Two Chances to Miss?

[Bast L.]

Comparing to Eldritch Archer, which just needs 1 chance to hit, this looks a little rough.

Hmm, disintegrate = 3 chances to miss with the spell?

[Capn Cupcake]

That was my initial reading as well, but the spell isn't discharged until a successful hit, and you don't lose it until the end of your next turn so you've got a few chances to land a hit before it's gone for good.

I am a little miffed that their spellcasting goes up so slowly. Since you likely won't have an 18 starting in their spellcasting stat and they don't get master casting until 19th(!) level that means for most of the late game you're going to be at about a -3 behind other casters which is a pretty massive chunk.

[Oakblade]

Comparing to Warpriest's Channel Smite, it's a bit of a wash.

Channel Smite costs 2 actions and expends a heal or harm spell to deal straight up damage if you hit with a melee attack.

In comparison, Magus' Striking Spell:
+ is available at level 1 from get go
- costs more actions
+ does not waste a spell on a miss (you can try again next turn)
+ can be used with cantrips
- can miss when the attack hits, wasting a spell slot
- depends on two attributes: Strength or Dex for the attack, Int for spell attack or save

I prefer Channel Smite mechanics overall, because there is less uncertainty and fewer dice rolls. YMMV.

EDIT: concentrate trait is a landmine! Channel Smite doesn't have a concentrate trait, meaning that a fighter in a disruptive stance wouldn't be able to shut it down with an attack of opportunity.

[Bast L.]

@Capn: Hmm, that's a bit better, though still rough. As for the proficiency, it is odd that you would get mastery in arcane spellcasting faster if you went wizard MC than if you just had Magus.

[Ediwir]

You actually ignore one miss.
You can discharge the spell until the end of your next turn, meaning if you miss with the weapon you'll try again. In this it's a little better than eldritch archer I guess?

[Bast L.]

Yeah Ediwir, I'm not sure. You do get more chances to hit with the attack, but you could still miss, and it seems the only non-feat benefit is the crit bonus, but they also have the lower casting proficiency, somewhat offsetting that.

It could be a decent way of getting more likely crit fail effects on some spells. We might see some of those qualitative effects happen.

[shroudb]

Bast L. wrote:

Yeah Ediwir, I'm not sure. You do get more chances to hit with the attack, but you could still miss, and it seems the only non-feat benefit is the crit bonus, but they also have the lower casting proficiency, somewhat offsetting that.

It could be a decent way of getting more likely crit fail effects on some spells. We might see some of those qualitative effects happen.

the main bonus is that the spell attack isnt at -5 compared to casting an attack spell+striking in the same round.

Regarding Channel smite, Heal/Harm is a 1 action spell (at least channel smite uses that since you dont get to cast it but just expend the slot of it and get the basic damage of it)

so, Channel smite is the same action economy as spellstrike. Less if you are one handed magus and get the stride on top of casting.

Channel autohits, but it's tied to a single spell rather than choosing whatever you want, and it also automisses while spellstrike gives you a second chance.

[MaxAstro]

My first thought was definitely "oof, you have to hit twice?", but upon thinking more carefully it's clearly to balance attack roll spells with saving throw spells.

After all, if the spell has a save, the target still has to save against it, so if you didn't have to make the second attack roll, then attack roll spells would be clearly the superior option.

[Mechalibur]

Well, the biggest loss compared to Eldritch Archer is that the EA uses the same attack roll - which includes the item bonuses from their weapon.

Unless Secrets of Magic finally introduces an item that can boost spell attack rolls, it's going to be incredibly difficult to land any touch attacks, especially since they tend to have no effect on a miss instead of a partial effect.

[shroudb]

Mechalibur wrote:

Well, the biggest loss compared to Eldritch Archer is that the EA uses the same attack roll - which includes the item bonuses from their weapon.

Unless Secrets of Magic finally introduces an item that can boost spell attack rolls, it's going to be incredibly difficult to land any touch attacks, especially since they tend to have no effect on a miss instead of a partial effect.

The advantages thought are that (comparing just the two spellstrikes):

a)you dont have to spend all 3 actions in the same round, allowing more flexibility, mobility and etc
b)if you miss, you dont also automiss the spell, you have 1 more round of full attacks to hit at least once

[Mechalibur]

Sure, there are other benefits, I just think if the issues with touch spells continue, most magi will elect to use save spells since there's usually a partial effect on a save.

[Ventnor]

Don't forget, Eldritch Archers can only use Eldritch Shot with spells that make a spell attack. You can't use Eldritch Shot with Vampiric Touch, for example.

[Lelomenia]

Can you Strike with spells from other classes? E.g., Harm? Feels like all arcane attack spells are balanced with an assumption of True Strike.

[MaxAstro]

Lelomenia wrote:

Can you Strike with spells from other classes? E.g., Harm? Feels like all arcane attack spells are balanced with an assumption of True Strike.

Absolutely yes. Striking Spell just says "your next action is to Cast a Spell that can target one creature or object", it doesn't care at all about where the spell comes from.

You can even spellstrike with innate spells, by my reading.

[Xenocrat]

It won't help with save spells, but the ability to flank in melee for flatfooted will help accuracy on spell attack rolls vs a ranged spellcaster who has a harder time getting flat footed.

[Temperans]

That is not helping that is just making it not horrible.

[PossibleCabbage]

What I don't like is that if you miss with the strike you still lose the spell.

Compare dual strike:
Roll attacks for A and B
If A and B both hit=> A and B
If A hits and B does not => A
If B hits and A does not => B

Striking Spell
Roll for attacks A and B
If A and B both hit => A and B
If A hits and B does not => Nothing
If B hits and A does not => B.

The ability to fix this doesn't come online until 18th level.

[Reticent]

Maybe they should bring the spell strike mechanic in line with Eldritch Shot.

Right now a Magus/EA could spell strike at the end of his turn, and launch an Eldritch Shot with his next turn, thus firing a shot that's carrying 2 spells with entirely different to-hit parameters.

[Ventnor]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What I don't like is that if you miss with the strike you still lose the spell.

Compare dual strike:
Roll attacks for A and B
If A and B both hit=> A and B
If A hits and B does not => A
If B hits and A does not => B

Striking Spell
Roll for attacks A and B
If A and B both hit => A and B
If A hits and B does not => Nothing
If B hits and A does not => B.

The ability to fix this doesn't come online until 18th level.

Uh, that's not right. You only discharge the spell if you actually hit with the melee strike. If you miss with the strike the turn you use Striking Spell, you still have the spell channeled in your body and can attempt to discharge it through a melee strike the next turn.