Kilgorin0728's page

I'm more in favor of limiting Striking Spell to just spells that require a spell attack and allowing you to use the result of your next successful Strike before the end of your next turn as your spell attack roll. A feat later that grants the ability to cast saving throw spells where hitting with the Strike grants a +2 bonus to the DC. Another feat at some point allows you to retain a spell you put in your weapon but didn't manage to hit with.

Better than arcane champion, how about divine magus? I'm anticipating Striking Spell (or whatever it ends up being in the final product) will be part of the magus dedication. Imagine playing a warpriest with Striking Spell, harming font, Harming Hands, and Sap Life. At 6th level you could be dealing an extra 3d10 negative damage and healing 3 HP. Again, this is all assuming the magus archetype grants Striking Spell and will allow casting divine spells.

I think it's important for Paizo to push new ideas and concepts for 2e. I really like how they elevated the alchemist, bard, fighter, and sorcerer, but to me the magus just feels off. The 4 slot casting seems awkward and janky and the Striking Spell is just spell combat from 1e but with no iterative attacks at higher levels. I like the idea of Striking Spell being the core feature, but it needs to allow the weapon attack to stand in for the spell attack. The version they have now needs to be a separate feat or even a battle spell that lets you cast a spell and make a Strike at a penalty.

I like the syntheses and the battle spells and I'm really hopeful for the class. I'm honestly just disappointed by the class as it is right now. It just feels wrong to call the book 'secrets of magic' and then have the two classes presented with almost no casting ability. Is the secret to magic just not casting magic? It just feels wrong. Both the magus and the summoner need to feel like unique and interesting additions to the magical classes and not like martial classes with really bad caster archetypes slapped on.

I do trust Paizo and I know they will fix these issues. They did it for the oracle in the most recent playtest and made it a strong and solid class. Anyone remember Resonance Points? I think that magus and summoner will be okay in the end, but they need a lot of work right now. I do wish we could have updates on the process of tweaking and refining though.

Draco18s wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Fair. Cantrips keep getting better, though. A level 1 shocking grasp gets left behind. The magus does not need level 1 spell slots for their baseline.

Shocking Grasp keeps getting better too, because when the magus doesn't have level 1 spell slots any more, he's using a level 2 spell slot (for either Shocking Grasp or some other spell) which still does more damage than the cantrip, regardless of what it is.

The whole point of this aside was that you use your top two levels for damaging spells, and don't bother keeping damage in level 1 slots. Yes, any damage spell in a top slot is going to do more than a cantrip. That's why the magus has those slots and not the lower level ones.

The real question is what is Paizo's angle with removing the lower level spell slots when they know that they won't be as effective for damage. It's implied that once your cantrips out-damage your lower level spells a magus is going to stop preparing damaging spells in those slots, just like the wizard. That's not the debate.

The debate is whether or not having only 4 spell slots at the highest two spell levels locks the magus down too much. When a wizard has out damaged his lower level spells, he starts preparing more utility spells in those slots. The question is why cut off a vital aspect of spell casting for the magus?

Sure, once telekinetic projectile out-damages a 1st level shocking grasp you're not going to prepare it in that slot anymore, it would be a waste. However, you could prepare air bubble, ant haul, befuddle, color spray, create water, deja vu, feather fall, fleet step, floating disk, goblin pox, grease, gust of wind, magic weapon, message rune, penumbral shroud, pet cache, ray of enfeeblement, spider sting, temporary tool, true strike, or unseen servant in that 1st level spell slot. A lot of these would be great to use with Striking Spell all the way to level 20 (looking at ray of enfeeblement).

And I get the argument of "You can still prepare non-heightened spells in high-level spell slots." but with only 4 slots Paizo has basically said you can either prepare some utility spells in those slots and use cantrips for Striking Spell, or you can pump out 4 damaging spells a day and then you have no utility.

The issue is not preparing damaging spells in lower level slots, it's about giving the magus more versatility and options outside of Striking Spell. On top of that, with a seriously poor spell casting proficiency, even if you do focus on raw damage in those 4 slots, there is a greater than 50% chance you are going to miss with that spell or the enemy will make the save if you are attacking a creature with a moderate AC or moderate saving throw. I don't think players are asking too much for the ability to have a few high-damage spells with a couple of true strikes to use against a difficult enemy.

Personally, I think 2 slots for each spell level is more than fair and more than balanced for the magus, even if they leave the rest of the class as is, especially since you are going to miss with your spells a lot.

The problem with that approach, Kilgorin, is that you are then effectively giving the Magus a class feature that just says "add your weapon damage to your cantrip damage", and that is going to throw the damage assumptions of the system all kinds of out of whack.

We're talking about spending two actions for an extra 1d4+INT damage. It's the same as the fighter's Power Attack feat, except the chance to hit is lower than a fighter.

Fighter with 18 STR and longsword using Power Attack - +9 to hit and an average of 13 damage.

Magus with 18 STR, 16 INT, longsword, using two actions to "Spellstrike" (as I described earlier) - +7 to hit and an average of 14 damage.

So a lower attack bonus is made up for with 1 extra point of damage on a hit. And you're only increasing the damage with cantrips by 2.5 every 2 levels. Hardly seems like a power creep. The only time the power really excels is with slotted spells, but limited to those that require a spell attack and limited by the magus's smaller number of slots.

I have a hard time agreeing with Paizo's decision to make Striking Spell the hallmark feature for the magus, but then have it function more like Spell Combat from 1e.

A better option, IMO, is to limit Stiking Spell to only function with spells that require a spell attack, but allow the magus to make a melee Strike (or ranged Strike for you shooting star magi) as part of the casting of the spell. This solves the proficency disparity and honestly makes more sense flavor wise. It essentially conveys the idea that the magus is most effective when blending sword and sorcery and spells cast outside Striking Spell simply aren't as effective. A later feat could then grant the option to use saving throw spells with a bonus to the DC if the weapon Strike hits.

Darth Grall wrote:

Blave wrote:

Darth Grall wrote:

I don't play 5e but a buddy of mine said this is almost exactly how 5e spell casting works for Warlocks, but a fundamental difference is that characters in PF2E don't recover spell slots from a short rest and barring the Magus getting a spell recall feat or class feature that lets you convert focus points back into spells I think I'm pretty bummed about this kind of limited casting.

Or am I missing something?

Yeah, the 5E Warlock has a very limited number of spells and regains them on a short rest. He also only goes up to 5th level and can only get very specific spells at higher spell levels by picking them via his Invocations (which are basically class feats in PF2 terms).

What you're missing is mostly action economy and the whole action system differences between the two games. It's nearly impossible for a 5E warlock to cast a powerful spell and attack in the same turn.

At least that's what I remember from my very limited experience with 5E. Other players will probably correct me :)

I know it's not apples to apples here, but an interesting comparison since I can't help but feel some echoes of influence here. And if that's true, I hope that it's recognized that part of the reason that this method of spell progression works is that they can recover spells to some degree in 5e.

And TBH I'm not sure if you're right. Most of my 5e experience comes from listening to live play shows like CR or Dimension 20, but I thought they can attack then cast any bonus action spells like Hex or vice versa if they can attack as a bonus action, but I understand everyone's multiclassing in 5E so I'm not sure if it's the Warlock shell itself or multi-classing that's in play there. But yes, the action economy of PF2 is very different but I don't think it's so different. Either way though, I'm not knocking Striking Spell here(because I think it's well enough and I like the 3 action system), just examining the spell progression.

Bonus...

Having played a warlock in 5e, it's super frustrating to blow through your spells in two fights then have to ask the group to take a short rest just for you. It slows the rest of the group down and many of the buffs that clerics and mages use will end before that short rest is over, meaning they've lost spell efficiency because of you. It's not an enjoyable mechanic in 5e.

Me - "Hey guys, I'm out of spells. Can we take a short rest?"
Druid - "Whelp, so much for my barkskin."
Cleric - "Seriously? I just cast daylight so we can explore the cave."
Wizard - "I've still got 50 minutes on my fox's cunning."
Ranger - "If we don't follow the bugbear now my hunter's mark will run out and it will be harder to track him. I think you'll just have to make due with cantrips for now."

I've had a night to sleep on it, and the more I think about the less I feel that the magus, as is, is a "blend" of sword and sorcery. Instead it feels like a generic martial class with a spellcasting sticker slapped on its butt. As it stands, it has the same weapon proficiency progression of the ranger (a full martial class), but I honestly feel like it needs to be a couple levels behind the ranger in weapon proficiency and only a couple levels behind full casters.

I also reflected on the 1e magus and I have to wonder where spell combat went? Cast a spell and make a Strike as part of the casting at a penalty doesn't seem like a game-breaker. Also, a bonus from Striking Spell to spell attacks if your Strike hits would mitigate the disparity in casting proficiency. It would mean the magus would need to make that weapon attack in order to effectively cast spells against enemies.

To get back on topic of 4 slots, it definitely feels like too few, at least for the magus. To all the people saying that a multiclass dedication would fix it; no other class requires a dedication to feel complete. I can have my wizard take the witch dedication and spellcasting feats, but this doesn't "fix" the wizard, it just adds a boon at the cost of wizard feats. Likewise, taking a dedication as a magus should feel like a boon, not like a necessity that every magus needs to "fix" their class. If the magus had 2 slots of each level, then takes the wizard dedication and subsequent spellcasting feats, it should feel like "I'm a magus that focuses a bit more on spellcasting than most, so I have more spells that usual, but I've sacrificed some of my magus training in order to accomplish this." instead of "I'm a magus that dabbles in wizardry so I can finally do magus stuff."

I'm 99% sure that Paizo gave us the most extreme scenario with these classes just to see how people would react, and I'm certain that perfect magus is already sitting on their servers. I trust them as a company, but I also understand the drive to push the extreme.

It really feels like the Magus was balanced around taking Wizard dedication.

Being limited to 4 spells per day? Pretty harsh.

However, dumping another 5 feats into dedication and picking up 2 each of 1-6, plus a 7th and 8th, on top of 2x 8th and 2x 9th, feels better.

As far as Cantrips, honestly I don't see the advantage of casting Electric Arc via Striking Spell rather than normally.

It's been said by others, but what other class have they released that felt balanced around taking a multiclass dedication just to have it function properly? What you are really saying is that the magus needs more spells to feel complete.

I can appreciate Paizo trying something new with the spell slots for the two new classes, but it feels so limited at higher levels. With just a few feat investiture, a fighter can gain 2 arcane spells up to 8th, for 16 spells per day and still has legendary proficiency in weapons at level 13. While the magus can deliver a spell through their weapon, they still have to make two attacks. Going back to the fighter/wizard, you can still Cast a Spell and make a Strike and mitigate the MAP by using touch spells or saving throw spells.

I feel like if they are going to keep the spells per day so limited they need change up the striking spell to match the result of the weapon attack, rather than rely on a second attack or a creature's save which may result in a wasted spell. I'm not mad when my wizard misses with a spell attack because I've got a lot more spells per day, but if I miss with that weapon attack or follow up spell attack or the creature rolls well on a save, you bet I'm going to be annoyed at losing one of only 4 spell slots that day.

I think I'd like to see double the current spell slots (4 of the two highest spell level), 1 spell slot for each spell level, or way more battle spells and feats for regaining more focus points. At any rate, I think Striking Spell needs to grant something more than it does right now, especially since it prevents the use of other metamagic feats and doesn't save any action economy versus a fighter/wizard.

Magus synthesis is cool and the battle spells (which are a good replacement for arcana abilities) feel solid.

The summoner is... interesting with the new dynamic between the character and eidolon. I almost feel like a druid with an animal companion not only effectively gets 4 actions between it and the companion, but also has full casting. Yes the eidolon is stronger, but not enough to justify the lack of spellcasting. I like the tandem abilities (seriously why couldn't we have these for animal companions) but I don't think a group of specialized feats makes up for the shared action economy. I'd rather see something like the eidolon gets 1 action of its own but can also share the summoner's actions. This would grant them the same action economy as a druid or ranger with an animal companion, but more versatility to distribute actions.

Overall I like how both these classes look right now, but I'm glad this is the playtest and not the final product because they both need some kinks worked out.