Riddlyn's page

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.

I will say that the issue of the Psychic's amps is something that could be addressed by changing the Psychic, and probably should be for reasons unrelated to the Magus. Amps are essentially spellshape focus spells, particularly as you can't use spellshapes on amped focus cantrips, but their mechanical wording opens them up to abuse from classes like the Magus, who can't normally use spellshapes on Spellstrike spells, and also makes for a pointless bit of special-casing that often leads to mistakes (many tables I know accidentally use spellshapes with amps and didn't know the sidebar on amps prevented this). That, and amps being easy to poach makes it too easy to gain the core of a Psychic's power as a Psychic multiclass, so they could use a few tweaks, plus some adjustments to their Focus Point gains in view of the remaster.

However, I think the issue with focus spells on Spellstrike is not that dissimilar to that of slot spells: action deferment is a force multiplier that emphasizes burst damage, accuracy compression is a force multiplier that emphasizes burst damage, and so any bursty spell you inject into a Spellstrike is going to make for an even bigger instance of burst damage. This is powerful enough for a Magus to potentially and literally one-shot even boss-level enemies at low levels with the right setup (for instance, a runic weapon spell), which to me crosses a line that Pathfinder normally tries very hard to stay away from. This I think isn't something that becomes a problem only past a certain few times: if this happens even once, I think that's an issue. It's for this reason among others that I believe Spellstriking with cantrips ought to be the default, and doing so with focus spells and slot spells ought to come later in more limited fashion.

Cantrips are and were always the default. People wanting to blow all their spells on spellstrike isn't the designer's fault. The Magus is hands down the best class for attacking almost every weakness in the game especially with the new changes to spellstrike. In fact the only 3 damage types they don't have natively are sonic, vitality and spirit. And you can gain access to them without dumping INT. For easy math I'm going to use D6 weapons, but a level 1 fighter using power attack is doing 2D6+4 with much greater chance to crit, a Magus for the same 2 actions is doing 3D6+4. And that's level 1 using telekinetic throw so no extra effects. The fighter will hit and crit more but the damage isn't far off. Now the action economy could use some help.

Riddlyn wrote:

Again you don't get to say that, you personal preference does not a fact make. Because you feel that is the case is fine to state. But what you don't get to do is say that building the way YOU think is best doesn't mean everyone or even most who play magi will agree with you.

A magus will typically have worse saves than an actual caster, who has a better spell DC progression, their casting stat as their KAS, and much more incentive to invest in INT. A melee magus doesn't need INT to spellstrike, but does need STR for damage and to-hit, DEX for AC/reflex, CON for HP/fort, and WIS for initiative/will. INT only gives you trained skills, save DCs you aren't likely to take advantage of, and access to psychic dedication (which only needs +2). Being melee is already inherently MAD, and trying to max INT means losing something else that's usually more relevant to performing your role.

Any time you would cast a save spell, someone else in the party should probably be casting it instead. There are cases where expansive spellstrike with an AoE will be juicy, but those are rare, and investing in INT for those rare cases doesn't make a lot of sense over investing in defenses or damage on your main routine. If you are the only person in your party who can cast slow or some other critical debuff, that's really not really a good situation to be in, though I can appreciate trying to fill that role if it's ultimately required of you. (I also hope you're starlit span and your party is feeding you gold for scrolls or wands, 'cause lord knows you don't have the spell slots to do that job. I also hope they're not expecting you to sustain roaring applause.)

If you play with gradual ASI, pushing INT is more viable, though still not fantastic for the reasons discussed above.

Like, don't get me wrong. I had an era where I wondered if it made more sense to have an INT-maxing magus over a caster. And a magus that pushes to max their INT is nowhere near unplayable! It's just a worse option from an...

That's the rub for me it makes zero sense to dump INT. I play a Magus because I fully intend on using spells. After level 5 I never keep more than 1 attack roll spell in a slot. At 8th or tenth I take standby spell and never prepare a slotted attack roll spell. Before the remaster at level 1 I was at +6 damage before rolling any dice and +8 at 5th since the Magus was the only class that got to add 2 different attribute bonuses to a strike. And yes I would typically be 1-3 behind a full caster but that does not stop you from effectively using AoE's or buffs. Post remaster I still prioritize STR and INT equally so the only thing that really changed for me was now my damage was a little swingier. I'm absolutely fine if others see and play there Magi differently but it just fries my bacon when people state opinions like facts. Not saying you were specifically but there have been plenty in this thread doing just that.

Riddlyn wrote:

Again you don't get to say that, you personal preference does not a fact make. Because you feel that is the case is fine to state. But what you don't get to do is say that building the way YOU think is best doesn't mean everyone or even most who play magi will agree with you.

But they're not just stating a personal preference here, though, they're supplementing their position with facts. It is an objective fact that in this game your character gets four attributes at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 (plus attribute boosts from your ancestry, background, and class, of course), that melee Magus subclasses all benefit majorly from Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, and that building Intelligence on top therefore comes at the cost of those stats to some amount. This does not invalidate your own preference or build, and Witch of Miracles even went out of their way to state that you can build Int on your melee Magus if you want. You need to cool it a little with this whole "you don't get to say that" line of attack, because people do get to say the things you say they don't, and insisting upon the contrary makes it look an awful lot like you're just trying to silence people.

I'm not trying to silence anyone, what I'm saying is call it what it is that persons opinion. The same way they have anecdotes about how to build best for their preferences so do I. I just don't go around trying to state it as fact. Unless they work for Paizo they can't possibly know for a fact how most magi are built or played. Big difference

It's literally worse to have INT on most magus builds. You can bypass the need for it entirely with spellstrike, and you're a melee character that needs STR/DEX/CON/WIS. The only magi that can take INT without as significantly tanking their saves or damage are Starlit Span magi. You can make this trade, make no mistake; it is, however, objectively worse to invest in INT, even if it's indeed more fun to have half-functional save DCs.

(N.B. As designed, Laughing Shadow was made for a finesse build... but Arcane Cascade is just bad and difficult to use, so you'll never get the damage from Cascade that's supposed to make up for having less STR. So Starlit Span is the only one that remains that's able to invest in INT without sacrificing more important stats.)

Again you don't get to say that, you personal preference does not a fact make. Because you feel that is the case is fine to state. But what you don't get to do is say that building the way YOU think is best doesn't mean everyone or even most who play magi will agree with you.

At this point of debating unless they re-re-errata Spell-Strike to add a penalty to the target's save if you do successfully bonk them with a weapon this change doesn't do a lot because most Magus players already dump their INT which Paizo didn't address though they simply attempted to fix the issue of not a lot of attack spells without actually fixing it.

The Sure Strike nerf is both needed and yet not required at the same time. It boils back down to in my opinion the following for none-Magus/Battle Harbinger classes which cast spells, 2-Actions generally for -1 vs Master Martials despite having Legendary Attack. So it feels bad when you take double the time to user a Spell Attack at -1 which when it fail you loe both 2/3rds of your turn AND a resource in which you can't renew unless you cast a focus spell.

This can be temporarily fixed by having a Bard or Envoy (SF-2E Class) in the party to increase your odds or even both to effectively give you +2 to your Spell Attack Rolls, +1 Status to Attacks and a -1 Status penalty to the enemy's AC.

This is a lot of setup which in the end also greatly increases Martials as well meaning you're still -1 from any other Martial, outside of the few which are Inventor,Investigator, Runesmith & Thauamutrge at that rate due to them using a none offensive KAS your spell attack roll bonus matches these 4 Martials.

What use is this information I am unsure but it is how the math works at level 19 and without the higher INT and +2 From Legendary DCs Magus using save spells feels bad and maybe it is time Magus got a Remastered and got legendary spell DC but only caps at like Expert Spell Attack due to how Spell-Strike functions?

Perhaps give up Arcane Cascade for legendary spells and give them the choice of either STR, DEX or INT as their KAS and keep Spell-Strike as it functions now and make it if you use a Spell-Striek via saving throw spell they save as normal?

I really wish you would stop throwing out bold statements you couldn't possibly have the answers to. Please stop saying most magi dump int and say you do. You don't get to pawn your preference as the default. I've never dumped int playing a Magus and I've played four of them. And plan on playing many more.

Lia Wynn wrote:

As Deriven has said more than once in this thread, Magus might be the best-balanced class in the game. It's great the way it is; it does not need changes.

Really...?

Without Expansive Spellstrike, there are only 8 cantrips and 15 ranked spells, in the entire remastered Arcane Spell List, can be used, since these have the Attack trait. In Legacy, there are additional 2 cantrips and 4 ranked spells that can be used.

Oh, and that's without adding all the restrictions, such as "no more than 2-action casting", "single target only" and "no metamagic".

So excuse me if I keep asking for Expansive Spellstrike to be a little more appealing when it comes to a wider spell list without even MORE restrictions.

Between those 10 cantrips you can target almost every weakness in the game. And in expansive and you catch the few you missed. So no it's not a lot but how many more do you need? Honestly is it just for flavor sake? And you are way overstating both getting hit by reactive strike and spellstrike failing. As to your whole wait until you've missed several times in a row argument, that applies to any and every class in the game. It is not unique to the Magus. And as for the reactive strike stopping you from spellstriking or somehow being overly punishing is patently false. Creatures with reactive strike make up less than 20% of the bestiary and most of those are higher levels. And yes I've played several Magi across different campaigns with different GMs, some homebrew campaigns and some AP's and I took a grand total of 1 reactive strike and it wasn't a crit so my spellstrike still went off.

Gortle wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

This is such a bad take. There are a host of things for spell strike balanced around 1d12 or 2d6 per rank. Imaginary Weapon is 2d8 which is a big step up. Then there is the multitargeting ...

You are saying there is a problem with the design of the class instead? Look Magus works fine. It may not be for you, or what you want. Fair enough but lots of people like it.

Okay, a few things there.

1. There is no attack roll spell that deals D12 damage. No, Shocking Grasp doesn't count anymore, it is now Thunderstrike, which is a save, so it's disallowed from the conversation. The closest we have is Disintegrate, which is D10s, and that is terrible because it involves a save with a weak DC. Then we have Gouging Claw, which is 1D6 + 1 bleed, with 1D6 + 1 bleed per rank. And we now have Live Wire, which is 2D4 per rank, with 1D4 persistent damage, and still doing 1D4 per rank on a miss. And before you say "But Expansive Spellstrike," that is a feat that just lets you use save-based spells, which still use saves at your reduced DC progression. Even if it had optimal DC progression, it's still two separate dice rolls for it to work, which is precisely what makes Disintegrate and Ray of Enfeeblement bad damaging/offensive spells (thank goodness the latter was fixed in the Remaster, now I might actually pick it up, even though it's still Fortitude saves, which is what every offensive monster has good saves in; oh well, now it's just less stupid).

2. 2D8 plus 1D8 per rank isn't that much stronger than Gouging Claw or Live Wire damage-wise (which, by the way, still does an effect on a miss, a unique trait behind that attack cantrip that Imaginary Weaponry doesn't get), and you'd have to Amp it to get the 2D8 per rank. It's really one of the few justifications for spending 2 feats on it; it probably wouldn't be as looked at if the Magus class feats were better or offered something unique that other classes don't get, or if they actually had plentiful and...

If you're a melee Magus and you go with the psychic dedication for IW, why wouldn't you take spellswipe? You can take advantage of the multi target ability, if you use a weapon with sweep you can get +1 to hit both targets.

A Magus will only spellstrike with a cantrip in last resort, unless its damage type is really worth it.

Really? I mean at level one you only have one slot and I've found the best choices to be conductive weapon or mystic armor. Once I get all 4 slots I almost never prepare more than one attack roll spell. After level 8 I don't prepare any. But I also prioritize INT every time, I did it pre remaster because cantrips had mod damage instead of an extra die so that meant a +6 before dice. Being -1 on saves meant I saw slightly fewer crit fails but still enough fails to make it worth casting AoE's

Spellstrike says a spell that cost 1-2 actions to cast and has a spell attack roll. It doesn't care about source of the spell.

Ok I spoke for me. No I wouldn't, you have house rules for wizards, change enemy spellcasting and when you speak on here you speak as if PF2E is just a tactical war game. None of these things are what I consider fun or why I play PF2E.

tytalan wrote:

the wizard is no long OP fix the wizard.

Droll.

tytalan wrote:

The problem isn’t really a matter of Wizards needing fixing it’s a matter that either the GM being lazy (adventure paths are notorious for this )

tytalan wrote:

No the Wizard doesn’t need fixing it has a higher learning curve than most of the other casters

In your own post you identified two seperate issues with the class.

Being more GM dependant and having a higher curve with no reward for such are legitimate problems with the class.

tytalan wrote:

There is at least one solid spell for every spell rank of school either at that rank or one that can be up casted to that rank. There’s a fallacy that the more limited school spell lists is a handicap, this is a fallacy because in almost every case with the older broader schools you ended up the same number of effective choices but a illusion of more.

Ironically this argument is closer to a fallacy than the thing you are calling a fallacy. What's more it's simply untrue by the numbers. Some premaster schools did lack some good spells at certain levels (looking at you divination), but we still have this problem now except more accute.

Except his isn't a fallacy. Is the wizard boring? For the most part it is. Is it more GM dependent? Meh, GM's are different. But like most games of this nature the type of GM goes a long way towards what kind of character you'll play. Like I can tell you now, I wouldn't want to play in a game run by Deriven. Between his house rules and his style of gaming, I'd be miserable regardless of what class I played.

Now if you want to say the wizard is a lot more difficult to play in a pfs game or a game you jump into at your FLGS, I'd readily give you that one. But that doesn't make the wizard broken

P.S. that wasn't a shot at you personally Deriven, we just have different views and you're usually quite vocal about your house rules and disdain for the wizard.

Ok so I was looking over archetypes and I realized something, I don't think I've found a single way to raise your weapon proficiency above expert. There are multiple ways to raise spell proficiency and saves to master. Did I miss one or is there just no way to do it?

I'm not entirely sure what 'odd book that pathfinder wanted fans feedback before became official' is. Are you meaning the Playtest Rulebook back in 2019 or so?

Pathfinder 2e is very different from 1st edition Pathfinder. Those should definitely be treated as separate games.

The original playtest rules from 2019 are still different enough that it shouldn't be used as a basis for explaining current Pathfinder2e with.

The original released Core Rulebook is out of date, but is close enough that it would still be usable. Especially if it is being used as an introduction to the rules and basics of gameplay for someone to read through to get a feel for how the game works before jumping into buying their own books and joining a game.

The most recent version of the game rules is the 'Core' set of books. Player Core, Player Core 2, Gamemaster Core, and Monster Core.

Both of those last two versions can also be found and read through on the official online rules website.

As for lore, I am not entirely sure. There are a lot of Lost Omens books that I have seen getting published and released over the years. And the adventure path books have a lot of lore in them too. It is too much for me to keep up with, but I don't try to very hard.

Player core 1 is also on there

Riddlyn wrote:

I'm not bitter in the slightest. I just don't have much sympathy for people who want to try and change something they don't have enough understanding of. It's like if I make modifications to my car and a mechanic doesn't want to fix because it's not the way it was supposed to be. Getting mad at the mechanic makes no sense. This comes off the same way. I didn't fully grasp the base version but I want to play a version where I have to make changes that I don't fully grasp. Like I said not bitter but also not sympathetic in this case

Forgive me, but I don't think I'm the one misunderstanding the variant here. Clearly, I've played the variant enough to know what its shortcomings are and have some idea of how to address those. It's not like I'm shouting into the void either, as visibly other people similarly understand the appeal of those proposals and why one would think of them. I am by no means the only person to have pointed to the gaps in ABP, yet you are presently the only person arguing that this entire thread misunderstands what ABP is for, which begs the question: what is the purpose of ABP, in your opinion?

My opinion on the variant doesn't really matter. What I said was it's a variant, which by their nature aren't really meant to be used until you have a better understanding of the system. So I simply do no have sympathy for new GM's electing to use the variant without understanding the full ramifications. As to the shortfalls or not being able to add property runes I already addressed that too, look at how the mindsmith deals with weapon runes. You let your players have a small trinket that they can add a property runes to for each potency bonus they get

Riddlyn wrote:

Except no one is. They're making a deliberate attempt to play a version of the game they don't understand. That is an active choice. I would agree with you if we weren't talking about a variant rule set.

It's interesting how various people who once disagreed seem to have come together on this thread, acknowledging that ABP covers a lot of things that could've been done away with and that newer GMs in particular would want to automate away... except you, who are choosing to remain pointedly bitter. It appears you are the only one here at present who's failing to understand the appeal of ABP to newer GMs and GMs looking to simplify item management, as well as the appeal of filling out the gaps in ABP so that Alchemists, Kineticists, and casters receive better coverage under it.

I'm not bitter in the slightest. I just don't have much sympathy for people who want to try and change something they don't have enough understanding of. It's like if I make modifications to my car and a mechanic doesn't want to fix because it's not the way it was supposed to be. Getting mad at the mechanic makes no sense. This comes off the same way. I didn't fully grasp the base version but I want to play a version where I have to make changes that I don't fully grasp. Like I said not bitter but also not sympathetic in this case

Riddlyn wrote:

I'm sorry a couple of things, first if you are new to the system why would you be trying to play a variant version of the game? That leads to one thing Teridax keeps complaining about what if a new GM decides to use ABP, I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. You don't know the system well enough to make the judgements and calls needed with ABP, and I say the same thing for any variant of the system. I can't muster up feeling bad because someone new decided to try a variant without really knowing or understanding the base game and how it works. Oh and immediately jumping to the worse possible outcome presented and ignoring the other possibilities is not having a discussion in good faith. It's been done several times in this thread.

I mean, on the other hand asking someone to make their game experience worse because some of the details of the rules were undercooked doesn't really seem that fair either.

Except no one is. They're making a deliberate attempt to play a version of the game they don't understand. That is an active choice. I would agree with you if we weren't talking about a variant rule set.

I'm sorry a couple of things, first if you are new to the system why would you be trying to play a variant version of the game? That leads to one thing Teridax keeps complaining about what if a new GM decides to use ABP, I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. You don't know the system well enough to make the judgements and calls needed with ABP, and I say the same thing for any variant of the system. I can't muster up feeling bad because someone new decided to try a variant without really knowing or understanding the base game and how it works. Oh and immediately jumping to the worse possible outcome presented and ignoring the other possibilities is not having a discussion in good faith. It's been done several times in this thread.

It's a variant so not standard game play. People are really making a much bigger deal than it needs to be. If you feel property runes are that big an issue just take a cue from the the mindsmith archetype, let the player keep a small trinket they can put property runes on according to their potency bonus

You still get access to domains. Whisper of weakness is a good 1st action, learn any weaknesses they have plus their lowest save modifier and a +2 to attack roll or skill action with the attack trait

Are Tengu really supposed to have the same Ancestry boosts as before? Seems kinda pointless to keep the "1-fixed/1-free" boost profile when all characters can just take the Alternate Boosts for 2 free boosts.

Almost all ancestries are set up this way, the taking +2 to any is an option they can always take.

The runescarred archetype, works on any ancestry and doesn't have a stat requirement