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;
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.
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.
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')
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
On a crit, what's the damage?
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;
So if Ostentatious Arrival works at all, then it must work for Meld into Eidolon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fun for one, not fun for the other, but both are going to have their numbers in the toilet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'Useful when you roll a 19 on second attacks' feels a lot more 'very occassionally good' than 'overwhelming'.
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.
Do you only get loot once per level?
Spell casting accuracy is way more complicated with the magus than it seems. An anecdotal look at 13th level
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.
Spell casting accuracy is way more complicated with the magus than it seems. An anecdotal look at 13th level
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.
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.
Spell casting accuracy is way more complicated with the magus than it seems. An anecdotal look at 13th level
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.
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.
If it's something they let slide by, that's great and awful.
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.
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.
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.
Besides that... I guess the 4-round adventuring day is the new 5 minutes?
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.
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.
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)
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.
Good post MM.
Completely agree with your assessment on Slide Casting being a no-brainer.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If you're not using Striking Spell for spell attack spells, what are you using it for?
Master Spellcasting at lvl 19 isn't a 'core class feature', it's bad comedy.
Something (mostly) positive:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
It would be an alright feat.I'm not sure I'd ever take it over Cantrip Expansion, Spirit Sheath, or Spell Parry, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.