| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would work great with Scroll Trickster.Keep in mind that if you want both Bespell Weapon and Spell Parry (which is a prereq for Consume at 8), one of them is going to get pushed to 6 (where Martial Caster is). And 8 is also packed with Consume and Spell Swipe.
I'd be pretty tempted to just buy a few wands of Haste or Fly instead of spending a class feat.
I do think people are sleeping on Striker's Scroll though: ignoring the money cost (which is non-negligible, but should be workable for scrolls a few levels lower than your max), it's a free spell each short rest (although it could conflict with refocusing).
Meh. If you apply a scroll to your weapon you MUST use the scroll first. Because it acts as a trinket, you have to decide what spell you're using before you know what you're fighting.
And it still only works once/fight and isn't going to be a spell of your highest-slot-equivalent because of gold cost. You're going to be using a spell about 2 levels lower than your max.
I think it's one of the things that definitely needs playtesting. On paper it *looks* like a small number of spells.
It is but they also have good batches of cantrips and martial level ability in melee either as the magus or the eidolon. Both of these will be doing a lot more striking or yelling at your pet to strike stuff than a normal caster would be so having a limited number of on level ability power is probably fine.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see a way to play Magus without investing in getting more spell slots. If they had 2 spell slots of each of their highest levels and 1 of every other level, it would probably be fine. Generally speaking you'll be in three to five combats each adventuring day. There's not much point in being a full caster though if you only get to cast a full spell once per combat on average - especially when that spell is liable to be weaker than the actual spellcaster's equivalent.
I like this idea for both the Magus and the Summoner.
These classes are spell-casters and, thus, are appearing in Secrets of Magic.
So, let them cast spells!
Four slot casting seems just right for the summoner. For my play style, I will almost always go for the extra slots from Martial Caster, but I could see a build working that relied on cantrips and other feats more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4 slots for the magus wouldn't feel so harsh if their accuracy weren't so painful. It's the fact that you'll probably lose three of those spells, if not all four, while trying to bludgeon a big bad that makes the casting seem so frail.
If you'll hit three or even for instead of missing that number, then I think the power and specificity would be better balanced.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 3 per level would be a good number.
I feel like at 5-6 top level and level minus 1 slots, you're not really making a painful compromise any more in exchange for your superior Martial Proficiency.
The idea here is to take away something meaningful spellcasting wise from Magus/Summoner in exchange for that proficiency, and at 3 slots for my top level I'm suddenly trading away all those lower level slots that weren't that valuable anyway, and have essentially the same spell-volume as a Cleric or Druid when it comes to "good" spells.
Its supposed to be painful to make that trade - if the cost in spell slots doesnt make you think hard about it, the cost is too cheap.
Wait, regarding Bespell Weapon
It says 'most recent action'So if you go one turn
[action of your choice] -> Striking Spell -> Spelland the next turn you go
Bespell Weapon -> [whatever you like]one could actually get some mileage out of it
althoug 4 chances per day is still not much
Remember it's bo to ANY action, so no reactions allowed and both classes have good reactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like it in theory but I feel like magus really wants 6 slots whether its 3/3 or 2/2/2. For summoner.... I'm not even sure what conventional spells they want to cast, their action economy is so tight I struggle to see them casting much of anything in combat, excluding their one action focus cantrips, and I cant help but wonder if they wouldn't be better served with a broader array of focus spells and maybe some innate summoning rather than traditional casting.
Oh also for maguses math one solution would be to add the weapons item bonus to spell attack/dc when casting through spellstrike?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I REALLY like the design of how the four slot-casters work with spellcasting dedications.
It's a very neat way to balance the trade-off. If you want to be more or less 2/3s of a caster while still getting all of your near-martial class features, you can take the dedication.
If you want support and lower level spell slots, you play another class and take a dedication, if you only care about the combat powerful slots you play the magus and summoner as they are w/o dedications.
It would be cool to have a sidebar mentioning this in the final product, as it's clearly part of the design to archetype proof these classes, while providing a distinct niche that can't currently be filled in the system when trying to blend spells and other abilities.
I just think it's worth a few words to make it clear to players reading the classes for the first time how they interact with the spellcasting dedications.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 3 per level would be a good number.I feel like at 5-6 top level and level minus 1 slots, you're not really making a painful compromise any more in exchange for your superior Martial Proficiency.
The ability to cast True Strike.
Or a whole host of other utility spells that people always say low level spell slots exist for.The irony being that the 4 spells the magus does get are better spent on utility than their primary class feature!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 3 per level would be a good number.I feel like at 5-6 top level and level minus 1 slots, you're not really making a painful compromise any more in exchange for your superior Martial Proficiency.The ability to cast True Strike.
Or a whole host of other utility spells that people always say low level spell slots exist for.The irony being that the 4 spells the magus does get are better spent on utility than their primary class feature!
I feel like the staff of divination kindof annihilated this specific concern, assuming the whole staff issue for Magus Summoner is in fact a bug and not intended (I can't imagine they wouldn't be allowed to use staves).
That said, you can still invest in multi classinf and pick up low level spellcasting. But it is a significant cost being paid for Martial weapon proficiency levels... and that is the point.
Painful cost is the correct cost. If it doesn't hurt, it's not priced right.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like it in theory but I feel like magus really wants 6 slots whether its 3/3 or 2/2/2. For summoner.... I'm not even sure what conventional spells they want to cast, their action economy is so tight I struggle to see them casting much of anything in combat, excluding their one action focus cantrips, and I cant help but wonder if they wouldn't be better served with a broader array of focus spells and maybe some innate summoning rather than traditional casting.
Oh also for maguses math one solution would be to add the weapons item bonus to spell attack/dc when casting through spellstrike?
adding the weapon item bonus would certainly help, it might even be enough to fix the math so we want to use it (but we'd need to run that first to be sure). It would also be thematic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, you can still invest in multi classinf and pick up low level spellcasting. But it is a significant cost being paid for Martial weapon proficiency levels... and that is the point.
Painful cost is the correct cost. If it doesn't hurt, it's not priced right.
A Fighter that multiclasses into Wizard does the same job, but better.
Also:
"Would you like a t-shirt? All you have to do is cut off your hand. What? Don't like it, remember: If it doesn't hurt, it's not priced right."
The playtest Magus and Summoner are not niche utility casters. That is definitely something that has been taken away from the PF1 version of either class, although a lot of Magi were filling every lower level slot with shocking grasp, to maximize number of offensive spells they had to cast with their spell feature.
6 spells, with no feat investment, is too much for sure. 4+1 potential floating spell might be enough. I do think having a focus spell that pairs well with striking spell would also help alleviate the pressure of running out of spells.
I will have to run a magus through some actual strings of combat encounters and not white room math simulations before I have an opinion on the potential accuracy issues of the class. The fact that both your attacks can easily benefit from flanking and from any kind of debuffing makes me think that the accuracy issues are a little exaggerated at this point, especially with the added benefit of not losing your spell after a single miss. That makes attack roll spells significantly more interesting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Painful cost is the correct cost. If it doesn't hurt, it's not priced right.
There is a difference between difficult and painful. I might have a difficult choice between two things I want to buy because I only have enough to afford one but it's not like I feel like I got punched in the face...
In the situation at hand, there are degrees of difficult and this want to the most extreme right out of the box. Waxing your legs and a full body wax are both painful but they are of different degrees so "Painful cost is the correct cost" seems a bit off. IMO, anything less than normal casting is painful for a class that's all about hitting you with a weapon and casting a spell through it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like it.
A few considerations here
1) The melee damage is good. It's similar to any other combatant class.
I know that some classes have features which enhances the damage, but not all of them. For example, a champion or a monk just deal normal damage with "strikes" or "stance attacks", with no extra damage. Same goes with a rogue, if it doesn't manage to get a flat footed target, and so on.
2) The number of spells can be enhanced in different ways.
- Dedications
- Martial Caster
- Magical Staves ( which can also be embedded with runes as any other weapon )
- Ring of Wizardry ( because the magus uses the Arcane School )3) Spellstrike
If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the
spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit.
The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving
throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty
until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell
attack roll. If your discharging Strike was a critical success, the degree of success is one better than you rolled for a spell attack
roll or one worse than the target rolls for a saving throw.Really balanced imo.
Normally, if you attempt a strike and then a spell strike, you will suffer from -5 MAP ( you'd probably consider then a strike and a saving throw spell )
By using spellstrike you won't suffer from a full map ( it would be a -3 instead of a -5, because your spellcasting proficiency will be lower ), and also you will have the chance to also enhance your spell on a discharged strike critical hit.
____
So, at least 4 times per day, a magus would be able to deliver a very strong blow to a single enemy ( eventually with a control effect or something similar ), which is great given the infinite possibilities in terms of spells, and given the fact that "some" other classes have nothing.
And even if out of spells, it would perform the same as a champion or a monk for what concerns its damage outcome....
Except magus isn't landing that omega hit 4 times a day. Requiring two rolls on top of a very poor casting proficiency (as well as your int being a secondary stat) means that your spellstrike is gonna land on one.....MAYBE 2 of your 4 slots. As currently written I'd rather save the slots for utility spells with encounter durations and ONLY spellstrike with cantrips (the poor accuracy being negates by cantrips being limitless). As written spellstrike is very frustrating to use and youre better served staying a fighter with a caster dedication. To me that's a sign that spellstrike is nowhere near where it needs to be in terms of functionality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd either make spellstrike more reliable, or give the magus more spellslots.
Edit: As it is, without feats, the Magus will rely on a full caster for utility. So to receive stuff like Haste and other buffs. It's fine if all of his very few slots count when used. Though at the moment it still feels weird to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd either make spellstrike more reliable, or give the magus more spellslots.
Very succinct, and I agree.
I lean towards the former. Make the class less about the gamble to pull off a big hit and more about picking the right moment with very limited resources. It does get stickier if you allow for multiclassed archetype spell expansion, as that power balance shifts pretty fiercely, but I'd rather have that debate instead. :)
Four slots is actually a lot if you can get higher than a 75% chance to succeed with each.
That said, you can still invest in multi classinf and pick up low level spellcasting. But it is a significant cost being paid for Martial weapon proficiency levels... and that is the point.
Painful cost is the correct cost. If it doesn't hurt, it's not priced right.
A Fighter that multiclasses into Wizard does the same job, but better.
Also:
"Would you like a t-shirt? All you have to do is cut off your hand. What? Don't like it, remember: If it doesn't hurt, it's not priced right."
No part of me would hesitate to take 3/3 top level spell slots in exchange for Martial weapons proficiency.
At that point you've got the same number of "level relevant" slots as a Druid, and you've traded away only your chaff spells. Proficiency hurts, but I highly doubt Spell Striking doesn't see some sort of accuracy "fix".
That exchange feels too easy, especially since you CAN fill in the lower level spells by spending feats on it. 2/2 is less spells than anyone else and a clear drawback if i take it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
At that point you've got the same number of "level relevant" slots as a Druid, and you've traded away only your chaff spells. Proficiency hurts, but I highly doubt Spell Striking doesn't see some sort of accuracy "fix".
You've traded away your chaff and in exchange you get....
Nothing.
The whole problem with the accuracy is that it says you're getting +0/+0, but because of the lower spellcasting hit rate, you're actually getting +0/-4, which is the same thing everyone else gets using an agile weapon. For more actions (you spent 3, they spent 2).
If you use a spell that gets a save rather than an attack roll, you don't even get the illusion of +0/+0 because you're casting a spell and making a single attack at +0. Except you can't hit multiple targets (you give this up). In exchange you...get nothing.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you're under-valuing low level spell slots, which can provide great buffs, debuffs, and utility at any level of play.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At that point you've got the same number of "level relevant" slots as a Druid, and you've traded away only your chaff spells. Proficiency hurts, but I highly doubt Spell Striking doesn't see some sort of accuracy "fix".You've traded away your chaff and in exchange you get....
Nothing.
The whole problem with the accuracy is that it says you're getting +0/+0, but because of the lower spellcasting hit rate, you're actually getting +0/-4, which is the same thing everyone else gets using an agile weapon. For more actions (you spent 3, they spent 2).
If you use a spell that gets a save rather than an attack roll, you don't even get the illusion of +0/+0 because you're casting a spell and making a single attack at +0. Except you can't hit multiple targets (you give this up). In exchange you...get nothing.
man, it's like getting to the end of the chocolate factory :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like it. It keeps the "what spells to prepare" calculus manageable even at high levels, and it clarifies the "is this worth a spell slot" decision to be "only if it's important."
I've been doing this sort of thing since the 80s and I still constantly second guess myself about preparing and spending spell slots. Having a small number of choices is itself a hook that works for me, as long as the rest of the class is fun/viable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
man, it's like getting to the end of the chocolate factory :(At that point you've got the same number of "level relevant" slots as a Druid, and you've traded away only your chaff spells. Proficiency hurts, but I highly doubt Spell Striking doesn't see some sort of accuracy "fix".You've traded away your chaff and in exchange you get....
Nothing.
The whole problem with the accuracy is that it says you're getting +0/+0, but because of the lower spellcasting hit rate, you're actually getting +0/-4, which is the same thing everyone else gets using an agile weapon. For more actions (you spent 3, they spent 2).
If you use a spell that gets a save rather than an attack roll, you don't even get the illusion of +0/+0 because you're casting a spell and making a single attack at +0. Except you can't hit multiple targets (you give this up). In exchange you...get nothing.
It's more like going to the chocolate factory and finding out it's a the chalk-a-lot chalk factory. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I half wonder if spellstrike should just be codified as only working with cantrips to make it really obvious you aren't supposed to be using your four slots to blow up four things. This wouldn't fix the accuracy issues obviously (produce flame isn't hitting either with the current mechanics) but it'd make the whole thing easier to balance by giving the Magus a predictable damage curve. Then you can just say, "okay, the Magus with a spellstrike produce flame should be comparable to a Rogue getting sneak attack. where do the numbers need to be for that to be true?".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I half wonder if spellstrike should just be codified as only working with cantrips to make it really obvious you aren't supposed to be using your four slots to blow up four things. This wouldn't fix the accuracy issues obviously (produce flame isn't hitting either with the current mechanics) but it'd make the whole thing easier to balance by giving the Magus a predictable damage curve. Then you can just say, "okay, the Magus with a spellstrike produce flame should be comparable to a Rogue getting sneak attack. where do the numbers need to be for that to be true?".
Except there are feats that say you should be using your slot spells with it, so...
Yeah, I'd say those feats should be changed too; even if you fixed the overall accuracy issues bespell weapon still doesn't make any sense in the context of the Magus's other features.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And sans action economy boosting, you're better off caring a save-based cantrip and attacking, rather than using spellstrike.
Electric Arc in no way benefits from spellstrike.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Electric Arc in no way benefits from spellstrike.
Their save against electric arc is one degree worse if you critted on the discharging strike. I'm not saying that's huge, but it's not nothing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem there is that if the Magus is trying to get crits then they need to be especially accurate. The Magus is in the same boat as the Barbarian, the weapon hit doesn't have any innate accuracy bonuses because you're (theoretically) hitting harder than normal with it by combining it with a spell.
The Magus seems to be kinda confused in how its trying to keep up with the Fighter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Electric Arc in no way benefits from spellstrike.Their save against electric arc is one degree worse if you critted on the discharging strike. I'm not saying that's huge, but it's not nothing.
And in exchange for that 5% crit-fish you lose out on damage to a second target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in exchange for that 5% crit-fish you lose out on damage to a second target.Electric Arc in no way benefits from spellstrike.Their save against electric arc is one degree worse if you critted on the discharging strike. I'm not saying that's huge, but it's not nothing.
But there are still cases where there's only one valid target, so I'm going to claim x>0 still.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there are still cases where there's only one valid target, so I'm going to claim x>0 still.And in exchange for that 5% crit-fish you lose out on damage to a second target.Electric Arc in no way benefits from spellstrike.Their save against electric arc is one degree worse if you critted on the discharging strike. I'm not saying that's huge, but it's not nothing.
Yep, there is a benefit. You need to pull out your electron microscope to find a benefit that small but it's there. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't play 5e but a buddy of mine said this is almost exactly how 5e spell casting works for Warlocks, but a fundamental difference is that characters in PF2E don't recover spell slots from a short rest and barring the Magus getting a spell recall feat or class feature that lets you convert focus points back into spells I think I'm pretty bummed about this kind of limited casting.
Or am I missing something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No that's about right. if the Magus could recharge spell slots mid combat it would probably work better.
Maybe you can only refill the slots going down in level. So you "regress" your spell levels as the day and combats go by.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't play 5e but a buddy of mine said this is almost exactly how 5e spell casting works for Warlocks, but a fundamental difference is that characters in PF2E don't recover spell slots from a short rest and barring the Magus getting a spell recall feat or class feature that lets you convert focus points back into spells I think I'm pretty bummed about this kind of limited casting.
Or am I missing something?
Yeah, the 5E Warlock has a very limited number of spells and regains them on a short rest. He also only goes up to 5th level and can only get very specific spells at higher spell levels by picking them via his Invocations (which are basically class feats in PF2 terms).
What you're missing is mostly action economy and the whole action system differences between the two games. It's nearly impossible for a 5E warlock to cast a powerful spell and attack in the same turn.
At least that's what I remember from my very limited experience with 5E. Other players will probably correct me :)
I don't play 5e but a buddy of mine said this is almost exactly how 5e spell casting works for Warlocks, but a fundamental difference is that characters in PF2E don't recover spell slots from a short rest and barring the Magus getting a spell recall feat or class feature that lets you convert focus points back into spells I think I'm pretty bummed about this kind of limited casting.
Or am I missing something?
Yeah, the 5E Warlock has a very limited number of spells and regains them on a short rest. He also only goes up to 5th level and can only get very specific spells at higher spell levels by picking them via his Invocations (which are basically class feats in PF2 terms).
What you're missing is mostly action economy and the whole action system differences between the two games. It's nearly impossible for a 5E warlock to cast a powerful spell and attack in the same turn.
At least that's what I remember from my very limited experience with 5E. Other players will probably correct me :)
I know it's not apples to apples here, but an interesting comparison since I can't help but feel some echoes of influence here. And if that's true, I hope that it's recognized that part of the reason that this method of spell progression works is that they can recover spells to some degree in 5e.
And TBH I'm not sure if you're right. Most of my 5e experience comes from listening to live play shows like CR or Dimension 20, but I thought they can attack then cast any bonus action spells like Hex or vice versa if they can attack as a bonus action, but I understand everyone's multiclassing in 5E so I'm not sure if it's the Warlock shell itself or multi-classing that's in play there. But yes, the action economy of PF2 is very different but I don't think it's so different. Either way though, I'm not knocking Striking Spell here(because I think it's well enough and I like the 3 action system), just examining the spell progression.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there are still cases where there's only one valid target, so I'm going to claim x>0 still.And in exchange for that 5% crit-fish you lose out on damage to a second target.Electric Arc in no way benefits from spellstrike.Their save against electric arc is one degree worse if you critted on the discharging strike. I'm not saying that's huge, but it's not nothing.
But you can still miss your melee attack enough times to never get to the spell part, so its a wash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't play 5e but a buddy of mine said this is almost exactly how 5e spell casting works for Warlocks, but a fundamental difference is that characters in PF2E don't recover spell slots from a short rest and barring the Magus getting a spell recall feat or class feature that lets you convert focus points back into spells I think I'm pretty bummed about this kind of limited casting.
Or am I missing something?
Yeah, the 5E Warlock has a very limited number of spells and regains them on a short rest. He also only goes up to 5th level and can only get very specific spells at higher spell levels by picking them via his Invocations (which are basically class feats in PF2 terms).
What you're missing is mostly action economy and the whole action system differences between the two games. It's nearly impossible for a 5E warlock to cast a powerful spell and attack in the same turn.
At least that's what I remember from my very limited experience with 5E. Other players will probably correct me :)
I know it's not apples to apples here, but an interesting comparison since I can't help but feel some echoes of influence here. And if that's true, I hope that it's recognized that part of the reason that this method of spell progression works is that they can recover spells to some degree in 5e.
And TBH I'm not sure if you're right. Most of my 5e experience comes from listening to live play shows like CR or Dimension 20, but I thought they can attack then cast any bonus action spells like Hex or vice versa if they can attack as a bonus action, but I understand everyone's multiclassing in 5E so I'm not sure if it's the Warlock shell itself or multi-classing that's in play there. But yes, the action economy of PF2 is very different but I don't think it's so different. Either way though, I'm not knocking Striking Spell here(because I think it's well enough and I like the 3 action system), just examining the spell progression.
Bonus action spells in 5E are very minor effects. Similar to the very few 1 action spells in PF2. Hex adds 1d6 damage whenever you hit a target. Not bad by any means (even pretty good by 5E numbers!) but hardly on the level of what a hogh level magus can pull off. Or could pull off if his spellcastong wasn't as bad.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I like it.
A few considerations here
1) The melee damage is good. It's similar to any other combatant class.
I know that some classes have features which enhances the damage, but not all of them. For example, a champion or a monk just deal normal damage with "strikes" or "stance attacks", with no extra damage. Same goes with a rogue, if it doesn't manage to get a flat footed target, and so on.
2) The number of spells can be enhanced in different ways.
- Dedications
- Martial Caster
- Magical Staves ( which can also be embedded with runes as any other weapon )
- Ring of Wizardry ( because the magus uses the Arcane School )3) Spellstrike
If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the
spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit.
The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving
throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty
until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell
attack roll. If your discharging Strike was a critical success, the degree of success is one better than you rolled for a spell attack
roll or one worse than the target rolls for a saving throw.Really balanced imo.
Normally, if you attempt a strike and then a spell strike, you will suffer from -5 MAP ( you'd probably consider then a strike and a saving throw spell )
By using spellstrike you won't suffer from a full map ( it would be a -3 instead of a -5, because your spellcasting proficiency will be lower ), and also you will have the chance to also enhance your spell on a discharged strike critical hit.
____
So, at least 4 times per day, a magus would be able to deliver a very strong blow to a single enemy ( eventually with a control effect or something similar ), which is great given the infinite possibilities in terms of spells, and given the fact that "some" other classes have nothing.
And even if out of spells, it would perform the same as a champion or a monk for what
There's a chart floating around, its like 1/4 on average, basic saves are a bit better ofc because half on a miss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About using staves with the Magus, (unless you take the Martial Casting feat) you have no lower level spell slots, so you can't use any of those in the stave, only the ones that correspond to your allowed 2 highest levels. And that means due to charges, only one spell from the stave (and the cantrip of course). I don't see a Magus using one of their few spell slots to power up a stave to get extra charges.
Requiring a certain feat for the class to work well means that it should either be built into the class or things drastically changed.
And the greatly lowered hit possibility when using a spell attack on your magus means you would want to use only spells with saves and gamble on the enemy's roll and bonuses. The higher in level, the lower the probability of successfully hitting anything with either the Strike or the spell, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About using staves with the Magus, (unless you take the Martial Casting feat) you have no lower level spell slots, so you can't use any of those in the stave, only the ones that correspond to your allowed 2 highest levels. And that means due to charges, only one spell from the stave (and the cantrip of course). I don't see a Magus using one of their few spell slots to power up a stave to get extra charges.
Requiring a certain feat for the class to work well means that it should either be built into the class or things drastically changed.
And the greatly lowered hit possibility when using a spell attack on your magus means you would want to use only spells with saves and gamble on the enemy's roll and bonuses. The higher in level, the lower the probability of successfully hitting anything with either the Strike or the spell, in my opinion.
Well, that is a point of some debate I'd say. Because this is a new mechanic (losing lower level spell slots) it isn't unreasonable to think that there are a few Rules bugs floating around.
Another would be a Summoner who uses Synthesis not regaining their actions at the beginning of turn, since they can't act. I can't imagine that either of these cases is the intention of the rules.
And beyond that, this doesn't HAVE to be the case: If a Magus takes a familiar and selects the Spell Battery master ability, they now have an additional 1st Level Spell Slot. If they Multiclass and take spellcasting they can also have the same benefit, but generally I think the Familiar route is the less cost prohibitive method.
We should definitely bring this bug (and the Synthesis bug) to Paizo's attention in the feedback for clarification though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this may pair well with Archetypes, since many of them only give access to lower levels of spells.
I agree with that, but I think it pairs far too well with Archetypes. With all the synergies with magic in your toolset, you get a lot more mileage out of archetype spell slots. Not to mention you quadruple your number of spell slots, which is a large gain. And as written, many Magus feats don't compare favorably to the potential gains from archetype spellcasting.
About using staves with the Magus, (unless you take the Martial Casting feat) you have no lower level spell slots, so you can't use any of those in the stave, only the ones that correspond to your allowed 2 highest levels.
This was already cleared up by Jason.
Ref.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
About using staves with the Magus, (unless you take the Martial Casting feat) you have no lower level spell slots, so you can't use any of those in the stave, only the ones that correspond to your allowed 2 highest levels.This was already cleared up by Jason.
Ref.
Ummm . . . no it has not been cleared up. He was commenting on a DIFFERENT situation. Being able to use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell doesn't mean that you can use a stave to cast a lower level spell. Those two things are not equal and should not be assumed to be so without word from Paizo.