Ressy's page

It's an interesting issue.

Perhaps going back to the PF1 rule, where if the weapon leaves the hand, or touches anything (or the caster touches anything if the spell is held in an unarmed strike) it discharges the spell?

Alternatively, you could attach a penalty to initiative while a spell is held as a disincentive?

Or possibly split the actions to cast the spell, say require 1 action to "cast" the spell, and the remainder of the actions to deliver it after striking?

Honestly it sounds like Unicore is the one who likes playing on hardest difficulty settings for the feeling of accomplishment.

Not everyone's into that, some of us just want to play normal mode, rather than having to fight uphill to meet the baseline of other classes.

Lightdroplet wrote:

graystone wrote:

#3 Fine a way to allow some variety of action in Striking Spell rounds. This can be more 1 action spells, Sliding type actions for all synthesizes or something similar. I'd rather not be locked into a immobile play style if I want to use the signature ability.

A nice idea I've seen being floated around is to allow every Magus to Step as part of Striking Spell, with each synthesis adding another action you can choose to do instead, like Stride for Slide Casting, Reload for Shooting Star and a Raise a Shield equivalent for Sustaining Steel.

I really like Reload as an incentive for Shooting Star, as it creates a major break between Eldritch Archers and Shooting Star Magus. You could use a bow, but then you get less benefit than a crossbow. And my read is that you can't use crossbows at all with Eldritch Archer.

Could also add draw a weapon for Shooting Star, so throwing characters can pull out another throwing weapon to use.

I've suggested something similar.

Give the basic Striking Spell a free step action or something, and then add more options for the various synthesis. Things like a sword+board style getting a free raise shield action, or a ranged synthesis getting a free reload or draw weapon, or such. Add some more special abilities like Spell Parry or Raise a Tome as options via feats rather than synthesis.

What you end up with is a short list of things you can do while casting a spell, and the ability to decide which to use based on the situation.

Not to mention, unless you fail at your very first Strike, on the round you initially cast the spell, you're going to be eating a MAP on those strikes (and to the spell if it has an attack roll).

Allowing a free reload action wouldn't invalidate Eldritch Archer. Especially with how Eldritch Shot/Striking Spell are currently: Where one has much more strict range limitations and requires two rolls, whereas the other is single-roll and lets you use melee spells at 100' with a longbow.

It seems like a Magus Boss would specialize in taking down one PC at a time, either via disabling effects or outright damage.

Either way, I find that bosses that target multiple PCs are easier to deal with than ones that focus on downing PCs one at a time, especially if they're smart enough to down the squishies first (as a Sliding Magus might be apt to do).

I expect that casting a Spell or Cantrip through Striking Spell is superior to just casting it normally.

Either it costs less resources, takes less actions, is more likely to hit, or at the very least is on-par while activating useful rider abilities.

Edit: I just don't see this happening with a 2 action activity that lets you cast a 2 action spell and make an attack because that is just clearly better than a full caster can do, especially if the spell gets to use a full martial's weapon attack bonus + item bonus.

I don't really see a problem with it. For one thing a Wizard could do the spell in 2 actions at range, with a similar to-hit bonus (higher proficiency, higher stat).

Nothing wrong with being equal or slightly better in a very narrow area than a pure caster, especially if the narrow area is "hitting things with weapons while casting spells in melee".

However, if 2-action cast+Strike is too powerful, we could see a flexible free action attached to the 3-action cast+Strike, similar to Slide Casting. For example as base allow Step, then with feats or auto-progression move to allow things like raising a shield, Stride, casting a 1-action cantrip (shield), reloading a ranged weapon, or other options.

Heck, if the free action is part of the base ability, you could attach various options for it to the Synergies. Such as the 2-handed synergy allowing casting shield, a sword+board style allowing raise a shield, free-hand style allowing a full Stride (or possibly activating Spell Parry), and Shooting Star allowing a reload action.

I'd prefer their spells be just as easy to land, but harder to set up to use.

Like making Magus need to Strike an enemy before casting. Hell, maybe give them a mechanic like Panache, and they end it by casting a spell rather than using a Finishing Move.

The above is just a random thought, but I like the general approach of limiting which spells the Magus can use, or when the Magus can use spells, rather than just making their magic miss even more than a full-caster's.

Buffing their proficiency to be equivalent to full progression, but only when delivering via Striking Spell (or some other equally-effective accuracy boost) is probably the simplest way. It would drive in that the Magus is not better than a Wizard, but they are equal within a narrow focus.

Everything you mention as a positive is something I hate about the mechanic.

1) You don't need to use it every turn.
-Yeah, because realistically you can't use it every turn. Everyone else can do their thing every turn, why does the Magus have to be built so that it's either bad or impossible?

2) Massive swinginess makes successes feel better!
-Also makes failures more common, and failures feel bad. An unlucky run just feels terrible. Also a nightmare to balance for the GM, when a boss might die in 1 hit or destroy the party because one player can't hurt them.

4) Every +1 matters more!
-Again, balance Nightmare.

was I the only one who used the close range arcana to just stab people with ray of frost (or, very occasionally, disrupt undead)?

That's exactly what I did, never even crossed my mind to try and find a non-damaging cantrip with touch range to (ab)use.

"whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch”": Arcane Mark "Range touch".

The Arcana was Close Range: it was great but didn't kick in until 3rd where Arcane Mark worked at 1st. I tended to go for Arcane Accuracy or Pool Strike first.

... I had no reason, as someone playing a magus, to look at non-damaging spells. Because I was trying to play the class the way it was intended to be played, by channeling attack spells through a sword.

I'm not arguing it doesn't work by RAW, I'm stating that as a player I never had a reason to look at Arcane Mark as a spell to use in that manner.

Arcane Mark was ultra cheesy too. I never had a DM who allowed it, or at most once per opponent. Made it a bit harder for me, but I'd prefer to have an actual touch attack spell than doing something that feels like exploiting a bug xD

As I said, not saying it's not viable, just that it's cheesy. They'd better just introduce a 1 action attack cantrip that's weaker than the others.

I was never even aware of Arcane Mark as an option. I just used the Magus Arcana that let you use a ranged spell as touch and used Ray of Frost...

I really like the idea of using Message to call out the name of your techniques when you hit people.

I'd just have mine scream out the sound effects from old-school Batman TV show/ comic book.

SOCK!
BIFF!
KAPOW!
BAM!

Ressy wrote:

Unicore wrote:

super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.

Comet Spell requires casting a spell from a spell-slot, it does not work with cantrips.

Heck, it doesn't even work with Focus spells...

Where does it say that? Nothing in it mentions slots.

COMET SPELL [free-action] FEAT 10

ARCANE EVOCATION MAGUS
Prerequisites shooting star magus synthesis
Trigger You hit with a ranged Strike and discharge a stored
spell that you had cast from a spell slot.

You create a trail of magical energy that flows from your
target back to you. Each creature in a line between you and
the target, not including you or the target, takes force damage
equal to the spell’s level. If the triggering spell was of the
evocation school, increase the damage by half the spell’s level
and change the damage type to one type dealt by the spell
(your choice).

Now Cascading Ray will work with cantrips, but it also has a built-in -5 or -10 MAP, so frankly it's absolute garbage...

super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.

Comet Spell requires casting a spell from a spell-slot, it does not work with cantrips.

I think making it a 3-action requirement for melee is not the best call, unless it always comes with some sort of free action. Preferably Step/Stride, though I could also see free shield raise or other defensive action as an option for some synergies.

Personally I'd just make it 2 actions and call it a day.

In general, I'd like to see some feats/abilities that just straight up let you do magical things with your sword.

Not "when you use Striking Spell", just abilities that stand on their own.

The Spell Parry line is a good example of what I'd like to see more of. It starts off as essentially a "raise a shield/buckler" ability, but then gets upgrades that make it unique from other equivalents.

Maybe they get a Cleave equivalent, except the second hit is lightning chaining off the first target. Then upgrade to allow it to make additional attacks against multiple targets.

Maybe an attack feat that sticks people to the floor with ice when you hit them with your weapon, or a high-leveled one that inflicts short-term paralysis. There's a bunch of status effects that are too "magical" for Fighters to inflict, but aren't something overpowered to cause for a round.

Also, I don't think that Portal Slide would be overpowered if it was implemented as a magical alternative to Tumble. Make an Arcana check, move up to half-speed via teleportation as a single action.

Let's see if I understand, if you use a spell attack you automatically get a success on it if you hit the strike.

That is kinda problematic with the current design of the game that you either get an accuracy boost like Double Slice and Knockdown or action efficiency boost like Flurry of Blows and Dual Weapon Blitz.

Having both at the same time kinda breaks stuff.

Unless I got the text wrong and that you still have to roll the spell attack with it with MAP, in that case is the action efficiency boost and that is more acceptable.

FWIW, Eldritch Shot gives both action economy and removes MAP.

MAP is effectively removed as both attacks hit or miss as one.

Action economy is due to free "reach" metamagic: whatever spell you use has it's range extended to the bow's range, rather than the spell's default range. You can use melee spell strikes at 80' or more.

Just going to point out, swapping Eldritch Shot to Eldritch Strike, the latter should get some sort of bonus. There's a big advantage of Eldritch Shot that would be lost.

Free "reach" metamagic: your spell's range is now your bow's range. Even for touch spells.

So, as a melee variant would instead be reducing your range on any spell to melee, rather than increasing your range, it should get something else to compensate.

Pretty sure that's intentional, to prevent magic casters from casting more than one offensive spell per turn.

The only 1-action attack spell I can remember off the top of my head is the 1-action version of Magic Missile. Which just feels like a waste.

This was clarified in another thread, they used an older Template for Magus and it's intended that their Unarmed proficiency scales alongside their Simple and Martial proficiencies.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436ga?Lets-Talk-About-Arcane-Fists-Athletics-a nd#5

I am 100% in favor of removing the stupid crit mechanic, at least as a base part of the class.

It's become obvious that so long as it's there, everything will be balanced around it, which means that we end up with abilities that are very "swingy", as in high highs, and low lows.

I'd much rather it be reserved for a synthesis, so that people who want a reliable class can play a Magus that's not forced to go for buff/flanking/true-strike builds.

By all means, leave it as an option for people who want it, but please don't make it a default ability that's costing feature budget to everyone else.

Why not just graph the resultant expected damage/round values vs the roll required to hit?

If you do it that way it becomes pretty obvious that Magus' damage is more dependent on bonuses/penalties to hit than other classes.

By which I mean that a +1 to-hit for a Magus is a larger relative boost to their damage than it would be for a Rogue or a Barbarian.

You can add labels such as: normal enemy AC, flat-footed enemy, high-AC enemy, etc...

Why do people keep talking about the Magus and Utility?

The 1e Magus was not a Utility class. They did not, generally speaking, have utility spells. Check the spell list, anything they had which counted as utility (like Invisibility) was just a combat spell that could be used outside of combat.

The magus is, was, and has always been about spending their magic into the faces of their enemies by hitting them with a stick. With a side of combat buffs.

Now, all that out of the way...

I do like your idea of combat font. I'd prefer to do it somehow via focus spell mechanics, but just getting x free slots per day of some small sub-list, depending on synthesis. Presumably made up primarily of buff spells.

What about making it, instead of a 1-action Focus spell, a reaction Focus spell?

Maybe the trigger is you need to crit with a Strike, or a Striking Spell Strike, or a Spell?

Maybe the trigger is you need to have missed, or otherwise not done any effect, with a spell-slot spell?

There's probably other good ideas for triggers people can come up with?

The Magus gets more benefit from to-hit bonuses, and more penalty from to-hit reductions.

They are much more sensitive to enemy AC than any other class so far.

That, and the fact that there is only currently one efficient build for them (sliding and crit-fishing) means that something needs to change. Both to make the rest of the game easier to balance (because bonuses and penalties have inordinate effect on a single class), but also to make the class itself viable across multiple playstyles. Like every other class in the game.

---

Anyway, thanks for doing the probability trees to calculate this out.

I found an error in the crit weapon hit contribution, and recalculated everything both for one round and two rounds.

Using the new calculations for one round routines Striking Spell is sometimes beneficial in weapon to hit >=60% range. In this range you could lose 10% damage output or gain up to 20% in some sweet spots. No damage ratio or to hit in range is always beneficial.

In the two rounds routine I took the second round to always be three strikes. Striking Spell turned out pretty beneficial in this calculation, giving a 5%-15% boost in most situations. There were some with less, and some with more, but overall an improvement.

My conclusions? Striking Spell can be beneficial, but it does so at great cost to action flexibility due to requiring all actions in round one and possibly many in round two; slide casting helps a lot with this issue, but the other syntheses don't.

The next question to answer is how does a base Magus compare with other gishes (either martial classes with caster dedications, casters with martial\combat style dedications, or some focus spell based builds). I'd like to see a comparison with the Eldritch archer in particular. I have to say I doubt the Magus will fare well against any of these, but we will see.

Question: did you use an attack-roll based spell, or a save-based spell?

And it can't be allowed to be 'great', lest Magus would invalidate all other martial classes.

Bit of a conundrum, but what would you rather see? The Spell Strike hitting more often, but for middling damage outside of crits, or swingy damage with the potential of really massive crits?

No contest, for a base class feature, rather than build-specific or optional feature, I would 100% rather have reliable middling damage.

Making the class' central feature force building and playing towards crit-fishing is probably the worst design for a class I have seen in 2e.

The central idea of 2e is that a class has multiple ways to play it.

Magus does not have that, you are either crit-fishing, or you're not competitive.

The Pathfinder 1e Magus barely had non-combat spells.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/magus-spell-list/

Looking at the 1st level spells, every single one is a combat applicable buff or an attack spell. Some of the buffs have non-combat applications (like Jump).

So limiting the Magus to combat relevant spells would be completely in line with the 1e magus.

If we go that way, I'd say make it 1 action to store a spell, and make a second 1-action ability you can use after striking to finish casting the spell.

Or alternatively, make Finisher like strike abilities, possibly upgrade them via feats or auto-progression, and have that be the method of delivering.

Something like the basic one is 2-actions and is simply strike+finish casting.
Then an upgraded one is Strike+Finish Casting, and if you miss the Strike you can still Cast. Or one that takes an extra action and lets you strike 2 enemies instead of one.

Question, did you calculate this around standard MAP? Or around agile?

Is there much of a difference between the two?
Obviously it'll boost 3 strikes vs Strike+Cast, and probably also Striking Spell vs Strike+Cast, but hard to intuit by how much.

I can see that. I guess I'd just rather see a martial with some magical ability attached to their sword-slinging than a martial with what feels like tacked-on magical casting that doesn't mesh with their martial abilities.

Even in Pathfinder 1 the Magus was a very Battle-centric class when it came to spellcasting. Just look at their spell list.

I'd be good with that, but I'd suggest changing the basic focus spell to the following:

(1-3 actions)
The Magus casts a spell out of their spellbook. This action takes the same number of actions the spell normally would. The spell loses the [manipulate] trait. This spell is heightened to the level of the focus spell.

Maybe add some restrictions on what type of spell (attack only), or bonuses, or restrictions on when the focus spell is cast (only after a successful attack).

So, here's a thought...

What if Magus, as a class, didn't get access to the "Cast a Spell" action. Also assume they can't gain it for their Magus spells via dedications/archetypes.

What if the Magus could only cast a spell after conditions were fulfilled. For instance a successful Strike, being hit by an enemy, blocking with a shield, etc...

Do people like the idea of instead of making magus kinda bad at magic, but able to use it all the time, they require conditions to use their magic but are instead actually good at it?

An example of this approach, assume the basic trigger is hitting with a Strike.
After hitting with a Strike, the Magus can cast a spell. The spell loses the [Manipulate] trait.

Or, alternatively, require the Magus to take a 1-action "charge up" ability, which charges them for 1 minute or until a spell is cast. Then as above, they can cast while charged up if they succeed a Strike. In this case, I'd also suggest adding some kind of bonus to the spell, such as costing 1 fewer actions; or alternatively giving some small benefit while "charged".

Possibly as above, except the Magus needs to make a special 1-action Strike action unique to the class to potentially trigger the spell. Maybe they get better versions later on in the class via feats or automatic progression.

The second and third of the above suggestions are based loosely on the Swashbuckler's Panache/Precise Strike/Finisher mechanic. Take an action to gain panache, get bonus dmg while panache is active, and lose it to add damage to a finisher blow (which only consumes panache if it connects).

So, thoughts?

I'd be fine with being worse in terms of spells/day, versatility, or spell level than an archetype if they had a class feature that really let them capitalize on cantrip usage.

The way I see it, Magus in 1e was all about splashing a bunch of low-level (1-3) spells constantly in combat while swinging at enemies.

In 2e, scaling low-level attack magics have been replaced by auto-scaling cantrips. We all understand that at higher levels low-level slots are not useful for attack spells, only utility/buff.

So, I think focusing the Magus' combat on the effective use of cantrips would be a good focus. If they can use cantrips better than an actual Wizard or Sorcerer it's fine, because the Wiz or Sorc can be better with spell slots.

I would be ok with magus being the highest damaging class if it is the highest damaging class a few times a day. then maybe a little below for the rest of the day. How many times per day is a bit more debatable.

Right now it's more like Magus might get to be the highest damage class once or twice per day, on average, if built specifically for crit-shenanigans and they take a set-up turn for buffs...

I don't think you even need to tie it to a feat, just look at the free damage boost Swashbuckler gets from precise Strike.
Starts at 2, and ramps up to 6.
In fact, this feels like it can be compared to the Panache/Precise Strike/Finisher mechanic on the Swashbuckler.
Both charge themselves with something (Spell/Panache), then get a bonus while charged, and can discharge for a larger effect.
Swashbuckler has less effect from discharge, but can also get Panache infinitely, and with fewer actions spent.

This feat should be made to work with the rest of the class in regards to "need a hand-free" incompatiabilites, but it also.... is just a really bad feat in general? It's primarily "spend a class feat to get the raise shield action"... which everyone already has.

Not even that, Magus already inherently has access to the Shield cantrip.

This seems very familiar
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4369h?Crits-Action-Economy-Boost-and-Synthesis

Seriously though, I do like your take: has a lot more of the details addressed.

I also like your ideas for synthesis options, and how the "free" action depends on synthesis choice. Always being a free stride, but more options opening up.

"the number of spells" not "the spells you know".

So what, a wizard needs a separate page on their spellbook for Shocking Grasp level 2?
Explain to me how someone who knows how to cast Wish wouldn't know how to cast Mage Armor.

A Sorcerer needs to learn Shocking Grasp level 2 as a separate spell, unless they take Shocking Grasp as one of their Signature Spells.

However, since you can still use a staff after expending your spell slots of the appropriate level, I'd say it's obviously intended to be allowed.

It's just not clarified that it's allowed. Frankly there are probably going to be a lot of clarifications added to the weird spellcasting mechanic of the Magus/Summoner.

Sorry, should've been clearer.

I know you can prepare a 1st level spell in a 9th level slot and it'll cast as a 9th level spell, even if it gets no benefit for being a 9th level spell.
I was asking if you can prepare a 1st level spell in a 9th level slot, and have it still count as a 1st level spell.
The books don't say you can, and if you can't cast 1st level spells, you can't cast True Strike from a staff.

Ah, in that case the book seems equally clear, that you cannot.

The only way in the book to cast a spell out of a slot is if the spell's level and the slot's level match. You can heighten the spell to match the slot, but it must be hightened by the rules.

It's not explicitly disallowed, but the rules only state that spell-level=slot level, and heighten lets you modify the spell's level.

Of course, even if you can't cast 1st level spells, you still count as being able to cast True Strike, just not a level 1 True Strike.

Has it been confirmed that you can definitely still cast 1st level spells with no 1st level spellslots?

It seems to just get waved away in this thread, but the books are inconclusive on if it's possible to put a 1st level spell in a 5th level slot and not have it be a 5th level spell.
(It may be that it's never clarified that you can because until now there was no reason why you would want to, but until it is clarified it's not a non-issue).

Besides that... I guess the 4-round adventuring day is the new 5 minutes?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=273

Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell. A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell by preparing it in a higher-level slot than its normal spell level, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level.

In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage. These extra benefits are described at the end of the spell’s stat block. Some heightened entries specify one or more levels at which the spell must be prepared or cast to gain these extra advantages. Each of these heightened entries states specifically which aspects of the spell change at the given level. Read the heightened entry only for the spell level you’re using or preparing; if its benefits are meant to include any of the effects of a lower-level heightened entry, those benefits will be included in the entry.

Other heightened entries give a number after a plus sign, indicating that heightening grants extra advantages over multiple levels. The listed effect applies for every increment of levels by which the spell is heightened above its lowest spell level, and the benefit is cumulative. For example, fireball says “Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.” Because fireball deals 6d6 fire damage at 3rd level, a 4th-level fireball would deal 8d6 fire damage, a 5th-level spell would deal 10d6 fire damage, and so on.

Seems pretty clear you can cast a 9th level Magic Weapon, it's just that it gains no benefit versus 1st level Magic Weapon.

Definitely like this more than current. A luck/divination focused synthesis sounds cool. I do think Striking Spell would still have accuracy issues but that's another issue altogether.

Idea there: add in the accuracy fix to Striking Spell's mechanics.

Ressy wrote:

Narxiso wrote:

3) You can use an AoE spell as a single target spell using Spell Strike. And has the math been done for every situation? If not, my point stands that the Magus has versatility on its side.

Up to interpretation.

Magus wrote:

You drastically alter a spell to combine it with a martial attack.

If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one
creature or object, instead of casting it as normal, you place
its magic into one melee weapon you’re wielding or into your
body to use with an unarmed attack.

My personal read is that it requires the spell to have the text "1 creature" or "1 object" in the spell's "Target" entry.

Which means you could use for instance Electric Arc "1 or 2 creatures", but not Fireball which has no target entry at all.

I don't think it is ambiguous. I just misread it. This makes it far less flexible than I originally thought.

I think I prefer your interpretation, and with the current Magus I'd probably houserule it to function that way at my table. It's not like letting someone channel their fireball into a melee strike at 1 target is going to cause any balance issues.

I'd say let it work for all spells.
You'd still have the same issues with needing 2 rolls, but at least you'd be getting some action economy out of it. Plus any other class abilities that trigger.

...Hm. It's not elegant, but that could actually be a good solution. It makes it a lot less bad anyway, in theory. This is something I'd actually wanna see tested in actual play. I think it would really depend on how often you can get the free devise vs the 1 action version.

We already see Investigators taking Eldritch Archer for this exact mechanic. I can definitely see Investigators taking Magus Dedication for the same thing without having to be ranged. Or a Magus taking Investigator dedication.

What do people think of the following?

Remove the crit-bump aspect of Striking Spell.
Make Striking Spell instead give a free Strike in the same round where the spell was cast. Thus we have a single 2-action cantrip action, our free strike, and one remaining action to use for Stride/Step/Strike again/Raise Shield/Bespell/Etc...

Then, we remove the Slide Synthesis, and replace it with a synthesis which re-adds the crit-boost to Striking Spell. This makes crit-fisher Magus builds possible, but not mandatory.

It also lets you now be a 2-hander Magus who can stride into combat while casting and attacking, and then Cast+Attack+Shield spell on subsequent rounds. Or an Archer Magus who reloads a crossbow. Or a Thrown Magus who can draw out a weapon after throwing their Spell.

[edit]

We can also make the Crit-based synthesis add the [Fortune] tag, and then modify Striking Spell to deal with the spell-attack bonus issue now that we don't have to worry about True Strike boosted spell-crits.