Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:
Since it has your attention I'm actually curious; what do you think of the Magus and the feedback you've gotten so far? (snip) Anything else in particular that's stood out as an issue for players?
I'll avoid talking about the solutions we're looking at. The main reason I appreciate this thread is that there are a few people saying the same things about Striking Spell and/or lower number of spells in every thread, which makes finding other information tough to find. Having a spot dedicated toward everything else gives room for the rest to get some attention.
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. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think some of that is primed by both the P1 magus and by eldritch archer. The playtest magus is a way to try broadening that formula a bit, but hits the action economy wall.
The posts of people who do like Striking Spell often rely on a pretty intense buff and true strike regime to get the results they want. That's not ideal. We don't really want players to only get full enjoyment out of the class with that level of complexity and, often, repetition.
The ability to hold the charge for a full minute, right out of the gate at level 1 is basically giving a class the equivalent of a quickened spell at level 1 that is useable in every combat. It completely wrecks havoc on the action economy of spell casting (snip)
This would be one of my main concerns to. One of the options we're looking at is somewhat similar, in that you have the option to not trigger a spell till later (and get a buff while the spell is held). Solving this action economy issue is one challenge of that. Having it so you can effectively only do it in combat is the most direct path, but a bit narratively weird in the same way stances can be.
That's an interesting idea. It would fix some of the annoying parts of restricting spells to just one target, while opening up a whole lot of new questions. Something worth exploring for us, I think.
A Striking Spell can be delivered with any ability that performs a Strike. So you can have Strikes from Attack of Opportunity, Retributive Strike, Hunted Shot, and such trigger the spell. Though, it might get trippy if you use Double Slice, raising the question if all four attack rolls would use the same MAP.
You'd use all the same MAP with Double Slice, but there'd be 3 attack rolls because the stored spell would still only go off once.
I'm honestly really confused about if Magi get 4 spells per day or more. Because the description lacks the bit about losing lower level slots (like the summoner has) and matches more with the wizard text that just gives more slots.
The magus has a maximum of 4 spells just like the summoner. The spells table is accurate.
Hello, magic fans! This thread is for general input on the Secrets of Magic playtest. You'll find separate subforums for the magus and summoner class as well, which will be the best place to give specific input on those. This forum is for any issue that involves all classes, and for other discussion about the playtest. Please do keep this forum all about the playtest. You can find threads about other Secrets of Magic topics elsewhere on the forums. Note that off-topic threads might get moved within this forum or to other parts of the forums if necessary.
Hope people are enjoying their first look at these future classes!
Just to restate what I said in the launch blog: Please be respectful and considerate to the other posters. Everybody's looking to improve the game!
Welcome to the magus playtest forum, folks! I'm the principal designer on this class, in addition to being the lead on the book and the Pathfinder Lead Designer. I'm looking forward to seeing your takes on this class and the reports of your play sessions!
If you haven't participated in a class playtest for Pathfinder before, here's what you need to know.
Start building your magi and have fun!
Helloooooo, everyone! Welcome to the Advanced Player's Guide playtest for the investigator. I'm officially opening our case file into sleuthing, eureka moments, and well-aimed strikes to stop dastardly criminals. We look forward to fielding your comments on this class and seeing your experiences with it!
Mark and I did the majority of the work on this class, and will be your main points of contact as you talk about it. The new investigator plays with parts of the game the old one didn't, engaging more directly with the narrative overall than directly with mechanics. We want to see what people think of that approach and how it feels in play!
To reiterate the intro to the playtest document: remember that your fellow players and GMs commenting here might have different experiences with the game or expectations than you do. Please be respectful! It's fine to debate elements of the class, but avoid personal attacks and step away from your keyboard if it's getting too heated. A wise investigator maintains an even keel and an objective eye.
Now go forth and build your first 2E investigator!
The design of focus spells eventually kind of backed into being similar to encounter powers. There wasn't an intent to fill an encounter power "slot," but the two rules strike at a similar theme: How do you reinforce the core aspects of your character repeatedly. The distinction for me is that we made Focus Points work that way to reinforce the core theme of your specific character (being a fey sorcerer or a transmuter) rather than the more generic expression of your class that became typical in 4E.
In general, there's a lot of crossing over of ideas from 4E, but very carefully. Stephen and I both worked on 4E a *lot*, and each had our loves and hates of that system. We had tools for solving some of the same 3.5 problems, and could pick or choose which ones worked well. The main stuff we wanted to pull over were the big successes, like monster creation and more movement.
Would love to go into more detail at some point, but that's probably a seminar or stream down the line. :)
One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.
*pssst* one of the advantages of fundamental runes is that they don't count toward the item's total number of runes.
Yeah, I don't think Legendary DC checks are actually assumed to be the norm just because the PCs have hit a certain level.
That's accurate. If you're playing a 15th-level adventure, a normal brick wall isn't gonna be any more difficult than it would have been in a 7th-level adventure.
Also worth noting that the simple DC categories are benchmarks for the GM to use for tasks, and don't require the listed proficiency rank. (With some exceptions, like hazards.)
Franz Lunzer wrote:
I don't believe we've said there's no need for a Beginner Box, but that there's no need for the Beginner Box to not be fully compatible with the full game.
I do feel like there is slightly less bookkeeping in this because resonance will probably never matter until the highest levels (unless I'm missing something big).
Yeah, the intent is that you won't really be stressed for wearing magic items until you have a bunch of them and start looking to retire some of your weaker ones. That should be happening in the mid- to late-levels.
Yep, and this is testing to see if still having a slightly smaller—but not *vastly* reduced—amount of tracking is worth it in order to get these additional benefits.
I have a player in my games that almost always dumps Charisma, so I'm curious how this change will affect him. What will the minimum number of Focus be? 1? 1+Ancestry? 0?
As with anything else, this is TBD, but generally leaning toward minimum 0. Since we're holding off any any class design till we see how the test is received, we haven't looked in detail into, say, what a dwarf wizard might need.
Does this whole move to Focus feel a lot like the 50% off sales at shady stores that move everything to 200% the original cost? Like "Oh, cool, this $10 scarf is marked up to $20, but then I get half off!" "Oh, cool, this 1d8 healing potion is cut in half to 1d4, but then I can spend a Focus to get it back to 1d8!"
I talk about this specifically in the blog! Search for "The other concern is that we're weakening" and you'll find it.
GM Eddv wrote:
Simplicity and lighter bookkeeping are not the main reasons for this test. This is to see if a Charisma-based pool useful for supercharging items is fun.
I am also having the issue that the survey is kicking me back to the start - right after the Cleric class in my case. Went back through the survey a couple times and it keeps kicking me there. :(
We had a couple errors we had to correct this morning, which necessitated editing the survey and might have caused this error. Give it another try and let me know if it happens again!
I'm tempted to use this implementation at my table, to be honest. XD
Which reminds me, and also bears mentioning: not since the Great 'Loth Conspiracy have fiends gotten such a teleportation nerf. They've only got dimension door now, and it's only 60'. It's as if, to answer the question of "what are the ramifications of a race of malicious teleporters?", the dev team opted for the easiest possible answer and just removed the teleportation.
Most of them can use 5th-level dimension door once per day to teleport a mile.
Power attack already scales badly, bus as worded right now, it doesn't even scales at 10 if you pick it up with the Fighter Dedication Archetype.
Going through and collecting errata, and just got to this post! The dice should scale up, because the archetype's limit to your fighter level applies only to prerequisites and Power Attack should care about only your level, not your "fighter level."
John Lynch 106 wrote:
It's interesting to see the difference between Minor Elixir of Life (1d6 HP or +1 item bonus to Fort saves for 1 hour) vs Healing Potion (1d8 HP). I'll be interested to see what players prefer.
I suspect they'll prefer to buy healing potions, but be happy to take minor elixirs of life that an alchemist in their party makes for free. :)
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Where can I find the rules for potion pricing? I've found pricing for very specific potions. But I can't find potions of healing (and am not sure what each potion would cost depending on heal level).
Potions are unique items rather than being spells with a price by level. You’ll find the healing potions starting on page 394!
Blood Money immediately comes to mind. With properly codified rarity their purpose will be well-defined, and will no longer be intensely problematic to introduce. I'm curious to see what's fallen on the common/uncommon side of the spectrum, particularly with regards to spells.
Most of the options (apart from class-specific ones like powers) are common in the Playtest Rulebook because it's a precursor to the Core Rulebook. There are a few uncommon and rare ones for doing things like reversing laws of physics, some forms of outright negation, and that kind of thing.
Blood transfusion... ;)
Largely to take pressure off your spell selection at higher levels. Rather than being encouraged to fill your high-level spell slots with versatile spells you might want to use lower-level slots for, you can fill a couple lower-level slots with spells you want to spontaneously heighten and pick the newest, hottest spells for your top-level slots. :)
Captain Morgan wrote:
I hope blasting damage is looking all right. I've been optimistic, but those feats leave me a little underwhelmed at first glance. (Though, if Dangerous Sorcery works off each seperate "hit" for a spell, Heightened Magic Missile is gonna be awesome.)
That's definitely one we're planning to keep a close eye on!
Rek Rollington wrote:
I was concerned when I heard you needed to know a spell at a higher level to cast it there so spontaneous heightening is a relief. But what is the logic behind them not being able to do this all the time? Is it too much of an advantage over a wizard or does it present too many options to a player when selecting which spell to cast?
Those, with the latter slowing down play at the table immensely. Plus it really pushes you to choose spells that have heightening effects, distorting your spell selection too much. Also, spontaneous heightening can be really strong with certain spells, and we wanted you to have to pick and choose a couple to focus on at a time rather than having all that access always and outpacing prepared casters.
Though I do worry that rolling all(?) of the spontaneous casters into a single class is a bit of overgrouping and doesn't give them as much room to make their possible feats more niche.
It's not really all the spontaneous spellcasters. It's a broadening of the sorcerer, but doesn't preclude other spontaneous casters from coming along later and this isn't the only spontaneous caster in the book.
Cloak: You have to invest it in order to activate it.
Staff: It applies to all your heal spells while it's invested.