Lightdroplet's page

Themetricsystem wrote:

I am personally just wondering why all characters and important NPCs don't just start with 3 Focus Points. They could have easily trimmed at least two pages of text from the book just by simply doing this and that space could have been used to define a half dozen or more "generic" Focus Actions or abilities such that make logical sense in connection with the idea of "focus" such as taking extra actions to "Aim carefully" with a Ranged Attack, to gain a circumstance bonus to a Skill Check, or even to remain conscious for one round at a time when you're brought to 0 HP.

The way it was implemented isn't bad, I just think that they make it needlessly contrived and contradictory while also taking up WAY too much space in the CRB defining it over and over and over and over and over it as opposed to giving it to everyone right upfront and tanking the amount of space available in most spellcaster class entries, for real, just trimming the Focus Pool language from Class Feats alone would save enough space for at least 2 or three more Class Feats for any given spellcaster or Focus Spell user.

It is what it is though.

That actually feels like too much. Heal companion, for example, seems pretty big. I wouldn't object to "1 focus point, 2 starting at level X, 3 starting at level Y" too much, but I like the idea that if you want to be able to do a thing more, you have to work at it (by taking another feat that adds to it).

Remember that even if your max Focus is 3, you will only get 1 point back from Refocusing unless you have the class feats that allow you to get more Focus Points when Refocusing.

Hobit of Bree wrote:

I'm struggling to find anything about how bows and arrows interact. Any cite wrt the level 9+ bow not working with low-grade cold iron arrows would be very welcome!

Precious Materials rules. If you use low grade ammo on a bow that's over level 8, the ammo will not receive the benefit of any runes above that level. For example:

"Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level."

I don't see how that states that you need high grade arrows for higher level bows. Ammuntion doesn't hold runes, the weapon does. Never is it stated that the runes on a weapon are somehow transferred to the ammunition. In fact, if that were the case, runes would become useless since both weapon potency and striking runes have the "etched onto a weapon" Usage line, and pieces of ammunition aren't weapons, meaning the runes would be deactivated due to not being etched on the correct type of item.

The shield rules are a mess, and work much better if you just make Sturdy into a potency rune equivalent for shields.

I think Monitor would cover it, since it is the blanket term for Neutral outsiders much like Celestial is for Good ones and Fiend is for Evil ones.
There already are a few CN outsiders with only the Monitor trait.

Poisoner is honestly just outright bad without scaling DC in general

Can't say I disagree there. Poisons already need all the help they can to land since Fort tends to be a strong save for many monsters, and Poisoner does almost nothing to help them outside of Pinpoint Poisoner.

Errata 2 gets rid of the Powerful Alchemy feat and gives it to Alchemists for free. How does, or should, this affect the Poisoner Archetype? Do they still fuction as written?

The archetype is still the same, since that change only applied to the Alchemist class. Poisoner might eventually be changed, but it wasn't in the errata because that was CRB errata, and not APG errata.

Also, why doesn't Poisoner get a way to increase the DC of poisons they create? It seems like a pretty severe oversight.

They can make higher level poisons from level 6 onwards, so the DCs somewhat scale. But yes, Poisoners have no way to actually scale poisons besides making higher level poisons. With the removal of the Powerful Alchemy feat in the Errata, the same happens to archetyped alchemists, so I'm guessing this is an intentional, albeit annoying omission.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

It also says "...or from other arcane spells you gain access to." You should automatically gain access to common spells from other books.

In the end, it's really all up to the GM what spells you can get.

Access in this case refers to the Rarity system.

Yes, a GM can run a Core Only campaign, but that's not what Access would refer to in regards to the rules.

For reference.

According to the Gamemastery Guide, the core assumption regarding Common rules options is that you have access to them.

Common elements are prevalent enough, at least among adventurers, that a player is assumed to be able to access them provided they meet the prerequisites (if any).

Even if access only refered to the rarity system, the GMG makes it pretty clear a part of the assumptions made by the rarity system is that players have access to common options.

The part on Access Entries a few lines ahead that only reinforces that:

A character who meets the specifications listed there has access to that option just like they would to a common option, even though it’s uncommon

Overall, the GMG makes it fairly clear you have access (as in the rules term) to common options by default, so non-core Common spells are covered under the second clause.

Even if you ignore the GMG snippets, saying that you don't have access to Common options feels utterly nonsensical to me.

Saying the Striking Rune is overpowered is the same as saying higher level characters are overpowered. They are indeed extremely powerful in a vacuum, but in the context of the game, they're just a part of the power curve.

I really hope the recharge isn't something excessive like requiring a Focus point, or a ten minute rest: it would feel terrible to only be able to use your core feature once a fight and have nothing but normal Strikes and cantrips (i.e. worse Strikes) for the rest of the fight.

It's good to see there will be options for people who want to use firearms without dealing with the swingyness of the current ones. Making Gunslinger into the dedicated reload class is pretty interesting too, although I hope other classes will get some more support for Reload too.
It's kinda sad the Inventor playtest was marred by the Unstable misprint.
Glad to see gadgets are an optional part of Inventor too. There are plenty of character concepts that don't really mesh well with it, so their being opt-in is great. Didn't really trading away proficiencies for them either. One Alchemist is more than enough.

Now, since two-handed weapons give a clear advantage in terms of damage over 1-handed weapons, it sounds like game balance-wise, spellcasters should not be able to cast while wielding a two handed weapon. But RAW, this doesn’t seem crystal clear. It seems weird to I imagine a spellcaster gesturing while holding a heavy crossbow.

The playtest Magus had a subclass dedicated entirely to casting while fighting with a two-handed weapon, and said subclass lacked any wording to indicate it was a deviation from the standard rule. Being able to cast while wielding a twohander is definitely intended.

Gunslinger MC dedication for those who want to use guns above their normal low efficiency.

Just as we have Swashbuckler MC dedication for those who want Panache, and Casters MC dedication for martials who want to cast spells.

Not only are those not comparable (Panache and spell slots are class features, not something any character can freely get), but this is terrible design.

After seeing the crit-fishing nature of the Gunslinger class (and of firearms as a whole) being discussed in many places around this forum, I thought it would be a good idea to create a single place to gather all the feedback on the relationship between Gunslingers, Firearms and critical hits.

I'll give my personal thoughts on it first:

I think this is a bad idea. We have already seen a class that attempted to make critical hitting the core of its design with the playtest Magus, and it did not feel good to play as it led to a rather unfun "feast or famine" style of play where you spent a lot of time feeling miserable between the rare times you critically hit and got to roll a bucket of dice. Now Gunslinger feels like it has the exact same problem as Magus, but I feel like it is even worse in their case for one reason.

That reason is the Gunslingers have nowhere near as many options to put the odds in their favor compared to Magi: Even with their heavily diminiished spellcasting, Magi could have access to a few magical buffs and debuffs (mostly through staves or through Martial Caster), including True Strike, which is pretty much the number 1 tool for crit fishing. On top of that, most Magi fought in melee, where it is easier to get bonuses like flanking and where cover is not an issue. Gunslingers have to fight from range and have no magic, meaning they don't get all these advantages, leaving them in an even worse state than Magi were when it comes to actually tipping the odds in your favor. They do get a few improved skill actions like Pistol Twirl on top of their +2 accuracy, but does that really compensate the relative difficulty of getting enemies to be flat-footed to ranged attacks, the penalties for cover, and the lack of any natural magical support?

Besides that Gunslinger-specific point, I fear that this design for firearms will make them underpowered for every non Fighter/Gunslinger. Firearms are a class of weapons many people wish to see in the game so that they might use it as a standard weapon the same way one would use a crossbow. However, their nature as crit-fishing weapons means their wielder wants Legendary proficiency in them for them to be really worthwhile, meaning classes that might want to use a firearm (the most obvious one being Ranger, who already has support for Reload weapons) will find themselves falling behind in damage through no fault of their own simply because they wanted to use something that fit their character concept.

In other words, this makes Firearms as a whole a trap option for anyone without Legendary scaling. I thought we were supposed to be done with these 1e-style traps whose only goal seems to be arbitrarily punishing character concepts because they aren't using something the "right" way.

This issue leads into another Gunslinger-specific one: Firearm users want Legendary proficiency to be able function at a good level, which is why Gunslingers have to have that level of proficiency. However, such a level of proficiency is definitely a rather large investment for a class, meaning that a significant part of the class' power budget is spent on ensuring basic functionality for their weapon of choice instead of on interesting features.

Now, it is possible that Guns&Gears is full of non crit-fishing firearms that would function much better without critical fishing.
But so far, the only non crit-fishing firearm we have seen is the Blunderbuss, and it suffers immensely when compared to even a simple Crossbow as it trades 100 feet of range for Scatter and Versatile B, neither of which seem like they are worth the massive range trade off. Considering the Crossbow is a simple weapon while the Blunderbuss is martial, it doesn't make non crit-fishing firearms look really good.

Considering all this, I feel the same way as I did with Magus: crit-fishing is not a good core design for a class, or a group
of weapons.
Now bear in mind that I'm not saying there shouldn't be crit-fishing guns. But I think the crit-fishing guns should be an option, instead of being the only kind of gun there is. If people want to fulfill the "One shot, one kill" fantasy, they should be allowed to. But equally, people who do not care for this particular fantasy should also be allowed to have firearm-using characters.

So, what are your personal thoughts on this?

Guns are way to swingy, if you aren't crit fishing (which isn't really satisfying or consistent in this edition) you aren't really doing much with a gun.

It reminds me far too much of the Magus playtest.

Quote:

Simply, the extra attacks that you get to make with a bow at -5 and more rarely at -10 are worth more than the extra damage an Arquebus does on a crit

Simply, if you're not making any more ranged attacks with the Arquebus it doesn't matter.

That's my whole point.

If that truly is the intended design, I would argue it is definitely something that needs correcting then.

I thought we were supposed to be done with situational options that have a "right" way to be used and become traps if used the "wrong" way. That kind of design is exactly the kind of reasoning that lead to hundreds of character options in 1e being useless because they were designed around one particular situational "right" use, meaning people who couldn't guess the writers' intent were punished for attempting to use an option they liked for their character concept.

Besides, the Heavy Crossbow is a weapon that already fills the exact same "shoot once, then drop it" niche (with more reliable damage, even better range and an equally as punishing mechanic to prevent repeated shooting), and it is one of the worst weapons of 2e. We don't need another weapon to join it.

Nothing is stopping you from dropping the gun and drawing something else.

Apart from the prohibtive costs of multiple guns (at low levels) or multiple runed weapons (at high levels).

A level 1 character barely has enough money to buy a single firearm, while a level 20 is expected to have a single level 19 permanent magic item (i.e. a single +3 major striking weapon)

That tactic only works in the small time interval between the moment when buying multiple guns becomes feasible and the moment where you are expected to acquire magic weapons to keep up with the rate at which enemy HP and AC grows.
That goes double for guns, since their role as crit-fishing weapons means every single +1 matters.

How about a feat that lets you reload the fire arm without the free hand. hold it under your arm pit and reload. It would probably be awkward but characters are suppose to get pretty fantastical at later level.

Such a feat already exists (Two-weapon Reload for the Dual Weapon Warrior), but I really think Gunslinger should get it as a baseline. It is necessary for one of the Ways, and extremely useful for another of the Ways. I don't think having a feat that close to 2/3rd of all Gunslingers have to pick if they want their advertised fighting style to function is a good idea. 2e was supposed to move away from mandatory feats to fix problems that shouldn't be problems in the first place.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

oholoko wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

You quick draw your melee weapon. It still has runes on it.

You mean reload, quickdraw blade shoot? If so that actually sounds really smart and I kind of like it.

But also only works one time, since the new rings are two weapons only... Not two groups or two types of weapon.

You can put your sword away before you reload again, then quickdraw it next round.

Reloading and sheathing weapons each cost an action. A two-action penalty is too steep for melee gunslinger builds to be viable.

Either you use your firearm primarily, or your melee weapon. It's okay that it's hard to do both at the same time until the mid game.

Why is it okay? Every other martial can get their intended fighting style going by level 1 or 2.

How is getting to two groups Legendary at the time when the fighter goes Legendary in only a single group at that level not stepping on toes?

Oh, I didn't think about the intermediary levels, and just looked at the end result. My mistake.

In fact, right now it's not very clear how the Intimidate skill given by the cortex modifications works when by RAW the construct does not speak a language.

Actually, it's pretty clear, and the construct suffers the same problem that every Intimidation-focused creature with no language has: You can Demoralize using Intimidation without speaking any language, but it will be at a -4 penalty.

So um... Why not roll a crafting check against your own inventor class DC?

To reset unstable that is. Just a thought.

I like Unstable as a separate mechanism from Focus. The chance built in means that whether or not it continues to function is in question, unlike with Focus. Focus, if you have a focus point, it will work. Even an Oracle, they KNOW what will happen. This is more in keeping with the mad scientist we are all wanting to play.

Rather than rolling against your own class DC, I feel like it would be more appropriate to roll Crafting against a levelled DC the same way Overdrive does.

While I definitely agree it should be something given to the Gunslinger class, I really think it should not be a feat. Feats fixing issues with the core design of a class is exactly the kind of bad design 2e was supposed to have left behind. I don't really want there to be a level 1/2 feat option that will be mandatory for every Drifter Gunslinger.
Being able to use reload actions without an empty hand feels like it could just be a core Gunslinger feature, or at the very least, a Drifter style feature.

I guess that is my exact question, how much damage is worth reload 2? I would love a reload 2 weapon that is worth it.

Are there 3 action attack cantrips to compare it to?

Weapon damage is hardcapped at 1d12. And even that does not seem enough to be worth the trouble.

Firearms are not supposed to become common place in Golarion.

After all, Alkenstar has had them for centuries now. If they have not spread further, there must be a reason.

The rarity sidebar shows this isn't particularly true anymore, since it outlines Ustalav, Alkenstar, all of Arcadia, the Shackles and Central Tian Xia as places where gunpowder weapons are common, to the point where every character from any of these regions has automatic access to Gunslinger and firearms (and Inventor too).

No, you aren't missing anything. It's a glaring issue with Gunslinger that make Drifter far less workable than it should be, and that makes the dual gun Pistolero style mentioned in the fluff text completely unusable without spending two feats on the Dual Weapon Warrior archetype.
It's pretty much the number 1 problem Gunslinger has.

I think that the designer mentioned owning several pistols and having them on a bandolier could solve some of the "single" use/reloading issues that have been mentioned. I don't know how fun that'd be, but I saw it posted elsewhere.

While it seems like a cool idea, it's pretty much unworkable. You have to pay a huge upfront cost to buy all these guns, and you'll start falling behind from level 3 because you cannot use doubling rings with such a set up unless you get a pair of doubling rings (and therefore spend an invest slot) for each pistol, which is again a huge upfront cost.

I guess a simple way to temporarily solve the Drifter issue before level 6 is to use a Gauntlet as your melee weapon. Free-hand makes reloading a gun possible even though you are technically wielding a melee weapon in your hand.
Of course, you lose all the sword&gun flavor that was intended for the class, but at least you get something mechanically functional.

You could perhaps get a pair of doubling rings for each pistol. All of the gold rings bonded to the sword and each silver to a different gun. It's strange but would be cheaper than buying a full set of runes for each pistol.

Huh, I thought doubling rings would have had something that would prevent such a thing, but they indeed do not seem to have such a limitation.

As long as it is named the Gunslinger, it should remain uncommon. To do otherwise is to open the door for pushy players yearning for that firearm.

The same could be said for Alchemist and the Uncommon Alchemical Crossbow, or the Duelist archetype and the Uncommon Dueling Sword, or the Poisoner archetype and every Uncommon poison, and yet I've never heard of any problem players attempting to get free access to something based solely on the name of the class they are playing.

Mechanically, a Gunslinger asking for free gun access would have no more ground to stand on than a Monk asking for free access to Katanas.

Besides, problem players will be problem players no matter what options the game offers them, so I don't really think every design decision should be made around the fear of it maybe being misused by problem players. Problem players are an out-of-game problem; no in-game solution will ever solve it.

There are other classes that could be considered ranged weapon specialists though. Fighter (all weapon specialist) and Ranger (several unique ranged feats)

So not having gunslinger as common does not remove the ranged fighting style

You are missing my point. I did not say that there aren't other ranged weapons specialists. I said that that particular fighting style has nothing inherently Uncommon (as you have just proven by quoting multiple classes that also use something similar to it), so there is no reason to make Gunslingers Uncommon because Guns are already independantly gated anways and Gunslinger is now designed to be a fully functional class without Firearms, so the only thing making Gunslinger itself Uncommon achieves is make a rather common fighting style something rare.

Uncommon gunslingers are there to satisfy the fairly sizable portion of GMs who don't want guns in their games / idea of fantasy

People may not agree but it is not exactly an uncommon viewpoint

Yes, but as I said, Paizo made sure to make Crossbow Gunslingers a core option from the start so that gunless Gunslingers are a core part of the class.

While reading through the playtest document, I came across the Uncommon classes sidebar, and it made me think about something relating to the Gunslinger class:
It seems a bit wierd to make crossbow Gunslinger a core alternative so that you can reasonably play a Gunslinger that has never seen a firearm in their entire life, only to turn around and still make Gunslinger Uncommon, with the justification that many parts of Golarion aren't familiar with gunpowder weaponry.
Without gunpowder weapons, Gunslinger is just someone who mostly trained with ranged weapons, and I don't see why that particular fighting style has to be Uncommon since the problematic element (Gunpowder Weapons) is already Uncommon on its own.
2e Gunslingers don't get a free gun like 1e Gunslingers did, so it's not like Gunslinger can bypass the usual access rules either.
All this led me to wonder if Gunslinger really should be an Uncommon class.

I wouldn't allow it, not because of anything with the Paladin class, but rather out of fairness with the other classes who can't Refocus in battle.
And also because it seems wierd to me to be allowed to both continue taking an exploration activity and fight at the same time, when the rules do call out that you can't take any other complex actions or activities while you are using an exploration/downtime activity.
Finally, Sorcerers would be a bit of an issue with this ruling because their Refocus does not require them to do anything specific, meaning they would always be recovering Focus Points, which to me seems a little bit unbalanced.

Can someone with the PDF tell me if they changed the Cleric spell chart? Until then, it indicated that your font granted you level 10 slots at level 19 and 20. But now that we know that you can't gain additional slots of these levels, I wonder if the cleric spell chart has been corrected accordingly.

Staves are also staff weapons (page 280). They can be etched with fundamental runes but not property runes. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

No more shifting staves it seems. That always felt too good to be true to me, so I'm not too surprised to see it gone.

I like the bandoliers and other containers getting abstracted away into worn items. Although, am I missing something or is there nothing preventing a character from declaring every single of their items is worn? There's the 2 Bulk limit on worn tools, but nothing on other worn items.

Also, I can't help but think that the new cantrip wording will make stuff confusing when the SoM classes come out with their spell slots locked at the 9th level, but not their cantrips.

You can't gain Cantrip Extension as a general feat, so you have to push back your second dedication to 8.
As far as I'm aware, there is no caster dedication that allows you to gain two class feats before 6.

A little surprised that so many people were happy with the Summoners' spell slots. Not that I mind particularly but that just seemed like a big point of contention in general.

If Magus is any indication, it's not really that the majority of people were happy with current spellcasting, it's that people who were unhappy with it were too split on what the solution should be.

Nice to see most of the Magus concerns have been adressed.

Although I'm a bit worried that even making Martial Caster baseline still won't fix the spell slot issue. I feel like the Martial Caster spell slots weren't really high value because of how limited they were in terms of what you could use with them, so I fear the problem of the four actual spell slots always being filled with buffs will still be there seeing how these slots are so high value that gambling them away on the far less reliable attack spells is just not worth the risk over far more reliable buffs, meaning you'd be once again stuck using Striking Spell (or its eventual replacement) with nothing but cantrips.

Incarnate spells look nice as an idea and a gameplay mechanic, but at first glance, they seem to feel more like a moving magical effect the likes of Flaming Sphere than an actual creature come to aid. That might be because the example given is a wild mass of spirits instead of any coherent creature though. I can imagine stuff like summoning a dragon to strafe the battlefield with a breath weapon feeling a lot more like summoning.

EDIT: I didn't take note of it until a second reading, but I think Striking Spell becoming a limited resource is definitely the wrong way to go. Its very core idea already limits it more than enough given its reliance on (still sadly extremely) limited spell slots. Magus already has a resource problem with its spells, adding a second resource problem with its core ability would just make it miserable to play in longer adventuring days.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't 2e moved on entirely from class-specific resources (outside of spell slots and alchemy resources) in favor of Focus Points? Barbarians don't have rage round limits anymore, Bards can Inspire as often as they wish, Champions don't have a limited number of Smites anymore, and so on and so forth. It would feel very wierd bringing back this whole paradigm for a single class.

I think this is a case where your character will cause some friction regardless. While poison isn't overty evil in 2e, there is a long legacy of games preceding it where poison is outright evil or taboo for the players, and most players will have their view shaped by this. Even PF1e, while it had no outright rule against poison use, had every attack made by a poisoned weapon and the application of poison itself be subject to a 5% chance of accidental self-poisoning, which while minor, is still a direct punishment for daring to use poison outside of a few dedicated classes and archetypes.

Also, through a lot of popular media, poison is presented as the tool of ruthless, if not outright evil characters. Most players have their views on what makes a righteous hero stem from this kind of thing, meaning they will see their Good-aligned PF2 character as above this, even if they have no anathema against it.

And while there are a few good-aligned poison-using creatures (Quetz Couatls and Anadis, as well as Iruxi PCs) in 2e, the vast majority of poison users in 2e are either unaligned wild creatures, or evil beings, with the most famous humanoid poison users still being the Drow. Even when you look at dragons, poison is the only type of breath that no metallic dragon uses.

Overall, there is a definite trend of poison being portrayed as evil ingrained pretty deeply in popular culture, meaning it would take a lot for people to change their mind, so any character which depends on their teammates to use poison is definitely at least slightly disruptive, even if it shouldn't logically be.

Of course, it is not as disruptive as some other character options like Laws of Mortality followers or Superstitious barbarians, but it still is something that will inevitably cause some friction at the table. It's the kind of thing I'd ask my party and GM if they were okay with me playing beforehand, meaning it's definitely not the kind of thing I'd take to PFS.

However, is that specifically expected? If the strike wasn't to the summoner but the Eidolon, the Eidolon goes pop ceasing to be manifested. The shared HP hits 0, but it is a reasonable question if the Summoner is just unconscious, or if they are dying.

It is explicitely stated, not in the Summoner rules, but simply in the CRB:

As a player character, when you are reduced to 0 Hit Points, you’re knocked out with the following effects:

You immediately move your initiative position to directly before the turn in which you were reduced to 0 HP.

You gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead. If you have the wounded condition, increase your dying value by an amount equal to your wounded value. If the damage was dealt by a nonlethal attack or nonlethal effect, you don’t gain the dying condition; you are instead unconscious with 0 Hit Points.

All characters start dying immediately when their HP hits 0, and Summoner has no text that would override that.

Does a successfully disintegrated Eidolon kill the summoner? Does it make them dying, does it make them unconscious.

It would reduce them to 0 HP (and therefore subject them to the general 0HP = unconscious and dying rule), but not kill them instantly as written. However, the Eidolon would be actually killed instead of the normal unmanifesting at 0 HP.

Or if some effect technically doesn't take them to 0 hp, it just kills the target (say the Eidolon), does that leave the summoner alive?

Strangely, it does seem that if a no-damage instant kill effect gets the Eidolon, the Summoner is indeed unaffected.

If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.

Since the Eidolon's HP are not affected, the Summoner is left standing there unharmed, since the HP is the part that is shared, and instant death spells specifically do not change your HP. However, your Eidolon would die instead of unmanifesting here too.

Most of the above wierdness is due to how specific the "shared HP" text on Summoner is:

Your eidolon is no mere minion; the two of you share the same life force and work together as equals. You and your eidolon share your actions, your Hit Points, and your multiple attack penalty. Each round, you can use any of your actions and reaction for yourself or your eidolon. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you restores your Hit Points.

It clearly states what happens with damage and healing, but states nothing about death effects.

Yes, 2e is balanced for high level play too, but a loss of 10th level slots isn't felt until 19th level. That's not enough limitations for levels 1-18. Losing 10th level spells can be considered part of the class's power budget, but its a minor part.

By that same logic, missing out on Master armor proficiency and Legendary Spellcasting is a minor limitation. Nevertheless, it very clearly is a balancing point for multiple existing classes, with Warpriest being the most proeminent example of that. Classes are written with the expectation that they will be played from 1-20, and that there isn't a cutoff level where limitations stop being factored in.

I have seen several mentions of limiting spellcasting by making 10th level spells unavailable to the limited spellcasters.

I think I should point out that something that only becomes available at 19th level is not really a meaningful limitation if denied. Any such limitation should kick in at 1st level and persist through all levels

One of the core design goals for 2e was to make high level play more functional and give it more spotlight, like by making APs go from 1 to 20.

Given that perspective, it makes sense that even high level balance is considered a key part of a class' balance.

Many existing classes have features that do not kick in until 19 (Legendary Spellcasting and Master Armor proficiency for non-Champion/Monk martials are the two big ones), and said features are clearly still a part of their power budget.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

zergtitan wrote:

Magus: Needs full spellcasting(i.e. retaining spell slots, but not gaining 10th level spells or legendary spellcasting) and needs spellstrike to instead add a free strike action to the spell casting and tie the effect of the spell attack to the effect of the weapon attack.

...This is less of a suggestion and more of a wishlist - and not a particularly realistic one at that.

Full spellcasting plus incredibly good action economy on spellstrike PLUS two hits from a single attack roll?

Would you like the Magus to not get above Expert in weapons OR spells? Because that's about the only way that's happening.

I'm thinking 2 slots per level (1 when they first get a new spell level), and change Striking Spell to work more like Channel Smite: 2 actions and expend a spell to Strike and deal +1d8/spell level damage of the kind dealt by the spell. You could then add feats that work off that, e.g. "When your spellstrike deals cold damage, the target must make a Fortitude save or be Slowed for one round."

I don't want a warpriest.

Warpriest has 3 slots/level, 10th level spellcasting, the harmful/healing font and a much wider selection of focus spells.

I'd probably houserule in the wave spell progression for both. Low level spells don't add too much power, but they add a lot of flexibility and flavor to both classes. Even if it does boost their power, both classes are far enough on the underpowered side of the scale that they would still not be overpowering.

Something I often compare Magi to is the Rune Fencer (also sometimes known as Mystic Knight) job from Final Fantasy.

I feel like they both capture the idea of someone skilled in both martial techniques and magic, who can cast a few support spells on them and their team before or during battle, but who focuses most of their time in battle on swinging a weapon with a spell imbued into it.

[snipped for space]

I feel like adding MCD-like feats as something you can pick would create a nigh-mandatory feat, at least for the first one. Over all the discussions on these forums, one thing that's become apparent is how much benefit Staves, Scrolls and Wands have, not only for all classes, but especially for Magus and Summoner, so a feat that grants you Cantrips, some low level spell slots, and access to all the spellcasting items all in one package seems like far too much power to put in a single feat.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

"Needs to be Magical all day, on as many turns as possible, I should Striking Spell every turn" + "Needs to be worse at Magic than full casters" + "Needs to still be balanced" + "Needs to be a full Martial

But that doesn't require their spell slots being removed. They can have focus cantrips and focus spells and still have spell slots.

This. Personally, I think one of the best ways to go is to replace Striking Spell entirely with specifically designed melee focus cantrips like the ones proposed above, and keep the rest of the class as it is now apart for minor tweaks.

Martialmasters wrote:

i dont know if i agree humblegamer. sustaining steel is quite powerful by virtue of being able to use a d10 reach or d12 weapon. granted it could be argued as the most martial of the 3, and outside of spell slots or weakness proccing, most often you will be just swinging your weapon looking for things like energized strikes to boost that already beefy damage. giving them free movement i think would make them just...better than any other synthesis.

maybe im wrong but that is how it seems to me.

I haven't tried Sustaining Steel, but I imagine it leads to less Spell Strikes. With Slide, I almost never had a problem using Spell Strike because the extra stride could always get me into a good position, especially to flank. I think all Magus should at least get some movement from Spell Strike if it stays a 3 action ability, otherwise its too hard to proc. Maybe as part of Spell Strike, you can Stride up to half your speed. Slide Synthesis will then let you stride your full speed.

A pretty good solution I've seen someone propose if Striking Spell is to remain unchanged is to allow all Syntheses to Step during Striking Spell as a default feature, and have each Synthesis grant an action you can take instead of Step. Such as Stride for Slide Casting, Reload/Draw a thrown weapon for Shooting Star or Parry for Sustaining Steel.

Lightdroplet wrote:

I think the problem with this is that you have to do it while making sure focus Monks and Champions don't get invalidated by Magus. As it is, a Monk is able to spend every single class feat on ki spells if they so wish (at the cost of getting no martial class features outside of the few they get from their core progression), and a Monk who made this choice should not be significantly worse at focus spells than a Magus who only invested a portion of their class feats into focus spellcasting, so the upper limit on how much power can be packed in a martial focus casting Magus is not too high.

Completely disagree. Things like ki monks, even if you put all your feats into the ki elements, are barely supernatural. "I do one supernatural thing per fight" is pathetic.

Yes, that was my point. Ki Monks don't give out the magic warrior feeling a Magus would need, but a hypothetical focus Magus would still have to be balanced against them, putting a very strict and definitely unsatisfying upper limit on how magical focus Magus would be allowed to be.