CrypticSplicer's page

Why would you compare a cantrip to elemental blasts? This seems like an obvious mismatch.

I think the people trying to argue about 'class budgets' miss that the action opportunity cost means flexibility doesn't matter anymore once you lag too far behind. Being 75% of a martial and 75% of a spellcaster is kinda worthless- you're just always kind of a burden then. I don't think the kineticist should be equally good as classes that specialize in those tasks, but the right balance is much closer to 90%/90%. I think the design of the Magus and Summoner demonstrate that the designers understand this.

I'm fully expecting a buff, my party and I are just having a hard time motivating ourselves to playtest this class as is right now.

Many people are arguing that it would be unbalanced for the kineticist to retain it's current AoE damage and have higher single target damage. I fundamentally disagree with the premise that AoE damage has much value.

1) I have never seen a fight with lots of low level monsters ever kill a party member even after two full AP campaigns composed of mostly martials.

2) Splitting damage is inherently less valuable than focusing and removing targets from the board as fast as possible.

I won't deny that fireball, at 2d6 per spell level, is a very effective spell with even a handful of targets. That's a decently impressive amount of damage even on a single target though. Once you start dialing that back to the average power of kineticist impulses, at around 1d6 per spell level, I think its value is much lower than just the proportional loss in damage.

Though personally I don't think that just adding more flat damage would be the right way to address this. I think it would be more interesting if the kineticist could weave together elemental blasts and impulses on the same turn. I imagine the ability to choose between two elemental blasts and a single target impulse or an AoE impulse and a single elemental blast would be a really engaging gameplay loop.

Without any sort of damage bonus built in for Kineticists with their Elemental Blast I could easily see them becoming more popular for other classes to pick up via archetype than Kineticists themselves. I do think it would be cool for other classes to pick Elemental Blasts up! I think their are in a good place right now and an interesting alternative to other ranged weapons. I'd just like to see the Kineticist get a little extra oomph built in to the class that won't be given away in the archetype.

I heard that the mindsmith has a ranged option. Can someone tell me more (especially what level it comes in)?

You get one of those options. To clarify, that's an oxford comma.

My friend and I are arguing about this, so we're looking for some outside help. The minor curse causes you to take a status penalty to healing equal to half your level. The moderate curse says you are subject to the effects of the minor curse in addition to the effects from the moderate curse. The moderate curse then goes on to say that you can't be healed by magical effects originating from other creatures, except when you are unconscious (when you are instead healed to 1). Then, after all that, it says you are "affected normally by healing elixirs, potions, and other items". My friend says this means that healing elixirs, potions, and other items are not subject to the status penalty to healing, but I think this is just a clarification that those don't count as magical effects originating from another creature. Is there a general consensus here?

Implements Empowerment needs a free hand. Bows are 1+ hands, which means you have a free hand while holding a bow but not while striking. So the strict reading is that you can't empower your implement while using a bow. It seems a shame to lock the Thaumaturge out of ranged combat though, because I think the game could use a few more viable ranged martial builds anyway. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to make an exception for 1+ handed weapons, given that it shouldn't be too hard to wiggle your fingers in the same action immediately before making the shot with your bow. Do people think using a bow would break fantasy somehow? Has anyone played a bow using Thaumaturge? Did you have to talk your DM into? How does it feel?

Does this come with some sort of monster stat cards for easier reference?

I started the revolver thread on the playtest forum, but now I wish I'd just focused on twin barrel weapons. Twin barrel guns would do a great job fixing the action economy- let gunslingers reload both barrels with a single action and then they can consistently fire twice and reload each round. The awkward 1.5 average shots per round feels awful right now.

I see no reason they couldn't introduce repeating crossbows with this book as well. Even just a crossbow that you could load two bolts into would be a huge benefit...

I probably shouldn't have used the word 'revolvers' in the title. I'm open to guns with up to six shots, if designers think this will balance out. What I really want is two shots though and for the gunslinger to have the ability to reload all shots on a gun with a single reload action from level one. It would immediately distinguish them from other martial classes, make them clearly better with guns, and keep guns from being too powerful for people looking to pick them up just in case they have a spare action. We could also balance it by putting multiple barrels only on martial proficiency guns, keeping them out of the hands of spellcasters. This would fix many of the problems we all have with action economy for the gunslinger. Turns would become fire twice, then reload. If you are dual wielding you would fire once with each gun, then reload one of the two guns. That's the ratio I'd like to attack vs doing other things with my turn!

I'm not opposed to getting more feats, but I think I'd rather get more stuff like Kickback Strike that give combat options that still match the flavor of an inventor that broaden out the inventor's martial capabilities over making too many of the feats poach from other lists

That's why I provided two examples that aren't based on feats from other classes. I think it would be very flavorful for the inventor who just added a trait to their weapon to have something built into the weapon that enhances the effect for a little bit. Perhaps whatever is responsible for adding trip or shove is secretly spring-loaded.

I finally put my finger on something about the inventor that feels really weird. The weapon innovations let you put all these traits on your weapon, but then you don't see them interact with any other class options. The class begs to be multiclassed with the fighter to pick up feats like brutish shove and knockdown. Much better though would be if the class actually had a few feats to facilitate using maneuvers. Maybe something like 'when performing a maneuver that matches a trait gained from an innovation you can add your overdrive damage on a success' or 'on a critical hit with a weapon that has a maneuver trait added by a weapon innovation, you may attempt the maneuver as a reaction'.

I think all the innovations feel really underwhelming considering their something that's supposed to define that class that you only get to make three choices for, but that's a whole other beast.

We only have simple crossbows right now. I wouldn't be surprised if this book included some martial crossbows whose performance is closer to the guns in the playtest.

Great write up! Another way to fix the dual wield problem is to provide some 2+ shot handguns, which the gunslinger can load with a single action. If each gun has two shots you can fire each once and then alternate loading guns with your third action each round. I think it makes much more sense for a gunslinger to be able to load two bullets into the same gun at the same action, rather than proposals where the gunslinger reloads two separate guns in the same action. I'd honestly like to see this for some of the other two handed weapon as well. I think the gunslinger should be balanced around being able to make two strikes every round (excluding sniper gameplay).

Where is the chart with Paired Shots? Assuming that a familiar will help you reload sounds nuts, but I'm hoping they'll update the class to make it feasible to reload both weapons some other way. Personally, I'd like to see them make guns with two barrels standard and then give all gunslingers the inherent ability to reload both barrels with a single reload action.

You're already basically talking about making Crossbows irrelevant.

Crossbows are irrelevant right now because they're all simple weapons. When Paizo wants to make them viable for martial classes to use they'll introduce new martial crossbows with larger damage die and more competitive traits. Hell, since gunslinger is built around being effective with both crossbows and guns I wouldn't be surprised if they get introduced in this book. I'd love to see a repeating crossbow as well.

I think I've accidentally sidetrack my own thread from the outset by naming the archetype the same as the PF1 archetype. So, do people think a differently named archetype built around getting to reload when casting a spell sounds interesting? Is it too strong?

If all the sniper weapons are going to be fatal, I'd rather see a sniper trait that gave a small bonus to accuracy. Maybe a +1 circumstance bonus to accuracy instead of a -2 penalty if you shoot from prone.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a trait that rewards you for firing from cover.

To refute some of the comparisons previous posters have made between the Heavy Crossbow to the Arquebus, the latter is a simple weapon while the former is martial, so the Arquebus should just straight up be stronger.

While I've been thinking about how to make reloading more fun for the gunslinger I hit on an idea for an archetype that would merge spellcasting and gun/crossbow use. I call it the Spellslinger, and it revolves around the ability to allow you to interact to reload a weapon as a free action whenever you cast a spell. Some potential further feats in the archetype are a variant of Bespell Weapon, a variant of the Eldritch Archer's Magic Arrow, and the spellcasting archetype feats.

I think it's ultimately a weaker version of the Eldritch Archer, but the action economy and flexibility would feel really good.

Do they need to be 6 shots? I could see smaller cylinders if it's a balance issue.

No, I think gunslingers would get most of the benefit if they could get two shots per reload, anything more would just be gravy. It would go a long way towards fixing action economy, guaranteeing two attacks per round. The weird thing about single shot weapons is it puts you at this awkward place where you're doing 1.5 shots per round.

I could see something like a 4-barrel pepperbox where you can spend 1 action to reload one barrel, or 3 actions to fully reload. The drawback to these, naturally, would be bulk.

I don't think we should have any system where we reward you to spend your entire turn reloading. It's not fun! How would that interact with actions like running reload? I think it should be 1 action per barrel, but gunslingers inherently can reload all barrels with a single action. That might make a 4-barrel pepperbox a bit too strong, but I'd be pretty happy with just two barrels.

I love the idea of a scrawny dude in a suit of mech suit, but just adding resistances isn't very fun. What's the point in having high defenses if you can't keep enemies focused on you? I'd like to see innovations that give you features like the fighter or champion have to keep enemies engaged. Some examples:

• * Defensive Subroutines (Opportunity Attack / Shield Block / Shield Warden)
  
• - There are a lot of feats an effective defender needs, so it would be nice if a couple were bundled together (since we only get three innovations).
  
• * Integrated Tower Shield
  
• - More than just integrating it, it would be nice to get some bonus like getting a free hand or no penalty to speed. I kinda like the free hand- yes it's strong, but who else could do it besides someone who built the shield directly into their armor?
  
• * Antagonist Suppression System (Retributive Strike)
  
• - Strike an enemy that attacks an ally as a reaction.
  
• * Subharmonic Distortion Field
  
• - The area within five feat of you is difficulty terrain.
  
• - Something, something, using sound to mess with everyone's inner ear.
  

I agree, six shot revolvers would be nuts. Even just adding a couple double barrel options would help the action economy feel way better though.

Balancing them by making them Advanced, but letting everyone reload all bullets in a single interact option, could also be a good option.

Like everyone else, the first thing I noticed when I was playtesting the gunslinger is that reloading isn't much fun. I love all the suggestions for feats to make reloading more interesting, and I definitely think that's a viable path to improving the way the class feels. I think the easiest fix though would be to just add martial revolvers. They don't even have to be six shot, just two shots per gun would already be a huge improvement. You can then balance this by requiring players to spend one interact action to reload per bullet, but give gunslingers a level one class feature to reload all bullets with a single interact action (speedloader!). Even just giving each gun two shots would make a dual-wielding pistolero much more viable, letting them fall into a pattern of firing twice and then reloading one of the two guns each round.

I'd really like to see a synthesis or feat line that improves the shield cantrip. Something like the feats for the swashbuckler that improve the bonus to AC that the buckler grants. I've been playing a Magus in Pathfinder: Kingmaker and having a blast as a magical tank. I'd like a way to replicate that in 2e!

Regardless of what happens to the Striking Spell, I don't think making the main schtick of a class a three action activity is viable. It would feel oppressive, it's totally different if you choose to pick something like that up from an archetype (e.g. Eldritch Archer). I'd really like to make a Magus frontline tank, but that build basically requires a free third action to use for spell parry. The expected spell damage is pretty low if don't make an attack the same turn you imbue the spell via Striking Spell.

Whatever solution Paizo decides on, the current implementation both feels restrictive due to the action economy, does way less single target damage than other martial classes, and isn't able to AoE like spellcaster classes. I'm not sure what roll it's filling right now. I'd like the class to be in a place where it has slightly lower single target damage but with the potential to spike higher a couple times a day.

Is this just for one round?

From my read, you are calculating Ranger damage assuming he is in position and already has Hunter’s Mark, which would be a dramatic artificial increase to their DPR,

and you are counting Magus for just one round, having him spend actions to set up Striking Spell, which would be a dramatic artificial decrease to Magus DPR.

These two classes both are extremely dependent on 2 rounds of combat to get any sense of actual play DPR for those reasons.

I would assume for Magus: round 1 is Striking Spell, slide, 1 attack; round 2 is three strikes
For ranger, round 1 starts with Hunters Mark and a move action, then do whatever from there.

He's assuming both the Magus and the Ranger are adjacent to their target. I think he also is assuming that the Magus cast Magus Potency last turn, so they've both had the chance to do equal amounts of setup. The Magus in this comparison is using a Greatsword, so he wouldn't benefit from Slide Casting. Since he's just doing these calculations with Telekinetic Projectile it wouldn't really help the Magus to spend get two turns, I expect his damage would be just slightly higher using striking spell and then making four attacks across two rounds than if he had made 6 attacks across two rounds- he's still be way behind the Ranger. The spike the Magus see's from casting something out of a spell slot would go up around 15% though from taking two turns to get the spell off.

In the game we played with the Magus we also had a Monk that picked up Electric Arc. He did much more damage. Casting these spells normally not only doesn't rely on the strike to hit, but also let's the spell hit multiple targets.

There's a reddit thread that went through some math for how using spell strike increased the average damage of the spell thanks to the strike crit improving the success category of the spell, but it required the Magus to attack on the turn spell strike was used and up to three times on the next turn to make sure the spell went off. The average damage that the spell did, including the boost from spell strike, was equivalent to a full spellcaster. Which is absolutely not worth that having to try four times to get the damage off! A regular spellcaster could have just used the two actions to cast the spell and hit multiple targets for many multiples the damage!

Even with all the feats Martialmasters listed the Magus does worse average AoE and single target damage than both martial and spellcaster classes (Barbarians and Fighters have Swipe too). The teleporting around feels cool, but I can't even figure out how to make an effective Magus tank because I can't find the actions to use spell parry!

My friends and I ran a game at level 6 with all gish builds. One Magus, a Warpriest, a Monk w/ Cleric dedication (flurry with bow, then electric arc), Ranger Eldritch Archer, Kobold Paladin with Oracle dedication, and a Figher with Wizard dedication. Everyone felt like the Magus was the least effective in the party. The Magus didn't get the spell combo off on a single enemy that was above the parties level and of the three times he got the combo off on lower level enemies, twice the enemy died from the initial melee strike (since it was on Roll20, he rolled both at once).

For those looking for more info, here is the video version of the podcast linked above.

Eldritch Shot is better in pretty much every way over spell striking, except in scenarios where you're hitting with a really high damage saving throw spell. On one round, that breaks down as follows-

A Magus at level 7 with a +16 to hit (+1 striking weapon) has the following success chance on a hit against a 25 AC (average for level 7):

19-20 crit (10%)
9-18 hit (50%)
1-9 miss (40%)

Using Eldritch Shot that's also the same breakdown of success for the spell. That means that the average damage the spell deals is 0.7X (e.g. 0.7 * 4d6+4 for Telekinetic Projectile).

If instead they chose to use striking spell with an attack cantrip with +13 to hit the probability of getting a crit would be:

19-20 crit (10%) on strike:
12-20 crit (45%) on spell
3-11 hit (45%) on spell
1-2 miss (10%) on spell

9-18 hit (50%) on strike:
20 crit (5%)
12-19 hit (40%)
1-11 miss (55%)

That comes out to a 7% chance of critting (10% * 45% + 50% * 5%) and a 24.5% chance of hitting (10% * 45% + 50% * 40%) on the spell. That means that the average damage the spell deals is 0.385X (e.g. 0.385 * 4d6+4 for Telekinetic Projectile).

If instead they use striking spell with a saving throw cantrip they would have a 23 DC versus an average of 15 Reflex Saving Throw:

19-20 crit (10%) on strike:
1-7 fumble (35%) on spell
8-17 fail (50%) on spell
18-20 success (15%) on spell

9-18 hit (50%) on strike:
1 fumble (5%) on spell
2-7 fail (30%) on spell
8-17 success (50%) on spell
18-20 crit (15%) on spell

That comes out to a 6% chance of a critical failure (10% * 35% + 50% * 5%), a 20% chance of a failure (10% * 50% + 50% * 30%), and a 26.5% chance of a success (10% * 15% + 50% * 50%). That means that the average damage the spell deals is 0.45X (e.g. 0.45 * 4d4+4 for Electric Arc).

When using eldritch shot with a 2d6+4 weapon and a 4d6+4 spell you would do an average of 20.3 damage. Remember this number- it's important! When spell striking using a 2d6+4 weapon with a 4d6+4 spell you would do an average of 14.63 damage. If you just attacked three times because you missed the last turn with a 2d6+4 weapon you would do 13.75 average damage. Now, I don't want to do the complicated math to figure out the exact damage you'll do if you miss the first turn and hit the second turn. I'd have to account for every strike the following turn, the probability that the spell is already discharged, the gradual reduction of map each strike and the impact that has on the chance to crit and then auto-increase the success of the spell. However, there is no world where two options that could play out over two turns with an average damage of 13.75 to 14.63 average damage would do better than using eldritch shot with its 20.3 average damage twice.

I'd love a feat or synthesis that let you upgrade the shield spell to provide a +2 to AC instead of +1. It would be particularly interesting for a two handed tanking build, though they seem to have gone a temp hit point path instead.

Personally, I'd rather they made the Magus spellcasting proficiency progression worse and then make it so that attack spells are delivered using the strike.

I really like that the Magus has full martial proficiency scaling. I was really worried they'd try to do something like the Warpriest (and we all know how that worked out).

Kalaam wrote:

The raw stats are good but the mechanics need fine tuning (that's why we're here after all ! ^^)

Some people had fun (?) calculating Spell Strike's accuracy and crunching numbers, and while it's all fun and good it doesn't take into account all circumstantial bonuses coming from flanking, grappling, tripping, etc that your team could create. But it's true that Spell Striking feels a bit clunky. It's fine for early levels, but it should probably evolve naturally as you level up. It feels more like Spell Combat (you strike then apply the spell, with a possible accuracy boost if your physical attack was a crit) than actually Striking the spell on your target with your sword.

These calculations don't account for debuffs because A) anyone else can benefit from them and B) the magus isn't particularly good at generating them. There's merit in assuming flat-footed for the Rogue because the player has an obligation to make getting flat-footed reliably a core part of their build. The Magus is so busy with their three action attack routine that you can be pretty certain they're never going to feint.

On top of which, of course the chart the people create for the Magus isn't going to take into account circumstantial bonuses. We don't include that in any other classes charts either.

Honestly, if there had to be a change I'd make Magi less good at raw magic in exchange for relying more heavily on Spellstrike to hit with it, which would solve a few of these problems. But that could penalise save spells, so I'm not so sure, and I know that's probably not a super popular opinion in the first place.

Actually, I think that would be great. A Magus is not really supposed to be casting attack spells, he should be delivering attack spells via strikes. I'd gladly see arcane spellcasting proficiency stop at expert but in exchange make the spell success category be the same as the strike success category.

As other's said, missing sucks. I expected the Magus to be slightly behind full casters, but not behind the Monk and Paladin. Paizo, please don't tune our damage by messing around with our chance to hit. I'd rather you introduced delayed access to spell slots.

My friends and I are planning to test the Magus out by building a full party of gishes. What are your favorite builds that we should use for comparison?

My personal favorite is the Human Monk Zen Archer / Cleric. By level 2 you can make two bow attacks using Flurry of Blows and then cast Divine Lance. At level 3 you can take Ancestral Paragon (Adapted Cantrip) to pick up Electric Arc. Flurry of Blows + Electric Arc is a very effective combo that outperforms a Flurry Ranger making 4 attacks with a bow, to which you can later add in Ki Blast and additional spell slots. The Monks spellcasting proficiency scales only a little behind full casters as well, and is even slightly ahead of the Magus.

The fact that Champion and Monk have better proficiency scaling is important- they can pick up extra spells using multiclass dedications and will outperform the Magus using cantrips. Magus doesn't need to be so heavily penalized compared to other casters, the lack of spell slots is already punishing enough.

Monks and Champions have spellcasting tradition proficiency for the focus spells. Both become experts in their tradition at level 9. Magus gains expert arcane spellcasting proficiency at level 11. What gives?

The odd way that proficiency scaling for some classes can just lag a few levels behind the pack is my least favorite thing about this edition already, this just feels super frustrating.