Riddlyn's page

Riddlyn wrote:

I never said it doesn't happen, what I said was please stop using it as a stalking horse. You keep trying to make it seem that everyone who plays a magus will take the MCD like it's gospel. And the you pointing out the one time I took it and ignoring the 5 times I didn't says something

I'm sorry, but you're the one obsessing over what I'm saying right now when I'm not even the only one pointing to this extremely obvious synergy. In fact, it's mentioned in the first line of this thread's OP. You're the one demanding collated mass play statistics from some rando on an internet forum when you know such a request is impossible to fulfill, a request that's all the more disingenuous when you yourself have used that combo by your own admission. It doesn't matter how many times you claim to have picked a Magus without the archetype either, the fact remains that the synergy is both obvious and strong, and if you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that's your problem and not mine. I will therefore keep "using it as a stalking horse" in your own words, i.e. stating the obvious in a thread where it's relevant, and the more you keep demanding me to stop doing so, the happier I'll be to keep pointing out the fact that the Psychic Dedication has a notoriously strong synergy with the Magus that causes the two to be frequently picked together, as has happened at my own table.

That's just it and my point at your table. I'm not the only one who has pointed out for as much as that combo is talked about it's not been seen as much in actual play as you are trying to make it seem. I didn't deny there is great synergy there only that unless you are strictly playing for optimization it's not an auto pick for Magi. Personally I see the magus as one of the best classes for targeting weaknesses, as by 4th you could easily have as many as 10 cantrips across 2 traditions.

Riddlyn wrote:

And I've said the same thing in those threads. And as for playing one, it actually happens to be my favorite class and I've been able to play 6 of them since release to varying levels highest went to 16th. Of those 6 only 2 took psychic MCD one for oscillating wave and the other was tangible dream. And I've played in a campaign with one and he chose the witch MCD

So you have in fact contributed to these statistics yourself, then? In that case, why pretend that this combo doesn’t happen?

I never said it doesn't happen, what I said was please stop using it as a stalking horse. You keep trying to make it seem that everyone who plays a magus will take the MCD like it's gospel. And the you pointing out the one time I took it and ignoring the 5 times I didn't says something

Riddlyn wrote:

I love how you keep going on about how often the the psychic MCD is something most Magi take? Where are you getting that data from?

From my eyes. Have you literally never read a Magus discussion online or played with one? Because this thread should already give an indication, and the combo is ubiquitous at every table I’ve played that featured a Magus.

And I've said the same thing in those threads. And as for playing one, it actually happens to be my favorite class and I've been able to play 6 of them since release to varying levels highest went to 16th. Of those 6 only 2 took psychic MCD one for oscillating wave and the other was tangible dream. And I've played in a campaign with one and he chose the witch MCD

gesalt wrote:

What continues to really confuse me about this whole thread is the idea that it's somehow broken instead of just being good. If it were broken it'd be on every character because it is powerful, and not just because it's the best value you can get for multitalented.

I keep seeing this notion that "if it's broken, then it must be on literally every build" when this is literally never the case even for notoriously broken feats. In fact, this wasn't even the case in 1e, which had some options that were far more overpowered than anything in 2e.

But sure, let's run with this notion regardless: already, Psychic Dedication is an extremely frequent pick on the Magus, so that already starts to satisfy that unreasonably high standard. On top of this, the dedication does get frequently picked just for amped guidance, and while that much is fine, the way focus spells work means that accessing that amp means anyone with the dedication alone can retroactively bump up degrees of success three times every encounter, which does make a significant impact.

This too could also be fine if the impact were commensurate with the impact of other 2nd-level feats... but it's not. The dedication is notably stronger than other 2nd-level feats, and is in fact stronger than most other dedication feats other than Exemplar Dedication, a genuinely broken feat. We can talk about how 2nd-level feats, and dedication feats in particular, to stand to be improved, but I think that even in a world where multiclass dedication feats offer more of a taste of the class, those dedications should still not offer any measure of the class's unique selling point to its fullest amount. The dedication is notably above the curve for feats of its level, and that does cause genuine problems, so in my opinion it is well worth addressing in the upcoming Dark Archive remaster.

I love how you keep going on about how often the the psychic MCD is something most Magi take? Where are you getting that data from? Because otherwise that's just like your opinion. Having a problem with the dedication is fine but please for all that is holy stop trying to use the magus as your stalking horse. It's a choice and if you're in to optimization then yes it can be seen as an auto pick for many

Riddlyn wrote:

This is a slight tangent but wouldn't amped ignition be better munchkin fodder. It's a d10 plus splash damage or d12 in melee.

If you use the cantrip in melee, d12 + 1 splash damage translates to an average of 7.5 damage per rank, which is less than imaginary weapon's average of 9 damage per rank. The difference is technically a bit smaller due to the splash damage applying on a miss and ignition dealing a d4 of persistent fire damage per rank on a crit, plus the cantrip does have more range, but in terms of sheer blasting power imaginary weapon likely still wins out.

Thanking you for indulging me with that.

This is a slight tangent but wouldn't amped ignition be better munchkin fodder. It's a d10 plus splash damage or d12 in melee.

Riddlyn wrote:

IW is really good on any Magus willing to take the spell swipe feat. Especially with a weapon with the sweep trait

Spellswipe is a pain to set up. If it works, it's awesome. The situations where it sets up well are few and far between.

It very well may be table dependent. I know I've used it to good effect with a sparkling targe and laughing shadow Magus

IW is really good on any Magus willing to take the spell swipe feat. Especially with a weapon with the sweep trait

Maybe a shifter class , I wish they would add a quaterstaff monk subclass like in the wrath of the righteous game . more subclasses for monk would be nice to much dependence on feats limits flexibility in some cases.

Out of genuine curiosity how does that limit flexibility?

Myth Weavers is also a really great PbP community with an active and robust play forum.

I love mythweaver I'm surprised it's still around. Also if you check the discord you can also find foundry games(VTT) and roll20 also does PbP as well as online groups. If you can find a good online group you can play from home for years. I've been with the same online group for a few years now. We play almost every week even though we live in very different places

What's does the war mage dedication look like?

What does the MCD for the guardian look like?

Riddlyn wrote:

I didn't fail to do the math, I chose not to because then I'd have to do both sides of the equation. You conveniently listed the Barb's damage but forgot to add the corresponding damage for the druid.

So this is a lie:

Let's start here, are you willing to giving up either some spell proficiency or spell slots to increase the melee damage? If the answer is no, which I may have missed somewhere then what I said was very much true.

And because they can't cast while shifted doesn't mean you shouldn't account for their spellcasting. So that still needs to be factored in especially if you are going to factor other parts of the barbarian kit like rage and resistance.

So again I read, understood and legitimately disagree disagree with you and the above is the biggest reason why.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Psychic is much, much higher priority than any tweak on an already amazing druid class.

I'm going to leave the personal attacks to the side, because those do not merit a response. What I will say, however, is that if you believe that the Psychic needs help, then your best move is to advocate for that, not push others down. It is perfectly possible for this thread and that hypothetical Psychic thread to coexist, particularly at a time where there is fairly little forum activity, so there is no need to pretend that one thread needs to be silenced for the other to thrive. Of course, we both know the real issue is that you're not a fan of opinions you disagree with and would see this thread removed if it was in your power, but thankfully you don't, so this thread is here to stay.

Riddlyn wrote:

Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial.

Okay, let's crack out the math, because this conversation is in dire need of facts.

Let's say you're a 20th-level Untamed Druid with a +6 Strength, and you've used untamed form to enter monstrosity form and use the cave worm form. With fully-upgraded handwraps of mighty blows and master unarmed attack proficiency, your attack modifier is +37, a +1 over, say, a Barbarian. Your most powerful attack deals an average of 39.5 damage, and with a 10% increase from the better accuracy that goes up to 43.45.

Now, let's go back to that Barbarian. You're wielding a greatsword, which at 20th level and with full runes will deal 49.5 damage. Already, we're 14% over the transformed Druid, but we're only just getting started: let's just pick Fury, the most generic and arguably the weakest instinct, which at that level adds a +13 to your damage rolls, bringing your total to 62.5, nearly one and a half times as much damage. Thanks to the devastator class feature, you also...

I didn't fail to do the math, I chose not to because then I'd have to do both sides of the equation. You conveniently listed the Barb's damage but forgot to add the corresponding damage for the druid. I mean in your scenario the druid can cast a tempest surge before attacking dealing 9d12 then striking or casting a 9th or 10th rank spell before striking. I fully read what you said and understood it, I just don't agree and these are some of the reasons why. And it doesn't change the fact that to me you are coming across as wanting to be a full caster who can deal melee damage on par with a martial. The fact that a druid who is a full spellcaster can strike as well as a martial is amazing seeing as spellcasters top out at expert in weapons.

Riddlyn wrote:

TBH this sounds a lot like I want a full caster just as capable as a martial. You can try to spin that how you will but that's how you come off. Some have offered alternatives more inline with how Paizo does things, like one suggestion of wave casting with better melee capabilities. That's giving up something to gain something else. Sorry but I don't feel or think giving them full spellcasting capabilities while shifted should even be on the table. Right now there is actually a good reason to pick something besides casters, this would start heading in the opposite direction. If I can strike as good as a martial while maintaining full spellcasting why play a martial at all? And this is coming from someone who's favorite class in 2E is the Magus.

This is sounding an awful lot like a straw man given how I have specifically advocated for a heavily specialized Untamed Druid to approach a martial class a bit better when transformed, not be "just as capable". The example given was of a half-baked class archetype, as opposed to the properly-made wave casters with significantly more tangible power, and the tradeoffs are not, in my opinion, at all balanced -- not when the Druid can already exceed martials on Strike accuracy at certain levels right now and still be demonstrably behind in performance, yet also still satisfying. Even with master Strikes and the +2 bonus from untamed form, you would still not be Striking "as good as a martial", because your Strikes will be dealing less base damage before even starting to factor in class features, weapon traits, and martial feats. You would, however, be able to bridge the gap that appears specifically at high level when battle forms fall off further relative to martial classes, even with untamed form. This is, again, not about giving the Druid something they don't have already at some point in their leveling, it's just about maintaining that benefit across all levels.

Not on my side it isn't. With the situation you described here, +2 bonus from untamed form and master strikes you would definitely be striking just as well as a martial. And no I'm not factoring in any of that stuff because you aren't factoring in the Druid's casting. So what you wouldn't be doing is damage on the same level as a martial. Striking and damage are not the same and that is how you just equated them. Again you are still coming across as wanting full martial capabilities on a spellcaster without a tradeoff. Being able to strike and damage as well as full legendary spellcasting is quite a bit more than anyone else gets.

Blue_frog wrote:

Basics would be:

- Wave casting
- Magus weapon proficiency
- Master fortitude

Then, to the goodies:
1) Free action Untamed Form use when initiative is rolled, like a barbarian rage. Would fix action economy and allow unmatched flexibility
2) Allow casting while shaped, like the old PF1 natural spell (only with wavecasting spells, not archetype ones).
3) Maybe give Untamed form upgrades as class features, to free up some feats along the way.

IMO, that would be flavorful and powerful enough to make me want to play one.

Casting while shapeshifted I'd say is definitely an appealing benefit, as would free forms as you'd level up. I don't know if that alone would be enough to justify losing most of your spell slots and legendary spellcasting proficiency, but it could definitely allow a class archetype of this sort to contribute both utility and a measure of Striking power -- even if that power would still be overall far weaker than on a Magus or full martial. It'd maybe compare to the Summoner's Striking power by way of their eidolon, but then the Summoner gets to supplement those Strikes with at least cantrips nearly every turn, so that's still a higher baseline that battle form Strikes wouldn't really be able to to match on their own.

Going back to the Druid class, spellcasting while shapeshifted is something I'd very like to see as a feat, though only at very high level. This wouldn't address the aforementioned issue re: battle forms falling off, but it'd be a nice alternative capstone to True Shapeshifter. I do still believe the class could benefit from exceptional Fort saves and Strike proficiency at those very high levels too, as that would bridge the current gap in their battle form performance, but more fun feats to play with also wouldn't hurt.

.

TBH this sounds a lot like I want a full caster just as capable as a martial. You can try to spin that how you will but that's how you come off. Some have offered alternatives more inline with how Paizo does things, like one suggestion of wave casting with better melee capabilities. That's giving up something to gain something else. Sorry but I don't feel or think giving them full spellcasting capabilities while shifted should even be on the table. Right now there is actually a good reason to pick something besides casters, this would start heading in the opposite direction. If I can strike as good as a martial while maintaining full spellcasting why play a martial at all? And this is coming from someone who's favorite class in 2E is the Magus.

A melee flurry ranger with the barbarian Archtype and Dragon Instinct feat (two feats required) striking with a falcata and light hammer whilst raging:

1 First action - Twin strike. d8 weapon (Fatal d12) +8 damage, plus d6 weapon +6 damage at MAP -2. All damage is spirit or force.

2 Second action - d6 weapon +6 damage at MAP -4. Spirit/force damage.

3 Third action - d6 weapon +6 damage at MAP -4. Spirit/force damage.

It's not as much damage as a greatsword, etc. But the -2/-4/-4 MAP means you hit & crit a lot more than three swings at 0/-5/-10.

The falcata is advanced and the light hammer is agile so you're reducing your rage damage by half with that strike

Magus with investigator MCD can allow you to know when to spellstrike with spell slot. Can make for some truly impressive crits. But you can only do it once every other turn until/unless you can get your DaS to be a free action

I can think of a very good reason to take sorcerer MCD, sorcerer has some nice focus spells and access to the other 3 spell traditions. Like divine if you want to spirit, sonic or vitality damage.

I know quite a few people like FA, but I don't think the non-optional game design should be based on optional rules.

Even without it you can still have 9 cantrip slots by 4th.

A Magus can have somewhere between 7 and 9 cantrips by level 2 depending on whether you're playing with FA or not. I think that should be enough to spread around and get almost every damage type

Ok maybe I'm a little biased because the Magus is my favorite class in 2E. I wouldn't mind at all if AC became a free action, but why do people insist you have to spellstrike every turn? Yes that's their main ability so you want to often there are other things to do. No class has the ability to trigger almost every weakness in the game especially with the changes to spellstrike. RS is real campaign and GM dependant, I've played a Magus in 4 different campaigns to various levels all at least level 10 and I've eaten exactly 2 RS and it happened in the same campaign. Not saying it can't or doesn't happen but it seems to talked about more than it happens

I believe paizo did state that they had plans for Secrets of Magic and Dark Archive remasters. Similar to how Guns and Gears were remastered.

Dark Archives might be able to get a G&G style remaster, I think that'd be a very tough job for Secrets of Magic. Way to much has changed in the remaster getting away from the OGL.

exequiel759 wrote:

I find really fun that JiCi finds rage and sneak attack as "unique features of that class" but can't accept legendary proficiencies as the same thing but for fighters. I honestly won't bother answering that last comment because its useless as this point and he will make a strawman of whatever I say anyways so there's no point in doing that really. If anything I'm kinda happy he isn't on the design team.

"Gunslingers also get Legendary Proficiency, that's also a class feature!" - no one ever, these boards

That's why I don't consider Legendary Proficiency a class feature, because some people defend it like crazy, unlike what they could say for the Gunslinger...

LinnormSurface wrote:

As far as some of your other ideas for Fighter abilities, I don't dislike them, and a lot of them do sound usable as possible feats. For example, the "give a sword the knife crit-spec" sounds like it could be reworked into a lowish-level feat to have a slashing or piercing weapon(rather than just swords) inflict bleed on a hit(cumulative with crit-spec bleed damage, perhaps, so that then it becomes especially useful for dagger wielders as well). This would be rather similar to how Swipe emulates much of the axe crit-spec effect. I imagine you wanted them as class features instead, but I wouldn't really expect that at this point

I do have to agree about weapon group-specific feats being less than ideal as well, since in my mind the goal should be to focus on specific features of a weapon such as damage types, number of hands, or traits, so that often even weapons in the same group will have partially different arrays of feats available to use with them(And, also, for the hypothetical strike with additional bleed feat, so that I could use it with a macuahuitl, even though it's not in the sword group).
I do also like Bluemagetim's suggestion for a class archetype or similar option that does focus on taking a single weapon and doing increasingly improbable things with it, though I

...

Yeah the legendary proficiency thing is your personal beef. As for why no one brings it up in regards to gunslingers is probably because it's one of the few things that most people feel they got right with the class the rest is a mess. Their legendary proficiency makes them the most consistent crit machine's and one of the out and out heaviest hitters in the system. The class or this edition just may not be a good fit for you and that's ok. If PF1 is your jam then play that. But about the only thing 1st and 2nd edition share are names

exequiel759 wrote:

Fear effects and auras that make those within frightened are kinda common with monsters in PF2e and bravery effectively allows you to easily ignore their effects.

Then why doesn't Bravery get any better as you level up?

Quote:

Reactive Strike is one of the most busted feats in the whole game, to the point that most martials auto-pick Reactive Strike at 6th level if they have it in their class feat list (which I believe its all martials except for rogues, investigators, inventors, and thaumaturges, which have their own equivalent). Fighters in particular can do multiple RSs at high levels and proc it with concentrate actions too, which allows them entirely shut down foes by literally not allowing them to play the game at all.

Then why does Tactical Reflexes feel necessary, or why doesn't the Fighter get a feat to use Reactive Strike with ranged weapons, or get a 3rd reaction?

Quote:

Combat Flexibility isn't a deal breaker but its a nice option to have some easily retrainable backup option. The funny thing here is that you want to sound smart by comparing combat flexibility with rage when one is a 9th-level side feature while rage is the main shtick of its class.

It's a "backup" option... THAT's the problem... It's not made to be "activated" on whim during an encounter for extra benefits.

Quote:

Oh, and ignoring the actual main feature fighters have which is their legendary weapon proficiencies.

Because Paizo could errata the entire class system and add Legendary Proficiency to them, such as Monks with unarmed strikes or Alchemists with bombs and alchemical items.

Because bravery doesn't need an upgrade it's good from when you get it. Combat flexibility is a backup option if you choose it to be. Or it's yet an extra fighter feat you get for free that you can change daily. And paizo is not going to errata those classes to have legendary proficiency as it's quite literally part of the class power budget. So to give it those it would have to take away other things. It didn't happen in the remaster so any change like that would most likely be part of a new edition of at all. And as for tactical reflexes feeling necessary that's a you thing. It's not a feat that everyone takes, just because you feel that way doesn't means others do. Fighter is one of the few classes outside of yourself that gets complained about

The Magus because it is IMO the best class at exploiting weaknesses and the kinectist is a very versatile class that can pull off all sorts of concepts and and truly feel different depending on the choices you make

ottdmk wrote:

graystone wrote:

At the end of the day, voluntarily dropping my hp to the lowest caster levels and dropping fort saves by a prof level for a +1 to hit and some bonus movement is too much for me. If you're good with that, then great. But I hope you can understand where it's a bridge too far for others.

Don't forget the +2 to Reflex Saves and the additional +1 over permanent items to Stealth. (I don't really use Acrobatics, although when I've needed it I can't complain. Thievery not my thing.)

As for it being a bridge too far for some... sure, I get that. Like I said previously, I keep putting my perspective out there because I wholeheartedly disagree with the belief being put out there that it's a bad idea for everyone. It's not.

And again: Heroism.

Still same duration as your Quick Alchemy, still gives you a +1 to ALL saves, not just Reflex. Still gives you +1 to ALL skills not only the 2 out of 3 you use.

And by midlevels, trivial cost to have low-rank slots/scrolls of it and not waste your few Quick alchemy vials on.

Riddlyn wrote:

I can understand where it's a bridge too far for some. To me the trade offs for some mutagens especially when you start getting to the lesser and above mutagens is worth. But acting as if they aren't worth it all is just wild to me.

For their negatives? They really aren't. For most of them, you can find a low rank spell/scroll to substitute and be above the power curve of maximum level mutagens.

ottdmk wrote:

shroudb wrote:

that's a 100% faulty argument, because now you are penaltising the Mutagens for Stacking but not the Spells for Stacking.

Spells "stack" with mutagens as much as Mutagens "stack" with Spells.

There's no justification that 1 of them is penaltised for it and not the other.

You've missed my point.

There is no evidence that Mutagens have penalties because they stack with Spells. That is a supposition that you have advanced, repeatedly, with absolutely no

...

No there really aren't though and again I said for me they are. Hell I have a steady group I've been playing with for years and one of us always ends up taking the alchemist MCD or alchemical crafting and I'm always asking for various ones. With drakeheart's being my favorite. And you don't get to invalidate the experience of others because you don't agree

I can understand where it's a bridge too far for some. To me the trade offs for some mutagens especially when you start getting to the lesser and above mutagens is worth. But acting as if they aren't worth it all is just wild to me.

Riddlyn wrote:

Spells are better because they are more finite resource. At best using just class features a spellcaster can cast their top ranked spells maybe 4-6 times a day. So they need to give more bang for their buck. An alchemist on the other hand no longer has that limitation. Given enough time they can replenish their vials allowing them to keep pumping out maxed out mutagens. So can you elaborate on how removing the penalties would somehow be balanced?

With mutagens being perpetually at +1 regardless thier level, they can easily be compared to a Heroism.

Heroism being a spell is more powerful, and it should be more powerful: it gives to all attacks, it gives to all skills, it gives to all saves.
While mutagens only give to a small subsection of those: 1 specific attack and 1 specific save and 1-3 skills usually.

So, Even taking as baseline that Spells should be more powerful, a Rank 3 spell, which is abvailable at 5, and by level 12 it's no longer part of "finite resources" since it's now at Max rank-3, soon to be max Max rank -4.

So, by level 12, the Mutagens need to either have the penalty removed, or need to be stronger than Heroism, which is where the "+1 more than what they give already" comes about.

They don't need to be broken, they don't need to be +3s or +4s, but at least be at +2 compared to what you already have to justify the penalty. Or, simply have Greater Mutagens remove the penalty but keep being at +1. Both of those are balanced approaches.

Especially considering the extreme nerf of Advanced alchemy ingredients in the remaster, and taking into account that Quick Alchemy only lasts 10mins, so removing the 1hour "upside" of the higher level Mutagens if we want to consider "amount of Resources used". Because at those levels, your Advanced alchemy ingredients are actually equal to top level spellslots for a caster.

NorrKnekten wrote:

shroudb wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Ok... so why not use Alchemical itembonuses that arent

...

And by the point heroism is that cheap it no longer compares with an at level mutagen for that level. And mind you the penalty outside of maybe quicksilver doesn't increase. So like drakeheart the bonuses scale and improve but the penalty never changes. So for me it's not a hard sell to choose between a +1 for 10 minutes to heavy plate with a rune AC for an hour at level 12. I'll eat the -1 to will, reflex and recall knowledge for that. To me that's not a bad trade off.

Spells are better because they are more finite resource. At best using just class features a spellcaster can cast their top ranked spells maybe 4-6 times a day. So they need to give more bang for their buck. An alchemist on the other hand no longer has that limitation. Given enough time they can replenish their vials allowing them to keep pumping out maxed out mutagens. So can you elaborate on how removing the penalties would somehow be balanced?

Also you are also basing those definitions of two AP's that where written earlier in this editions life and are known for being set to a higher difficulty of more recent AP's. The devs better understand the system themselves now and as such have tuned AP's to be more inline with how the game actually plays

FAQ which should be errata'd "Instant of Damage" Because it is odd that Resist All applies to all damage while Weakness All does not. This might not be a true Errata but is going on since Day 1 of Pathfinder Second Edition's Release.

I am sure that Overwhelming Combination requires it's own thread but the rules do state that the "Fist Weapon can be a kick or rather an unarmed strike using the Fist modifiers, so yes I believe if it states it can be used with a Curved Blade then RAW it over writes base rules somehow.

Specific overrides general, and for overwhelming combination is specifically says your first unarmed attack. So while I believe all of your unarmed attacks move to d6 and you can indeed wield said curved blade, for that particular action I believe by the wording it's an actual fist attack

Darth Grall wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Either unnerf Multiclass Monk Archetype Flurry or nerf Spirit Warrior's Combined Strikes. Sure it is not as powerful but being able to use a d10 Finesse weapon into a 1d6 Agile Fist is kinda silly and makes MC Monk Flurry of Blows seem silly to nerf when it is a level 10 feat vs a level 2 Dedication ability.

Which by the way 1d10 Finesse weapon into a 1d6 Agile Fist is the same as 1d8 Tiger/Wolf Stance twice with Flurry of Blows.

What d10 finesse weapon is there??? I haven't seen one from Paizo above a d8 or is there something else pumping up the die size?

Whoops I meant D8, I somehow keep thinking Elven Curved Blade is d10 but still level 2 for 1d8 + 1d6 for 8 levels before Flurry of Blows with 1d4 Cooldown, on average that's on average 4-8 more damage if you use Tiger/Wolf stance vs Spirit Warrior Dedication, is it really by level 20. Is the Nerf really needed?

I don't think you can use an elven curved blade with overwhelming combination as it requires 2 hands to wield

Personally? I think they should remove the Recharge feature from Spell Strike all together.

I mean, Spell Strike already requires two actions to use, so it's not like you can spam it in multiple turns. That would remove some of the more glaring action tax from the class in my opinion.

I mean, does any other class require you to spend an Action just to use its key feature more than once?

The swashbuckler and ranger said hello

I've played ttrpg's since the late '90's. I was finally looking to get back into the hobby and I saw Pathfinder groups on roll20 so I ended up finding Archives of Nethys. I read the PF 1 Magus and finally found a class I was super eager to play. I never got a chance to really play PF1 but 2e was out so I read and decided I was going to try it. About a year after I started playing the Magus came out and I haven't really had an interest in another system since.

Runescarred is one of my favorite archetypes especially for martials. You can pick up all sorts of self buffs that do care about your casting stat. Arcane has some decent buffs. For me this one is largely from reading a series called Runelords

Feels worse, sounds about right because they really aren't, EB depending on elements and feats is the equivalent of a D6-D10 weapon. 1-4 EB and a weapon both do 1 dice of damage, at 4 the martial picks up a striking rune. From 5th-9th they both do 2 dice. At 9th the kin gets their 3rd dice for EB where the martial grabs his next striking rune at 12th, one level before the kin picks up their 4th damage die. EB is more like a kin bespoke weapon. Now most of their impulses for the first few levels do cantrips damage almost all of them, it's not until around 4th level that impulses start doing more spell slot like magic damage. So unless you're only doing 2 action EB they should feel more like a weapon attack and it makes more sense to compare them so. And like fighter and gunslinger they do get to legendary with their attack skill. And unlike some classes they do get to use their class stat for attacking.

I've tried to find it in the Google play store and through their site and I keep coming up with nothing

Riddlyn wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Yeah, obviously not everything can or should be ported.

But it gives idea of what the class fantasy originaly was and what could yet be implemented that feels lacking.

Like the suggestion I had for spell combat

Right but my thing is if they are bringing classes forward and changing them to fit the new system then it doesn't make sense to try and ask for them to go backwards. That can be limiting to and for the class.

I mean have you read the suggestion itself ?

Basically as a replacement our feat chain out of Expansive Spellstrike.
It lets you choose to cast the spell before the strike when doing a spellstrike, or just not channel it through the weapon. When you do so, you can use any spell as it is essentially cast "normally" and aim at any target valid for it (you, allies, ennemies, areas) you just don't get any of the benefits from weapon accuracy for attack spells, or things like that.

Essentially all you get is the action division of Spellstrike, on any spell you want, and still have to recharge afterward.

It reproduces the uniqueness of 1e spell combat in 2e by making it a unique blend of attack and magic that only the magus can pull of. And because it can be any spell, you can have a lot of different characters using it. Have you gotten spells from cleric to support allies ? Now you can do it while you're attacking an ennemy.

You'll still need to recharge spellstrike with an action or conflux spell (or any focus spell if we try the suggestion from earlier) but on that turn you do get a lot of possibilities.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

My ideal fix would be a tiny bump to arcane cascade damage and powerful two action activities (from subclass and feats) for the magus that added in the recharge action for free if you're in cascade. I think that might incentivise more non spell striking turns. Laughing shadow getting to strike from 10 feet away, then hide, and recharge. An indomitable iron getting to strike, shove/trip, and

...

Yes I did read it and I understood it, what you are suggesting is closer to how spellstrike worked in the play test. I wasn't a fan of it then either of that helps. I certainly wouldn't mind a small damage bump to AC and to make it a little easier to get into. For me that's the main pain point.

Yeah, obviously not everything can or should be ported.

But it gives idea of what the class fantasy originaly was and what could yet be implemented that feels lacking.

Like the suggestion I had for spell combat

Right but my thing is if they are bringing classes forward and changing them to fit the new system then it doesn't make sense to try and ask for them to go backwards. That can be limiting to and for the class.

But that's the only thing.

There isn't any other way your martial side supports your magical side, that's what I'm saying.

Compare to 1e feats and magus arcana that had more stuff for that (Riving Strike and so on)

I think that might be a significant part of why we disagree here. I'm not looking at what the Magus did or was in 1e. I'm only looking at it in terms of the system it's in and how it fits here. So I could go and look at some of what it was capable of under those rules. But largely that feels like setting myself up for failure. There have been too many changes between editions.

I mean swashbuckler and gunslinger have stuff to recharge their gimmick through the use of skill so why not?

Also you have completely misread: I said their martial side doesn't support their magic one. The other way around is already present.

Because they are more of a skill martial and both have skills tied to their subclasses. Magus don't and for the class it doesn't make sense

Again it does for one their martial side enables them being the best users of attack roll spells. And second unlike a wizard a Magus who is down to cantrips is still very dangerous.

I don't agree with them using skills to recharge they aren't a skill class. Now I could see trying to find another way tied to arcana outside of RK. Contrary to what you may believe their magic does support their martial side if you want it to. You don't seem to like the options which is fair. But it doesn't negate the facts. Tailwind, mystic armor, runic weapon are excellent ways for your magic to support your martial side. Now that does mean you won't have as many spell slots for spellstriking but it's about trade offs. To me the Magus isn't perfect but it captures what it supposed. Not as good as a full caster but better than an archetype, not as good a regular martial w/o using magic. But absolutely on par with it

Gish means a bit caster a bit martial right? So let's start with the caster side, a full caster gets more spells and goes to legendary right? A caster archetype takes heavy feat and skill investment to hit master casting and they still don't get 9th level spells and they only get one 8th level spell at max. A Magus get to master spellcasting and gets 8th and 9th level spells. Doesn't cost them anything besides leveling up. Sounds pretty in the middle. As for the martial side they get to master weapons and armor just like other martials. Almost every martial has a damage add on and is Magus is literally no different. Barbarian's get a flat bonus to damage depending on instinct, rogue get sneak attack, fighters get to be crit machines. Spellstrike is the Magus version of vicious swing. A fighter doing a vicious swing has the same third action issue. The difference is he doesn't have to worry recharging vicious swing it's a flat extra die the Magus has to recharge but he can replace that one extra die of damage for different damage types. Comparing spellstrike to vicious swing makes way more sense. It's a trade off. I'm definitely on the band wagon of I'd like it to be easier to get into arcane cascade and for it to maybe do a little more but again it's choices and trade offs. In arcane cascade you at least still have little bit of damage but it's still leaves you off worse than other martials when not spellstriking. But if a rogue can't flank or a barbarian can't rage you just have vanilla martials with no damage boost. What do you know seems like Magus falls in the pack there too.

As someone who hasn't been playing this game that long, but is a part of three ongoing weekly campaigns that all have a melee Magus player (including one that I GM for), the common issues with the class that I have heard from those players are paraphrased below in order of how commonly I hear them:

1. "I hate how often I get knocked unconscious if the enemies focus on me, I wish I'd picked Starlit Span"

2. "Psychic dedication doesn't fit my character concept but I feel like I should have taken it anyway"

3. "Magus class feats and focus spells are usually really bad"

4. "I feel like if I miss my spellstrikes then I'm useless"

5. "Debuffs affect Magus worse than they affect everyone else"

6. "Enemies with Reactive Strike are really not fun for me to fight"

I feel like if Magus is ever remastered, addressing these issues would probably be quite easy with a few changes.

Primarily I would make going into Arcane Cascade recharge Spellstrike, also give a status bonus to either AC or a save while it is active depending on the hybrid study, and give the Magus the choice of ending Cascade on a missed Spellstrike to avoid losing the charge.

Additionally, it would be nice if they got some class feats that added some action compression which would allow them to take actions such as Stride, Raise a Shield, Parry, Demoralise, Recall Knowledge, etc. more easily while they use their key actions of spellstriking, casting spells and going into Arcane Cascade.

In exchange for all of these buffs, disallowing them from spellstriking with focus spells seems like it would be a fair compromise, and it would encourage more diverse builds when using Free Archetype.

Just my two cents, apologies if the perspective of a relatively new player and GM who hasn't read this entire thread isn't helpful to the discussion.

Sorry about that Maya, personally I decided to quit engaging with that person.

1. You shouldn't feel too bad about it's pretty much the same for any d8 class.

2. This more depends on what angle you're coming from. Some see it as a must if you are trying to optimize.

3. Unfortunately a few classes have this problem where for some people the native class feats aren't very fun for them.

4. This isn't much different than a fighter missing a power attack before level 6 when they can reduce the MAP. It never feels good to miss but your miss chance shouldn't be much high than any other non fighter/ gunslinger martial.

5. They aren't more effected by debuffs than other classes but they are effected by more debuffs if you build to use saves.

6. This isn't fun for any Magus. Luckily there are 1 and 2 handed reach weapons to help mitigate some of that. Though I will admit I've played Magi almost exclusively since they were released and I've only eaten 1 reactive strike. Reactive strike isn't all that common on many enemies. Now campaigns vary so your mileage may vary on all of these.

I find it crazy that some people domn't understand so called meme of Imaginary Weapon Magus. I have only ever seen it once at my table but the community here speaks about it so often that if you don' know it then you haven't been around the forums long enough. Magus will never change unless they remaster it and change it's core design.

Magus is perhaps the only other class I have ever heard which wants to pick up a Multiclass Archetype up there with Wizards. It's just intriguing.

Same thing here. I've only seen it once and I was the one who did it. For me it was for RP reasons. And getting cantrips from other traditions actually isn't that hard. The witch MCD gives you a familiar, your choice of tradition and is INT based. So you can not only pick up those cantrips that familiar will make it easier to prepare them.

yellowpete wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Except you are triggering the weakness if its higher than the weakness you impose? There's literally no difference between anyone triggering a fire weakness using fire damage and a thaumaturgte triggering a fire weakness using whatever.

The difference is that the thaumaturge triggering the weakness is already part of the power budget of the class, whereas for other classes it is added on top of their full budget (rage/sneak damage, +2 to hit, etc).

Fair, but the thaunmaturge doesn't have to bother with preparing before hand just in case they face an enemy they could exploit a weakness, while a magus would have to prepare multiple spells and cantrips to do so and, since a thaumaturge makes more attacks on average than a magus, they are going to benefit from that extra damage much more. Not to mention that the two most common spells that most magi gravitate towards are imaginary weapon and gouging claw, neither of which trigger particularly common weaknesses.

Again it's about choice. You can prepare 5 cantrips and by 4th level depending on how you archetype you can prepare as many as 7 cantrips. At 6th you can make it 9.

Kalaam wrote:

What can I say, i'm passionate lol.

And my b Riddlyn.

But even if the thread is a lot of me posting, how is that bad ? I try to bring it options and arguments for everything i bring up instead of just saying yes or no or "this bad" or "nah its all fine no need to change" like some people did before

Its not bad.

What i mean is that the two of you agreeing doesnt prove anothers take wrong.

You have given a good reasons to want to have some spellstrike compatible spells slotted in, but its not the same as showing proof the class can only do that or has to slot any.
And when anyone has said there is enough flexibility the response is often but they have to use those slots for spellstrike. They dont. They can, they have some feats they can get that get more out of doing it, but again they dont have to and they get whatever else they slotted in exchange for slotting that other spell instead.

This is my point, while the psychic archetype is great I often prefer taking the witch MCD a familiar and access to heal and the other 3 types of damage and using the familiar to prepare them. Then any weakness is fair game and you can be a hammer. Never thought about the wooden double though I appreciate that I'll have to add work it in.

Riddlyn wrote:

Lol that's funny, cars aren't meant to burn nitrous but they can. Is it the car manufacturer fault if you do. Same thing. You absolutely can use slots, but if that was meant to be the baseline you would have gotten more than 4. I seriously doubt that you were meant to go Nova every round. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I'm detecting a shifting of the goalposts here. Your point thus far was that the designers didn't want the Magus to Spellstrike with spell slots, which was proven false quite comprehensively. Now, your new point is that the Magus isn't meant to "go nova every round" with spell slots, which is obvious given their limited spell slots, but presumes that quantity of spell slots is relevant here when it isn't really in practice. Just because the Magus has limited spell slots does not mean players won't try to use those spell slots to go nova, and it certainly doesn't mean the developers didn't enable this with a bunch of mechanics that specifically require you to Spellstrike with a spell slot (including one that doubles the number of times you can go nova). You are correct, just because you can doesn't mean you should, but because you can, people will, and it's disproportionately effective at low levels.

Oh no that was never my point. My point was that spellstrike with cantrips was meant to be the baseline. And spellstrike with slots was a in the right moment. Not something just because. And trying to look at the class from a viewpoint of slots are the main thing you use will greatly skew how you look at the class. At no point did I ever say you're not supposed to or meant to spellstrike with spell slots or focus spells. My viewpoint hasn't changed a bit, going Nova is fine but going Nova means you have a high and return to normal. Spellstrike with a spell slots then returning to using cantrips is going Nova. And nowhere did anyone prove it false because I never said at any point that spell slots weren't meant to be used for spellstriking. I did say I almost always take standby spell at 8 or 10. So to say otherwise would invalidate my whole reason for taking the feat.

Quote:

People wanting to blow all their spells on spellstrike isn't the designer's fault.

This is like saying it's not a slot machine company's fault that people spend money at their slots.

Just one more big shocking grasp crit, come on, one more...

Lol that's funny, cars aren't meant to burn nitrous but they can. Is it the car manufacturer fault if you do. Same thing. You absolutely can use slots, but if that was meant to be the baseline you would have gotten more than 4. I seriously doubt that you were meant to go Nova every round. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.