Souljoker's page

To be fair, while DaS doesn't increase your luck

IT DOES.

When I use devise a stratagem as Teridax's magus, I involve 2 rolls, a strike and if that misses, then I cast the spell,so the second is a saving throw.

So these are 2 d20 rolls, not 1.

In the case of slow First I want a 20 and Second I want a 1.

This is the probability of this happening:

19 /20 that is not a 20 on the First roll . 19/20 that is not a 1 on the second roll.

So the probability of being wrong in both cases is (19/20) × (19/20).
So the chance of getting it right at least 1 time is 1(100%) - the chance of getting it wrong in both situations which is (19/20)^2. Approximated is equal to 0.09, i.e. 9%. Higher chance than 1/20 = 0.05 i.e. a 5%.

This is if I want the critical effect of slow, but I can also want failure effect or even a success. Use the same formula.

Now I have simplified, exactly as before, I have because the calculation would include the difference between a strike on an average ac and an average saving throw and all the resulting complications.
Another huge thing is that I do not always know when a miss is a miss and I only take the second roll if I do not get the desired result with the first.
Of course if we fail the basic maths, we also fail the more difficult one.

I started off by commenting the first time to point out critical aspects of an interesting but in my opinion impractical idea and suggest a possible change in the meta if it were applied.

Instead of reasoned answers, I see myself explaining the same thing four times.

And I was annoyed by the arrogance of the answers of a user who doesn't understand basic maths (he still doesn't understand why in this game an average of 12d10 is greater than 14d10 only after a failed saving throw, even considering a critical strike).

All this in a game where the main mechanics involve dice rolls and the application of appropriate modifiers.

What should I add?

Honest advice not to propose HR if you don't understand the maths. As well as the extension of HR itself, this is highlighted by others too .

Souljoker wrote:

lv 2: sudden bolt (4d12) more than heightened shockin grasp (3 d12)

Congratulations, you have just managed to demonstrate that sudden bolt, a notoriously overpowered AP-specific spell, is overpowered and shouldn't be allowed by the GM, not even on a non-Magus.

Right it doesn't exist.

Souljoker wrote:

Lv 7: heavin earth (12 d10 + push and prone), on average more damage than a heightened disintegrate (14 d10 requiring a saving throw and without push and prone)

I see we are hitting an issue of basic math here, where apparently 14 is less than 12. You also do not appear aware of how critting on disintegrate's attack roll worsens the target's degree of success, making the spell already prone to abuse with sure strike.

Lol, your ability to calculate is certainly equal to your ability to comprehend a text.

Wait, the degree of success of what? A save pheraphs?
Now tell me , my dear Teridax, what happens to the 14 d10 when a saving throw is passed with success or critical success? Do they become 7d10? Or 0 d10 on nat 20 ?) and explain to me again, Teridax, do you use a top spell slot of yours against a single minion pl -4, or can we assume a pl +2, +1? Now do the calculations with disintegrate with a medium saving throw of a on level creature , if so it is more favorable to you, and then come back and claim that disintegrate is better.

Lv 8: typical magus strike spell:

polar ray (10 d8 cold drained 2), your magus spellstrikes instead with boil blood (10d10 fire, drained 2, drained 3 if critical).

Indeed, boil blood was expressly made to be a superior polar ray, the latter of which is a notoriously weak spell. Even so, an amped imaginary weapon is still liable to be more effective, especially if the target's Fort saves are high.

Cool opinion . Now we are in the realm where sudden bolt is a broken spell and therefore does not exist, but imaginary weapon on a magus is not broken at all and every Gm is overjoyed to have every magus use it. Also every magus uses it, because "I Supreme Teridax" decided so. Sure bro.

But then even more fascinatin: Polar ray is worse than imaginary weapon and I am the one who can't do the math? Or maybe you are the one who doesn't know what drained 2 does? A lv 8 spell. So enemy at least level 16, does that sound right? So if we combine drained 2 to damage, we have 10 d8 + 32 which is more damage on average than 16 d8. Poor creature, let me help you 16d8 - 10 d8 = 6 d8. The average of 6 d8 is less than 32 :)

Lol no. Again, DaS here does not enhance your accuracy; your ability to obtain that 20 is already possible without it, and DaS does not make it more likely to occur. In fact, in the case of a nat 20, the chances of that occurring are exactly as likely as the Magus casting slow without a Spellstrike and their target rolling a nat 1. You are confusing the extreme results that come from a nat 20 or a nat 1 with DaS somehow increasing their frequency, as with sure strike. It does not, therefore DaS is not the issue here, even if sure strike is.

You don't get it. I'm obviously not the right person to explain this concept to you, maybe it's my English, which is not my native language, or maybe I'm not good enough. Try asking a patient friend for advice, maybe he will succeed where I have failed miserably.

You would benefit greatly from taking your own advice here. Once again, I am not trying to defend my suggestion, because I am aware of its problems and have been acknowledging them openly. I have no reason to contradict your statements just for the sake of defending my suggestion, because there is nothing to really defend here. There is no argument to win on my side, even if you clearly have decided that this conversation will determine the value of your own character, something I've not even implied. I am taking the time and effort to point out to you that your claims are not being substantiated by your arguments, that your methodology is incorrect, and that you have not done the bare minimum of research needed to have a proper discussion on the subject in the first place. You are definitely not a moron, but you can certainly do better.

Cool, you managed to trigger me, let's start with the minimum of research into spells, to highlight situations similar to that of enervation:

lv 2: sudden bolt (4d12) more than heightened shockin grasp (3 d12)

Lv 7: heavin earth (12 d10 + push and prone), on average more damage than a heightened disintegrate (14 d10 requiring a saving throw and without push and prone) or a heightened blood feast (16 d6 + some temporary hps)

Lv 8: typical magus strike spell:
polar ray (10 d8 cold drained 2), your magus spellstrikes instead with boil blood (10d10 fire, drained 2, drained 3 if critical).

All these are vertical damage increases, without even considering eventualities where in addition to the damage increase there is also an additional negative condition.
For the avoidance of doubt: casting the spell instead of the spellstrike is not at all the same thing, nor is an increase in damage, because in the spellstrike there is, you know, the strike damage (weapon, runes...), in the spell by itself, no.

And I simply got bored of going on and on looking at spells, but I'm sure that with effort someone would find more.

Now let's get to the heart of the matter, what you don't understand:

Your magus doesn't just benefit from an advantage derived from the favourable maths of rolling a strike versus vs. causing a saving throw, but from the versatility of deciding on the spot whether it's convenient to use a strike with an attached debuff or just use the spell to inflict the debuff.

This is enhanced by a magus having devise a stratagem.

For example, the situation where you have to use command because you need the enemy to drop a specific item or weapon.
The standard lv 4 magus/ investigator casts command and that's it.

Your magus with devise a stratagem, first check if he hits with a strike with command attached, if he fails he simply casts command.

Your magus causes 2 rolls with slightly different mathematics between the two, effectively a luck effect .

A standard magus/ investigator doesn't have a luck effect on his spells, if he misses shocking grasp (low roll on devise a stratagem), he can't just cast it, he must instead use another spell that doesn't require a strike.
This is true for any spell that inflicts a debuff or condition you need in a specific situation and has a save.

Are we there yet?

This also applies to slow of course.

With the example I gave a few comments ago, situations occur with slow that would never occur with a standard magus.
Because the common magus pulls an 20 on devise to stratagem, does a spellstrike with a damage spell, doesn't cast slow instead.

Your magus sees an 20 and thinks: ‘You know what? The opponent is screwed’ and decides on the spot to use slow. Clear now?

If you don't understand this now, you either do it on purpose, so it's pointless or you don't get it because you can't and it's pointless anyway to continue.

On execute you are right, it is not arcane list, it is difficult for a magus to get. I'm definitely not going to look to see if there are similar cases in the whole spell list and certainly never will be printed similar cases in the future for the arcane list .

Note how your overwrought comparison completely fails to highlight how DaS would synergize better with this updated version of the Magus, and merely serves to highlight your existing biases through hyperbole and purely qualitative analysis rather than any sort of quantitative comparison as its framing would suggest. You could, for instance, have highlighted how the higher crit chance from an attack would have made my Magus more likely to apply the severe crit fail effect from slow, just as you should have highlighted how you'd have more of a chance of doing nothing with that spell than if you'd just Cast the Spell by itself, but did not even bother. Your comparison effectively repeats the one I've already made, yet somehow manages to be even less informative.

Now I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or what:

it's incredible how you can ignore the practical uses of your magus and then imply that it's not that significant what happens to high level, most people play at low levels anyway.

If you want to play being right at all costs I understand that, it's fun, but please don't treat me like a moron.

... because the benefit it would offer then is the same benefit it offers now

No, its' not at all the same benefit.

Here' s an example:

Starlit magus, First turn against a Severe high fortitude, low reflexes boss:

Standard magus/investigator with lv 4 heightened sudden bolt, lv 4 heightened touching grasp and slow. He devise a stratagem:

Rolls a nat 20 -> Touching grasp and a lot of damage.

Rolls a 16, an hit -> touching grasp and some damage.

Rolls a 14, an hit -> again touching grasp and some damage.

Rolls a 10 or any other miss, he ignores the roll and he cast sudden bolt.

Your magus with the same spell minus touching grasp (he doesn't need it, he has a slot that he can use for other things, like a spell that targets will)

Rolls a nat 20 -> Slow: gg, the fight is won.

Rolls a 16, is an hit - > slow for 1 minute, or some additional damage?

Rolls a 14, is a miss (high fortitude) -> spellstrike with sudden bolt instead -> an hit (low reflexes)and some damage.

Rolls a 10 or any other miss, he ignores the roll and he cast sudden bolt.

Your magus is obviously stronger.

Then, there is still an issue with spells such as “Execute” that are not balanced for this type of use:

A hit is 70 damage, a critical 140 (more than the average 25 d10).
Right now a magus/investigator who crits with a lv 7 disintegrate against a low fortitude pl +2 enemy (28 d10 only on a critical failure) deals less damage on average than your magus with execute (because disintegrate has a save, so chances of a nat 20, a success and a failure).
If he uses the same technique against an enemy with high fortitude, again the damage is much less, execute is then as well better in more situations.
So again your magus is stronger, in this eventuality with a vertical increase in nova damage..

Also about devise to stratagem, there is person of interest and like the magus/psychic, you can get at lv 6, and exactly like the psychic/magus, the one who benefits most is the Starlit.
Also there is nothing that prohibits a magus/psychic + investigator. To have imaginary weapon and strong occult spells with appropriate debuffs. One can give up most of the magus feats without any particular problem.
So having more interesting and competitive feats would be a cool solution instead.

I think both desires are valid: we could do with more attack spells, not fewer, but the Magus could also be made to be less reliant on attack spells. The fact that Paizo seem to be generally moving away from attack spells is obviously not great for the Magus, but also not that amazing for spell diversity either, and I think there's lots more to explore in that space (though in my opinion sure strike makes this more difficult, and should have been reworked).

How about this for the Magus, though: not only do you get Expansive Spellstrike from the get-go, rather than have an enemy make a separate save, you compare your attack roll to their save DC (this still counts as two attacks for your MAP), treat your degree of success as the enemy's degree of failure (hit means they fail, critical hit means they critically fail), but do nothing on a miss. This would not only allow a Magus to make just one roll each time, but would allow them to bypass their own low spell accuracy on save spells as well as attack spells, opening up a far broader range of spells they could Spellstrike with as a baseline. This shouldn't exclude the possibility of more attack spells, but it would allow the Magus to thrive even without them.

Instead of a magus/psychic there will always be a magus/investigator . At least he plays more strategically. Then there would be to define all the appropriate exceptions: spells with more than one parameter: AC and Saves like Disintegrate, spells that require more than one save like the old Phantasmal Killer . And again the magus/investigator thanks to devise stratagem would actually have a luck effect on his spells. By the way usually he would have to aim at the highest opponent's saving throw, if he makes a decent roll that is however a miss, he decides to use a spell that tags another saving throw , otherwise if the roll to hit is low , simply cast a spell or cantrip without any strike. It already works this way, but in a much less impactful way, to the point that the magus/psychic is considered the most efficient build, with your changes the magus/investigator would be broken. To be considered as well that it would open up an interesting palystyle, normally you would never use slow on an enemy with high fortitude with this magus, but if you get a natural 20 on devise to stratagem, immediately choose the spell with the best debuff available and maybe win the 'encounter on the spot. Even in terms of damage, fixing spells like disintegrate, you're left with options like execute, which are not meant to work on this base, and would do really high damage.

What we do not realize is that some controlled power creep is both inevitable and healthy in a given game system.

Beyond the dedication damage which is too much, and can simply be divided into 1 damage per weapon dice and placed in a separate feat, bringing the damage increase more in par with other dedications (0.5 more damage at high level than a sneak attack and less at low) and then balancing accordingly the various ikons that do additional damage situationally.

After that in pf2 with levels the power increases horizontally and minimally vertically. Similarly with the increase in material increases power creep(option power creep) horizontally and minimally vertically(with for example this fixed increase in damage potential, often not particularly incisive).

What the exemplar dedication highlights is the possibility of new options for existing classes. To the point that the alchemist could have similar features to horn of plenty without having to go through the exemplar (which would fix many issues for non-bombers, things that perhaps should already exist) , new feats for throwing builds for the fighter and whomever, and so on.

Now, in an ideal world, every class and ancestry would be updated with new options, in the practical world unpopular classes produced in splatbook, like the 'inventor will be left behind. Of course since the vertical power creep is minimal, the mathematics of the system will always ensure that the inventor is viable, but in breadth of options it will lack something.