Four Slot Casting

[Temperans]

Magus also should not be relying on a staff to get basic functionality.

[Voss]

Lightdroplet wrote:

Ressy wrote:

It really feels like the Magus was balanced around taking Wizard dedication.

Wizard also gives you access to a focus spell that works fairly well with Striking Spell in the form of Force Bolt, which is something the current Magus lacks.

All in all, I'm a bit afraid of the fact that Magi have so many abilities that synergise with spells and so few spells at their disposal that a spellcasting dedication overshadows a large part of their native class feats.

Yeah. I'm not 100% convinced the 2/2 casting is outright bad, but I do feel like the Magus is done better by taking a fighter and throwing the standard array of multiclassing feats into the mix. And that's definitely a bad impression of the class.

Multiclassing a non magus provides more flexible, more effective, and honestly more interesting. I don't care at all about missing out on 9th level spells at the top end. That isn't where most gameplay happens, so I don't expect to reach those spells with any class.

Spell strike seems great for people who like to gamble but too often (especially for the poor two-hander specialization) You're going for one big attack every two turns, and if it whiffs, you're not contributing at all, and probably won't next turn either. Piling up actions in attempt to be two other classes simultaneously just doesn't seem workable.

The magus also feels like Martial Caster at 6th is an absolutely required feat. I can see a delay for spell countermeasures in some cases, but by 10th at the latest, its seems required to get extra haste spells in. Energize strikes, by comparison, is a joke. Trivial damage bonus for juggling yet more actions you don't have.

-------

Summoner I'm far less certain about. 2/2 spells feels like far too few, and the class is very feat starved so can't really go into multiclass feats to cope.

Surprisingly I like this version of the summoner, but I think its struggling to keep up. A few too many investments, and too few options. I definitely think the eidolon should be able to cast conduit spells, and if it can cast all the summoner's spells (or be used as the origin point) it solves a lot of issues (particularly with synthesis).

Tandem move is another feat that just seems required (and perhaps should just be an inherent part of the class).

Some reactions would help, as too often even Act Together and Tandem Move, any turn where the summoner wants to cast, its effectively a null turn for the Eidolon. (since Act Together can't be used for multi-action 'activities'

[AnimatedPaper]

KrispyXIV wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

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.

That's the problem, it doesn't make me think about it. If I can get more slots via multiclassing, and the slots I do get are rendered worthless by my own class abilities, its not really a tough choice to just play a fighter/wizard.

[Vidmaster7]

Temperans wrote:

Magus also should not be relying on a staff to get basic functionality.

Although i would like to see staff magus be an option. Just not the only one.

[Orithilaen]

I haven't playtested yet but I've done some character building, and I think I dislike the 2/2 casting more than I initially thought I would.

Here's the basic problem. Both the magus and the summoner will want to use some spell slots for utility and buff casting (especially the summoner, but I think the magus too given Striking Spell issues). These spells sometimes have heightened abilities but they usually come at irregular levels and stop scaling after a point. What a normal caster does is fill low-level slots with these kinds of spells: spells without the offensive capacity of your highest-level spells, but which are useful to necessary over the course of your adventuring day.

But the summoner and the magus can't do this. If you're a 12th level summoner and you want haste, you have to use one of your precious four slots, and it takes up a 5th level spell slot even though it does exactly the same thing it did at 3rd level (OK, it's a bit harder to counteract). If you want standard buffs for your eidolon (haste, freedom of movement, enlarge--fly admittedly is largely superseded by evolution surge once you hit 9th level), they end up taking up a lot of your slots. Gaining a new spell level gets a lot less exciting--you can't take much advantage of your new slots because you're locked in on utility.

I think what might work is to give the magus and summoner only one spell slot at their highest two spell levels, and compensate by giving them two spell slots at each lower spell level. Their spellcasting is still going to be pretty constrained by action economy and by the fact that they have fewer high level spells than everyone else. But it means that you have a more versatile and less frustrating set of spellcasting options. And it means that people won't feel that multiclass archetypes are superior.

[Perpdepog]

Orithilaen wrote:

I haven't playtested yet but I've done some character building, and I think I dislike the 2/2 casting more than I initially thought I would.

Here's the basic problem. Both the magus and the summoner will want to use some spell slots for utility and buff casting (especially the summoner, but I think the magus too given Striking Spell issues). These spells sometimes have heightened abilities but they usually come at irregular levels and stop scaling after a point. What a normal caster does is fill low-level slots with these kinds of spells: spells without the offensive capacity of your highest-level spells, but which are useful to necessary over the course of your adventuring day.

But the summoner and the magus can't do this. If you're a 12th level summoner and you want haste, you have to use one of your precious four slots, and it takes up a 5th level spell slot even though it does exactly the same thing it did at 3rd level (OK, it's a bit harder to counteract). If you want standard buffs for your eidolon (haste, freedom of movement, enlarge--fly admittedly is largely superseded by evolution surge once you hit 9th level), they end up taking up a lot of your slots. Gaining a new spell level gets a lot less exciting--you can't take much advantage of your new slots because you're locked in on utility.

I think what might work is to give the magus and summoner only one spell slot at their highest two spell levels, and compensate by giving them two spell slots at each lower spell level. Their spellcasting is still going to be pretty constrained by action economy and by the fact that they have fewer high level spells than everyone else. But it means that you have a more versatile and less frustrating set of spellcasting options. And it means that people won't feel that multiclass archetypes are superior.

That's an interesting take. I'd considered something similar, but approaching from the other side, with their two highest levels staying at 2 each, but them getting to keep a single slot for each lower level. It would have the net effect of making something like Martial Casting part of your base spell progression, which seems reasonable given how many people are calling it a must-have feat already, providing you a few lower-level options while possibly freeing up your precious top four slots for your nova spikes of damage or what have you.

Also, it would mean that if you took a fully progressed casting archetype you would end up with 3 spells per level, like a caster normally would, which feels nice and symmetrical to me with the character deciding to lean more heavily into their casting side than their martial side. I have zero idea how that would look balance-wise, though, I will totally admit.

[Castilliano]

If the Magus & Summoner get the proficiencies (et al) of a martial, they don't need the buffs & utility too. For them to have a martial presence (which represents nearly all PF1 builds) they needed to forego a significant portion of casting. I'd rather it be the tail end (which can easily be made up through items) than the upper tier (which would be cost prohibitive).

Also, we have to remember that Dedications do exist (as do items). If one buffs the Magus by adding slots (so they don't need to take MCD Wizard) that doesn't prevent someone from taking MCD Wizard anyway and going even further. Or from buying up lots of below level consumables.
The trick is determining the sweet spot where an MCD or items won't take it too far, yet the classes can still fulfill their main functions w/o them.

By leaning heavily into the martial aspects, I think Paizo has made the correct choice (contrast w/ Warpriest). And it takes a large portion of one's adventuring career for a martial/MCD caster to accumulate more than 4 non-Cantrip spells, much less top-tier ones backed by Focus Spells, and that's burning most of one's feats for what a Magus gets every level along the journey.

(Note I'm not yet saying the Magus has been balanced well, rather that it's in the right ballpark.)

[vagrant-poet]

The 1/4 thing kind of bugs me. Because you still get to try and land the spell with a strike at least 1/2 more times if you miss your first Strike, right?

It lasts until the end of your next turn, and you're not doing it that often anyway because it lasts until the end of your last turn.

Now this doesn't change the fact that it FEELS bad to miss the strike on your big turn, but quoting 1/4 as if that's the spell gone already is disingenuous at best.

I don't like dependent set-ups as a core mechanic. I didn't like it when Investigators had to make a perception check or feel like the turn failed, and I don't like it here. But that 1/4 thing is not what it's being quoted as and it's not helpful.

[Pinstripedbarbarian]

Having slept on it and rolled up a couple characters, I can still say 2+2 = not enough.

Magus just feels like a fighter with less accuracy that gave up on wizard dedication halfway through.

Summoner looks like it could function fine with only 4 spells, but gosh it'd be boring. It's like playing a fighter... with worse proficiencies and no special attack feats.

There are some fun things Magus gets to augment Striking Spell, but 4 times per day isn't enough to justify them and cantrips don't hold up. For Summoner, you might summon stuff, or you just buff your Eidolon. The rest of combat is cast Inspire Eidolon, sustain your summon if you have one, and let your Eidolon attack with the rest of your turn. You can't really even attack on your own since your Eidolon does it better and you share MAP.

I still think 2/level/day would be solid. Maybe 2/level/day and one has to be filled with the appropriate kind of spell (damaging spells for Magus, summoning spells for Summoner)? Low level spells' usefulness drops off, but having the option and rarely using it still feels loads better than not having the option at all.

Another option I thought of: what if Magus didn't get any spell slots at all? It doesn't really feel like a hybrid of casting and combat as is. If pumping up its spellcasting isn't the answer, maybe taking them all away would work better. Champion and Ranger already lost their spellcasting from 1e and got Focus Spells to replace them. Monk got them too for their SLA's. They're all primarily martial classes that can absolutely still be magical.

If Magus didn't have regular spellcasting but had really kickass combat Focus Spells, it could still fill that hybrid-niche. Maybe keep cantrips? Or a Focus Cantrip that's only damage? I dunno. Give it a basic damage Focus Spell, something akin to Elemental Toss so it has a solid damage option for Striking Spell. It'd make Striking Spell way more usable. You'd lose a lot of versatility for focus and function. Personally I'm happier using archetypes as a method to get versatility than basic usability.

[Callin13]

How about 1 spell slot a level that can only be used for Buffs? Like at 5th level it would be 1st- 0(1) 2nd-2 3rd-2? Then get rid of the popular Martial Casting Feat. That also gets rid of the funky you dont have lower spell slots thing.

[beowulf99]

How about this as a compromise: Say Striking Spell is changed to something like, "Empowered Blade". You expend a spell slot, and gain bonuses to strikes based on the spell expended for a limited amount of time (Probably a minute).

I could see granting a Damage bonus equal to the expended slot, with modifiers based on the spell that was prepared in the slot.

So if you were to expend a 3rd level spell slot, you would get a flat +3 damage for 1 minute, and if you had an evocation spell prepared, you'd gain additional damage based on the element of the spell (force if there was no element).

For the Summoner, maybe allow them to use their spell slots to empower their Eidolon directly: You expend a spell slot to grant your Eidolon bonuses (similar to the Magus, but with AC bonuses or perhaps other special abilities) for a limited amount of time.

AC obviously can't scale the way damage bonuses can, so cap those similar to Mage Armor and other status bonuses to various stats. Temp HP, damage bonuses, damage types etc... are all on the table. You could even make temporary Evolutions possible this way.

You'd still run into the issue of limited uses per day, but if either the Magus or the Summoner could make longer use of a single spell slot (debatable with Summons, since they already have reasonable durations, but that just means that play style is still viable) you won't see either class hurting nearly as much as quickly.

At that point, I suppose you could just replace spell slots with some other resource, but Spell Slots still give both classes utility in situations where they won't just be entering combat.

Thoughts?

[Orithilaen]

Castilliano wrote:

If the Magus & Summoner get the proficiencies (et al) of a martial, they don't need the buffs & utility too. For them to have a martial presence (which represents nearly all PF1 builds) they needed to forego a significant portion of casting. I'd rather it be the tail end (which can easily be made up through items) than the upper tier (which would be cost prohibitive).

I disagree. The buffs and utility are central to what make these classes work right now. The magus and the summoner are both essentially martial classes (the summoner through the eidolon). But they don't get the various boosts the other martials get--their proficiencies are behind the fighter's, they don't get a champion reaction or a hunter's edge, they can't rage, they can't sneak attack, etc.

What compensates for this is access to magic. So the magic needs to be a solid option. It sort of feels like the magus was balanced against the assumption that the four high level slots would be used for the best offensive damaging spells, and maybe that could be workable (though I would worry about nova-ing and unevenness over the course of a day), but as constructed it doesn't work because you don't want to use them with Striking Spell and using them without eats up your actions and is hampered by your lower proficiencies. The summoner isn't going to cast 2-action spells all that much in combat because the eidolon will usually want to take 3 actions, but right now the slots casting feels boring and not very rewarding--it would be nice to have some more options.

Yes, you can supplement with wands and staves, but that takes gold and uses up actions and/or hands. And it's not so fun for a class's casting to feel like it's incomplete without item supplementation.

Quote:

Also, we have to remember that Dedications do exist (as do items). If one buffs the Magus by adding slots (so they don't need to take MCD Wizard) that doesn't prevent someone from taking MCD Wizard anyway and going even further. Or from buying up lots of below level consumables.

The trick is determining the sweet spot where an MCD or items won't take it too far, yet the classes can still fulfill their main functions w/o them.

So let's take a look at this.

At 6th level, on my proposal, the spell slots would be 2/1/1. With MCD they would be... 3/2/1. A cleric has 3/3/3(+1+Cha). A sorcerer has 4/4/4. Seems fine.

What about at 12th level? Base would be 2/2/2/2/1/1. With MCD they would be 4/4/3/3/1/1. So with three feats (including a 12th level feat), you have as many spells as a sorcerer or wizard with no MCD--for spell levels 1 and 2. Meanwhile they have four 5th and four 6th slots and you have 1. I don't think this raises any issues. That pattern pretty much continues past 12th level, except at odd levels where the MCD benefit is another spell level behind.

Items are a constant available benefit, and if anything are less useful when you have more spell slots.

Quote:

By leaning heavily into the martial aspects, I think Paizo has made the correct choice (contrast w/ Warpriest). And it takes a large portion of one's adventuring career for a martial/MCD caster to accumulate more than 4 non-Cantrip spells, much less top-tier ones backed by Focus Spells, and that's burning most of one's feats for what a Magus gets every level along the journey.

(Note I'm not yet saying the Magus has been balanced well, rather that it's in the right ballpark.)

I agree that it's good to have the magus have martial proficiency, and certainly the spellcasting should be a solid tier below that of a caster-focused class. I'm just saying I'm not sure the approach they took works well or is fun.

[Cyder]

Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:

Another option I thought of: what if Magus didn't get any spell slots at all? It doesn't really feel like a hybrid of casting and combat as is. If pumping up its spellcasting isn't the answer, maybe taking them all away would work better. Champion and Ranger already lost their spellcasting from 1e and got Focus Spells to replace them. Monk got them too for their SLA's. They're all primarily martial classes that can absolutely still be magical.

If Magus didn't have regular spellcasting but had really kickass combat Focus Spells, it could still fill that hybrid-niche. Maybe keep cantrips? Or a Focus Cantrip that's only damage? I dunno. Give it a basic damage Focus Spell, something akin to Elemental Toss so it has a solid damage option for Striking Spell. It'd make Striking Spell way more usable. You'd lose a lot of versatility for focus and function. Personally I'm happier...

This is pretty much where my thinking is at (both for summoner and magus). Neither class as presented has a strong thematic link with casting like a traditional caster and neither as they stand have the action economy to make casting work well as part of their normal rotation.

Really a couple of feats like the shadow dancer ones (shadow power and Shadow Illusion) for Magus to flesh out the 'magical/gish' part of the class. Spellstrike is ok but I would rather it was 'you make a strike as part of casting a cantrip' if you hit you deliver the cantrip as part of the strike with a feat to empower the spell later. To be honest if you got to attack and just pick one kind of bonus damage that kept up with cantrip damage for 2 action would that really be overpowered (without a second attack roll/save). Its not like Magus gets Rage, Hunters Edge, Fighter combat control options and advanced proficiency. If the bonus elemental damage is being equal to a cantrip is too high than just tone it down I mean that pretty much what spellstrike is accomplishing all bar 4 times a day and those 4 spellslots are pretty bad to use with spell strike, much better saved for a utility/buff/aoe when needed than risking on a spellstrike and only getting 1 target.

I would rather they get a 1/day spell or focus spells that mimicked slightly lower than wizard casting equivalent spells. Feels less contrived that the levelling 4 spells (why 2/2 why not just 4 at the highest level at that point, they get master prof later than MC casters do and crit-fishing after I have cast the spell to increase the success rate feels bad).

[Orithilaen]

This is just a matter of taste but I wouldn't want a magus with just focus spells. I want a high-magic magus who integrates a versatile set of spellcasting options into their combat routine. This is a niche that the present multiclass archetype system doesn't really support, because the fighter with the wizard archetype doesn't have enough spells and the wizard with the fighter archetype is too squishy and too bad at combat to spend much time in melee.

A focus spells magus could work; it would likely be easier to balance too, because you would just have to balance the focus spells against the class abilities and feats that other martials get. But I don't think it would feel to me like a warrior who's also a real wizard, which is what I want.

[Draco18s]

Orithilaen wrote:

This is just a matter of taste but I wouldn't want a magus with just focus spells. I want a high-magic magus who integrates a versatile set of spellcasting options into their combat routine.

But I don't think it would feel to me like a warrior who's also a real wizard, which is what I want.

And nothing would stop you from taking a multiclass dedication to get that more wizard like spell selection (all of which would still work with their spellstrike and other abilities).

The problem is that right now they are REQUIRED to take a dedication in order to meet design goals.

[Callin13]

I wouldnt say required to meet design goals, but required to meet players expectations.

[Blave]

Callin13 wrote:

I wouldnt say required to meet design goals, but required to meet players expectations.

Do we actually know the design goals? Serious question, have they been stated somewhere?

[Angel Hunter D]

Blave wrote:

Callin13 wrote:

I wouldnt say required to meet design goals, but required to meet players expectations.

Do we actually know the design goals? Serious question, have they been stated somewhere?

I don't believe so. At this point the only goal is to make it something we want to play - and right now it isn't.

[scary harpy]

Vaktaeru wrote:

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.

...

Orithilaen wrote:

I haven't playtested yet but I've done some character building, and I think I dislike the 2/2 casting more than I initially thought I would.

...

I think what might work is to give the magus and summoner only one spell slot at their highest two spell levels, and compensate by giving them two spell slots at each lower spell level. Their spellcasting is still going to be pretty constrained by action economy and by the fact that they have fewer high level spells than everyone else. But it means that you have a more versatile and less frustrating set of spellcasting options. And it means that people won't feel that multiclass archetypes are superior.

2 good ideas.

Which would work best for the Magus? Which would work best for the Summoner?

[Dubious Scholar]

I think Summoner could work well with 2/.../1/1 slots, since buffs don't need to be heightened much. Although their current action economy might be an issue there... it would let them bring a lot of utility spells out of combat (Jump, etc).

[Puna'chong]

I've slept on it and rolled up a couple comparison characters, and I'm thinking now that 2/2 is too few.

My gut feeling is that 2/2 seems appropriate in a magical class that has substantial design space dedicated to focus spells with a less powerful all-day feature. Right now neither Summoner nor Magus have enough of their class dedicated to using focus spells, in my opinion, and that puts a lot of weight on those limited spell slots to carry the classes.

What I anticipate this'd mean in play--having played a Cleric and DMed for multiple casters now--is that players will mostly prepare spells that are certain to succeed (i.e. not damaging spells).

That might not be much of an issue for Summoner, and to be fair it probably wants to prepare a lot of buffs for its eidolon at any rate. For Magus, though, with so few focus spells its premiere ability and mechanical niche, Striking Spell, is going to be used on spell slots rarely because there is no "padding" their resources; every single cast has to count, because every cast is 1/4 of your daily resources. That doesn't fit Pathfinder's pseudo-all-day class design, and I think it'll lead to some play issues like the return of the 15 minute adventuring day or players feeling like vanilla fighters for a lot of the day.

---

I have a couple ideas bouncing around:

Limited Spell Slot Expansion:

My feelycraft right now tells me that 2/2/2/2 might be right if there are going to be limited spell slots. I don't have any math to back this up; it just feels nicer to me to have four "better" slots and four utility slots. Not much to say, it's just a straight expansion to the numbers we have now

Specific Spell Slots:

I've seen a version of this bounced around a bit, but some way of wording slot progression such that you can (1) pick any spell for your top four slots like now; (2) retain your two slots for every previous level; but (3) those lower level slots can only be filled with certain spells. Essentially the Martial Caster feat but baked in, with Summoner maybe getting a selection of summon spells and buffs for their eidolon.

I think this lets the classes retain slots they've gained (earned?) but limits the type of utility they can bring. Feats like Martial Caster can be changed to expand the set of spells that can be prepared in these now-limited slots.

Focus Spell Expansion:

I think this should be a thing either way, but 2/2 might feel alright if there are a plethora (at least 5 or 6) of additional focus spells that have general use throughout the day. This still relegates slots to spells that have a big payoff or are certain to provide a payoff, but it does make all day magic fighting possible, even if eventually you might only be using one focus spell per combat. It eases up on how tight "cool" resources are.

TL;DR -- I think baking in a form of Martial Caster for slots you grow out of (i.e. a bespoke set of spells for both classes) and creating many more general-use focus spells is my preferred method, if 2/2 is kept. That'd probably feel pretty good. I think 2/2/2/2 would provide a lot more breathing room if other changes aren't made.

[TheGentlemanDM]

I think the 2-slots plus 1-slot for the highest two levels works well for both the Magus and the Summoner.

For the Magus, it gives them the ability to use the utility options that one should be able to use from an arcane spellbook, and enough fuel to be more aggressive and cavalier with their offensive casting.

For the Summoner, it gives them enough of a supply to use support spellcasting at a more nuanced level. At the moment, it's focus cantrips and a few really big supports and buffs. With the extended slots, it enables them to play more of a supporting role (and do more than just attack as the eidolon) while also putting a safety valve on their most powerful buffs.

If we look at say 9th level, they'd have 2/2/2/1/1 for slots, compared to the 3/3/3/3/2 that a full caster would have. That's a difference of 1/1/1/2/1 slots- enough that they're not really keeping up with a caster, while at the same time still having enough fuel to do some cool things in addition to their martial abilities.

They end up with one (maybe two) 8th and one 9th level slot, compared to the three and three (plus a 10th) that a full caster has. That's a lot of missing power at the top end, with a lower proficiency as well.

[Draco18s]

One of the other things that bugs me about 4-slot casting is that below level 4, they don't have "4 spells."

Level 1 you have one spell. And yeah, it follows a pattern on paper, but I'm left thinking, "ok, but what ONE spell do I put there?"

[RexAliquid]

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

[Draco18s]

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

With regards to the Magus, there's no point on using a cantrip to imbue your weapon because you get better results not-doing that. To be fair, you get better results not-doing it with most spells.

But then we also have cantrip damage scaling less-well than spells that are natively whatever level, if you want the best bang for your buck, you want to use a full spell. But the accuracy rate is so bad you never ever want to.

So yes, cantrips exist. But "cantrips exist" doesn't solve the problem that accuracy is garbage.

For the Summoner, "cantrips exist" doesn't solve the problem that you don't have the action economy to cast any spell.

[Dubious Scholar]

Also note that at higher levels you run into the proficiency gap. 7-11 and 15+ you're behind full spellcasters on attack rolls/DCs.

[manbearscientist]

Given the current way Magus works, it doesn't really seem viable to Spellstrike for damage with anything but your strongest single target spells, so I definitely think they 'need' 2 slots out their highest levels. A 7th level Magus using 2nd level Shocking Grasp isn't really going to be doing enough to justify the action economy.

For a slide caster, that's +12 1d8+7+1d6 damage on the regular attack and a +11 3d12+1d4+1 on the Shocking Grasp (against a +1 foe, Moderate AC is 26). That's about 11.29 DPR by my calculations. Electric Arc (4d4+4 vs 2 targets) would deal 15 DPR.

And that's sort of the crux of things, isn't it? Spellstrike will rarely beat just Strike + Electric Arc, and that's something even fighter can do all day without even going into dedication (ancestry feats). You need to burn very limited resources to match a cantrip, and the cantrip doesn't require doing well on the prior attack. That, and the Strike is kinda boring. Spellstrike doesn't tend to mess with the Strike, while said Fighter can use a variety of options (e.g. Lunge) to very that half of the equation.

Having a lesser chance of hitting with the bigger action cost is also just feelbad central.

[RexAliquid]

Draco18s wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

With regards to the Magus, there's no point on using a cantrip to imbue your weapon because you get better results not-doing that. To be fair, you get better results not-doing it with most spells.

But then we also have cantrip damage scaling less-well than spells that are natively whatever level, if you want the best bang for your buck, you want to use a full spell. But the accuracy rate is so bad you never ever want to.

Cantrip damage scales to be about the same as the spell slots a magus doesn’t have. Use attack spells against lower level creatures and save spells against higher level creatures for best effect.

There isn’t much incentive to risk your spell slots on Striking Spell when your cantrips do just fine. I do think that could be tweaked up a bit.

[RexAliquid]

Draco18s wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

For the Summoner, "cantrips exist" doesn't solve the problem that you don't have the action economy to cast any spell.

A summoner has the action economy to cast and strike just like any other character. Just not every turn.

[Draco18s]

RexAliquid wrote:

A summoner has the action economy to cast and strike just like any other character. Just not every turn.

Yes, they can do it once in a while. And they have enough spells for a one in a while, depending on the spells they use.

The problem is that their Tandem abilities don't work with spellcasting. You spend 1 action and can do 1 action. If you wanted to cast a 3-action Summoning spell, guess what? Can't use Act Together this turn!

[Arachnofiend]

Draco18s wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

With regards to the Magus, there's no point on using a cantrip to imbue your weapon because you get better results not-doing that. To be fair, you get better results not-doing it with most spells.

But then we also have cantrip damage scaling less-well than spells that are natively whatever level, if you want the best bang for your buck, you want to use a full spell. But the accuracy rate is so bad you never ever want to.

So yes, cantrips exist. But "cantrips exist" doesn't solve the problem that accuracy is garbage.

For the Summoner, "cantrips exist" doesn't solve the problem that you don't have the action economy to cast any spell.

"Magus math is completely off the mark" is a different problem than the 4-slot question. Need to approach them separately and assume that the math wasn't actually off to properly analyze 4 slots.

If you could reliably hit with your spellstrike cantrips would you be fine using those and keeping your high level slots for strong buffs?

[Draco18s]

Arachnofiend wrote:

If you could reliably hit with your spellstrike cantrips would you be fine using those and keeping your high level slots for strong buffs?

I don't think using spell slots for personal buffs is what the "design goal" should aim for (because it feels conceptually weird to do it that way). But as a mechanical situation, maybe.

At that point it comes down to "why should I Spellstrike instead of Cantrip + Strike?"

[Capn Cupcake]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

With regards to the Magus, there's no point on using a cantrip to imbue your weapon because you get better results not-doing that. To be fair, you get better results not-doing it with most spells.

But then we also have cantrip damage scaling less-well than spells that are natively whatever level, if you want the best bang for your buck, you want to use a full spell. But the accuracy rate is so bad you never ever want to.

So yes, cantrips exist. But "cantrips exist" doesn't solve the problem that accuracy is garbage.

For the Summoner, "cantrips exist" doesn't solve the problem that you don't have the action economy to cast any spell.

"Magus math is completely off the mark" is a different problem than the 4-slot question. Need to approach them separately and assume that the math wasn't actually off to properly analyze 4 slots.

If you could reliably hit with your spellstrike cantrips would you be fine using those and keeping your high level slots for strong buffs?

Honestly personally, no. I want to smack someone in the face with a Polar Ray. That's the fantasy that was sold to me. I don't want to cast haste on myself and go hit with cantrips, I want to shatter someone's skull with an 8th level spell channeled through my whip.

[graystone]

Draco18s wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

If you could reliably hit with your spellstrike cantrips would you be fine using those and keeping your high level slots for strong buffs?

I don't think using spell slots for personal buffs is what the "design goal" should aim for (because it feels conceptually weird to do it that way). But as a mechanical situation, maybe.

At that point it comes down to "why should I Spellstrike instead of Cantrip + Strike?"

Yeah, IMO it's better to not use Spellstrike if your Slots are off the table. You're more a Child of Acavna and Amaznen from PF1 [bloodrager spell casting] vs a Magus and that's not the feel I want: I want to be a cool spell sword not a warrior that spent a summer being an apprentice caster.

[Voss]

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

Having cantrips isn't noteworthy. -Any- character can have cantrips through class, ancestry or dedication feats, either at level 1 or 2. They all scale and they're at the same attack bonus as the magus until 11th level (or higher with more feats, except cantrips from other classes obviously get higher attack earlier than a magus). That magus is actually pretty bad when it comes to keeping up with cantrips, beyond having several with no additional investment.

Medium armor proficiency is actually more difficult to get that early (or it was, since there is an archetype for that now)

[Arachnofiend]

graystone wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

If you could reliably hit with your spellstrike cantrips would you be fine using those and keeping your high level slots for strong buffs?

I don't think using spell slots for personal buffs is what the "design goal" should aim for (because it feels conceptually weird to do it that way). But as a mechanical situation, maybe.

At that point it comes down to "why should I Spellstrike instead of Cantrip + Strike?"

Yeah, IMO it's better to not use Spellstrike if your Slots are off the table. You're more a Child of Acavna and Amaznen from PF1 [bloodrager spell casting] vs a Magus and that's not the feel I want: I want to be a cool spell sword not a warrior that spent a summer being an apprentice caster.

If that's the case, then you really do need more spell slots... which calls into question the master martial proficiency. There've been enough complaints about the Warpriest since launch that I know people won't be happy with an expert proficiency Magus.

Maybe it could go in the opposite direction, where a Magus is a full caster and when you use spellstrike you use your spell proficiency on the attack? Maybe even limit it only to slot/focus spells so you aren't getting that stronger proficiency all the time.

[graystone]

Arachnofiend wrote:

graystone wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

If you could reliably hit with your spellstrike cantrips would you be fine using those and keeping your high level slots for strong buffs?

I don't think using spell slots for personal buffs is what the "design goal" should aim for (because it feels conceptually weird to do it that way). But as a mechanical situation, maybe.

At that point it comes down to "why should I Spellstrike instead of Cantrip + Strike?"

Yeah, IMO it's better to not use Spellstrike if your Slots are off the table. You're more a Child of Acavna and Amaznen from PF1 [bloodrager spell casting] vs a Magus and that's not the feel I want: I want to be a cool spell sword not a warrior that spent a summer being an apprentice caster.

If that's the case, then you really do need more spell slots... which calls into question the master martial proficiency. There've been enough complaints about the Warpriest since launch that I know people won't be happy with an expert proficiency Magus.

IMO, it's more about master casting proficiency than the martial one. Make spells that you use in Spellstrike use the martial proficiency and let the ones you cast individually use expert: this gives you a clear reason you want to Spellstrike and then maybe they don;t have to be as tightfisted with the spell slots.

[manbearscientist]

For damage dealing purposes, I wonder how much a one action Spell Attack or basic save that dealt 1d6 damage (Heightened +2: +1d6) would change things.

At level 7 for instance, using the same example as above, you have the following attack chain:

True Strike (optional)

Spell Strike (Blast attack)

Strike

Target AC is 26 (+1 moderate AC).

Strike is +16 2d8+7+2d6 damage (Higher due to Bespell Weapon). Blast attack is at +13 3d6 damage, but benefits from True Strike helping the Strike.

Strike (23 avg.) odds:

critical success: 9.75% - 46 avg.

success: 70% - 23 avg.

failure: 20.25% - 0 avg.

Total = 20.59 average damage

Blast Attack (10.5 avg.) odds:

critical success - 5% - 21 avg.

success - 40% - 10.5 avg.

failure - 40% - 0 avg.

critical failure - 15% - 0 avg.

There are three difference outcomes here. 70% of the time, the Blast Attack works as described. 9.75% of the time, the degree of success is increased by one. 20.25% it is lowered to nothing. The total added damage is 4.60, for a total of 25.19 DPR.

Strike + Electric Arc (23 DC vs +16, 4d4+4) instead deals:

Strike (19.5 avg.) odds:

critical success: 5% - 39 avg.

success: 45% - 19.5 avg.

failure: 50% - 0 avg.

Total = 10.72

Electric Arc (14 avg.) odds each target:

critical success: 20% - 0 avg.

success: 50% - 7 avg.

failure: 25% - 14 avg.

critical failure: 5% - 28 avg.

Total = 8.4 damage per target

Total combined = 19.12 DPR

Now compare Strike vs Shocking Grasp (+13, 4d12+1d4+3)

Strike (19.5 avg.) odds:

critical success: 5% - 39 avg.

success: 45% - 19.5 avg.

failure: 50% - 0 avg.

Total = 10.72

Shocking Grasp (29.5) odds:

critical success - 5% - 59 avg.

success - 40% - 29.5 avg.

failure - 40% - 0 avg.

critical failure - 15% - 0 avg.

As above, this is modified by the Strike. The total damage added by Shocking Grasp is around 8.55 DPR, for a combined number of 19.27.

Stride + d12 Strike (+16, 2d12+7+1d6) + Blast Attack:

Strike (23.5 avg.) odds:

critical success: 5% - 47 avg.

success: 45% - 23.5 avg.

failure: 50% - 0 avg.

Total = 12.93

Blast Attack (10.5 avg.) odds:

critical success - 5% - 21 avg.

success - 40% - 10.5 avg.

failure - 40% - 0 avg.

critical failure - 15% - 0 avg.

Total DPR = 15.71

CONCLUSION:

Adding in a 1d6, one-action focus spell would allow the Magus to better capitalize on Striking Spell. The best 4th level spell tied to Spell Strike is functionally only marginally better than an Electric Arc without it, but a True Strike + Focus Spell turn is decently better for a variety of reasons.

Better yet, this also gives much more action economy freedom. If they didn't want to use True Strike, they still have an extra action to play with. For Sustaining Steel, that could be fairly beneficial in its own right. It is still far behind Strike + Electric Arc, but it is WAY ahead of Strike + Shocking Grasp over two turns (10.74 DPR).

[Temperans]

The problem with having Magus stop at Expert is that both Monk and Champion are going to Master.

And all classes go to at least Master on their class DC.

[The-Magic-Sword]

The sense I'm actually getting (been focused on the Magus) is that 4 slots can work, but any class that has it has to be designed in a particular way to make it work-- namely they need secondary resources that allow them to use those spells very sparingly, their main stuff can't be dependent on making those four slots last an entire adventuring day.

Spell Strike needs work (and by that I mean it should work like Eldritch Shot, in terms of the weapon attack roll supplanting the spell roll) but when it does work its neat. Cantrips have been shown to not do worthwhile damage, I'm not sure if that changes much with the eldritch shot model, but my proposition is...

"Four Slots works fine for the Magus, so long as they have another source of spell-striking, i.e. damaging focus spells, since those will be renewable and let them treat their slots as the big special attacks they deserve to be"

[Ligraph]

graystone wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

graystone wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

If you could reliably hit with your spellstrike cantrips would you be fine using those and keeping your high level slots for strong buffs?

I don't think using spell slots for personal buffs is what the "design goal" should aim for (because it feels conceptually weird to do it that way). But as a mechanical situation, maybe.

At that point it comes down to "why should I Spellstrike instead of Cantrip + Strike?"

Yeah, IMO it's better to not use Spellstrike if your Slots are off the table. You're more a Child of Acavna and Amaznen from PF1 [bloodrager spell casting] vs a Magus and that's not the feel I want: I want to be a cool spell sword not a warrior that spent a summer being an apprentice caster.

If that's the case, then you really do need more spell slots... which calls into question the master martial proficiency. There've been enough complaints about the Warpriest since launch that I know people won't be happy with an expert proficiency Magus.

IMO, it's more about master casting proficiency than the martial one. Make spells that you use in Spellstrike use the martial proficiency and let the ones you cast individually use expert: this gives you a clear reason you want to Spellstrike and then maybe they don;t have to be as tightfisted with the spell slots.

I like this, or at least the idea of being worse when not using spell strike (I don't love capping out lower than Monk). You could do something similar with Martial: Expert proficiency, +2 from when you have a spell in your weapon. Since you can use it with cantrips it doesn't seem too oppressive, especially if it results in a better-hitting Striking Spell or more spell slots.

[WWHsmackdown]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

The sense I'm actually getting (been focused on the Magus) is that 4 slots can work, but any class that has it has to be designed in a particular way to make it work-- namely they need secondary resources that allow them to use those spells very sparingly, their main stuff can't be dependent on making those four slots last an entire adventuring day.

Spell Strike needs work (and by that I mean it should work like Eldritch Shot, in terms of the weapon attack roll supplanting the spell roll) but when it does work its neat. Cantrips have been shown to not do worthwhile damage, I'm not sure if that changes much with the eldritch shot model, but my proposition is...

"Four Slots works fine for the Magus, so long as they have another source of spell-striking, i.e. damaging focus spells, since those will be renewable and let them treat their slots as the big special attacks they deserve to be"

I'm down for focus strikes but I also want cantrips to function with spellstrike so I can do it more than once a combat

[Midnightoker]

If Magus got Spell Recall as a Focus spell that would probably solve a lot of the issue for me on the 2/2 casting.

The main issue is a Magus wants to cast at least two spells per combat that aren’t cantrips, and a focus point spell that lets you recast a spell you just cast is probably a good way to mitigate that without changing 2/2 casting for the summoner. And since it was a Magus ability before, that makes sense.

I still want to simmer more on the class, but the casting seems a bit sparing at the moment, especially considering the issues they already have with landing spells.

[breithauptclan]

I keep seeing people say that the 4 slot progression is worse than MCD Wizard. Maybe that is true after level 18, or maybe even after 12. But that is after 2/3 of the campaign is already over.

When all you have is the Basic Wizard Spellcasting, you only have up to 3 spell slots. 4 slots is an improvement. Especially since they will be higher level slots rather than 1 first level, 1 second level, and 1 third level.

At level 8 you can increase MCD Wizard to have 4 spell slots. By spending yet another class feat for it. The spell slots are all still 3rd level or lower. Mostly lower.

4 slots does still feel a bit low. But I do think it is an improvement over Wizard MCD. At least for the first half of the character levels.

[Pinstripedbarbarian]

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

No one is forgetting about or ignoring cantrips. We just don't want a potentially cool core feature of a class to be reliant on the weakest spells in the game.

To me, using a standard cantrip (not like compositions or hexes) means either I don't have anything better to do or I don't consider the current task a big enough deal to cast a real spell. They're back ups. Reliable, but definitely back ups.

For Magus, I'd be casting them because I can't afford to use a real spell but also I can't do anything interesting with my class without casting something.

[RexAliquid]

Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

No one is forgetting about or ignoring cantrips. We just don't want a potentially cool core feature of a class to be reliant on the weakest spells in the game.

To me, using a standard cantrip (not like compositions or hexes) means either I don't have anything better to do or I don't consider the current task a big enough deal to cast a real spell. They're back ups. Reliable, but definitely back ups.

For Magus, I'd be casting them because I can't afford to use a real spell but also I can't do anything interesting with my class without casting something.

... Cantrips aren't the weakest spells in the game. They automatically heighten to be about as good as spells 2 or 3 levels below your best damage spells. A cantrip for damage will always outclass a lower level spell slot for damage. Spell slots are for huge damage spikes or encounter-changing effects. Cantrips are any spellcaster's bread-and-butter.