I think they need to be a full 10 caster, but with 1-2 spell slots per level, then give them a version of the various multi-class feats that unlock more slots. Owen Stephens did something similar in one of his classes in 52-in-52, and I thought it was a nice way to pick exactly how important spells are to your character concept.
I would love to see them as a prepared, choose your list class.
I would give them plenty of focus spells, maybe to activate stances like Wild Winds Initiate or a more powerful Rain of Embers, to give them one action magical options that they can use every turn. This would help them get around the action economy problem of having to spend two actions to cast and an action to strike, without giving them the potentially massive power bump of a free strike with a spell.
Being able to spend a focus point to recast a spell that you've cast in the previous 10 minutes might be another interesting way to give them more effective slots for striking while still leaving them limited on utility.
I think range weapons should be a valid play style, but that might be stepping on the eldritch archer's foot. I don't know enough about 1e to know how viable/important ranged attacks were for magi previously.
I've seen the suggestion of dropping 10th level spells, and I don't really see the point. They come online so late that they are functionally non-existent for 99% of campaigns, and only for a small amount of the campaigns that ever get to that level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing with spells that always bugged me about the magus was that it's big trick was putting touch spells on weapons, but they didn't really have a lot of touch spells, let alone good ones - which really led into the shocking grasp builds. Whether it's focus or full spells, they need a list with a variety of good touch spells or focus powers.
And I really like the idea of focus stances.
Again, why does it have to be touch spells? I think a Magus should be able to deliver a ray of frost, hydraulic push, or banishment into their melee attacks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want a way to do the Black Blade, Mindblade, Spiritual Blade thing in PF2. I know there are issues here with "wealth by level" stuff that seems more core to the system in PF2 than PF1, but "I manifest/summon a weapon" as a fantasy is just too cool to not have a way to do it.
You should be able to build melee, ranged, and switch hitter Magus.
Eldritch Archer itself was originally a Magus Archetype. So I dont see the problem with Magus being a better version of it.
Ahh, interesting. I thought that it was just a rename and opening up of the Arcane Archer. In that case, yeah, should definitely include plenty of ranged options.
What I would like out of the magus would be:
-Master proficiency with martial weapons and armor at the same (or sameish) rate as non-fighter and non-champion martials
-A class that can support multiple playstyles, whether it be damage based (like the shocking grasp builds), debuffed based (like the frostbite enforcer builds), or ranged/archery based (which probably used scorching ray back in 1e)
- Something that can seamlessly blend the spells (or focus spells/cantrips) into weapon attacks in terms of action economy.
-I am alright if it is focus spell based, or if it uses actual spell slots, but I don't want the magus to have too many slots
|
Again, why does it have to be touch spells? I think a Magus should be able to deliver a ray of frost, hydraulic push, or banishment into their melee attacks.One thing with spells that always bugged me about the magus was that it's big trick was putting touch spells on weapons, but they didn't really have a lot of touch spells, let alone good ones - which really led into the shocking grasp builds. Whether it's focus or full spells, they need a list with a variety of good touch spells or focus powers.
And I really like the idea of focus stances.
Because that would be universally good and fun, and strong. I don't think we'll get something like that given the power levels I see in 2e. I just want a list of abilities that actually play with each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to see a Magus.
I don't want to see a game without a magus.
I'm seeing a few comments about using stances to combine magic and weapon, so my question in response to that is this: how? How should these stances modify the way a Magus casts and uses their spells? Should they change the AoE of a spell based on the weapon they're using? Should a stance allow a Magus to cast a spell while moving? A stance that lets them cast low-level spells/cantrips without provoking?
Speaking of stances, counterstrike from 1e was fairly unique to the Magus as an in-built feature. While some comments have warned against giving the Magus too many Fighter feats, I think most of us can agree that disruptive stance is without a doubt fitting enough for the Magus to have. Right?
An idea I had that I was at first rather proud of but now a bit unsure over is something of an "Arcane Trance". Flavored as a state in which magic and weapon alike move as extensions of the Magus' body, it functioned something like Barbarian's Rage or (as described to me) Swashbuckler's Panache.
It lasted only one turn, but you could maintain the effects either with a concentrate action or extending it to a full minute by sacrificing one of your spells/spell slots. I had ideas for a few feats that granted benefits based on the level of the spell sacrificed (encouraging cost and consideration, rather than just mindlessly giving up your 1st-level placeholder spell so you can let loose) and Magus getting focus spells/cantrips that could only be used during this "Arcane Trance".
I was pretty damn proud of the idea, but as I worked on it and reviewed what the Magus can do I started feeling a little ridiculous because the Magus already has a lot of really cool stuff it can do on its own.
Unless the blood ranger gets absorbed by various Barbarian totems, hold onto this idea.
This could also be the beginnings of a Stance feat chain.
Glad someone likes the idea, though it's true that it steps on the Bloodrager's toes. Another class that I've seen people say can be sufficiently created through appropriate multiclassing, coincidentally.
I feel not everyone takes into consideration how little classes get alongside Master weapon proficiency.
If it's got Master, then we're looking at Ranger and Barbarian as our easiest comparisons. That's gonna be features at 1st, 9, 11, 17, and 19. The 1st level ability is the equivalent of a dedication, plus a unique class path bonus.
As far as I can tell, that means two or three prepared cantrips, and a Magus fighting style that allows them to use their cantrips in conjunction with their martial fighting in various ways. (Let's assume it's saving an action somewhere.)
I don't feel like it's really got room to breathe. Maybe you can scale the number of cantrips for free, but that's about it. If it's keeping up with the martial classes, it's not going to have room for any actual spell slots until 9th level.
---
From my amateur balance standpoint, I'd presume on (and prefer) a caster chassis, only Expert weapons, and some feature that consistently gives a +1 attack bonus when you're mixing martial and weapons in a turn. Similar to Bard where you're between caster and martial, but in exchange for not boosting your allies and making the effect only trigger when you're doing specific things, you save the one-action casting time.
I feel not everyone takes into consideration how little classes get alongside Master weapon proficiency.
If it's got Master, then we're looking at Ranger and Barbarian as our easiest comparisons. That's gonna be features at 1st, 9, 11, 17, and 19. The 1st level ability is the equivalent of a dedication, plus a unique class path bonus.
As far as I can tell, that means two or three prepared cantrips, and a Magus fighting style that allows them to use their cantrips in conjunction with their martial fighting in various ways. (Let's assume it's saving an action somewhere.)
I don't feel like it's really got room to breathe. Maybe you can scale the number of cantrips for free, but that's about it. If it's keeping up with the martial classes, it's not going to have room for any actual spell slots until 9th level.
---
From my amateur balance standpoint, I'd presume on (and prefer) a caster chassis, only Expert weapons, and some feature that consistently gives a +1 attack bonus when you're mixing martial and weapons in a turn. Similar to Bard where you're between caster and martial, but in exchange for not boosting your allies and making the effect only trigger when you're doing specific things, you save the one-action casting time.
You're vastly underestimating the power of those features at level 1. From a balance standpoint a magus can have martial weapons and spell slots at level 1, bards and clerics do even if limited selection (and they have more slots and also great class features).
Don't know how powerful things like spell combat or spell strike should be, but a chassis of master weapons and spells slots is definitely fine balance wise.
I feel not everyone takes into consideration how little classes get alongside Master weapon proficiency.
If it's got Master, then we're looking at Ranger and Barbarian as our easiest comparisons. That's gonna be features at 1st, 9, 11, 17, and 19. The 1st level ability is the equivalent of a dedication, plus a unique class path bonus.
As far as I can tell, that means two or three prepared cantrips, and a Magus fighting style that allows them to use their cantrips in conjunction with their martial fighting in various ways. (Let's assume it's saving an action somewhere.)
I don't feel like it's really got room to breathe. Maybe you can scale the number of cantrips for free, but that's about it. If it's keeping up with the martial classes, it's not going to have room for any actual spell slots until 9th level.
---
From my amateur balance standpoint, I'd presume on (and prefer) a caster chassis, only Expert weapons, and some feature that consistently gives a +1 attack bonus when you're mixing martial and weapons in a turn. Similar to Bard where you're between caster and martial, but in exchange for not boosting your allies and making the effect only trigger when you're doing specific things, you save the one-action casting time.
You're vastly underestimating the power of those features at level 1. From a balance standpoint a magus can have martial weapons and spell slots at level 1, bards and clerics do even if limited selection (and they have more slots and also great class features).
Don't know how powerful things like spell combat or spell strike should be, but a chassis of master weapons and spells slots is definitely fine balance wise.
Could be. You can pick up Rage or Hunt Prey with a second-level dedication feat, so I'm counting those as worth as much as some cantrips (also a second-level dedication). Instinct and Hunter's Edge are the tricky parts to compare. But remember that Ranger and Barbarian don't get any more unique features until 9th level. I agree that you could easily have a balanced first level with casting and, say, all martial one-handed weapons. That trade-off needs to work from 1st-8th, with Magus getting more slots along the way.
But, I suppose it could work if Magus got even fewer spells than Bard. If I were 7th or 8th level, I'd definitely trade Hunter's Edge for a couple fourth-level slots. I don't know if I'd do it for just one, progressing to two. And to further distinguish Magus from the regular casters, they could get master weapon proficiency instead of 10th level spells.
Snipped
I suppose- and I absolutely hate to say it- that the value of spells and the like is part of why casters get comparatively so few feats. Even most of the Cleric's feats are based either around their domain or font.
....Which come to think of it, is an important flipside to consider. Bards get their muse, Sorcerers get their bloodline, Clerics get their domain/font, Druids get their order spells; Wizards get their thesis, school, and arcane bond.
A Magus, by comparison, would be much more of a by-the-books caster. For the sake of simplicity and sticking with precedent, let's say it gets the bare minimum of casting, same as a Bard and Druid. No extra Heal/Harm, no school spells, no bloodline spells.
With that in mind, adding on baseline martial proficiencies doesn't seem all that extreme does it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel not everyone takes into consideration how little classes get alongside Master weapon proficiency.
If it's got Master, then we're looking at Ranger and Barbarian as our easiest comparisons. That's gonna be features at 1st, 9, 11, 17, and 19. The 1st level ability is the equivalent of a dedication, plus a unique class path bonus.
Well, firstly, if Magus has only 8 HP per level, they're more comparable to Rogues than those Classes in terms of available design space. Of course a lot of what Rogues get for that (which is something literally every level...they get a Skill Feat or Skill Rank they wouldn't otherwise get every single level) is not really very comparable to what a Magus will get, but let's just examine what they get aside from the Skill stuff:
Rogues get stuff at 1st, 9th, 11th, 17th, and 19th, it's true. They also get stuff at 3rd (Deny Advantage), 5th (2d6 Sneak Attack), and 15th (Double Debilitation), and get significantly more Proficiencies than Magus would need (I'd assume Magus would max out with Fighter-level Saves or thereabouts, which are worse than a Rogue's, plus maybe Fighter level Perception or even lower...I could see it having Trained Perception to start and going only as high as Expert, maybe with a feature like Fighters making it better for Initiative only).
As far as I can tell, that means two or three prepared cantrips, and a Magus fighting style that allows them to use their cantrips in conjunction with their martial fighting in various ways. (Let's assume it's saving an action somewhere.)
I don't feel like it's really got room to breathe. Maybe you can scale the number of cantrips for free, but that's about it. If it's keeping up with the martial classes, it's not going to have room for any actual spell slots until 9th level.
I think you're really underestimating what kind of stuff an 8 HP per level martial chassis with mediocre Saves has room for. There's a lot of space for stuff there, especially if they go with the two spells per spell level version.
From my amateur balance standpoint, I'd presume on (and prefer) a caster chassis, only Expert weapons, and some feature that consistently gives a +1 attack bonus when you're mixing martial and weapons in a turn. Similar to Bard where you're between caster and martial, but in exchange for not boosting your allies and making the effect only trigger when you're doing specific things, you save the one-action casting time.
I strongly disagree with this.
Proficiency isn't much without something to back it up. I don't think it's a huge issue to have Master all around if there are few feats that adjust how a Magus uses their proficiency or enhance their economy. A Barbarian isn't just someone with weapon proficiency, they have proficiency and Rage, Totem powers, 12 hp/level, and a variety of feats that give them actions in combat. The only place I think you want to avoid is having the same proficiency as Fighters, because that's actually a marquee advantage for them on top of their extra potent combat feats.
But to-hit isn't everything. The Magus can have spells and decent proficiencies and some focus abilities so long as their feat selection takes all of that into account and doesn't give them exceptional options, just decent ones, while they get to rely on their spell list and base chassis.
Alchemist is an example of where you can see very conservative design that I think Paizo should avoid.
I think if the Magus gets Weapon proficiency at the same rate and places most casters get Expert and Master spell attacks, and get Master Armor and Greater Weapon specialization in lieu of Legendary Casting and their 10th level slot, they wouldn't be too far out of budget. Dropping them to 2 slots per level might even be overkill with that set up.
Edit: to clarify, I think they'd also get Expert and Master casting at the same levels as their Weapon proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, though I think I'd like to see 2 slots and some solid focus options.
One thing that the P1e Magus did well because of its Arcane Pool and Spell Recall(?) was go a long time without feeling like it was out of juice. I think this time around focus spells and even focus cantrips could fill in well for those things, with feat options to expand either the focus stuff, or add some combat utility, or even enhance casting a bit more.
I was writing up my own version of Magus about a week ago, here's my version of Spellstrike:
"Spellstrike
2 actions
Magus, Attack, Metamagic, Flourish
Requirements: You have a weapon in hand
As part of this activity you Cast a Spell that deals damage and does not have a duration. When you do so you replace one of its somatic or material components with a Strike against an enemy within the weapon's range. If the Strike hits it deals the damage and inflicts the effects of both the weapon and the spell. If the attack is a critical hit, it also applies the critical effects of the spell (if any)."
It's definitely overly wordy, especially compared to Channel Smite, which does pretty much the same thing in much more specific circumstances.
|
I want to see the Magus in 2E. It was and is my favorite class from 1E.
It has to be balanced, and not overmatched/clocked. I suspect it is one of the harder classes to make sure the math is right and you do not end up with a dual classed PC.
I want to see it with a blade bound archetype, if anything , just for the RP flavor.
I think there was a Magus archetype that allowed for delivery of spells using Spellstrike via ranged attacks, but was not approved for organized play in 1E if memory serves me correct.
In my mind, it has to be a Class where you can do a bit of martial and spell casting stuff right off the bat from level 1.
I think there is precedent set with some of the stances, flourishes, feats etc where spell strike could come into effect. Perhaps spell strike and other Magus abilities is regulated like rage with the barbarian class and other classes with innate or focus spells.
I am pretty sure we will see it, but it is going to be a bit different. I cannot wait to playtest it and see it become part of the 2E system.
Snipped
Snipped
Folks could definitely be right that I'm a little too down on it. I'd been looking just at full Bard slots, and I still think that's unlikely. I discounted the possibility of two slots because evocation (Magus's specialty) tends to care a lot about the slot. But if you're delivering spells through weapons and getting weapon accuracy bonuses, then it makes sense for them to have limited top slots.
Anyway, I'm in the camp that feels that master proficiency Alchemist would be a balance issue, and I didn't care much for PF1's Magus. If anybody's gonna be negative, it's me.
I strongly disagree with this.
I also strongly disagree with myself after thinking about it more. The "halfway to martial" makes sense in abstract, but in practice, my suggestion would give them better accuracy than martials for the first four levels. That's fine on Bard because the martials get the bonus too, and Bard is paying the one-action bill.
It just occured to me that by the end of the month, we're going to kind of see a prototype of the Magus.
The Ranger.
I know what you're thinking. I've gone from a goofy geek to a nutty nerd. But its going to be our first look at a martial class with master weapon proficiency that can also cast spells. Sure, most of them will probably be utility instead. But it's a start.
I didn’t get the impression that Ranger would have spell slots. I am fully prepared to be wrong though.
|
|
It just occured to me that by the end of the month, we're going to kind of see a prototype of the Magus.
The Ranger.
I know what you're thinking. I've gone from a goofy geek to a nutty nerd. But its going to be our first look at a martial class with master weapon proficiency that can also cast spells. Sure, most of them will probably be utility instead. But it's a start.
Ranger is getting Focus Spells, so nothing we haven't already seen with Paladin or Monk. I think it'll be interesting to see what they get, but not a good preview of Magus.
Oh, my bad. thought they were getting more than that. Maybe I am going crazy...
The problem with anything less than master/master in proficiencies is that it's completely invalidated by multiclass archetypes. If you get master in martial weapons and expert in spellcasting, why not go a different martial class and multiclass into Wizard? You get your main class' extra features and better spellcasting. Vice-versa where if you get master spellcasting/expert martial weaponry, because then you're just playing a worse Wizard.
Without master/master attack proficiencies, Magus would either be redundant or need extra material in order to make it worthwhile. Which results in making the class more complex and in turn goes against PF2e's design philosophy of lowering the barrier of entry.
Setting that aside, people are commenting about wanting Magus to make heavy use of focus cantrips much like Bard does, and I for one fully agree. Magus arcana are one of the best things about the Magus in 1e and make it hugely customizable, so I would love to bring those back.
Unfortunately since I never actually got to play a Magus- made several, never played 'em- I unfortunately don't have a lot of actual experience with arcana. What are some of best/favorite arcana for people? Not so much raw effectiveness, but flavor and fun to boot. Like how Witch is getting Cackle, its nails, and so forth, what are the most thematically striking arcana that could be brought back as focus cantrips? Or maybe just outright class feats?
|
I honestly think the Magus shouldn't be a Spell Casting Class. Just give it lots of spell like abilities and focus points.
I was thinking this as well, but I also would like for a more traditional Magus/Eldritch Knight sort of class as well, for those who prefer a lightly armored weapon-wielder who is also a sort of half-caster.
But yeah, I'd also love a version with no spells at all. Just magical power that they can channel into their weapon, or various other effects (self-buffs, abjuration defenses, etc.).
And, at the completely other end of the scale, a wizard version who is specialized in adding some arcane focus to their staff and dagger uses, and sacrifices a certain amount of spell potency or versatility to be able to enhance their fighting ability *with standard wizard weapons.*
So, at one end, fighter who can cast some low-level spells. At the other end, wizard who can beat you up with a magically-enhanced staff and daggers (and has the versatility of the two-handed staff, dual-wielding daggers, or even being more of a thrown dagger specialist, not like a more traditional 'really good at this one weapon, in this one situation, and suck with everything else' build).
I honestly think the Magus shouldn't be a Spell Casting Class. Just give it lots of spell like abilities and focus points.I was thinking this as well, but I also would like for a more traditional Magus/Eldritch Knight sort of class as well, for those who prefer a lightly armored weapon-wielder who is also a sort of half-caster.
But yeah, I'd also love a version with no spells at all. Just magical power that they can channel into their weapon, or various other effects (self-buffs, abjuration defenses, etc.).
And, at the completely other end of the scale, a wizard version who is specialized in adding some arcane focus to their staff and dagger uses, and sacrifices a certain amount of spell potency or versatility to be able to enhance their fighting ability *with standard wizard weapons.*
So, at one end, fighter who can cast some low-level spells. At the other end, wizard who can beat you up with a magically-enhanced staff and daggers (and has the versatility of the two-handed staff, dual-wielding daggers, or even being more of a thrown dagger specialist, not like a more traditional 'really good at this one weapon, in this one situation, and suck with everything else' build).
No offense, but those last two ideas are not Magus. Those are Fighter/[Martial class here] with Wizard/Sorcerer dedication, and Wizard w/ Rogue dedication. Or Eldritch Trickster, coming out in the APG. Neither of those ideas are the Magus, which focuses on combining both magic and weapon evenly for something that's greater than the sum of its parts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In order to properly serve as a gish, Magi need the baseline expectations from both sides of the equation.
For Martials, that means Master Weapon proficiency and Greater Weapon Specialisation, plus medium armour.
On the caster side, that means 9th level spells and Master grade spellcasting. For balance, two slots per level instead of three, and a delayed access to spellcasting proficiency would be fine.
Then, to properly feel like a Magus, we need Spellstrike.
I don't know if they should have Intelligence, or the choice of Strength or Dexterity for their key ability. I'm leaning towards the latter, but wouldn't complain about either.
Predicted Proficiencies Progression:
1st level: Trained in simple and martial weapons, trained in light and medium armour, trained in Arcane spells.
Expert in Fortitude and Will saves, Trained in Reflex saves.
Trained in Perception.
3rd level: Expert in Reflex saves.
5th level: Expert in simple and martial weapons.
7th level: Expert in Perception. Weapon specialization.
9th level: Expert in Arcane spells. Master in Will saves.
11th level: Expert in light and medium armour.
13th level: Master in simple and martial weapons.
15th level: Master in Fortitude saves. Greater weapon specialization.
17th level: Master in Arcane spells.
19th level: Master in light and medium armour.
|
|
No offense, but those last two ideas are not Magus. Those are Fighter/[Martial class here] with Wizard/Sorcerer dedication, and Wizard w/ Rogue dedication. Or Eldritch Trickster, coming out in the APG. Neither of those ideas are the Magus, which focuses on combining both magic and weapon evenly for something that's greater than the sum of its parts.
And that's kind of why I'd like to see those two options as Magus-type options, and not just 'Fighter with some spells' or 'Wizard with a sword.'
I want some synergistic abilities, like the ability to cast spells *while* fighting in melee (like a Magus' spellstrike), not just 'Fighter who knows a few spells, but can't really use them effectively *while he's fighting*.'
I definitely do not want 'Fighter who spends the first two rounds of combat pre-buffing so that he can be a slightly better Fighter than he would have been if he hadn't wasted all those resources on learning magic (and always ends up with crappy DPS, because the fight's half over by the time he's ready to start).' Cause that's just frustrating.
And I do want an option for a staff and dagger user, who doesn't get any special weapon proficiencies, but sticks to 'wizard weapons.' More versatility is key. Every magus using a rapier or whatever for the extra crit multiplier was kinda stale, and every magus using shocking grasp felt similarly limiting. (A larger pool of different-but-equal attack effects, not all of them purely damaging, but some perhaps debuffing, like the old 'hexblade,' would be great.)
Snipped
NGL, I do somewhat like the idea of Magus being able to use heavy armor. It's not something that was really explored all that much in 1e. Even if it were only a subclass option at the expense of offensive capabilities, I'm sure the "armored caster" is something that a lot of people are still plenty interested in- without having to resort to Champion dedication for it, anyways. Plus, it would give more options since people tended to play their high-dex Magi in 1e a lot.
The whole key ability score thing is going to be interesting too. On the one hand I can see them leaving the option to the players- especially if they go subclasses similar to how the Rogue operates- but if they want to keep things simplistic I can just as much see them focusing on INT so as to keep class and spell DCs scaling the same. But then any abilities that let you improve your melee capacity with your INT score risks stepping on the toes of Investigator...
No offense, but those last two ideas are not Magus. Those are Fighter/[Martial class here] with Wizard/Sorcerer dedication, and Wizard w/ Rogue dedication. Or Eldritch Trickster, coming out in the APG. Neither of those ideas are the Magus, which focuses on combining both magic and weapon evenly for something that's greater than the sum of its parts.And that's kind of why I'd like to see those two options as Magus-type options, and not just 'Fighter with some spells' or 'Wizard with a sword.'
I want some synergistic abilities, like the ability to cast spells *while* fighting in melee (like a Magus' spellstrike), not just 'Fighter who knows a few spells, but can't really use them effectively *while he's fighting*.'
I definitely do not want 'Fighter who spends the first two rounds of combat pre-buffing so that he can be a slightly better Fighter than he would have been if he hadn't wasted all those resources on learning magic (and always ends up with crappy DPS, because the fight's half over by the time he's ready to start).' Cause that's just frustrating.
And I do want an option for a staff and dagger user, who doesn't get any special weapon proficiencies, but sticks to 'wizard weapons.' More versatility is key. Every magus using a rapier or whatever for the extra crit multiplier was kinda stale, and every magus using shocking grasp felt similarly limiting. (A larger pool of different-but-equal attack effects, not all of them purely damaging, but some perhaps debuffing, like the old 'hexblade,' would be great.)
Then I'm confused as to what you're saying you want. It kinda feels like you're saying different things between your posts.
|
What about this?
- Spell combat is mostly redundant now that we have three-action economy. If you want to cast a buff and a strike, you don't need a special ability for that anymore. If you want to synergize striking and aggressive casting, see Spellstrike;
- Magus has Spellstrike, that lets them make a Strike and cast a spell that would require a spell attack. You don't roll the spell attack. Instead, if your Strike hits, so does the spell. Counts as two attacks for MAP and costs 3 actions, but since you're making only one attack roll, you shouldn't be much inconvenienced by that. This makes the magus the expect in a subset of spells - the ones that use spell attack rolls.
- Actual spells prepared is rather limited. You start out with cantrips and a focus spell to magic up your blade. You can take feats similar to Basic Spellcasting (as seen in multiclassing), but without the hassle of having to multiclass for them. So it's up to you whether you want to diversify into being a pseudo-wizard, or spend more feats on focus spells, or spend feats on other combat moves. Just focus spells and cantrips should already allow you to do magical attacks all day long.
- Armor and weapon proficiency are on the barbarian/ranger schedule. Spellcasting goes up to Master at a pace similar to multiclass dedications. So you're not going to be the king of AoE/save spells, but because you're using Master weapon progression, flanking, and item bonuses, your spell attack spells will actually tend to be better than a wizard's.
The problem with anything less than master/master in proficiencies is that it's completely invalidated by multiclass archetypes. If you get master in martial weapons and expert in spellcasting, why not go a different martial class and multiclass into Wizard? You get your main class' extra features and better spellcasting. Vice-versa where if you get master spellcasting/expert martial weaponry, because then you're just playing a worse Wizard.
Without master/master attack proficiencies, Magus would either be redundant or need extra material in order to make it worthwhile. Which results in making the class more complex and in turn goes against PF2e's design philosophy of lowering the barrier of entry.
This is ignoring one of the biggest parts of this system: The Feats.
Even though I think some classes were unreasonably screwed in the proficiency department (namely Warpriest and Alchemist), I think that they are neither the only aspect that makes a class good nor the primary attractive for someone to play with it.
A magus may have expert/expert (Weapon/Spellcasting prof) and still be a very good class despite the bad progression, because it has, I believe that will be the case, that directly support the Combat Caster niche much better than a simple spellcasting multiclass and with feats enhancing this aspect at every level, it could further set it apart despite having weaker proficiencies than pure martials and casters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is ignoring one of the biggest parts of this system: The Feats.
Even though I think some classes were unreasonably screwed in the proficiency department (namely Warpriest and Alchemist), I think that they are neither the only aspect that makes a class good nor the primary attractive for someone to play with it.
A magus may have expert/expert (Weapon/Spellcasting prof) and still be a very good class despite the bad progression, because it has, I believe that will be the case, that directly support the Combat Caster niche much better than a simple spellcasting multiclass and with feats enhancing this aspect at every level, it could further set it apart despite having weaker proficiencies than pure martials and casters.
I think this is only true if the Feats are extremely overtuned, which causes its own problems (most notably, it almost certainly makes a Wizard who multiclasses Magus flatly better than a pure Magus).
There's plenty of room for a Master Attack/Master Spellcasting/Master AC Class. In fact, you can already do that just with multiclassing on, say, a Rogue. I see absolutely no reason Magus should not follow that pattern but with better casting and high level spells and worse Saves and Perception (remember, Rogues get Legendary/Master/Expert Saves and Legendary Perception...you can easily drop that to Master/Master/Expert Saves and Expert Perception for Magus), and then also dropping 9 Skill Feats and 10 Skill Ranks which more than pays off the 'didn't need to spend Class Feats on multiclassing' costs.
Really, it becomes a discussion of how much spellcasting is really worth. It's clearly a lot, but how much? Getting a Multiclass Wizard Archetype to the full extent of spellcasting is 5 Class Feats and results in Master Proficiency but a low spell count. How much do you need to give up for a higher count? Two full Proficiency tiers in Perception and another in a Save is no small sacrifice, and I'd say 9 Skill Feats and 10 Skill Ranks are a bit more of a sacrifice than 5 Class Feats (though how much more is a subject for discussion).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you are only attacking with spells via spellstrike, why does your spell proficiency matter? ( there may be an obvious reason, im not overly familiar with the 2e system)
Basically because you don't always do that. Depending on the mechanics you may even never do that mechanically (ie: the spellstrike mechanic may involve rolling separate attacks) though that's probably unlikely.
But one of the useful things a Magus should be able to do is occasionally throw out a Save or attack based spell without needing to stab somebody, and without eventual Master in spells they really just can't do that very well. They'll certainly preferentially use spellstrike, if that's an option, but they shouldn't have no other options.
I think this is only true if the Feats are extremely overtuned, which causes its own problems (most notably, it almost certainly makes a Wizard who multiclasses Magus flatly better than a pure Magus).There's plenty of room for a Master Attack/Master Spellcasting/Master AC Class. In fact, you can already do that just with multiclassing on, say, a Rogue. I see absolutely no reason Magus should not follow that pattern but with better casting and high level spells and worse Saves and Perception (remember, Rogues get Legendary/Master/Expert Saves and Legendary Perception...you can easily drop that to Master/Master/Expert Saves and Expert Perception for Magus), and then also dropping 9 Skill Feats and 10 Skill Ranks which more than pays off the 'didn't need to spend Class Feats on multiclassing' costs.
Really, it becomes a discussion of how much spellcasting is really worth. It's clearly a lot, but how much? Getting a Multiclass Wizard Archetype to the full extent of spellcasting is 5 Class Feats and results in Master Proficiency but a low spell count. How much do you need to give up for a higher count? Two full Proficiency tiers in Perception and another in a Save is no small sacrifice, and I'd say 9 Skill Feats and 10 Skill Ranks are a bit...
In my mind, the feats would be designed like the good stuff we see on the Martial Classes. They have really interesting feats that makes them more than just the proficiencies, because they engage in the action economy in several ways, gain lots of different reactions. One the other hand, if the feats are designed like the spellcasters' (useful but boring as hell), then I think that the base chassis really should be strong. Nothing's worse than weak proficiency with few and boring feats to choose from, that would step on the Alchemist's toes!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Magus should be something similar ( it shouldn't by any mean be superior to a warpriest in terms of limits and banace ).
Warpriest has Divine Font, one of the single most powerful single abilities in the game (a Warpriest can easily have 7 or more spells at their max spell level), and a spell list that can actually buff you (Heroism is a prosthetic Master in attacks in a way the Arcane list cannot duplicate).
Comparing it to Magus in this way is not really an apples to apples comparison.
In my mind, the feats would be designed like the good stuff we see on the Martial Classes. They have really interesting feats that makes them more than just the proficiencies, because they engage in the action economy in several ways, gain lots of different reactions. One the other hand, if the feats are designed like the spellcasters' (useful but boring as hell), then I think that the base chassis really should be strong. Nothing's worse than weak proficiency with few and boring feats to choose from, that would step on the Alchemist's toes!
Martial Feats on par with those that currently exist with only Expert in all attacks, spells, and AC will just result in being verging on completely ineffectual...which is not fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moving back a level, here's what I want from a magus.
This is not to say I want to the class limited to this way of playing but for me it needs to support something like this =
1) They have a spell book, seeking out and learning new spells is part of their progression and which spells they memorise each day is an important choice. Casting is driven by intelligence
2) They get to spend a good percentage of their day casting spells or using arcane flavoured abilities without anyone* saying this is a waste of an action based on the system maths.
3) Their spell selection includes offensive spells and some self affecting defense or utility - choosing the right mix each day is important.
4) They can use traditional martial weapons like swords and bows and wear some armour
5) I can build them to have melee as a primary role without anyone* telling me they aren't suited to do that
Based on this thread that may all sound like a bit of a tall order for PF2 to accommodate, but bear in mind that's exactly what a PF1 magus does right out the gate at level 1, without needing any weird ancestry / feat / archetype choices to do so.
*when I say anyone I mean not one person in my regular group, no one at a PFS table, not one theory crafter on the forums...
- Spell combat is mostly redundant now that we have three-action economy. If you want to cast a buff and a strike, you don't need a special ability for that anymore. If you want to synergize striking and aggressive casting, see Spellstrike;
One thing I want to see Spell Combat do is make Spell Attack rolls count as Agile for the purpose of calculating MAP. I want to say "they count as Agile weapons" but that might have unintended consequences and interactions with other class's abilities, so best to just settle for this. As that's a bit weak on its own for a class feat, I think this can either be a ribbon lvl 1 ability, or combined with the 2wf version of spellstrike, since I want more than 1 version of that anyways.
Speaking of, here are my initial versions. All are intended as level 1 feats:
Spell Combat
{Magus}{Press}{Spellstrike}
Free Action
Frequency Once per round
Trigger You complete casting a spell with an attack roll
You smoothly combine a spell attack with weapon strike. Make a Strike, applying your Multiple Attack Penalty to it normally.
If both attacks hit, combine their damage, and then add any other applicable effects from both the weapon and spell. You add any precision damage only once, to the attack of your choice. Combine the damage from both attacks and apply resistances and weaknesses only once.
Bonus: Spell attack rolls count as Agile weapons for the purpose of calculating Multiple Attack Penalty.
Spellslam
{Flourish}{Magus}{Metamagic}{Spellstrike}
One Action
Requirements You are holding a weapon.
You unleash a particularly powerful spell attack. If your next action is to cast a spell with the attack trait, on a success your spell deals an additional damage equal to your weapon's damage die. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this bonus to two dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three dice. You may also apply your weapon's traits to the spell attack.
This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty.
Spell Shield
{Magus}{Spellstrike}
Free Action
Trigger You complete casting a spell with an attack roll and are wielding a shield.
You smoothly combine mystical offense and defense. Raise your shield. Your shield gains temporary hit points equal to the level of the spell you just cast. These temporary hit points fade at the beginning of your next turn.
Bonus: You gain the Shield Block general feat.
I'm least sure about Spell shield. The closest analogue is a level 4 feat with some hefty restrictions, but honestly I can't see why. Unlike the free strike, Raising your Shield has the natural restriction of only being able to benefit once per round, as your shield isn't getting any more raised once you've raised it.
I just noticed that, assuming you had all three feats, my proposed magus could use all three actions and get the benefit of all three of these feats by casting a single spell. I didn't intend that, but I think I'll let it ride. At level 4 (the earliest you could have all 3), a Produce Flame and a +1 striking Scimitar would give you a 2d4+1d6, a second strike at -5 for 2d6, and your shield would be raised. Heck of a lot better than a caster, but nothing like a martial, which is how it should be.
I also want some kind of Ranged Spellstrike, but I'll wait to see what Eldritch Archer has.
3 action for spellstrike is bad and should never be the case. The biggest benefit for the Magus is being able to make the Strike as part of casting the spell. Aka casting a 1 action spell means doing a spell strike. Whether it has Flourish or not depends on how good that combo is, but ideally shpuld not be the case at high level.
I think 3 action is workable at 1st level, or more accurately 1 additional action is workable, but I definitely agree that at higher level you should be able to do this multiple times per round at little to no action cost.
3-actions for a melee attack is never workable.
Any amount of movement, any amount of complexity in the combat, any condition that applies a stun or slow effect, any time you need to spend an action to do anything, suddenly the Magus' marquee ability is useless. 3-action melee strike does not fit P2e's paradigm.
I would rather not have Spellstrike than have a 3-action Spellstrike.
It's not a hard rule laid out anywhere, but so far Paizo has tended toward making three action activities situational options rather than core features of any class (three action heal comes close, but even that's still a sometimes tool).
I think that's very much intentional, to avoid the problem of anything becoming the one single thing you do on your turn and to avoid the problem of something being 5 feet too far away and therefore your entire combat routine falls apart.
I guess impossible flurry kind of has that problem, but it's also a very high level option (where it's easier to get Quickened) and a feat, not a core class feature.
I really like AnimatedPaper's idea of making Spellstrike a trait and having multiple varieties of Spellstrike, rather than it just being a single class feature.
I feel like the Swashbuckler (at least from the playtest) sort of shows how you can do a "makes one attack in a round, but makes it count" kind of character work at least from the math perspective.
Since a regular routine for a swash in my experience was something like : Gain Panache, Finisher with a move on either side of that.
3-actions for a melee attack is never workable.
Any amount of movement, any amount of complexity in the combat, any condition that applies a stun or slow effect, any time you need to spend an action to do anything, suddenly the Magus' marquee ability is useless. 3-action melee strike does not fit P2e's paradigm.
I would rather not have Spellstrike than have a 3-action Spellstrike.
Fair enough. I notice I neglected to specify that my Spellstrikes needed to be melee attacks, so I suppose I can adapt the Spellslam to become Spell Arrow and work as a ranged attack only, making it an update to Deadly Aim instead of Power Attack (which I feel PF1 spellstrike is the equivalent of, given you trade accuracy for increased damage). Which leaves a gap in how I want to handle things, but I'll come up with another feat for 2hw. Maybe a stance that lets you change one damage die to match your weapon's damage die and also apply your weapon's traits to the attack?
This is all me just thinking out loud anyways.
I really like AnimatedPaper's idea of making Spellstrike a trait and having multiple varieties of Spellstrike, rather than it just being a single class feature.
It was a whim that I haven't decided how to build on yet, but once I thought of it I liked the possible functionality. I figure that opens up other feats, like one that lets you make a free Step whenever you execute a Spellstrike, or Take Cover, or get a bonus to AC, or at high level get a focus point back that you must expend before the end of your next turn.
It might also save some page space. I can define the trait as "Spellstrikes are always triggered when you cast a spell that has the attack trait or requires the target to make a save. Some take affect ahead of the spell, some during, and some after the spell is completed; the feat will specify."