Search Posts
Which heightened 9th level spells would you recommend? I guess Calm would be right there wouldn't it? In my humble opinion? No. No it wouldn't be. I would absolutely choose Overwhelming Presence over Calm. It's not even close. Overwhelming Presence can't be ended prematurely the same way Calm can, it affects a wider area, can trigger move or manipulate triggered reactions, and isn't a sustained duration.
It appears a spell like Heightened Roaring Applause would be better than Overwhelming Presence, at a much lower spell slot. 6th-rank Roaring Applause is good. Better? Debatable. The effect enemies suffer on a success is more situational, and Roaring Applause is also sustained duration. Of course you only have two 9th-rank slots at level 17, so you do have to make some choices. Between your desired Heroism and my suggestions you've got four choices already, notwithstanding other spells you could prepare in those two slots. So if I felt that Roaring Applause suited my CC needs I would absolutely consider leaving aside Overwhelming Presence. It's all based on your wants and needs.
Foresight is a fantastic buff. Overwhelming Presence does have the incapacitation trait, but as long as you use it on multiple enemies then even just two enemies that get a regular success will, in total, lose more actions than you spend casting the spell. Wails of the Damned isn't the strongest possible damaging spell you could have on the divine list, but it isn't a basic save and does its full damage even if the enemy gets a success, while failure and critical failures result in enemies suffering the drained condition.
I mean I play my characters like I believe they would act in-combat too; there was one time I apologized ahead of time to my party since an in-character personal grudge was going to make my player laser-focused on a specific enemy even when I knew OOC it wasn't going to be the most tactically sound thing to do. Even in that instance, my character knew about flanking, raising her shield, tripping. Etc. If this person is so desperate for an in-character justification on why their character "knows game mechanics," you can cite the fact that our PCs are either trained or experienced enough in fights, more so than the average level -1 commoner, to know this stuff!
Thank. you! This! Exactly this!
That might be why. PF2 is a system fundamentally designed with the idea that certain classes are better than others as a rule. Providing unnecessary buffs to the rogue while ignoring the Ranger is arguably more consistent with their overall design choices up until now than otherwise. Classes being better than others within the role they're designed for seems more fundamental to the game's design philosophy doesn't it? You are correct that imbalances occur, not to extent I've experienced in several other systems thankfully but they do occur. Whether such imbalances are intentional or not is probably not as straight-forward as we might be initially inclined to believe. Multiple people write the rules after all.
Good question and one I can only make an educated guess on. Though I think Teridax already covered what my guess would be lol. Prior to the remaster, I noticed that virtually everyone who optimises casters absolutely loathed attack spells due to a combination of them being hit or miss, which feels more painful with with limited spell slots, the lack of item bonuses, which made them more unreliable than a Martial's attacks, and the fact that many save spells that players preferred still had some effect even on a successful, but not critically successful, save. So I guess paizo saw the critiques and decided to make save spells more prevalent. Emphasis on I guess.
I think the general idea is that while this is an odd and unnecessary buff to the rogue, in the grand scheme of balance issues it's a fairly minor one, which makes it feel weird that it's sucking up so much air. I'm not seeing the huge game imbalance from ONE feature. The reason I'm not seeing it as a big deal is because it's not a big deal by itself. If you think the rogue class AS A WHOLE is unbalanced, then that is another argument but I see nothing unbalance with this feature in and of itself. Paizo didn't kick your dog or unbalance the game, it just buffed a class you didn't think need buffed. I'm confident that if this hubbub didn't happen, I'd have NEVER noticed this this, either from other players or myself as in the grand scheme of thing, this isn't even a blip in the oner all balance of the game. Sure Strike, IMO, was a MUCH bigger unbalancer before the errata. I think I have a better understanding of your views here, thank you. I never claimed that the entire game was unbalanced by this change, I merely believe that they unbalanced one class, however slightly, in a way I don't like.
I'm kind of baffled so many people are up in arms about this. It's odd/unusual but not everything has to cleanly fit in the lines. This doesn't even register in my list of things I'd want fixed. I don't intend to speak for everyone, but no other class with expert saves bumps the degree of success for all saves of that type. Fighters do so with fear effects sure but that's a particular niche. I feel this pushes rogues over the edge balance-wise, maybe not overwhelmingly so, but PF2E drew me to it in the first place for being probably the best balanced system I've personally GM'd and played; which isn't to say it's been perfect, I'll probably never see the perfectly balanced system, but it's been satisfying my desire for balance in a way no other system has. I dislike this precedent being set, and while it's too soon for me to say I fear what this means for classes brought into the game in the future, I now can't help but wonder what if this could lead to power-creep. As you say you don't understand why some of us are "up in arms," I admit I don't fully understand why you don't see any problem whatsoever here. Do you and I place different value on balance? Or is there another reason?
Someone posted this on Reddit.I guess everyone can pack their bags now. I guess so. Packin' up to go to my table and set my houserule against this save bump in stone.
Assuming one is looking to optimize, either fully or just to an extent, saving throws aren't the only consideration one makes for attributes. I pick CON for hit points as well, INT if I want a few more skills, etc. And how is taking Uncanny Acumen from a great feat to pick, to a mandatory feat to get any decent saving throws allowing more freedom of choice?
I see this scenario as falling very much into, quite literally, "master of none" as the game goes on. A class that lacks master proficiency in any saving throw is going to be worse at surviving enemy abilities and spells than even the poor squishy wizard. For a hypothetical scenario as an example; If my fighter and my team's wizard both get caught by some hypothetical confusion effect and my fighter fails, I'd prefer my wizard teammate succeeded and had the wherewithal to use a wall spell to make sure my now confused fighter's only valid target was the enemy, or some way to break the confusion, or an invisibility spell to hide. My example is getting away from me here. The teammate whose will save is just as poor as the fighter's will save isn't helping out in this scenario. So to answer the question more directly, I can't see myself placing that much value on a teammate whose unlikely to pass any DC at all as opposed to teammates who are at least likely to pass one type of DC. So to my next question, why do you see this as a more interesting tool?
To me it seems at once overpowering and intruding into the niches of other classes' good saves. If everyone bumps a save, why design enemy abilities with a save DC at all? That's just my first thought though; why do you hope for more expert saves bumping the degree of success?
I could have sworn a developer already confirmed that Rogue Resilience wasn't supposed to bump the degree of success; so I will grant it's strange it hasn't been addressed in this latest round of errata. Not that it changes a thing for me, I already have it set at my tables that it won't bump the degree of success.
Or perhaps a bonus to the DC of the spellstrike's spell rather than the GM having to adjust saving throws? Might not matter in a (well-made) VTT setting, but this might be easier on our homies still doing Pen & Paper. I miss my old PFS group. )-;
Yes and that's where I put it. Did I say something to indicate I didn't? Ah. I can see where I was unclear now. Thank you for that. I had the levels where one gains studious spell slots in mind when I made my post, and I also wasn't at all thinking of archetyping for focus spells. So I was just thinking of the magus's native spell slots when I was commenting on how the Sure Strike changes meant nothing to me personally. None of this is my commenting on different builds or playstyles or preferences on how one does spellstriking; how one wants to approach spellstriking is entirely their business. On the note of IW. I did an IW Magus all of once; it was an elf girl who was very introverted and would prefer to paint her thoughts on a canvas than fight if she could. I was looking forward to seeing how that story played out... too bad the GM ghosted us. (-_-)
Sure Strike can go in studious slots. Yes and that's where I put it. Did I say something to indicate I didn't?
If I'm being honest, I'm not sure the changes to Sure Strike are going to change much for the Magus. I'm only speaking from my personal experience here, Spellstrikes with cantrips have never really felt wasted if I missed so I never bothered with sure strike on those. I am one of those Magus players who likes to have one spell slot for an offensive spellstrike spell, but I only dedicate one spell slot for that big offensive spell, so the fact that Sure Strike is effectively just once-per-combat in text changes nothing for me.
And done. The champion guide itself, and the discussion thread.
Two years after sharing a Magus guide and constant updates to it I thought to myself I'd never write another one again. Yet here we are. So I humbly present... Praise the Champion: A Holy Text for our Gods' Most Worthy There's still sections I'd like to add and things I'd like to clean up a little, but I hope that the guide, even as-is, may provide some assistance to anyone looking for some advise on the champion class.
This is coming from a rather outside game mechanics position, but having both spells and swordplay skills sounds more like the same kind of diversification someone would have taking longbow training and also having training in melee combat. (Longbow training IRL took a lot of years to get good at). I've always considered the fighter's in-game reason for having the best attack rating because they're the most dedicated to their weapon mastery training over others; barbarians fight angry, champions spend time in worship and learning their deity granted powers. In the case of the Magus the split training in swords and sorcery means less polish than a dedicated fighter and wizard respectively. While somatic components aren't really a consideration in the Remaster I usually imagined that a magus integrating somatic gestures into their weapon style meant that there would be movements a dedicated arms-master would find wasteful, but for the magus a necessary step for integrating spells into their weapon strikes; that's just my head-canon though. The main advantage is that the warrior in question can enhance their own weapon and armor to bypass magical defenses. They aren't going to waste their time increasing the destructive force of a single strike unless they are doing something like trying to break through a gate during a siege, because it would take too much time to both use the incantation and then actually swing the sword. Magic weapons and armor already do that though. In 1e it used to be that guns targeted touch AC, but with the elimination of touch AC that's not a thing anymore. I seem to remember one dev saying somewhere that one in-universe justification for why guns target regular AC now is that magic armor can already help ward off dragon fangs, so why not bullets? (I can't remember exactly where I read this though.) So I take this to mean that magic weapons and armor are already bypassing a lot of magical defenses. A wizard's AC might suck compared to an equivalent level fighter but that doesn't mean they don't have magical defenses at all. So with the magical arms race already taking care of that problem, why not enhance their strikes the way they do? Mobility is the second potential use of magic that might be useful. But again, the benefit has to outweigh the extra cost in time to incant. Such a character would probably be using magic to reduce the burden of long forced marches across terrain instead of trying to use it readily on the field while in active engagement. Tailwind. A 2nd-rank tailwind is easy enough to get on a wand and grant the caster enhanced mobility for several hours in a day. Other spells exist that ease logistical burdens and are usually low-enough rank that access to them isn't too much of a problem. Perhaps they haven't come up in this topic much since the thrust of the topic is more about polishing out what some people find rough about the Magus's combat capabilities? Or perhaps lower-rank spells taking care of such logistical problems already existing and generally working as intended? Now a tradition that doesn't use incantations but does something like channeling magic in less aggressive ways could work. Like you have charges that are prepared in the morning where the individual is actually doing the incantations, and the warrior would then expend the charges during combat or over the course of the day. This would pair well with enchanting a weapon in the morning so that it can bypass magic defenses. If I recall the Secrets of Magic book, much of daily preparations for spellcasters is actually spent casting the spell to about 90% or so completion. It's the incantations and gestures that finish the remaining 10% and manifest the effects.
I really don't think that's a fair response to someone leaving for unknown reasons. Micheal obviously did great work but to suggest everything is going to decline because he left just seems disrespectful.A year ago I warned of dark times ahead. I suspect this is just the beginning of the decline.Michael Sayre has definitely left Paizo, I am sure that has interfered in the Errata plans.I'll be honest, the loss of him and Mark Seifter really doesn't fill me with confidence in the system's direction. I can understand where they might be coming from. As an aging gamer I know I have experienced once beloved developers become shells of what they were after the talent that helped define their initial success moved on to other opportunities. All of that said I do agree with you in saying that it's disrespectful to call doom and gloom. We can't see the future, maybe it will be bad, but it could also be that great things are on the way too.
Lol. Glad to be forgiven! More importantly, glad to see you flesh this idea out. ;-)
I'm not necesseraly against the stance costing an action, if there is more things to make it worth it. More possibilities once you're in that stance, like monks getting special actions tied to specific stances (Dragon Roar for example with Dragon Stance)Well there are feats that require you be in it, but I guess players don't think they are worth it? The idea you suggest has the advantage of not requiring Paizo to change the mechanics - they could just add feats to the class that either give some big benefit for being in cascade, or give you an action that puts you in cascade in addition to whatever else the feat does. Main thing I want for arcane cascade is for it to not take two actions to activate. Though hey if more bits and pieces like this suggestion can make it more dynamic and remain balanced it does seem fun. If you'll pardon my playing devil's advocate for a moment; The 1st-level Magus feat of Magus's Analysis does combine Recall Knowledge with recharging, with the caveat of recharging your spellstrike being contingent on a successful recall knowledge roll. I personally have not met the magus player who likes this feat, myself included. What would make your proposal different?
Working on a champion guide right now myself. I'm not as confident about it as my current magus guide but still, I do like the class and want to offer my advise for it, such as it is. I'll share when it's ready.
I want to create a random encounter table for an urban center (a major city specifically) but I'm uncertain where to start. What should the flat d20 DC be for an urban center? What modifiers would change that DC? And crucially, what sort of hazards and enemies could you encounter?
"NPCs follow their own rules so they don't have to be Mythic because reasons," was my initial reaction. But after thinking on it, wouldn't it be more fair to say that James Jacob's position is that "There should be a plausible in-story reason for why an NPC might be an exception?"There should be plausible in-story reasons for everything that happens. The fact that you can handwave a reason into being retroactively doesn't mean that it's good storytelling to do so. While I happen to agree with the reasons given for Karzoug specifically, your statement is still true. Tropes are tools and execution counts for a lot.
"NPCs follow their own rules so they don't have to be Mythic because reasons," was my initial reaction. But after thinking on it, wouldn't it be more fair to say that James Jacob's position is that "There should be a plausible in-story reason for why an NPC might be an exception?"
Your point-blank shot example still would use AC within the game logic, as would a spellstrike with an attack spell only be using AC within the game logic. Now should save-based spells go by the same logic? IIRC I think Paizo went this direction in the playtest for the Magus and the feedback they got was one reason they changed it (please correct me if I'm wrong here, that playtest feels like ages ago). As it happens, maybe there is some internally consistent logic here for why expansive spellstrike doesn't follow that logic? Consider, one thing that isn't often talked about regarding Expansive Spellstrike is that the harmful, non-attack, spell in question still activates even if the original strike misses; though it is lost with no effect if the original strike critically misses. So perhaps the save-dependent spell isn't so much imbued with the strike as it is riding on the proverbial coattails of the strike? Even if my suggestion isn't how the internal logic goes, there's room for interpretation, as with all fiction, that the subject can still resist the spell that made contact with them, in the case of fortitude and will saves, or roll with the blow, for want of a better term in the case of reflex saves. Wouldn't you try to shield your face if fire or acid splashed up from your torso?
As I'm not part of the Paizo design team I can only guess that they decided to de-emphasize spells with the attack trait. But again, strictly speaking the pre-remaster spells still exist and can be used at your table. Is there a specific reason you can't use the pre-remaster versions? Is the alternative better? If a magus could spellstrike all combat every turn without cost it would far out-damage any other martial in the game. The point, as I see it, is to have a hybrid spellcaster/martial be balanced in the same space that specialist martials and specialist spellcasters exist in. In game design it is important to balance the player-facing options as much as you can in order to avoid flagrantly overpowering options so that you broaden your appeal to an audience interested in a variety of options and keep the existing audience engaged in coming back to try new things. Gamers tend to gravitate towards optimum options but that's not good for the health of the game in the long-run, as the same obviously better solutions will get repetitive quickly and hurt long-term engagement with the game. So if the magus could spellstrike every turn, why would gamers interested in optimization ever touch a barbarian or a ranger? Now is the balance perfect? No. Is it currently competitive, if you want to use that term? I say yes but I don't speak for everyone. Is making the magus better at engaging in melee better than any other class the solution?
Have you considered these counterpoints? - They keep losing eligible spells for a regular Spellstrike. Strictly speaking they haven't lost any spells. Paizo's stance is that you may still use pre-remaster spells that aren't flagrantly replaced by another remaster spell. While it does seem a number of attack spells have been replaced in spirit, the fact that some replacements lack the attack trait means that the old attack spells still fulfill a function for the magus. Could they rework the magus to work without attack spells? Probably, and it's something they should definitely consider if they really do want to abandon attack spells.
- They cannot bypass saves, be for the regular or the Expansive Spellstrike. Taking this statement completely literally this is untrue as it is still possible. Of course I dare presume to understand the spirit of this statement and indeed the magus is so unlikely to overcome the saves of stronger enemies that it's not worth spending actions to try. The option still exists for groups of weaker enemies if you lack a better blaster in the party. Though in truth I don't believe you should go into the class with the expectation that your spell DCs are your main asset. You have full martial weapon proficiency with the ability to hit powerful spikes in your weapon damage. Each class is designed to fulfill different roles and niches, and spell DCs are the domain of full spell-casters, not martials or hybrid classes like the Magus.
- They must spend ONE action to recharge Spellstrike, instead of, y'know, recharging by itself. Is the alternative better? If a magus could spellstrike all combat every turn without cost it would far out-damage any other martial in the game. Sure a magus with haste and one who gets the 20th-level feat to recharge it as a free action have this privilege but the former costs spell slots and actions to cast, while the other requires maximum level where one is expected to achieve great power, so still a cost. A large part of PF2E's appeal is that one must make tactical choices in the game round-to-round about the best use of your actions. Truly the Magus is only unique in that they have a few different decisions to make compared to other classes.
- They must spend ANOTHER action to activate Arcane Cascade. A magus doesn't strictly have to since many of their features work without it. In fact I've seen some debate that it might not be worth using at all. I disagree with that stance in truth but I'm getting off track. By and large I'd be repeating my point of having to make tactical choices in PF2E, however in truth I do have some issues with arcane cascade currently as well. It's not that it costs one action, it costs as minimum TWO actions. You have to cast a spell to even enter Arcane Cascade which effectively makes it the most costly stance to enter in the game. Sure you usually only have to enter stance once-per-combat but every other stance is the same way and only costs one action. If Paizo deems that everything else about the magus works perfectly I would hope this is the one thing they decide needs addressing.
and the Magus would climb from "below-average" to "decent". Taken from experience, if you get fixated on its weakpoints it's easy to overlook that the myriad parts of the class come together to make it something more than just the sum of its parts. In my experience I'd put it well above "decent" to "a blast to play." Is this class for everyone? No and it doesn't have to be, that's the beauty of a game with multiple options to choose from.
I can't say I'm a fan of getting rid of spell attacks entirely, if anything spell attacks could use more love from Paizo's design team. Though the idea of a Magus not strictly needing attack spells to perform a spellstrike sounds interesting. I say interesting without necessarily endorsing or condemning the idea though. A lot would be adjusted about the class if that were to become the new norm for the Magus.
Given the relative lack of spells suitable for spell striking, it might be more interesting to allow a Magus to use spell slots to enhance their strikes in more bespoke ways... In fairness, other classes that have dedicated slots, such as cleric's divine font, are also drawing from a very restricted list. That said having more bespoke ways to customize strikes could make for interesting feat options.
Funny I had been wondering if maybe the Magus could be redesigned with a small number of spell slots dedicated to spellstrike compatible only spells. A neat idea but I'm too squeamish about homebrew to try testing it myself. I also don't know if that would be the correct response to the optimization community's, understandable if a tad unfortunate IMO, tendency to ignore attack spell slots in favor of attack cantrips and focus cantrips. On the subject of focus spells and spellstrike, I am firmly of the opinion that the choice to conserve focus spells for action-efficient conflux spells or use them for powerful attack focus spells is a valid choice with costs and benefits for either decision; making tactical choices on the best use of your resources, be it actions or spells, is what makes PF2E so engaging. Of course Imaginary Weapon is powerful without having any focus point cost so it kind of side-steps the need to make a choice there. Side note, conceptually Unsheathing the Sword-Light sounds cool as hell, but I find it so impractical. Other Hybrid Studies already had serviceable feats that cost spell slots.
While I don't want to rely on "different rules because NPC," at the very least the example you provided here gives us a reason why Karzoug is an exception, so I'm happy to have an example of how an exception could exist without necessarily breaking immersion. Thank you for that. I suppose I understand the reasoning for these rituals being mythic. I still can't say I'm a fan of these rituals being mythic by default since it'd be nice to make these options exist for non-mythic games in the printed rules.
I don't see how any of these rituals are more game-changing than Wish is, in fact many of them seem less impactful than Wish, and yet they can only be performed by those who are stepping into the realm of gods and immortals?
The rituals printed in War of Immortals aren't sitting right with me. It's not that I have a problem with the rituals in-and-of themselves, but I can't say I'm fond of classics like Create Demiplane, Imprisonment, and Freedom are now inaccessible to anyone who lacks mythic power. Like, are evil wizards all suddenly going to have to get into the real estate market? In THIS economy!? Jokes aside, I dislike the idea that one must be mythic to seal away the immortal evil, or magically reinforce a structure. This feels like a needless restriction on rituals that are already tagged uncommon or rare, and thus plainly subject to GM discretion to begin with.
Your guess is as good as mine. O_O
I'm playing a character that's deeply invested in their crafting skill for the first time and I noticed that the book says you need different sets of Artisan's Tools for different crafting. Now I could shove the different kits into a Spacious Pouch but I'm still curious to know if there's any alternative to needing to haul around a whole bunch of Artisan's Toolkits?
I too have long been contemplating a Frieren build. The ideas I've come up with... Ancestry
Her initial ancestry feat would be a toss-up between Ancestral Longevity and Forlorn. I ultimately favor Forlorn since Frieren's gradual emotional processing of the mortality of her friends is central to her character, and while she's well learned from her experiences her skill-set has been fairly consistent and nothing unexpected so mechanically it felt harder to justify Ancestral Longevity. Class
Arcane School on the other hand would easily be School of Unified Magical Theory; Frieren loves magic and would like to keep her studies broad. Plus in her home series she is apathetic to the numerous organizations that have tried to regulate magic she has seen come and go in her long lifetime. Skills
Class Feat suggestions
Cantrip Expansion and Bond Conservation: She likes magic, even the silly little spells, and these give her more spells to use in a day. Spell Mastery: I mean there's an argument for other 20th level class feats, but I feel Spell Mastery best captures a Frieren-like build. Frieren's usual combat philosophy in her home series is to stick to basic spells when those will do the job, which suggests that she doesn't prize super powerful or complicated spells any more than she would other spells; plus this also just generally gives her more spells to cast in a day. This is all just speculation of course but I think the above points can emulate Frieren as best as possible in this system.
To my mind, strikers scroll is very good for inexorable iron. Provided your GM let's you purchase shocking grasp scrolls. Striker's Scroll is even more situational than Devastating Spellstrike. The mileage you get out of that feat depends entirely on consumables, which requires money, a generous GM, or another means of regularly getting scrolls with specific traits like the Scroll Trickster Archetype.
Hello all. Just checking if anyone know any rumour about when and if they'll release an updated Magus class for the 2e Remaster. I have both Core books, just wondering. Meanwhile, can I use the same Magus from the older books or would you say it's better to change something? Thanks in advance. The others have already stated that a Remaster Magus is yet to come, but for now it's absolutely fine to use the Magus as-is. If you are interested in the Conflux Focus and Conflux Wellspring feats though I would talk to your GM about those; as those feats were written with the old rules for refocusing in mind and do not follow the current trend for refocusing feats.
More of a situational one in my book. At level 4 the Inexorable Iron Magus doesn't really have many better options to take in the first place so it won't really hurt. Having said that, if there's a lower-level class feat you want or if you're pursuing an archetype then you might have better options after all.
At long last, I got to add the new hybrid studies to this guide! Not only that, the ancestries and heritages from the Tian Xia character guide are in here as well! I haven't updated the Magus tactics section of the guide for the new Hybrid Studies just yet, I want to do more study/testing before I do. At a glance the new hybrid studies require a bit more system knowledge to make the most of, but I'm excited about what they bring to the table!
I don't suppose there will be any updates on the Magus class in this book...? Oh I hope and I wish. Alas I'm not going to count on it. As Elf says, the Lost Omens books tend to be more about the setting than the mechanics.
Nope, I have not gotten any requests for people to edit my guide. And much like you if anyone did they can go stow it. I opened a discussion thread so you can talk about what you think of the guide for a reason thank you.
Your GM is making good suggestions. A cleric staying at range can be adequate at both support and offense. I'd say a primal or arcane caster would be my pick to round them out.
A Rank 8 or higher Resurrect ritual will do the trick.
A better question is, what in Pharasma's name happened to your ally!?!
The Cleric has long needed an updated guide even before the Remaster, this is a service to the community! Thank you! One bit of critique I can offer, since this is for the Remastered Cleric, you may want to drop any terminology and math from "Ability Score" and shift it to "Attributes" For instance you reference starting strength at 16 and then take it to 20. It'd be best to change that to +3 and take it to +5.
This guide is for the class as published by Paizo with errata, and not a guide about the third-party content out there for the Magus. Even if I were a fan of third-party content I wouldn't include any here. |
