Striking Spells Action Economy

[Kendaan]

I'm wondering if Stoking Spells isn't planned to be used with new 1 action spells that are not part of the play test?

With a few 1action offensive spells & cantrips,it looks like it would be much better.

[SkylerJB]

MaxAstro wrote:

EDIT: You know what just occurred to me that would be really nice? An option to Sustain a spell prepared with Striking Spell if you haven't discharged it yet, maybe up to a minute.

That would give the Magus some nice ambush potential, and a way to recoup their losses if they have bad luck.

My group won't be playtesting the Magus so I'm more or less spending my time going to be observing how the community reacts. I feel the weird action economy of the Magus will be more group dependent than most as people figure out how viable it is for how their tables play.

But your suggestion is the one thing I feel the Magus is missing. I can't help but feel *bad* for a Magus player who stores a spell but bad dice rolls ends up causing the spell to fizzle before it has chance to proc. It's one thing to fail your Spell Attack or the enemy passes their Saving Throw. It's another to know your spell doesn't discharge cause you just couldn't quite land that blow and now you lost one of your four precious spell slots of the day and the actions committed to it.

[Xenocrat]

Looking forward to all the Magus (investigator dedication) builds. Devise a Stratagem, put a spell in your weapon if you get a bad result, move and strike otherwise. Next round if you have a spell loaded you devise, attack if you have a good result, move and attack a different target if you don't. With haste up you can also toss in a move and True Strike against a secondary target if necessary.

[Capn Cupcake]

So the major problem for the Magus isn't the action economy, it's how inaccurate the spell attack is. At level 13 a Magus is going to have +26 to their weapon attack and +22 to their spell attack. That's a -4 for the other attack that they need to hit. That's bad for something that's supposedly dealing with MAP. You're not saving on actions, and you're not ACTUALLY more accurate than if you'd just attacked twice with an agile weapon. You're not gaining any benefits from anything and you have the chance to waste precious resources.

[Arakasius]

Seems simple enough to fix. Allow weapon runes to work on spell strike attacks, although I suppose that pushes them more into attack spells.

[Oakblade]

This may sound naive, but why didn't they use a mechanic similar to Warpriest's Channel Smite instead of Striking Spell? Two actions, burn a spell slot, add extra damage dice, no other effects from the spell.

Maybe apply other effects with a feat tax and/or basic save.

[Enrif]

I see one big problem with Magus, and others pointed it out. The Magus needs to hit, or rather, crit with their strike when using Striking Spell. This is the bread and butter ability of it afterall.

I think there is an easy solution to it: add your Intelligence Modifier to the attack roll made with a weapon or unarmed strike using Striking Spell. (and add your key ability modifier to the spell attack/save DC too.)
This way the magus can compensate for stopping at master proficiency, somewhat justify the few spell slots and the weird loss of action economy. When they hit, the really hit and make it count.

Also, Sustaining Steel should double those Temp HP i think. Twice the cantrip level, four times the spellslot level.

[Ressy]

graystone wrote:

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.

For reference, I put together an excel sheet of the cumulative miss/crit chances. Assuming an agile weapon (best case).

Base D20 roll needed to hit // Miss chance across 4 attacks (2 w/o MAP, 1 at -4, 1 at -8) // Chance that a Crit was scored.

Base // Miss // Crit
5 // 0.96% // 36.5%
6 // 1.83% // 31.7%
7 // 3.15% // 26.7%
8 // 5.05% // 21.2%
9 // 7.68% // 15.3%
10 // 11.19% // 8.9%
11 // 15.75% // 9.6%
12 // 21.55% // 10.4%
13 // 27.36% // 9.8%
14 // 34.12% // 10.4%
15 // 41.90% // 11.0%
16 // 50.77% // 11.6%
17 // 57.76% // 9.0%
18 // 65.21% // 9.2%
19 // 73.10% // 9.5%
20 // 81.45% // 9.8%

[Angel Hunter D]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

So the major problem for the Magus isn't the action economy, it's how inaccurate the spell attack is. At level 13 a Magus is going to have +26 to their weapon attack and +22 to their spell attack. That's a -4 for the other attack that they need to hit. That's bad for something that's supposedly dealing with MAP. You're not saving on actions, and you're not ACTUALLY more accurate than if you'd just attacked twice with an agile weapon. You're not gaining any benefits from anything and you have the chance to waste precious resources.

The major problem is that there are numerous ways they could have made the concept play out and be satisfying, but they did none of those.

it *could* have played with action economy. but it doesn't.
it *could* have removed MAP. It says it does, but the math has shown that functionally it doesn't.
it *could* have only been usable with Focus Powers or Focus Cantrips balanced specifically for the Magus, but it doesn't.

[Temperans]

There were so many good ways it could had worked and they picked one of the worst possible ways to do it.

Heck even just making it like Eldritch Shot without the static action cost would had worked fine. But nope.

[WatersLethe]

What about a version of spellstrike that let the Magus spend one action a round to partially cast a spell, but only into their weapon to be delivered later.

So, every round a Magus can be "charging up" a spell strike while doing other things.

Round 1: >> Electric Arc >Start casting disintegrate
Round 2: >Move >> Finish casting disintigrate + spellstrike
Round 3: >Strike >Strike >Start casting vampiric touch
Round 4: >Move >>Finish casting vampiric touch + spellstrike

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

The thing is, Haste significantly alters the action economy complaint. Also, I have no issues with their action economy.

And, while critting is unreliable, if you crit with the attack, a miss on the spell attack becomes a hit (and a successful save by the enemy becomes a fail).

[Krysgg]

WatersLethe wrote:

What about a version of spellstrike that let the Magus spend one action a round to partially cast a spell, but only into their weapon to be delivered later.

So, every round a Magus can be "charging up" a spell strike while doing other things.

Round 1: >> Electric Arc >Start casting disintegrate
Round 2: >Move >> Finish casting disintigrate + spellstrike
Round 3: >Strike >Strike >Start casting vampiric touch
Round 4: >Move >>Finish casting vampiric touch + spellstrike

I like the idea of building spells into your weapon. It could also work the otherway, make spell strike a free action after you land a strike that lets you charge the spell into your weapon. So every time you land a strike you get to fill one action of casting the spell.

It would slow down casting spells most turns (because you're not guaranteed to actually hit), but it is a cool action economy boost. Slowing down how fast you cast, while boosting your overall economy also fits well with the limited slots.

[Angel Hunter D]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

The thing is, Haste significantly alters the action economy complaint. Also, I have no issues with their action economy.

And, while critting is unreliable, if you crit with the attack, a miss on the spell attack becomes a hit (and a successful save by the enemy becomes a fail).

neither of those are guarantees, that's like saying you only go to jail if you get caught committing a crime. sure, technically true. but not worth banking on.

[WWHsmackdown]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

The thing is, Haste significantly alters the action economy complaint. Also, I have no issues with their action economy.

And, while critting is unreliable, if you crit with the attack, a miss on the spell attack becomes a hit (and a successful save by the enemy becomes a fail).

neither of those are guarantees, that's like saying you only go to jail if you get caught committing a crime. sure, technically true. but not worth banking on.

As such I'd rather that crit ribbon be gotten rid of entirely so the power budget can go towards spell strike landing more reliably

[Krysgg]

I think what my biggest impression of striking spell is that its clunky, like even if its functionally balanced (which I'm not sure it is). Just having the 2 attack rolls, or an attack roll followed by a save with the second attack or save being also based on the degree of the first is awkward.

Something simple like just translating the degree of success on your strike would be nice. Like for attack spells translate it straight across, for save spells it converts to the save equivalent, but thats fine (crit hit,crit failure; hit, failure; miss, success; crit miss, crit success). You're giving up the reliability bonus, but its way simpler (and means that your kinda bad spell dc progression isn't crippling).

You could also just get to choose to discharge after a strike and take that strikes success degree. Which is sort of the best of both worlds. It means that after a success you could hold it and wait for a crit, but I suspect you're better off just discharging on first hit anyway. And when you're getting close to wasting the spell you can take that miss (but not critical miss) to at least deliver the success version of your spell.

It also gets rid of that awkward interaction with incapacitate, as crits don't increase a spells degree by one counteracting incapacitate.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

':|

Haste can easily be a guarantee. You cast Arcane spells. You can pick up Haste. You can have a scroll of Haste. You can have a want of Haste. Also, Magi can pick up the 1 action semi haste from their class. Also, though fairly irrelevant, they have a capstone that is a permanent semi-haste. Haste (after getting 3rd level spells) can quite easily be a guarantee.

I acknowledge that crits are not. But this thread is about action economy.

[graystone]

Krysgg wrote:

I think what my biggest impression of striking spell is that its clunky, like even if its functionally balanced (which I'm not sure it is). Just having the 2 attack rolls, or an attack roll followed by a save with the second attack or save being also based on the degree of the first is awkward.

I've been thinking about it and I think It'd be better as a reaction.

Striking Spell [Free Action]
[Metamagic, Abjuration, Magical, Summoner, Flourish]
Trigger You hit with a melee Strike
The spell is cast as if your proficiency for arcane spell attacks and DCs is one level higher and it doesn't count as a manipulate action for reaction triggers. Simple and easy to use and understand.

[LordZeev]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

':|

Haste can easily be a guarantee. You cast Arcane spells. You can pick up Haste. You can have a scroll of Haste. You can have a want of Haste. Also, Magi can pick up the 1 action semi haste from their class. Also, though fairly irrelevant, they have a capstone that is a permanent semi-haste. Haste (after getting 3rd level spells) can quite easily be a guarantee.

I acknowledge that crits are not. But this thread is about action economy.

Not sure how guarenteed Haste is really. I mean sure you can have it but its a significant expenditure of resources, either money/time (for scrolls), your very precious spell slots, or your slightly less precious focus points. I also dont like that a class feels like it needa to be quickenedjust to keep pace.

[Ferious Thune]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

':|

Haste can easily be a guarantee. You cast Arcane spells. You can pick up Haste. You can have a scroll of Haste. You can have a want of Haste. Also, Magi can pick up the 1 action semi haste from their class. Also, though fairly irrelevant, they have a capstone that is a permanent semi-haste. Haste (after getting 3rd level spells) can quite easily be a guarantee.

I acknowledge that crits are not. But this thread is about action economy.

A spell that uses one of your limited spell slots and two actions is not a fix for bad action economy in your base abilities.

A 14th level feat is not a fix for bad action economy in your base abilities.

Haste is available to a lot of classes. It's not a fix for the Magus.

[Sporkedup]

Same problem with warpriest and heroism, though, as I'm seeing here with magus and haste. You shouldn't have to bank on casting a specific self-buff at the start of every combat to not be particularly frustrated with your offensive abilities.

This class needs to absolutely function without haste. Right now, especially for a third of magi, it's not great.

[Lightning Raven]

Wasn't like the number 1 wish on the Magus Wish thread a 2-Action Spell Strike? Why do we have this thing? The spell doesn't even hit when you land your strike... What part of this resemble in any way a Magus? Seriously? Weren't they supposed to BLEND the two?

If I'm going to be having to spend the same amount of actions I might as well get the OP chassis of the Fighter and slap on a Wizard multiclass. It's the same thing. It's as janky as the Magus but with better math.

[Angel Hunter D]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Wasn't like the number 1 wish on the Magus Wish thread a 2-Action Spell Strike? Why do we have this thing? The spell doesn't even hit when you land your strike... What part of this resemble in any way a Magus? Seriously? Weren't they supposed to BLEND the two?

If I'm going to be having to spend the same amount of actions I might as well get the OP chassis of the Fighter and slap on a Wizard multiclass. It's the same thing. It's as janky as the Magus but with better math.

Yeah, that's the big "oof" here.

[WWHsmackdown]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

Wasn't like the number 1 wish on the Magus Wish thread a 2-Action Spell Strike? Why do we have this thing? The spell doesn't even hit when you land your strike... What part of this resemble in any way a Magus? Seriously? Weren't they supposed to BLEND the two?

If I'm going to be having to spend the same amount of actions I might as well get the OP chassis of the Fighter and slap on a Wizard multiclass. It's the same thing. It's as janky as the Magus but with better math.

Yeah, that's the big "oof" here.

I'm even fine with them nerfing the spell strike damage if that's what they're worried about. I really don't care about doing the most explosive nova or anything. I just wanna be able to do an arcane version of power attack with master proficency for two actions and not have to make two rolls. Any nerfs to accommodate that are fine. Just please make that the baseline.

[beevee728]

The Magus is intended as a short-range skirmisher, so as a quick and rough thought experiment, let's compare Spell Strike with other Close Range Skirmish Mechanics designed to boost damage. Not spending a lot of effort on feat support or super aggressive optimization - looking mostly at the core ability, what it does, and what the very rough baseline expectation is for this kind of character. I'm also not doing War-Priest - others have done that kind of breakdown.

Rogue: Sneak Attack: Similar Damage to a Cantrip. Requires Flanking/Other Source of Flat-Footed. Can happen multiple times a turn. Requires an accuracy boosting condition, but contains none on their own. Some support. Requires Agile Weapons, which limits weapon damage value.

Ranger: Hunter's Edge: Your choice of: 1/Round Cantrip damage or reduced MAP. Upgrades a bit to be better than a Cantrip if you can reliably hit multiple times, or a pretty significant MAP boost. Single chosen target at a time, 1 action to refocus it.

Monk: Flurry of Blows: Two Attacks. No MAP or accuracy boost, just Action Economy boost. Gets some useful options via Feat, but not really raw power. Once per turn, but opens up a ton of options to get multiple attacks and move. Very limited weapon selection without feats.

Barbarian: Rage: Kinda roughly Cantrip damage per attack when raging. Gets a ton of support options in Feats. 1 action to activate, then stays on for a while. Reduced damage with Agile Weapons.

And for fun, even rougher APG comparisons:
Swashbuckler: Once you get Panache, you're looking at better than Cantrip damage per turn if you reliably finisher. Limits your attack options and weapon choices. You have your choice of skill options to gain Panache.

Investigator: Cantripish damage once a round - chance of being free, but nominally one action plus the attack.

So what I'm seeing is that your Melee Skirmish classes tend to have a free Cantrip (1-5d6) of damage on at least one attack per turn as a baseline, or a strong MAP negator or Action Economy Booster. Right now, Magus has pretty much none of that, and the very limited spell slots don't really give them some kind of overwhelming utility to make up for it.
I'm guessing the reduced Casting Proficiency on the Magus is to incentivize Spell Striking over just Casting and then Striking, but the end result of it is that the Magus is going to wind up missing a lot of spells and doesn't have too much reason to Spell Strike with damage spells anyway - you REALLY want to use spells that trigger a Saving Throw and thus can bypass some - but not all - of these drawbacks. Allowing Damage Spells - even non-cantrips! - to not need a separate hit roll would probably help bring Damaging use of Spell Strike into a substantially better place, even if the spell couldn't crit. Maybe I'm overlooking some spells that would work exceptionally well here, but I definitely feel like Spell Strike feels really underwhelming.

[Seisho]

One change that would enhance the Striking Spells could be that, instead of making a second attack roll (or the enemy making a save) they share the degree of succes - so when you hit, you automatically hit with the spell too/the enemy automatically gains the failed saving throw - but you still don't expand the spell if you miss
that would make the whole thing basically a better eldritch shot because it has more flexibility without notable downsides

the other option would be to just be able to make a strike as part of the casting action

[Ressy]

Seisho wrote:

One change that would enhance the Striking Spells could be that, instead of making a second attack roll (or the enemy making a save) they share the degree of succes - so when you hit, you automatically hit with the spell too/the enemy automatically gains the failed saving throw - but you still don't expand the spell if you miss

that would make the whole thing basically a better eldritch shot because it has more flexibility without notable downsides

the other option would be to just be able to make a strike as part of the casting action

Making the Strike's degree of success count directly for the spell also helps alleviate the Magus' reduced Spellcasting proficiency, but only when they're casting via Striking Spell.

Which makes Striking Spell good for that reason as well.

[Kalaam]

WatersLethe wrote:

What about a version of spellstrike that let the Magus spend one action a round to partially cast a spell, but only into their weapon to be delivered later.

So, every round a Magus can be "charging up" a spell strike while doing other things.

Round 1: >> Electric Arc >Start casting disintegrate
Round 2: >Move >> Finish casting disintigrate + spellstrike
Round 3: >Strike >Strike >Start casting vampiric touch
Round 4: >Move >>Finish casting vampiric touch + spellstrike

Wait you can spread a casting over two rounds ? Using your third action to start casting it at the end of one and the first of the next round to finish it ?

[WatersLethe]

Kalaam wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

What about a version of spellstrike that let the Magus spend one action a round to partially cast a spell, but only into their weapon to be delivered later.

So, every round a Magus can be "charging up" a spell strike while doing other things.

Round 1: >> Electric Arc >Start casting disintegrate
Round 2: >Move >> Finish casting disintigrate + spellstrike
Round 3: >Strike >Strike >Start casting vampiric touch
Round 4: >Move >>Finish casting vampiric touch + spellstrike

Wait you can spread a casting over two rounds ? Using your third action to start casting it at the end of one and the first of the next round to finish it ?

I'm saying that could be a way to go with Spellstrike to make it more fluid. It'd be unique to Magus.

[Kalaam]

Ooooh, I thought it was someone you could already do.

[Throne]

Casting proficiency is a bigger problem than action economy, but that isn't to say that action economy isn't still a big problem.

'If you miss the weapon attack, you can still hit with it next round to unleash the spell' doesn't suddenly make striking spell a good accuracy boost. The inaccuracy boost more than counteracts it; you're still just losing actions.
No data to back it up, but I feel like a spell attack followed by an attack with an agile weapon with MAP every round is going to turn out better than an attack with your weapon which you have to land or lose the rest of your actions for the turn.
That's just my gut, but there are definitely going to be many cases of a Magus missing the attack then not being able to swing on their next turn; dead badguy, dead Magus, hell, even if the target just takes 3 move actions away, since you don't get AoO. And that is going to get really frustrating.

MaxAstro wrote:

There is no 1st level ability in the game that both gives better action economy AND avoids MAP.

No offense, but I'm not sure that's relevant. There isn't anything, until there is.

No-one starts with better than Trained weapon proficiencies, except the one who does.
There wasn't a caster who lost the ability to cast 1st level spells, until there was.
If it's what's needed to make the class work, because right now it doesn't, then no-one else getting the same toy shouldn't be allowed to be an obstacle.

[MaxAstro]

You know, I can see that Magus and Summoner have some rough edges, but why is that every playtest we seem to get a contingent of people saying "OMG this is the worst thing ever Paizo completely ruined this and couldn't possibly have made it any worse"?

Like... I agree that Magus probably has some accuracy issues, but that's... a pretty small part of the class, design space wise, and easily fixed?

[Throne]

MaxAstro wrote:

You know, I can see that Magus and Summoner have some rough edges, but why is that every playtest we seem to get a contingent of people saying "OMG this is the worst thing ever Paizo completely ruined this and couldn't possibly have made it any worse"?

For what it's worth, I've been around for long enough to know they could definitely have made it worse.

MaxAstro wrote:

Like... I agree that Magus probably has some accuracy issues, but that's... a pretty small part of the class, design space wise, and easily fixed?

Cool. And once they fix the accuracy issues, there are the action economy issues.

And once they fix the action economy issues, there are the core class features that will be useful for about 2 levels.
And once they fix that.... you get the idea.

You might not agree that the issues other people have with the class are issues at all, but that's not a requirement for people to have those issues.
For fans of the 1e Magus, there's a lot to dislike about this.
Of course, pleasing fans of the 1e version isn't a requirement. It's not necessarily even a design goal. But that doesn't mean they're not allowed to ask 'what the hell is this?'

[Callin13]

Because if its not talked about enough then the devs can think its ok.

[MaxAstro]

You can tell the devs it's not okay without basically insulting their competence, I think.

[ExOichoThrow]

MaxAstro wrote:

You know, I can see that Magus and Summoner have some rough edges, but why is that every playtest we seem to get a contingent of people saying "OMG this is the worst thing ever Paizo completely ruined this and couldn't possibly have made it any worse"?

Like... I agree that Magus probably has some accuracy issues, but that's... a pretty small part of the class, design space wise, and easily fixed?

A large percentage of this forum gets their Hopes up by creating an expectation in their head of what they want, and then get upset when it's not like that.

I think theres a few rough points for Magus but it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

I happen to think its better if you have to make the meaningful choice of striking spells or casting without it as well, but I'm sure I'm in the minority. Most people want to be able to spell strike with good accuracy, often, and also while remaining mobile.

How it ends up being balanced with that in mind, I'm just not sure.

[Draco18s]

MaxAstro wrote:

You know, I can see that Magus and Summoner have some rough edges, but why is that every playtest we seem to get a contingent of people saying "OMG this is the worst thing ever Paizo completely ruined this and couldn't possibly have made it any worse"?

For what it's worth, I think the Magus is basically unworkable as written. BUT I don't think Paizo is incompetent, I just think that Spellstrike is a feature that does not work as intended.

They tried to find a new way of doing spells, giving a class only the "most relevant slots" (cool!) but inadvertently broke the primary class feature as a result (oops).

[Gaulin]

I definitely think that playtest classes are purposefully made to be weaker than they will be when they come out. People would be in an uproar if classes got worse than their playtest iteration, and starting with a lower bar means when the actual classes come out full of improvements, people will be more focused on those.

[Reticent]

If they enhance the accuracy much (or the wrong way), I could see them needing to nerf Slide Casting. Right now its balancing factor is that you probably aren't going to get to use Striking Spell every single turn as you'll often make multiple attacks fishing for a hit.

It compounds too if you pick up a feat through an archetype that gives you extra action efficiency on a Strike. Pick up something like Acrobat's Tumbling Strike and you might reliably doing 5 actions worth of stuff every round before even looking at haste effects.

[Draco18s]

Reticent wrote:

Right now its balancing factor is that you probably aren't going to get to use Striking Spell every single turn as you'll often make multiple attacks fishing for a hit.

"Here's your shtick. Now don't use it every turn, that would be too good."

What. If its too good to use every turn, then why is it your shtick?

[Lightning Raven]

Gaulin wrote:

I definitely think that playtest classes are purposefully made to be weaker than they will be when they come out. People would be in an uproar if classes got worse than their playtest iteration, and starting with a lower bar means when the actual classes come out full of improvements, people will be more focused on those.

Swashbuckler was pretty much wildly accepted from the get go and bar a few hitches and some janky feats, the class was the only one of the previous playtest that impressed. Investigator was a close second because they completely knocked out the park on the flavor and concept, but it fell really short on the mechanical aspect.

So far, every spellcasting class has been problematic, and not because they're often weaker, which they are, and it's not just because of a matter of discrepancy between the fantasy of PF1e and PF2e since a lot of critics were fine and wanted them nerfed as well, the problem lied in lack of interesting and meaningful feats, better features and options that actually helped realize their concept. The only exception, that I noticed, are the Bards, not just because they are powerhouses, but because each Muse successfully capture their concepts and offer plenty of interesting feats on top of it while also making the class play marvelously. That's basically what everyone wants, a fun class that doesn't have feat taxes attached to them.

Also, while I'm at it, I think that Unarmed Magus has potential to be a Synthesis instead of just a single feat.

[Reticent]

Draco18s wrote:

Reticent wrote:

Right now its balancing factor is that you probably aren't going to get to use Striking Spell every single turn as you'll often make multiple attacks fishing for a hit.

"Here's your shtick. Now don't use it every turn, that would be too good."

What. If its too good to use every turn, then why is it your shtick?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to Striking Spell every turn, I'm saying that if/when they get there Slide Casting is probably too much bang for the buck.

[Ludovicus]

Gorignak227 wrote:

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

No, there isn't.

MaxAstro wrote:

You can tell the devs it's not okay without basically insulting their competence, I think.

Remember: the devs aren't our friends. Nor are they doing this for free, or in their spare time. We not only pay their salaries, but go out of our way to provide thoughtful written feedback—something on which most companies place considerable value. We don't owe them; they owe us.

The playtest magus strikes many of us, me included, as badly designed in a way that should've been obvious: it should not have been released in its current state. Maybe we are missing some important nuance, and the magus is better than we think. If so, it would be good to have that explained. Otherwise: if you are paying someone for their work, and they offer a really shoddy prototype for some product, isn't it legitimate to clearly express your disappointment?

[Kasoh]

Ludovicus wrote:

Remember: the devs aren't our friends. Nor are they doing this for free, or in their spare time. We not only pay their salaries, but go out of our way to provide thoughtful written feedback—something on which most companies place considerable value. We don't owe them; they owe us.

We pay Paizo Inc, who in turn pays its employees and freelancers. They design at the behest of Paizo, not us. It is in Paizo's interests to provide quality material for us to purchase, but a company has its own goals and interests. The devs provide work as requested by their employer and its demands. If that demand is 'Make what a subsection of vocal players on our forums want' then yes our feedback is of considerable value. If that wasn't the brief, then our feedback is of middling value.

Don't overestimate your own importance. And no one owes anyone anything here.

[Draco18s]

Reticent wrote:

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to Striking Spell every turn, I'm saying that if/when they get there Slide Casting is probably too much bang for the buck.

And what if someone is not a Slide Caster?

If the primary feature is nerfed because when paired with an optional path is too powerful, the problem is with the optional path not the primary feature.

[MaxAstro]

Kasoh wrote:

Ludovicus wrote:

Remember: the devs aren't our friends. Nor are they doing this for free, or in their spare time. We not only pay their salaries, but go out of our way to provide thoughtful written feedback—something on which most companies place considerable value. We don't owe them; they owe us.

We pay Paizo Inc, who in turn pays its employees and freelancers. They design at the behest of Paizo, not us. It is in Paizo's interests to provide quality material for us to purchase, but a company has its own goals and interests. The devs provide work as requested by their employer and its demands. If that demand is 'Make what a subsection of vocal players on our forums want' then yes our feedback is of considerable value. If that wasn't the brief, then our feedback is of middling value.

Don't overestimate your own importance. And no one owes anyone anything here.

Exactly this.

This is just like the customers at the grocery store I work at saying "I pay your paycheck!" Really? I don't see your name on it...

[Reticent]

Draco18s wrote:

Reticent wrote:

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to Striking Spell every turn, I'm saying that if/when they get there Slide Casting is probably too much bang for the buck.

And what if someone is not a Slide Caster?

If the primary feature is nerfed because when paired with an optional path is too powerful, the problem is with the optional path not the primary feature.

I feel like you're having a one sided argument here. I'm not opposed to them tweaking Striking Spell to be more reliable. I am pointing out that if they do make Striking Spell more reliable, they'll want to tone down Slide Casting.

[Draco18s]

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

':|

Haste can easily be a guarantee. You cast Arcane spells. You can pick up Haste.

Congrats you can cast haste and three other spells.

Yes, you can pick it up with the Martial Caster feat instead, but you don't get Haste until 9th.

Quote:

You can have a scroll of Haste.

Those are expensive at low level. You're not realistically going to be doing this until 9th.

Quote:

You can have a want of Haste.

These are just expensive. You're not realistically going to be doing this until 12th.

Quote:

Also, Magi can pick up the 1 action semi haste from their class.

The focus spell? Sure, at 14th. In exchange you can't pick up Preternatural Parry. Sure, its pretty good. Its a very good focus spell, but does not solve the core issue. That core issue being that you don't have spells from slots to use with Spellstrike and also trigger other feats.

Quote:

Also, though fairly irrelevant, they have a capstone that is a permanent semi-haste. Haste (after getting 3rd level spells) can quite easily be a guarantee.

The capstone is garbage. The only thing you can do is make a strike while holding a spell. And it doesn't stack with other sources of quickened (you only ever get 1 bonus action, other sources of quickened just broaden what you can do with that action; core p622). Woop de doo.

[Angel Hunter D]

Kasoh wrote:

Ludovicus wrote:

Remember: the devs aren't our friends. Nor are they doing this for free, or in their spare time. We not only pay their salaries, but go out of our way to provide thoughtful written feedback—something on which most companies place considerable value. We don't owe them; they owe us.

We pay Paizo Inc, who in turn pays its employees and freelancers. They design at the behest of Paizo, not us. It is in Paizo's interests to provide quality material for us to purchase, but a company has its own goals and interests. The devs provide work as requested by their employer and its demands. If that demand is 'Make what a subsection of vocal players on our forums want' then yes our feedback is of considerable value. If that wasn't the brief, then our feedback is of middling value.

Don't overestimate your own importance. And no one owes anyone anything here.

If you don't design for your customers, you're doing it wrong. And whatever you're doing is certainly not helpful - we at least owe each other some decorum.

[MaxAstro]

Paizo has to design for all their customers, Angel Hunter. It's been pretty consistently shown that the opinions of the forum don't match up well to the opinions of the wider customer base - see for example Vancian casting. I hate it, most people on the forum hated it, the wider customer base prefers it.