Pathfinder Second and Gishes


Second Edition

51 to 100 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

One of the things about spellstrike that might not work anymore is that melee touch spells aren't attack rolls anymore. We've seen at least Chill Touch getting converted, we haven't seen Shocking Grasp yet, but I imagine it would have gotten similar treatment with Ref instead of Fort, so how can the main gimmick of "Spellllllll.... POKE!" work if the "poke" spells are now a "DODGE!" mechanic? I could be completely wrong, and Chill Touch might have an option to roll an attack, or SG didn't get the same type of change, but from what O.O. has shown, poking people with magic is no more...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually prefer the gishes to be a prestige feat so that it can function with any kind of magic. In first edition, you needed a magus archetype for each kind of casting, and you hoped your preference wasn't a trap option. As a prestige/multiclass feat, any spell caster/martial combo can use it and make it work for their preference. I think this would increase the diversity of available builds. You'd just need to make it available at low level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not surprised they changed how melee touch spells worked, since those spells were previously confusing (almost no one I talked to believed me when I said you could cast the spell, move, and then deliver all in one turn) and also hard to use if you didn't start your turn at a distance.

Starfinder fixed it by making melee touch spells not provoke; switching them to saves is another option.

That does leave spellstrike in a weird place, but again - I honestly don't think Magus will be a proper spellcaster when it comes back. I don't see them giving Magus 9 levels of spells, which means Magus spellstrike is going to be entirely based on Focus Spells, which will be custom designed with spellstrike in mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I'm not surprised they changed how melee touch spells worked, since those spells were previously confusing (almost no one I talked to believed me when I said you could cast the spell, move, and then deliver all in one turn) and also hard to use if you didn't start your turn at a distance.

Starfinder fixed it by making melee touch spells not provoke; switching them to saves is another option.

That does leave spellstrike in a weird place, but again - I honestly don't think Magus will be a proper spellcaster when it comes back. I don't see them giving Magus 9 levels of spells, which means Magus spellstrike is going to be entirely based on Focus Spells, which will be custom designed with spellstrike in mind.

It's not impossible they'll just have spellstrike change the way they work. It's not that big a leap from "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a touch" to "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a save."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jedi Maester wrote:
I'd actually prefer the gishes to be a prestige feat so that it can function with any kind of magic. In first edition, you needed a magus archetype for each kind of casting, and you hoped your preference wasn't a trap option. As a prestige/multiclass feat, any spell caster/martial combo can use it and make it work for their preference. I think this would increase the diversity of available builds. You'd just need to make it available at low level.

I’ll agree with Greystone that a simple concept ideally should be online by level 1 or 2. Prestiege classes should make simple concepts better or unique such as Arcane Trickster, not needed to make them work.

A Universal Magus-like Class Archetype would be a good idea, but with how differently each caster plays it sounds easier said than done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A Universal Magus-like Class Archetype would be a good idea, but with how differently each caster plays it sounds easier said than done.

A level two archetype feat. Requires any form of spell casting. Gives spell strike, weapon proficiencies, and unlocks further feats. Other feats include grabbing fighter feats and different arcana. That's how I'd do it off the top of my head.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jedi Maester wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A Universal Magus-like Class Archetype would be a good idea, but with how differently each caster plays it sounds easier said than done.
A level two archetype feat. Requires any form of spell casting. Gives spell strike, weapon proficiencies, and unlocks further feats. Other feats include grabbing fighter feats and different arcana. That's how I'd do it off the top of my head.

That means Paladin/Champion would be able to grab it because of Lay on Hands. This would also make the Fighter MC Archetype almost completely worthless since this would be the better option for 7 of the 12 classes; even if Spellstrike was ignored.

It also wouldn’t be as Universal as Cavalier or Pirate, since it requires casting of some kind. I feel something like this would pigeonhole the majority of Gish builds as a ‘must have’ feat choice.


thejeff wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I'm not surprised they changed how melee touch spells worked, since those spells were previously confusing (almost no one I talked to believed me when I said you could cast the spell, move, and then deliver all in one turn) and also hard to use if you didn't start your turn at a distance.

Starfinder fixed it by making melee touch spells not provoke; switching them to saves is another option.

That does leave spellstrike in a weird place, but again - I honestly don't think Magus will be a proper spellcaster when it comes back. I don't see them giving Magus 9 levels of spells, which means Magus spellstrike is going to be entirely based on Focus Spells, which will be custom designed with spellstrike in mind.

It's not impossible they'll just have spellstrike change the way they work. It's not that big a leap from "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a touch" to "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a save."

Well, there sort of is. Making a weapon attack instead of a touch involves, generally, decreasing accuracy in order to maximize damage, because touch AC is lower than normal AC. Allowing someone to target reflex DC (or allow a reflex save) is effectively not only letting them do more damage, but have their choice of two different defenses to target. So in some cases this might result in increasing your damage and accuracy, which seems less tenable.

One option that could work as a Magus/gish feat: holding the charge. We seem to have lost that mechanic for touch spells from PF1, probably for complexity reasons, but it strikes me as the sort of thing that might work better as an opt-in feat. Provided it wasn't so good it became mandatory.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

That means Paladin/Champion would be able to grab it because of Lay on Hands. This would also make the Fighter MC Archetype almost completely worthless since this would be the better option for 7 of the 12 classes; even if Spellstrike was ignored.

It also wouldn’t be as Universal as Cavalier or Pirate, since it requires casting of some kind. I feel something like this would pigeonhole the majority of Gish builds as a ‘must have’ feat choice.

This puts into words really well why I was thinking Magus can't be an archetype and needs to be a base class. Also Captain Morgan's comments about how the disadvantage of having to target regular AC is gone.

Whatever form Magus takes, I don't think there's any chance at all we'll see something that let's you spellstrike with 9th level spells of an arbitrary list. That would have been arguably broken in 1e, and is definitely broken in 2e. Plus it would mean every new spell has to keep Magus in mind for balance reasons.

Not to sound like a broken record, but as the thread goes on I'm more and more confident that focus spells are how Magus is going to be handled, and it'll be a base class instead of an archetype, with spellstrike only working with it's own focus spells. I think most likely even multiclassing won't let you spellstrike with other spell lists.

However, what does occur to me is that gives Magus a lot of mechanical (but not thematic) overlap with Kineticist. Not sure how much of an issue that is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

That means Paladin/Champion would be able to grab it because of Lay on Hands. This would also make the Fighter MC Archetype almost completely worthless since this would be the better option for 7 of the 12 classes; even if Spellstrike was ignored.

It also wouldn’t be as Universal as Cavalier or Pirate, since it requires casting of some kind. I feel something like this would pigeonhole the majority of Gish builds as a ‘must have’ feat choice.

This puts into words really well why I was thinking Magus can't be an archetype and needs to be a base class. Also Captain Morgan's comments about how the disadvantage of having to target regular AC is gone.

Whatever form Magus takes, I don't think there's any chance at all we'll see something that let's you spellstrike with 9th level spells of an arbitrary list. That would have been arguably broken in 1e, and is definitely broken in 2e. Plus it would mean every new spell has to keep Magus in mind for balance reasons.

Not to sound like a broken record, but as the thread goes on I'm more and more confident that focus spells are how Magus is going to be handled, and it'll be a base class instead of an archetype, with spellstrike only working with it's own focus spells. I think most likely even multiclassing won't let you spellstrike with other spell lists.

However, what does occur to me is that gives Magus a lot of mechanical (but not thematic) overlap with Kineticist. Not sure how much of an issue that is.

The problem with that though is that they're trying to get away from classes having their own spell lists. Sticking with just the arcane/divine/occult/primal division.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Magus will have a full spell list, just Focus Spells.


MaxAstro wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Magus will have a full spell list, just Focus Spells.

Oh. I guess I see what you're saying.

That seems even more limited than I'd like.

Of course, who knows? Maybe they won't even pick up the spellstrike concept and take an entirely different path for a full gish class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn’t have to overlap with kineticist.
It can merge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Magus will have a full spell list, just Focus Spells.

Oh. I guess I see what you're saying.

That seems even more limited than I'd like.

Of course, who knows? Maybe they won't even pick up the spellstrike concept and take an entirely different path for a full gish class.

It seems to be the way they are going with partial casters, since sixth level spell lists aren't a thing any more.

It is much more limited than 1e Magus, for sure, although on the other hand Magus had a lot of spells you realistically weren't going to use; I could get behind a tighter design space. As long as there are a variety of focus spell options and you end up with 8-10 meaningfully different, equally useful focus spells by 20th, I don't think that's hugely behind where 6th level casters were in effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I'm not surprised they changed how melee touch spells worked, since those spells were previously confusing (almost no one I talked to believed me when I said you could cast the spell, move, and then deliver all in one turn) and also hard to use if you didn't start your turn at a distance.

Starfinder fixed it by making melee touch spells not provoke; switching them to saves is another option.

That does leave spellstrike in a weird place, but again - I honestly don't think Magus will be a proper spellcaster when it comes back. I don't see them giving Magus 9 levels of spells, which means Magus spellstrike is going to be entirely based on Focus Spells, which will be custom designed with spellstrike in mind.

It's not impossible they'll just have spellstrike change the way they work. It's not that big a leap from "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a touch" to "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a save."

Well, there sort of is. Making a weapon attack instead of a touch involves, generally, decreasing accuracy in order to maximize damage, because touch AC is lower than normal AC. Allowing someone to target reflex DC (or allow a reflex save) is effectively not only letting them do more damage, but have their choice of two different defenses to target. So in some cases this might result in increasing your damage and accuracy, which seems less tenable.

One option that could work as a Magus/gish feat: holding the charge. We seem to have lost that mechanic for touch spells from PF1, probably for complexity reasons, but it strikes me as the sort of thing that might work better as an opt-in feat. Provided it wasn't so good it became mandatory.

Full agreement with all your points. Another option might be to apply an action cost to the spellcast. Considering you’d get weapon damage on top of the spell damage, it might be worth it. You’d make a single spellstrike roll for both attacks, or separate them out and target the weapon attack against AC and the spell against a saving throw, depending on how you want to play it that round.

For characters that aren’t pumping their casting stat, it might be a mandatory feat. But that’s the exact kind of feat that builds are designed around, so perhaps that’s alright.


Magus might be able to work as a full caster. For the record i’m all for the Spell Powers option.

What about giving this Magus-like class a proficiency in weapons and spell casting up to expert or master? Maybe a keystone feat to unlock legendary in either weapons or Spellcasting. Spellstrike could be a class feature like LoH or Channel, but work like Channel Smite. Their feats would be forcused on improving Spellstrike, using spell combat as a form of Sword and Sorcery version of TWF, and a Ranged specific version of Spellstrike.

I’m currently trying to think up a general archetype for Martials to become Gish focused; mostly focusing on scrolls and items though.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The problem with Magus as a full caster is that unless Wizards suddenly have bonkers good class features, that would basically just make Magus "Wizard with -2 on spell attacks, better weapon and armor proficiency, and better class features".


I’m not so sure. The Wizard has a number of things a dedicated caster would probably want over better weapon and armor proficiencies. Also wouldn’t give them extra spell slots, so Wizard and Sorc should always have more gas in that regard. The Magus would have a focus on consuming spell slots for different gains. One issue with having them rely exclusively on powers is they could end up having too large a spell pool which would make them really powerful with certain MC options, or too small where it feels like they run out too soon.


Quick Preparation is a pretty baller wizard feature. That feels like it can justify a lot other its competitors getting better weapon and armor and such. I am hoping sorcerers get something similar, perhaps that lets them change their spontaneous heightening spell, so the d6 casters do feel like the best casters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quick Preparation is a pretty baller wizard feature. That feels like it can justify a lot other its competitors getting better weapon and armor and such. I am hoping sorcerers get something similar, perhaps that lets them change their spontaneous heightening spell, so the d6 casters do feel like the best casters.

I'm hoping Quick Preparation isn't just removed after the unfounded outcry on these forums back in the day.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quick Preparation is a pretty baller wizard feature. That feels like it can justify a lot other its competitors getting better weapon and armor and such. I am hoping sorcerers get something similar, perhaps that lets them change their spontaneous heightening spell, so the d6 casters do feel like the best casters.
I'm hoping Quick Preparation isn't just removed after the unfounded outcry on these forums back in the day.

Honestly, I only object to it if sorcerers don't get something similar. It really eats into the sorcerer space once wizards don't need to worry about preparing out of combat spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
The problem with Magus as a full caster is that unless Wizards suddenly have bonkers good class features, that would basically just make Magus "Wizard with -2 on spell attacks, better weapon and armor proficiency, and better class features".

While potentially true, the problem with the magus as a noncaster is that I worry it won't really feel like a magus.

I love the kineticist and I'd be super down for a sort of arcane re-imagining of PF2's champion somewhere down the road, but those definitely aren't the Magus.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quick Preparation is a pretty baller wizard feature. That feels like it can justify a lot other its competitors getting better weapon and armor and such. I am hoping sorcerers get something similar, perhaps that lets them change their spontaneous heightening spell, so the d6 casters do feel like the best casters.
I'm hoping Quick Preparation isn't just removed after the unfounded outcry on these forums back in the day.

It got turned from a feat into a default lv1 feature.


Ediwir wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quick Preparation is a pretty baller wizard feature. That feels like it can justify a lot other its competitors getting better weapon and armor and such. I am hoping sorcerers get something similar, perhaps that lets them change their spontaneous heightening spell, so the d6 casters do feel like the best casters.
I'm hoping Quick Preparation isn't just removed after the unfounded outcry on these forums back in the day.
It got turned from a feat into a default lv1 feature.

Has this been shown in actual Second Edition? I don't recall hearing about this ability in Oblivion Oath, for example.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Has this been shown in actual Second Edition? I don't recall hearing about this ability in Oblivion Oath, for example.

No, Ediwir was talking about early playtest compared to late playtest. It hasn't come up yet one way or the other in Oblivion Oath.


You could maybe make the magus a full caster, but limit their schools even further?

E.g. Choose two (probably Evocation and something else).

N.b. I've forgotten what schools Arcane may have already been limited to, or if that actually happened — not sure we know yet?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:

You could maybe make the magus a full caster, but limit their schools even further?

E.g. Choose two (probably Evocation and something else).

You could theoretically do something like this.

Ramanujan wrote:
N.b. I've forgotten what schools Arcane may have already been limited to, or if that actually happened — not sure we know yet?

Arcane is all eight Schools. All spell lists are. The Arcane list may (or may not) be limited in other ways, but it's not losing any whole schools.


Is 6th level casting really that bad? Specially when it's the perfect mechanic for gishes and hybrid classes?

Btw I dont mean custom spell list, just a straight up, "you only get spell up to 6th lv".

*************
Anyway I'm just curious dont let this question derail the thread.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

Is 6th level casting really that bad? Specially when it's the perfect mechanic for gishes and hybrid classes?

Btw I dont mean custom spell list, just a straight up, "you only get spell up to 6th lv".

*************
Anyway I'm just curious dont let this question derail the thread.

Isn't this what multiclassing into a caster class already does ?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

6th level casting without tailored spell lists is pretty bad, yeah. Although I think not as bad in 2e as it was in 1e, because of how save DCs work.

Then again, heightening...


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

Is 6th level casting really that bad? Specially when it's the perfect mechanic for gishes and hybrid classes?

Btw I dont mean custom spell list, just a straight up, "you only get spell up to 6th lv".

*************
Anyway I'm just curious dont let this question derail the thread.

It would be like if you had a PF1 caster that got Fireball... but it did d4s instead of d6s. You need those slots to scale your damage now. Unless the gish class doesn’t use damaging spells, it would take a lot of tinkering to get this working.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When I close my eyes and think of a specific, stand-alone Magus class for 2E I think of a similar chassis as the bard, but instead of performances you get non-spell abilities that are magical in nature that you deliver with your weapon. It would also cast from the Arcane list, but perhaps with a prohibited school?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess having lv9 spell slots but only up to lv6 spells known would be really confusing... This can happen in 5E when multiclassing, tho.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
I guess having lv9 spell slots but only up to lv6 spells known would be really confusing... This can happen in 5E when multiclassing, tho.

At that point, you're also relying on scaled spells being weaker than naturally high-level spells as a balancing point. While that will generally be true, the occasional exception shouldn't cause problems class.


I mean it is a bit more confusing (specially with multiclassing casters), but not by much. It however would break the everything works about the same.

Back to the gishes, the idea of using, "Must have levels in 2 classes" sounds interesting. Similarly, the idea of, "must have X level of martial and spellcasting proficiency" also sounds fun. I guess a good way to prevent early access would then be to also add a level requirement; that way no matter when you get the proficiencies you still can't get it early.

******************
For Magus I see Spellstrike as a use one action for spell and weapon, but it feels like it might break action economy. Maybe have it as a focus spell? So by spending focus points (and maybe a feat) you can cast and attack as 1 action; and then the spell level equals the number of points used.

Magus Arcana and Arcane Pool in general fit really well as focus spells. It doesn't overlap much with Kineticist because kinetic talents aren't just use a point for something, they really were like at will spells.


Temperans wrote:


For Magus I see Spellstrike as a use one action for spell and weapon, but it feels like it might break action economy. Maybe have it as a focus spell? So by spending focus points (and maybe a feat) you can cast and attack as 1 action; and then the spell level equals the number of points used.

So in the playtest Clerics have access to a feat called Channel Smite which works identically to how others have suggested Spellstrike to work; two key differences are is uses a charge of Channel Energy instead of a spell slot, and you can only dump the 1 action version of the Heal/Harm spell. So in most cases Spellstrike would be more efficient by 1 action with spells. This can be remedied with some reasonable restrictions, possibly akin to how Glyph of Warding works, like ‘must have a hostile effect’ and ‘must target one creature’ with possible options or variants such as being able to use a fireball with its AoE and not getting hurt while using it; but that’s really speculative thinking on my part.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that casters roll spell attacks with their main stat and touch AC is gone, it might be balanced to have some feat/class feature:

"When you cast a spell that requires a spell attack, you can make a weapon strike instead. You use your normal attack bonus (ability and prof.) for that weapon. If you hit, you deal normal weapon damage and the target is affected by the spell as if the spell attack hit."

So 2 action for one weapon attack that has the spell effect as a rider. You use a non-casting ability/prof to attack so it is more inaccurate than a spell attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are doing gish then casting stat is most likely the same or lower (no save spells).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And that makes it viable for two actions.
Casting and attacking for one action only would be absurdly good, even expending resources.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

And that makes it viable for two actions.

Casting and attacking for one action only would be absurdly good, even expending resources.

Yeah, one action would be ridiculous. Much better than it was in PF1.

Essentially in PF1 it took as long to cast and attack as it normally did to cast. It should do the same here.


thejeff wrote:
Megistone wrote:

And that makes it viable for two actions.

Casting and attacking for one action only would be absurdly good, even expending resources.

Yeah, one action would be ridiculous. Much better than it was in PF1.

Essentially in PF1 it took as long to cast and attack as it normally did to cast. It should do the same here.

Yes, I agree.

Even having a larger selection of one-action spells, I don't think the ability would be too strong because of MAP.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would assume it would be one action for one action spells and two actions for two action spells; nothing else really makes sense. Two actions for a one action spell wouldn't be any actual benefit and one action for a two action spell would be hilariously overpowered.

I remain unconvinced that Magus will be a full caster though. :)


QuidEst wrote:


It would be like if you had a PF1 caster that got Fireball... but it did d4s instead of d6s. You need those slots to scale your damage now. Unless the gish class doesn’t use damaging spells, it would take a lot of tinkering to get this working.

Maybe that mechanic needs a look at then instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
QuidEst wrote:


It would be like if you had a PF1 caster that got Fireball... but it did d4s instead of d6s. You need those slots to scale your damage now. Unless the gish class doesn’t use damaging spells, it would take a lot of tinkering to get this working.
Maybe that mechanic needs a look at then instead.

More than a little late for that.


To touch on armor again, in the Playtest heavy armor was far from on par with medium or light armor, and I even did a long post detailing exactly how heavy armor mathematically loses its relevancy due to nearly all minimally optimized PC's getting at least one stat boost to DEX. In particular, the speed penalties were crippling for characters that obviously need to close the distance to hit their targets.

For gishes, I feel like all three armor types should be viable options with different purposes, and that it shouldn't be entirely determined by whether your classes give you class-specific perks for it. Given how dramatically it looks like armor has changed so far (heavy armor now scales with STR to mitigate its penalties, touch AC no longer exists) it may be that fighters and paladins no longer need specific class features shoehorning them into heavy armor, which I feel is good since armor is a great way to distinguish two otherwise mechanically similar characters. But I also don't want gishes to necessarily *have* to have those two classes to have access to heavy armor and make it work, if someone spends the resources to make their muscle wizard fit into full plate then by dammit they're gonna play a Battlemage.

I think that's best accomplished by making sure at least martial classes have some amount of choice in what armor to wear. Rogues should have meaningful choices between light and medium armor, Barbarians shouldn't be outright prevented from using a class feature because they're in heavy armor, pure monks might traditionally need to be unarmored but classes dipping into monk shouldn't necessarily feel a need to go topless to incorporate some kicks and punches into their routine.

Given the major changes to armor that seem to make heavy armor less godawful, it's possible that at least Fighters and Paladins are bit less shoehorned into one particular type of armor and can instead pick what best fits thematically with their stats, and hopefully that means gishes dipping into those classes can have some meaningful choice in how their character dresses themselves. I just hope it doesn't lurch too far the other way and make nay incidental heavy armor proficiency picked up from a class obligate players to use it or otherwise miss out on a statistically superior option.

I'd maybe go for something even more radical and simplify armor proficiency into either armored or unarmored, or even get rid of it entirely and instead balance the armors such that they're all worth considering even if classes would still be biased towards their traditional looks. It just seems like it would make multiclassing to accomplish a mental image of a character in your mind easier, if you don't have to jump through extra hoops to get the right costume.


Alright, I'm just gonna ask because I can't make sense of it all. Why can't new Magi be full casters off the Arcane list? What, other than "that's how it was in PF1!" should be stopping the theoretical new Magus class from being a full 9th level spell user? I get being a Focus Caster, you curtail a special set of things they can do that would make sense for them and no one else, but if they did make them full 9ers, what would be wrong with that? ALSO, there's the "free action" thing for a reason, silly forgetful people who wonder how Spellstrike would work :P (FREE ACTION SYMBOL; Whenever you cast a spell with an attack roll, you may deliver it with a weapon instead of your hand)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Alright, I'm just gonna ask because I can't make sense of it all. Why can't new Magi be full casters off the Arcane list? What, other than "that's how it was in PF1!" should be stopping the theoretical new Magus class from being a full 9th level spell user? I get being a Focus Caster, you curtail a special set of things they can do that would make sense for them and no one else, but if they did make them full 9ers, what would be wrong with that? ALSO, there's the "free action" thing for a reason, silly forgetful people who wonder how Spellstrike would work :P (FREE ACTION SYMBOL; Whenever you cast a spell with an attack roll, you may deliver it with a weapon instead of your hand)

To me it is because the whole 'free action magic' attack is already quite big, getting high proefs in both armor,weapons and magic is also something that would cost the class, then getting magic 9 levels on top is quite scary. I don't think it's impossible to make them but it's quite hard to keep balance with them on the game in my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Alright, I'm just gonna ask because I can't make sense of it all. Why can't new Magi be full casters off the Arcane list? What, other than "that's how it was in PF1!" should be stopping the theoretical new Magus class from being a full 9th level spell user? I get being a Focus Caster, you curtail a special set of things they can do that would make sense for them and no one else, but if they did make them full 9ers, what would be wrong with that? ALSO, there's the "free action" thing for a reason, silly forgetful people who wonder how Spellstrike would work :P (FREE ACTION SYMBOL; Whenever you cast a spell with an attack roll, you may deliver it with a weapon instead of your hand)

As compared with Wizards they need to loose something in exchange for their combat abilities.

The main thing they lost (as compared with Wizards) in PF1 was 9th level casting. Which is a big loss — and that big loss is a part of what allowed Spellstrike to be so good. The other part is that they also lost accuracy by swapping touch attacks for regular attacks, and with touch AC not being in PF2, that trade is also gone.

It's not that the Magus can't be 9th level caster, but there does need to be a trade of some kind; and the more they trade away the stronger Spell Strike can be.

There are certainly other things that could be traded such as access to schools, spell slots, skills, action efficiency, etc... but the things being lost need to be valuable in exchange for keeping 9th level casting, martial prowess and spell strike.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, that's my main line of thinking. Wizard doesn't have really strong class features outside of 9th level casting. It has some, but not in the same way that say Champion has strong class features. 9th level casting is most of the class. To give Magus 9th level casting you'd need to make sure their class features don't totally eclipse Wizards.

Of course it's possible that in the final rules, Wizards have really strong, defining class features. If that is the case, then Magus as a 9th level caster becomes much more plausible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Yeah, that's my main line of thinking. Wizard doesn't have really strong class features outside of 9th level casting. It has some, but not in the same way that say Champion has strong class features. 9th level casting is most of the class. To give Magus 9th level casting you'd need to make sure their class features don't totally eclipse Wizards.

Of course it's possible that in the final rules, Wizards have really strong, defining class features. If that is the case, then Magus as a 9th level caster becomes much more plausible.

But if you're going to do that, you really have to nerf 9th level casting. Or buff everything else.

9 levels of arcane spells is wizard's really strong class feature.

51 to 100 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Pathfinder Second and Gishes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.