Oracle

Throne's page

411 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Full, it functions as Chained Monk's flurry which adds full strength on all attacks. Despite working like two weapon fighting and having the attack pattern of it, it isn't actually two weapon fighting so you don't have the rule about half-strength on off hand attacks.

Yeah, I knew they get full strength on all attacks, that's explicitly called out under Unarmed Strike and Brawler's Flurry.

It doesn't mention Power Attack at all though, which was where I was unsure.


Does a Brawler flurrying with Unarmed Strikes get full or half power attack damage on the extra attacks?

I'd assumed full, but I'm second guessing myself and can't actually find anything saying the extra attacks aren't counted as 'off-hand', even if all made with a single weapon/limb, so now I'm leaning more towards half.

And as a loosely related second question;
Would a Human Brawler who has boosted his Grapple CMD via fcb get that bonus when the person he has grappled makes their check to escape, either via CMB or Escape Artist?


breithauptclan wrote:
But yeah, Champion's Blade Ally rune effect is a bit more flexible than most classes get. Most classes don't get to pick each morning what their ability does. Monk for example can only change what stances they can use by retraining.

It seems spectacularly less flexible to me.

A monk who learns more styles can adapt as the days fights call for. He doesn't have to decide 'today I'm going to use Tiger' and get locked out of Wild Winds until tomorrow. A rogue can decide which debilitation to apply on the fly, and won't have much trouble rolling through their whole selection on one target.

aobst128 wrote:
Yeah the upgrades give you more options. You can train out of feats if you plan to use one rune all the time. Blade Ally is pretty handy considering that it doesn't count as a rune, just adds the "effects" of a rune. Effectively giving you an extra one to use. At least that's what I gathered from the text.

It's a flexibility which is only really useful if you know what you're going to be fighting every day, and is very easy to end up with something you'll get no benefit from. And you can't train out of your level 10 feat if you want to use your level 20 feat. It's a prereq. You just can't use it.

breithauptclan wrote:

Combat Flexibility. Again, you have to choose one at the start of the day and stick with it.

Though there is Ultimate Flexibility that gives you 3 slots instead of 1. But that is a level 20 feat.

Again, not comparable. Neither of those prevent you from using your other class abilities, and the capstone doesn't lock you out of its own prerequisite.

It'd be a suitable comparison if I was complaining that Radiant Blade Spirit doesn't let you make your weapon Flaming and Good.
(I don't have a problem with a feat which says 'choose between this or that', I have a problem with a feat which says 'choose between this or that, and you also can't use that other stuff either')


Eoran wrote:

Ah, so it is like Familiar abilities. Once you level up enough to pick Spellcasting, then it takes up one of the familiar ability slots and you can't pick a different one for that slot.

Or maybe like prepared spellcasting where you only get one choice to put a spell in and you have to pick carefully during daily preparations.

Exactly like that, where taking Enhanced Familiar doesn't actually double your familiar's number of master abilities each day, and you have to spend feats to learn new spells while being restricted to preparing the same spell in every slot.

I really don't understand why anyone plays a Wizard when they're that poorly designed.


Is it ever possible to add more than one effect from Blade Ally to your weapon, or does using any level lock you out from using every other level?
Do any other classes obsolete their choices like that?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whoever decided to give us Gun Kata, give yourself a pat on the back ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)


Gortle wrote:
So the eidolon we see is a copy that is created on manifesting, and a copy that is destroyed on unmanifesting. The real eidolon is on its home plane and is safe.

Except the passage RavingDork quoted states the home plane is where it goes when unmanifested. Not where it always exists while people summon copies. Where it goes.

Gortle wrote:
let me give you this quote from Secrets of Magic page21 on Conjuration modern scholars agree that summoning creates facsimiles

People agree on stuff that's wrong all the time.

Just look at the people trying to claim that a melded summoner ceases to exist if you need examples.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
They plan to make a Synthesis Archetype where you get the feat for free when you take the archetype. Then it builds upon that feat through archetype feats.

Do we have any idea when we're likely to see that?


QuidEst wrote:
We are still getting Synthesist, yes. The "temporarily meld into your eidolon" feat even had its name changed from the playtest to avoid confusion.

Is there somewhere this is confirmed/discussed?

I'm trying to build a melding construct eidolon iron-man pastiche, but it looks like it's all downside; you get a bunch of class abilities which are redundant, and in return.... what? You can't be targeted seperately? Big whoop when you share hitpoints and don't have much difference in AC anyway.


That feels a reasonable interpretation, though I'm not sold on the logic.

'Works like normal vital strike' is just 'these extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total', not 'extra damage from vital strike is not multiplied on a critical hit'.

It's functionally the same when all you're adding is dice, but when you're adding dice and static damage, it's not.


*Thelith wrote:

From how I read mythic vital strike you wouldn't gain anything using a falcata, you're only rolling one d8(from the feat) and multiplying by 1 gives you the same result.

3d8 (falcata)+ 1d8(vital) +9 str.

Once you have improved vital strike the numbers would go up, as you roll more dice (for the feat).

I could be wrong.

I think you are wrong on that part.

Vital strike says 'roll the weapon's damage dice twice', and mythic vital strike says 'the number of weapon damage dice you roll for that feat' not 'the number of extra damage dice you roll for that feat'.


Let's take for example a falcata and a +3 str mod.

With Vital Strike, you're rolling 1d8+3 (this is multiplied on a crit) + 1d8 (this isn't).
With Mythic Vital Strike, are you rolling 1d8+6 (this is multiplied on a crit) + 1d8 (this isn't), or 1d8+3 (this is multiplied on a crit) + 1d8+3 (this isn't).

On a crit, what's the damage?
Is it 3d8+9 + 1d8+3
Or is it 3d8+18 + 1d8


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
That's a good point. Ostentatious Arrival says "If your next action is" which would disqualify Meld into Eidolon as that is the action you take next, not Manifest Eidolon.

If we want to get that pedantic about it, it says if your next action is to Manifest your Eidolon, not if your next action is Manifest Eidolon.

The 'to' there is referring to the result of the action, not the name of the action (which would read more 'if your next action is Manifest your Eidolon' - which as Kelseus points out, doesn't exist).

To support this;
1) there is no action named 'Manifest your Eidolon', it's 'Manifest Eidolon'.
2) the result of the Meld Into Eidolon action is 'you Manifest your Eidolon'.

So if Ostentatious Arrival works at all, then it must work for Meld into Eidolon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Removing weapon specialization actually sounds like a GREAT idea. It would give more room for magic-based damage and discourage 3 regular strikes gameplay.

I'm all for it, personally.

Just so long as they remember that part of balancing this equation involves making fewer attacks better, not just making 3-strikes rounds much worse.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I hate most about shooting star is that it gives you permission, not a benefit. It should just be part of the base striking spell.
The other syntheses give you a stride, or temp hp. Shooting star... allows you to use shooting star.

Striking spell is terrible enough that people are falling back on those mediocre synthesis benefits as a reason to use it. Star doesn't even get thrown that bone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Strill wrote:
That absurd attitude

So, I agree with you that the Magus isn't great as is, but... absurd attitude, really?

I feel like it shouldn't be an even remotely controversial take that "Is this thing fun?" should be a really important aspect of making, y'know, a piece of entertainment.

The notion that that's somehow 'absurd' or bizarre to consider is something I can't really wrap my head around at all.

Fun is entirely subjective in a way that numbers aren't.

One person might find missing their strike, requiring them to be extra careful next turn so as not to waste that spell fun.
Another is going to find missing their strike frustrating, because that's a waste of two actions they wouldn't have suffered if they hadn't used striking spell.

Fun for one, not fun for the other, but both are going to have their numbers in the toilet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And anyway, Paizo definitely prefer that we get het up and passionate than greet the classes with disinterest and indifference.


HidaOWin wrote:

Assuming you get the opportunity to get your magic weapons on recommended level.

+1 weapon Level 2
+1 striking weapon Level 4
+2 striking weapon level 10
+2 greater striking weapon level 12
+3 greater striking weapon level 16
+3 major striking weapon level 19

Potency gets you
+1 weapon Level 1 1 level early
+1 striking weapon Level 5 1 level late
+2 striking weapon level 7 3 levels early
+3 greater striking weapon level 15 1 level early
It doesn't do +2 greater striking or +3 major striking.

Ironically this means level 8 is when you get Runic Impression which means you'll spend 2 levels of fights debating which one to activate just as you get your shiny new feat.

Went over this briefly in another thread, but the suggested loot table recommendation is enough for everyone in the party to get a level+1 item every other level, which is enough to get your weapon upgrades a level early with some wiggle room.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Potency is not "arguably" better than buying runes. It is flatly better than trying to keep up with maxed out fundamental runes ...

'Keeping up' with maxed out fundamental runes isn't difficult, isn't supposed to be difficult, and is something the system math assumes you'll be doing.

There's an argument that potency is better some of the time, but there's an argument that it's worse just as much.


Unicore wrote:

It is a catch 22. If you are good at working with your team and your team prioritizes getting you into position with the best to hit chance, then almost never.

If you are in that situation then the greater Elemental runes (which add 2d10 persistent damage on a crit) are much better additions. But if you are struggling to get support, then you will rarely be getting a crit even on a 19 vs the kind of higher level boss enemies that you really want to be able to double down on.

Runic impression is a great focus power because you chose it when you cast it. So yo add on the greater elemental runes most of the time when getting a crit is in the 10-25% range anyway, but you have a pocket ace to keep your crit range at 10% even when no one else in the party is going to be able to manage it.

Yeah, I've no issue with Runic Impression itself.

Flexibility is great, it's not hard to think of ways it could be useful every fight.

It's the Keen rune specifically I'm not sold on.
'Useful if you roll a 19 on your second attack' is far too situational for me to call something 'overwhelming'. I'm not sure that I would ever use it on a class with Master weapon progression.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DragoonSpirits86 wrote:
I originally had very little interest, and not a small amount of trepidation, with Secrets of magic as for me personally and my play group the magus and the summoner in particular were very disliked classes in terms of mechanics/design and negative impact at a table for a myriad of reasons not worth really delving into here(Though I am interested to hear if we were unique in this, as my understanding was that fairly universally summoner was pretty much THE singular class GM's didn't allow in home games and hated to see at a PFS table). I say this partly to refute the threads title, as a significant re-design of these two classes was NOT what we expected, but very much happy to see. In a way, seeing a simple copy/paste of these classes between editions would be a disservice to the design possibilities the new edition could give them and I am very happy to see this playtest.

It feels to me like the designer here shares your position;

Didn't like the 1e Magus, didn't want to see something like the 1e Magus in 2e, and is more interested in catering to the people who didn't like the 1e Magus than to the people who did.

Some people are going to be good with that, some people are not going to care either way, and some people are really going to hate it, not just because they find this class underwhelming, but because it means they're probably never going to get a 2e version of the class they enjoyed.


shroudb wrote:
Throne wrote:
Unicore wrote:
but eventually the ability to get Keen is pretty overwhelming. Especially with that being a uncommon rune.
Do you really find that you're often rolling 19s and not criting anyway?
on second attacks? all the time

'Useful when you roll a 19 on second attacks' feels a lot more 'very occassionally good' than 'overwhelming'.


Unicore wrote:
but eventually the ability to get Keen is pretty overwhelming. Especially with that being a uncommon rune.

Do you really find that you're often rolling 19s and not criting anyway?


shroudb wrote:
Throne wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Usually you start a level with equipment = level-1.

Even standard treasure tables give like 2 items for the whole party that are up to your level.

So, as an example, when you reach level 16, only 2 members of the party will each have a single level 16 piece of equipment.

Do you only get loot once per level?

You may get multiple items of lower level, consumables, gold, and etc

But guidelines for distributing treasure to the party and/or starting at higher level usually allow the items to be at max Level-1

The table for party treasure by level (core book, p.509) has a party of 4 getting 4 permanent items across the course of the level; 2 at level, 2 at level +1.

If you alternate by level, everyone should be able to have a level appropriate 'main item';
Lvl 1, get a lvl 2 item (+1 weapon)
Lvl 2, get a lvl 2 item
Lvl 3, get a lvl 4 item (+1 striking weapon, 2 levels before Magus Potency)
...
Lvl 9, get a lvl 10 item (+2 striking, 2 levels after Magus Potency)
...
Lvl 11, get a lvl 12 item (+2 greater striking - Magus Potency never gives this)
...
Lvl 15, get a lvl 16 item (+3 greater striking, 2 levels after Magus Potency)
And if you switch it up and take level instead of level +1 for 16 and 17, then level +1 at 18, you get lvl 19 +3 major striking weapon, which Potency never gives.

So completely by the loot-by-level table, Magus Potency is behind for more time than ahead.

And you round it out with crafting, selling, and buying.
It's not meant to be hard to keep up with the math, which assumes you'll be doing your best to keep your weapons, armour, and items which support your favourite skills or tactics, at your level.


shroudb wrote:

Usually you start a level with equipment = level-1.

Even standard treasure tables give like 2 items for the whole party that are up to your level.

So, as an example, when you reach level 16, only 2 members of the party will each have a single level 16 piece of equipment.

Do you only get loot once per level?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
To be fair, there are a lot of other reasons they might want to MC.

Off topic, but gits & shiggles is a good reason, right?

I've played a couple of sessions now with as vanilla a magus as I could think to pull together.

I'm toying with trying something with sentinel dedication for scaling heavy armour prof, shield cantrip, and never using Striking Spell at all, 'spellstriking' only after capturing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalaam wrote:

Whoa, sure is rough to have whole chapter of my spellbook going to ashes whenever I learn a new spell level eh?

Seriously, use some common sense too. If you know how to cast a 8th level spell, you know how to cast a 1st level one.

Spell slots are just "memory space" in the character's mind to keep the spells ready. The magus has less than the wizard and focuses on keeping what little space he has to hold as much power as possible.

If you're going to try calling for common sense, you should probably apply some and burn the strawman.

No-one is saying you don't know the spells anymore, or that you can't cast them anymore. Just that you can't cast them at a level beneath your slots anymore.
You still know True Strike. You can't still cast True Strike as a 1st level spell, because you can't cast 1st level spells.
Being able to understand the distinction is important for following this conversation.

Unicore wrote:
I think it is valuable to point out that this issue of spells and spell level creates some confusion in the way the playtest document is written. I think it would be a big mistake to playtest the magus with the assumption it is incapable of using a staff, and that is an intended class restriction. Everyone should playtest it as it feels most relevant to you and report that information in your survey, but at best this is just an editing error that will clearly get fixed before the book is published. Otherwise a casting MC dedication and basic spell casting become absolutely mandatory, and everything else about spamming true strike is still on the table as far as striking spell is concerned.

There is definitely value in playtesting with the assumption that you can cast from the staff, just don't pretend like there's no possible issue with that.

I'm not 100% convinced that it's the intent that you can't, just that the rules don't look like they support it, and we should be pushing for clarification rather than dismissing the idea that it could be a problem out of hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Do you read that you lose the ability to cast lower level spells? In fact the number of spells and your ability to cast spells of a certain level are two separate things in this description, and the wording "As you increase in level as a magus, your number of spell slots and the highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots increase, shown in Table 1–2: Magus Spells per Day" makes no mention that you are unable to cast spells of a lower level. You just don't have available spell slots for casting them, that doesn't mean you are suddenly incapable of casting the spell. Granted this is a playtest, so they may want to change the graphic presentation of the chart, but the text makes it clear the chart is only showing what spell slots you have, not what level spells you are capable of casting. You only gain the ability to cast spells of new levels as your character levels up. You never lose that ability.

Your spell slots are your ability to cast spells. That is literally their thing.

Losing your 1st level spell slots is losing the ability to cast 1st level spells, and I'm not particularly interested in engaging in a circular argument that amounts to "it doesn't say you can't cast 1st level spells, you just can't cast them."

You're wrong, but you do you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ressy wrote:
Of course, even if you can't cast 1st level spells, you still count as being able to cast True Strike, just not a level 1 True Strike.

Definitely.

Unfortunately the Staff of Divination holds True Strike as a 1st level spell, and casting from a staff requires you to be able to cast spells of the appropriate level.

It's probably not the intent that the wonky spell progression locks you out of staff spells for levels you've grown out of, but I don't trust the class design enough to say it's definitely not.
Clarification is needed.

If it's something they let slide by, that's great and awful.
You're essentially going to have a bastard sword with a rune of 'here's a bunch of True Strikes and a few situationally useful spells a day', which would feel as mandatory as doubling rings for a dual-wielder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ressy wrote:
Quote:

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

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

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

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

Sorry, should've been clearer.

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

Unicore wrote:
The magus arcane casting ability says nothing about losing the ability to cast 1st level spells, you just don't have slots for them. With a staff you don't need to use any spell slots to cast a spell. Would a wizard out of 1st level spell slots not be able to cast truestrike through a staff? of course not. People are reading into what "able to cast an appropriate level spell" means for no reason. 20th level magi are able to cast a 1st level spell through a scroll, a wand or a staff.

This is spurious pedantry on a par with 'but the book doesn't say you can't take actions when you're dead!'.

If you don't have 1st level spell slots, you can't cast first level spells, unless you are able to cast spells as 1st level spells from higher level spell slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.

Hard disagree. Those classes all get a better base toolkit.

A non-fighter martial with 5 wizard dedication feats and 6 class feats will be a better martial and better caster than a magus with 5 martial dedication feats and 5 class feats.

A fighter with 5 wizard dedication feats and 8 class feats widens the gap so much more it's not even funny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orithilaen wrote:
Slide Casting is clearly the best of the three--this is a real issue with the class. Sustaining Steel effectively gives you fighter hit points, over and over again, which is nice but I appreciate that it makes the action economy tight. Shooting Star is useless from this perspective on Striking Spell.

Agreed Shooting Star is useless.

Sustaining Steel... only any help if you're casting striking steel every round you're taking damage. Worthless when you're not taking damage, and N/A when you're not Striking Spelling.
Slide Casting far and away the no-brainer option here, which itself is bad design.

Quote:

Portal Slide makes Slide Casting better. Quickened Spellstrike is great when you appreciate that it triggers your Magus Synthesis, so you get a kind of double-quickened effect: you can cast a 2-action spell (not level-limited, unlike other Quickened Casting feats), Stride, Strike, Strike. (It doesn't stack so you can also be actually quickened when you pull this off, if you have haste or hasted assault up.) Standby Spell lets you hold on to a spell that synergizes well with Striking Spell while still letting you prepare other spells in your few precious slots.

Portal Slide is max 4 times per day if you use all your slots for offensive spells. Quickened Spellstrike is once per day. Far too limited, would never take either of them even if Striking Spell was more worthwhile (my playtest magus has Spell Swipe in the level 10 slot, to throw back spells stored from Capture)

Quote:

At high character levels, someone who invests almost half their class feats in a spellcasting multiclass archetype can get more spells, at lower levels, than a magus who invests zero class feats gets. A magus, meanwhile, has better spells, and can cast 2 each of their highest levels. If you really want the extra low-level spells, you can take the wizard multiclass archetype too.

The idea that a fighter with a wizard dedication is better at casting than a magus is absurd.

Not so absurd.

I'd take 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, 2 4th, 2 5th, 1 6th, 1 7th over 2 4th, 2 8th, 2 9th any day. It's a trade of a lot of utility, flexibility and versatility for a little raw power.
It's not inarguably better, but it's not inarguably worse.

Sure, a Magus can take the Wizard dedication too, but my point is that they really shouldn't have to in order to be an inarguably better caster than a fighter who dabbles.
And that 6-slot Magus still has 9 Magus feats. The 12-slot Fighter still has 8 fighter feats. The opportunity cost doesn't balance it out as much as you seem to think, especially with what the Fighter chassis brings to the table before feats even come into the equation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good post MM.
Couple of thoughts you might not have considered;

Completely agree with your assessment on Slide Casting being a no-brainer.
I don't think that sort of 'clear head-and-shoulders winner' is good design, though.
Shooting Star especially looks really really bad; you get to use a different weapon for an ability that's all drawback, no benefit.

Those very 'meh' first level feats are made even worse by the Magus not getting a feat at first level. No reason to ever take any of them.
Raise Tome is a bad joke; just cast Shield.

Cascading Ray is an interesting idea, but worse than it looks; not only are you using your worse Spell Attack numbers, but it's always going to apply MAP. You're probably looking at it sitting around -8 compared to the attack that triggers it.

On the other hand, I think Capture Spell is potentially better than you give it credit for. It gives you a stored spell as a reaction, and so allows for Spell Swipe & Dispelling Spellstrike, without ever having to use Striking Spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:


I think a first level class feature that can be used at will giving both an action economy bump and MAP avoidance is a complete non-starter. It's simply not how the system is designed to work.

...

Your PPS is basically agreeing with what I am saying, though - that the accuracy is what is lacking.

Just repeating the claim that 'no-one can have this mechanic because no-one has this mechanic!' doesn't make it a better argument.

My PPS, as you well know, is pointing out that Striking Spell isn't really MAP avoidance, so shouldn't even lock the ability out of an economy bump if we accept your argument (which I don't, obviously), as others have also pointed out.
Stop arguing in bad faith.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orithilaen wrote:
Throne wrote:

If you're not using Striking Spell for spell attack spells, what are you using it for?

Buffs aren't eligible. Control and other spells with saves, you're better off just casting than risking missing your strike and not being able to cast.

You're not, because of magus synthesis. (As you get more class feats that play off Striking Spell, this gets even more true.)

For Slide Caster, maybe.

Shooting Star gives literally nothing, Sustaining Steel is just win-more. If you're taking enough damage it would make a difference, it's probably not going to make the difference.

Which of the feats do you consider make it worthwhile?
Capture Spell looks decent, but then that neatly sidesteps most of the downside.

Orithilaen wrote:


Quote:

Spell attack spells with Striking Spell are a bad choice, because Striking Spell is bad. There are no better choices.

Master Spellcasting at lvl 19 isn't a 'core class feature', it's bad comedy.
Someone dipping into spellcasting as a side-gig gets it earlier.

One level earlier. At the cost of an 18th level class feat. (Some "side-gig"!) Meanwhile, someone who uses a multiclass archetype is 1-2 spell levels behind you and can only cast one spell in their two top spell levels.

Earlier mastery, more spells, even better able to utilise staves since they don't 'grow out' of being able to cast certain level spells. I'm not saying there's no opportunity cost, just that it's a bit off that you're worse at the cornerstones of your class (castin' and fightin') than a fighter with a wizard dedication.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I don't think the problem is the action economy at all (that really can't be better than it is for reasons that have been discussed)

The reasons haven't been discussed, and don't really hold up.

All you've said is 'this can't be better because no-one has something like that'. That's not a conclusive or consistent argument at all; other classes have things that no-one else gets to make their core idea work.

P.S. Action economy is still a problem.
P.P.S. Striking Spell is arguably not even an accuracy enhancer; you're going to be hitting at a similar deficit to someone else's second strike, have a significant chance of being locked out of the 'second strike' by missing the first, and don't even get that arguable benefit if using a non spell-attack spell (as has been suggested).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're not using Striking Spell for spell attack spells, what are you using it for?
Buffs aren't eligible. Control and other spells with saves, you're better off just casting than risking missing your strike and not being able to cast.
Spell attack spells with Striking Spell are a bad choice, because Striking Spell is bad. There are no better choices.

Master Spellcasting at lvl 19 isn't a 'core class feature', it's bad comedy.
Someone dipping into spellcasting as a side-gig gets it earlier.


Something (mostly) positive:
I really like Capture Spell
It's a nice idea, and a nice implementation of the idea. So nice, it feels like it was written for a different class. From the rest of the Magus abilities, I would've expected it to require a crit miss/crit save.

Let down slightly by the lack of a Spell Parry stance, and massively so by Preternatural Parry being what we get in that design space instead, eating your reaction.


Kalaam wrote:
Throne wrote:
Salamileg wrote:


I like how you imbue the spell into your weapon and don't lose it if you miss. Action economy issues aside, this is a very good solution to helping Magus lose their spells less frequently in a game where missing is common.
This adds additional points of failure into landing your spell and makes you more likely to lose the spell than just casting it, not less.
Also gives you more opportunities to crit.

Perhaps.

I'm willing to bet that you'll lose more spells through missed attacks than you'll bump hits into crits, though.
Gut feeling, not data, obviously, and no doubt baised by my terrible dice luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:


I like how you imbue the spell into your weapon and don't lose it if you miss. Action economy issues aside, this is a very good solution to helping Magus lose their spells less frequently in a game where missing is common.

This adds additional points of failure into landing your spell and makes you more likely to lose the spell than just casting it, not less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalaam wrote:

I aggree, there is probably a lot of spells and feats that will be in the final book that we don't see here. (maybe a selection of 1 action spells and more martial oriented feats)

So let's focus on tuning this execution.

You can't test this with the approach 'there's probably stuff in the book we haven't seen that makes this work', because if there isn't, and there's no reason to think there is, you're left with an unworkable mess.

It needs to be good with what we're given, not with possible-stuff that might exist in the future that could maybe make it ok.


Blave wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Anyway, with 5 cantrips there's enough choice ( even if, as far as I recall, electric arc is the only decent one with a saving throw, apart from daze ).

Chill Touch is decent as well. Even better for damage than Daze. Only against living targets of course and it does target Fort which is often a downside. I'm still somewhat fond of the spell.

Come to think of it, increasing the number of Cantrips to 7-ish for both Magus and Summoner might lessen the blow of their reduced spell slots a bit. Cantrips aren't that amazing, but having more of them at least allows you some flexibility while still covering the basics.

There's a feat for that, and it's only really competing with Hammerspace-Quickdraw (unless anyone really wants a Familiar with no bond drain, I guess?)


Angel Hunter D wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

Its not a bad focus spell. Its a great focus spell.
It just doesn't fill the niche that the magus actually needs: something to spellstrike with.

And it's definitely not in the range of a core class feature. As a level 1-4 feat, yeah it would be great. baked in? mandatory? not doing what they need, I agree.

It would be an alright feat.

I'm not sure I'd ever take it over Cantrip Expansion, Spirit Sheath, or Spell Parry, though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
You know, I can see that Magus and Summoner have some rough edges, but why is that every playtest we seem to get a contingent of people saying "OMG this is the worst thing ever Paizo completely ruined this and couldn't possibly have made it any worse"?

For what it's worth, I've been around for long enough to know they could definitely have made it worse.

MaxAstro wrote:
Like... I agree that Magus probably has some accuracy issues, but that's... a pretty small part of the class, design space wise, and easily fixed?

Cool. And once they fix the accuracy issues, there are the action economy issues.

And once they fix the action economy issues, there are the core class features that will be useful for about 2 levels.
And once they fix that.... you get the idea.

You might not agree that the issues other people have with the class are issues at all, but that's not a requirement for people to have those issues.
For fans of the 1e Magus, there's a lot to dislike about this.
Of course, pleasing fans of the 1e version isn't a requirement. It's not necessarily even a design goal. But that doesn't mean they're not allowed to ask 'what the hell is this?'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Casting proficiency is a bigger problem than action economy, but that isn't to say that action economy isn't still a big problem.

'If you miss the weapon attack, you can still hit with it next round to unleash the spell' doesn't suddenly make striking spell a good accuracy boost. The inaccuracy boost more than counteracts it; you're still just losing actions.
No data to back it up, but I feel like a spell attack followed by an attack with an agile weapon with MAP every round is going to turn out better than an attack with your weapon which you have to land or lose the rest of your actions for the turn.
That's just my gut, but there are definitely going to be many cases of a Magus missing the attack then not being able to swing on their next turn; dead badguy, dead Magus, hell, even if the target just takes 3 move actions away, since you don't get AoO. And that is going to get really frustrating.

MaxAstro wrote:
There is no 1st level ability in the game that both gives better action economy AND avoids MAP.

No offense, but I'm not sure that's relevant. There isn't anything, until there is.

No-one starts with better than Trained weapon proficiencies, except the one who does.
There wasn't a caster who lost the ability to cast 1st level spells, until there was.
If it's what's needed to make the class work, because right now it doesn't, then no-one else getting the same toy shouldn't be allowed to be an obstacle.


Quandary wrote:
AFAIK there isn't anything stopping from casting a low level spell in higher level slot (it just isn't Heightened without pre-Preparing that), so that should cover "able to cast spells of the appropriate level".

Out of curiosity, is there anything that says you can prepare a spell in a higher level slot without Heightening it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Ressy wrote:


For an attack-roll based spell, it lets you ignore MAP.

Keep in mind that you will have -1/-3 on hit depends your proficiency, if compared to a pure spellcaster.

Then you will be able to see the "advantage" of using a saving throw spell.

Pretty well rounded.

Your save DC is going to be at a similar deficit. Will be interesting to see how often that makes the difference between a save and a crit save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
I can't believe that the intention is to completely lose access to magic items like Scrolls just because you don't have slots of the appropriate level.

This definitely feels worth breaking out into its own issue for clarification, or to highlight what may be an unintended consequence of a new way of managing spell slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalaam wrote:

I also think 4 slots a day are too little, but I assume the intention was to make the Magus use a lot of magic items and that's what they'll spend their gold on rather than their weapon, since they can give it a relevant fundamental rune as they level up. So rather than investing in that +2 striking longsword, how about getting that ring of wizardry Mk II ? They both cost 1000 Gold.

That's just my assumption tho'.

Magus Potency and Runic Impression are situational bandaids for when you don't have an appropriate weapon for the situation, you shouldn't be relying on them as replacements for a level-appropriate magic weapon.

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>