Striking Spells Action Economy

[siegfriedliner]

I was looking at Striking Spell and was wondering if it gives you an attack to utilize your spell or if using it requires 3 actions. It seems a little weak if its the latter.

[ThreeEyedSloth]

It depends on the spell that was cast, but typically, doing it all in one round is going to cost all 3 actions since most attack spells have a 2-Action cost, and then another Strike action to make the attack.

[Oakblade]

I agree, the wording on the Striking Spell (pages 5-6) is confusing.

At first glance, it seems that this free action means that you then spend two actions Casting a Spell and then one more action to Strike, but at a second glance, the wording is ambiguous.

It could be interpreted or argued that you make a Strike for free as part of the Casting a Spell activity, but it does not get called out specifically and I doubt this is the case.

[siegfriedliner]

If it works that way its seems more of a trade off than I expected. For spells with saving throws its actually worse than just casting the spell and attacking because your adding in an extra chance for the spell to fail without gaining any advantage.

[Cellion]

By my reading, you don't save at all on action economy. Spells still require their normal cast times and you still have to make a separate Strike to deliver the spell. The advantages appear to be:
- If you crit with the attack, the spell gets one degree better in its result
- You can use an attack-traited spell and a melee attack in the same round without incurring MAP
- Your Magus Synthesis and feats give you ways to combine these actions with other actions.

[Kalaam]

I think you can delay the attack to your next round too.

Like, Spell Striking something, (free+2 action) and Striding. or Striding then Spell Striking something.

Then following round Striking then Casting another spell. Or doing a Trip then Striking with the spell. Or Casting True Strike then Striking.

If so, it gives quite a few options.

[Callin13]

Yea I am not too thrilled at this. 3 Actions is what I expected so thats just par, however needing to still hit with the spell AFTER using the Strike is throwing me off. They Synthesis is going to help to do certain things like move with the Slide Synthesis but there is no room in the action economy to do other things like Bon Mot or Demoralize. I guess you need to pick your stuff wisely and 1 round do your set ups and then round 2 hope they are still active to do Striking Spells.

I just dont know. It seems overly complicated by needing multiple to hit rolls. I gotta read it again a few more times and actually build something to see it work in my mind.

[manbearscientist]

You don't save at all in action economy. This makes it completely worthless for melee, by my reading. Basically, you need to:

Striking Spell

Cast a spell (single target only)

End your turn, or gleefully Stride into melee.

Stride into melee if you didn't before..

Strike and discharge the spell.

Stride out of melee?

Compare to Stride, Strike, Strike or just casting an AoE spell and you can see how using two turns worth of actions to get an Eldritch Shot ... isn't really the most viable thing in the world.

This isn't an issue for Slide Casting, as it puts you into position. But it is a big issue with Sustaining Steel, which is going to be a clunkasaurus rex. Getting a drip feed of THP isn't going to help when half your actions are wasted or when you have to spend an entire turn getting walloped in melee before discharging a spell.

It seems to me that Slide Casting should be a standard part of Striking Spell, and other variants should go on top of it. Though I guess it got MASTER martial proficiency, so maybe they couldn't make it that functional.

[Francisco Zermeño 121]

I expected, as in pathfinder 1e, striking spell cost the same as cast spell for both cast spell and attack. Because, as in pathfinder 1e, magus are better than arcane archer by these action cost.

[Gorignak227]

There's a minor bonus of being able to make spell attacks with the addition of your item bonus.

[Capn Cupcake]

It seems unnecessarily harsh. I was fine with the slower spellcasting proficiency because I thought Striking Spell would help get around that, but now it progresses slower AND you still have to rely on it. It's just bad all around.

[Kalaam]

You're not limited to single target spells, the spell must be able to target a creature. So it could be an area of effect spell centered on a target.

[shroudb]

It does give you a free Stride or Step if you're using a one-hander, so you can basically cast+stride+strike in the same round

For ranged spellstrikes it's basically an upgraded eldritch since it allows you to break apart the actions.

They also last till the end of NEXT round, so you can cast on one round and deliver on the second round.

The two-handed benefit is a bit worse imo than the one hander with it giving temp HP instead of the Stride

in general in PF2 an activity either makes something share MAP (like dual slice) or reduces actions (like Twin takedown).

In this case they went with sharing MAP, probably because if they made it 2 actions to strike+cast it would have either one of them at -5 and that would make it almost unplayable.

In case of onehanders you got the added action economy booster though, so it ends up as both sharing MAP+giving action

[Capn Cupcake]

Kalaam wrote:

You're not limited to single target spells, the spell must be able to target a creature. So it could be an area of effect spell centered on a target.

It only affects your target though making AoE spells kind of a waste.

"If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the
spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit. "

[Francisco Zermeño 121]

shroudb wrote:

It does give you a free Stride or Step if you're using a one-hander, so you can basically cast+stride+strike in the same round

For ranged spellstrikes it's basically an upgraded eldritch since it allows you to break apart the actions.

They also last till the end of NEXT round, so you can cast on one round and deliver on the second round.

The two-handed benefit is a bit worse imo than the one hander with it giving temp HP instead of the Stride

Yea, but at lv 10 it's the feat that also heals you

[GM OfAnything]

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

[Kalaam]

Getting temporary HP is basically like getting resistance to all damages for one attack.
Maybe making it straight up resistance equal to the spell level until your next turn would be better.

[Kyrone]

The action cost seems right, but could use that if you hit the strike you automatically hit the spell attack and give the enemy like -2 to saves with when using save spells.

[Ferious Thune]

Add me to the list of people disappointed in the action economy and the 2nd attack roll. To me, those were both of the main benefits of the Magus in 1E. Getting to substitute a melee strike for the spell attack in order to use your martial attack, and getting an approximation of flurry in the process. What's presented here feels underwhelming compared to abilities other classes get at level 1.

Keep in mind that spending three actions means you will never be able to cast a spell, attack, and cast a shield cantrip in the same round. You'd have to cast the spell for spell striking, shield cantrip, then wait until your next round to attack to deliver the spell. That doesn't scream melee spellcaster to me.

I'd have much preferred two actions to cast a spell and make a strike, even if it mean double MAP afterwards or acted like a Finisher.

[Ferious Thune]

Gorignak227 wrote:

There's a minor bonus of being able to make spell attacks with the addition of your item bonus.

Where does it say you get your item bonus on the spell attack?

[Kalaam]

Two actions and making a strike and spellstriking and making a strike is the same number of action in the end. Since "Spell Striking" (which is actually misleading in its name...maybe Spell Infusing or Spell Imbuing would be more appropriate) is a free metamagic action.

[Angel Hunter D]

With needing 2 attack rolls, and still costing 3 actions to cast and strike, I'm not digging it. Magus played with action economy last editions, it was kinda it's big thing. I don't really see that here.

Also, Gorignak227, where does it say you add your item bonus to the spell attack? I don't see that anywhere.

[Ferious Thune]

Kalaam wrote:

Two actions and making a strike and spellstriking and making a strike is the same number of action in the end. Since "Spell Striking" (which is actually misleading in its name...maybe Spell Infusing or Spell Imbuing would be more appropriate) is a free metamagic action.

You misread. I would have preferred a two action action which included casting a spell and making a strike.

(Edited to make it clear who I was replying to.)

[ExOichoThrow]

I actually think it's really strong, regardless of action economy.

It makes it so that it's an action worth doing if you have the positioning available, while not making it so that it's the default go-to turn where you never use anything else.

Plus, sliding spell or whatever it's called aids that a lot.

[ExOichoThrow]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

With needing 2 attack rolls, and still costing 3 actions to cast and strike, I'm not digging it. Magus played with action economy last editions, it was kinda it's big thing. I don't really see that here.

Also, Gorignak227, where does it say you add your item bonus to the spell attack? I don't see that anywhere.

I think increasing the spells success rate by one degree with the melee attack is pretty huge though.

[Squiggit]

Paizo so far has usually made things Action Economy Enhancers or Accuracy Enhancers, not both and making Striking Spells not an accuracy enhancer would be problematic, so from that angle I think that choice makes sense.

It does make playing a melee magus feel kinda clunky though. Ironically for all the talk about it not being like PF1 spellstrike... I think the problem is it's too much like PF1: Magus is left trying to full attack in a game that got rid of those.

[Ferious Thune]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

With needing 2 attack rolls, and still costing 3 actions to cast and strike, I'm not digging it. Magus played with action economy last editions, it was kinda it's big thing. I don't really see that here.

Also, Gorignak227, where does it say you add your item bonus to the spell attack? I don't see that anywhere.

I think increasing the spells success rate by one degree with the melee attack is pretty huge though.

You're also adding a 2nd chance to miss with the spell, or a chance to miss with a spell that normally only has a save. You can hold the spell, but only for so long, so against bosses that you aren't likely to crit in the first place, you may be more likely to lose the spell than to increase the effect.

[Ferious Thune]

Squiggit wrote:

Paizo so far has usually made things Action Economy Enhancers or Accuracy Enhancers, not both and making Striking Spells not an accuracy enhancer would be problematic, so from that angle I think that choice makes sense.

It does make playing a melee magus feel kinda clunky though. Ironically for all the talk about it not being like PF1 spellstrike... I think the problem is it's too much like PF1: Magus is left trying to full attack in a game that got rid of those.

But it's not an accuracy enhancer. Not reliably one, anyway. You have to crit with the weapon attack to get any benefit on the spell attack.

EDIT: Well, ok the lack of MAP, I guess.

[ExOichoThrow]

Ferious Thune wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

With needing 2 attack rolls, and still costing 3 actions to cast and strike, I'm not digging it. Magus played with action economy last editions, it was kinda it's big thing. I don't really see that here.

Also, Gorignak227, where does it say you add your item bonus to the spell attack? I don't see that anywhere.

I think increasing the spells success rate by one degree with the melee attack is pretty huge though.

You're also adding a 2nd chance to miss with the spell, or a chance to miss with a spell that normally only has a save. You can hold the spell, but only for so long, so against bosses that you aren't likely to crit in the first place, you may be more likely to lose the spell than to increase the effect.

I mean, it's an option that essentially leads itself to trying to nuke enemies. If you land the spellstrike completely and fully, the damage you're going to do will be pretty high. Plus, crit chance is also very good in PF2, so it's not that uncommon that you'll be improving the spell by a degree of success.

The spell lasts until the end of your next turn. You get lots of attempts at hitting. It's also of course usable with cantrips so although its not ideal, you do have infinite striking spells available, essentially.

[Squiggit]

Ferious Thune wrote:

But it's not an accuracy enhancer.

It clearly is. Both the strike and the spell attack use your current MAP rather than advancing normally. That's +5 to hit for one of them.

[Angel Hunter D]

Ferious Thune wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

With needing 2 attack rolls, and still costing 3 actions to cast and strike, I'm not digging it. Magus played with action economy last editions, it was kinda it's big thing. I don't really see that here.

Also, Gorignak227, where does it say you add your item bonus to the spell attack? I don't see that anywhere.

I think increasing the spells success rate by one degree with the melee attack is pretty huge though.

You're also adding a 2nd chance to miss with the spell, or a chance to miss with a spell that normally only has a save. You can hold the spell, but only for so long, so against bosses that you aren't likely to crit in the first place, you may be more likely to lose the spell than to increase the effect.

Yeah, "on crit" effects are basically just gravy effects, not something to rely on. I don't really think it's something to even consider for baseline functionality given how rare they are.

[Lelomenia]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

With needing 2 attack rolls, and still costing 3 actions to cast and strike, I'm not digging it. Magus played with action economy last editions, it was kinda it's big thing. I don't really see that here.

Also, Gorignak227, where does it say you add your item bonus to the spell attack? I don't see that anywhere.

I think increasing the spells success rate by one degree with the melee attack is pretty huge though.

only when you crit, and you are splitting ability scores more than other classes so you will crit less often. You should be able to churn through low level mooks like butter tho, although AOE is better for that.

[Greg.Everham]

GM OfAnything wrote:

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

3 actions makes it virtually impossible to use Striking Spell.

PF2e is no where near as static a battlefield as PF1e; moving away from a mean looking enemy or moving to a soft target is something most monsters will be doing. The magus simply cannot expect a target to stand still for a full round to be hit with a Striking Spell.

If the expectation is that the magus must set up one turn and "nova" on the next, there had better be a bigger boom at the end than ignoring MAP on one attack. So far, this magus has given up 3 actions last round without affecting the battlefield. Now, they're going to have to spend another action to move back to a target and then an action to finally Strike and maybe deliver the spell.

It's just bad. Very, very, very bad.

[Ferious Thune]

Squiggit wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

But it's not an accuracy enhancer.

It clearly is. Both the strike and the spell attack use your current MAP rather than advancing normally. That's +5 to hit for one of them.

Yeah, I edited above. That was the part I missed... I'd still have preferred the action economy and a single roll. I find a second attack roll and taking your whole turn to be a little punishing to the class.

[ExOichoThrow]

Greg.Everham wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

3 actions makes it virtually impossible to use Striking Spell.

PF2e is no where near as static a battlefield as PF1e; moving away from a mean looking enemy or moving to a soft target is something most monsters will be doing. The magus simply cannot expect a target to stand still for a full round to be hit with a Striking Spell.

If the expectation is that the magus must set up one turn and "nova" on the next, there had better be a bigger boom at the end than ignoring MAP on one attack. So far, this magus has given up 3 actions last round without affecting the battlefield. Now, they're going to have to spend another action to move back to a target and then an action to finally Strike and maybe deliver the spell.

It's just bad. Very, very, very bad.

Why are we talking about this as if 2/3 of the fighting styles don't alleviate this issue?

[Ferious Thune]

Slide Casting helps, but limiting it to a Step or Stride is still rough. See again the note about never being able to cast shield and attack (or raise a shield or parry).

If it was going to be three actions, it could at least have worked like Eldritch Archer and only used one attack roll.

[Angel Hunter D]

Greg.Everham wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

3 actions makes it virtually impossible to use Striking Spell.

PF2e is no where near as static a battlefield as PF1e; moving away from a mean looking enemy or moving to a soft target is something most monsters will be doing. The magus simply cannot expect a target to stand still for a full round to be hit with a Striking Spell.

If the expectation is that the magus must set up one turn and "nova" on the next, there had better be a bigger boom at the end than ignoring MAP on one attack. So far, this magus has given up 3 actions last round without affecting the battlefield. Now, they're going to have to spend another action to move back to a target and then an action to finally Strike and maybe deliver the spell.

It's just bad. Very, very, very bad.

I have to agree with you, I just don't see how this can be satisfying in the mobile edition we have. Slide Casting is the only real option if you want to play the game at the same speed as the rest of your party.

[Kalaam]

Ferious Thune wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Two actions and making a strike and spellstriking and making a strike is the same number of action in the end. Since "Spell Striking" (which is actually misleading in its name...maybe Spell Infusing or Spell Imbuing would be more appropriate) is a free metamagic action.

You misread. I would have preferred a two action action which included casting a spell and making a strike.

(Edited to make it clear who I was replying to.)

My bad, I indeed misread you.

[Capn Cupcake]

Copy/pasted from a discord conversation, but here's basically my gripes with Striking Spell and why it's poorly designed.

Striking Spell in general. In actuality it offers very little benefit, Sliding not withstanding
You're still spending 3 actions to cast and strike, now with the added setback of needing to succeed on 2 rolls for the spell
At least in the case of saving throw spells, you're better off casting the saving throw spell and attacking separately
If you spend 2 actions to store a spell, you have to get into position before you can actually attack which is probably coming the next turn. Initially I misread it as letting you also strike at the same time which is why I was like "this is okay" but you don't even get that benefit.
Combined with only 4 spells a day AND the slower than MC proficiency progression it's overly harsh
When the proficiency was super slow I was like "Yes this makes sense, you are encouraged to spell strike to circumvent that, it allows you to play with AoE and ranged save spells but you're worse than dedicated casters, but better at delivering through melee, this is good design"
Except you're not even better at that since you're still relying on your spell proficiency the whole way through, you're not more accurate, you have less spells, your action economy is exactly the same, I'm struggling to see why I shouldn't just play a Fighter who multiclasses Wizard
I get better attack rolls, faster spellcasting proficiency, WAY more spells per level

[shroudb]

Ferious Thune wrote:

Slide Casting helps, but limiting it to a Step or Stride is still rough. See again the note about never being able to cast shield and attack (or raise a shield or parry).

If it was going to be three actions, it could at least have worked like Eldritch Archer and only used one attack roll.

Eldritch is imo worse even if Magus requires 2nd attack roll.

Not losing the spell if you miss is the big upside, but others as well, like putting save spells, allowing you to cast+stride and fire the arrow the next round, and etc.

That said, actually reading it again, it seems you CAN put a spell in 1 round, and if you're EA next round put a second spell and have BOTH of them go off (one automatically the other with a seperate spellattack roll)

[Greg.Everham]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Greg.Everham wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

3 actions makes it virtually impossible to use Striking Spell.

PF2e is no where near as static a battlefield as PF1e; moving away from a mean looking enemy or moving to a soft target is something most monsters will be doing. The magus simply cannot expect a target to stand still for a full round to be hit with a Striking Spell.

If the expectation is that the magus must set up one turn and "nova" on the next, there had better be a bigger boom at the end than ignoring MAP on one attack. So far, this magus has given up 3 actions last round without affecting the battlefield. Now, they're going to have to spend another action to move back to a target and then an action to finally Strike and maybe deliver the spell.

It's just bad. Very, very, very bad.

Why are we talking about this as if 2/3 of the fighting styles don't alleviate this issue?

Because 1/3 of the class options are now made completely worthless and there cannot be any new growth from this class with future expansion to this content.

Additionally, making a choice for your class that is essentially "Which way do we get back to the start" kinda feels bad from the jump.

If the necessity is that Striking Spell takes 2 actions to be viable in terms of round-by-round action economy, search for a way to balance it on that edge. Creating a deficit, only to have some parts of the class give it back makes for upset players looking at what feels like (and is) a very underwhelming class.

[shroudb]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Copy/pasted from a discord conversation, but here's basically my gripes with Striking Spell and why it's poorly designed.

Striking Spell in general. In actuality it offers very little benefit, Sliding not withstanding
You're still spending 3 actions to cast and strike, now with the added setback of needing to succeed on 2 rolls for the spell
At least in the case of saving throw spells, you're better off casting the saving throw spell and attacking separately
If you spend 2 actions to store a spell, you have to get into position before you can actually attack which is probably coming the next turn. Initially I misread it as letting you also strike at the same time which is why I was like "this is okay" but you don't even get that benefit.
Combined with only 4 spells a day AND the slower than MC proficiency progression it's overly harsh
When the proficiency was super slow I was like "Yes this makes sense, you are encouraged to spell strike to circumvent that, it allows you to play with AoE and ranged save spells but you're worse than dedicated casters, but better at delivering through melee, this is good design"
Except you're not even better at that since you're still relying on your spell proficiency the whole way through, you're not more accurate, you have less spells, your action economy is exactly the same, I'm struggling to see why I shouldn't just play a Fighter who multiclasses Wizard
I get better attack rolls, faster spellcasting proficiency, WAY more spells per level

For the same reason you would dual slice and not make 2 strikes each with a different weapon.

Basically, the spell doesnt suffer from MAP

[shroudb]

Greg.Everham wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Greg.Everham wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

The action costs seem to be tuned just about right. There is no one set "routine" to fall into. Your battle plan will depend on the state of the field and which options you have. Action Economy seems to be in a good place for Striking Spell.

3 actions makes it virtually impossible to use Striking Spell.

PF2e is no where near as static a battlefield as PF1e; moving away from a mean looking enemy or moving to a soft target is something most monsters will be doing. The magus simply cannot expect a target to stand still for a full round to be hit with a Striking Spell.

If the expectation is that the magus must set up one turn and "nova" on the next, there had better be a bigger boom at the end than ignoring MAP on one attack. So far, this magus has given up 3 actions last round without affecting the battlefield. Now, they're going to have to spend another action to move back to a target and then an action to finally Strike and maybe deliver the spell.

It's just bad. Very, very, very bad.

Why are we talking about this as if 2/3 of the fighting styles don't alleviate this issue?

Because 1/3 of the class options are now made completely worthless and there cannot be any new growth from this class with future expansion to this content.

Additionally, making a choice for your class that is essentially "Which way do we get back to the start" kinda feels bad from the jump.

If the necessity is that Striking Spell takes 2 actions to be viable in terms of round-by-round action economy, search for a way to balance it on that edge. Creating a deficit, only to have some parts of the class give it back makes for upset players looking at what feels like (and is) a very underwhelming class.

Following the way multiattack activities are balanced you EITHER get action economy boost (twin takedown, flurry, etc) OR bypass the MAP (dual slice and etc)

So, if they were to make it a 2 action activity to Cast+Strike, then either the Strike would be at -5 or the spell would be at -5, which would be much more terrible.

[Ferious Thune]

Someone should run the math for average encounters, but just a note that it's only a small accuracy boost for a spell. the -5 is worth 25% accuracy.

Say you've got a 60% chance to hit with your melee attack, and a 50% chance to hit with a spell (accounting for some combination of stat, proficiency, or item bonuses)

Spell striking gives you a .6 x .5 = 30% chance to hit with the spell.

Attacking with MAP gives you a 25% chance to hit with the spell.

A full chart would give some idea of how that carries over to other numbers, but I think that's around where things are for most boss fights.

[graystone]

shroudb wrote:

Eldritch is imo worse even if Magus requires 2nd attack roll.

It's not just a second roll but one with a different stat added: that in itself means that even with multiple tries to land the spell, it has a lower chance to succeed.

[Ferious Thune]

shroudb wrote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Copy/pasted from a discord conversation, but here's basically my gripes with Striking Spell and why it's poorly designed.

Striking Spell in general. In actuality it offers very little benefit, Sliding not withstanding
You're still spending 3 actions to cast and strike, now with the added setback of needing to succeed on 2 rolls for the spell
At least in the case of saving throw spells, you're better off casting the saving throw spell and attacking separately
If you spend 2 actions to store a spell, you have to get into position before you can actually attack which is probably coming the next turn. Initially I misread it as letting you also strike at the same time which is why I was like "this is okay" but you don't even get that benefit.
Combined with only 4 spells a day AND the slower than MC proficiency progression it's overly harsh
When the proficiency was super slow I was like "Yes this makes sense, you are encouraged to spell strike to circumvent that, it allows you to play with AoE and ranged save spells but you're worse than dedicated casters, but better at delivering through melee, this is good design"
Except you're not even better at that since you're still relying on your spell proficiency the whole way through, you're not more accurate, you have less spells, your action economy is exactly the same, I'm struggling to see why I shouldn't just play a Fighter who multiclasses Wizard
I get better attack rolls, faster spellcasting proficiency, WAY more spells per level

For the same reason you would dual slice and not make 2 strikes each with a different weapon.

Basically, the spell doesnt suffer from MAP

The spell doesn't suffer from MAP, but you have to hit with the 1st attack or you don't get to make the spell attack roll at all.

[MaxAstro]

I think a Magus/Monk combo is going to be very strong with this action economy, and could potentially be broken if it were any better.

Considering your turn could be Cast + Stride + Flurry + Stunning Fist, that's a pretty devastating turn - especially since you're getting both your spell and your flurry off at regular MAP.

[Ferious Thune]

MaxAstro wrote:

I think a Magus/Monk combo is going to be very strong with this action economy, and could potentially be broken if it were any better.

Considering your turn could be Cast + Stride + Flurry + Stunning Fist, that's a pretty devastating turn - especially since you're getting both your spell and your flurry off at regular MAP.

If you're going Magus with Monk Dedication, that comes online at 10th level. For some games, that would be fine. For things like PFS, getting to 10th level can take a long time.

[shroudb]

Ferious Thune wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Copy/pasted from a discord conversation, but here's basically my gripes with Striking Spell and why it's poorly designed.

Striking Spell in general. In actuality it offers very little benefit, Sliding not withstanding
You're still spending 3 actions to cast and strike, now with the added setback of needing to succeed on 2 rolls for the spell
At least in the case of saving throw spells, you're better off casting the saving throw spell and attacking separately
If you spend 2 actions to store a spell, you have to get into position before you can actually attack which is probably coming the next turn. Initially I misread it as letting you also strike at the same time which is why I was like "this is okay" but you don't even get that benefit.
Combined with only 4 spells a day AND the slower than MC proficiency progression it's overly harsh
When the proficiency was super slow I was like "Yes this makes sense, you are encouraged to spell strike to circumvent that, it allows you to play with AoE and ranged save spells but you're worse than dedicated casters, but better at delivering through melee, this is good design"
Except you're not even better at that since you're still relying on your spell proficiency the whole way through, you're not more accurate, you have less spells, your action economy is exactly the same, I'm struggling to see why I shouldn't just play a Fighter who multiclasses Wizard
I get better attack rolls, faster spellcasting proficiency, WAY more spells per level

For the same reason you would dual slice and not make 2 strikes each with a different weapon.

Basically, the spell doesnt suffer from MAP

The spell doesn't suffer from MAP, but you have to hit with the 1st attack or you don't get to make the spell attack roll at all.

it is not lost if you miss the attack.

if you miss, you have a full round afterwards to hit with just 1 attack to have it go off.

[Greg.Everham]

shroudb wrote:

So, if they were to make it a 2 action activity to Cast+Strike, then either the Strike would be at -5 or the spell would be at -5, which would be much more terrible.

Gonna hang my entire response on your phrasing. "Much more terrible."

Based on the early responses in this thread, it seems like no option within this is appealing or good.