| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expert Arcane spellcasting is doing much more heavy lifting for the Magus than expert focus spells is doing for the monk/champion. Like for the overwhelming majority of monk focus spells (all except Ki Blast, Quivering Palm, and Medusa's Wrath IIRC) your proficiency only matters for counteract checks.
So in terms of class budgeting, it's cheaper to give a bump to someone who will almost never use it than to someone who will use it constantly.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expert Arcane spellcasting is doing much more heavy lifting for the Magus than expert focus spells is doing for the monk/champion. Like for the overwhelming majority of monk focus spells (all except Ki Blast, Quivering Palm, and Medusa's Wrath IIRC) your proficiency only matters for counteract checks.
So in terms of class budgeting, it's cheaper to give a bump to someone who will almost never use it than to someone who will use it constantly.
sure, but doesn't is sound really odd that the guy doing something all the time needs to be worse at it than the people who rarely do anything?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is actually a fairly significant problem since a core magus feature is hitting someone with an offensive spell while also making an attack. It's pretty much their main class feature.
Running at a penalty to hit (especially when spell attack already suffer from accuracy issues) because your spell progression lags behind is a significant impediment, especially when slotted spells are such a premium resource for you.
sure, but doesn't is sound really odd that the guy doing something all the time needs to be worse at it than the people who rarely do anything?Expert Arcane spellcasting is doing much more heavy lifting for the Magus than expert focus spells is doing for the monk/champion. Like for the overwhelming majority of monk focus spells (all except Ki Blast, Quivering Palm, and Medusa's Wrath IIRC) your proficiency only matters for counteract checks.
So in terms of class budgeting, it's cheaper to give a bump to someone who will almost never use it than to someone who will use it constantly.
Think of it like this. One is very good at casting a single focus spell.
The other is pretty good at casting every spell from the arcana list.|
|
sure, but doesn't is sound really odd that the guy doing something all the time needs to be worse at it than the people who rarely do anything?Expert Arcane spellcasting is doing much more heavy lifting for the Magus than expert focus spells is doing for the monk/champion. Like for the overwhelming majority of monk focus spells (all except Ki Blast, Quivering Palm, and Medusa's Wrath IIRC) your proficiency only matters for counteract checks.
So in terms of class budgeting, it's cheaper to give a bump to someone who will almost never use it than to someone who will use it constantly.
Think of it like this. One is very good at casting a single focus spell.
The other is pretty good at casting every spell from the arcana list.
Eh, gonna have to agree with Squiggit instead. Being bad at your main thing just isn't very fun.
A Magus could also multiclass to get more spells to burn in Spell Strike though.
Let's try to make it work first then see how to improve it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level 10 magus, on average against a same level enemy, is going to have about one of their four spells per day successfully damage an enemy if they make Spell Attacks via Striking Spells.
Up to you whether or not you think those numbers are reasonable.
if anyone thinks that's reasonable they need to be turned off and on again.
A level 10 magus, on average against a same level enemy, is going to have about one of their four spells per day successfully damage an enemy if they make Spell Attacks via Striking Spells.
Up to you whether or not you think those numbers are reasonable.
Sorry where are you getting these numbers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the wierder part is how a spellcasting archetype can grant a Magus master proficiency in arcane spells before they get it naturally. It doesn't feel right that an archetype can advance what is supposed to be your core feature faster than it would advance naturally.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it's very odd that champion and monk can outmagic the Magus.
Summoner has the same issue, though at least they've got the option of buffing a full martial built in.
The Magus is already a full martial, is the thing. They get Master in martial weapons at 13th just like the Barbarian or Ranger, and they still get ninth-level spells at the end of the day. Their cantrips can deal high damage with multiple different damage types and rider effects, and any crits they roll with a Strike will meaningfully improve cantrip accuracy. Not only that, but those same crits make save-or-suck spells even suckier, and all of the above is aided by things like flanking and weapon-only buffs, including buffs that Martials generally don't have easy access to. You're also rarely ever dealing with Multiple Attack Penalty on Strikes or Spells, which is nice.
I have to say, I was hoping that spell attacks would be done wholly using the weapon attack, but if that's the price we pay for getting a massively widened pool of strikeable spells AND two-way-Mastery then I'm relatively happy with that. I get that the accuracy thing is a problem for some, but non-attack save spells work with Spellstrike in this edition and seem much more forgiving in that regard.
The fact that they're less good at raw magic numbers makes a lot of sense to me. They've essentially optimised the interaction between their martial art and their magic, at the expense of being good at hitting with spells on their own. That's pretty much exactly what I wanted out of the class, so I admit that I'm super biased here.
Honestly, if there had to be a change I'd make Magi less good at raw magic in exchange for relying more heavily on Spellstrike to hit with it, which would solve a few of these problems. But that could penalise save spells, so I'm not so sure, and I know that's probably not a super popular opinion in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it's very odd that champion and monk can outmagic the Magus.
Summoner has the same issue, though at least they've got the option of buffing a full martial built in.
The Magus is already a full martial, is the thing. They get Master in martial weapons at 13th just like the Barbarian or Ranger, and they still get ninth-level spells at the end of the day. Their cantrips can deal high damage with multiple different damage types and rider effects, and any crits they roll with a Strike will meaningfully improve cantrip accuracy. Not only that, but those same crits make save-or-suck spells even suckier, and all of the above is aided by things like flanking and weapon-only buffs, including buffs that Martials generally don't have easy access to. You're also rarely ever dealing with Multiple Attack Penalty on Strikes or Spells, which is nice.
I have to say, I was hoping that spell attacks would be done wholly using the weapon attack, but if that's the price we pay for getting a massively widened pool of strikeable spells AND two-way-Mastery then I'm relatively happy with that. I get that the accuracy thing is a problem for some, but non-attack save spells work with Spellstrike in this edition and seem much more forgiving in that regard.
The fact that they're less good at raw magic numbers makes a lot of sense to me. They've essentially optimised the interaction between their martial art and their magic, at the expense of being good at hitting with spells on their own. That's pretty much exactly what I wanted out of the class, so I admit that I'm super biased here.
Honestly, if there had to be a change I'd make Magi less good at raw magic in exchange for relying more heavily on Spellstrike to hit with it, which would solve a few of these problems. But that could penalise save spells, so I'm not so sure, and I know that's probably not a super popular opinion in the first place.
Right now I'm better off casting a cantrip and swinging with a fighter x wizard character. That tells me that spell strike isn't doing what it needs to. I'd rather spellstrike damage be nerfed to the ground than be actually difficult to pull off on a class whose main schtick completely revolves around it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that the magus progression is exactly the same as any other combatant, and it's even more proficient in armor since the class hit expert by lvl 11 instead of 13 and master by lvl 17 instead of 19.
I'm cherry-picking at your post a bit, sorry, though I broadly don't agree with it. I just want to note...why aren’t Magi on the worst armor track? Armor is literally the one piece of the core proficiencies that isn't part of their aesthetic. Their whole thing is "good at both weapons and spells, needs to mix them because they lose versatility", and defense isn't a part of that at all. It would make a lot more sense to shift things around such that they have the same solid spellcasting proficiency as Monk and Champion but get their defenses more slowly in exchange. Boosting spell results with crits is nice and helps make this less of a big deal, but it would be preferable to land magic as easily when spellstriking isn't a possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expert Arcane spellcasting is doing much more heavy lifting for the Magus than expert focus spells is doing for the monk/champion. Like for the overwhelming majority of monk focus spells (all except Ki Blast, Quivering Palm, and Medusa's Wrath IIRC) your proficiency only matters for counteract checks.
So in terms of class budgeting, it's cheaper to give a bump to someone who will almost never use it than to someone who will use it constantly.
Arcane spellcasting has plenty of stuff that doesn't care about proficiency, aye, but the big strength of being an arcane caster is having the ability to prepare utility tools.
When you only have four slots, the main strength of the Arcane list - its versatility - goes out the window.
|
|
Their math is definitely not right. It's a 25.5% chance an attack roll spell will go off if you only strike once against a medium ac (30 AC) opponent at 10th lvl. 50% chance you hit with melee strike, 10% chance you crit, then 35% chance you succeed with the spell or 80% you chance you fail/succeed/crit succeed when you crit succeed the melee strike. It's 35.7% if you attack once next round with no MAP.Sorry where are you getting these numbers?A level 10 magus, on average against a same level enemy, is going to have about one of their four spells per day successfully damage an enemy if they make Spell Attacks via Striking Spells.
Up to you whether or not you think those numbers are reasonable.
That still sounds pretty low.
I don't think Magus needs any better spell proficiency. They already get effective bonus from bypassing MAP for Attack spells, and Melee Crits (which they can maximize with True Strike) upgrade spell chance for Crit or normal Hit or Save fail (so even if they CritSave spell they still get partial Save effect), with spell persisting until end of next turn in case 1st Strike misses. IMHO that is worth more than +2 from proficiency, and getting both would be too much. Ignoring that Monk/Champion have nothing like that mechanic, and only looking at vanilla Spell proficiency, is so distorting as to be irrelevant. That is how the Magus is supposed to fight with spells from Level 1, so fact they aren't as good as other casters for other generic spellcasting is irrelevant to their core schtick.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Magus needs any better spell proficiency. They already get effective bonus from bypassing MAP for Attack spells, and Melee Crits (which they can maximize with True Strike) upgrade spell chance for Crit or normal Hit or Save fail (so even if they CritSave spell they still get partial Save effect), with spell persisting until end of next turn in case 1st Strike misses. IMHO that is worth more than +2 from proficiency, and getting both would be too much. Ignoring that Monk/Champion have nothing like that mechanic, and only looking at vanilla Spell proficiency, is so distorting as to be irrelevant. That is how the Magus is supposed to fight with spells from Level 1, so fact they aren't as good as other casters for other generic spellcasting is irrelevant to their core schtick.
How are they supposed to take advantage of True Strike? Am I missing something or does it just not work when delivering another spell as well?
And while it says it bypasses MAP, functionally you still have MAP due to stats, proficiency, and lack of item bonuses for spell attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Magus needs any better spell proficiency. They already get effective bonus from bypassing MAP for Attack spells, and Melee Crits (which they can maximize with True Strike) upgrade spell chance for Crit or normal Hit or Save fail (so even if they CritSave spell they still get partial Save effect), with spell persisting until end of next turn in case 1st Strike misses. IMHO that is worth more than +2 from proficiency, and getting both would be too much. Ignoring that Monk/Champion have nothing like that mechanic, and only looking at vanilla Spell proficiency, is so distorting as to be irrelevant. That is how the Magus is supposed to fight with spells from Level 1, so fact they aren't as good as other casters for other generic spellcasting is irrelevant to their core schtick.
That's at odds with both their action economy (no spare actions for True Strike) and their general lack of spell slots (needing to spend 2 slots on each spell, with a base of only 4 or 6 slots total!)
Not to mention there's a much better method for bypassing MAP, which is to just use saving-throw based spells (targeted at the enemy's low save) to begin with.
The benefits are too marginal to really overturn the fundamental issue of being unlikely to hit with spell attack rolls, and needing to hit with a strike prior to even get a chance to make a spell attack roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Magus needs any better spell proficiency. They already get effective bonus from bypassing MAP for Attack spells, and Melee Crits (which they can maximize with True Strike) upgrade spell chance for Crit or normal Hit or Save fail (so even if they CritSave spell they still get partial Save effect), with spell persisting until end of next turn in case 1st Strike misses. IMHO that is worth more than +2 from proficiency, and getting both would be too much. Ignoring that Monk/Champion have nothing like that mechanic, and only looking at vanilla Spell proficiency, is so distorting as to be irrelevant. That is how the Magus is supposed to fight with spells from Level 1, so fact they aren't as good as other casters for other generic spellcasting is irrelevant to their core schtick.How are they supposed to take advantage of True Strike? And while it says it bypasses MAP, functionally you still have MAP due to stats, proficiency, and lack of item bonuses for spell attacks.
It's not really about "just one way", and I think people get caught up in one single iteration focusing on just one round /one single attack roll, when your actions change from round to round and one round can build into the next being a powerhouse.
I do think using True Strike is great when your first round melee attack missed but you still are "holding" the spell until end of next round. That might leave one action free for Focus spell or movement (not otherwise accounted for in "optimal turn schedules") or even 2nd attack for 2nd chance to trigger spell if 1st misses (still leaving 3rd action if you didn't use True Strike). Even if you don't use True Strike you have multiple chances to make attack and thus excluding all the misses (which don't expend spell) your weapon crits should make up significant amount of total hits. Those weapon crits upgrade spell effect (both Miss->Hit, and Hit->Crit) which should be rather significant in total success/damage. People compare vanilla proficiency and infer that means lower success (and higher wasting of slots), but in slightly longer time scale you have MORE chances to succeed with that spell and the crit portion of those successes should increase average spell effect more than just a vanilla proficiency boost would, along with yielding better total chances to not waste the slot with no effect. Just comparing vanilla proficiency without that is ignoring half the picture.
That's at odds with both their action economy (no spare actions for True Strike) and their general lack of spell slots (needing to spend 2 slots on each spell, with a base of only 4 or 6 slots total!) Not to mention there's a much better method for bypassing MAP, which is to just use saving-throw based spells (targeted at the enemy's low save) to begin with. The benefits are too marginal to really overturn the fundamental issue of being unlikely to hit with spell attack rolls, and needing to hit with a strike prior to even get a chance to make a spell attack roll.
I mentioned True Strike in context of NEXT ROUND after missing, and there is plenty of room to use True Strike and Attack when Spell is already cast and stored (until end of next round). But considering Magus has built in Focus Haste, I have hard time not also accounting for that in their action economy. Of course using Save spells instead of attacks is very reliable and I'm not advising against it, but that doesn't negate that MAP is ignored for Attack spells which noobody else would bother trying. You say the benefits are marginal yet never bring up or enumerate them yourself.
My rough take is between Magus' early Weapon Rune advantage, various buffs and just something like Flanking, it seems pretty reasonable that around 30% of their hits (since misses still "hold" the spell for later) will be Crits which upgrade spell effect... Accounting for (40%) Miss->Hit and (50%?) Hit->Crit should reasonably increase average result by 25%, more than compensating for -2 Proficiency etc. That's especially true on lower level enemies, notably helping make even Cantrips a strong combo there with the more frequent Crit upgrade to Spell effects (atop normal weapon Crit of course). This isn't always triggering on initial melee attack, but subsequent rounds become more action efficient (with already cast "held" spell), not even considering that AoOs or other Reactions may be further opportunity to discharge spell.Certainly that might be seen as less CONSISTENT than just a proficiency boost (in narrow scale of one attack, bigger picture including more consistency in a sense), but the Class has long been associated with "crit fishing", nothing new there. I think leaning into multi-round tactics, utilizing Focus Haste, and other capabilities is how you make the most of this class. There's probably an argument that disproportionately relying on Crits means more of their damage will be "overkill", but that goes with the territory of "crit fisher". I think the class has plenty of broader capability to, from skills and free Recall Knowledge to resilience VS magic to mobility ala slide, along with potential out of combat utility using scrolls etc... That neither a Fighter or Wizard can manage as easily. A Wizard might have higher Knowledge check, but doesn't get free action to do so, so Combat Assessment is more likely to actually benefit the party in play.