I am revising my belief in Ultimate Stunt Flexibility. There is no point in offering up 18th level feats for stunt flexibility when no 18th level feats are risky.
Search Posts
I think having the only press strike action available at level 1 being a 2 action activity, pressing pummel, be two actions is a pretty brutal oversight for this class. It doesn't feel great to flying hurdle stunt...and then not have anyway to make an attack roll that benefits from audacious combat. But in looking at that I realized, audacious combat is actually really hard to get any benefit from with strikes, and especially strikes with weapons! The first one action press strike is not available until level 4, and that one requires that you are flanked, which can be hard to arrange. Level 6 headsmash is one action, but you have to have someone grappled and both you and the target have to be next to a prop, and you can't use a weapon with this one at all. Level 8 accompanying strike requires that you missed with a strike on your last action, so no Flying Hurdle Stunt synergy at all. You literally don't get a press strike action you can use with a weapon in most situations (but only once a turn) until level 10 Hit or Miss and that is pretty much the only one the Daredevil gets. If audacious combat is really only supposed to apply to maneuvers, then I think the class should be a lot more transparent about that. Really unfortunately, a damage dealing Daredevil almost has to MC into Fighter to get any decent one action press abilities, and then suddenly, they get really good ones. There are also some strange archer builds possible that use audacious combat well. It feels like a good 1 action press strike ability would be very, very popular.
A big part of the Paizo playtesting process is just trying to collect data on what kinds of feats players choose and how satisfied they are with them. It can be fun to speculate possible changes and alternative approaches, but usually it seems like the devs already know what likely alternatives they will use and are just stress testing some of the more out there ideas. I have been looking more and more at this class playtest and I have come to realize it is is incredibly flexible in what you can do with it, but that building a coherent character build is one of the more complex classes to work with as it is almost entirely about feat selection. Unlike the fighter though, the DD class has a lot of weaknesses and gaps that you have to accommodate or play around or you’ll end up getting torn apart. It has good defensive/tanky feat options that cover almost all of the requests I see people making to have baked in to its core: resist all, temp HP, save boosters, circumstance bonuses to AC, and those abilities tend to be strong, but limited…leaving the daredevil with a lot of chances to get caught with their pants down. Is anyone play testing a DD tank? They have really powerful synergy with deadly agile weapons. You can build a pretty good striker out of this class, and maybe even use 2 weapons effectively with archetypes, but not having a free hand could rule out a lot of your options too. I am playtesting an open hand, war razor strong strike DD, and my first level 1 turn was move, stunt to leap and trip, then crit a goblin dog for 21 points of damage. Not every turn can go like that but it made the maul fighter jealous. There are totally free hand builds that look good, but I worry a lot of GMs are going to get tired of players trying to figure out how they are pulling stones to throw out of smooth dungeon walls. Lastly, I think there are probably some secretly very nasty ranged builds using the archer archetype that can exploit mobility and press actions to be very effective kiters. I would love it if the daredevil could turn out to be one of the best starknife killers, but I haven’t figured that one out yet myself. What feats are you playing around with as build defining? What opportunities do you see this class opening up?
I guess a fair bit depends on the generosity of the GM. If the GM is giving you the railing and rigging (with a climb speed), you are probably good. Although you might have feats where you want to move around to lots of enemies and have to stay next to a prop the whole time and that can get tricky if you have to move over 1 square in the middle of the ship. I do think that the feat is probably more of a hint at other stuff in the book that the daredevil will synergize well with, but that probably require rules we don’t have yet to really play around with.
Stunt driver seems like it is most useful on a large vehicle like a ship, where the GM probably won’t give you the floor as a prop, but it will still count with stunt driver.
Looking into the issue more deeply, I decided to pull out and think about all of the defensive Daredevil Feats. This is what I found: Feat - Level - ?= a maybe or maybe not defensive feat. Scrambling Retreat 1
The six unquestioned defensive feats do make for a pretty tough Daredevil. Here are some random thoughts on them: I think Fortify Self is pretty tough at once an hour. That feels like one of the tester requirements that the devs throw in just to see if it puts people off from taking it or not. Almost nothing in the game tracks at 1 hour so I especially hate it because it feels like players are going to forget to keep track of time that well when in a dungeon that might take more than one session to explore. Is this ability really too powerful to be once every 10 minutes like every thing else in the game? It is probably too good to be more often than that. It would bury raising a shield as an action. Can we get the resistance dropped to just your Con mod and make this once every 10? I guess that really trails hard at higher levels. Resist All 10 at max level is pretty bonkers...unless resist all doesn't work like it used to after the final instance of damage errata. I do not envy the developers for trying to run a play test with an ability like this as something as massive as how resistances work is up in the air for the game. Lucky Spark is why the class has no legendary saves. It is probably a mandatory feat...only it's really hard to pass on Daring Critical. It is like the risk reward of this class is half buried in the feat choices you make or don't make. Picking Daring Critical instead of Lucky Spark means your character is going to get shredded by will and fort saves. You are almost guaranteed to die or be possessed forever at some point before the end of the campaign without Lucky Spark, but...crits on a 19? with all the crit synergistic feats you have? Maybe it is worth dying 3 encounters before the end boss because you got a mega 3x crit with extra deadly dice rolling only a 19 on an attack with maximum MAP? Vigorous Adrenaline is the feat you take if you want to use some of those weird risky press feats. Level+CON temp HP every round is going to give you a lot of extra staying power. There are classes that would kill for this ability. Again, here is a level where the "risk reward" element of the class is at character creation more than in play because Vigorous Adrenaline is going to cost you Hit or Miss, which this class can really get nasty with. Level 10 is low enough that you are likely to be able to get both of these though so it is not the same kind of issue that it is for the level 18 feats. Can't catch me...ok, let's talk about Scrambling Retreat first. Scrambling Retreat: Nimble Dodge that requires you to have adrenaline, but also gives you half a stride of movement. Your attacking enemy can follow you, and should be able to unless you have really maxed out your speed, but if following you means always having to enter the last square you entered, you can get pretty nasty with this and setting up traps. I think a lot of players are going to sleep on this feat at first because it feels like you need to grab at least one additional risky option for getting that adrenaline going in the early game, but this will pretty much be a must defensive feat at later levels, especially at the point you can make it work for reflex saves as well (level 8 with a feat). I predict a lot of players retraining into this with their level 1 feat later and then using a roaming flexible feat for their chosen risky feats as more options become available. I like a class that encourages different feat use from the lower levels as you level up. I don't think I would personally ever choose Can't Catch me when you can grab Ultimate Stunt Flexibility to grab Daring Critical but also have all 3 of your flexible feats adjustable on 1 hour of rest. Also note: with a one hour recharge, there is no reason to call out Fortify Self. By the time you retrained it out, you'd already want it back because you can use it again. This does make me think Fortify Self might be headed towards once a day usage instead of once an hour or more preferably once every 10 minutes. So what are the essentially essential defensive feats to overcome the terrible defenses of this class? Scrambling Retreat, Scrambling Roll, Vigorous Adrenaline, and Lucky Spark. With Fortify Self as an interesting but annoying option. It is too bad the levels don't really line up for having a "FAST" and "TOUGH" class path that got 2 feats for free instead of the flexible feats that helped guide their defense. I do think players that don't take at least Scrambling Roll and Lucky Spark are really going to hurt in the end game.
I think the book these classes comes out in is going to feature a lot of rules related to vehicles and skill feats, and I think that alone is probably going to mean the daredevil keeps its name. I don't see a Brawler class coming out in any book short of one that really digs into the various unarmed martial practices of the people of Golarion, and I don't think this book will be that.
I am actually not that concerned with the direct damage from strikes aspects of the Daredevil with one caveat. It is a class that shouldn't be ending combat rounds standing next to an enemy that will strike them 3 times. The problem is that with such a focus on 2 action Press activities and reduced MAP, players are pulled into these stunts that leave them open to massive retalitory rounds, and that is where I think the "More HP and AC" vibes are coming from. "Try to finish off a foe, or move really far to safety" is probably the risk reward that the developers are imagining the class is built around, but I think very many players just don't try to kite in the first place, much less with a class that has fairly limited options for doing so and such strong incentives to make that last action an attack action. It is currently an easy class to gamble wrong with. My concern remains the absolutely terrible saves, which are the defenses that often get targeted when a character is kiting effectively.
I kind of think the solution needs to be 2 class paths that build in some of the feats that characters probably need, but players are loath to pick. One an athletics path that auto boosts athletics and gives fortitude boosting options and feats automatically, and one for acrobatics and reflex. Those things can remain feats so the other path can build to be good at both defenses if they want, but they should get one set of them for free to help make it clearer to the player how they should approach their character's defenses.
The Daredevil feels like it is going to be a very "talk to your GM about this class before making your character" class. They can weed a little bit of that out, but so much of the classes feats and features are going to be campaign dependent. On a boat in the high seas? You will have endless props with stunt driver. Campaigning in the elemental plane of air? well, you are probably going to be struggling for much to do.
My read on Caroming Charge is that it is boring. No die rolls means no chance at any kind of crit, and stunt damage is low enough that this is kind of like being a caster who just spams force barrage over and over again. The only reason I think most will take it is because 2nd level feats don't feel that great, with the exception of Stunt Driver, which would be very awesome in the one or two campaigns that might feature a lot of vehicle combat and useless otherwise. I am sure this book is going to include a lot more interesting rules and advice for integrating vehicles into combats and campaigns but that isn't really something we are going to be able to play test.
It is very unlikely the conversation happening here is still influencing anything about what the magus remaster will look like. People will keep home brewing their own fixes for the remastered magus after it’s out too. I am guessing very little about the class itself will have changed, but I am hopeful Arcane Cascade gets a little boost. I do think for a PF3, it would probably work better for arcane cascade to have to be on to spell strike and for spell striking to turn it off automatically. That way the recharge action does something else and other things you might do with it active could be competitive with spell striking.
And again, another piece of load-bearing evidence is that the system literally does not support splitting multi-type spells, etc, into multiple separate instances, as there are no rules to handle the traits, attributes, etc.The immunity rules literally cover the idea that a spell with multiple effects can have those effects treated separately though. As does resistance and weakness. It just gets a little awkward with resistances to things that are not damage types.
Except the old rule included and accepted that the GM would be the arbitrator of what constituted an instance or not and that it is ok for there to be some variance around that as it is ok to let the narrative guide the GM, rather than an immutable set of rules that ignored what made sense to story.
I was also pretty fine with the now redacted errata. I just wanted the example to show that runes were considered a part of the weapon and counted within that instance of damage. Edit: and for the shining symbol to be nerfed, because it is still a little too easy of a way to push an almost never resisted weakness on to all enemies with no real action cost.
Adventurer’s rash is real and it can hurt you.
I get it. The burden of proof on proving murder is pretty high. It would also probably decrease the property values in Absalom if it was confirmed their savior god was murdered. Accidental death? Involuntary manslaughter? These things happen
I think it requires care to add the right mix of additional spell attack roll spells, but it is definitely possible. Tangle vine is a really fun cantrip to play around with on the Magus. I remember when we were fighting dinosaurs, I used it a fair bit and we were pretty easily able to kite them in several encounters. Polar Ray's drained on a success is a good condition. Briny Bolt has been brought up a bunch in this thread. Personally, I think it is a bad spell to put in a spell slot but a fantastic spell for a striker's scroll. Acid arrow turned into sticky fire is a good condition granting spell attack roll spell. The issue with so few of them is that there is not enough of the decision making that other casters get to make about damage types and rider effects to make striker's scroll a consistently good feat unless you really commit to it. This was kind of always a problem with the magus and how the playtest one could use any spell and the published one could only use spell attack roll spells, but the remaster focus on saving throws definitely exacerbated the issue for how they seem to want the magus to play, and likely pushed the focus spell thing to the extreme, both for having the most and best spell attack roll spells and for making the recovery of focus points not something that took 3 or 4 class feats to make work. I kinda think it would be cool if you could only recharge your spell strike, after you had cast anything other than a cantrip with it, with a conflux spell, and then it probably would be fine to allow spell striking with saving throw spells to just use one roll, allow magi to still use other classes' focus spells, and probably allow for a little more damage to be added to cantrip spell striking, since you would rarely be doing more than one big nova spell strike in an encounter. It is the fact that focus spell spell striking essentially became "do this your first 3 rounds of the encounter," or in essence, an at-will ability through the most important rounds of combat, that the DPR of the Magus became the kind of problem where it was a massive outlier for optimizers and a bit disappointing for many players who only really ever used it with cantrips.
On the contrary, if there were more spells like polar ray spread out amongst the ranks (so like more briny bolt spells with a fair bit of damage and a decent effect) than top rank -1 or 2 scrolls are very reasonable, can easily be integrated with striker’s scroll, and would add a lot of endurance to the class. The problem is there are just not enough different spells to make this more than just a one trick pony where you use basically the same spell for 10+ levels at a time.
I disagree with most of Trip's reading of persistent damage, but I do agree that probably squabbling about how it did work won't really matter once the newest errata on instance of damage is finally printed. I also hope there is clarity there and that they consider adding an example, perhaps just in the FAQ that helps break it down clearly, and includes at least 3 cases of persistent damage, 2 of different damage types and 2 of the same.
You cannot run the immunities, resistances or weaknesses on the persistent damage until the value is being calculated at the end of the enemy’s turn! The condition value never becomes d8+3(from weakness) persistent fire damage. The condition “persistent fire damage” has a value of “d8” that does not become a damage rolled value until the end of the enemy’s turn turn, when Immunity, et. all is applied. If you gain persistent fire damage with a value of 2 and you have fire resistance 2, you keep the condition “persistent fire damage 2” until it goes out, and any effect that is dependent on that condition being applied can still be triggered. We know all of this because the very first sentence in persistent damage tells us that it is a condition. Full stop. There are additional specific rules from damage that get called out as well, but the condition only goes away under specific sets of circumstances.
The reason adding like instances of persistent damage together in the initial attack is nonfunctional to me is because it cannot be damage until the dice are rolled and you are adding up the values. That is very explicitly called out in the rolling damage section of the rules. Until the point the damage is being done, it has to be treated as a condition or else we are adding complicated algebra to the process for no good reason.
There is no certainty what exactly the now-retracted errata meant to allow as far as weakness stacking. Critical examples were lacking and that lead to a lot of projection. The only weakness stacking explicitly called out in the example were 2 hypothetical spell effects. The example also clearly stated something’s could not stack resistance and that very well could have included runes. We don’t know and never will since it has been retracted. What is clear from retraction statement is that complexity of interpretation of the old rules is what they are trying to address now, not the math of it, so I don’t know there is real value in projecting assumption about math that wasn’t fully understood.
You absolutely do apply immunity, resistance and weakness rules to persistent damage...when the damage is sustained, not when the condition is applied. It is the application of the condition that happens when the strike that gives persistent damage occurs. At that point, you have to follow the rules for stacking conditions because no damage is being taken from the persistent damage conditions. So there is no opportunity to add the various sources of the same type of persistent damage together because the damage is not being dealt then.
But that is the thing, you don’t calculate persistent damage during the attack that applies it. You calculate persistent damage when it happens which is at the end of the turn of creature who has it as a condition. That is when the dice are rolled. You can’t even add together different types of persistent damage for anything like overcoming hardness. Each different type of persistent damage happens separately.
Samir, I appreciate you sharing why you read the rules you do, and I can better understand your position now, but I still don’t think you can treat persistent damage like regular damage inside the instance of damage that gave the condition “persistent damage.” I do think the line you bolded, “Like normal damage, it can be doubled or halved based on the results of an attack roll or saving throw.” is a good candidate for removal errata because, even if your reading of the persistent damage rules was correct, there is never a time where persistent damage is going to double or be halved without explicitly being called out in the ability giving the persistent damage condition. In a third edition, it would probably be best not to call any conditions things that are key words of other parts of the game, like damage and persistent damage. I know so many new players get confused about when you roll persistent damage and when it is applied because it often doesn’t look any different than some other type of damage, when they are really a condition.
It’s not about number of instances with conditions, it is about only the highest value being applied. If I have a feat that gives frightened 1 on a hit, frightened 2 on a crit and a rune that gives frightened 1 on a crit, the frightened value of the target on a crit ends up at 2, not 3. The rune is essentially useless when I use that feat. Persistent damage works the same way as other conditions. I think it is only confusing because the values of persistent damage can be variable so it might get confusing sometimes when trying to decide if 2 bleed damage is a greater value than 1d4 bleed damage, but usually static persistent damage is low enough that a variable quantity is pretty obviously better. The thing that seems to be tripping you up is when the condition of persistent damage becomes damage instead of a condition, but it is long after the attack, so the sources of the condition never come under the instance of damage rule.
Energy mutagen is a free action with the spider collar. If you're in melee, you own one. Just like how eventually you should own a potion patch. Fortunately, energy mutagens are dime a dozen. The collar holds one mutagen. Energy mutagen picks damage type on creation. I wish you luck on getting that to line up and not waste more actions than one.
It is pretty interesting how quickly “weakness exploitation is a joke” turns into an errata emergency for the company when it is possible that double or tripling weakness triggering is going to break the game for so many players. It is actually really hard to consistently trigger weaknesses with runes in encounters. Energy mutagens are pretty much twice as action intensive as arcane cascade. I think there is a wide gap in player experience in tables that never learn about enemy weaknesses except when they get tripped arbitrarily by characters in regular play and tables where learning weaknesses early enough to exploit them without spending more actions than is worth the time is more the norm. The fighter is inarguably the better class for “the party just does the same thing every time until they can’t,” types of play. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is the always better class for every play style.
persistent damage of a type is a condition . The value of the condition cannot be increased by addition applications of the condition. By the time it comes to roll the damage for it, you are only rolling the dice for one instance of persistent damage of a specific type, so there is nothing to add to the damage value except the one highest value of persistent damage of that type.
Immunity is the bugbear to trait only damage.
I am also not in favor of CON as Key. The class is all about athletics or acrobatics as a focus. You want the one you will be using once or twice a turn to be you Key attribute. With Con as KAS, one of the two of these skills will be almost unusable for you, at least for difficult tasks. I am even less of a fan of letting CON work for one or both of these skills. You don’t tough your way up a mountain (maybe down) or across a balance beam.
The game will fall apart with stacking conditions. You cant have the fear from a fearsome rune add to the fear from a feat that gives frightened 1 on a critical hit. Persistent damage is a condition, it is just a condition with a variable value that is resolved on the turn of the character with the condition. The "instance" of persistent damage happens on the character who has the persistent damage's turn, not when the strike occurs. There is nothing to stack by the time bleed damage occurs.
I think there is going to be a problem getting to a true community consensus around the “right way” to get the instance of damage rules to be consistent and easy to parse around defined terms. Combining everything that causes damage from one action or activity into one instance of damage is going to mean spell strike, flurry, flame wisp, etc. is going to work exactly the same. This will make resistances much weaker and make triggering weaknesses via hitting the right, different weaknesses the optimization/tactics game. Giving fire weakness for example will be less useful than giving a less common weakness, for the purpose of multi triggering weaknesses on creatures. It could be fine this way, but it will take players adjustment time to figure out that they need to do different kinds of the right damage types to beat weaknesses, but that will be terrible if you hit multiple resistances. Many players might just choose to stack the same damage type as much as possible to trivialize resistances, but watch out for immunities. If it does go this route, a lot of text in a lot of rule books is going to be redundant and possible confusing to leave in place. All the “combine for…” text of abilities like twin strike and flurry and in spells should probably be removed or it will continue to look like the exception to the rule instead of the baseline. Also, the whole “apply only the highest” should be completely removed. Weakness to slashing and cold iron should just both trigger once. If it is left in, then it will be applied to entire attacks and only one weakness would ever trigger. That would be bad. If it also meant only one resistance triggered, that would be awful. Might as well remove resistances and just give out more immunities. It is possible to do this, but implementing it across everything consistently is going to take a lot of work. For a third edition, I think creating a trait hierarchy for damage that tells you how to group different kinds of damage situations will be the best way to have the kind of granularity the original game was shooting for and have it be consistently parsable without confusion.
I don’t think there is a general assumption that spell striking is/was to powerful. Imaginary weapon spell striking 3 times an encounter was definitely too much and pretty much everyone knew it. Is general focus spell casting (2d6 heightening) 3 times an encounter too much? That one seems much more debated. I think it probably is, but whether focus spell casting gets taken out entirely, we’ll see.
Trip already gets damage from the ground on a crit. No daredevil would ever use any maneuver but trip if they just get free stunt damage on top of the other effects of trip
One alternative that could be interesting is if they got a reaction where they could use acrobatics instead of their reflex for one save or athletics instead of fortitude.
I am not personally worried about AC, mobility can compensate AC. I am worried about reflex and fortitude saves in particular.
But the daredevil does not have any cool unique niche that replaces a legendary defense of some kind, in my opinion. They aren’t better at damage than a rogue or monk really. They don’t get extra skills, they are only a 8 HO class. They are going to get shredded by auras, emanations, and area effects. Casters are going to eat them alive.
I do have concerns that creature weaknesses and HP were mostly calibrated around an understanding of instance of damage that is no longer accurate, but that will probably be pretty minor, with most resistant all creatures a little easier now, and thus less likely to get complaints. I guess small creature errata can be dolled out as creatures pop up as too easy or too hard. This just seems like a relatively massive change to embark on at this point in the game’s life span, so it feels like there could be a lot of knock on effects that will manifest in play. Does this also mean that “use only the highest weakness” is pretty much only going to apply to trait based weaknesses like weapon material? That whole rule might need some revising too to make sure it isn’t over applied and every instance of damage can only ever have one weakness applied to it.
Yeah, there is a thread about it in the general discussion. The errata has been removed and a statement of intent exists, but the new fix hasn’t t been formalized.
Now that I think of it, if a Daredevil's thing is they are hearty and, well, a daredevil. You'd think they could have legendary Reflex and Fortitude. Especially Reflex. The one thing I was wondering is if the fact that, generally, legendary saves come with critical failure mitigation made the developers shy away from it on the high risk, High reward class. But I think it would be better if the class did get legendary in both fort and reflex, and just didn't get the crit failure mitigation ability, if that was what was holding it back. This is the class that conceptually should be rushing into the room that might be trapped afterall, and the fact that their saves are terrible and they have no HP is going to make that kind of brashness a terrible idea.
There isn't really a reason to use pressing pummel with a d12 weapon, as that just makes it a worse vicious swing with press, as it always add d10s. Yeah, this is my read too. Pressing pummel seems like it is here for the dexterity centric Daredevil that will otherwise really struggle to hit hard when hard hits are necessary. That is why traits like agile and backswing together feel like the best way to maximize it to me.
I know some folks have brought up issues with the AC of the Daredevil, but that seems pretty average to me, with it kind of interesting that the class is being pushed hard away from shields. But a Martial class that ends with Master Fortitude, Master Reflex and Expert will seems pretty much caster bad, but without any of the big special abilities that martial classes like the Commander (or the play test Runesmith) have. Combined with the 8 HP and the abilities that all seem like they are designed to get you targeted a lot, it feels like this class is very, very glass cannon-ish, but without really having much of a cannon in the first place. Like, I think it is a really cool class concept, and I really like most of the abilities in it, but I am failing to see what having bottom of the barrel martial defenses have bought this class.
Also, it sounds like the new change to the new instance of damage errata is going to be another small weakening of the magus, by making the spell and the strike combine into one instance of damage, and thus only able to trigger any one weakness once. I really feel for the developers working on remastering the Magus. It seems like there are a lot of pieces moving at the same time, and sometimes in opposite directions
Thank you Maya for sharing this! I would love it if the deeper dive FAQ clarification makes sure to address whether nonmagical damage gets to stack in with magical damage in the case of resistances like the resist all that ghosts have. I also think it might be good to look specifically at the spell flame wisp and say whether something like that is definitely a separate instance of damage, or if it stacks in with the attack that triggered its damage. Lastly, and perhaps most messily, it kind of seems now like this new direction is going to make all the text in abilities and spells like force barrage unnecessary, as that will now be the default way that damage works. Will the Errata change or erase that text to make it look less like a special exception rather than just the default way damage is calculated?
well, now it seems like the whole errata on this is getting walked back so this whole example is off and I am not sure I understand the informal advice enough to be sure about things like combining magical and non-magical fire together before applying weaknesses. I will revisit this after the new errata has been worked out.
I agree. People keep saying “how is this class different than a swashbuckler,”but this class is feeling much more like the swashbuckler I always wanted to play, rather than the old class.
My playtest character is going to be starting off with pressing pummel to see if the two action press ability is just too difficult to set up pre not, but I do agree that this class does have a lot of potential flexibility!
I agree that it is probably only going to take 3 spell attack roll spells and a couple more cantrips to make the magus work great again.If you think that’s a statement I agree with you need to put more points in insight. It is my understanding that you feel like including pre-remastered slot spells gives the magus enough spell attack roll spells to use from slots. I understand you have other issues as well, but I was agreeing that they don’t need to saturate the game with 2 new spell attack roll spells at every rank to get the remastered magus back to its previous functionality. I would like one that is pure damage focused and a couple with more fun riders like briny bolt spread around at different ranks. Like 2 or 3. I think they also need some spell attack cantrips that are more like ray of frost was, that do damage and something interesting. The pure damage cantrips are probably fine.
Those are not remastered spells! The remastered Magus needs remastered spell attack spells worth casting from spell slots. If spells like polar ray and shocking grasp were in the remaster, the issue would be significantly less pressing. 4 times a day is a decent number of times for the magus to be able to be the undisputed master of single target, massive strike damage that can be crit fished into absurd numbers. The spells are just not in the remaster to support that. I agree that it is probably only going to take 3 spell attack roll spells and a couple more cantrips to make the magus work great again.
Strong agree. Even worse, if the ground got to count as a prop then there is never a reason not to just use trip all the time. I get the feeling props are intended to make general shove and reposition maneuvers something worth doing on that first action you have to use on a maneuver to get your adrenaline going. EDIT: Plus you already get extra damage on a trip with a critical hit, so it really doesn't need to be the only maneuver worth using.
|