Half casters, Gish, what's missing in 2e


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

manbearscientist wrote:
Temperans wrote:

How is Master/Master for Magus threading on other Martials when other Martials can get Master/Master already? What type of double standard is this? ... Why is Master/Master such a bad thing for the Magus when literally all other Martials can get it?

Because at level 3, your Magus is tankier than the Champion while his Mirror Image is up. At level 5, he deals more damage than the Barbarian after giving himself haste. At level 7, he invalidates the ranger doing their best to scout a route up the mountain by casting Fly and just scaling it. At level 9 he embarrasses the Rogue that put Society to Master and took Multilingual 3 times by casting Tongues once.

Meanwhile, if they all spent their class feats (which the Magus gets as well) getting an archetype the Barbarian would get a 1st level spell once per day at level 5. The Ranger would be two spell levels behind. The Rogue, same.

And the Magus gets this for free. It isn't an option. They don't spend class feats. That is a big deal.

Quote:
But you all want the Magus to be worse than the Rogue at doing his thing. Which is delivering a Spell via his weapon strike.

Master proficiency isn't just a bonus for delivering a spell through Spellstrike. It is a bonus to top-end hitting (after status buffs), quicker access to proficiency locked archetypes (Eldritch Archer), and better accuracy on 2nd and 3rd Strikes per turn.

My points out of that are:

  • What about Magus in concept says they need to be better at throwing three daggers a turn than a Rogue?
  • The 'extras' that come with proficiency come at a cost. That might even be a cost that makes you comparatively worse at your 'main thing'. For example, True Strike is worth a lot more than +2 on an attack. If you had to choose between all the bells and whistles of master proficiency and True Strike for free on Spellstrikes, what would you prefer?
  • id take master proficiency, because i can pick up true strike somewhere, and if not because limited spell selection, i still have master proficiency, its fine. if i really want it ill multiclass.


    Martialmasters wrote:

    the status bonus comment is a good example of what you are not getting, you can get status bonuses to everyone in other ways, so it doesnt, again, move the needle. it just helps to keep you from falling completely behind.

    I completely get that a status bonus (of +2 anyway) isn't changing the fundamental math. That is why I listed 4 other potential pieces of the pie along with an etc.

    The idea of the sum being that you can make Spellstrike MUCH stronger within the game's rules without adding in master proficiency.
    What you are buying with master proficiency is being better at doing other things. And if anything, that takes away from being the 'Spellstrike burst class' and makes you more 'the class that can hit multiple times with basic Strikes while also having spells'.

    In its simplest form, Spellstrike could have a +5 untyped bonus to hit. OR you get +2 to Spellstrike from proficiency while also spreading the love to other Strikes with master proficiency. Which is more emblematic of the Magus class?


    manbearscientist wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:

    the status bonus comment is a good example of what you are not getting, you can get status bonuses to everyone in other ways, so it doesnt, again, move the needle. it just helps to keep you from falling completely behind.

    I completely get that a status bonus (of +2 anyway) isn't changing the fundamental math. That is why I listed 4 other potential pieces of the pie along with an etc.

    The idea of the sum being that you can make Spellstrike MUCH stronger within the game's rules without adding in master proficiency.
    What you are buying with master proficiency is being better at doing other things. And if anything, that takes away from being the 'Spellstrike burst class' and makes you more 'the class that can hit multiple times with basic Strikes while also having spells'.

    In its simplest form, Spellstrike could have a +5 untyped bonus to hit. OR you get +2 to Spellstrike from proficiency while also spreading the love to other Strikes with master proficiency. Which is more emblematic of the Magus class?

    i did mention in this thread or another (a few going on) the notion of getting a untyped bonus to hit during spell strikes.

    but neither are emblematic of the magus class.

    the magus class is emblematic of whacking and casting, both of those fullfill that role.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Have you really read how a Magus functions?

    There are 3 main versions of offensive Magus:

    1) The Nova Magus, who uses single target spells to crit for massive damage. (The weapon is a vehicle for more crits.)

    2) The Sustain Magus, who uses cantrips and multi attack spells for consistent damage. (The weapon is a vehicle for multiple attacks.)

    3) The Kensai who sacrifices spells to be even better at landing strikes and critical hits. (The weapon is the main focus.)

    The Magus revolves around hitting things with their weapon. Spellstrike is not an accuracy booster, in fact in PF1 it made your spells less accurate. However, Spellstrike is a huge action economy booster, because it lets you stack Spells and Weapon strikes.

    You know what would be a good Magus ability? Holding the charge on a miss. So you get another chance of hitting with the spell before losing it.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    manbearscientist wrote:
    Temperans wrote:

    How is Master/Master for Magus threading on other Martials when other Martials can get Master/Master already? What type of double standard is this? ... Why is Master/Master such a bad thing for the Magus when literally all other Martials can get it?

    Because at level 3, your Magus is tankier than the Champion while his Mirror Image is up. At level 5, he deals more damage than the Barbarian after giving himself haste. At level 7, he invalidates the ranger doing their best to scout a route up the mountain by casting Fly and just scaling it. At level 9 he embarrasses the Rogue that put Society to Master and took Multilingual 3 times by casting Tongues once.

    Meanwhile, if they all spent their class feats (which the Magus gets as well) getting an archetype the Barbarian would get a 1st level spell once per day at level 5. The Ranger would be two spell levels behind. The Rogue, same.

    And the Magus gets this for free. It isn't an option. They don't spend class feats. That is a big deal.

    All of that would be true even if they only got expert. In fact, the only one that would be altered at all by proficiency would be the barbarian's damage, and even there, why is the Magus boosting his own damage when the barbarian would get better mileage out of it?

    manbearscientist wrote:
  • What about Magus in concept says they need to be better at throwing three daggers a turn than a Rogue?
  • What?

    manbearscientist wrote:
  • The 'extras' that come with proficiency come at a cost. That might even be a cost that makes you comparatively worse at your 'main thing'. For example, True Strike is worth a lot more than +2 on an attack. If you had to choose between all the bells and whistles of master proficiency and True Strike for free on Spellstrikes, what would you prefer?
  • On a Magus? The proficiency. That fortune effect doesn't really fit the theme. The untyped bonus when spellstriking would fit though; seems like an overly complicated route to go about it, but it would satisfy me.

    Edit:

    Temperans wrote:
    The Magus revolves around hitting things with their weapon. Spellstrike is not an accuracy booster, in fact in PF1 it made your spells less accurate. However, Spellstrike is a huge action economy booster, because it lets you stack Spells and Weapon strikes.

    To put this another way, I've found it best to compare Spell Combat with 2 weapon fighting (action economy boost) and Spellstrike with Power Attack (less accurate more powerful strikes). At least in PF1 terms. Now that both of those work different in PF2, I would hope that Spellstike and Spell Combat would follow along At least in PF1 terms. Now that both of those work different in PF2, I would hope that Spellstike and Spell Combat would follow along the new paradigms, but I don't insist on it.

    Sovereign Court

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    I honestly don't mind only getting Expert on a Gish for weapons as long as there's some other method on accuracy increase for at least some attacks.

    What I do want is a low level character NOT built on a full caster chassis that can cast a 1st level spell before 4th level.


    Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

    I was going to suggest, but noticed Temperans already did. If you provide a Magus a stance that allows them to cast spells and hold the effect to do a spellstrike. Spellstrikes pass the effect of a touch spell onto a target when you successfully hit with a melee weapon or melee unarmed strike. The spell effect takes the success category of the attack, unless it is a failure, in which case the Magus has the option to continue to hold the charge.

    Now, although they have fewer spell slots (a basic premise), those slots are less likely to be wasted on a miss, but at the cost of needing to carry them on to their target via a melee strike. You would also likely have access to cantrips to boost your damage, and your ability to hold the charge would save you actions by not having to recast after a miss.

    Potentially, they could advance slower with spell striking and DC proficiency due to training to strike through martial attacks, rather than directly. That way emphasis can be kept on keeping them on a martial track?

    Potentially, a feat might allow spellstrikes to allow ranged attacks be carried across to targets via ranged weapons as long as within range of the spell.

    Alternately, you could have a path/branch of Magus who do Ranged spellstrikes, with ranged weapons within normal spell's ranges, over ranged/thrown attacks. Alternately, another path gives Melee attacks over touch/melee spells. Potentially, the faster martial progression might be limited to ranged martial or melee martial weapons by default. Potentially allowing feat choices to grow that flexibility if desired, at a cost.

    So I'm suggesting that DC progression be lower, which others might complain, saying 'hey, how does that help, since they have to strike' The option being that while having a lower DC, allow critical hits to increase the effect of a spell's effect after the target saves (only the primary target), which might even specifically be specified to cancel out the 'reduce a category' created by an incapacitation effect, if the hitting strike was a critical, and the save was a critical fail, for instance.

    Part of maintaining the stance might for instance require casting an offensive spell, making a strike, or sustaining an offensive spell during your round. More specific stances, (like panache and finishers) might grant a 1-action ability to boost a strike with a die of some specific elemental damage, for instance.

    Actually, a magus stance might be a focus power, entering the stance. Making a Strike or Casting an offensive spell might count as a free sustain on it however, and while you have the spell active it offers a one action boost to your next strike, or all strikes you take that don't already have a held charge, etc.

    So you spend an action to Enter your stance in the first round, but perhaps don't have time to cast a spell, and strike in that first round, but can do one or the other. However subsequent rounds, you attack, and if hit, you then follow up with another spell. If you missed, you continue to try and hit. You replenish your spellstrikes after you hit (or crit miss), using up one of your more limited spell slots, or a cantrip. If you don't have enough actions to cast an offensive cantrip, you might utilize a one action activity to boost your next attack something a little less than you'd probably have gotten from casting a cantrip to hold damage for your next strike.

    You've made a martial then, who has less need for spell strike and spell DC proficiency advances, relying instead on advancing martial proficiency. While having less spell slots, it is more efficient with the slots it has, but requires mixing spellcasting and martial attacks to be effective. You can even help guide the proper mix of martial and magic by the requirements of any different stances that they can choose, via path choice or feat choice, etc. Perhaps the simplest stance's requirement might be that they caster had to have a spell's charge held at least at some point during the round. With the potential added requirement that if you have the same charge held from the beginning of the round, you had to have made at least one strike that failed during the round. So in an example you can carry a charge from one round to the next, but can't hold it for a round without trying to use it against something at some point during your round, or you lose the charge, and potentially your stance. Or I'm inclined to say you lose your charge at the end of your turn, but not your stance, as long as you gain a new held charge the next turn by casting something.

    An interesting question is what happens if you cast an area effect spell to do a spellstrike. Should it only affect the target, should the target become the origin point of the AoE? Should the caster have the choice between the two at the time of casting or the time of the strike? What about multi-target spells that aren't necessarily AoE spells, such as some people's favorite, Electric Arc, would we want a successful strike allow the caster to have it jump from the target to another target within range? Should that be a default behavior? Should it be something that should be able to be enabled via investment such as a feat? I could imagine it being allowed, but acknowledge there could be balance concerns potentially. Critical strikes would of course only effect the stage of the struck target, not any others whom might be supplemental targets, or within the AoE from the spell.

    I'm going to shoot a hole in my own idea however, how would one handle the multi-class magus dedication? Allow them to hold a charge only on magus spells? You wouldn't want the Magus dedication to allow a wizard to suddenly only spend spell slots for hits. (although thinking about it, if it didn't offer much past trained on martial weapons, a wizard taking it, could keep from wasting melee strike spells via spellstrike, but would be behind the curve likely on the hit even behind magus. If a fighter took Magus dedication, they would hit or even crit regularly, but the magus dedications would presumably be even skimpier on spell slots than most other caster dedications. Magus stance granted by default by the dedication might be weaker than a regular magus. Similar to the Swashbuckler archetype granting Panache without precise strike, and later getting only a weakened version of precise strike.


    How about the way 5ed handled Paladins ?
    How would you feel about a Magus that only has expert proficiency, BUT who can choose to expand a spell AFTER the dice has been rolled and he knows whether he hits, crits or misses ?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I dont like that. Because I know very well 5e Paladin on gives a damage boost.

    Magus is about delivering the actual spell, with whatever effect it has. Not just a damage boost.

    Also Expert Proficiency is bad. Magus need Master Proficiency to be able to hit properly. Imagine magus without using Spellstrike as a Rogue who has not used Sneak Attack.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I’m fine with master only if it comes while using spell strike. Expert otherwise. Master all the time opens up too much brokenness.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Arakasius wrote:
    I’m fine with master only if it comes while using spell strike. Expert otherwise. Master all the time opens up too much brokenness.

    No it really doesn't.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    So it sounds like we're framing Magus as a Martial (Master-to-hit) who wants to mostly strike things with a weapon, while primarily using their spellslots for Spellstrike to keep up in DPR with a Rogue? It would do more than sneak attack, but requires slots to fuel it so you have to conserve a bit?

    So actually here's the big question, IS the Magus a martial who uses magic to hit things hard, or are they a versatile platform to flex between spellcasting and sword fighting?


    The-Magic-Sword wrote:

    So it sounds like we're framing Magus as a Martial (Master-to-hit) who wants to mostly strike things with a weapon, while primarily using their spellslots for Spellstrike to keep up in DPR with a Rogue? It would do more than sneak attack, but requires slots to fuel it so you have to conserve a bit?

    So actually here's the big question, IS the Magus a martial who uses magic to hit things hard, or are they a versatile platform to flex between spellcasting and sword fighting?

    i will be extremely surprised to see paizo venture outside of the boxes they have made for themselves to create a versatile platform as you say.

    i expect it to be warpriest like with something akin to eldritch archer but fewer spells.

    what i hope is being able to use a cantrip with a strike in some way and getting an untyped bonus to hit when using spellstrike type action.

    what i dream of us they have master proficiency in weapons and armor but dong get beyond expert or trained in casting meaning they n eed to spell strike when using an offensive spell.


    Magus as a base is a versatile platform for Martial + Spellcasting.

    A melee weapon focused Magus competes with a Rogue for having situational high spike of damage using damage spells. But it trades high skill versatily for a varius self buff spells and utility (a few crowd control).

    An armored focused Magus would be probably be Master in Armor, using spells to temporarily reach a similar amount of defenses to a Champion. Using damage spells to not fall behind in damage.

    A ranged weapon Magus is similar to the melee version with 1 key difference: They trade the ability to act in melee to have a better position for battle field control. They use the better range to deliver power attacks and support the melee characters.

    The other types of Magus worked based on getting some special use of Magus Arcana. Ex: Spell Dancer magus would trade damage potential and armor for better unarmored defense, mobility and skills. Meanwhile, Kapenia Dancer/Bladebound/Staff Magus would trade damage and spells for having special weapons abilities.

    ***************************

    P.S. One way to play Eldritch Archer Magus was to get some levels of Arcane Archer. This allowed you to conserve Arcane pool points for other effects. But it also gave the ability to be a lot more flexible. Using single target, multi attack or AoE spells from range to fit the current need.

    ***************************

    No Magus is ever about just about casting spells. Even Puppeteer which is one of the most spellcasting archetype, relied of on the action economy of spell combat/spellstrike to chain: An Illusion spell into an Enchantment spell into a strike.


    Martialmasters wrote:
    The-Magic-Sword wrote:

    So it sounds like we're framing Magus as a Martial (Master-to-hit) who wants to mostly strike things with a weapon, while primarily using their spellslots for Spellstrike to keep up in DPR with a Rogue? It would do more than sneak attack, but requires slots to fuel it so you have to conserve a bit?

    So actually here's the big question, IS the Magus a martial who uses magic to hit things hard, or are they a versatile platform to flex between spellcasting and sword fighting?

    i will be extremely surprised to see paizo venture outside of the boxes they have made for themselves to create a versatile platform as you say.

    i expect it to be warpriest like with something akin to eldritch archer but fewer spells.

    what i hope is being able to use a cantrip with a strike in some way and getting an untyped bonus to hit when using spellstrike type action.

    what i dream of us they have master proficiency in weapons and armor but dong get beyond expert or trained in casting meaning they n eed to spell strike when using an offensive spell.

    It makes no sense why they would only get Trained in spellcasting when even Champions get to Master in spells.

    Champion Mastery 17 wrote:
    You’ve mastered your arsenal of champion techniques and divine spells. Your proficiency ranks for your champion class DC and for divine spell attack rolls and spell DCs increase to master.

    Why should the Champion have a higher proficiency than a Magus, while the Magus also has worse proficiencies overall?

    Thats right a Champion has Master weapons, Master spells, Legendary armor, Master Will, and Master Fortitude.

    But a Magus having Master weapons and Master spells is broken?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    A champion has no inherent spell slots. All of their casting is focus spells unless you MC into a divine caster.

    It is also hard to imagine that there will be an archer version of the magus that is going to be flatly better than the eldritch archer.

    I understand how, if you are feeling like casting and casters are already too weak, you have a vision of the magus making everything right by being at a power level that is closer to that of PF1. I really do. But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.


    Unicore wrote:

    A champion has no inherent spell slots. All of their casting is focus spells unless you MC into a divine caster.

    It is also hard to imagine that there will be an archer version of the magus that is going to be flatly better than the eldritch archer.

    I understand how, if you are feeling like casting and casters are already too weak, you have a vision of the magus making everything right by being at a power level that is closer to that of PF1. I really do. But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.

    i wouldnt need unique features if i had that.

    spell strike untyped bonus sure is a unique feature as an example..its also effectively just worse.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Unicore wrote:

    A champion has no inherent spell slots. All of their casting is focus spells unless you MC into a divine caster.

    It is also hard to imagine that there will be an archer version of the magus that is going to be flatly better than the eldritch archer.

    I understand how, if you are feeling like casting and casters are already too weak, you have a vision of the magus making everything right by being at a power level that is closer to that of PF1. I really do. But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.

    Master in spells isn't a power increase, it's the minimum, that's why all classes get Master in their Dcs, because of how DCs don't get item bonuses, so they go to Master instead of expert like weapons.


    Martialmasters wrote:
    Unicore wrote:

    A champion has no inherent spell slots. All of their casting is focus spells unless you MC into a divine caster.

    It is also hard to imagine that there will be an archer version of the magus that is going to be flatly better than the eldritch archer.

    I understand how, if you are feeling like casting and casters are already too weak, you have a vision of the magus making everything right by being at a power level that is closer to that of PF1. I really do. But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.

    i wouldnt need unique features if i had that.

    spell strike untyped bonus sure is a unique feature as an example..its also effectively just worse.

    I think you may be a little too concerned about theoretical power/accuracy. A well-designed feature could totally let Magi shine alongside spell-less martials without being a blanket sorta deal and without just being "use this feature to keep up". There are a lot of avenues to add some wrinkles to the stick-hitting business without simply being "worse".


    Alfa/Polaris wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:
    Unicore wrote:

    A champion has no inherent spell slots. All of their casting is focus spells unless you MC into a divine caster.

    It is also hard to imagine that there will be an archer version of the magus that is going to be flatly better than the eldritch archer.

    I understand how, if you are feeling like casting and casters are already too weak, you have a vision of the magus making everything right by being at a power level that is closer to that of PF1. I really do. But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.

    i wouldnt need unique features if i had that.

    spell strike untyped bonus sure is a unique feature as an example..its also effectively just worse.

    I think you may be a little too concerned about theoretical power/accuracy. A well-designed feature could totally let Magi shine alongside spell-less martials without being a blanket sorta deal and without just being "use this feature to keep up". There are a lot of avenues to add some wrinkles to the stick-hitting business without simply being "worse".

    ive yet to see a single example employed that currently exists in pathfinder 2e official material from CRB to APG and in between.

    so lay it on me.


    Martialmasters wrote:
    Alfa/Polaris wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:
    Unicore wrote:

    A champion has no inherent spell slots. All of their casting is focus spells unless you MC into a divine caster.

    It is also hard to imagine that there will be an archer version of the magus that is going to be flatly better than the eldritch archer.

    I understand how, if you are feeling like casting and casters are already too weak, you have a vision of the magus making everything right by being at a power level that is closer to that of PF1. I really do. But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.

    i wouldnt need unique features if i had that.

    spell strike untyped bonus sure is a unique feature as an example..its also effectively just worse.

    I think you may be a little too concerned about theoretical power/accuracy. A well-designed feature could totally let Magi shine alongside spell-less martials without being a blanket sorta deal and without just being "use this feature to keep up". There are a lot of avenues to add some wrinkles to the stick-hitting business without simply being "worse".

    ive yet to see a single example employed that currently exists in pathfinder 2e official material from CRB to APG and in between.

    so lay it on me.

    Well...yeah. The discussion is about an upcoming class that focuses on the idea, not previous content that was adjacent to it. So no, I won't lay down specific ideas when the real deal is being playtested next month (and other people have already thrown their hats in that ring) -- I'm simply suggesting you have a bit of hope for solid martial prowess even if they don't have the blanket +2, because PF2 has come up with inventive mechanics and solutions for other former mechanical paradigms in the past, (the way Panache and Studied Target turned out being decent examples,) and I'm sure they'll be asking about alternatives to whatever they present anyway.


    Alfa/Polaris wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:
    Alfa/Polaris wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:
    Unicore wrote:

    A champion has no inherent spell slots. All of their casting is focus spells unless you MC into a divine caster.

    It is also hard to imagine that there will be an archer version of the magus that is going to be flatly better than the eldritch archer.

    I understand how, if you are feeling like casting and casters are already too weak, you have a vision of the magus making everything right by being at a power level that is closer to that of PF1. I really do. But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.

    i wouldnt need unique features if i had that.

    spell strike untyped bonus sure is a unique feature as an example..its also effectively just worse.

    I think you may be a little too concerned about theoretical power/accuracy. A well-designed feature could totally let Magi shine alongside spell-less martials without being a blanket sorta deal and without just being "use this feature to keep up". There are a lot of avenues to add some wrinkles to the stick-hitting business without simply being "worse".

    ive yet to see a single example employed that currently exists in pathfinder 2e official material from CRB to APG and in between.

    so lay it on me.

    Well...yeah. The discussion is about an upcoming class that focuses on the idea, not previous content that was adjacent to it. So no, I won't lay down specific ideas when the real deal is being playtested next month (and other people have already thrown their hats in that ring) -- I'm simply suggesting you have a bit of hope for solid martial prowess even if they don't have the blanket +2, because PF2 has come up with inventive mechanics and solutions for other former mechanical paradigms in the past, (the way Panache and Studied Target turned...

    both those things, panache and studied target are fun, flavorful, they also screw with your action economy and do not put them on par with other martials really for combat.

    but then again, im fine with some classes being better than others at things. i just know if your main shtick involves swinging a weapon, it better have master proficiency.


    Unicore wrote:
    But to expect the developers to make a class that is as good at fighting as a champion or rogue with full spell casting versatility, just one less spell per level, is a very power heavy chassis with little room for any unique features.

    Yes, that's correct, and exactly what I expect. I assume there will be 3, maybe 4 class features that aren't proficiencies, and probably 1 or 2 of those will be more ribbon abilities rather than power upgrades.


    Panache was easy to replace because it was a resource pool with strict but doable recovery. PF2 reduced the amount but made it much easier to recover. Studied Target Similar works well because it was an accuracy booster, and PF2 has kept it as an accuracy booster.

    But Spellstrike was not an accuracy booster or a resource. It was an action economy booster not an accuracy booster.

    I am really curious why people want to treat Spellstrike as an accuracy booster, when it would work better to just keep simple as an action economy booster that is intended to be.


    Temperans wrote:

    Panache was easy to replace because it was a resource pool with strict but doable recovery. PF2 reduced the amount but made it much easier to recover. Studied Target Similar works well because it was an accuracy booster, and PF2 has kept it as an accuracy booster.

    But Spellstrike was not an accuracy booster or a resource. It was an action economy booster not an accuracy booster.

    I am really curious why people want to treat Spellstrike as an accuracy booster, when it would work better to just keep simple as an action economy booster that is intended to be.

    its a compromise vs people who want magus to have expert martial prowes instead of master. nothing more.


    I am saying its a bad compromise because proficiency affects when you can get archetypes and bonuses have problem of stacking.


    Temperans wrote:
    I am saying its a bad compromise because proficiency affects when you can get archetypes and bonuses have problem of stacking.

    yes i agree

    Verdant Wheel

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'd find it interesting if Magi had an unbalanced progression where either spells or weapons had a lagging or even halted proficiency... but you use whichever is higher when you're casting a spell through combat, so your Big Thing is always at the higher proficiency. Now, I'm not sure whether spell cast through blade is better than blade led by spell or vice-versa, but I find both quite compelling. I wonder if it would even be possible for a character to choose which progression is prioritised and which requires combination with the other - perhaps this would also determine your Key Ability Score. But probably it'd just be one or the other, baked-in.

    Regardless, the central theme is doing both at once. That is, I'm not trying to make a compromise here; I'm actually trying to suggest an idea that I think would be a cool identity for the class.

    ---

    It wouldn't necessarily be limited to Spellstrike in the traditional sense; perhaps the big ol Class Choice would determine which kind of action best allows you to substitute one proficiency for t'other:
    Spellstrike - You meld combat with magic in the most... direct sense.
    (hit-n-spell, think your good old fashioned shocking scimitar)
    Spelldance - Your magic is woven through your elegant combat dance.
    (buff-n-hit, stuff like Bladed Dash or Dimensional Dervish)
    Spellblade - You weld your spells into steel like the bladesmith you are.
    (enchant-n-hit, focusing on spells that target your weapon and allow you to adapt to the foe)

    Obviously, all of them would have access to the same general spells, but I think they'd provide very different, satisfying ways to play whatever "Magus" means to you. The class chassis should support any Magus being good at hitting and casting spells, and none of these three should be outright better at that than the others, but overall I think this concept could allow them to be better at hitting with magic than any martial or caster - at the expense of relying on your ability to do both.

    At least, that's my vague idea? It'll probably annoy everyone but I feel like a Magus shouldn't just be a good gish. It should be a master of combat in the context of magic and magic in the context of combat, but not necessarily magic or combat in isolation, the way that your typical gish might be. A gish casts spells and hits things; a magus hits things with spells or spells things with hits.

    ---

    In other news, the words "hit" and "spell" have lost all meaning and thus power and therefore we've cured violence forever. Aslo, Inglesh is brokne nwo. Srroy.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Magus is a good Gish because its the great at blending Magic and Martial combat.

    By the definition of Gish: Monks, Bards, Rangers, and some Rogues are Gishes. But all of them use their Magic as something extra they can do.

    Magus (and a few other classes) are actually able to blend both sides almost seamlessly. Such that: A Magus that uses both becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

    A Magus is the Quintennial Gish because they can: Cast Spells, buff themselves, hit things, and cast spells then they hit things.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I don't really mind how some classes were on the first edition, but I expect any 2e class to be balanced and, if required, modified to meet the needed balance ( even if it would result in a way different class from the first edition).

    Balance, give the 3 action + reaction system, has IMO to always be their main goal.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    Do you want hexblades? Because this is how you get hexblades.

    All kidding aside, I think a major thing missing in the discussion of the martial base/caster archetype progression is the cantrip. While you don't get a level 1 spell until 4th, cantrips are no joke. Now, all the current cantrips might not be the best (although I would argue things like shield, range trip, different damage types and touch spells are a strong addition to anyone's tool box - all auto-heightened!), but this could be a way to provide a more seamless martial base/caster progression. Add some more cantrips that make sense in terms of weapon combat. Maybe something like a slightly powered gravity weapon, or a spell that increases shield hardness for a round.


    Parry wrote:

    Do you want hexblades? Because this is how you get hexblades.

    All kidding aside, I think a major thing missing in the discussion of the martial base/caster archetype progression is the cantrip. While you don't get a level 1 spell until 4th, cantrips are no joke. Now, all the current cantrips might not be the best (although I would argue things like shield, range trip, different damage types and touch spells are a strong addition to anyone's tool box - all auto-heightened!), but this could be a way to provide a more seamless martial base/caster progression. Add some more cantrips that make sense in terms of weapon combat. Maybe something like a slightly powered gravity weapon, or a spell that increases shield hardness for a round.

    the only good attack spells for martial bases is focus powers

    cantrips have the same issues as spells, poor interaction with the 3 action system as well as having a -2/-3 behind to hit/crit of a basic spell caster with no runes to offset +hit.

    shield cantrip is nice though.


    After reading through this I feel like asking for someone who is basically a fighter with spellcasting and rejecting the offered builds (especially the caster based builds which by a technical look gish from lvl1) sounds to me like wanting a gish is wanting martials to be just worse than half or full casters. losing proficiency, actions, spell slots, and/or feats to be effective in multiple spheres is necessary. As someone who likes to play barbs and fighters that feel fun at all levels, I would be let down if gishing didn't sacrifice something valuable.


    Martialmasters wrote:
    Parry wrote:

    Do you want hexblades? Because this is how you get hexblades.

    All kidding aside, I think a major thing missing in the discussion of the martial base/caster archetype progression is the cantrip. While you don't get a level 1 spell until 4th, cantrips are no joke. Now, all the current cantrips might not be the best (although I would argue things like shield, range trip, different damage types and touch spells are a strong addition to anyone's tool box - all auto-heightened!), but this could be a way to provide a more seamless martial base/caster progression. Add some more cantrips that make sense in terms of weapon combat. Maybe something like a slightly powered gravity weapon, or a spell that increases shield hardness for a round.

    the only good attack spells for martial bases is focus powers

    cantrips have the same issues as spells, poor interaction with the 3 action system as well as having a -2/-3 behind to hit/crit of a basic spell caster with no runes to offset +hit.

    shield cantrip is nice though.

    Do something like bards and witches. Single or 2 action cantips only available to the class.

    Or just feats. No reason they could not have feats that have "magical" properties.

    Elemental strike, 2 action.
    Once per minute.
    Make a melee Strike. You deal 1d8 extra damage. Increase to 2d8...

    101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Half casters, Gish, what's missing in 2e All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.