I have suggested a few times in the past on these boards that the Magus spellstrike ability should use both the weapons critical threat range and multiplier and that such a change would not increase the overall power of the magus because the average damage of 15% chance of x2 is equal to the average damage of the other extreme 5% chance of x4. This of course is true regardless of what the base damage is weather a Lv. 1 1d6 damage shocking grasp of a Lv. 20 360 damage maximized, empowered, disintegrate.
I have been repeatedly told that I am wrong however I have not yet received a satisfactory explanation as to why. Please tell me what I am missing. Is there something inherently better about 5% chance of x4 compared to 15% chance of x2?
The only reason I can think of currently is death by massive damage which in my experience is not normally used.
EDIT: The Falcata is one other reason this would be a bad idea as it has a better critical than any other weapon statistically speaking.
It's bad enough that so many players pigeonhole themselves into a limited set of weapons.
Going to this rule would make that even worse.
You can suggest it all you want, but the magus is not a class so weak that it needs this buff.
Okay I get that it is a bad idea I have been told that repeatedly.
Why is it a bad idea?
No, what you'll have are magi either using nothing but keen scythes for their 4x crit, or whatever gives the greatest crit range for a 3x multiplier.How so? You might have magi using more than scimitar or rapier.It's bad enough that so many players pigeonhole themselves into a limited set of weapons.
Going to this rule would make that even worse.
Again I ask you why? How is an improved critical pick with a 19-20/x4 crit better for spell strike than a keen scimitar 15-20/x2. The average damage for both of them is the same.
|
No, what you'll have are magi either using nothing but keen scythes for their 4x crit, or whatever gives the greatest crit range for a 3x multiplier.How so? You might have magi using more than scimitar or rapier.It's bad enough that so many players pigeonhole themselves into a limited set of weapons.
Going to this rule would make that even worse.
You cannot spell combat with two-handed weapons.
/sigh, so much for system mastery.
I think it has more to do with just how much of a luck swing it is. Law of averages makes both critical profiles equal in the long-run (if anything, the x2 variety is a little better since it's less likely to "overflow" a target's hit points) but battles rarely go long enough for law of averages to apply within a single fight. This kind of luck swing is difficult for GM's to handle; the luck-factor as it is can already make it difficult to avoid both TPK and anti-climax, and a x4 critical multiplier on the magus' damage output would be very difficult to handle.
I do agree that the rules as they currently exist do shoe-horn the Magus into a very narrow weapon-set and I'd love to introduce a house-rule to make other types of weapons more appealing, but I'm also cautious about the consequences of allowing any critical multipliers on his spell-strike.
I think it has more to do with just how much of a luck swing it is. Law of averages makes both critical profiles equal in the long-run (if anything, the x2 variety is a little better since it's less likely to "overflow" a target's hit points) but battles rarely go long enough for law of averages to apply within a single fight. This kind of luck swing is difficult for GM's to handle; the luck-factor as it is can already make it difficult to avoid both TPK and anti-climax, and this just makes it worse.
I do agree that the rules as they currently exist do shoe-horn the Magus into a very narrow weapon-set.
Thank you for providing an explanation that's all I wanted. I just kept getting responses like LazarX's, no explanation.
The best argument against it that I can see is that giving that much damage a x4 crit modifier is going to be incredibly swingy. If Mark the Magus builds himself around getting x4 Shocking Grasp crits, he's going to be disappointed 95% of the time. The other 5%? He will do such absurdly high damage that it will trivialize whatever enemy he deals it to and render the rest of the party's contributions redundant in the process.
On the other hand, any fighter with decent STR and a scythe can do much of the same, so if you want to houserule it, go ahead-- it's not likely to break anything too bad. And it will give Magi a reason to choose the pick over the scimitar/rapier.
I personally don't see a reason why not.
On the other hand, any fighter with decent STR and a scythe can do much of the same, so if you want to houserule it, go ahead-- it's not likely to break anything too bad.
There's a fair argument to be made that the problem is the x4 critical multiplier and not the high-damage character who wants to use it. That still doesn't fix the problem, and the Magus is still the worst offender with the massive damage he can let loose with metamagic'd shocking hands spellstrikes.
No, what you'll have are magi either using nothing but keen scythes for their 4x crit, or whatever gives the greatest crit range for a 3x multiplier.How so? You might have magi using more than scimitar or rapier.It's bad enough that so many players pigeonhole themselves into a limited set of weapons.
Going to this rule would make that even worse.
You cannot spell combat with two-handed weapons.
/sigh, so much for system mastery.
Someone already mentioned that spellstrike still applies, spell combat isn't needed, so: You can use a Small (or Tiny, if you're already Small) scythe in one hand, and it still has the same critical multiplier.
/sigh, so much for system mastery.
On the other hand, any fighter with decent STR and a scythe can do much of the same, so if you want to houserule it, go ahead-- it's not likely to break anything too bad.There's a fair argument to be made that the problem is the x4 critical multiplier and not the high-damage character who wants to use it. That still doesn't fix the problem, and the Magus is still the worst offender with the massive damage he can let loose with metamagic'd shocking hands spellstrikes.
So how big of a problem is it?
A single character could one hit a boss. How often does it happen and when it does happen does it ruin the game or is it just one of those awesome moments?
A single enemy could one hit a player. Unfortunate. If a GM really wanted to avoid this they could roll behind the screen and not let the character die however in a world with resurrection death is not as much as a problem as one might think.
From personal experience with x4 criticals. The orcs in my world use Tetsubo/Kanabo(Two handed 1d10 x4 B) as their iconic weapon as they have a strong oni vibe. I have had a party member get one-hit by an orc captain. It didn't ruin the campaign or the session, it made the fight harder and resulted in the party proceeding with a little more caution later on. The character did get resurrected though. I have also had an orc character one-hit a boss, it was quite impressive and while it threw off my story telling the party thought it was awesome. Neither experience has turned me away from x4 criticals. Of course this was with high strength two handed Kanabos not Magi.
There's many reasons. Some of them I mentioned in our discussions before.
1) A x4 modifier increases the magus's nova ceiling when the class already has powerful nova potential.
2) Part of what balances the magus and spellstrike is that class makes the assumption that critical hits do not increase the overall maximum damage a spell does. This change throws that assumption under the bus.
3) Spells have different standards than weapon damage because they deal far more damage at once, deal energy damage, can be augmented by metamagic, etc.
4) The current only way to increase a spell's maximum critical hit damage is metamagic, which come with drawbacks far more significant. Heck, there's even few abilities that increase a weapon's critical modifier.
5) Empower and Maximize metamagic amplifies the nova ceiling even further.
6) Spellstrike is already a strong ability because it grants a free attack when casting a touch spell (action economy benefit), synergizes with spell combat, and extends the critical range of a spell, which no other ability in the game does except Improved Critical (ray). This change is a deceptively significant increase in an already strong ability's power.
7) It's a risky change (breaks existing precedents concerning spell damage) to solve a relatively minor problem (build equality). I played two magi that used non-high crit weapons, and never regretted it. I never felt "punished" for taking a non-optimal choice, and a x3-x4 crit still greatly benefits a Strength magus.
And finally:
Is there something inherently better about 5% chance of x4 compared to 15% chance of x2?
Yes, because dealing a large amount of damage at once has more value than dealing damage spread over several turns, even if statistically the damage is the same.
I speak as someone who absolutely loves the magus class, have built and played several magi of different types, and currently GMs a two year old game with a magus. Both my magi games, I was the best damage dealer in the party. In my campaign, the magus is the best damage dealer in the party, rivaled only by the gunslinger. Even he wishes he could nova like the magus and get a crit that deals 20d6. The magus has ended many combats due to a critical hit and made normally difficult encounters trivial. I don't really see the magus's nova as a problem, but I feel very wary of augmenting it in any way.
|
So how big of a problem is it?
It's big enough that Paizo decided that it's worth "solving" by just making spellstrike only deal x2 on a crit, but it's not so big that they weren't willing to give scythes and picks a x4 crit multiplier in the first place.
If you don't have a problem with x4 crits, then by all means, keep using them. But some people do. Particularly PFS GMs who are STRONGLY ADVISED NOT to kill a player's character, but also don't have the option of fudging rolls or invoking DM fiat.
It's been said that the Bestiary entry for Orcs use falchions instead of greataxes because even x3 crits were letting low-CR fights kill PCs far above their weight class. But Paizo left scythes and picks in the CRB because some people like their natural 20's to feel like gifts from the gods.
Heavy Pick + Vampiric Touch x 4 Crit.
Keen Falcata with any damage spell would also equal fairly regular overwhelming damage.
Thank you everyone for the explanations.
God that would be painful in a butterfly sting team up.
|
|
No, what you'll have are magi either using nothing but keen scythes for their 4x crit, or whatever gives the greatest crit range for a 3x multiplier.How so? You might have magi using more than scimitar or rapier.It's bad enough that so many players pigeonhole themselves into a limited set of weapons.
Going to this rule would make that even worse.
You cannot spell combat with two-handed weapons.
/sigh, so much for system mastery.
Someone already mentioned that spellstrike still applies, spell combat isn't needed, so: You can use a Small (or Tiny, if you're already Small) scythe in one hand, and it still has the same critical multiplier.
/sigh, so much for system mastery.
Use a pick, avoid the penalty for using an incorrectly sized weapon while still being able to spell combat (as opposed to only spell striking every other round.)
Even if x4 spellstrike were possible, a magus would not use a scythe for the same reasons magi do not currently use a nodachi.