An unorthodox request to the devs

I know this is probably a big ask, and I don't see it coming to fruition, but I think it would be a genuinely good idea, at least in the extreme case of the Magus.

I think it would be a good idea to give us a couple of potential fixes straight from the devs to try out and report back on. To at least give us a baseline to try out, see how they feel, and report back on. It's become mostly clear that Striking Spell isn't working at intended, and is only usable in extreme corner cases that require a fair bit of min-maxing and possible item abuse.

So rather than letting us test this version further, but instead of doing an entirely separate playtest, I believe a stickied thread of some alternate ideas to try from the devs would be a good middle ground. It allows us alternatives to test against a baseline (The Magus as is).

I don't think it happened before that we got update to a playtest. But maybe they'll decide to make another one in a few months based on feedback.

I think it's reasonable to simply playtest the version that they gave us. Since the devs can do any number of "white room" simulations without our input, commentary a la "I calculated the probabilities,and got this" is less useful than "during one adventuring day I failed on three of my four attempts to discharge a striking spell using spell slots, which felt bad." They want anecdotes from actual play, not the math that they already did themselves.

This is after all a *play*test not a "who can use a spreadsheet" test.

I think everyone running their calculation is also helpful, since we can come up with ideas of situation they may have missed.
Numbers can also help understanding why something works or not in actual play.
Both informations are valid. (plus it's not always easy to find people to play with)

I don't think it happened before that we got update to a playtest. But maybe they'll decide to make another one in a few months based on feedback.

It happened in the original PF2 playtest, but that also ran for way longer.

Yeah that one is pretty short. Though we could then get a second one if there is drastic changes. Or if they want to try something way different with the magus and they get a middle ground (like no spell magus and only focus stuff)

I think it's reasonable to simply playtest the version that they gave us. Since the devs can do any number of "white room" simulations without our input, commentary a la "I calculated the probabilities,and got this" is less useful than "during one adventuring day I failed on three of my four attempts to discharge a striking spell using spell slots, which felt bad." They want anecdotes from actual play, not the math that they already did themselves.

This is after all a *play*test not a "who can use a spreadsheet" test.

I mean. I did run a playtest at level 8, in 12 total turns of combat I landed a single spell from Striking Spell. It lines up perfectly with the white room math that's been done.

I really like iterative playtests too, but yeah it doesn't really fit the timetable Paizo's working on.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's reasonable to simply playtest the version that they gave us. Since the devs can do any number of "white room" simulations without our input, commentary a la "I calculated the probabilities,and got this" is less useful than "during one adventuring day I failed on three of my four attempts to discharge a striking spell using spell slots, which felt bad." They want anecdotes from actual play, not the math that they already did themselves.

This is after all a *play*test not a "who can use a spreadsheet" test.

I mean. I did run a playtest at level 8, in 12 total turns of combat I landed a single spell from Striking Spell. It lines up perfectly with the white room math that's been done.

What were your tactics like? Do you have a write-up thread?

I'm currently gathering players to do several scenarios at different levels.
Like:
-Level 10 with 1 magus, other classes free, no multiclass allowed.
-Level 12 with 1 magus and 1 martial with spellcaster MC, other free.
-level 12 with 1 Magus and 1 martial both with a spellcaster MC.
etc etc
Once I get to run that I'll probably make a threat about the results

My friends and I ran a game at level 6 with all gish builds. One Magus, a Warpriest, a Monk w/ Cleric dedication (flurry with bow, then electric arc), Ranger Eldritch Archer, Kobold Paladin with Oracle dedication, and a Figher with Wizard dedication. Everyone felt like the Magus was the least effective in the party. The Magus didn't get the spell combo off on a single enemy that was above the parties level and of the three times he got the combo off on lower level enemies, twice the enemy died from the initial melee strike (since it was on Roll20, he rolled both at once).