Why striking spell is the most PF2 mechanic ever designed, and how I've come to love it.

Midnightoker wrote:

Combining these two arts, you can channel spells into your weapon or body to inflict on your foes with your attacks.

Secrets of Magic”

Yeah, when I think of a class that specializes in combining spells and swordplay to assault their enemies I think "probably should do really low damage."

That's sarcasm, right?

And again, as is current, they might be considered a "Martial" for some, which is why I compared it to landing a bullseye on the wrong dartboard.

If you asked anyone that played PF1 Magus if it was a "Martial" class 3 years ago, all of them would have given an emphatic "no", because it wasn't.

Magus is a martial, dude. Especially the 1e Magus. They get martial weapon proficiency. The juicy center of the class is Spellstrike, casting a spell through your WEAPON. The other part is Spell Combat. Its literally "cast spells while swinging your sword" the class.

Squiggit wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Combining these two arts, you can channel spells into your weapon or body to inflict on your foes with your attacks.

Secrets of Magic”

Yeah, when I think of a class that specializes in combining spells and swordplay to assault their enemies I think "probably should do really low damage."

That's sarcasm, right?

Yeah.

I think Magus should be able to out damage the fighter a few times per day. basically as long as they have spells. (I'm not sure how many times is appropriate really) then when out of their top spells they should be a bit below the fighter. their defenses should generally be below the fighters as well. They absolutely need a spell strike mechanic as well. That is for as much flavor of the class as anything.

Martials get Weapon Critical Specialization and generally the real martials (Rogue/Investigator/Swashbuckler have baked in Utility) get Armor Specialization as well.

They get neither.

And again, as is current, they might be considered a "Martial" for some, which is why I compared it to landing a bullseye on the wrong dartboard.

Personally, I would rather see them drop Specialization (which is literally just bonus damage) as it would be far more thematic for them to get something more caster related than a direct damage bump, especially when their primary mechanics are applying damage in singular powerful attacks.

If you asked anyone that played PF1 Magus if it was a "Martial" class 3 years ago, all of them would have given an emphatic "no", because it wasn't. I do not consider a rough and abrupt departure from those themes a good thing.

Instead of Specialization, Magus could get improved spellstrike and such. Like making saves on spellstrike higher, or bake in Energize Strike in it so like at level 7 you get Energize Strike as a "Stand in" for Specialization. At level 13 (or whatever the level where you get the stronger specialization) you get the spellstrike DC buff.

Midnightoker wrote:

Combining these two arts, you can channel spells into your weapon or body to inflict on your foes with your attacks.

Secrets of Magic”

Yeah, when I think of a class that specializes in combining spells and swordplay to assault their enemies I think "probably should do really low damage."

Oof.

I didn't say they shouldn't do damage, but expecting them to do as much damage as a Fighter? Why?

We already have a high DPR Martial + Magic, it's the Fighter with an MCD. That concept is not having trouble being fulfilled.

As many people have pointed out, the 50/50 is missing.

If a Magus wants to invest their Feats in damage and all of their spells in damage, then they should be able to do comparable damage.

But forcing the standard of "Must do as much DPR as other Martial Classes" isn't a fair requirement to place on every Magus.

If someone wants to say "Magus are combat first and they do magic second", I'd point them once again to the texts I quoted (one was from the current playtest).

Ranger and Champion don't do the DPR that a Fighter does all the time. Why are we putting that requirement on the Magus?

Instead of Specialization, Magus could get improved spellstrike and such. Like making saves on spellstrike higher, or bake in Energize Strike in it so like at level 7 you get Energize Strike as a "Stand in" for Specialization. At level 13 (or whatever the level where you get the stronger specialization) you get the spellstrike DC buff.

Exactly.

Everyone is up in arms because I said removing Weapon Specialization could be a good place to swap a power budget.

Why did I say that?

1. Weapon Specialization gains value per strikes. The Magus, even as currently designed with Striking Spell, has ne of the LEAST strike intensive routines out of all the Martials (even the Rogue wants hits more often). The only other Martial Class that hits as infrequently as the Magus does by its design is Investigator and they get Studied Strike Damage to compensate.

2. It is a purely martial damage boost, no magic, no mixture, just a raw damage increase on weapon attacks.

Now, if we assume that it is intended that a Magus is not using 3 strikes per turn as they have multiple design elements that are pointed at "Casting spells is essential to this class" and "singular strikes with spells are where they shine", we are looking at effective DPR losses of the amount of Weapon Specialization they have at the time.

Basically, if you are using Striking Spell or your Spells, trading Weapon Specialization for something else would mean that "something else" only needs to make up an effective 2/4/8 in damage on a single strike.

That's not a lot of ground to cover.

The only time this amounts to a massive drop in DPR is when all the Magus is doing is making Strikes in a round.

And for those defending the position of "Magus is pure martial and it should do DPR like a Fighter" with the current state of the class, may I remind you this is a playtest. I am voicing my concerns that the current distribution of Martial/Magic is not fairly distributed and IMO it is one of the biggest reason the Class has problems right now, as all of its abilities for Magic are nerfed into the ground in order to accommodate the Martial aspects and thus they are ineffective (their limited spell slots are an example of something I want to see changed).

Magus is a martial, dude. Especially the 1e Magus. They get martial weapon proficiency. The juicy center of the class is Spellstrike, casting a spell through your WEAPON. The other part is Spell Combat. Its literally "cast spells while swinging your sword" the class.

Played 7 different PF1 Magus across Homebrew and 3 Paizo APs.

I do not agree in the slightest and would love to hear you defend how a Magus in PF1 is a "Martial" when they had significantly more spell slots.

Even Magus Arcana were heavily focused on Magic and almost all archetypes dropped weapon proficiencies and armor proficiencies.

So, citation needed I guess. That statement just isn't true.
____________________________________________

Aside: I think people are massively misinterpreting my opinion. If you read what I am actually saying could work instead, you'd see its a net buff to DPR if the Magus got more spells. I'm not talking about making them do less damage, I'm talking about making them cast more spells in order to realize that damage (and for the Magus that don't want to use spells for damage, more utility).

It's like people think I want to destroy my favorite class.

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.

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.

For those that missed what my intent was, this was what I meant when I said dropping it in favor of something that encourages casting+attacking as opposed to just attacking.

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.

Agreed too. Removing weapon specialization in exchange for something more fitting with the fantasy of a magic warrior is a great idea. Yes, it would make you worse at being a martial than currently existing martials, but that's the point, since unlike those, you've got a caster half backing you up instead. The martial side of Magus being lowered in power would open lots of opportunity to bring up the magic side of the class to actually feel like a 50/50 split, instead of the 75/25 split it is right now.

Agree with the last few posts, I pictured the magus as a realization of the old dnd class fantasy of what a 50/50 fighter/magic user could be. Not a fighter with a few spells. That was the bloodrager or that weird fighter archtype. If the magus winds up as it is now I'm hoping they put an eldritch knight archetype in secrets of magic at least so I can just skip new magus entirely

Midnightoker wrote:

Martials get Weapon Critical Specialization and generally the real martials (Rogue/Investigator/Swashbuckler have baked in Utility) get Armor Specialization as well.

They get neither.

And again, as is current, they might be considered a "Martial" for some, which is why I compared it to landing a bullseye on the wrong dartboard.

Personally, I would rather see them drop Specialization (which is literally just bonus damage) as it would be far more thematic for them to get something more caster related than a direct damage bump, especially when their primary mechanics are applying damage in singular powerful attacks.

If you asked anyone that played PF1 Magus if it was a "Martial" class 3 years ago, all of them would have given an emphatic "no", because it wasn't. I do not consider a rough and abrupt departure from those themes a good thing.

Instead of Specialization, Magus could get improved spellstrike and such. Like making saves on spellstrike higher, or bake in Energize Strike in it so like at level 7 you get Energize Strike as a "Stand in" for Specialization. At level 13 (or whatever the level where you get the stronger specialization) you get the spellstrike DC buff.

Agreed as well. I would even go further and say I’d give the medium armor proficiency up for a more better spellstrike

Agreed as well. I would even go further and say I’d give the medium armor proficiency up for a more better spellstrike

I have given up this battle and I do think Medium Armor deserves a place in the Magus.

I would have rather seen it as an option than a mandatory piece of the Class that is factored into its power budget, but I received so much conflict in even suggesting such a thing in another thread I just left it be.

I’m with you on it being an option. I wouldn’t think twice on giving that and weapon specialization for a non-slot machine striking spell.

At most I'd accept Medium armor to be part of the sustaining steel synthesis for more STR oriented Magus/tankier magus.

I dunno, without Medium armor I think the Magus would be too squishy.

I dunno, without Medium armor I think the Magus would be too squishy.

That's true, well that plays with the glass cannon theme but I also think the Magus should have access to medium armor, at the very least. Just so you're not forced to play dex again.

I dunno, without Medium armor I think the Magus would be too squishy.

They'd be more DEX encouraged, but a Chain Shirt + 16 DEX is max AC.

My suggestion in that other thread I found fair was:

1. Magus actually getting a level 1 Class Feat

2. Level 1 Class Feat that grants upgraded armor one step (with the requirement of Magus Synthesis to prevent MCD shenanigans). Actually on more thought, not required, it would be more efficient to go Sentinel than MCD and then take the next level Feat, so might not even be a problem.

3. Sustaining Steel default gets Medium.

Then DEX Focused Magus can take Raise a Tome with Dex instead of Medium Armor, Slide can still get Medium if they prefer as their level 1 Feat, and now Sustaining Steel can actually go Heavy Armor (which in PF1 Magus could get Heavy, albeit late) if they go SS and grab the level 1 Class Feat.

But again, I can see people just wanting Medium. I personally see the trade of Medium Armor for a level 1 Class Feat and adding a Magus-only Armor Upgrade Class Feat as relatively close and offers a lot more flexible style of Magus.

In the above scenario, no one really "lost" Medium Armor, they gained the ability to choose something else.

I think what make something a martial isn't just proficiency and weapon specialization. Investigator gets Greater Weapon Specialization and master proficiency in martial weapons and I wouldn't necessarily consider them a "martial." I would say right now we have roughly three categories: martial, hybrid, and caster.

Martials include Monk, Champion, Ranger, Fighter, Swashbuckler. The hybrid classes--which focus on advantages beyond combat but still have baseline proficiency in combat--are Rogue, Investigator, and, being extremely generous, Alchemist. Which is probably its own sad category, but in an ideal world it'd be in the same boat as Rogue and Investigator, I think.

Everything else is a caster. The "power budget" seems pretty clear to me.

What makes a martial, in my opinion, is proficiency plus (1) primarily combat-oriented/"maneuver-like" feats (i.e. Sudden Charge, Twin Takedown, etc.); (2) an every-round or sustained advantage in combat, whether it be accuracy, damage, or efficiency, above and beyond baseline proficiency; (3) 10 hp or higher. They are sturdy and specialized in sustained combat, round by round, with little to no resource expenditure to do so.

I'd say Magus is a hybrid and needs to lean that way. Hybrids have conditions to meet, but once those conditions are met they can fight on par with martials, even if they need to find a way to meet those conditions every round. It should be the same in proficiencies with Rogue and Investigator, but likely lag behind a bit on combat maneuvers (or have to use Battle Spells to replicate them). Instead of heavy skill bonuses they get their limited spell slots. But they still need a consistent way to enhance their base proficiency every round like Sneak Attack or Devise a Stratagem, and that's what Striking Spell needs to be.

They'd be more DEX encouraged, but a Chain Shirt + 16 DEX is max AC.

My suggestion in that other thread I found fair was:

1. Magus actually getting a level 1 Class Feat

2. Level 1 Class Feat that grants upgraded armor one step (with the requirement of Magus Synthesis to prevent MCD shenanigans)

3. Sustaining Steel default gets Medium.

Then DEX Focused Magus can take Raise a Tome with Dex instead of Medium Armor, Slide can still get Medium if they prefer as their level 1 Feat, and now Sustaining Steel can actually go Heavy Armor (which in PF1 Magus could get Heavy, albeit late) if they go SS and grab the level 1 Class Feat.

But again, I can see people just wanting Medium. I personally see the trade of Medium Armor for a level 1 Class Feat and adding a Magus-only Armor Upgrade Class Feat as relatively close and offers a lot more flexible style of Magus.

In the above scenario, no one really "lost" Medium Armor, they gained the ability to choose something else.

It's not a bad compromise.

It's not a bad compromise.

It's not even a compromise for SS, it's just a straight upgrade for them but they can't take advantage of Raise a Tome or the unarmed strikes one (at least, not most of the time or as a rule) anyways so it leads them to the other options.

That leaves them with Familiar, Eschew Materials, or "Armor Upgrade".

Let's pretend EM doesn't exist. Familiar could be tough competition if the Black Blade/Bonded Weapon/Shield/Etc. builds on the "Familiar" as a base, which then makes Sustaining Steel decide "offense or defense?" (even if it's just a familiar, familiars get Focus point recovery and other really cool stuff).

But that's another side tangent.

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.

Aside: I think people are massively misinterpreting my opinion. If you read what I am actually saying could work instead, you'd see its a net buff to DPR if the Magus got more spells. I'm not talking about making them do less damage, I'm talking about making them cast more spells in order to realize that damage (and for the Magus that don't want to use spells for damage, more utility).

It's like people think I want to destroy my favorite class.

But none of what you suggested helps them though. Like, what actions is the magus that you are suggesting supposed to do in combat? They're a worse blaster, a worse buffer, a worse debuffer, a worse melee striker, not a tank, and not a healer. That leaves them as a burden with no role that isn't completely outshined by the rest of the party. A glass cannon can do a lot of damage, and that seems to be what the current class design is building for, but the magus just doesn't have enough damage per actions spent to justify it. With some tweaks they could get there but swapping weapon specialization out or making them even more defenseless isn't going to help.

More lower level spells also does nothing to boost their power except letting them haste and true strike more (which is the only way they deal damage comparable to other classes with striking spell). The way striking spell currently works, this is all any magus is ever going to do if they want to have some functioning role in combat. And it would just be a worse version of the fighter MCD with wizard doing true strikes and haste with their superior combat abilities.

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.

The definition of equation is when two sides equate.

If they removed something from one side and gave nothing back, that's not really an equation, it's just a nerf.

And although I've seen people suggest they have a decent power right now (too swingy, but averages to be good), I haven't seen anyone say the Magus needs a direct nerf.

But none of what you suggested helps them though. Like, what actions is the magus that you are suggesting supposed to do in combat?

Casting spells? If they got more slots of lower levels it would help their DPR considerably.

You know, the thing that does damage, applies effects, triggers Comet Spell, Energized Strikes, Bespell Strikes, Bespell Persistence, and more utility spells in your budget (like Haste) to do more of all of those things.

You apply a level 1 Fear spell to your Striking Spell, succeed, and now the enemy has a -2 to their AC and Saves. Guess what that translates to? More DPR. Even at level 7, Fear now helps them hit for a wallop on turn two with their highest slot spells.

They go Haste on turn one, use Bespell Weapon (bonus damage on strikes) for two strikes on turn one and then an even stronger turn two.

Sorry but "none of what I suggested helps DPR" just isn't true.

More lower level spells also does nothing to boost their power except letting them haste and true strike more (which is the only way they deal damage comparable to other classes with striking spell).

Oh so when you said "none" you meant not none and both of those things?

I'm confused, is it none, or is it "not the way I want them to deal damage" because it seems like its the latter and not the former.

I don’t think Magus needs to match a Fighter or Barbarian’s DPR.

I see the class ideally as lagging behind in cantrip turns and possibly surpassing them when spending one of their few spell slots to go nova

I don’t think Magus needs to match a Fighter or Barbarian’s DPR.

I see the class ideally as lagging behind in cantrip turns and possibly surpassing them when spending one of their few spell slots to go nova

Yeah it's fine being a bit behind. Just not too much behind otherwise it feels bad.

kripdenn wrote:

But none of what you suggested helps them though. Like, what actions is the magus that you are suggesting supposed to do in combat?

Casting spells? If they got more slots of lower levels it would help their DPR considerably.

You know, the thing that does damage, applies effects, triggers Comet Spell, Energized Strikes, Bespell Strikes, Bespell Persistence, and more utility spells in your budget (like Haste) to do more of all of those things.

You apply a level 1 Fear spell to your Striking Spell, succeed, and now the enemy has a -2 to their AC and Saves. Guess what that translates to? More DPR. Even at level 7, Fear now helps them hit for a wallop on turn two with their highest slot spells.

They go Haste on turn one, use Bespell Weapon (bonus damage on strikes) for two strikes on turn one and then an even stronger turn two.

Sorry but "none of what I suggested helps DPR" just isn't true.

Do you realize how little damage those feats do for their action cost?

What do you think is the benefit of striking spell with fear? You have a worse DC than a wizard because your int modifier is less and you get master spell progression. You can increase the degree of success for fear if you crit with the strike (typically a 5-10% chance) but your chance to even land the fear goes down because now you have to hit with the strike and land the fear spell. And you're forgetting that the frightened condition goes down after the enemy's turn so that -2 is really a -1 for the "wallop".
So just recapping, for 6 actions you get a strike and a strike with striking spell (which doesn't deal as much damage as a fighter) on an enemy with -1 AC and saves. The fighter on the other hand could pick up intimidating strike to frighten them on a successful strike, strike again at -1AC, and then do the same thing the next turn for 4 strikes worth of damage.
This isn't a benefit, it's an action tax every combat encounter.

Yes they can haste themselves (so can a multiclassing martial for more benefit than the magus) but if you're having to haste every combat, and true strike every striking spell, and spend you're highest spell slot on striking spell just to compare to the fighter, then the class isn't even helping the party.

Do you realize how little damage those feats do for their action cost?

Two of them are free actions.

And let's look at Weapon Specialization:

You can inflict greater injuries with your favored weapons.

You deal 2 additional damage with weapons and unarmed
attacks in which you’re an expert. This damage increases to
3 if you’re a master, and 4 if you’re legendary.

so 2 damage at level 7, 3 damage at level 13, and 6 damage at level 15 and onward.

Oh yeah, I can certainly see how loss of 2 damage per strike leaves the Magus dead and in a ditch, but somehow Haste/True Strike/Fear/Bespell Strikes/Energized Strikes (all of which translate to more DPR) can't climb that unsurmountable hill....

It doesn't take but two seconds to do this kind of math man, 1d6 damage is 3.5 damage on average which is better damage than Weapon Specialization provides for 14 levels of the game.

You can increase the degree of success for fear if you crit with the strike (typically a 5-10% chance) but your chance to even land the fear goes down because now you...

I mean you're basing assumptions on the value of the suggestions in a vacuum where Striking Spell doesn't change at all.

I'll eat my shoes if Striking Spell remains identical to the Playtest, so I'd take every notion of value you assign based on its current state with a grain of salt, things are likely to change.

Regardless, as others have pointed out, the current Magus is heavy on landing a good Critical. You land more criticals when the target has a -2 to AC and more critical failures on -2 to their saves. And more importantly, so do your allies.

Who's not contributing to the party?

You arguing the chances of landing Fear as if it provides no value is your call. Prepare Truestrike then, I'm sure you won't argue how much DPR that ability translates to.

Nova abilities should be something you spec into or pick up as a feat. Have the baseline striking spell merely be an accuracy/damage booster with cantrips and spells, while letting the crit fish be either a synthesis or class feat, and I'd be fine.

Striking Spell in its current incarnation is a good translation of PF1 Spell Strike, where you trade lower accuracy for a better crit effect, except for the small problem that spells are already less accurate and get generally better crit effects (note: not more damage, just better effects) than weapons in PF2. So while doubling down on that is a perfectly fine design space, I think it needs to not be the central ability of the class that drive several other abilities and many of your feats. Because that feels really unfun when you try to spec into the main ability of your class, the one thing you can do that separates you from a mere MC fighter/wizard, and the game's math punishes you for trying to use it as often as positioning allows.

And, honestly? This insistence that Striking Spell is "the most PF2 mechanic yet" is both depressing and greatly reduces the chance that I will continue my subscriptions. I'm already greatly less interested in Secrets of Magic than I was last month; if that is truly where the game is headed, there no reason for me to follow.

And, honestly? This insistence that Striking Spell is "the most PF2 mechanic yet" is both depressing and greatly reduces the chance that I will continue my subscriptions.

To be fair, I don't agree with Unicore's assessment one iota. Striking Spell feels much more like a PF1-ism to me.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

And, honestly? This insistence that Striking Spell is "the most PF2 mechanic yet" is both depressing and greatly reduces the chance that I will continue my subscriptions.

To be fair, I don't agree with Unicore's assessment one iota. Striking Spell feels much more like a PF1-ism to me.

Agreed. I think one of the most PF2 mechanics right now may be Devise a Stratagem:

- Makes use of the 3-action economy by being a modular 1-action ability that affects how you allocate the remainder of your actions for the turn;

- Adds an interesting twist to "I attack it" that can scale with buffs, tactics, and is adaptable to a number of combat styles and situations;

- Uses the trait system as a means of balancing and moderating a powerful effect with Concentrate and Fortune;

- Allows an otherwise very MAD class to participate in combat well without having to split their stat allocation among too many different stats, after meeting a simple prerequisite action;

- Also provides a means of increasing damage using a primary stat other than Strength without it being always-on, reducing the need to tiptoe around Int-to-damage;

- Most importantly, fits the theme of "investigator" very well, and an intelligence-based combatant. It's flavorful and useful every round, and has a number of feats that branch off of it to add more functionality, but it is perfectly functional and good without further investment

Agreed. I think one of the most PF2 mechanics right now may be Devise a Stratagem

I'd second that. DaS is the poster-child for the most "PF2" mechanic ever IMO, and it's so thematically appropriate for the Investigator as well.

The good news is Logan is doing the Magus and he did Investigator, and DaS was a post-playtest addition.

To be honest, not that worried. Cool hand Logan will whip Striking Spell into shape.

Unicore has highlighted probably what the ability was going for, which shows good intent, its just the execution might need refinement.

WatersLethe wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

And, honestly? This insistence that Striking Spell is "the most PF2 mechanic yet" is both depressing and greatly reduces the chance that I will continue my subscriptions.

To be fair, I don't agree with Unicore's assessment one iota. Striking Spell feels much more like a PF1-ism to me.

Agreed. I think one of the most PF2 mechanics right now may be Devise a Stratagem:

- Makes use of the 3-action economy by being a modular 1-action ability that affects how you allocate the remainder of your actions for the turn;

- Adds an interesting twist to "I attack it" that can scale with buffs, tactics, and is adaptable to a number of combat styles and situations;

- Uses the trait system as a means of balancing and moderating a powerful effect with Concentrate and Fortune;

- Allows an otherwise very MAD class to participate in combat well without having to split their stat allocation among too many different stats, after meeting a simple prerequisite action;

- Also provides a means of increasing damage using a primary stat other than Strength without it being always-on, reducing the need to tiptoe around Int-to-damage;

- Most importantly, fits the theme of "investigator" very well, and an intelligence-based combatant. It's flavorful and useful every round, and has a number of feats that branch off of it to add more functionality, but it is perfectly functional and good without further investment

And I third that. Like the Investigator, Magus just needs a mechanic that does for it what DaS does for the Investigator.

I think my suggestion isn't bad regarding that, if you can choose on which strike you'll release the spell when you're holding a charge.
Especially if the Magus gets new strike abilities that can provide a tactical advantage.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I dunno, without Medium armor I think the Magus would be too squishy.

They'd be more DEX encouraged, but a Chain Shirt + 16 DEX is max AC.

Taking away universal Medium Armor makes max DEX builds squishier too, because Fortification Runes are exclusive to Medium and Heavy Armor. Light Armor is just not absolutely attached to high DEX Ranged/Finesse builds, if you have heavier proficiency it will generally be preferrable to wear it, at least by mid-levels where Fortification is available (and where STR requirement to wear it without penalty shouldn't be too hard, esp. with Mithril also available around same level for Heavy Armor). Armor Spec is also another reason why Med/Heavy can be preferred to Light even for high DEX builds, not that Magus normally gets that ability.

Even Shadow Rune can be applied to both Light and Medium so doesn't conflict with getting Fortification (with Medium Armor), only Invisibility Runes seem to be Light-only AFAIK. I don't want to discount the value anybody might see in Invisibility Runes, but it is more of specific niche VS general defensive resilience of Fortification.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

And, honestly? This insistence that Striking Spell is "the most PF2 mechanic yet" is both depressing and greatly reduces the chance that I will continue my subscriptions.

To be fair, I don't agree with Unicore's assessment one iota. Striking Spell feels much more like a PF1-ism to me.

Agree. Reliance on crit fishing and combat routines that devour your action economy are both VERY PF1.

The only thing that's particularly PF2 about it is that a lot of your crit fishing potential comes from allied debuffs, rather than your weapon choice.

Midnightoker wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I dunno, without Medium armor I think the Magus would be too squishy.

They'd be more DEX encouraged, but a Chain Shirt + 16 DEX is max AC.

Taking away universal Medium Armor makes max DEX builds squishier too, because Fortification Runes are exclusive to Medium and Heavy Armor. Light Armor is just not absolutely attached to high DEX Ranged/Finesse builds, if you have heavier proficiency it will generally be preferrable to wear it, at least by mid-levels where Fortification is available (and where STR requirement to wear it without penalty shouldn't be too hard, esp. with Mithril also available around same level for Heavy Armor). Armor Spec is also another reason why Med/Heavy can be preferred to Light even for high DEX builds, not that Magus normally gets that ability.

Even Shadow Rune can be applied to both Light and Medium so doesn't conflict with getting Fortification (with Medium Armor), only Invisibility Runes seem to be Light-only AFAIK. I don't want to discount the value anybody might see in Invisibility Runes, but it is more of specific niche VS general defensive resilience of Fortification.

That's a good point I had forgotten and it will make a difference at later levels, but theoretically, if there were more support for the DEX Magi in the AC department that could help too (for instance if Raise a Tome counted as a hand free and had a Feat line).

It all depends on what losing Medium Armor buys back, and it should be an option to get (my personal hope would have been a level 1 Class Feat and actually getting a level 1 Class Feat per losing Medium Armor).

I'll come off it though. It's really not something I'd be upset about, either way, I just would love to see a level 1 Class Feat and more diverse Magus fighting styles.

For what it's worth, I'd also like Raise a Tome itself improved somewhat and/or extended with Feat line, although that isn't really particular to only DEX build Maguses.

I'll say it again the way Magus currently needs it's stats, removing medium armor breaks the class for me entirely.

Because I can't budget 18str,16dex and 16int at level 1.

Spell casting in PF2 has a reliability feature built into it in the form of half damage on saves. There are not a lot of real great damage spells that have 1 or more targets right now, so that does create a limit that feels glaring for the playtest, but more spells is a really easy way to add the reliability people are looking for in casting.

Other than through new spells I really struggle to see what people want from more reliability other than just increased spell accuracy. At a certain point, if you want your spell accuracy to be the focus of the class, I really don't understand why you wouldn't choose to play a wizard/MC Martial. You can cast spells every round and swing a sword pretty regularly. A lot of people seem to want a magus that is pretty much that, plus a feature that lets you build a move into the routine, which is called haste.

Lets look at cantrips for a minute to really accentuate why "more reliability," in the form of base accuracy is not a great look for cantrips:

The only cantrip that regularly sees use for that on these boards is Electric arc, and the only reason people like it is because it can target 2 enemies. Without targeting 2 enemies, Every cantrip is massively behind attacking with a weapon for DPR, but their critical effects are usually a step or two better than weapon attacks. People hate on daze, but it's single target damage is only marginally worse than electric arc, only it has a lot more range and the most brutal critical effect. Used smartly, against low will targets, it can be game changer for the party even against fairly powerful foes like a troll. People think, "Troll" better use fire or acid, but targeting AC against a troll is rough for a caster, even with their full casting proficiency boosting. Targeting the right save and factoring in Crit chances over 10% is a very important strategic element of being a caster in PF2. A martial using a torch instead of another 1 handed weapon and a wizard using daze are better off fighting a troll than the martial using a long sword and the wizard trying to use produce flame. That is just one demonstration of the tactical depth of PF2. What is interesting, is that the PF2 Magus can actually do both, casting spells that target will, while either making the torch into a magic weapon (with Magus potency), or else adding a fire or acid rune (through runic impression) to their primary weapon. I want the magus to keep that incredible tactical flexibility.

This is why DPR whiteroom simulations of spell casting are incredibly complex to get right, and easy to write cantrips off in, even for full casters. Against the mythical "Average foe" using a cantrip against 1 enemy will be worse than most full casters attacking twice with "generic DPR friendly weapon," up until the highest levels of proficiency discrepancy, so maybe all but one to three levels of play.

This is why I am struggling to see why people are so militant about wanting to "remove the crit fishing" feature of the striking spell mechanic. Critical hit potential, Multiple target potential, and decent debuffs on a successful save are literally the three exciting features of PF2 spell casting. The magus is inherently going to remove Multiple target potential (except for niche high level exceptions). That only leaves critical hit potential and decent debuff on saves. Decent debuffing on saves is something that the magus is going to maintain in any reimagining of Striking spell unless they make the massive mistake of making it only work with spell attack roll spells. It is also something that isn't really going to be able to be made better for magi than for any full caster and it doesn't really apply with cantrips, so the magus is going to be struggling to make use of it without a lot more spell slots.

That leaves us with the fact that all attack spells are lean heavily on their critical nova potential to outpace multiple weapon attacks. This is true for all casters, and is why "use tactics to improve casting accuracy" is not really optional for any offensive caster, except for a potential magic missile only build.

People are massively undervaluing how much cool fact the critical hit mechanic of striking spell boosts the magus spell casting ability and how flat a class that even had master weapon proficiency and legendary casting proficiency would feel if it was dependent upon cantrips for damage. Shifting the tier of success of spells up by one, 10-25% of the time is a mechanic worthy of building a class around.

Otherwis, Expert weapon proficiency is enough for a class that is going to be casting spells regularly and trying to get a weapon attack in as a third action. Your version of the magus that is buffing themselves with spells, using powerful AoEs to control crowds and then attacking with a weapon is a mutliclass character. The most you need is regular haste and you can do that. The magus needs to be more than and different from a MC wizard/fighter with haste.

Reliability on cantrip *is* good for spellstrike.
All calculations show it, my own experiments with it show it.
And even then it stays below a full martial. Just like it should be.

In my runs, the best damages a magus had with cantrips over 4 turns only outdamaged a barbarian becore of 1 early produce flame crit that gave persistent damage.
But the barbarian had both a steadier/more stable damage output, it was also less impacted by missing its first strike.

Because the magus, even if you buff it to the point that both having the strike apply weapon and spell effect AND making spellstrike take only 2 actions: it still gives double MAP. So a Magus missing on his turn is very likely not to do damage this turn and it's fine it happens it's the same for all casters.
Even on the next turn, when spellstrike takes only 1 action it's still double MAP so the magus is very unlikely to just land a second one in the same turn.

TLDR: On a single strike, with cantrip the magus can outdamage a martial like the barbarian.
On 2 actions though? the barbarian has the upper hand since they strike twice, the magus only once.

Reliability on cantrip *is* good for spellstrike.

All calculations show it, my own experiments with it show it.
And even then it stays below a full martial. Just like it should be.

In my runs, the best damages a magus had with cantrips over 4 turns only outdamaged a barbarian becore of 1 early produce flame crit that gave persistent damage.
But the barbarian had both a steadier/more stable damage output, it was also less impacted by missing its first strike.

Because the magus, even if you buff it to the point that both having the strike apply weapon and spell effect AND making spellstrike take only 2 actions: it still gives double MAP. So a Magus missing on his turn is very likely not to do damage this turn and it's fine it happens it's the same for all casters.
Even on the next turn, when spellstrike takes only 1 action it's still double MAP so the magus is very unlikely to just land a second one in the same turn.

TLDR: On a single strike, with cantrip the magus can outdamage a martial like the barbarian.
On 2 actions though? the barbarian has the upper hand since they strike twice, the magus only once.

Again, what are you defining as "reliability?" Is it both of your homebrew suggestions for a spell combat mechanic AND a spell strike mechanic? I have stayed out of that thread because the spell combat mechanic makes all the full casters cry and if it is available as a MC option it becomes a mandatory choice for every wizard in the game. The ability to cast incredibly powerful high level spells from a safe position and then move, release the spell and move again is quite likely game breaking when looked at across the game as a whole and probably for Magi that have scrolls as well. You can hold the charge for a minute, so why wouldn't everyone, at the very least, be walking around with a loaded electric arc all the time that they could just release for 1 action at the start of any combat, or if you know that there is a powerful enemy behind the next door, you cast a power spell of your highest level before you open the door and then you get a free round of quickened spell every combat. Without that element, your spell strike mechanic is just free haste.

Edit: A lot of people seem to be calling for better accuracy with spell casting, so better proficiency bonuses or an additional item bonus, and essentially a hasted attack tagged on to their casting. To me, that is just asking for a wizard/MC martial with free haste all the time, only with Martial weapon Proficiency increases.

Spell casting in PF2 has a reliability feature built into it in the form of half damage on saves. There are not a lot of real great damage spells that have 1 or more targets right now, so that does create a limit that feels glaring for the playtest, but more spells is a really easy way to add the reliability people are looking for in casting.

Other than through new spells I really struggle to see what people want from more reliability other than just increased spell accuracy. At a certain point, if you want your spell accuracy to be the focus of the class, I really don't understand why you wouldn't choose to play a wizard/MC Martial. You can cast spells every round and swing a sword pretty regularly. A lot of people seem to want a magus that is pretty much that, plus a feature that lets you build a move into the routine, which is called haste.

Lets look at cantrips for a minute to really accentuate why "more reliability," in the form of base accuracy is not a great look for cantrips:

The only cantrip that regularly sees use for that on these boards is Electric arc, and the only reason people like it is because it can target 2 enemies. Without targeting 2 enemies, Every cantrip is massively behind attacking with a weapon for DPR, but their critical effects are usually a step or two better than weapon attacks. People hate on daze, but it's single target damage is only marginally worse than electric arc, only it has a lot more range and the most brutal critical effect. Used smartly, against low will targets, it can be game changer for the party even against fairly powerful foes like a troll. People think, "Troll" better use fire or acid, but targeting AC against a troll is rough for a caster, even with their full casting proficiency boosting. Targeting the right save and factoring in Crit chances over 10% is a very important strategic element of being a caster in PF2. A martial using a torch instead of another 1 handed weapon and a wizard using daze are better off fighting a troll than the martial...

I think that the point people are trying to make is not that the crit fishing mechanic needs to go, period, but rather that it could go if that's what's tying the Magus to two rolls and a suboptimal routine.

I get that you enjoy some of the tactical applications of striking spell in its iteration, but then again, that does not mean it cannot be improved in any manner. Although we have yet to see how the playtest experience turns out, a lot of people seem to be having issues with a mechanic that, aside from some cases and some very specific playstyles, is not flowing smoothly.

No disrespect intended, but what you're suggesting is akin to favoring the Investigator's playtest routine over Devise a Stratagem.

Currently, Magus gets that crit fishing mechanic, but

- has fewer slots

- has to spend actions to set up their strikes

- does not get any martial features

- loses the slot on a weapon hit, but spell miss.

I'm sorry, but that seems like too much.

I do not deny that, with the right party composition and some tactics, you could mitigate these problems, but then again, why can't Magus get a way to at least simulate some of these conditions on their own?

Take the Rogue as an example. They need the flat-footed condition to deliver damage, that is their reliability. They get at least four features that allow them to reliably get that on their own by level 8 and when they get Gang Up, they do not even have to move tactically to do so.

They flow smoothly and tactics improve them.

Heck, during my playtrhoughs, the Magi got outshined by the Summoners and their Eidolons every single time . Although I have my reservations on that class, its four slotted casting and martial capabilities seemed, at least for my groups, to work much better than the Magi's.

That said, I don't really think the crit mechanic necessarily needs to go, but I also can't accept that its existence needs to be the reason for Magus not to get any improvements. Although I do not, by any means, intend to question any of the devs decisions, keeping the same action economy, spell duration and slots, I see no reason why not to have something like:

a) cause the target to be flat-footed by the spell attack?

b) let the spell attack be made using the weapon attack's bonuses?

c)tie the spell attack's result to the martial attack - its the same mechanic, just without a second roll?

These are just some suggestions that, at least from a first glance, will not cause Magus to outshine anyone. We could run some numbers, but I am pretty confident that a Fighter, a Dragon Barbarian or a Flurry Ranger are still going to be more reliable than your Magus at any time, especially against stronger foes.

Lastly, I think a full caster's proficiency, number of slots, versatility and other abilities more than make up for any alleged lag they'd have in spell attacks.

What I want is a strong, useable, consistent Magus.

Magus is so inconsistent I cannot even call it strong despite how hard it can potentially critical.

Until I don't feel like I'm wasting my turn by gambling with spell strike. Magus needs adjustment.

I am not arguing that the Magus is perfect as is, I just see a lot of people asking for more reliability, but then presenting versions of that are just more general accuracy for the magus casting and free haste all the time. I'd rather not lose the crit mechanic over small dials and things the class can already do for itself.

Kalaam wrote:

Reliability on cantrip *is* good for spellstrike.

All calculations show it, my own experiments with it show it.
And even then it stays below a full martial. Just like it should be.

In my runs, the best damages a magus had with cantrips over 4 turns only outdamaged a barbarian becore of 1 early produce flame crit that gave persistent damage.
But the barbarian had both a steadier/more stable damage output, it was also less impacted by missing its first strike.

Because the magus, even if you buff it to the point that both having the strike apply weapon and spell effect AND making spellstrike take only 2 actions: it still gives double MAP. So a Magus missing on his turn is very likely not to do damage this turn and it's fine it happens it's the same for all casters.
Even on the next turn, when spellstrike takes only 1 action it's still double MAP so the magus is very unlikely to just land a second one in the same turn.

TLDR: On a single strike, with cantrip the magus can outdamage a martial like the barbarian.
On 2 actions though? the barbarian has the upper hand since they strike twice, the magus only once.

Again, what are you defining as "reliability?" Is it both of your homebrew suggestions for a spell combat mechanic AND a spell strike mechanic? I have stayed out of that thread because the spell combat mechanic makes all the full casters cry and if it is available as a MC option it becomes a mandatory choice for every wizard in the game. The ability to cast incredibly powerful high level spells from a safe position and then move, release the spell and move again is quite likely game breaking when looked at across the game as a whole and probably for Magi that have scrolls as well. You can hold the charge for a minute, so why wouldn't everyone, at the very least, be walking around with a loaded electric arc all the time that they could just release for 1 action at the start of any combat, or if you know that there is a powerful enemy behind the next door, you cast a...

Just make Spell Combat a feature you cannot get through multiclassing, only spellstrike is obtained.

I am not arguing that the Magus is perfect as is, I just see a lot of people asking for more reliability, but then presenting versions of that are just more general accuracy for the magus casting and free haste all the time. I'd rather not lose the crit mechanic over small dials and things the class can already do for itself.

And I'd rather have a class that functions at level 1 instead of needing to hit levels for haste and cast haste every fight and cast true strike every way I can manage while begging my team to do what I want them to do and be where I want them to be so I can not be a inconsistent waste of space.

But then we want different things.

I'll gladly give up that critical mechanic if it's holding the class back. But then I'm in favor for what the math says is most consistent without being overpowering in terms of DPR

That's spell strike being a one roll melee swing and if it hits the spell hits too.

If math is right on that, that keeps you in line but slightly below a flurry ranger until level 18 and you only spike above by using spell slots.

Spell casting in PF2 has a reliability feature built into it in the form of half damage on saves.

Well, that really only applies to Save spells, and since a lot of the Cantrips are Spell Attack Rolls, there isn't a lot of security on that.

Other than through new spells I really struggle to see what people want from more reliability other than just increased spell accuracy.

You're confining your Spells to single targets via an attack with a misfortune effect in a sense.

This leads to Magus preparing buffs almost exclusively as a means to simply elevate themselves as a Martial, because Striking Spell just doesn't have the same kinda returns that Haste/Mirror Image/True Strike/etc. would have.

By Striking Spell being less reliable as a means of damage, it just fosters the choice not to use it at all and without clear direction on "when" you're supposed to be using it. Also the fact that it works with Cantrips but in the case of Cantrips vs. 3 Strikes it has a lower DPR, so its kind of a "trap" action at times (to me).

At a certain point, if you want your spell accuracy to be the focus of the class, I really don't understand why you wouldn't choose to play a wizard/MC Martial.

I would make the same argument for those that want a Magus to only swing a sword well with Magic as an afterthought "go play Fighter MCD into Wizard then".

The issue is the lack of choice of which to favor, not that choosing the latter is "bad" or the former is "bad" either. You like the 75/25 split? That's great. I do not.

The only cantrip that regularly sees use for that on these boards is Electric arc, and the only reason people like it is because it can target 2 enemies.

For the record, EA is already as good or better than other Cantrips before you account for two targets simply by nature of being the highest damage Save spell.

but their critical effects are usually a step or two better than weapon attacks.

Arguable. And honestly a lot less likely for Magus to trigger than any other spellcaster by a considerable percentage, even if you account for Critical Fishing.

This is why DPR whiteroom simulations of spell casting are incredibly complex to get right, and easy to write cantrips off in, even for full casters. Against the mythical "Average foe" using a cantrip against 1 enemy will be worse than most full casters attacking twice with "generic DPR friendly weapon," up until the highest levels of proficiency discrepancy, so maybe all but one to three levels of play.

I mean, against a reasonable above level enemy they struggle even harder due to higher defenses restricting Striking Spell on two fronts.

I agree white rooms aren't the best place to make judgement calls, but I may also say that there are so far several postings of actual play that have avoided Striking Spell and Magus dealing considerably less DPR with commentary that they required a lot of tactics to function.

Generally, tactics to excel? good. Tactics to match others? bad, at least that's what I would hope.

This is why I am struggling to see why people are so militant about wanting to "remove the crit fishing" feature of the striking spell mechanic.

Luck based mechanics are not for everyone, even if they are for you. And Critical Fishing is by definition "luck" based in some regard.

I'm all for it being an option to get Critical love on Magus, as it was there in PF1, but the default doesn't feel like the right call to me.

In addition to that, players generally (as a team) feel good when everyone contributes relatively evenly. I understand that doesn't always happen even without luck-based mechanics, but "feast or famine" is not only not fun for some Magus players (albeit some might like it) but it's also not necessarily fun for the Barbarian who was just about to charge the BBEG you exploded with one critical Shocking Grasp.

If in order for Magus to "feel good" others have to feel like they didn't contribute by comparison, that doesn't really feel fair to me personally.

That leaves us with the fact that all attack spells are lean heavily on their critical nova potential to outpace multiple weapon attacks. This is true for all casters, and is why "use tactics to improve casting accuracy" is not really optional for any offensive caster, except for a potential magic missile only build.

I agree Casters do have to take advantage of weaknesses and enemies in order to fully realize their damage.

The problem is a Magus has to do that with a smaller budget of power on the spells as well as it being contingent on a Strike as well. That's a steep hill.

Shifting the tier of success of spells up by one, 10-25% of the time is a mechanic worthy of building a class around.

It might be worthy power-wise in terms of extracting the most value.

But I said this before "the solution to not being able to land your spells with regularity isn't to grant you a 10% chance to get a +10 to your spell".

A +2/-2 is more than capable of providing criticals as well, so I don't see the big issue with that.

Otherwis, Expert weapon proficiency is enough for a class that is going to be casting spells regularly and trying to get a weapon attack in as a third action.

Not really. That alone is not enough to do very much because you can't realistically do both at the same time, except when using your main mechanic.

And again they are behind on four fronts (and an effective -1 to -3 of "expected bonus" to spells at all levels of the game). They aren't going to be succeeding at spells without some kind of assistance if you mean attack focused spells.

And defensive spells still cost you actions.

There are only so many things you can do in a round.

Your version of the magus that is buffing themselves with spells, using powerful AoEs to control crowds and then attacking with a weapon is a mutliclass character.

Based on what? Your opinion I suppose?

When I read the Magus it said it combined the art of magic and sword, I don't see why the above doesn't fit into that category, since that literally works out to being exactly what is described.

A Magus is far more versatile of a Class than "I must play this way", just like every single other Class in the game has multiple options on how to build themselves and play.

Heck, even the Summoner right now supports more playstyle options than the Magus does. Right now the Magus can really only be played effectively like you describe (buff self, spam Cantrips/Save spells and hope for crits). If there's only one way to play the Magus effectively due to the core abilities of the Class not allowing much else to work properly, that's a "bug" not a "feature".

Spell casting in PF2 has a reliability feature built into it in the form of half damage on saves. There are not a lot of real great damage spells that have 1 or more targets right now, so that does create a limit that feels glaring for the playtest, but more spells is a really easy way to add the reliability people are looking for in casting.

"1 or more targets" doesn't really help the Magus that much, because (except with Spell Swipe) they're limited to 1 target. Not even their capstone Whirlwind Spell actually lets them hit more targets with their spells.

If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one creature or object

If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the
spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit.

("1 or more" is irrelevant if it only affects the 1 target you hit with your melee attack)

If you discharge

the spell, you can affect each creature you hit with a Strike, up
to the spell’s normal maximum targets.

This is literally the only time "one or more" matters instead of "one" target. So the lack of "one or more targets" being a problem is actually not a problem because it's only a problem at 20th.

If you had a spell stored in the weapon you attacked with

(or in your body if you made an unarmed Strike), discharging
it affects all foes you hit, not just the first target.

why "more reliability,"

Because all of your spells can't hit unless your melee attack hits. Its an automatic "nothing" if your melee hits, it does not matter if the spell does half effect on save if the spell NEVER GOES OFF.

For attack based spells, they're ~3 points behind in accuracy compared to your melee hit. Yes, wizards have to deal with this too, but NEWS FLASH, that's why you put it in your sword in the first place. No really. That was literally the whole point of the magus: to bypass a problem that other classes have.

If you don't bypass the problem, then what was the point of doing it?

me wrote:

Shifting the tier of success of spells up by one, 10-25% of the time is a mechanic worthy of building a class around.

It might be worthy power-wise in terms of extracting the most value.

But I said this before "the solution to not being able to land your spells with regularity isn't to grant you a 10% chance to get a +10 to your spell".

A +2/-2 is more than capable of providing criticals as well, so I don't see the big issue with that.

The difference is that it shifts the end result of likely outcomes significantly towards critical effects, without also just giving the magus greater general spell casting accuracy than a full caster. The ways it plays with the math are so flexible that it is difficult to equate it to a raw set of x% total spell crits, especially because of how fluid PF2 combats are and how easy it is to shift target numbers up or down by as much as 4 points in combat.

All along, I have said their is probably room for the magus to pick up a little bit more spell accuracy, if that is all people are talking about with more reliability.

If they are talking specifically about folding the spell and the attack into one multiple action activity, that is the thing I am strongly opposed to.

If they are talking about an ability that letting something very similar to the existing striking spell mechanic go off with just one attack roll instead of two, I am fine leaving it to the developers to decide and figure out how that can be balanced, but I recognize that the issues surrounding it are far more complex than any of us arm chair designers are going to figure out with a spread sheet or a single small playtest group.

The deveoplers probably looked at every single variation of this mechanic that has been suggested in the last year, many of them probably in small playtest situations, before they decided that they wanted a mass playtest of this one. That doesn't make this one, and all the other elements of the magus perfect, but it does mean that people that want to help the most probably should play test this version of the striking spell mechanic, and explicitly look for ways to make it do the things that people want it to do more generally, rather than invent their own new systems and test those out.

For me, The play test magus with more lower level spells was incredibly unsatisfying. That is easily done through scroll usage and what I want is more higher level spells that target 1 or more creatures to use with the striking spell mechanic.

For me, the sliding spell synthesis turned out to be less fun in play than I thought it would be, because the spells you can cast through striking spell don't include enough of the cool and fun battlefield control spells and you end up stuck next to your enemy, getting clobbered on the following round, unless you use a whip or a flick mace.

The Sustaining steel magus, which I wrote off entirely before trying one, turned out to be the most fun for unleashing a striking spell, because you gained some survivability after using it.

The having the spell still available on the second round is an amazing feature of the striking spell mechanic that is totally lost in simulations, because you have a full 3 actions of a turn ahead of you. People really need to try that out AND try building your character to take advantage of the fact that it will happen about 25% of rounds. A two action activity that includes the attack rolls (something like eldritch shot) completely loses that.

People also need to stop pretending like there are not ways to build a character to get cantrips and focus attack spells that can be cast with 1 action, and test out what it is like to have access to them.

Test what is there, report back what is not fun, then listen if people have suggestions for ways to overcome those shortcomings and see if the class is more fun. If the class is a blast using 1 action hex focus spells, the developers would love to hear that. If the class is a blast playing with a 1 action boosted produce flame cantrip, that is really useful information as well.

If the class is really more fun using all of your spell slots for specific buff spells, regardless of the level of your magus, the developers need to know that too.