Magus as a Wizards Thesis.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Could also see feat like this:

Bulwark Footing (<) Feat: 4
You know how mix both magical and mundane defensive styles while also keeping accurate footing. When your shield or magical shield is raised, you can also take a step.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
Should a Magus be able to cast as well at range (w/o a ranged weapon) as well as they do when Striking?

It affects saves too. Disarm shouldn't make a magus suck...

Castilliano wrote:
Plus, by sacrificing that aspect, one can support having a decent martial chassis.

Not really as they can just pick it back up with multiclass so getting to master must be factored in: if they aren't balanced for master, then it throws everything off once they do get it. You might as well just start off with that.

Castilliano wrote:

For uniqueness, I think that leads a full-caster Magus toward being better w/ weapons and worse at spells, unless those are cast as part of using a weapon. Using generic spell slots to power up one's mediocre martial skills could also work. Self-buffing.

Hmm...

I think the framework works better the other way around: mediocre with weapons when not channeling through the weapon as everyone can get master spellcasting: it feels kind of lame that a part time spellcaster can get a higher proficiency that your magus who's actual class gives you casting.


I think letting the magus gain an item bonus to spell attack rolls made at melee range will do all the work of making them want to be up close and personal. Especially if the spell strike feature only gives them a bonus to melee attack rolls made the same round that they cast a spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone can get master spellcasting if they sacrifice most (Edit: because this is the internet and if you don't hedge that'll be an entire post in response; "a good chunk") of their class feats, right? With something like Wizard MCD?

For the sake of argument, if Magus is a class with Master in weapons and Expert in casting, with Spellstrike enhancing the to-hit for spells, then the MCD question seems to presuppose that the +2 on casting at level 18 is worth that many feats. Again, if it's a class, I'm not sure that's true in so many cases that people would entirely ignore a Magus class' feats just for that.

You'd get some other benefits, I guess, but outside of more spell slots the Magus wouldn't really gain anything until they're nearly max level. Or I guess you could pick another casting tradition. Seems like a fair trade to me, and something I probably wouldn't do. I'd rather have those class feats and Spellstrike things to deliver spells offensively, while also being on par with most martials in melee when I don't want to or can't expend resources on Spellstrike.


Puna'chong wrote:
You'd get some other benefits, I guess, but outside of more spell slots the Magus wouldn't really gain anything until they're nearly max level. Seems like a fair trade to me, and something I probably wouldn't do.

That's 4 feats for a better proficiency bonus, 2 cantrips and 8 extra spell slots: there are worse things to spend feats on. Take Arcane Breadth and that's an extra 6 spell slot.

Slots might be more important here if they have less slots that 'full' casters too: for instance if they max at 2 spells per level, getting some extra slots might seem attractive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The real problem in my mind with the magus as Master martial and expert caster, is that the fighter MC caster is just going to be universally better at doing what this class is supposed to be doing as niche.

Spell attack rolls with master proficiency is a really bad idea. Spell attack roll spells are not even that great for full casters with a maximized attack attribute. If the point of the Magus class is to use attack magic, especially magic that requires an attack roll, it needs a progression that goes all the way to legendary, not just so it ends up there, but so that it can progress at lower levels, like full casters. Attaching that to a weapon attack roll is a really bad idea because then the character is going to be too similar to other martial characters, only with the ability to cast really powerful attack spells. It will be very difficult for ranger abilities or Barbarian abilities to keep up, especially if the spell abilities of the magus just mean that they do massively more damage.

You really don't want to be a caster class who never advances past expert with your spells. All of your buffing and movement related spells become incredibly easy to counter and you pretty much lose out on every aspect of casting except being able to cast spell attack spells that will miss too often, but do a lot of damage when they don't. You will still be an incredibly fragile glass cannon that every enemy will focus fire on as soon as they see you trying to land big damage spells in melee range.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that spell attack proficiency isn't that big a deal. Magus was always about those touch spells - so why not make all their spells touch unless it's a buff or AoE? Just have master or legendary weapon progression and punch all the spells into things.

The only class that gets legendary proficiency in weapons is the fighter. Everyone else maxes out at master, at the most.


Yeah, I think for me that'd theoretically be a valid build, but not so good that the entire class has to be built around that MCD option(assuming well-made Magus feats).

You'd still be worse at straight-up weapon attacks than a Fighter/Wizard and worse at casting than a Wizard/Fighter, but as good as both of them at both casting and smacking when you Spellstrike (assuming you use your Master proficiency +2 or something, which is where my brain has been), and actually able to combine the two efficiently.

I like weapon Master and caster Expert (if they're disjointed like that; they don't necessarily have to be) because (1) Master in weapons lets the Magus be as baseline proficient as other martials when they run out of resources or aren't casting, which I think is important; (2) it means that you don't pick Magus just to be an improved Wizard; (3) it probably means that the Magus can have full casting progression, because they just aren't as potent of an offensive caster when they aren't Spellstriking; and (4) it creates interesting opportunities for class feats and even MCD choices in character building.

Personally, I also envision the Magus as a person who trains in weapons all day and then studies magic at night, rather than the other way around. But I recognize that my own personal perception isn't going to be shared by everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
The real problem in my mind with the magus as Master martial and expert caster, is that the fighter MC caster is just going to be universally better at doing what this class is supposed to be doing as niche.

This is also an issue i see going with the ‘Focus-Caster’ route. A Fighter, or any Martial really, can MCD any caster for spells and Master Spellcasting, and grab ‘Magus’ for Spellstrike and now we just have a better ‘Magus’. A Focus based Martial sounds like a good idea for a reimagined Eldritch Knight rather than a butchered Magus.

As for Caster MCD feeling like a tax; you get Master Spellcasting, Additional Spell slots and whatever other icings the class may get as specific features. Is there a downside? Are these supposed 18th level class feats that good?


Puna'chong wrote:
Yeah, I think for me that'd theoretically be a valid build, but not so good that the entire class has to be built around that MCD option(assuming well-made Magus feats).

I think it has to be taken into account for balancing it out: no other class has to worry about it as the multiclass feats stop under the classes max proficiency.

Puna'chong wrote:
caster Expert

I still worry about saves, dispels, counters, ect that are proficiency based.


Thats why I perfer it being dedication that one of five caster class could go into instead, so their caster profiency already handled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The real problem in my mind with the magus as Master martial and expert caster, is that the fighter MC caster is just going to be universally better at doing what this class is supposed to be doing as niche.

This is also an issue i see going with the ‘Focus-Caster’ route. A Fighter, or any Martial really, can MCD any caster for spells and Master Spellcasting, and grab ‘Magus’ for Spellstrike and now we just have a better ‘Magus’. A Focus based Martial sounds like a good idea for a reimagined Eldritch Knight rather than a butchered Magus.

As for Caster MCD feeling like a tax; you get Master Spellcasting, Additional Spell slots and whatever other icings the class may get as specific features. Is there a downside? Are these supposed 18th level class feats that good?

Why would spell strike be available through Multiclassing? It seems like that would be locked behind whatever class ability is granted by the Magus Archetype for wizard. Nobody gets wizard theses from MCing. I think that aspect of the class would occupy the same space.


Unicore wrote:
Why would spell strike be available through Multiclassing? It seems like that would be locked behind whatever class ability is granted by the Magus Archetype for wizard. Nobody gets wizard theses from MCing. I think that aspect of the class would occupy the same space.

Well it kind of fills the same space as a monks flurry or a barbarians rage and those are available so I'm not sure we can assume it isn't going to be available.


I guess my confusion stems from the assumption we were discussing this as an archetype or modification of the wizard class/ wizard thesis ability.

Scarab Sages

Staffan Johansson wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that spell attack proficiency isn't that big a deal. Magus was always about those touch spells - so why not make all their spells touch unless it's a buff or AoE? Just have master or legendary weapon progression and punch all the spells into things.
The only class that gets legendary proficiency in weapons is the fighter. Everyone else maxes out at master, at the most.

Only one so far. If a Magus is closer to a Kensai I can see it happening.


Unicore wrote:
I guess my confusion stems from the assumption we were discussing this as an archetype or modification of the wizard class/ wizard thesis ability.

A lot of things are being talked about and I don't think we've nailed down a particular route for getting there. We've gone through it being it's own class, a normal multiclass, an archetype to modify wizard, a wizard thesis and some things in between. For instance if armor/weapon proficiencies are traded for the thesis then maybe spellstrike is a focus spell for a new magus school, it could be picked up with the Arcane School Spell feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magus shouldn't get get anything less than Master spellcasting, because otherwise its just bad. A Fighter/Wizard would be a straight up upgrade, and even new abilities wouldnt rescue the Magus.

Also it makes perfect sense if a Magus can spend 1 spell slot to deal more damage than the Ranger or Barbarian. The Magus niche has always been its nova potential, it would be weird to reduce the potential to go nova to protect sustain DPS classes like the Ranger or Barbarian.

Expert in weapons makes sense in that Master is the new "full bab". Every martial is built around Master proficiency, such that Fighters are able to get Legedary to represent their previous weapon training bonus. Remember the entire purpose of Arcane Pool was to help the Magus temporarily catch up to full bab martials. It also makes sense in that Spell Combat gave a -2 to attack when you cast a spell and attacked, something that everyone can do in PF2e. So a potential solution is adding the exclusive ability to get a +2 to strike rolls when you dont cast a spell in a previous round.

Something like:
Spell Combat: Trigger- you didnt cast a spell the previous round. All your strikes get a +2 circumstance bonus on their attack roll until the start of the next turn or until you cast a spell which ever comes first.

Level 11 feat, Greater Spell Combat: Trigger- You cast a spell the previous round. Your first weapon strike in the round gets a +2 circumstance bonus on attack roll.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
Only one so far. If a Magus is closer to a Kensai I can see it happening.

PF1 magi had medium BAB, with some class abilities to make up the shortfall. I can see them go up to Master proficiency like most of the martial classes (after all, the rogue did), but being The Best at fighting is the fighter's whole thing.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that spell attack proficiency isn't that big a deal. Magus was always about those touch spells - so why not make all their spells touch unless it's a buff or AoE? Just have master or legendary weapon progression and punch all the spells into things.
The only class that gets legendary proficiency in weapons is the fighter. Everyone else maxes out at master, at the most.
Only one so far. If a Magus is closer to a Kensai I can see it happening.

The fighter being the only one in Legendary is probably going to remain true for a while. I can't imagine whatever the final version of the Magus will look like will have Legendary weapon proficiency, unless it's an archetype of the fighter.

Heck even Master proficiency would be pushing since nobody else with spell casting goes beyond Expert weapon proficiency (I think).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My best guess is that the Magus would use the Warpriest Cleric as a model. That is the closest thing we have to an intermediate between a martial class and a spellcaster class, and even it leans strongly in the spellcaster direction.


Unicore wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The real problem in my mind with the magus as Master martial and expert caster, is that the fighter MC caster is just going to be universally better at doing what this class is supposed to be doing as niche.

This is also an issue i see going with the ‘Focus-Caster’ route. A Fighter, or any Martial really, can MCD any caster for spells and Master Spellcasting, and grab ‘Magus’ for Spellstrike and now we just have a better ‘Magus’. A Focus based Martial sounds like a good idea for a reimagined Eldritch Knight rather than a butchered Magus.

As for Caster MCD feeling like a tax; you get Master Spellcasting, Additional Spell slots and whatever other icings the class may get as specific features. Is there a downside? Are these supposed 18th level class feats that good?

Why would spell strike be available through Multiclassing? It seems like that would be locked behind whatever class ability is granted by the Magus Archetype for wizard. Nobody gets wizard theses from MCing. I think that aspect of the class would occupy the same space.

The thread has been a little bit here and there; with one of the things mentioned about being Magus as a Focus-Spell based class in place of Spell Slots.

Spellstrike as a Thesis or Class Archetype i wouldn’t be against; unless it was at the expense of the Magus future. One of the reasons you actually pointed out. With Magus being a Thesis, for example, then no other class would have access to it as far as we know. One of the more popular ideas in each of these threads tends to be using Spellstrike with other classes and/or spell lists; usually in the form of ‘pick your casting tradition’, but also in access via MCD.

Rage; AoO; Focus Spells; Hunt Prey; FoB; Sneak Attack (1d6 cap); Compositions; Divine Ally; Quick Alchemy; all of these can be grabbed via MCD to varying degrees, so it would seem odd to me that Spellstrike wouldn’t be.

Horizon Hunters

Temperans wrote:


Something like:
Spell Combat: Trigger- you didnt cast a spell the previous round. All your strikes get a +2 circumstance bonus on their attack roll until the start of the next turn or until you cast a spell which ever comes first.

Level 11 feat, Greater Spell Combat: Trigger- You cast a spell the previous round. Your first weapon strike in the round gets a +2 circumstance bonus on attack roll.

The problem with that is that it would seem to discourage Magus from casting spells on the same turn as Striking, which is like the complete opposite of what we are after.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Also it makes perfect sense if a Magus can spend 1 spell slot to deal more damage than the Ranger or Barbarian. The Magus niche has always been its nova potential, it would be weird to reduce the potential to go nova to protect sustain DPS classes like the Ranger or Barbarian.

I don't agree to this premise - I think the original point of the magus was to mix the action economy of casting with that of attacking. An UC-only PF1 magus is probably using a lot of spell combat rounds casting a buff while also pressing the attack.

The magus as a nova machine is IMO more an artifact of a couple of things synergizing too well;
- Dervish Dance / Arcane Pool to make a Keen scimitar / critting with spellstrike
- Magical Lineage (Shocking Grasp) / Intensify Spell / Pearl of Power 1

By using Magical Lineage to keep intensified shocking grasp a level 1 spell you get a lot of mileage out of a bag of pearls of power. 4 level 1 pearls of power cost the same as one level 2 one. So one trait quadruples your attack spells.

An un-cheesed magus can nova but not repeatedly. But the pathological "ruining my campaign" magus does it all the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a good basis for approaching this should not be, mimic exact mechanics from First Edition.

It should be: What is the fantasy I want to facilitate? How can I facilitate this?

#1 has many answers, its pretty subjective. IMO the answer is someone who fights with weapons in melee enhanced or using flashy elemental magic in a significant measure.

#2 Taking my #1 you could decide how to best do this, can you already do it with existing options? Can you do it with a new option in an existing framework, like a new druid order, etc? Can you do it with an archetype? If none of the above, it's probably time to make a new class. At which point you really need to be setting down what he mechanic niche is, and whether that niche fits and makes sense in the new edition, etc.

I would say that I don't think it really works with current options. Martials with spellcasting archetypes don't feel VERY/SIGNIFICANTLY magical, and aren't really encouraged to use evocation style magic over buffs, etc. Spellcasters with martial archetypes don't really seem to work for the two 6 HP classes at least, or have a very different theme. Like a Sorcerer with Champion Dedication can work, but is mostly just an armored sorcerer and has a VERY limited and specific theme.


Self buffing Magus and Nova Magus are both different to Fighter/Wizard (self buffer) and Wizard/Fighter (Nova).

Nova Magus is just what happens whn a Magus decides to dedicate most of his spells on attack. Which means double dipping damage for a limited amount of time.

But yes I agree the important part is defining its core ability and/or theme, and whether they fit into the game without causing trouble.


Another thing to remember in thinking about the magus is that targeting with spells works vastly differently in PF2 and seems factored into the power balance of spells. “Touch” spells are pretty non-existent mechanically. Most higher level damaging spells happen through saves. The most powerful spells might require an attack roll and a save or 2 saves.

Is the magus mechanic only going to interact with spell attack rolls? Is it going to make saving throws into attack rolls? Generally that is just making them worse because spells do nothing on a miss with an attack roll.

Which ever way it is handled, the magus will probably need quite a few new spells to come out with it and I don’t think there is any good way to build the class where it’s shtick is delivering melee spell attacks and not having the best possible attack proficiency progression.


Hmm yeah if use melee attack roll it well weaker then your spell attack roll. Martial/Caster one would benfit more from that since attack rolls be higher but since this meant to more caster centric need ways to tune it.


Temperans wrote:

Self buffing Magus and Nova Magus are both different to Fighter/Wizard (self buffer) and Wizard/Fighter (Nova).

Nova Magus is just what happens whn a Magus decides to dedicate most of his spells on attack. Which means double dipping damage for a limited amount of time.

But yes I agree the important part is defining its core ability and/or theme, and whether they fit into the game without causing trouble.

Since buffing doesn't really work in PF2 the way it did in PF1, I don't think you can make a dedicated buffer build work.

I would expect maybe a focus spell option for some attack bonus, or the already existing spells that buff (which aren't a lot).


The only attack bonuses I expect a Magus to have are those that make up for a deficit. So perhaps to catch up to a generic martial, plus damage to catch up to a normal martial (i.e. Precision Ranger or Barb's Rage damage).

Where I expect a Magus to excel is with spell attack rolls.
Adding an item (weapon) bonus seems workable. The Magus could get that +1 advantage early on. As the weapon increases and the Magus falls behind on proficiency, the final +3 would still give a net +1 w/ spell attacks.
(Remember that +1 is pretty significant, about +15% damage if crits are involved.)

I think the real trouble is combining spells w/ weapon Strikes. If both are at zero MAP, this overpowers PF2's balance, as might having too much action/casting efficiency.
Of course, delivering the spell w/o the weapon damage can be easily balanced. Other ways would be to lower accuracy (which would hurt extra bad when out of spells) or somehow lower spell damage (much like lowering a weapon die).
I see that all as a reason to lean more toward the focus pool/stance route. Was it Book of 9 Swords that had something similar? (3.X)


Also, I can see several flavors of Magus:

-Basic (traditional), abilities tied to melee spell attacks & weapons, maybe emanations & zero-range bursts & lines too.
-Kensai (unarmed/unarmored/+ signature weapon), more personal abilities and self-development
-Arcane Archer (as per Prestige Class), abilities tied to ranged spell attacks, archery, maybe AoE's linked to the bow too.

Not sure if there's demand for a shield Magus or other types other than those that create their own weapons (i.e. with force or shadow stuff). Those may require a different chassis though.


How about tiered dediction then so You have basic magus dedication, then spilt into one more focused on martial going into type and another for caster going into it. Like way hellknight kind of work.


vagrant-poet wrote:

I think a good basis for approaching this should not be, mimic exact mechanics from First Edition.

It should be: What is the fantasy I want to facilitate? How can I facilitate this?

#1 has many answers, its pretty subjective. IMO the answer is someone who fights with weapons in melee enhanced or using flashy elemental magic in a significant measure.

#2 Taking my #1 you could decide how to best do this, can you already do it with existing options? Can you do it with a new option in an existing framework, like a new druid order, etc? Can you do it with an archetype? If none of the above, it's probably time to make a new class. At which point you really need to be setting down what he mechanic niche is, and whether that niche fits and makes sense in the new edition, etc.

I think we agree that mimicking mechanics isn’t going to work. Arcane Pool for instance will probably have to either be redesigned or scrapped. For the most part Spellstrike, and Spell Combat, are agreed as core features; though the exact details are being debated.

My issue comes from replacing the Spell Slots for Focus Spells entirely. I don’t picture the ‘flashy elemental magic’ as its core identity; similarly to how Clerics aren’t simply Heal-Bots because they have channel energy, or Monks aren’t just bare fisted Fighters. I may be in the minority with my viewpoint of it, and i’m okay with that, but if you take away Spell Slots you no longer have a Magus.

@Unicore - We have two published examples with how this will most likely work.

Spellstrike Ammunition CRB pg 560 wrote:


The ammunition affects only the target hit, even if the spell would normally affect more than one target. If the spell requires a spell attack roll, use the result of your ranged attack roll with the ammunition to determine the degree of success of the spell. If the spell requires a saving throw, the target attempts the save against your spell DC.

This seems elegant enough. Hit with attack; if it’s a save spell make the save after the initial attack. The -4 to saves on the other ability that was quoted earlier can be thought of as a unique class feature like Hunter’s Edge, that wouldn’t get passed on via MCD, and doesn’t have to be as strong at beginning levels.


So that mean Legendary caster with spellstrike ammunition would do expert ranged roll so -4 to attack then?


I suspect level caps on the spells used w/ Spellstrike would be a factor, much like w/ Spell Storing weapons. Note that that's a high-level weapon boost which takes a lull to recharge.
It's hard to imagine a class being able to do that at will in quick succession in the early to mid game. Heck, look at the abilities unlocked for Blade Ally Champions at 20th for comparison.
A full-blown PF1 Magus might be impossible by PF2 metrics, even with stunted casting. That doesn't mean there might not be some gish-efficient class called Magus, yet who knows?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a great class defining ability should be making spells have to add another die roll in order to succeed, even if you get to add an extra weapon attack into the picture with it. Most casters can already make an attack with a weapon and then cast a saving throw targeting spell without penalty, at the advantage that the attack could miss and the spell could still hit hard.


Which is why the Magus should lean towards manipulating the action economy of strikes and spells. If having you deliver spells with a strike (melee or ranged) makes the spell less likely to hit, than there are various solutions:
* Increase the Magus Attack bonus (even if temporary),
* Increase the effect of the spell (reverse incapacitation),
* Give save spells a bonus to DC (hitting makes enemies more likely to fail their save),
* Let the Magus retry by holding the charge for some time (maybe a round or 2),
* Make spent spell charge the Magus similar to panache (whether you hit or miss you still benefit),
* Etc.

The question is which combination makes for the best Magus while still remaining balanced.

* P.S. Tiered dedications doesn't solve the problem of dedications taking too many feats to get to important part. It might even make it worse.


Unicore wrote:
I don't think a great class defining ability should be making spells have to add another die roll in order to succeed, even if you get to add an extra weapon attack into the picture with it. Most casters can already make an attack with a weapon and then cast a saving throw targeting spell without penalty, at the advantage that the attack could miss and the spell could still hit hard.

That would be part of the risk/reward involved to balance it out and why Master in Spellcasting would feel justified. Admittedly it’s pure speculation on an ability an NPC uses, so it’s also possible that it’s not designed for players. This is the reason i never found the -4 as unbalancing as many seem to on first glance. Now if we gave that to a Legendary Spellcaster. . .

>.>

<.<

The problem i come across when using Melee Attack rolls for spell saves is, even if we assume this part of the Spellstrike ends up being Magus exclusive, do we use that for Spellstriking Fear, Fireball, Hideous Laughter?

With how Spellstrike Ammunition works, I’m not limited to only damage spells. Should a Magus only be limited to damage spells?


Idea if going dedication route this could be it spell strike type what you get as part of dedication.

Spellweave(Spell stike) {<<} Feat: part of first magus dedication feat.
{Magus}{Flourish}
Requirement: Casting a Spell that requires using one or two actions.
The user casts a spell channeling it into their weapon allowing them to make a Strike action with it, if spell uses spell attack roll substitute it for melee attack roll if using a melee weapon or ranged attack roll if using a ranged weapon to determine the degree of success of the spell. If the spell requires a saving throw, the target attempts the save against your spell DC.

The strike used in spellweave is subjected to -2 to attack roll, if spellcaster tradition reaches Master reduce this to -1, if reaches Legendary reduce it further to 0.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Lets say this feat level 4 to get into dedication and your a wizard and you did start with 16 strength and 18 Intelligence.

You would have melee attack roll of +10, since were only trained using spellweave would bring down to +8 and we could only do it once per turn. Compared to casting spell on its own with +11 spell attack roll that put wizard on -2.

Scarab Sages

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I don't think a great class defining ability should be making spells have to add another die roll in order to succeed, even if you get to add an extra weapon attack into the picture with it. Most casters can already make an attack with a weapon and then cast a saving throw targeting spell without penalty, at the advantage that the attack could miss and the spell could still hit hard.

That would be part of the risk/reward involved to balance it out and why Master in Spellcasting would feel justified. Admittedly it’s pure speculation on an ability an NPC uses, so it’s also possible that it’s not designed for players. This is the reason i never found the -4 as unbalancing as many seem to on first glance. Now if we gave that to a Legendary Spellcaster. . .

>.>

<.<

The problem i come across when using Melee Attack rolls for spell saves is, even if we assume this part of the Spellstrike ends up being Magus exclusive, do we use that for Spellstriking Fear, Fireball, Hideous Laughter?

With how Spellstrike Ammunition works, I’m not limited to only damage spells. Should a Magus only be limited to damage spells?

Could be fun to be immune to your own AoE effects, or change them to cones, or have a way to deliver the melee spell strike from range. Cone might be the easiest to implement.


Castilliano wrote:
I suspect level caps on the spells used w/ Spellstrike would be a factor, much like w/ Spell Storing weapons. Note that that's a high-level weapon boost which takes a lull to recharge.

It’s possible to limit the spell levels allowed to be used. Something like:

Levels
1 - 1st level spells
5 - 2nd level spells
11 - 3rd level spells
17 - 4th level spells

Or

1 - 1st level spells
5 - 2nd level spells
9 - 3rd level spells
13 - 4th level spells
17 - 5th level spells

It would contain the level of spells to worry about; and with either limitation it might allow access to Master in Weapons and Spellcasting, if we limit their Armor to light and medium for the base kit.

Admittedly i’m not sure if this method would allow the use of Cantrips for striking. Most likely not Focus Spells though.


I have a very different take on what a magus should be in 2e. I think the real interesting things about the class were a lot of the self buffing abilities like energy damage on their sword. For the new Magus, I think it could be a class with focus powers and at-will abilities, but no actual spells.

Now hear me out here. A lot of the concerns on the class is comparisons to the Fighter/Wizard and the balance there. For more powerful spellcasting, a Magus could instead rely on dedications and built in support for multiclassed spells, allowing way more flexibility in how the class is built. You could have spell-less mystic warriors as well as spellswords for any other traditions.

It's different, but I think it covers a lot of bases here. Also, I just want a mystic warrior without spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I get that there is some contention about the magus being a thesis option but it's not that weird to convert the doctrine ability from cleric to wizard. It is balanced with the rest of the classes and and converts just fine when you analyze all of the classes.

Here is my interpretation of that idea.

Magus (arcane thesis)
You have trained in the blending of Combat and Magic.

Prerequisite: Universalist wizard.

First lesson (1st): Arcane Bond must be a weapon. You’re trained
in light armor, Medium armor and Simple weapons, and you have
expert proficiency in Fortitude saves. You gain the Spell Combat class
feat. At 13th level if you gain defensive robes you also gain expert
proficiency in light and medium armor.

Second Lesson (3rd): You’re trained in martial weapons.

Third Lesson (7th): Choose a weapon group Your proficiency rank
increases to expert with simple and martial weapons in that group.
You gain access to the critical specialization effect for the selected
weapon group. Replaces expert spellcaster.

Fourth Lesson (11th Level): Your proficiency ranks for
arcane spell attack rolls and spell DCs increase to expert. Replaces
wizard weapon expertise.

Fifth Lesson (15th Level): Your proficiency rank
for Fortitude saves increases to master. When you
roll a success at a Fortitude save, you get a critical
success instead. Replaces Master spellcaster.

Final Lesson (19th Level): Your proficiency ranks for
arcane spell attack rolls and spell DCs increase to master.
Replaces Legendary archwizard.

Spell Combat Feat 1
Wizard
Prerequisites Bonded Item is a Weapon _
You have trained to combine Weapon strikes and casting a
spell. If you cast a spell with the attack tag in the same round
you make a weapon strike with your bonded weapon, the multi
attack penalty is reduced to - 4(-3 if the weapon was agile) and
- 8(- 6 if the weapon was agile) instead of - 5 and - 10.

Spell Strike (Free Action) Feat 2
Wizard, Arcane, Flourish
Prerequisites Spell Combat
Trigger You Cast a spell with the Attack tag _
You focus the arcane energy of your spell through a weapon
strike and into your foe. Instead of a spell attack roll you make
a weapon attack roll with your bonded weapon and use the spell’s
damage instead of the weapon’s damage.If the weapon is a ranged weapon you are limited to the first range increment. The spell is expended
with no effect if your Strike fails or hits a creature that isn’t
damaged by that energy type (such as if you hit a fire elemental
with a Produce flame spell).
If you have weapon specialization you add that damage to the spells damage.

Improved Spell Combat Feat 8
Wizard, Arcane
Prerequisites Spell Combat _
The multi attack reduction for Spell combat is -3 and -6 (-2
and -4 if the weapon is agile).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know we are all just brainstorming ideas, and so I don't want anyone to take my suggestions as an attack on anyone else's ideas.

I really don't understand why the default Magus is going to get Medium armor proficiency. If anything, giving it medium armor proficiency is just going to reduce what else the class can have, the druid has medium armor, but can't use metal, so is limited to hide until advanced materials are available. I don't think it is a really great idea for the magus to be the warpriest of the wizard class. The PF1 Magus has light armor proficiency and the class leans heavily on the dex/finesse weapon build.

I think giving up the school feature and the thesis is probably enough to cover for light armor proficiency and whatever the spell combat class feature turns out to be. But the class is desperately going to need some mobility to stay alive.

I would not recommend cutting the magus' casting proficiency to master, especially if their weapon proficiency is going to cap out at Expert. Spell attack roll spells are not very good as is right now. They take up two actions, do nothing on a failure, and the good ones will often still require a save from their enemy. Plus they are spent whether they hit or not. Getting the item bonus is nice, but the reduced MAP is not really that useful because your spells are almost all going to take up two or more actions.

If your vision of the class is that the character strikes first with a sword, and then is able to channels magical energy through the sword for increased damage, I think an innate feature, perhaps focus point driven is better than trying to allow the class to cast spells through the weapon somehow. PF2 spells are too different from each other and have too many unique caveats for how they work for a spell strike feature to function clearly. There just are not enough spells that are spell attack only for a magus who's features only interact with spell attack rolls. If it were to try to include other damaging spells as well, it is going to get really complicated when players are trying to figure out if they have to add an attack roll to saving throw based spells or make an attack roll instead of the enemy making a saving throw.

That is why my suggestion is for the class to keep legendary casting, have spell combat be an ability that replaces somatic actions with a stride action so the class can still move, and then have the spell strike ability let them use their casting proficiency for making a weapon attack after casting a spell. This does not require changing the proficiencies of the wizard around, but makes it a very unique and interesting class that will play very differently from other wizards.


Unicore wrote:
That is why my suggestion is for the class to keep legendary casting, have spell combat be an ability that replaces somatic actions with a stride action so the class can still move, and then have the spell strike ability let them use their casting proficiency for making a weapon attack after casting a spell. This does not require changing the proficiencies of the wizard around, but makes it a very unique and interesting class that will play very differently from other wizards.

I really like this option. It lets you be a wizard some turns, but with the right feat support, you could also true strike, then hit twice with legendary proficiency. Or you could drop a fireball on some mooks, then shoot the BBEG with a bow.

It doesn't step too hard on the fighter's toes, it's not always on after all, but it lets you mix magic and martial power quite well, without giving up on being a caster like fighter/MC wizard does.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:


I really don't understand why the default Magus is going to get Medium armor proficiency. If anything, giving it medium armor proficiency is just going to reduce what else the class can have, the druid has medium armor, but can't use metal, so is limited to hide until advanced materials are available. I don't think it is a really great idea for the magus to be the warpriest of the wizard class. The PF1 Magus has light armor proficiency and the class leans heavily on the dex/finesse weapon build.

The magus eventually gets Heavy armor proficiency in PF1. so it leaning towards dex/finesse is not completely true.


So why would I be a regular Wizard in that case? I can cast as well as a Wizard, I have armor proficiency, I can move and cast at the same time and enhance a weapon attack...

Edit: And I've definitely not made this clear, but I think Master/Master proficiency--if it's a class--eventually is the right pick, with Spellstrike giving a +2 to hit. That way they're a solid martial with that can't hit as well as a Fighter or cast as well as a Wizard, and doesn't have an "always on" ability like Flurry or Rage or whatever you call it that Rangers get, but when the Magus combines the spell and strike they have an equal shot as a Fighter or a Wizard to deliver both. Class feats, etc. would need to compensate down a little, I think, so it's then not just a better martial all around. d8 hp, light armor proficiency that scales up later, probably a slow Fort. progression, yadda yadda.

My problem with it being a version of Wizard is that it either won't get to do "its thing" early and often enough to matter or be more interesting than Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter, or it'll just be a better Wizard.


grizo wrote:
Unicore wrote:


I really don't understand why the default Magus is going to get Medium armor proficiency. If anything, giving it medium armor proficiency is just going to reduce what else the class can have, the druid has medium armor, but can't use metal, so is limited to hide until advanced materials are available. I don't think it is a really great idea for the magus to be the warpriest of the wizard class. The PF1 Magus has light armor proficiency and the class leans heavily on the dex/finesse weapon build.
The magus eventually gets Heavy armor proficiency in PF1. so it leaning towards dex/finesse is not completely true.

Yeah, despite the kensai magus being the most common kind of magus to see play, the base magus class got heavy armor proficiency (eventually).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be a little disappointed if Str magus wasn't a functional option, especially since Str based builds are the hardest ones to get going on caster gishes right now.

Dex Magi were really popular in PF1, but that was more a quirk of the feats and progression PF1 Magi had access to, rather than something I think is necessarily a mandatory part of their identity.


grizo wrote:
Unicore wrote:


I really don't understand why the default Magus is going to get Medium armor proficiency. If anything, giving it medium armor proficiency is just going to reduce what else the class can have, the druid has medium armor, but can't use metal, so is limited to hide until advanced materials are available. I don't think it is a really great idea for the magus to be the warpriest of the wizard class. The PF1 Magus has light armor proficiency and the class leans heavily on the dex/finesse weapon build.
The magus eventually gets Heavy armor proficiency in PF1. so it leaning towards dex/finesse is not completely true.

The way most people played it, however, was the dex/finesse route, with a weapon that has a big crit range they could enhance with keen to give them an even better chance of critting when using spellstrike with an intensified shocking grasp spell for massive damage.

Thoughts on what the Magus should look like to come.


I was writing out a big long thing to figure out what I thought a PF2 Magus would look like, and then I had what may or may not be a bad idea:

What if the Magus took the place of the Arcane Duelist and was a Bard archetype?

Swap spontaneous occult spellcasting for prepared arcane spellcasting, sacrifice ALL compositions for more armor and weapon proficiencies, spell combat, and spellstrike.

The Arcane Duelist's Bladethirst ability was basically the Magus's base Arcane Pool ability, and can easily be a Focus Power (non-composition).

What do people think of this one?

51 to 100 of 158 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Magus as a Wizards Thesis. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.