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.
Logan Bonner wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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 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. :)
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?
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.
Brew Bird wrote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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
Deriven Firelion wrote:
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.
Mark Seifter wrote:
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
Apoc Golem wrote:
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.
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.
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 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).
Ferious Thune wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
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.
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.
Spell casting accuracy is way more complicated with the magus than it seems. An anecdotal look at 13th level
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.
Spell casting accuracy is way more complicated with the magus than it seems. An anecdotal look at 13th level
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.
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.