Greg.Everham's page

I try to vary this a lot as a GM.

Most of the time, I will try to give something believable. Bluff a key attack ability, a resistance, or a high save that might match the monster.

Sometimes, I will just go for a laugh with the off one... esp when it's a lower-than-party-level monster.

I think the key is just reading the monster before hand and having some idea of what the monster would do. This'll guide you on all the things you might wanna do. Make it a laugh, make it an easy-to-solve puzzle, make it a good bluff.

Just feel out your table. Is it sluggish and they need a pick up? Maybe give them a laugh. Are they power gaming? Bluff hard. Are they really into story and lore? Maybe give the DK haver a lie and let another player sort it out.

TL;DR - there's no one good answer to what to do with this feat. It *really* is GM fiat and feel. Just know your group and solve errything with the question 'What's the most fun right now?'

Cheers!

What works for your table? Does your story need them to go *poof*? Do you need them to stick around? Is it plot relevant?

Ultimately, this feels like GM fiat and it should follow the usual "rules." Plot >= Cool > statblock.

Honestly avoiding 5 feet corridors in general is good because while they make for good bottle necks, they make for TOO good bottle necks and its hard for melee enemies do anything reasonable if pcs decide to bunker in five feet corridor.

Not enough GMs are willing to create a stalemate. G'head and let your baddies wait on reinforcements. Or, force those PCs assaulting your keep into finding a new (and much more creative) way inside.

If unhittable baddy wants to block up the vertical of the T intersection, just wait around the corner and focus fire. Easy peasy.

Culinary Arts. I will not explain further.

I have one of these Paladins in a game of Age of Ashes I am running. He's an absolute beast. From the GM chair, it really is a case of damned if I do, damned if I don't.

When I try to hit others, the Paladin is so much of a beatstick that one extra attack a round at full MAP just brings stuff down so fast. Additionally, the damage reduction effect of his ability has kept players alive by just expanding their HP pools so many times now.

When I try to hit him, his AC and HP are so high that I can't burn him down in time to win fights. I *could* spend all my actions to have the baddies blow him up, but like... they'd just get eaten up by the other characters right quick.

What I would recommend doing, tho, is set aside some misconceptions of PF2e from what you know of PF1e. It's a totally different creature now. +2 AC over someone else is HUGE. Same with +2 to hit. It's massive. Having the highest AC in the game will absolutely keep you alive and make you effective in combat.

If every PC was equipped with some method of laying down a healing effect, you will still need a Cleric. AoA is punishing amounts of damage, at times. If this is your group's first foray into APs for PF2e, the Cleric can also buff out a LOT of mistakes in play. Highly, highly recommended.

The enemy consists of intelligent human bandits. The party's fighter charges forward with a +2 greater striking flaming longsword, and during the battle the bandits succeed at knocking out the fighter.

When you gain the Unconscious condition in this game, you drop everything you're holding.

Shouldn't a bandit pick up the weapon?

Tactically this seems like the right thing to do. But I see a problem with how this interacts with another rule:

When you fall unconscious, your initiative changes to just before the effect that knocked you out. This more often than not results in a delay before you can act again.

This rule allows the party to aid you in recovering, but it also delays when you can pick up your dropped weapons. So it feels like having an enemy pick up your weapon was something the designers didn't account for. And it feels especially bad if you couldn't rescue your weapon simply because your initiative was delayed.

What do others think about this?

Ha! Yes, knock them out, but don't have some random bandit just try to slash at your heroes. He knows he's gonna lose that fight. Dude's been trying to scrape together a living as a highwayman. He gets a few thousand in gold dropped into his lap. Homie is bolting with that. Run away. Scatter. All the bandits can make their way to the hideout while your group's Fighter comes to.

Where the game has constant advancement and Ability Boosts and magic items and increases that are cancelled out by equivalent boosts to the monsters. So you're just advancing and advancing and advancing but not really getting any better. It's masturbatory increasing numbers just for the sake of bigger numbers. The illusion of progress and improvement.

It's a hamster wheel.

If your argument is just "monsters get stronger too," what's the point of any sort of RPG-related game? This "it's a hamster wheel" argument applies to literally every RPG game ever created.

Man, I hated the end of Final Fantasy, I was level 90+, but so where the toughest bosses! And, don't get me started on WoW-Classic; was fun for a bit, but when I got to 60, all the bosses in Molten Core were 62! What's with that!? It's just a hamster wheel!

The point that was raised in the playtest wasn't that monsters got more powerful and so your character didn't improve. It was that the delta between a monster's DC and your character's best and worst abilities was staying exactly the same. If I built a Fighter, I didn't really get better at hitting things over time. I'd hit a Dire Rat on an 11 at level 1, and I'd hit a Pit Fiend on an 11 at level 20. Or something like that (don't parse the numbers for accuracy, they're totally wrong and made up for illustrative purposes). What players wanted instead was to hit a Dire Rat on an 11 at level 1, but to hit the Pit Fiend on an 7 at level 20. They wanted to see the die roll break points change.

And, really, they do. Fact of the matter is that your campaigns will naturally show off how your characters are getting more powerful. Fighting the same type of creature multiple times over the course of levels may feel a bit repetitive, but it's a trope from many, many RPGs. You fight a skeleton, singularly, at level 1. Then you fight 3 of them in a group at level 2. And by level 5, you fight a necromancer with a small group of them, who summons more and more during the fight. Using the same skeletons held the story together, but it also let you see just how much easier it was to get over the DR or to make contact with them over time. What was a formidable fight early on becomes a mere speed bump. In PF2e, this is represented by level being included in proficiencies. At level 1, you might've needed a 13 to hit this skeleton, but 4 levels later, you need only an 8... maybe even lower. And now, you're getting 15 or 20% crit rate on them! And you've got a pair of new class feats to make the fight easier! Or spells, 3rd level spells blow them up much easier than 1st.

This treadmill argument doesn't hold water. It's just grognard nonsense.

Another real problem I see with AP design/GMs struggling to figure out how to use effectively, is giving PCs enough down time between things the story expects them to do right away. Crafting takes 4 days. Retraining takes 7 or more. Even purchasing new items can take days and require access to large cities. Players need down time to come much more frequently than 1 break every 4 or so levels. PFS spaces this out really well. A player is likely to have almost a month of down time per level. In games where the down time is going to be rushed, GMs need to shower PCs with consumables that are too cheap and useful to hoard.

For sure, the APs could start to denote where things are time sensitive and where they are not. We would have to ask the design team their justifications, but my guess is that it will match what they've said about many of the APs: "These are suggested structures, but at the end of the day, it's up to the GM to modify this where needed."

Y'alls... The Proverbs of Hell are all intentionally flawed. They sound really great at first blush, but break down under closer scrutiny. Like Cabbage said, the crow is smarter... which is why the boastful eagle ought give up that time to learn its ways, rather than refusing to hear any new information that might change his view of himself.

I believe him when he says this. If he believes that a different perspective is of no use to him, then there really is nothing to show him.

Caralene wrote:

I know these games as well as any. There is nothing you can show me that will change the way the game works.

"The eagle never wasted so much time as when he submitted to learn of the crow." - William Blake, Proverbs of Hell.

Roll20 is super easy to roll these checks (see Ravingdork's post above for the macro solution).

For table top gaming, the pre-pandemic way, it's not hard to make up a quick sheet to track your PC's bonuses and just roll them behind the screen. Realistically, you know these things are coming well before hand (if it's a home game and not a random table of PFS players) and can roll them well ahead of your table even sitting. Use some sticky notes on the AP materials or your campaign notes to keep track of which rolls were succeeded and by whom.

(Read through most of the posts here, but not all.)

I run five PF2 groups. For two of them, the feeling of slog was mixed with the sense that the game was becoming frustrating/too hard. In Age of Ashes, the party went through 3 effective TPKs after having an effective TPK in Book One. I have moved the encounter levels down by 1, and it's been going fine.

I think that there is some conflating the issue of "there are too many fights" with "there are too many difficult fights" that calls for some GM adjustment.

I don't attribute the difficulty to players being bad at tactics necessarily. Tactics definitely help, but sometimes there are subpar party compositions, or a combo of abilities that don't mesh well with countering a given monster.

Whether PF2 was tuned to be "too hard"... well, you can't really make a level of difficulty that works for all tables, and what is more for the universe of diversity that is variable characters in a game as complex as PF2. One shouldn't need feel they have to be slavish to the source material if it's not jelling with a group.

My groups also had issues with Book 1 of Age of Ashes. I don't think it was the AP or the encounter design, though. Trying not to give spoilers here... but... The first three chapters don't really push the party in any way. You can do the same shenanigans as PF1e and it's just fine. Wanna tank mobs as a Barbarian? Cool, go take hits, s'all good! Wanna all break apart and solo fire? Awesome! Do it! It works! Then... chapter 3 opens with a fight that, if you do not answer it correctly, and down mobs efficiently will kill players. The infamous fight against a certain fellow just a couple fights later is also vicious if you do not play to your strengths (specifically if you don't debuff him at all).

Frankly, the opening book of AoA has some TPK potential because players coming up from PF1e don't do the things necessary to surviving in PF2e. I have a table of all players new to TTRPGs, and they breezed through those fights, specifically by focus firing and thinking about positioning and order of approach or order of attacks. Why have the Monk do Flurry before the Fighter lays down Intimidating Strike? They also seemed more willing to use spells that the older edition's players ignored. A great example is Befuddle. Our older edition upgrading Wizard saw this spell and balked because it only lasted 1 round. The new-to-gaming Wizard said "woah! Clumsy 2 sounds awful. If the Barbarian hits after me, he's gonna crit!" And, once, against the infamous fight named above... it worked out that way.

Greg.Everham wrote:

Rysky wrote:

That's not contradictory at all. Logan specifically said they wanted to move away from crit-fishing and are going to be buffing the abilities.

"If they buff it it's a nova" that's asinine logic. "I can't use this all the time" does not a nova make.

Again, we don't know the limits that would be put on it.

I did not say "If they buff it, it's a nova." This is a strawman argument.

Greg.Everham wrote:

Adjusting the ability to have a cooldown would mean you should also give it more punch... which is a nova ability.

Your exact words.

Greg.Everham wrote:

Let me maybe explain with different words, such that my intent is more clear.

An ability that you can always use must be weaker than an ability you have a limit on. Think of Cantrips (always have them) Vs spell slot (limited usage). And, yes, you can add a cooldown option, focus spells, that sits somewhere between the two.

If Striking Spell slides from being an ability you always have access to into something you have limited access to, while also giving it a better punch when you do use it, this is necessarily a nova ability. It is something you will use for explosive effect and then either not have anymore for an adventuring day or have to wait through the cooldown.

Whether or not the crit fishing aspect is removed, a burst ability that offers only limited access is driving players to treat it as a nova. You will use it in the moments where you need that burst, rather than making it a part of your every-round rotation. The only thing that is in really in question is small burst (Striking Spell as a Focus ability) or large burst (Striking Spell 1/day).

You're right that we don't quite know the specifics yet, but we do know what the general effect will be.

If the idea was to move it off of being such a nova ability, then Striking Spell on cantrips should have better effect (at least, better than simply swinging a sword multiple times). This would invite the player to use the

...

Firstly, my "exact words" don't suggest the thing you're claiming. Please, stop with this now. I gave you the grace of doubling back to explain it more deeply to clear up any confusion.

Moving the ability to be a punchier, but more limited ability is making it into a more nova-type ability. Moving it in the exact opposite direction, less punchy and more available, is what was stated the direction for Striking Spell would be.

The activation of Rage has a cooldown; the effect is basically always on. Weird example that doesn't illustrate the point you're trying to make and is an apple to the orange we're discussing.

That's not contradictory at all. Logan specifically said they wanted to move away from crit-fishing and are going to be buffing the abilities.

"If they buff it it's a nova" that's asinine logic. "I can't use this all the time" does not a nova make.

Again, we don't know the limits that would be put on it.

I did not say "If they buff it, it's a nova." This is a strawman argument.

Let me maybe explain with different words, such that my intent is more clear.

An ability that you can always use must be weaker than an ability you have a limit on. Think of Cantrips (always have them) Vs spell slot (limited usage). And, yes, you can add a cooldown option, focus spells, that sits somewhere between the two.

If Striking Spell slides from being an ability you always have access to into something you have limited access to, while also giving it a better punch when you do use it, this is necessarily a nova ability. It is something you will use for explosive effect and then either not have anymore for an adventuring day or have to wait through the cooldown.

Whether or not the crit fishing aspect is removed, a burst ability that offers only limited access is driving players to treat it as a nova. You will use it in the moments where you need that burst, rather than making it a part of your every-round rotation. The only thing that is in really in question is small burst (Striking Spell as a Focus ability) or large burst (Striking Spell 1/day).

You're right that we don't quite know the specifics yet, but we do know what the general effect will be.

If the idea was to move it off of being such a nova ability, then Striking Spell on cantrips should have better effect (at least, better than simply swinging a sword multiple times). This would invite the player to use the Striking Spell feature as the normal rotation. As it was printed, the action economy simply sunk Striking Spell as being in your normal rotation. It was a 5 or even 6 action ability over two turns; one to crank start the Magus and one more to deliver the spell.

Greg.Everham wrote:

Logan is talking himself in circles on the Magus. It's clear that they have no clear idea of what they want to do or even a general direction that they want to go.

Two quotes highlight just how awful this problem is:
"We’re also going away from using a special benefit that relies on a critical hit, as that led to the ability feeling too random and giving too strong an incentive to load up on true strike and put all your eggs in one basket."

"Some changes might require Striking Spell to no longer be at-will, so using it is a more impactful moment rather than repetitive."

The thing you activate 1/day in a critical moment is a nova ability. If you want to reduce the will to go nova, you make the thing more valuable in the normal routine the class will perform. That is, you make Striking Spell more attractive to use with cantrips, not your incredibly limited spell slots.

And wasn't the whole "no abilities with limits per day" thing a key component of PF2e design philosophy? What happened to that mandate?

Specializing in crit fishing and having a heavy limited use ability are not the same thing.

The first statement is Logan wanting to break a perceived meta, the second is changing a function of the class, those don't contradict each other.

Also "no longer at-will" does not automatically translate into x/day, it could merely have a coolddown or restriction.

Anything that limits the usage of Striking Spell would push players to use it for nova. Adjusting the ability to have a cooldown would mean you should also give it more punch... which is a nova ability.

It's contradictory no matter how you try to dice it up.

I don't think it's intentionally so, but I'm not sure if that isn't worse.

Logan is talking himself in circles on the Magus. It's clear that they have no clear idea of what they want to do or even a general direction that they want to go.

Two quotes highlight just how awful this problem is:
"We’re also going away from using a special benefit that relies on a critical hit, as that led to the ability feeling too random and giving too strong an incentive to load up on true strike and put all your eggs in one basket."

"Some changes might require Striking Spell to no longer be at-will, so using it is a more impactful moment rather than repetitive."

The thing you activate 1/day in a critical moment is a nova ability. If you want to reduce the will to go nova, you make the thing more valuable in the normal routine the class will perform. That is, you make Striking Spell more attractive to use with cantrips, not your incredibly limited spell slots.

And wasn't the whole "no abilities with limits per day" thing a key component of PF2e design philosophy? What happened to that mandate?

One, having 16 DEX/STR doesn't make you ineffective in combat...

And therein lies one of the major problems of the game system that will be entirely inescapable going forward: It was balanced around the assumption of an 18 in your key stat at level 1 and advancing it fully as you level. Because of this "split" builds with 16s get punished harshly. That 5% hit difference didn't matter so much in a game where your attack would well outpace most monster's defenses,* but it sure does matter in a game that keeps the math tightly bound. Balancing the game just a little lower and allowing characters to skate just slightly ahead (or simply widening the bandwidth some) would have allowed for greater player creativity within the system.

*To be clear, the way players could break the numbers in PF1e was heinous and completely a problem. As typical with Paizo, overcorrection is their middle name.

To be fair, the posts you guys are looking for is what the post-playtest stream will be for, but the playtest doesn't even end for a little under a week. Then they need to finish collating the data, and then they can get back to us, while I'm sure they're working on it, I wouldn't be surprised if they were intentionally *not* settling on solutions yet as they see how everything shook out for real. These things take a lot of time, and they might even have to demo a bunch of solutions internally before they're ready to tell us anything.

This is the way.

That said, with how awful these classes are, I'd like to see a 2nd round of playtesting opened up. Afterall, a bad game delayed is eventually good, while a bad game released on time is bad forever.

It has a major action economy issue, but now I'm really starting to feel like using actual spells with it is relatively clunky, I'd prefer a suite of tailored focus spells that are 'Striking Spells' to the Striking Spell feature we have, coupled with an oracle style focus progression.

Making it work like Eldritch Shot, e.g. the attack roll of the attack and the attack roll of the spell are the same roll, would probably be a good middle ground if the playerbase wouldn't like the focus Magus approach.

Magus needs a suite of 1-action spells that specifically call for a melee spell attack. It would clear up the action economy issues, while giving the "pure" spellcasters relatively nothing. These can be the Magus bread-and-butter "attacks." Some could do added damage, others apply debuffs, others can even buff, and I'm sure there's more imaginative uses, too. This spell-style could also be reason to get rid of the reduced spell slot thing that many dislike. If they're good enough, each spell level would see the Magus prepping one or even two of them. All around, this let's the Magus feel magical and do the whole "blending of swordplay and magic" while also not intruding on anyone's territory or seeing those other classes want to take Magus' bread and butter from them.

Kalaam wrote:

Physicskid42 wrote:

A sword sain ’t type option would be nice

You choose one weapon, and are only able to reach legendary with THAT weapon period. And only expert in spells?

Legendary in one weapon of choice and legendary in all weapons is basically the same thing. This option would not be balanced against a fighter.

I'm 100% certain we can make a better Magus with Legendary weapon usage, fake-ish sometimes-legendary casting proficiency, and keep from stepping on Fighter or Wizard in the process.

Here's the basics:
- Weapon Proficiency grows at the rate of a caster's spellcasting proficiency. Trained at 1st, Expert at 7th, Master at 15th, Legendary (with one weapon) at 19th.
- Spell Proficiency never grows beyond Trained at 1st level.
- Striking Spell does the same "deliver through the weapon" metamagic, but instead of the current mechanic, it forces the Magus to use spell attack spells (I know, I know, there's not many of these yet) and allows the Magus to use a normal attack roll instead. No bonus damage from the weapon here.
- The Magus would receive no support for melee attacks otherwise. No MAP reducers in class, no two-attacks-in-one-action in class, no Weapon Spec, no Crit effects.
- The Magus would also receive "reduced" spellcasting of some variety (talk amongst yourselves).

The end result would be that the Magus can deliver Strikes with accuracy that wavers in degree of being martial+, but it will lack the oomph and DPR expectations of other martials. It will have the full Arcane spell list to dig through, but after the earliest of levels the Magus would not be able to compete with a Wizard in direct spell casting. Instead, the Magus would have to lean heavily on delivering spell attacks through their weapon... you know, the class narrative we're looking for.

Accuracy issues? Solved. Magus gets accurate with Striking Spell to make it playable.
DPR issues? Solved. It's now better to use Striking Spell than to simply Strike.
Action economy issues? Solved. The Magus will, at worst, be using a 2-action spell each turn to make their attack, opening up all sorts of 1-action options.
Delayed start of combat issues? Solved. The Magus wouldn't take a full round of crank-starting their engine before they join the fray. They can run right in and feel good about it!

Changing Magus Potency to a class feat and then giving a 1st level class feature at 1st level.

This would greatly improve customization and make brawler magi not so feelbad at having to wait until level 2 to get the feat absolutely crucial to the build/concept.

Magus Potency is kinda weird, because it's only good for a few levels.

As a 1st level spell, it gives a +1 rune. If you're playing an AP, you'll typically get that rune mid-2nd level.

As a 3rd level spell, it's a +1 striking rune. This is strictly inferior to what could be had by a 5th level character. It is never good.

As a 4th level spell, it's a +2 striking rune. This is 3 levels ahead of the normal pacing.

As a 7th level spell, it's a +3 greater striking rune. This is 2 levels ahead of pace.

So... Magus Potency has value at first and part of 2nd level, then again from 7th to 16th.

Taking away 1st level Magus Potency would make it a Focus spell that you could acquire that early, but you wouldn't actually get value from it until 7th level. Ooooooof.

And considering the Magus has very serious and dysfunctional action economy issues, it's hard to slot in this solution to it's very serious and dysfunctional accuracy issues. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Why make a weird, convoluted mechanic, when the easy option is 1-action spells with lower effect outputs in exchange for the quickened spellcasting?

Logan Bonner wrote:

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.

What non-damage spells is the Magus set up for using? Most of them are save spells, which aren't particularly better with Spell Strike unless you are consistently critting (which you aren't against threats worth using a rare spell slot on), and you have worse save DCs than an actual caster 90% of the time. They are certainly capable of channeling more than damage spells through their weapons, but not mechanically encouraged to do so.

Most PF2 players have seen the benefit of debuffs and they are a much bigger part of the game for a lot of parties than they were in PF1, but as designed the Magus is positioned to be one of the classes benefiting from them, not setting them up. "Folks on this forum" are playing it focused on damage because that's what the current design encourages.

Yeah, I'm legitimately confused about what Logan has said the design team imagined the Magus to be. What part of "You get 4 spells a day" makes you think there's going to be a variety in what the Magus does? How was the Magus ever supposed to overcome serious accuracy issues AND serious action economy issues?

And yeah, the rather dismissive "folks on the forum" stuff just screams "You're playing MY game wrong." Wanna know what needs improvement? That mindset.

We can use a lot of math to fix accuracy issues. Make target flat footed against the spell attack roll, add weapon potency rune to the DD/Spell roll, etc etc.

Stop with this nonsense. Making an enemy flat-footed isn't a "math fix" to a class. It's a proper tactic for the game that ALL classes ought use. It doesn't, at all, change the fact that spell attack rolls are far behind a martial's attack roll.

What is needed, if this version of Striking Spell makes it to print (and let's hope it doesn't), is both of an item that gives a bonus to spell attack rolls at the same pacing as the weapon runes, and a "correction" for spell proficiencies lagging behind martial proficiencies. The former is easily printed; the latter is not so easily solved.

1. Reduce action economy requirements of Striking Spell to allow for Magus to have choice in which actions it might use in a round.
2. Remove the "wind up" round in which a Magus will have no impact on the combat in order to begin acting the following round.
3. Improve DPR overall for the Magus to match other characters dedicated to dealing damage.

Addendum:
4. Remove arbitrary restrictions from the class that bespeak both a fear of and a dislike of player creativity.

I find issue with the claim and perception that if you use spell strike every turn your rounds are boring. You have 5 cantrips as well as 4 spell slots, more if you take martial caster and cantrip expansion. That's not including any magical equipment to get more spells.

That's a lot of options. The fact that the strike portion also combines with other strike actions shoot's they up when higher.

If spell strike was like bard inspire courage or summoner boost eidolon. I'd agree your are doing the same thing every turn and it's boring.

But when I played the Magus with slide casting. I stocked up on every useful offensive or utility cantrip I could think of along with finding more ways to get my spell strikes more times per day.

Using spell strike almost every turn I rarely had a similar round.

Spot on with the idea that Striking Spell as a conduit for a variety of options is not going to get stale. When we consider that Magus will often be trying to match cantrip spells to weaknesses of monsters, akin to how an Alchemist operates, it's a pretty fun turn to take. Move and Striking Spell a cantrip that you hope matches up... or maybe you Recall Knowledge to get some type of beat on what damage type to use.

Alas, all of this is a sort of moot argument. Striking Spell is a 3-action (or more) package and simply won't allow for it. Until the design is changed, that analogy above to a crank-started truck is accurate. While every other player at the table is doing stuff on round 1, the Magus player will spend the first round of every combat eating their snacks and mumbling out "Recall Knowledge, Striking Spell, hold the charge" and losing interest in the fight until their name is called again. If you want to talk about taking "similar rounds" on repeat, that's the one to worry about.

"But you have to use tactics for it to work!" isn't PF2.

"It works smoothly and well and tactics make it better!" is PF2.

This should go on a wall mural within the Paizo offices. It's an absolutely wonderful encapsulation of the target to aim for regarding a class's effectiveness.

Regarding the Magus, we're firmly in the former and this is why the class is shoddy.

Lelomenia wrote:

Kaboogy wrote:

- True strike synergises well with spell strike crit fishing (2 round routine: cast into weapon, stride, true strike, strike)

that sequence seems sub-optimal in general;

Slide caster and Shooting Star aren’t going to need the move action Round 1, which leaves them with an extra action sitting there in Round 1 that could (should) be a 0 MAP Strike. They could do something defensively with it, which is fine but i think holding off until Round 2 for True Strike/Striking Strike will be lower DPR than alternative no-True Strike sequences, at which point viewing True Strike as a design-warping factor seems off.

Suboptimal with a cantrip (which Spell Strike is in general), optimal with a slotted spell. When you have a very limited resource with a powerful crit effect this is what you get. Shooting Star can just add another strike in round 1 before spell striking in order to become more optimal.

For half your per-day tricks, you can end up with a landed Strike and a spell's "on a save" effect. It's very unlikely, yes. True Strike isn't guaranteeing the explosion for all those resources, both spell slots and every action in a round.

If True Strike was supposed to be the Magus digging deep and going nova... it's kinda disappointing in that regard.

My hard line is that if I'm any kind of martial and I can't hit 18ac at level 1. I home brew it or don't use it.

That's a pretty reasonable thing. The game is built assuming you have certain benchmarks; the classes should meet those benchmarks. Penalizing Strength Magi in their AC is going to absolutely ruin them, esp since the class is based around a 2-round cycle that assumes you stand adjacent to something.

Well I would argue that the Synthesis for Slide is pretty much a "do it every round" kind of ability.

But regardless, giving them abilities that they are not supposed to be using every round that only have the restriction of "once per round" gives the illusion that it should be used, well, every round.

And if you allow, and outright encourage the use of an ability every round (which you are, because two abilities are essentially weighted on the same thing), then some of the blame for "wanting" to use them every round falls on the design itself.

Like if you put a big sign on a door that says "you can open this and might get a present" but then you find out you're only supposed to open the door on Christmas, that's pretty misleading, no?

So the door either needs to be worth opening more often, maybe with smaller gifts, or it needs to have more circumstances that limit it so that it's only opened on Christmas.

I get that it's maybe not a power/balance issue directly, because it is in fact a choice, but considering how making the "wrong" choice is actually more prevalent than the "right" choice is the problem.

Basically, if you used it every round, which the ability allows you to do, you'd be having an "ineffective turn" more often than an "effective" turn by the current design. And that's probably not a good thing.

Fishing for crits and holding back your ability for special, desperate scenarios are two polar opposite playstyles. If I am supposed to be crit fishing, I want to be spamming my ability early and often, every round, to maximize the number of crits I can get. If I am holding it back for the best rounds to nova, I don't want it going off 10% of the time; I want it every. damn. time. Otherwise, why did I hold it back for so long?

So, if they were to make it a 2 action activity to Cast+Strike, then either the Strike would be at -5 or the spell would be at -5, which would be much more terrible.

Gonna hang my entire response on your phrasing. "Much more terrible."

Based on the early responses in this thread, it seems like no option within this is appealing or good.

Greg.Everham wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

3 actions makes it virtually impossible to use Striking Spell.

PF2e is no where near as static a battlefield as PF1e; moving away from a mean looking enemy or moving to a soft target is something most monsters will be doing. The magus simply cannot expect a target to stand still for a full round to be hit with a Striking Spell.

If the expectation is that the magus must set up one turn and "nova" on the next, there had better be a bigger boom at the end than ignoring MAP on one attack. So far, this magus has given up 3 actions last round without affecting the battlefield. Now, they're going to have to spend another action to move back to a target and then an action to finally Strike and maybe deliver the spell.

It's just bad. Very, very, very bad.

Why are we talking about this as if 2/3 of the fighting styles don't alleviate this issue?

Because 1/3 of the class options are now made completely worthless and there cannot be any new growth from this class with future expansion to this content.

Additionally, making a choice for your class that is essentially "Which way do we get back to the start" kinda feels bad from the jump.

If the necessity is that Striking Spell takes 2 actions to be viable in terms of round-by-round action economy, search for a way to balance it on that edge. Creating a deficit, only to have some parts of the class give it back makes for upset players looking at what feels like (and is) a very underwhelming class.

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

3 actions makes it virtually impossible to use Striking Spell.

PF2e is no where near as static a battlefield as PF1e; moving away from a mean looking enemy or moving to a soft target is something most monsters will be doing. The magus simply cannot expect a target to stand still for a full round to be hit with a Striking Spell.

If the expectation is that the magus must set up one turn and "nova" on the next, there had better be a bigger boom at the end than ignoring MAP on one attack. So far, this magus has given up 3 actions last round without affecting the battlefield. Now, they're going to have to spend another action to move back to a target and then an action to finally Strike and maybe deliver the spell.

It's just bad. Very, very, very bad.

Squiggit wrote:

gnoams wrote:

Saves scale much higher in 2e, so again con is a much lower percent of your overall bonus

Yeah, but with the way PF2's math work the percentage it is doesn't matter at all.

Saves exist within a range and DCs of on-level threats are going to be in a comparable range, so +1 to your con modifier is going to have the same value whether your Fort save is +3 and you're saving against DC13 or your fort save is +5000 and you're saving against DC5013.

I think this is an oft-repeated assumption that doesn't really bear out in practice. That gap does stay pretty narrow throughout the game, but it does close with higher levels more often than not.

You and the enemy both will be getting that scaling +1 each level sure, but you also have the option of increasing your training level and ability scores too, which helps to close that divide by quite a fair bit. If you max something out, you're going to be besting your foes quite often in that particular area. If you put in only token investment, not so...

The tight bounds on success rates for attacks and saves works in an opposite direction that does justify higher Constitution scores. Since enemies do hit you more often when they do make a swing, and there's seemingly more attack actions getting flung around in a round, there's more HP being lost. This makes, as Kyrone above alluded to, Constitution into an "automatic" selection at each ability increase.

Sitting at 8 CON does seem like a bad idea throughout leveling, though maximizing CON through items and bumps for ancestry or background seem rather unnecessary, even for "tank" type characters.

I feel like the Magus is supposed to do more of "delivering spells through their weapons" than "throwing a ball of arcane nastiness across the room".

I'm wondering if we shouldn't leave the Magus's magic skill at expert with the rider that you use something else for saves when the spell is delivered through spellstrike.

Since the Magus basically should rely on two families of spells- things that keep you safe, and things that mess up people within sword reach.

This seems the best method. Master w/ weapons, Expert w/ spells, but the Magus gets its bump through Spellstrike, which would sub in Melee Attack for Spell Attack.

There's maybe a mathematical issue in play that no one is yet talking about (from my scan, apologies if there is someone that's mentioned it). Weapons have the advantage of an Item bonus on them, which can throw off the math significantly. A Master w/ weapons Magus would have a niche that no other class can get to. Its Spell Attacks would have a +3 above anyone else's, because of that Item bonus. And, in my opinion, that feels good. They'd get some spikey-spolodey damage when a spell crits. The downside might be that they'll be delivering Cantrips with that... and that's quite the frightening proposition.

The three core abilities all feel pretty easy to port over.

Arcane Pool is just Focus. Give the Magus a Focus spell that buffs up its weapon, along with feats that create more options and better bumps. Add all sorts of property runes to the list of what it can spend 1-action and 1 Focus on.

Spellstrike, similarly, isn't that hard. Assuming the Magus leans more toward melee than spells, and that this is reflected in a gap in proficiency, then the Magus can simply have an option to deliver its touch spells w/ proficiency in weapons rather than with its spellcasting proficiency.

The toughest one is Spell Combat. This one was an action-economy trick. Full-attack added in the option of getting in a spell as well. It feels like it should be a 3-action activity that allows for a spell + an attack and the MAP wouldn't count up until after it's all resolved.

The problem with this approach to Spell Combat is that the Magus would have access to Haste and, in many fights, be able to use Spell Combat most every round. It is potentially a gigantic slide upward in terms of damage per round, and could imbalance the math.

silversarcasm wrote:

To be clear, the praise heaped on the cops here is exactly the kind of thing I desperately want agents of edgewatch to not promote. The police began as slave catchers and strike breakers and exact to protect capital, the harm they inflict is built into the system, this is not a matter of a few guys ruining it for everyone. The amount of positive coverage and portrayal the police get obscures this.

For the record, I'd disagree with this whole post in several major ways, but that's almost immaterial.

The important question is, do you want all police officers to believe that they're authoritarian thugs only there to protect rich people?

Because the police as an organization aren't going away. They're just not. Our entire current social system assumes government actors being around to enforce the laws and trying to get rid of that at this point is not productive. We can change a lot of things, but this one is pretty obviously staying.

But if all media featuring police has them as tyrants and bullies, guess who's going to apply for jobs in the police. So, given that police, as a concept, aren't going away we need to convince people going into the police that accountability and justice are more important than strong arm tactics, and to empower police who already believe those things. We need to make the police better. And one step in doing that is having fiction modeling the behavior that we actually want to see in our police officers.

Now, many current pieces of police fiction do this badly, or at least imperfectly, but that just means we need better police related fiction, not that we need to never have a cop as a protagonist again.

One quick counterpoint... Yes, the police departments can be terminated. Presently, the Minneapolis City Council is exploring the method to dissolve the police department and replace it with a series of community groups capable of handling the process of law enforcement while also meeting the needs of those communities it serves.

Squiggit wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

because quite simply HP keeps you alive.

Like saves and AC (among other benefits)?

Quote:

There is a reason it is marked as secondary stat for every class. So what you are saying by making Con primary is that it is both primary and secondary and you get to double down.

Like how Wisdom is a universal secondary stat and characters who get to mark it as a primary also get to double down? Admittedly there are some builds that let you get away with less Dex, I guess. I mean I understand your point, but it feels like you're trying to draw a really sharp distinction when there really isn't much of one.

Again, that's not to say a Con-primary class wouldn't be in a really good spot and that would have to be something taken into consideration when designing it, just that I'm not really convinced of this notion that it's so beyond the pale, or that +1 hp/level is head and shoulders better than anything any other attribute can give you.

This is doubly true given the way attributes work in PF2: Four increases per set of bumps means everyone can reliably boost Con (and Dex and Wis and whatever their primary attribute is) comfortably. A Con (or Wis) primary class gets more flexibility because they get to stack those two, but that flexibility mostly just means they have an easier time investing in a tertiary stat and that they start and stay a couple points ahead. Those are both really nice perks, but not earthshattering, irreconcilable, fundamentally broken game changers.

Frankly, just bumping the hypothetical Con class down a die size (from d10 to d8 or d8 to d6) and giving them a weak fort progression would negate most of their advantages outright.

Fair challenge. Perhaps I am trying to be too sharp and definitive . A symptom of fundamentally disagreeing with the notion of a Con based character. Or more accurately a Con based character with magic / “spells”.

Paizo course corrected themselves on this with the old Orc witch archetype. They...

We should recognize that a PF1e to PF2e comparison isn't always congruous. In the case of the Scarred Witch Doctor archetype, it's very obvious the cap between PF1e and PF2e.

Hit Points was one aspect where this gap shows up. HP from level is radically different. In PF1e, the SWD would get a d6 hit die, for 4 HP per level. In PF2e, the Witch playtest was set to 6 HP per level. Stat scores are much higher in PF1e than in PF2e. It is not unexpected to see stats reach to the 30s at times in PF1e. On the flip side, it is strictly bound that the key stat for a class reach only 24 (18 at 1st + 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level boosts + Item bonus). Hit Points differ greatly, as a character in PF1e would draw a much, much higher portion from their stat than an analogue character from PF2e. It would be no problem for a Witch (at level 20) to have a Con of 32 in PF1e, a modifier of +11. They'd be getting almost 3/4s of their HP from their modifier. That same SWD in PF2e would be have a Con score of 24, and a modifier of +7. They'd get just over half their HP from their monstrous Con.

Another point to consider is what Squiggit raised. Most every class would optimally take Con in their stat arrays anyways. Many will consider taking Con with their Background and/or Ancestry arrays. An average character could take one Con bump from Background or Ancestry and use 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level bumps to arrive with 6 bumps total. That's a Con score of 20. A "low" Con build might ignore the Background/Ancestry bump as well as the 20th level bump. They'd finish with a Con score of 18. A Con-as-key-stat class would finish with only a Con score of 24. This is a +2 modifier over the average character or a +3 over the low Con character. Is this really a gap so insurmountable that no class could key off of Con? I have to say no.

It's not as if this "double dip" comes cost free, either. Consider that the Con belt takes the same slot as the Str belt. This means that the "tough guy" or "tank" concepts seemingly fall off in ability to hit in melee. "Off" stats don't seem to be the most beneficial in PF2e, either. Assuming a "tough guy" build, what does Int or Cha get them? Assuming a straight caster, what does Str or Dex get them? The "double dip" of stacking Con onto many things gets you a bonus stat boost that, essentially, goes to waste.

If you're going Goliath Druid, I recommend building into the (somewhat ridiculous) Vital Strike build. Since at 12th you'll be Huge in size, why not go ahead and make your one giant smash each round even more giant. With an Impact weapon and a 1-level dip into Titan Fighter or 3-level dip into Titan Mauler Barbarian, you can cap out weapon size. Shaping Focus lets you not lose progression in Wild Shape while dipping levels. Just build out all the things that make your giant smash go.

The build is alright through 11th level. Play it like a damage dealer, not so much like a tank. You'll have some Con, but kinda bad AC. Not that anything wants to stand in to test you on it. BUT... at 12th level, you'll become a nigh immortal character essentially immune to hit point damage, thanks to the combination of Regeneration from your form and Ferocity from something like Juggernaut's Pauldrons. Can't be knocked out for being below 1 HP, can't die either. Woof.

Keep cycling down to get True Strike. Use lots of spells that call for attack rolls. Enjoy your absurd crit chance.

Ventnor wrote:

Syries wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

A Wizard who combines Eschew Materials, Conceal Spell, and Silent spell plus Shrink Item to hide his spellbook. Never gives away that he's casting spells if he can help it, and if caught pretends he's a sorcerer. His friends wonder why he always spends a full hour and ten minutes in the garderobe in the mornings, though.

To be fair the sorcerer also has to spend an hour prepping in the mornings.

Which is SUPER WEIRD to me, I might add.

How they spend that hour differs depending on the Sorcerer, of course. A dragon sorcerer has got to count out and polish all her coins, an aberrant sorcerer has to do some light stretches so that his tentacular limbs don't get cramps, an undead sorcerer has to listen to their entire Linkin' Park playlist so that they can be properly edgy... you know how it is.

LOL I'd say it's a straight hour of staring in the mirror...

It's an hour of repeating "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."

Aservan wrote:

Multiclassing Champion isn't as easy as you seem to think. You're talking about some serious stat creep. You need a 14 Cha and Str to multiclass Champion. That's doable from level 1 with the expected 18 Wis, as long as you're willing to sacrifice your level 2 class feat.

But now your armor is giving you a penalty if you want heavy (16+ Str to avoid the Speed and Armor Check hit). A character who wants to melee doesn't want a speed penalty of -10 feet/action. You are also limited to being a cleric of a good deity as we only have the rules for good champions.

You can buff Str as you level, but would you rather put that increase into Dex or Str? Dex gets you Reflex save and armor class. Str gets a cloistered cleric more melee damage and less armor penalties. Only you're a cloistered cleric and want to hang back and nuke/heal. You're not supposed to be taking the hits. Better Reflex is probably the better bet.

Honestly warpriest is something you're doing because you think it'll be fun to play. Cloistered is where the munchkins will go. Skip the armor and its costs, penalties, feat taxes, bulk, etc. Put the extra stat mod into Cha and get more heals. Con might be better as well. Reading the bestiary, equal level monsters will usually hit so having a super high AC to get ahead of the curve is chasing the carrot. Just accept the damage and kill them before they kill you.

18 WIS on a warpriest? No way man. Gotta keep that stat pretty low! STR and CHA are going to do a lot more for a "normal" melee-oriented warpriest than WIS. Stick to buffs and cure spells and your spell DC is irrelevant. They can easily meet the multiclass requirements, but do agree MCing Champion it's not for every Warpriest.

Warpriest doesn't need Wisdom. It's not a limiter for its spells in any way. There's no more stat requirement of 10 + Spell Level. Wisdom is useful if you're going to use offensive spells, but as it's been said in this thread that's not the Warpriest's jam.

Instead, I'd argue that 14 Cha and 14 Str in order to get into Champion is EXACTLY what the Warpriest wants. With Channel Smite, the Warpriest wants ever more Charisma to power Healing Font. Without Channel Smite, you'll likely be acting as a frontline healer (as Shroud said). That still requires Healing Font to be your main mechanic.

That leaves us with a stat line something like...
Class Wis
Background Cha, Str
Ancestry Cha, Str (as Human)
Level 1 Cha, Str, Con, Dex

12 Wis. BUT... you get back 16 Str, 16 Charisma, 12 Con, and 12 Dex. Your AC should be on par with other tank-y types. Your to-hit at level 1 is only 1 point lower. That's corrected at level 5.

And that to-hit dip is somewhat fixed by Heroism, which is on the Divine list. +1 at 3rd, +2 at 6th, +3 at 9th. Sucks to waste your 9th level spells that way, but it is what it is.

Alternatively, you could opt to not try to hit with a 2nd attack... see: Channel Smite.

From an educational perspective, the best way to teach is to allow for exploration of concept and support growth through questioning. These things go hand in hand. You asked about marching order; how have you supported your young/new players in gaining an understanding of what's tactically good?

Let's say your players are about to walk into an Orc warren, ready to fight. You could ask "Who's in the front?" And then fire arrows right away. What did your players learn? What did you guide them to think about? If you pause a second and say "What's good about the Champion going up front? What's bad about it?" your players might consider the value of the "tank" going in front. "Are there other players who can go in front? What could be a different approach to entering the cave?" Maybe they come up with a Stealth-y character going in first, because they can scout ahead.

Just because there's only one physical space to explore doesn't mean that there's only one chance to think about the encounter. Run the first encounter through, then reflect on it. "What went right in that fight? What went wrong? What else could have happened? What other things could we have done?"

The key is to always ask questions that are open ended and have answers that would need justifications. Yes/No questions are awful, because they don't need much thought. "Was it good that the Wizard took four arrows to the face?" Nope, it wasn't; but I learned nothing about how to prevent that or what to do instead. The same is true of objectively and definitely answered questions. "Who took four arrows to the face?" The Wizard, but why are we asking that? Ask things that can spark debate, discussion, and further exploration. Maybe you could play back the whole encounter multiple times, using different strategies. "[Not-the-Wizard] suggested that we let the Rogue use Stealth to scout ahead, let's play that out and we can see how it runs differently!" If you go that route, let players try to predict how it might play out differently and then see if their predictions were right afterward.

Just remember throughout, that their knowledge and understanding of battle tactics needs to be built by them in their own terms. Forcing ideas onto them, or arguing with them over what is good and bad, isn't going to get them there. You certainly have learned an understanding of these concepts, but transferring that to them is mostly impossible. The best you can do is creating an area where they have materials to work with (characters, maps, encounters, dice) and a framework to discuss their experimentation.

Xenocrat wrote:

True Strike has a duration, so no repreparation.

Can you explain what you mean by this please. It sounds important but I don’t understand it.

Reprepare Spell specifically calls out that the spell you put back into a slot cannot have a duration. ((https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=661))

I was thinking more along the lines of using it to get things like Weapon Storm, Fireball, Dim Door, etc. Those blastery spells that, if you use a Drain Bond on them, you could get them back again, so you'd not have to carry too many of that type of spell at a higher level.

The main way I was intending to "spam" True Strike was to use Bond Conservation to continually reach down to the 1st level spell, from whatever spell slot I had regained. With access to 9th level spells, when using a Drain Bond to recast one, I'd opt to cast True Target instead.

Furious Focus is a good feat (accessible on that build around 14th to 16th Level) and would be worth considering if your going for power attack. Even if you don’t want to take a second strike: True Strike, Furious Focus, Move/Shield is a good combo.

It's definitely good if you want to make that 2nd attack (which is 3rd attack MAP w/ Power Attack). And it's definitely something that can be penciled in, cause there's a lot of wiggle room in the feat selection. I was unsure how often the turns, even with Haste activated, would be using the extra action on Strike rather than Stride. Does seem like, with Haste, a turn cycle like this is possible:

First - AA Haste, Stride
Second - Drain Bond for a spell, AA Some Spell, Stride, Strike
Third - Stride, True Strike, Power Attack

Only on that 3rd turn would the build really be able to cast True Strike, Power Attack, then potentially use the extra action for a Strike.

Is milking that worth the opportunity cost of something else? Who knows? Right now, it seems like there's nothing better, so the option is a good one.

I put together a not-at-all optimized build for a Wizard MC-Fighter that was based around the idea of using the True Strike + Power Attack synergy. Since you can get two d20s via True Strike your chances of rolling well, or even into crit range vs some lower-level enemies, goes way up. Power Attack is a nice 2-action attack, because it increases your damage dice. It can lead to some hefty hits and is one of the best one-strike feats.

The build is based around the Universalist Wizard, using the Spell Blending Thesis. Universalist Wizards get a significant bump in their uses of Drain Bond, once per spell level instead of 1/day. This is one extra use of True Strike at 1st level onward. At level 8, you'd open up Bond Conservation, which can be used to get further uses of True Strike.

The strategy I imagined this build employing would be something along the lines of using a powerful spell on the 1st round of combat, following that up with a use of Drain Bond to recast a spell you've used up, taking the first action to use Bond Conservation. If something has moved up to you, True Strike + Power Attack for a pretty solid hit. If nothing has moved up to you, use another buff or bast spell. On the 3rd round of combat, you can go Move - True Strike (via Bond Conservation) - Strike action. If no move is necessary, Power Attack again.

Key Feats by level:
1 - Hand of the Apprentice
2 - Fighter Dedication
4 - Basic Maneuver (Power Attack)
8 - Bond Conservation
12 - Diverse Weapon Expert
?? - Fighter Resiliency
18 - Reprepare Spell

Any thoughts on this build? Am I missing anything that would help it out?

Greg.Everham wrote:

It's a trade off of accuracy penalties. Double Slice makes both attacks at -2/-2, assuming we're not using Agile weapons. Twin Attack makes them at +0/-5. There's also Twin Feint (Rogue) that goes at +0/-3, assuming the target was not already flat-footed against you or otherwise suffering a circumstance penalty to AC.

Building my character and confused why Double Slice makes both attacks -2/-2.

Double Slice Two Actions
You lash out at your foe with both weapons. Make two Strikes, one with each of your two melee weapons, each using your current multiple attack penalty. Both Strikes must have the same target. If the second Strike is made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait, it takes a –2 penalty.

The wording of the above (copy pasted from AoN) says only if the second attack does not have agile trait it takes a -2. So it should be 0/-2 for double slice. Am I missing something?

You're right!

+1 to Fighter MC, though I wonder if wielding an agile weapon in one hand is worth it. Less rage damage on Strike 2, but you don't take that painful -2 to each attack either.

Making contact > milking damage totals... typically, at least.

You'll gain 10% hit on two attacks by wielding an Agile off-hand.
You'll give up 9 damage, assuming Giant instinct.

Is 9 damage so tempting that you'll give up the hits and the potential crits? No. No, it's definitely not. G'head and wield that agile off-hand if you want the math. G'head and wield whatever you want if you want the cool factor.

Another option is barbarian with Ranger Dedication and Twin Takedown. It's a little better for action economy (single action vs. two actions for Double Slice), but requires a bit more set up (must use an action to designate your prey or switch to a different target).

It's a trade off of accuracy penalties. Double Slice makes both attacks at -2/-2, assuming we're not using Agile weapons. Twin Attack makes them at +0/-5. There's also Twin Feint (Rogue) that goes at +0/-3, assuming the target was not already flat-footed against you or otherwise suffering a circumstance penalty to AC.