|
What'd be best in my opinion is keeping the number of spells to 2/day/level but with all spell levels.Really hoping Paizo doesn't cave and make them normal casters like you're suggesting. Literally anything but this.Agreed, especially because there are some feats that let you fill in lower level slots with specific spells if you want. I think that's an interesting space for the Magus to have a tailored spell list without too much fiddling. It can also be expanded going forward to suit different archetypes, traditions, etc.
After looking at it a bit more closely, I think my main issues are:
(1) Action economy needs to be advantageous for the Magus when compared to a Warpriest or a Fighter/Wizard (or any Martial/Caster MCD) casting a spell and making a strike. This is the Magus class' [i]thing[i] and it should be noticeably more efficient, interesting, and dynamic than just a martial with a dedication;
(2) I think Battle Spells need to be expanded significantly, and need to fill in the cool combat maneuver space that other martials have;
(3) The 1hand and 2hand Syntheses need another look so that the sliding isn't just a huge economy boost and the 2hander isn't just a middling (and frankly boring) temp hp boost.
There are some interesting ideas, but it looks clunky. I want it to be smooth like the Monk, something that feels like mechanically effortless sword + sorcery.
We also don't want sliding to be made worse or removed to balance the other 2 options.
What'd be best in my opinion is keeping the number of spells to 2/day/level but with all spell levels.Really hoping Paizo doesn't cave and make them normal casters like you're suggesting. Literally anything but this.
I'm not seeing spells every level bad: Having them as they are but keeping 1 spell per level instead of losing those levels of casting would be an improvement but make them different from 'normal' casters. It's be nice to be able to cast a true strike or a haste at higher levels without needing to blow one of your 4 slots or throw money at the problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 1 slot per spell level would be a good way to keep the Magus's spellbook from feeling like it's full of dead weight later on.
It also allows some level of utility casting, which is one thing that gets lost in the whole spellstriking paradigm. PF1 Magi were indeed capable utility casters.
We also don't want sliding to be made worse or removed to balance the other 2 options.What'd be best in my opinion is keeping the number of spells to 2/day/level but with all spell levels.Really hoping Paizo doesn't cave and make them normal casters like you're suggesting. Literally anything but this.Agreed, especially because there are some feats that let you fill in lower level slots with specific spells if you want. I think that's an interesting space for the Magus to have a tailored spell list without too much fiddling. It can also be expanded going forward to suit different archetypes, traditions, etc.
After looking at it a bit more closely, I think my main issues are:
(1) Action economy needs to be advantageous for the Magus when compared to a Warpriest or a Fighter/Wizard (or any Martial/Caster MCD) casting a spell and making a strike. This is the Magus class' [i]thing[i] and it should be noticeably more efficient, interesting, and dynamic than just a martial with a dedication;
(2) I think Battle Spells need to be expanded significantly, and need to fill in the cool combat maneuver space that other martials have;
(3) The 1hand and 2hand Syntheses need another look so that the sliding isn't just a huge economy boost and the 2hander isn't just a middling (and frankly boring) temp hp boost.
There are some interesting ideas, but it looks clunky. I want it to be smooth like the Monk, something that feels like mechanically effortless sword + sorcery.
Yes, and it can probably be kept the same even with a better action economy on Striking Spell. It would just present a mobile option that locks you into a 1hander, while you can definitely make the 2hander option more interesting than just temp hp; "The clamor and carnage of battle call to you" sounds like a Battle Oracle, not a Magus. There's a lot of space for 2handers (and staves) to be a third synthesis without being so passive. One obvious thing that comes to mind for me is the greatsword Mesmer in Guild Wars 2; they don't really swing it so much as they use it as a focus, and it looks pretty cool. Increased reach, turning single-target spells into bursts, free athletics maneuvers as part of the attack, etc. etc. There's just no dynamism in gaining 6 temp hp for casting your 3rd-level spell through your greatsword at 5th level.
Right now, with Striking Spell how it is, Sliding feels like using your synthesis feature to pick up something like Quick Bomber. Does every Alchemist need to draw and throw a bomb in the same action? No. Does every Alchemist want to? Probably. Should every Alchemist be able to in order to fit the class' theme and preserve a mechanical niche? Yes.
As for spell slots, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping 1 slot per level as you advance out of it. Though I do think feats like Martial Caster have a place in this regard.
Contributor
|
What'd be best in my opinion is keeping the number of spells to 2/day/level but with all spell levels.Really hoping Paizo doesn't cave and make them normal casters like you're suggesting. Literally anything but this.
See in my mind, "normal casters" are what full classes should be. Classes have been very nicely standardized in a lot of ways, and this kind of throws a wrench in it all.
(Side note: I think funky spellcasting like 4 slots total per day would be great for archetypes. Archetype spellcasting already does a great job of handling fewer spells; no reason a different set up couldn't be explored this way.)
Classes with magic abilities that aren't normal casters like Monk or Champion have Focus Spells to give them spells on a martial or otherwise non-caster-focused class. If that's what they want with Magus, I'd be super happy with it being Focus Spell class. Give it some cantrips either natively or via a feat, but make the primary "I cast sword!" shtick revolve around Focus Spells. That way they get up to 3 spells to balance between buffing with Hasted Assault or Rune stuff and delivering Striking Spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes have been very nicely standardized in a lot of ways, and this kind of throws a wrench in it all.
See, to me that sounds like a wonderful thing. It shows that Paizo isn't going to feel beholden to a single model of class design for the rest of the edition. Standardization for its own sake sounds awful.
That's not to say that I think the Magus is great as is, there are clearly improvements that need to be made, I just don't think giving them low level spell slots is that improvement, especially with how barren full spellcasters tend to be in terms of core class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.
I think the "4 spells but they count" is a good way to do "magic is a significant tool in your toolbox" without eating a huge portion of your power budget.
I think tools like "Martial Caster" are the right way to do low level utility slots for the Magus.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the "4 spells but they count" is a good way to do "magic is a significant tool in your toolbox" without eating a huge portion of your power budget.
The problem is, they don't count.
It almost looks like you're better off using those 4 slots for your utility than your big hits.
I think the "4 spells but they count" is a good way to do "magic is a significant tool in your toolbox" without eating a huge portion of your power budget.The problem is, they don't count.
It almost looks like you're better off using those 4 slots for your utility than your big hits.
But if they made a way for them to count? A much more reliable spellstrike? How would that change your assessment?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if they made a way for them to count? A much more reliable spellstrike? How would that change your assessment?I think the "4 spells but they count" is a good way to do "magic is a significant tool in your toolbox" without eating a huge portion of your power budget.The problem is, they don't count.
It almost looks like you're better off using those 4 slots for your utility than your big hits.
Then most of us would be happy. I can live with limited slots as long as they actually connect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.
Hard disagree. Those classes all get a better base toolkit.
A non-fighter martial with 5 wizard dedication feats and 6 class feats will be a better martial and better caster than a magus with 5 martial dedication feats and 5 class feats.A fighter with 5 wizard dedication feats and 8 class feats widens the gap so much more it's not even funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication
I disagree when it's using one of it's 4 daily spell resources. I think it's totally fine for it to be better those 4 times than the multiclass that can using their 14 daily resources AND it's better base fighting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedicationI disagree when it's using one of it's 4 daily spell resources. I think it's totally fine for it to be better those 4 times than the multiclass that can using their 14 daily resources AND it's better base fighting.
I mean, ostensibly that's the balancing factor:
Barbarians have Rage, Rangers have Hunt, Champions have their special reactions, Fighters get better proficiency, etc.
Magi have their four spell slots. Those need to carry the same weight as what a traditional martial picks up... and if they don't, the Magus either needs more fallback options or more raw power.
I still really like the idea of the Magus getting at least one focus-attack that pairs with Striking Spells. A one action spell attack would be really kinda perfect for them right now assuming their accuracy gets fixed a bit
I still really like the idea of the Magus getting at least one focus-attack that pairs with Striking Spells.
I think that and maybe some class specific cantrips could help too, preferably 1 action ones: they wouldn't have to be exciting, just something like a n Elemental Grip cantrip: touch 1d4 damage [fill in the blank type] with no riders and a normal save. It meshes well by not using MAP, can trigger weaknesses of it's type and with a single action still allows movement or another action.
I think the "4 spells but they count" is a good way to do "magic is a significant tool in your toolbox" without eating a huge portion of your power budget.The problem is, they don't count.
It almost looks like you're better off using those 4 slots for your utility than your big hits.
You don't *have* to use Striking Spell for your big slots if the risk of missing on 3 consecutive Strikes is too much for you. Cast them normally and us Striking Spell with your cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't *have* to use Striking Spell for your big slots if the risk of missing on 3 consecutive Strikes is too much for you. Cast them normally and us Striking Spell with your cantrips.I think the "4 spells but they count" is a good way to do "magic is a significant tool in your toolbox" without eating a huge portion of your power budget.The problem is, they don't count.
It almost looks like you're better off using those 4 slots for your utility than your big hits.
Then what's the point of Striking Spell vs just Striking and cantrip casting? A slim benefit if the Strike Crits? Is that really a defining class feature?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't *have* to use Striking Spell for your big slots if the risk of missing on 3 consecutive Strikes is too much for you. Cast them normally and us Striking Spell with your cantrips.
Just to be clear, the problem from my understanding isn't the strike. Your chances of landing one hit out of three or four is really high.
The problem is that your chance of hitting with a spell attack is really low just in general and that's going to be true regardless of whether or not you spell strike (if anything, the small chance you might crit might make your spells more reliable through striking spells).
There was some math earlier that suggested that spell striking cantrips wasn't really worth it either.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't *have* to use Striking Spell for your big slots if the risk of missing on 3 consecutive Strikes is too much for you. Cast them normally and us Striking Spell with your cantrips.
Just to be clear, the problem from my understanding isn't the strike. Your chances of landing one hit out of three or four is really high.
The problem is that your chance of hitting with a spell attack is really low just in general and that's going to be true regardless of whether or not you spell strike (if anything, the small chance you might crit might make your spells more reliable through striking spells).
There was some math earlier that suggested that spell striking cantrips wasn't really worth it either.
No combination I've looked at using striking spell with a cantrip has come out ahead. Especially not for cantrips with saves, which are far better off just casting the spell separately.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't *have* to use Striking Spell for your big slots if the risk of missing on 3 consecutive Strikes is too much for you. Cast them normally and us Striking Spell with your cantrips.
Just to be clear, the problem from my understanding isn't the strike. Your chances of landing one hit out of three or four is really high.
The problem is that your chance of hitting with a spell attack is really low just in general and that's going to be true regardless of whether or not you spell strike (if anything, the small chance you might crit might make your spells more reliable through striking spells).
There was some math earlier that suggested that spell striking cantrips wasn't really worth it either.
The miss-rate on 4 swings is about 15% (i.e. the spell never goes off). The crit rate on those same four swings is about 9%.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.Hard disagree. Those classes all get a better base toolkit.
A non-fighter martial with 5 wizard dedication feats and 6 class feats will be a better martial and better caster than a magus with 5 martial dedication feats and 5 class feats.A fighter with 5 wizard dedication feats and 8 class feats widens the gap so much more it's not even funny.
That's what gets me. As I understand it, Magus's identity is to be the hybrid martial-magic class, right? Not to be perfect at both, but to combine and be competent in both, hence master and not legend in armor, magic, and weapons.
Thing is, many classes can replicate this by dedicating half their feats, AND they still have their own identity while adding this complete new toolkit. Right now, to be on par with other classes at its own primary function, Magus needs to dedicate as many resources to catch up rather than customizing and focusing on its own kit and class feats.
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.Hard disagree. Those classes all get a better base toolkit.
A non-fighter martial with 5 wizard dedication feats and 6 class feats will be a better martial and better caster than a magus with 5 martial dedication feats and 5 class feats.A fighter with 5 wizard dedication feats and 8 class feats widens the gap so much more it's not even funny.
That's what gets me. As I understand it, Magus's identity is to be the hybrid martial-magic class, right? Not to be perfect at both, but to combine and be competent in both, hence master and not legend in armor, magic, and weapons.
Thing is, many classes can replicate this by dedicating half their feats, AND they still have their own identity while adding this complete new toolkit. Right now, to be on par with other classes at its own primary function, Magus needs to dedicate as many resources to catch up rather than customizing and focusing on its own kit and class feats.
I'm not sold on the idea that a martial spending 4-5 of their feats on Dedication feats really maintain their identity though.
Sure, they still have their core class features. But they are heavily delaying access to a LOT of their abilities. Take a Ranger for example: If you take say Hunted Shot/Strike at 1st, then MCD into Druid, and spend your 4th, 8th, and 12th level feats on upgrades for the MCD, you are going to have 3 Ranger feats to play with between character start and over halfway into your leveling scheme. That is the majority of "real play time" in a given campaign.
So you are a REALLY basic Ranger, and a whole bunch of Druid spells. I'd wager that you'll be doing more Druid-y things in a given combat than Ranger-y things, which means you have effected your class identity.
This is all barring any Free Archetype or Dual Class builds obviously, and can be slightly alleviated by Human ancestry feats to a certain degree.
Edit: I'm not saying that Dedications are a bad thing, or that you can't Gish using them. I'm just saying that you DO pay a price for the privilege. You can't be an all up Ranger and an all up Druid at the same time.
Unless you Dual Class. But that throws a whole other set of issues into the mix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played a Ranger/Sorcerer and taken only spellcasting feats.
I can tell you that I still felt very much like a Ranger tracking a prey during battle, using swords and bow to take them out, and using my few spells when it mattered. For support or Area damage/control.
And it was very effective.
|
Contributor
|
I'm not sold on the idea that a martial spending 4-5 of their feats on Dedication feats really maintain their identity though.
Sure, they still have their core class features. But they are heavily delaying access to a LOT of their abilities. Take a Ranger for example: If you take say Hunted Shot/Strike at 1st, then MCD into Druid, and spend your 4th, 8th, and 12th level feats on upgrades for the MCD, you are going to have 3 Ranger feats to play with between character start and over halfway into your leveling scheme. That is the majority of "real play time" in a given campaign.
So you are a REALLY basic Ranger, and a whole bunch of Druid spells. I'd wager that you'll be doing more Druid-y things in a given combat than Ranger-y things, which means you have effected your class identity.
You definitely give up your chances at expanding upon or focusing on your class's identity, and it's definitely changed by MCDing, that's for sure. My point was more that you still have a baseline you build off of in those cases, seasoning an already established flavor, whereas Magus has to add salt just to have any taste.
Your ranger example wouldn't get nearly as much Ranger-ness, but even a 'basic Ranger' has hunt prey, hunter's edge, and a smattering of class abilities as they level. The druid stuff absolutely alters the character's identity, but in the end it's still a nature oriented hunter with a particular style of combat, now with master primal spellcasting combined with its martial prowess. A magus gets the master spellcasting and martial prowess, and... Synthesis. Which in itself relies on its subpar spellcasting and doesn't really mold its identity (as is).
Don't get me wrong, I love the Synthesis feature. It's super flavorful and has lots of potential. To combine spells and combat in a unique method for a neat additional effect is great. I just wish the class could use it meaningfully more than 4 times per day rather than settling for cantrips to trigger them. As great as it is, Synthesis as the class-defining-feature falls short because it doesn't have the spells to support it.
To me, using a standard cantrip (not like compositions or hexes) means either I don't have anything better to do or I don't consider the current task a big enough deal to cast a real spell. They're back ups. For Magus, I'd be casting them because I can't afford to use a real spell but I can't do anything interesting (via Synthesis or Striking Spell) without casting something.
That's not an identity. That's a complex.