Teridax's page

There are a lot of possible takes on an archmage, and I think if one were to take the Wizard as a base, you could have an archmage take their arcane thesis to an unprecedented level, e.g. being able to reprepare spells instantaneously or blend spell slots with no restriction.

Personally, I think if we go for Unified Theory and apply it to spells, an archmage could potentially be a Wizard whose mastery of arcane magic is so advanced that they can cast literally any spell from any tradition. There are of course ways to develop this further, but I quite like the idea of an archmage being able to generally transcend the normal limitations of magic, and having a comprehensive understanding of magic in its totality.

I think I've come down on it definitely needing to scale off standard weapon attack proficiency. The goal is to compete with having an air repeater, not to make a wizard as good at using an air repeater as a fighter, better than most martials.

Although I fully support erring on the side of caution, I think it's worth mentioning here that a lot of the air repeater's power comes from its agile trait. A non-agile staff attack that keyed off of weapon attack proficiency would therefore be a fair bit below the power level of a simple weapon. Given how staves can't have property runes etched, I'd argue that's also a significant further downgrade compared to an air repeater getting damage property runes added on. I can't confirm this without playtesting, but my gut instinct says that you could get away not only with making the attack a spell attack, but making the attack benefit from the staff's item bonus to attack rolls, and it'd still not tread on the toes of a martial class and their damage.

Nor should they be, but that is orthogonal to the comment you quoted. A wizard with lots fighter feats is served fine by many of the proposals, whereas a wizard with that many feats taken from two or martial Archetypes has the same amount of "martial investment" but significantly fewer HP. That was what the counter-proposal at the end of my post sort to address.

That is fair, though I think simply granting Toughness and doubling its max HP increase, regardless of which archetype you take the resiliency feat from, and preventing stacking, means it wouldn't matter whether you get your resiliency feat from a Barbarian, Champion, or Fighter: if you get any resiliency feat, you get the same benefits.

Obviously, if they were giving X/level, they cannot stack. But their not stacking would also be a potential problem if we are making investment in relevant archetypes count again. Because a Wizard with 5 Champion feats and 5 Fighter feats is just as invested in being a front-liner as someone with someone with 10 of either, but under some of the revised proposals would have a lot fewer hp (obviously, that matters a lot less if we cap the number of feats that can contribute fairly low, but that seems unsatisfying to me).

I think that for better and for worse, Pathfinder 2e is a game that aims to prevent a Wizard from becoming as much of a frontliner as a Fighter, even if the Wizard opts into lots of Fighter feats. I'd thus be okay with capping the benefits of resiliency feats and preventing them from stacking, such that a Wizard could get partway there but not all the way.

That too is a fair point; expecting the main class to have Toughness in order to not get surpassed in Hit Points is risky even if Toughness is a common pick. I do want to keep the free Toughness, because it avoids having to pick two separate feats to achieve the exact same purpose, but I may then drop the scaling HP increase based on other feats and instead increase the Hit Points granted by the feat to twice your level.

And yes, I'm not changing the HP/level limit on resiliency prerequisites. The aim here is to get Hit Points closer to the class getting archetyped into, rather than exceed them.

Although I don't necessarily agree with all of the criticisms, I think the eventual Summoner remaster would be a good opportunity to improve a number of aspects of the class. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing many more eidolons, including an occult eidolon that's not just a phantom (like an aberration eidolon, for instance). I'd also quite like a proper synthesist class archetype or build for the Summoner, as that I think is a playstyle that could turn out really fun in 2e but would need a bit more support than just the Meld Into Eidolon feat.

These are fair points, and they also touch upon another aspect of resiliency feats that makes me a little uncomfortable still: at the end of the day, these feats accomplish the same purpose as Toughness, and anyone trying to stack more HP with a resiliency feat is almost certainly going to also have Toughness in their build (in fact, pretty much anyone will get Toughness at some point because it's one of the few good general feats). A similar thing could be said about Canny Acumen and save/Perception proficiency feats.

So, to take that, glass's, and Claxon's suggestion on board, how about this for a change to resiliency feats:

What if the resiliency feat added half the difference between your base class and the archetype's class hit dice in HP per level? And with 2 feats it brought you up to the archetypes HP per level?

It's a nice HP bonus, but honestly I don't think it's too crazy.

Heck, if you think my suggestion is too much then what about allowing resiliency to add +1 hp/level, and every archetype feat added an additional +1/level up to meeting the archetype class' hp per level?

That might be the better suggestion.

I like the idea of making up the difference by getting more feats, though I have mixed feelings about it being the difference between the base class and the one being archetyped into: in most cases, i.e. a 8 HP/level class taking an archetype of a 10 HP/level class, it'd just be 1 HP/level and you'd then pick 2 more feats to no longer have benefits that are flat-out worse than Toughness, so that in my opinion would still make the feat really weak in those cases. However, if you're something like a Sorcerer archetyping into a Guardian, that's 3 HP/level right off the bat, and then with a few more feats you'd go from being one of the squishiest classes in the game to having more HP than most classes. Even with the more gradual increase, I'm not sure that's a difference that ought to be made up in every case, as squishy classes IMO should probably remain on the squishier side, even if they can move around a bit in their ballpark of HP. I'd thus rather keep the HP benefits at a constant 2/level, which wouldn't necessarily be fantastic for a 4th-level feat but would at least be consistent and interesting to some builds.

One other alternative I'm thinking of could be to layer on benefits similar to Canny Acumen: currently a lot of MC archetypes grant master proficiency in a save or Perception if the original class is legendary, which I think is not that amazing for a 12th-level feat but could be more interesting if packaged into another. You could thus have the resiliency feat make you an expert in one of the class's two starting expert saves (or maybe also Perception if the class starts out an expert), and then make you a master if you're, say, 12th level and have a total of 3 of that archetype's feats. Thus, you'd be getting the benefits of two 1st-level general feats instead of one.

To your point Tridus, it'd almost be worth play testing giving Ward Medic, Continual Recovery, and Battle Medicine away to any player who meets the requirements (expert skill rank and level 2). In this way, it only costs skill proficiency bump to keep it relevant.

I think that's still a better solution than the proposed wand changes.

I'm fully in support in baking those feats into the base Medicine skill and its actions; I agree that they're feat taxes and that giving them for free to those proficient in Medicine would allow parties to recover properly without making characters feel like they have to sacrifice a large number of their options for the convenience.

I do, however, think that even after doing that, there's merit to changing how wands work, as I do agree with glass that they're disappointing. It doesn't have to be the OP's proposals exactly, and it doesn't have to be oriented towards healing, but if it gave wands more presence in a caster's build, all the better.

This is a valid point. I think the issue of stacking martial archetypes can be addressed simply by making resiliency feats not stack, but otherwise I agree it could be nice to try keeping the element of rewarding commitment, without either making the feat super-weak or having it grant so much HP that it would exceed the original class. I'm not sure how to thread the needle on that one, but even with the above proposal, I feel there's still room for something more on a 4th-level archetype feat.

That's it. That's the suggestion.

As for the reason why: Resiliency feats on multiclass archetypes are generally considered not very good, and in my opinion for good reason. At 20th level, you need 7 feats in the same multiclass archetype, including their resiliency feat, just to start breaking even with Toughness, a 1st-level general feat. Even if you were to commit 10 class feats towards that same archetype, I would argue that the 10 extra HP you'd get over Toughness would still not beat the latter's DC reduction to recovery checks. In other words: these 4th-level class feats require enormous amounts of commitment just to ultimately turn out worse than a 1st-level general feat on its own.

Thus, in my opinion, a simple change to make these feats a little better would be to just make them give twice your level as additional HP, which if you were 2 HP/level behind the class you were multiclassing into would bring you to their HP. In exchange for removing the requirement to commit large amounts of archetype feats, resiliency feats should instead not stack with each other. I ultimately don't believe this would make resiliency feats great, necessarily, but it would certainly make them not quite as weak as I believe they are now.

I like OP's idea, and with a small enough damage die, I think it could be fairly unproblematic even if it keyed off of the caster's spellcasting stat, let alone Dex. I like Loreguard's suggestion to make it a spell attack, as that would naturally key off of the caster's spellcasting attribute, and if you wanted the best of both worlds you could even exceptionally make that attack benefit from the staff's item bonus to attacks. Given how simple this proposal is, it should be fairly straightforward to playtest, even trial with a willing group.

While not central to this topic, I'd also like to see 1st-level staves, as currently you only start getting staves at 3rd level. If those staves only held cantrips, that I think ought to be fine at that level, and if they had the aforementioned attack as well, it would allow casters to immediately start using caster-y items instead of temporarily using bows that then get discarded later on.

Oh, and another thing: I keep seeing this argument that "X is weak/not amazing/not actually that strong," but unless you back up this opinion with some degree of grounding, it's not an argument, it's just a subjective value judgment that doesn't particularly help inform discussion. By contrast, comparing the thing being discussed to alternatives, such as Psychic Dedication to other caster dedications or the Blessed One dedication, does in fact ground the argument and help establish where the thing sits in the game's balance. In my experience on this thread, some of the people arguing against the feat's power have ended up inadvertently admitting that they still recognize that it's more powerful than other caster dedications; they just think all of those feats are weak. Despite our differing standards for what constitutes a powerful feat, it is therefore possible to agree on whether or not one such feat is an outlier.

There are only a few occult scrolls/wands you can’t already use with trick magic item though

Trick Magic Item requires spending an action to then attempt a skill check to activate an item. Amazing as the feat is, I don't think it can honestly be held as a substitute to being an actual spellcaster and activating scrolls or wands without that action tax or potential unreliability. Being a spellcaster is incredibly in and of itself, and is part of the Psychic dedication feat's package.

Yeah, the Psychic Dedication feat obviously works differently than other caster dedication feats, and that could be enough reason to change it. It's not enough reason to gut it, making the only caster dedication that never gets a focus point out of the caster class whose main advertised identity is its use of focus spells.

The Animist doesn't offer focus spells either, so not even this is true.

Oh. The quote says Vicious Swing is at level 2. The champ dedication is also at level 2, from elf

You mean, the ancient elf heritage that grants its multiclass dedication feat at level 1, not 2?

It has two. Lay on Hands at 4 is probably considered more important in a party that's otherwise using only medicine for downtime.

It has one, and even two 1st-level Fighter feats are going to be significantly less effective than higher-level feats. I also question this extreme need for lay on hands when Medicine is really not difficult to invest in, and the party has a Bard on top.

Whoa! When did this become about every 2nd-level class feat?

When you said this:

Most caster dedication feats are empty.

You are most welcome to believe that caster dedications all suck, but even you've ended up admitting that the Psychic's dedication sucks comparatively less in your eyes, so ultimately we're in agreement that the feat's above the curve.

Also, pick 2 out of these 12 cantrips (actually 1 out of these 6 sets of two cantrips) and they get increased range (or something) is some flavor.

What games do you play where range is just "some flavor" to you? Have you truly never encountered any situations where more range would've saved you from putting yourself at risk?

I should also make myself clear. I'm fine with feats being weak. Even being so weak that no rational actor would ever choose them.

So why make such a big fuss about nerfing the Psychic dedication feat? It's the reason you're here, isn't it?

I think if it were to change, then choosing from all the occult cantrips to cast with thought components is more broadly flavorful than only picking a conscious mind cantrip pair with their psi cantrip buffs.

Why then pick a Psychic dedication if you could get the same generic cantrips from other occult casters? What do "thought components" even mean in a post-remaster world?

You. It's just you. You're the only one making that the argument.

If it was just me making that argument, I wouldn't be arguing with anyone. gesalt very much used their build as an excuse to justify keeping the Focus Point on the dedication while trying to downplay the value of amped guidance, and ScooterScoots doubled down on it too. If you don't think this is what's being said when there are plentiful references at hand, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to accuse others of misunderstanding the point.

I've seen the argument that psychic amps are so much more powerful than other focus spells that they shouldn't be available to multiclass psychics, with no supporting evidence.

You mean, the obvious and widely-known synergy mentioned in the thread's OP? Because by the looks of it, you're the one making claims with no supporting evidence here, including claims that are patently false like "the Psychic would be the only caster archetype that would offer no focus points if it got its amps removed".

I've seen the nonsense that psychic amps are the defining feature of psychics, so none should be available to multiclass psychics. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Non-Psychics shouldn't be able to become better Psychics than the Psychic just by archetyping into the Psychic. It's not a very difficult argument to understand.

They move using less actions than they would have if they had a slower movement speed, because they are more often able to reach the enemy in one stride. As said previously, sudden charge isn’t doing anything if you get there in one stride (or two with spring heels) anyways. Higher movement speed and/or spring heels is a partial to full substitution for sudden charge and many other movement compression actions.

The point is that a build that spends its whole turns Slamming Down, laying on hands, and preparing to Aid is going to be hard-pressed to move, let alone spend actions retrieving and consuming a mutagen while also dealing with grip on a two-handed weapon. This does not cohere terribly well with melee combat, which does require movement and where having a bevy of different Fighter actions to choose from makes all the difference in providing fallback options, an aspect of builds that appears to be conspicuously missing from most theorycrafting despite being a core part of Pathfinder's gameplay.

This ain’t Pf1e anymore, we don’t have unbalanced splatbook flying all over the place. Our most OP b$#!@#*# is core content and usually common. S&$$ like disruptive stance and resentment witch, or anything involving exploiting the drowning rules. Or g#%&**n instant minefield. The only AP content I can find even close to those is bottled vim and honestly it’s not that big of a deal.

Hi, sudden bolt would like to have a word, as would the Prey Mutagen you cited, and the pre-nerf Quick Spring. The game absolutely does have terribly-balanced options from splatbooks, so if you genuinely believe those are unproblematic, that by itself makes it worth taking your opinion on Psychic Dedication with a grain of salt.

Rarity as currently implemented throws out half the game with the bath water and implements an annoying mother-may-I into the game, as well as numerous undesired side effects like non-sensical repair DCs.

I for one am quite happy to not have to deal with things like coming up with a true name for every NPC or someone playing a robot in a campaign where it's wildly out of tone, so I'm quite happy for that element of "mother-may-I" to stay. I get that we've all settled into a mood in this thread where we feel entitled to absolutely everything and where nothing should be disallowed, but I think giving the GM license to veto a few things for the purpose of a better campaign is A Good Thing, actually.

They wanted to take lay on hands first rather than slam down. Maybe you’d reverse the order, it doesn’t actually change anything else about the build. Please provide concrete examples of actual fighter feats they sacrificed for this build, as in didn’t take at all, or took late with no easy option to just switch it back. Maybe you could cut lay on hands for it.

The fact that you consider lay on hands better than Slam Down on a Fighter says a lot. But sure, let's indulge this:

Personally I don’t give a shit about rarity, one of the worst systems in the game. I avoid it whenever possible. But don’t act like there aren’t other movement boosts, and that having a higher speed doesn’t save actions moving.

And what, pray tell, do you need to do in order to move? Do your characters just move around for free?

And rarity exists for a good reason; not every game element needs to be in every campaign. Even beyond that, a lot of AP-specific content is notoriously unbalanced, which is why I and most GMs I know would be reluctant to allow a lot of those options elsewhere. I'm sure it reads all the same when you're just fishing for the perfect answer on AoN, but that's not how it's worked out in the games I've played or run.

And frankly I don’t see what’s so bad about that fighter build. It has tactical reflexes, it has its core improved knockdown thing. What fighter feats does it need? What could you possibly take that’s beating retributive strike there? And lay on hands is pretty good too. You can’t hyperstition your way to a good build based off number of fighter feats, those feats do things and what is it they’re doing that beats retributive strike?

And therein lies your problem. As I have already pointed out to you, this build has exactly one Fighter feat until level 8, and it's situational at best. That you'd jump to level 10/12 without so much as considering how this build would play round-to-round at all the levels before then is yet again further evidence that a lot of the arguments being made here are entirely divorced from actual play. If we're skipping to level 10, that also begs the question of why they didn't just take amped guidance for a strong reaction and Blessed One instead of faffing about with a dedication that grants very little on the class.

What also makes it particularly obvious that gesalt took a FA build and shaved it down here is the order in which they took those feats: Slam Down I would argue is the crux of their build and a significantly more important feat than most others they've listed, and they could have easily taken that at level 4 while still taking their Champion's reaction at level 6 (and, once again, picking an archetype that grants scaling armor proficiency and a reaction on a class with heavy armor and a strong reaction is a dubious proposition). Hard-committing to a dedication that brings virtually nothing on its own to then pick nothing but archetype feats until 8th level is to me a pretty obvious sign that this build is at best designed with FA in mind, and at worst both poorly-constructed and entirely fictitious. In neither case does it reflect an accurate measuring standard for the Psychic dedication's power.

And just to get out of the weeds we've been getting lost in for a hot second: claiming that Psychic Dedication isn't a strong feat just because you're using it for the Focus Point on some kooky build is a patently silly argument. It is a complete non-sequitur, as that build could be anything and does not account for other builds that can and do get far more out of that feat. That you and others would endorse this kind of non-argument just because it agrees with your worldview to me shows just how little regard there is in the present conversation for facts, reason, or just honest discussion. We can and should do better than this.

>awful kind of build only achievable with “Overgenerous FA”, complicated juggling

>look inside
>non-FA character took an archetype and then took multitalented after. What a complicated “juggle”, using multitalented for it’s intended purpose.

The listed Fighter has exactly one Fighter class feat until level 8. The feat is Vicious Swing. The build is not good.

And what the heck are the gunshots in the air about lacking movement anyways? There are a lot of ways to get movement, drink some prey mutagens, cast some longstrider, buy some boots of bounding, buy some spring heels. Whatever. A fighter lacking sudden charge does not make the build bad.

Ah yes, who could forget that the Vicious Swing fighter didn't need to move either in encounters, but sure, let's also spend actions drinking a rare, AP-specific mutagen to gain a Speed bonus to... save actions moving? Tell me you're running on pure theorycrafting here without telling me you're running on pure theorycrafting.

You seem to think I'm describing a single character and not a party's worth of synergies. Not sure how this wasn't obvious, but I'll try to spell it out for you.

You have appear to missed the part of my post that addresses it already. Allow me to spell it out for you:

It doesn't help that these builds appear to be running on some kind of Schrödinger's Multiclass where they simultaneously have all of the feats and reactions they need to make amped guidance redundant, but also only a subset of those that happen to trigger all the time every round when it comes to listing what those builds do.

Your characters are chimeras whose capabilities have changed over the course of this discussion in response to people's criticism. Initially, you cited +3/+4 Aid reactions as the key reason amped guidance was obsolete in your party, but then switched to Champion reactions later on, and on a Fighter no less. If you were to actually use Aid, or One For All for that matter, you'd notice that you need to designate an ally first, making full coverage a la amped guidance impossible without full commitment from the party (and you still wouldn't cover saving throws, which given your little stated group huddle strategy to trigger Champion reactions would normally be a glaring weakness). Now that I cited mobility as an issue, you're also inserting Sudden Charge into the build when your listed 1st-level feat was Vicious Swing:

Well if we're looking at that fighter for example: Vicious swing (if resist is ever a problem)+elf champ dedication at 2, LoH at 4, reaction at 6 and then if you go the auto-trip route slam down at 8 before tactical reflexes at 10/12 and greater slam at 10/12 or if you're looking to use berms later you take the shoving feats, etc. Psychic at 9 is just a free point.

I will say that even with Sudden Charge, your Fighter is not going to be particularly effective with just two fairly situational feats until level 8. It is apparent that you crafted this build not because you've played it, but because you're trying to prove a point that a character can get lots of reactions and Focus Points in a manner that could make amped guidance less desirable, despite going for a Psychic Dedication. I will therefore restate the obvious, and point out that if the dedication lost its amp and Focus Point, your build would not meaningfully suffer. An overpowered feat therefore does not need to stay overpowered just to satisfy the expectations of this one build.

I will say, as well, that I'm not particularly impressed with the fact that some of us here appear to be this willing to wholeheartedly endorse some terminally theorycrafted build as proof positive that the Psychic Dedication needs its amp. Not only is it ridiculous in and of itself, it's not even relevant to the conversation. The game that aims for balance does not need to harm its balance just because your Vicious Swing Fighter needs an extra Focus Point at 9th level. You could argue that the feat is not in fact unbalanced, but at this point in time even the people insisting that the feat isn't strong have inadvertently admitted that they do in fact acknowledge the feat is above the curve for caster multiclass dedications; they just don't think the feat is strong because they don't think any of those feats are strong. Strip away the pretense, the poor theorycrafting, and the bad-faith argumentation, and we do in fact appear to be in agreement that the Psychic's dedication feat is in fact stronger than other caster dedications. Whether or not that justifies nerfing the feat is still up for debate, but we do in fact have a common ground here that I see no reason in trying to deny.

Incorrect. Those are examples of not free archetype where a fighter or a rogue took psychic dedication and did not take guidance.

You may want to actually read the post you're responding to:

Sounds like the builds specifically involve juggling 2 different archetypes by level 9 while supplementing those with main class feats. Sounds an awful lot like the kind of build that is only achievable with incredibly overgenerous Free Archetyping unless you want an incredibly diluted character. It doesn't help that these builds appear to be running on some kind of Schrödinger's Multiclass where they simultaneously have all of the feats and reactions they need to make amped guidance redundant, but also only a subset of those that happen to trigger all the time every round when it comes to listing what those builds do.

Notice how I point not just to the large amount of archetypes gesalt is juggling before even getting to apparently more archetypes, those builds also omit the +3/+4 Aid reactions they were previously listing as ubiquitous at their table. At best, these builds are incredibly diluted and full of redundant choices, such as archetyping into a Champion on a class that already has heavy armor proficiency and a strong reaction, and at best, the actual number of feats required to make all of that and their Aid reactions work would in fact require Free Archetyping. In fact, I would wager that they'd also require far more actions to make work in actual encounters than most characters have, and the stated expectation that monsters always get Tripped on command and complete omission of movement suggest that these builds are both incredibly brittle and completely untested in the field. Regardless, I think it stands to reason that if the Psychic dedication were to lose its amps and Focus Point, that would be the least of those builds' worries. In fact, it may even be an improvement to build diversity, considering the over-reliance on a human ancestry and Psychic Dedication at 9th level for each of these builds.

Picking a conscious mind and getting just the two buffed standard cantrips would still be one of the weaker caster dedications since you wouldn't get to pick cantrips freely. The amp would be pushed back to level 6. Unless that should be removed too.

You appear to have conveniently forgotten that these cantrips would be receiving buffs, meaning your cantrips would be stronger than any you'd get from another dedication. Not just that, but you can in fact choose from a whole range of different cantrips given the selection of conscious minds, so not even that is particularly correct.

But yes, I am advocating to remove amps from Psi Development too. That alone would address the excessive Magus+imaginary weapon combo.

Getting only one focus point for only one cantrip is watered down from two points for three cantrips. Getting only two specific cantrips isn't watered down. It's an empty glass. Most caster dedication feats are empty. This would perhaps be the most empty.

Your glass will always wind up empty if there's a hole at the bottom that you'll never be able to fill. The problem with your line of argumentation here is that nothing ever appears to be enough to you: it's not just that you seem to think the feat is nothing special, it's apparently weak in your eyes. Not just that, but every 2nd-level class feat is apparently weak; nothing satisfies nor ever will. I don't think that's a problem with the feat, and truth be told, that feat could be ten times weaker or stronger and something tells me that wouldn't change your opinion. In the end, it doesn't matter how weak you think everything is, the fact remains that Psychic Dedication offers significantly more than most other caster multiclass feats, which I'm sure you believe are even weaker. In a game that emphasizes balance, that is enough to determine that the feat is too strong and ought to change, ignoring the many other valid reasons to do so.

MC rangers do get hunt prey, which is the core mechanic of the ranger. Without the edges it’s not as good, but it lets you use the feats and be a ranger.

The wizard casts spells out of a spellbook. The witch learns spells from a patron who communicates with them through a familiar. The expert to legendary proficiency makes the fighters attacks better than anyone else, but it is the fighting styles the pick up through feats that really defines a fighter. The MC archetype does provide that.

The only unique aspect of the psychic’s casting style is their amps. That is the only thing at Al that makes psychic casting different from other casting. It is even a nod to all the past iterations of psychic/psionic casting in d20 games of having a point based casting system. Without any amps even the little boosts that the psychic cantrips get fade very quickly with leveling up. It would really kill the narrative if psychic MC had no ability to cast amped spells. That seems like it was understood at creation of the dedication.

The Wizard isn't the only one who casts from a spellbook, but sure, let's run with this: by this same reasoning, the Psychic's unique casting comes from their psi cantrips, so if the dedication just gave that, you'd absolutely still get to be a Psychic. In fact, if the dedication offered two psi cantrips, with no amps, that would be better than most other caster MC dedications. The very fact that you're happy to settle with watered-down versions of all the other classes' strengths should normally indicate that you should be equally happy with the same on the Psychic.

You don’t need free archetype to dip for a good reaction, in fact that’s one of the best reasons to dip.

Correct, you don't need Free Archetype just to get a decent reaction. However, if you're dipping into two or three separate archetypes, your build is likely to suffer greatly unless you're relying not just on Free Archetype, but a particularly unrestricted version of Free Archetype that lets you powergame without committing to any particular theme. So far, we've been talking about Fighters dipping into not just a Psychic, but also a Swashbuckler and possibly a Champion as well to do this little group huddle and Aid strategy that, in my opinion at least, is not terribly optimized. In a world where you have unlimited feats and actions to pick whatever build you want and achieve what it does with guaranteed success, irrespective of which enemies you're up against, then for sure balance doesn't matter terribly much, but outside of those circumstances, some of those amps do make far more of a difference than any other focus spell available via archetype.

If amps do define the psychic, then the multiclass needs to give at least one amp for the character to be a psychic.

"The Wizard's arcane thesis defines the class, so the multiclass needs to give an arcane thesis."

"Hex cantrips define the Witch, so the multiclass needs to give a hex cantrip."

"The Ranger's hunter's edge defines the class, so the multiclass needs to give a hunter's edge."

"The Fighter's expert-to-legendary weapon proficiency defines the class, so the multiclass needs to give that same proficiency."

I don't know about you, but something tells me that line of logic doesn't really fly.

Don't be obtuse. I'm pointing out that every member of a party has better things to do than hold their reaction passively waiting for the moment a +1 will change something.

You speak of being obtuse, yet act as if characters being a +1 or +2 shy of a better degree of success is this extreme rarity that you have to hold out for at the expense of everything else you could possibly be doing. That really is not how I've experienced amped guidance, and I very much recommend the Modifiers Matter Foundry module to see just how often a bonus like that makes a difference. It's definitely something that will have more competition if you have a strong reaction like Reactive Strike or a champion's reaction, but neither are so reliable that they crowd the other one out. I personally wouldn't archetype into a Psychic as a Fighter unless I was going for some flavor-first build, but if I did, I would still consider guidance one of the better psi cantrip picks on a class that would otherwise have a poor spellcasting mod.

What I also want to point out here is that even if you're not picking all of those archetypes on the same character, that's still a lot of archetypes for just one character, and the way you keep reactively doubling down to criticisms made of your builds with additional feats just adds to the pile. What you've described are a series of franken-builds that appear to rely far too much on unrestricted Free Archetype to get all of those specific feats in, and on top of that it appears your builds heavily rely on things going exactly as planned, such as monsters always getting knocked prone or your little Champion reaction group huddle never getting punished by a fireball, dragon breath weapon, or similar AoE. I'm not saying this is completely impossible, but if you're truly able to pack in all those different archetypes on top of your class's core feats and do those things without ever having to fall back to different tactics, which in my opinion is a cornerstone of PF2e's gameplay, then it makes sense that a dedication as powerful as the Psychic's would be a drop in the water compared to the sheer amount of stuff your build can do seemingly unchallenged.

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.

What's particularly interesting about this is how despite your prior requests for formal data when faced with an argument you disagreed with, you seem all too happy to rely on anecdotal evidence to jump to your own conclusions when it suits you. A handful of people certainly claim to have not experienced this combo, but many more have, so arguing from consensus isn't really a winning strategy here. What makes this even more transparent is that you acknowledge the synergy between the Magus and Psychic Dedication, which makes your attempts to downplay it all the less effective.

And that's really all it boils down to: it doesn't even matter how many people in practice use this synergy; the synergy is patently too good. The fact that it's unbalanced is what matters in a game that aims for balance, which is why people criticize the Exemplar Dedication feat despite the fact that it rarely sees play thanks to how easy it is for a GM to veto the archetype. Given how we all seem to agree that the synergy is strong and there is plenty of evidence to show that this does in fact affect build decisions, I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

Ok but what percentage of focus spells is that and how many are unpoachable just because they’re from a feat higher than level 10, which I could be intentional non-poachability but is probably just them being high level for other reasons.

Why is percentage relevant to the topic of discussion? Also, why are you asking for a number that was given out in this conversation already? As already established, not only are a great deal many focus spells unpoachable, several types of focus spells are categorically impossible to poach, such as hex cantrips or vessel spells. Clearly, Paizo deems these focus spells powerful or class-defining enough that they shouldn't be given out to anyone else. Given how amps do in fact define the Psychic and are made to be significantly stronger than regular focus spells, I would say that the same ought to apply to those.

What about having a Spellshape cost 1 less Action when used on a Curriculum spell?

This sounds like the kind of benefit that'd be more appropriate for the Experimental Spellshaping thesis. With that said, I personally wouldn't be opposed to arcane theses receiving additional effects that'd make them synergize particularly well with curriculum spells.

Perpdepog wrote:

I do agree with Teridax that getting to use a wand a ton of times each day is probably more trouble than it's worth.

That does seem to be the prevailing opinion across the three threads (and weirdly, in the PF1 thread too). I still think the idea has enough merit to at least warrant testing.

To be very clear on my part: I have no trouble with casters casting lots of spells from wands. I just am not comfortable with casters casting lots of spells from wands for free, or for too cheap a cost. Requiring casters to Invest a wand to cast it one or two additional times may be fine, but ten additional casts might be too much, for instance. Casting ten extra spells from a wand could also be fine, if it required putting an appropriate number of feats into an archetype made just for that. This is why I personally believe using the archetype as your starting point here is likely to be more successful, because that would start imposing a meaningful cost to being able to make more use out of wands, and could therefore give you space to add lots of extra casts and other benefits.

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.

Will I occasionally get value out of reaction guidance, or message or a psi shield or a 100ft teleport? Absolutely. I'm not saying they're useless or anything, not by a long shot. It's just a bonus on top of what I was already doing.

That sort of thing is also why I'm not remotely convinced it's overpowered.

"I personally pick this archetype just for the extra Focus Point on my lay on hands x3 Fighter, therefore it can't possibly be overpowered in any way" is such a ridiculous argument I'm struggling to see how it can be taken seriously. By that same token, we'd still have the pre-nerf Gnome Flickmace around just because some guy showed up with some crappy Striking Wizard build that doesn't make the most of that weapon. Just because you make minimal use of the archetype for your niche martial build does not prevent the archetype from providing focus spells that are far above the curve, and that synergize notoriously strongly with other classes.

Also this. I personally believe part of a good party and character build is making sure you get your reactions off as often as possible. Otherwise that's just action econ going to waste. Waiting on a maybe amp guidance instead of getting attacks off or actively buffing attacks that themselves might get upgraded off it anyway, just feels like a waste to me.

I'd be keenly interested to see what play at your table looks like, because even with a Fighter and a Champion in my party, neither were guaranteed to pop their reactions every round. Meanwhile, the casters who did in fact take amped guidance had very little competition for their reaction, such that even if they weren't always popping that reaction all the time either, they had ample opportunity to change the result of rolls with minimal effort, and to major effect. The fact that you're claiming you're triggering your reactions all the time while also landing +3/+4 Aid bonuses on the regular raises an eyebrow.

The witch cantrips that don't give a point

Focus cantrips are still focus spells. Why feel the need to move the goalposts all of a sudden?

The animist

The high level focus spells that were never a part of this conversation because they have never ever been able to be taken

Literally none of these focus spells can be taken via multiclassing, is the point. You can split hairs if you want, but even if we discount the high-rank focus spells, that's still 45 spells, by my count still the majority of the aforementioned spells and a numerous quantity.

Aside from that, yeah good catches. Completely forgot about some of those. Witch especially since the initial focus spell so rarely gets used. The other psi amps don't grant focus points though afaik.

Thanks! I personally found a lot of use for patron's puppet, given how it repositions the Witch's familiar as a free action and triggers their ability, and although the Psychic certainly wouldn't gain more Focus Points by dint of being maxed out at 5th level, gaining an amp correlates with gaining a Focus Point, as indicated by the archetype.

Well if we're looking at that fighter for example

I'm sorry, you're trying to max out your focus pool on a fighter? On a rogue? Why? And if this really is your goal, as opposed to picking feats for either class that would actually work with their core playstyle, how did you not find use out of amped guidance?

Or bard.

Maestro for lingering composition at level 1, Fortissimo Composition at level 8, and hey presto, that's 3 Focus Points, with plenty of room for Dirge of Doom. If you're really craving that early maxed-out focus pool, pick a human and get Natural Ambition into Hymn of Healing at level 1.

Or monk.

Qi Spells, Harmonize Self, then Advanced Qi Spells for 3 Focus Points at level 6. That's your three inner upheavals sorted, and if you're in a hurry, you could just pick Blessed One or Student of Perfection as you mention to max out at level 4.

And most non-free archetype builds will end up doing something along these lines.

This is my first time hearing of a Fighter opting into a Psychic just to get maxed-out Focus Points and somehow not finding utility in amping guidance. Not saying you can't or shouldn't do this, just suggesting that maybe the Psychic archetype no longer offering Focus Points isn't necessarily going to dramatically worsen the builds being aimed for here.

I wouldn't call one class's focus cantrips (which wouldn't even grant a focus point when poaching), and a single focus spell from another as "numerous" but sure.

A single focus spell, you say? Sounds like a count is in order! Here's my count of unpoachable focus spells in Pathfinder:

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 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.

Animist is really the exception when it comes to poaching. Witch offers the lesson feats to poach its focus spells, though not its cantrip. Summoner also allows poaching its focus cantrips and spells, with the sole exception of evolution surge. The other casters all make their early focus spells available as do all the martials with focus spells.

As shown by the numerous examples of unpoachable spells you’ve just listed, they’re really not. Many focus spells cannot be poached, so why does it need to be open season for the Psychic’s amps? For that matter, what difference would it make to you if you only take the dedication for the focus point, when you could just pick Blessed One?

Would Resonance be a separate pool from investiture, in that case? I do like the core idea of being able to cast from a wand more than once per day, but if Resonance is added as its own resource, it would effectively give any wand-user lots of free casts from the get-go, which would tie back to some of the issues mentioned in the previous thread in my opinion.

I’d say if there’s an intent here to create a wand-based archetype, that may potentially be a good starting point: casting lots of extra wand spells might be completely fine with the right feat investment, and archetype feats could be a good way to trial different mechanics you’d want out of wands.

Maybe that's why I don't find it broken. I typically take psychic more for the focus point than the actual amp. Most martials? Extra LoH for an emergency heal or to heal between waves. Monk? Shield to proc psi strikes. Other casters? If not extra casts of their own focus spell, then message, actually. Force the reaction attack even if the enemy doesn't want to move or stand up.

This is probably where our difference in perspective comes from. In a party with a Bard, for sure amped guidance has fewer uses, though in my experience I found it extremely useful for boosting saves and skill checks too. It helps that most casters don't have a huge number of reactions either, so I found it greatly enhances their overall action economy. If you're picking the dedication without any real intention of using the amp, then for sure the benefit is reduced.

I do think it's worth pointing out as well that other classes do lock their own focus spells out of their MC archetype: the Animist archetype doesn't hand out its vessel spells, for instance, and probably for the best given how they can almost single-handedly make a build. Witches don't give out their hex cantrips either, so just because something's not as powerful as a slot spell doesn't mean it's automatically given out in an archetype. Even the Summoner archetype doesn't give out link spells, so the Psychic would by no means be the only class to gatekeep its focus spells if amps got taken out of the dedication.

There's a difference between "good" and "the class's key asset and the reason they're a 2-slot, 6 HP/level caster," though. Poaching tempest surge from the Druid is generally not going to make you a better Druid, nor will poaching cackle make you a better Witch. A +2 status bonus that's guaranteed to bump up a check's degree of success as a reaction three times per encounter makes a major difference in my experience, more so than the aforementioned focus spells.

I also feel this conversation's happening at a tender point in time when the Psychic is in-between the remaster occurring and actually getting remastered: given how every caster can Refocus like they do now more or less, they're almost certain to get tuned up in the Dark Archive remaster, and while I can only speculate as to what those changes will be, I'm willing to bet they'll receive changes to their amps. At that point, if the multiclass dedication doesn't get changed, that's probably when we'd all be able to make the most stable assessment of the archetype's balance for the rest of the edition's future.

Any of the art used on our blogs is free for you to use with proper credit and association (abiding by our Community Use Policy), and we're currently working on compiling it all (the art files) in one place for easy access and use.

This is good to know. I once used a piece of art from a Paizo blog of the Shifter iconic, Zova, on a homebrew document I posted for free on Reddit, with full attribution to the artist in the document and no paywall or associated monetization for the brew, and got told by another member of Paizo staff that that wasn't allowed. That was during the time Paizo was trying to get rid of the Community Use Policy and pressure third-party content creators to use Infinite, though, so perhaps things have changed since.

Let's not get things mixed up. The psychic dedication itself could give literally nothing and magi would take it for the 6th level archetype feat because IW is the best in slot choice for spellstrike. Remove IW and they drop psychic entirely for cleric instead. The psychic dedication is icing on the cake, not a primary motivator by any means.

I feel this misses the point, which is that this is an inevitable consequence of the Psychic multiclass archetype offering amps. Psi Development is overpowered for pretty much the same reason that Psychic Dedication is overpowered, and so long as one or the other feat offers an amp, the archetype is still likely to be too far above the curve.

Past that, yes, it offers a good focus spell for everyone else, that's why people take it. Is it better than many level 2 feats? Yes, mostly because so few level 2 feats are ever worth taking over starting an archetype. If it's not psychic, it's blessed one, champion, spirit warrior, alchemist, oracle, etc, etc. That has more to do with level 2 feat quality being awful than psychic dedication. Again, it's a good choice, but not a broken one.

I liken it to the problem general feats have. Where everyone picks the same options, not because they're broken, but because everything else is bad.

So here's the thing: I don't disagree with you, I think you make a valid point. Most general feats are either must-haves like the trinity of Fleet, Incredible Initiative, and Toughness, or are hot garbage, with little room in-between. Although the remaster improved many classes' feats, especially caster feats, there are still plenty of feats like Cantrip Expansion that utterly suck. Ideally, I'd like the underperforming options to be improved, and would like characters to receive more options in general.

However, we also live in a world where it is unlikely that Paizo is going to overhaul an entire range of feats. Thus, for starters, I think we need to work with the balancing standard we have, rather than expect every feat to be buffed. I also, however, still think that even in a world where 2nd-level feats felt generally good to use, the Psychic archetype giving out amps would be an issue, especially if the Psychic is to receive the buffs it greatly needs right now. I don't think it's good form for an archetype to give the best part of a class, and that's what the dedication does right now: we may not necessarily attach that much value to focus spells here, but the Psychic's amps I think are genuinely way above the curve for what focus spells normally provide. There's clearly a risk of excessive synergy with other classes, as shown with the Magus, so as much as I think handing out the buffed cantrips is fine, I don't think the dedication or subsequent archetype feats need to provide the amps on top.

@Teridax, if you implemented wands as you've proposed, how would you change the spontaneous caster's ability with a staff to spend one charge and use a spell slot for a staff's spell? Your wands sound like they do exactly the same thing, so what would you suggest for a new staff-based benefit?

This isn't a challenge, BTW, it's a genuine question. The idea of an item that adds a new spell to someone's repertoire is one I've been surprised we haven't gotten yet. (Well not all that surprised, I guess. General design ethos puts spells at more of a premium in 2E than 1E.)

Also, just throwing this out there, but I'm someone who loves them both some wands and staves.

I do think there'd still be a meaningful difference here in that the staff offers more spells, but I honestly think it should be fine for any caster to cast all heightened versions of spells they get from a staff they've prepared, so my proposal would be to implement that and let spontaneous casters treat their staff spells as extra signature spells.

In addition to this, I'd like an extra counterpart item to be implemented where you could expend a spell slot during your daily preparations to prepare a single spell available to you, up to a maximum rank allowed by the item, and use the item to Cast the Spell. This would offer spontaneous casters a taste of prepared spellcasting, and potentially allow the thematic expression of other items associated with spellcasters, such as a magical orb, a floating skull, and so on.

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.

Here ought to be the link to the debrief. I also do think the first post in a thread ought to make slightly more of an effort than just ask others "what do you think," if only by giving an opinion on the subject.

Based on the debrief, it sounds like the Necromancer will stay largely as-is, except have more spells suited to life and death that'd fill out the occult list, as well as more feat options for martial and pet-based builds. As for the Runesmith, it sounds like they'll be getting some changes to make tracing a bit simpler, with expansions to their existing runes. I'm personally fine with this at this stage, though I do think the Runesmith in particular needs a bit of work to play more smoothly. Hopefully, with some smart changes to their key mechanics and some more feat options, they'll turn out more satisfying on-release.

I agree that there is probably room for some kind of item that just lets you spontaneously cast a spell (at a specific rank) if you're a prepared caster or gives you an additional spell known at a specific rank if you're already a spontaneous caster. Maybe limit it to only one invested item of this kind at a time.

I agree with this. A taste of spontaneous casting for prepared casters would go a long way towards alleviating some of the issues players have with prepared casting in the day, and a taste of prepared casting for spontaneous casters could similarly give them a bit of that desired flexibility. It'd also be thematically neat to have this thematic distinction where your Wizards and Witches would favor wands, whereas your Sorcerers and Psychics would favor some different kind of spellcasting item. Some kind of item that let you expend a spell slot to prepare a single spell in your list up to a certain rank for the day could achieve this.

I do feel that if wands simply let you convert your spell slots into their specific spell on the spot, instead of giving you free casts, the above problem could be avoided entirely, as you'd only have as many charges of synesthesia in your back pocket as you'd have spell slots of the appropriate rank to use. I know it's been said above that this might be similar to staves, but I don't think a Resentment Witch or the like expending a bunch of spell slots to cast synesthesia five times in a day is something a staff would ever achieve, nor is meant to.

I would address it to the shifting property description itself. Add something like: "If the weapon has other magical properties or abilities unrelated to its being a weapon, those properties are suppressed while it is not in its natural form (for example, a staff of...)".

This is the right way of going about it, in my opinion. For starters, I would probably add rules text so that you can't turn a weapon into a free-hand weapon unless the original weapon also has the free-hand trait, as there clearly is an intent to conserve hand economy in the rune already. Adding that the rune also suppresses any properties unique to the original item while it's shifted would seal the deal, though it may not even be necessary at that point: if someone wants to shift their staff into a sword, that I think is perfectly fine, and even though the Spellstriker Staff can do this already, it's by no means game-breaking or even particularly disruptive in my opinion.

So really, the keyhole solution here could be to just disallow shifting into a free-hand weapon with a shifting rune unless the original weapon also has the free-hand trait. You'd be able to wield staves with property runes just fine, continue to shift a Spellstriker Staff around just fine, and wouldn't be able to shift away a staff's hand economy burden. Everyone wins.

A fighter with a two handed reach weapon who took tactical reflexes and disruptive stance and otherwise has randomish feats is probably more powerful than just slapping IW on an otherwise unoptimized magus, and I think it’s about the same level of (fairly low) player skill to find or hear about those combos.

On that note, actually, I do think the Fighter's a good yardstick for the kind of playstyle I'd want to implement here: right now, the Fighter has top-tier Strike damage, and soundly beats the Magus (which is fine). On top of this, the Fighter also has excellent single-target crowd control, thanks to their many feats that let them use their high attack modifier to apply conditions, and so with no resource constraints. This also means that currently, they beat the vanilla Magus at single-target crowd control (which is fine). What the Magus has in exchange is their iconic burst, which has both its benefits and downsides compared to spreading damage out into multiple hits, the ability to trigger weaknesses a bit more easily thanks to Arcane Cascade, and their arcane spellcasting. I don't think it's necessarily a one-to-one equivalence, as Arcane Cascade is difficult to activate and the Magus is a mediocre spellcaster at best, but it's still things the class has. Take those away from the class's core features, and I think it could be okay for the Magus to have top-tier single-target crowd control and debuffing via Spellstrike, alongside strong single-target damage that remains a bit under the Fighter's. It would be unprecedented, for sure, but doing things that aren't normally allowed by default is kind of the whole point of a class.

I personally feel the Runelord class archetype had an interesting model with its anathema: although I don't think Wizards should have to follow those in general, I feel school edicts could work well as broad guidelines for determining which spells fit in a school's curriculum. For instance, if the School of Battle Magic had the edict of: "Curriculum spells must deal damage, aid in the mitigation of damage, or enhance attacks," then that would cover nearly all of the current list while also allowing a host of other appropriate spells like sure strike, steel fortifications, instant minefield, and explosive barrage: not only would this help provide options for lower-rank slots that would actually be useful at higher levels, as well as just make every curriculum more versatile, it would future-proof these curriculums so that they don't stay calcified when an expansion like Battlecry! rolls out with spells that'd be a great fit for an older school.

With regards to the OP, I also feel this would make creating new schools even easier: if I wanted an elemental school, for instance, I wouldn't even need to define a curriculum, I could just poach the Elementalist's focus spells and write a school edict of "Curriculum spells must have the element's trait". Boom, done. If the rules gave permission to poach non-arcane spells that fit the edict, even better.

If the problem was just shifting runes, then it would likely have been better to allow property runes, and simply prevent spells from being cast from the staff while it's shifted into another form. Not being able to add property runes to a staff messes with Clerics and Champions of deities like Nethys, who have to either wield mundane staves or end up with a weak weapon for Striking.

This is one thing if it's for personal use at tables with a certain expected level of optimization; you don't need to worry about it. But if it's for general release, you need to be aware that classes that have high built-in floors can cause issues at low optimization tables.

Imaginary weapon on the Magus isn't some top-secret, ultra-rarefied synergy known only to a select few; it's a ubiquitous combo that's mentioned in practically every discussion of the Magus online, that I've seen every single one of my Magus players take, and that I've used as well. It is the floor, for all intents and purposes, and the Magus is balanced with it. I would, in fact, go as far as to say that without imaginary weapon, the Magus is not that amazing a class, so that synergy's doing a lot of heavy lifting in raising them to a good level. So, in a way, you're right and I agree with you: I absolutely do need to be aware that classes in PF2e have built-in floors and are generally designed to not need to be optimized to play at least decently, which is why I want to cut out the need for that synergy in the first place and bring the class to a level where they don't have to multiclass to make the most of their core mechanics.

How does the weapon range factor into this?

Melee magi will be very limited without the spellcasting giving them options at different ranges and a starlit span magi or something analogus to it here would be the envy of any ranged character, especially eldritch archers.

My thinking is that you could always deliver a Spellstrike with a melee weapon, including reach weapons, even if the spell's range is shorter, and you could take a 1st-level feat that'd let you use an extra action to make ranged Spellstrikes. This would allow ranged Maguses to work without giving them better action economy than their melee counterparts.

-Both the magus players I've run for have enjoyed having the option of using slotted arcane spells available for utility or damage, and saw it as a significant perk of playing the class. I do not think they would be happy to lose the ability to, say, cast invisibility on half the party if they felt it would be a good plan for the day. This is especially true for magi in parties without two full casters.

This is something I'm wary of as well, yeah, which is why I'd still want bounded spellcasting to be an option via feats. I imagine it wouldn't necessarily satisfy players who'd want that spellcasting by default, though.

-Comparing your attack roll against a fortitude/reflex/will DC to see the outcome of a spellstrike spell is a 4E takeaway that makes some sense, but I think this could result in some worrying interactions. Saves aren't designed with martial accuracy progression (especially the to-hit bonuses from items) in mind.

I don't think this is quite true given how skill checks are expressly designed to both target save DCs and scale faster than attacks, but spell attacks aren't meant to be as accurate as Strikes either as a baseline, and that's what I'm banking on. The point here is to let Spellstrike do things that would normally be quite broken, like crit someone with a slow Spellstrike, at the expense of the class's existing freeform spellcasting. I don't think this could be allowed on the current Magus, but I do think this could be allowed on a Magus that didn't have as much other stuff in their kit.

The issue is that you've taken slotted spellstrike from a daily resource that might not be spent into a per-encounter resource that is guaranteed to be spent. Magus damage now has however many slotted spellstrikes per encounter as a baseline.

This is not particularly true in practice, at least not from level 6 onwards when the Magus gets imaginary weapon and becomes able to deal slot spell-grade Spellstrike damage 3 times per encounter. This, and not the Magus in a vacuum, is the standard I'm operating on, especially as I don't think the Magus is too strong a class even with that combo. This is similarly why I don't believe this would meaningfully affect the Magus's damage output overall, even if it absolutely would massively buff the Magus's ability to output single-target debuffs and crowd control, because the Magus already operates at a level where using slot spells instead of imaginary weapon would not constitute a major damage increase.

I think the general flavor of magus that attracts people is "INT caster with a sword." Things like recharging spellstrike with more typical martial skill actions (athletics, intimidate) don't feel as on-flavor unless they're attached to a conflux spell. There's a reason the main skill-action-plus-recharge is Magus's Analysis. And generally, I think this entire overhaul risks alienating people who come to the magus to get half a spellcaster and want to feel like a spellcaster some of the time.

This is fair, putting the Magus's hybrid spellcasting behind feats might put off people wanting a class that provides that spellcasting by default. I suppose this is something to test out in practice, but my hope is that players wanting a true hybrid would be able to get what they want via those feats, while the base class works mainly to deliver a maximally satisfying Spellstrike, which in my experience is the actual main draw of the class for the players who picked a Magus.

Oh, no-no. However could we ignore bad faith arguments? What exactly is bad faith about it? I'm very interested to know. That I don't agree with you? You don't throw such things off-hand and go on.

Not the person you’re responding to, but arguing that casters should get martial-grade defenses if non-casters can use some more magic items is a complete non-sequitur, one that ignores how casters can distinguish themselves on sheer spell output and versatility at no monetary cost. That, and the exceedingly confrontational way in which you’re formulating your posts does not convey the impression you’re here to have a genuine conversation or listen to what others have to say.

I don't agree with the 'signature ability' part. Amps are a unique presentation of the mechanic, but focus spells are basically never gatekept. Being able to pick up a psychic's focus spells via dedication is wildly unremarkable, you can do this with almost any caster.

The bigger problem with the Psychic itself is its innately better focus recharging is relatively much less valuable post remaster and Unleash simply does not carry weight for the class' inferior spellcasting and weak chassis.

I do agree with the assessment of the Psychic's balance. I find it strange that many of us seem to have collectively decided that the Psychic was always a weak class, when in practice I remember the Psychic being thought of as quite a decent and enjoyable caster premaster. It's just that premaster, a lot of the fun of playing a Psychic came from being able to cast lots of focus spells every encounter: now that everyone can do this, the class has a lot less to offer while it's yet to be remastered.

I will say, though, I do think the Psychic's amps are worth gatekeeping, as I do think their amps are meant to be much more powerful than other focus spells and were the original reason why the class was given so few spell slots. Although most casters have poachable focus spells, there are some like the Animist's vessel spells that are kept out of multiclassers' hands, in my opinion for good reason. With the Psychic, I hope that the remaster improves them significantly, and part of the improvements I'd like to see would be buffs to their amps: if that were to happen while the multiclass archetype still offered those amps, the dedication I suspect could easily be at risk of entering multiclass Exemplar levels of excessive power, so it may be safer to cut those out of the archetype feats.

I will say, staves and wands as implemented right now I think have a lot more in common than, say, a model where staves let you flexibly cast any heightened version of a spell on their list, and where wands let you expend spell slots freely during the day to cast their one spell. I do think the benefit of staves ought to be their added flexibility with a touch of extra spellcasting output, and the benefit of wands ought to be the one spell they let you cast without too much trouble, and if we feel there's no meaningful difference between the two we might as well combine them into one big item group.