are some people here that will jump in an the slightest bit of critical... :P

I haven't seen anyone say they wanted no change.

I never specified I was talking about a class as a whole: it applies to the parts debated in a specific thread. Some people LOVE 4 slot casting and don't want it to change for instance. Those people might take suck an extreme stance there and then advocate for change elsewhere.

now there are some fairly rabid pro-paizo people around ARE pretty much like that for everything paizo but I haven't seen them posting for this.

So, the big difference here is you're talking about stuff like specific things people dont want to change, versus people saying a class is unplayable.

I love the four slot idea, and I love certain aspects of the Magus. I think spellstrike isnt great but it isnt as bad as most people act.

I've been called essentially a shill for saying that multiple times. It makes it feel like playtest discussion is pointless because no matter what I say, people just want to hate it.

Striking Spell been mathematically proven to be the worst use of your time under any given circumstances. If you're still insisting it's not that bad I think people are in their right to be frustrated with you. The concept is sound and delivers on a fun fantasy. The execution needs a lot of work before it's in a workable state.

I don't think their is anything wrong with unicore requesting you playtest the class before you judge it...

There isn't anything wrong with requesting someone playtest it before you judge it, but they've been systematically shooting down every possible criticism of the core mechanics behind the class with "I think playing this way is really fun", even to people who HAVE playtested it like myself.

It's not just in this thread, it's been systematic across multiple threads, across multiple days and it's been really exhausting trying to have a conversation about possible improvements to the class and its shortcomings without someone coming and and talking about how much fun they have when the bard buffs them and they have flanking and the enemy is clumsy and they can cast true strike and-

And any attempt to explain that a class shouldn't fail under less than perfect conditions is met with constant, draining opposition.

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

I'd rather have a reliable class.

Having a class that misses more often than not, especially in situations where they've dedicated multiple actions and resources towards that attempt, results in a great deal of frustration and dissatisfaction.

I don't want to be useless two-thirds of the time just because I might crit the boss into oblivion with a spell.

I'd rather put out damage steadily and consistently and feel like I'm properly contributing.

Misses how? and with what? The ranger is a class that misses about as often as it hits. The barbarian is a class that misses even more often, especially if you are assuming that it will attack 3 times a round in your comparisons the magus.

Have you tried playtesting it yet? It is actually pretty fun in play to see your tactical choices cascade into a pretty impressive round. Being a full martial that can also cast spells, but does so better than a wizard when you are most successful as a martial is pretty cool.

Even just making sure you pick up flanking (something made not too difficult with sliding synthesis) is enough of an accuracy booster to make a noticeable difference.

Misses because unlike Rangers and Barbarians, you don't GET to make your second attack if you miss with the first with Striking Spell. You can't just wind up and take another shot, you're done. And dude, we know you like setting up and novaing, but please stop telling other people they have to enjoy it. If other people don't like that playstyle, that's their prerogative but you insisting that it's fun is really draining. It's great that you enjoy it. That playstyle shouldn't be the default, it should be the option. It'd be great as a synthesis for people who want to work with their party and make it happen, but the class *needs* to be able to stand on its own two feet at the base level and currently it doesn't.

So have people tested out a higher level magus using fiery form to have a one action, damage boosted cantrip? because that seems exactly what people are asking for.

So at 13th level, the level this comes online attack bonuses are +26 for the weapon and +21 for the spell. The average damage on a d8 weapon at that level with no other bells and whistles will be 20.5, and Fiery Body bumps the damage on Produce Flame to 24, so it is technically better than attacking twice with a normal weapon, not sure what an agile weapon does to the calculations but that is better. Problem is, Fiery body is a 2 action spell to cast itself which sets you behind a turn, and for that same turn you can Electric Arc/Energize Strikes for a +3 damage boost to weapon attacks which is a net +6 to damage across 2 strikes compared to Fiery Produce Flame's net +3 so it's still behind Energize and strike spam, and at the cost of a spell slot compared to Energize Strikes' no resources at all.

If you wanted to you could do it, but it's probably not worth the resources. Fiery Body does give some other benefits which may or may not be worth it to you though.

((And to be clear, I know we've clashed on other threads so I want you to know I came in to do these calculations in good faith, I really did want to see if it was better))

I see. I hadn't realized so many of the combat cantrips were save based not attack based.

It's not just that. Spell Attack math is currently pretty flawed for the Magus. They have lower int, no (meaningful) master spellcaster proficiency, and spell attacks don't get weapon mod which means the higher level you go, the worse off spell attacks are. It's true that Striking Spell doesn't apply MAP. That doesn't mean much when your spell attacks are already at -5 compared to your weapon attack. At level 13 your weapon attacks are at +26, and your spell attacks are at +21. It's pretty flawed from the ground up.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Well good news then, because the Magus already has a feat to teleport when it uses spell strike. The only issue is that it needs to spend a spell slot go use it, and it doesn't have many of those. But I feel the low number of slots is one of the most experimental parts of the playtest.

Most of the rest of what you're talking about would really just be feats or perhaps spells anyway. That doesn't have a ton of bearing on the class's core design. Actually, most of what y'all are asking for is already doable with existing spells.

So it basically sounds like you're advocating for dropping down to expert proficiency to gain more spell slots. Which seems viable, but leaves spell strike as the only thing that really distinguishs the class from other casters.

I'd rather see it have fewer spells (or, well, the four slots they get now seem fine, but fewer than a proper caster) and have class feats that let them do cool magical stuff without actually casting spells. Monsters often have magical abilities that aren't spells, there's no reason PCs can't. Heck, even other classes have supernatural abilities that aren't spells – things like the various Champion reactions, Smite Evil, most versions of Rage, and so on. You could do fun stuff with the action economy instead of resource management. Something like this, for example:

Lightning spear (2 actions) – Magus X
You unleash lightning from your weapon in a 30 foot line. Make a Strike against each target in the area. On a hit, you deal normal weapon damage, except all the damage is electrical. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't increase the penalty until after the entire activity is resolved.

Or something like this:

Battle dance (3 actions) – Magus X
Stride, then Strike, then Stride, then Strike a second target, then Stride, then Strike a third target.

Or maybe:
Telekinetic Grasp (2 actions) – Magus X
You use telekinetic force to swiftly pull a target toward you. Target enemy...

Honestly I think I kind of agree with this. I'd still like to see Striking Spell fixed, but part of the problem in its current iteration is it doesn't have options. I think some more maneuvers with a magical spin on them would be pretty cool. Maybe not these exactly because they seem a touch overpowered, but this general thinking.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Normally, they wouldn't be able to strike, cast shield, and cast a striking spell cantrip all in the same round.

They sure can: Spellsprike, Message, Strike, Shield. You only get 1 attack but you get your free temp hp and your shield.

RexAliquid wrote:

This is what I started to expect after taking some time to think about how to play the class. I’m glad you found sustaining steel engaging, that’s the synthesis I chose for my Playtest next week.

It played better than I thought so hope your game goes well. ;)

I...That doesn't actually sound like a terrible build. Tanky as heck, you'd be hard pressed to be put down. Damage would be next to nothing but I think you wouldn't be dying much either. Hm.

Kalaam wrote:

I expect the magus to get a feat that allows to add intelligence modifier to weapon attack rolls.

While that would certainly help, that might well be a feat tax, as much as I consider "MARTIAL CASTER FEAT 6" to be a feat tax. :(

Ironically I think Energizing Strikes is way better. One turn cantriping and energizing gets you +2 to +4 damage for the rest of the combat. Martial caster is great, but I think it's kind of taking conversation away from some of the other options. I actually did a level 8 playtest a couple days ago and my effectiveness went WAY up when I focused on Energizing instead of Striking Spell.

I don't really see a lot of people being angry about the class itself (a couple people are, but they're wrong). Most of the frustration I've seen and experienced myself stems from trying to evaluate and find the problems in the playtest, you know, as you do, pointing out those flaws, brainstorming solutions with people and having a couple of very loud, very insistent people yell that the class is fine the way it is. I'm not mad that it's in an incomplete state or needs work, it's a playtest. That's what they're for. I'm just getting frustrated that this forum which very much is for pointing out problems is becoming a shouting match against people who don't like it when we do that.

Capn Cupcake wrote:

This. I don't want to have to play 4 dimensional chess in order to reach the lofty heights of "almost as good as the other members of the party".

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? No matter how much 4D chess is required for your class to function, it can never be allowed to be significantly better then any other class, or the game as a whole will suffer for it.

On the other hand, if a class even requires some system mastery to even function, it is not fun to play.

But then again, how hard is it really? At its core, the Magus is a martial class. Master weapon proficiency, Greater Weapon Specialisation... Apart from not being able to max out your melee stat at lv.1 they are a full martial class.

They just happen to use an attack spell as their off-hand weapon.

Incidentally, that also means that an honest comparison to other melee classes would need to compare Spell Strike damage to their second melee attack...

Okay, an honest comparison. It takes 3 actions to perform compared to a martial's 2. It's not any more accurate than an agile weapon past like, level 10 so it gets worse as you level. You can't even MAKE the second attack unless you hit with the first. It doesn't do more damage than a weapon either due to other classes applying mechanics to those as well. (better accuracy, rage, sneak attack, etc.) Right now the crit function effectively makes it useless most of the time, except when you crit at which point it becomes overbearingly powerful. It's been exhaustingly explored at this point. If you force the party to work around it, it can kind of be workable (albeit still extremely inelegant) and if you don't then you're pound for pound better off just attacking twice. It NEEDS to be reworked. Keep the crit stuff in its own synthesis for the people who like that kind of thing, and let the rest of us have fun with something that functions more than once a session.

Ligraph wrote:

Uh, no? Save spells work like this, attack spells (i.e. Shocking Grasp, Polar Ray, almost all cantrips) don't. The difference between save and attack spells does need to be considered here, but its not that great even with save spells currently (someone's ran the numbers, I don't have them handy).

And it can't be allowed to be 'great', lest Magus would invalidate all other martial classes.

Bit of a conundrum, but what would you rather see? The Spell Strike hitting more often, but for middling damage outside of crits, or swingy damage with the potential of really massive crits?

As for the accuracy issue: Apart from not being able to max out your casting stat on lv. 1, a Magus has a better chance to hit with his spell then a martial (other then Fighter) has with their second attack. It is basically equivalent to a Double Slice with a non-agile off-hand weapon.

And as an unique feature, a critical melee strike also boosts the effect of the attached spell one tier. This is not nothing.

You have to remember that Master weapon proficiency and Greater Weapon Specialisation are things that a Magus gets. So their primary melee attack is as potent as any other martial's, save for maybe hanging behind -1 to-hit half of the time on account of non-maxed melee stat.

And that means that Spell Strike has to be measured against a martial's second attack in a turn, with the caveat that the action tax they pay is severe and better results in a decent payoff.

But the chance to actually land their spell is only -2 compared to a full caster, which is equivalent to a second melee strike at -2 to to-hit compared to the first attack of any martial. You can't consider the Magus in a vacuum here, you must consider how they stack up to other martial classes. And most martial classes don't get a second attack at a generous -2 to to-hit.

Except they don't have more accuracy with their spell than other martial do with their 2nd attack. Because they don't (reasonably) get master casting, and they don't get item bonuses to their spells it stays as bad as an agile attack. Starting at level 13 you're always at either a -4 or -5 compared to the weapon. At level 13 your weapon is at +26, your spell at +21. It starts middling at low levels, and due to the way spell attack math works, it can only get worse from there. This is a class that, in its current iteration, does not and cannot scale properly.