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.
If you gave the Magus legendary casting proficiency, there might not be a reason for the wizard to exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell that to Shocking Grasp and other spells that out damage Cantrips by Level 5.
Level 5, third level cantrips
- Shocking Grasp does 2d12 - average 13 damage- Telekinetic Projectile does 3d6+4 - average 14 damage
Why would you ever use first level spell slots for damage?
Tell that to Shocking Grasp and other spells that out damage Cantrips by Level 5.Level 5, third level cantrips
- Shocking Grasp does 2d12 - average 13 damage
- Telekinetic Projectile does 3d6+4 - average 14 damageWhy would you ever use first level spell slots for damage?
Compare to typical, not best. Telekinetic Projectile is on the high end of damage for cantrips. Also compare to Electric Arc and Produce Flame. You can probably leave Acid Splash out of it though.
3rd level Electric Arc on two targets: (3d4)x2 average 15
3rd level Electric Arc on one target: 3d4 average 7.5
3rd level Produce Flame: 3d4 + mod (probably +4) average 11.5 with possibility of 3d4 persistent damage.
So still approximately on par. But a bit more situational. Depends on the spell and the circumstances of the battle.
Tell that to Shocking Grasp and other spells that out damage Cantrips by Level 5.
Also, are you talking about the spell still being cast using a 1st level spell slot? Or the first level spell heightened to be at 3rd level spell power?
Tell that to Shocking Grasp and other spells that out damage Cantrips by Level 5.Level 5, third level cantrips
- Shocking Grasp does 2d12 - average 13 damage
- Telekinetic Projectile does 3d6+4 - average 14 damageWhy would you ever use first level spell slots for damage?
Compare to typical, not best. Telekinetic Projectile is on the high end of damage for cantrips. Also compare to Electric Arc and Produce Flame. You can probably leave Acid Splash out of it though.
3rd level Electric Arc on two targets: (3d4)x2 average 15
3rd level Electric Arc on one target: 3d4 average 7.5
3rd level Produce Flame: 3d4 + mod (probably +4) average 11.5 with possibility of 3d4 persistent damage.So still approximately on par. But a bit more situational. Depends on the spell and the circumstances of the battle.
Fair. Cantrips keep getting better, though. A level 1 shocking grasp gets left behind. The magus does not need level 1 spell slots for their baseline.
Now, a way to extend the four meaningful slots would be interesting and helpful, like a Echoing Spell focus power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was speaking about spell level. Not character level.
A 5th level Shocking Grasp does 5d12 damage.
A 10th level Telekinetic Projectile does 10d6 damage.
So Shocking Grasp cast from a 5th level slot deals the same damage on average as a 10th level Telekinetic Projectile.
An 8th level Telekinetic Projectile outclasses that Shocking Grasp.
8d6+5 averages to 33 damage.
Why would you waste a spell slot on 5d12 -> 32 damage?
I was speaking about spell level. Not character level.
A 5th level Shocking Grasp does 5d12 damage.
A 10th level Telekinetic Projectile does 10d6 damage.
So Shocking Grasp cast from a 5th level slot deals the same damage on average as a 10th level Telekinetic Projectile.
An 8th level Telekinetic Projectile outclasses that Shocking Grasp.
8d6+5 averages to 33 damage.
Why would you waste a spell slot on 5d12 -> 32 damage?
A +1 circumstance bonus to your attack roll and vulnerability to electricity?
I don't think that's what he was suggesting?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.If you gave the Magus legendary casting proficiency, there might not be a reason for the wizard to exist.
Yeah, I'm not sure what that post was about.
Fair. Cantrips keep getting better, though. A level 1 shocking grasp gets left behind. The magus does not need level 1 spell slots for their baseline.
Shocking Grasp keeps getting better too, because when the magus doesn't have level 1 spell slots any more, he's using a level 2 spell slot (for either Shocking Grasp or some other spell) which still does more damage than the cantrip, regardless of what it is.
Now, a way to extend the four meaningful slots would be interesting and helpful, like a Echoing Spell focus power.
Ah, there, now you are on the same page; that is, you agree with Pinstripedbarbarian from 12 posts ago.
Fair. Cantrips keep getting better, though. A level 1 shocking grasp gets left behind. The magus does not need level 1 spell slots for their baseline.Shocking Grasp keeps getting better too, because when the magus doesn't have level 1 spell slots any more, he's using a level 2 spell slot (for either Shocking Grasp or some other spell) which still does more damage than the cantrip, regardless of what it is.
The whole point of this aside was that you use your top two levels for damaging spells, and don't bother keeping damage in level 1 slots. Yes, any damage spell in a top slot is going to do more than a cantrip. That's why the magus has those slots and not the lower level ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the whole point of this aside was your assertion that:
Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.
Ie. use more cantrips.
When you were told that cantrips have crappy damage compared to the magus's available spell slots, you asserted:Why would you ever use first level spell slots for damage?
|
I feel like it is far too limiting. Yes, you get higher level spells than what a spellcasting archetype would get, but a spellcasting archetype has double the slots even before taking their respective Breadth feat.
In my opinion, I think it could be safely bumped up to 3/3 slots instead of 2/2, since the whole "only having two levels of spells" thing is already a large enough limitation on its own.
It feels a lot like a version of the 5e Warlock to me. The Warlock only works because the slots refresh on a short or a long rest, and they also have Invocations for more abilities.
It feels a lot like a version of the 5e Warlock to me. The Warlock only works because the slots refresh on a short or a long rest, and they also have Invocations for more abilities.
They are also mostly locked to 5th level spells, giving each of their spells significantly less punch at higher levels.
They do have an easier time landing their spells, though, thanks to bounded accuracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got to playtest with both character types in our party last night (2 summoners, 2 magi, 1 cleric) through 3 interesting encounters. I'd like to see a mechanic for summoners to get a font or focus spell for summoning, and I think they'd be great. We'll need something similar for Magus spellstrike (more slots somehow).
For Magus the intense action tax (haste helps but costs up front when available), and the misfortune effect (2 chances to fail for limited slots) that most hampers that class. Look forward to seeing Striking Spell/Spellstrike! mimic Eldritch Archer or Channel Smite with a single attack roll to determine spell effect.
you were told that cantrips have crappy damage compared to the magus's available spell slots,
Funny you can’t quote anyone saying that.
you were told that cantrips have crappy damage compared to the magus's available spell slots,Funny you can’t quote anyone saying that.
I was on mobile in bed.
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.
What would a "real spell" be for a Magus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do we feel about this system? I want to read discussion about this because I'm divided on it right now.I have mixed feelings. I have been thinking for a while that having slots scale up as you level up, rather than just adding more on the top, was a good idea.
OTOH, while I have not looked into it in detail yet let alone playtested it, this seems like it might be taking the idea a bit too far.
_
glass.
I think it feels good. Top slots available while losing the raw utility of full caster low level slots. From a design perspective I understand and I think the concept is sound. I just think they either threw us the lowest number of slots possible to test the waters or they underestimated the strength of the kits without a little more spell casting. I think people would be a lot happier with 6 or 8 slots. Low end utility spells will be shored up with a dedication just like any other martial class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. I think it highlights that losing the utility of low level slots is too high a cost. The top level slots aren't actually worth that loss- with both classes I'd be much happier the other way around. More lower level and feel free to snip the top end. At least they wouldn't feel quite so lacking in options or ability to contribute outside X fights per day, where X depends entirely on how quickly you dump your few spell slots.
Especially in areas that aren't fights.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion.
Keeping the top level slots gives you a little too much power in a handful of rounds, while leaving the rest of the experience feeling bland.
It'd be MUCH better to get a decent number of lower level slots and some reliable class feature that can be tuned to bring your combat prowess in line.
Losing all those low level slots makes it feel a whole lot less like a Magus and more like a fighter with a 4/day magic weapon.
Imagine a Magus with a bunch of utility spells, a couple higher end spells, and something like:
1. A magus-only one-action attack cantrip
2. A magus-only elemental damage focus spell that recharges during a fight
3. A magus-only class feature that lets them spontaneously heighten some lower slot spell for that X/day "oomph"
I mentioned this earlier, but I think a lot of things would be different with:
(1) A wide variety of 1-action focus spells or focus cantrips that are designed to work with Striking Spell--buffs, damage, movement, control. Any of those would be a big boost to the arsenal;
(2) The Magus keeping their lower level slots, but losing the ability to fill them with spells outside of a tailored list (mage armor, jump, resist energy, etc.) that can be expanded with feats.
You have all-day Striking Spell fuel, and at higher levels you're still able to cast the "battle mage" spells. Utility isn't the same as a regular full caster, which I think is good, but you aren't losing slots.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1- if you are ranged, you will be able to delivery your strike wherever you want
And if you miss, you lose your ability to retry hitting with the spell as it's attached to the ammo or thrown weapon [until returning].
2- if you are melee, you have a free stride or step included in the spellstrike
Sure, it's nice but once once you get into position, you're not using it. If you have tough foe and are beating it down for a few rounds, a free step isn't that exciting. Still the best option but after you're in place, there isn't a reason to not strike and cast instead [or strike, strike skill]
3- Sustaining steel has to be entirely reworked.
This has actually been ok, better than I thought it would. It helps buff out your HP and actually given you a reason to Spellstrike every round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436au?Expected-damage-tool-now-has-Magus -and-spell
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's like casting a spell and missing, but if you want to have an overall better chance to hit on your second attack you stick with it. Strike and Cast is always better for you.
If you don't like it, just simply play a full spellcaster.
No it's much, much worse as you miss out on the affects that happen on a miss too.
Make assumptions how long would a foe remains alive ( or in that specific space ) is imo meaningless. A free stride or step is always good because it allows you to repositionate the way you want for free. Even if you are already within the enemy reach you could adjust your position for free. Simply excellent.
Making assumptions that a move is always useful is meaningless imo. If your foe hasn't died and you're in the best tactical position already, what does a move add except losing your position? There is a difference between being good every round and being situationally good. IMO, it's the later.
It helps nothing compared to the other 2, because it doesn't enhance your melee fighting and it's not good enough. Not to say that it says a "two handed weapon", and a staff is a one hand weapon with two-hand trait. So it wouldn't work.
Definitely the worst synthesis ever.
LOL It helps you STAY in melee combat by giving you preemptive healing: what you're saying is that Shield Block does nothing for melee combat. As to a staff, I have NO idea what you mean by that: by the time you get magic staves you lose lower level slots you lose the ability to cast those lower level slots meaning you can't use the staff. add on top of everything, it's the only synthesis you want to use every round which is something the others can't say: you're actively worse for using ranged [no miss effects] and not wanting to move isn't exactly an unusual situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it's much, much worse as you miss out on the affects that happen on a miss too.It's like casting a spell and missing, but if you want to have an overall better chance to hit on your second attack you stick with it. Strike and Cast is always better for you.
If you don't like it, just simply play a full spellcaster.
I don't really see how it is "much worse".
The stored spell lasts until the end of you next turn.Which means
Spellstrike
Spellstrike ( if the former missed ).You rolled 2 attacks on the first turn, as any other class which performs 2 attacks.
If you miss the second one, you are given another chance on the next turn.
Er, no.
It's Spellstrike [free] -> Cast a Spell [two-actions] + Strike [one-action] on your first turn.
And remember, if the Strike is subject to some MAP (say, -5) then the spell attack roll that it gives you when it connect is at the same MAP, so -5. Because spell attack rolls are against the same AC value, but do not get item bonuses and the Magus can't have 18 int at start, this second roll is going to be at about -3 relative to the melee. So that 2nd-attack-hit spell is going to be rolling at -8 relative to your first melee attack in a round.
-8 is crit-fish territory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh.
if the Strike is subject to some MAP (say, -5)
The -5 was a true value, as an example, not necessarily your second roll made.
And again, I did not say that the spell suffered additional MAP, I said your attack bonus is lower compared to your melee attack bonus.
Sigh.
if the Strike is subject to some MAP (say, -5)The -5 was a true value, as an example, not necessarily your second roll made.
And again, I did not say that the spell suffered additional MAP, I said your attack bonus is lower compared to your melee attack bonus.
Then it's what I said before ( I thought you wanted to point out something else ).
Instead of a -0 -5 you are going to have a -0 -1/2/3/4 depends of your level.
I know it's not good as double slice, but we have to consider the damage outcome would be way more higher.
He's talking about if you hit with your SECOND strike for the turn. I'll math it out for you plain and simple. We're playing a 13th level Magus, 20 str, 18 int, +1 weapon. This puts the weapon attack at +26, spell at +22, so already 4 behind.
Spell strike, cast Ray of Frost -> Strike miss. Next turn. Strike miss -> Strike hit! Roll spell attack.
Your second strike is at -5 MAP. That -5 MAP also applies to the spell which was already 4 behind your initial attack. So now your spell attacks at +17, a total of 9 behind your initial attack.
Conclusion: If you have to hit with your second strike, your attack spells are effectively wasted making them, somehow, even worse than they were before.
So that is the third total strike attempted. (2nd on second round).
The magus is looking to hit AC 33, which is a 7 on the die for the initial Strike. Missing both previous attacks will happen less than 10% of the time. You are more likely to crit on one of your attacks and get a damage boost.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that is the third total strike attempted. (2nd on second round).
The magus is looking to hit AC 33, which is a 7 on the die for the initial Strike. Missing both previous attacks will happen less than 10% of the time. You are more likely to crit on one of your attacks and get a damage boost.
While true it can't be ignored, and it still lowers the average expected damage across two full rounds.
I don't really see how it is "much worse".
The stored spell lasts until the end of you next turn.Which means
Spellstrike
Spellstrike ( if the former missed ).You rolled 2 attacks on the first turn, as any other class which performs 2 attacks.
If you miss the second one, you are given another chance on the next turn.
Ok, I think I misread it. I read it as if it was stored in the ammunition but it actually say "delivered through that ammunition" so you're right with a missile weapon: thrown still has an issue until Returning happens. That and that just takes it to situationally worse: you still have to limit your Strike to the spell range which can be quite limiting.
If you consider that you won't be able to use spellstrike if the enemy is not within your reach, if:
- you are not hasted
- you are not a shooting start magus ( and because so you don't care since you are ranged )
- you are not a slide casting magusis enough.
Keep in mind that if you don't have that synthesis you are forbidden from moving and make a melee strike.
And even if hasted, you are going to trade your second attack for a stride, which is not the best deal
Stride + Spellstrike < Spellstrike(free stride) + strike
I think you misunderstood me: this works and is ok. It's just NOT something that makes me want to use Spellstrike when I don't have to move. So good ability just not an every round good ability.
Yeah, shield block is mostly useless considering it uses you reaction ( compared to other reactions, obviously ).
That's what's nice here as it just happen with the Spellstrike. It's like a shield block before an attack without the reaction.
Also, see the previous quote in terms of action managemen.
There's really no comparison with 1-9 x2 hp once per fight.
Sure there is. I see a lot of games where there isn't a whole lot of combat movement because of fairly close quarters so once combat happens there isn't much need to move especially is the bad guys come to you. This goes back to the situation 'goodness' of sliding. Once you stop moving, it's not doing anything for you.
As for those times you want to move or Spellstrike? Cast Message with spellstrike for the free temp hp and move.
The staff thing was in order to use a staff, shifted into the weapon you want, to also cast spells from it ( it's not clear if would be possible because we still need an official response, but still it has to be considered ).
I understand but the Magus loses the approprate slots to cast spells from a staff by the time you can get a staff meaning it's a meaningless debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with 4 slot casting. I think the main issue is that people still see both of these classes as casters. While they can cast spells, casting spells isn't their main shtick. I see both the new classes like monk, champion, or even a druid who takes a bunch of focus spells. Hell, because they use focus spells over spell slots those classes are likely going to be doing more casting than a magus or summoner over the course of the day.
Personally, I don't like having to rely on spell slots. I tend to conserve them too much, and if I do have to use them I feel useless when I'm all out. If magus and summoner are created to be effective without spell slots, I'm all for them. Let the few spell slots they have be for those oh s~&@ moments, not every round effectiveness.
Contributor
|
What would a "real spell" be for a Magus?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.
I meant one of the four spellslots the Magus gets right now. Something like Vampiric Touch. Using Striking Vampiric Touch to do a bunch of extra damage and get a tempHP buffer is a bigger effect than a cantrip can do while also being more fun and dynamic.
Cantrips are useful, but they don't feel special or interesting. Especially when you have to cast it nearly every turn to function.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with 4 slot casting. I think the main issue is that people still see both of these classes as casters. While they can cast spells, casting spells isn't their main shtick.
Problem is, it isn't clear what their 'main shtick' actually is.
The magus or the eidolon fights like a monk/ranger/rogue/barbarian without the class specialization or supporting feats. Which is fine, but not something that sells the class. Its literally the baseline for anything that isn't a full caster.I see both the new classes like monk, champion, or even a druid who takes a bunch of focus spells. Hell, because they use focus spells over spell slots those classes are likely going to be doing more casting than a magus or summoner over the course of the day.
And the problem here is the focus spells for the magus and summoner are either rather indifferent or nigh mandatory.
Magus potency, their basic spell, depends entirely on whether or not you have item runes- its great if you want to pick up and swing any old thing, but redundant if you have what's expected of you by the game's math.
Hasted assault goes the other direction- use it always if you have focus to spare. Except of courses its real late in the leveling tree, most campaigns will never get there or will be wrapping up at this point.
Summoner has the opposite problem- their focus spells are 'math fixers,' that should be used whenever they can, _if_ you can find the spare actions to do it. But they don't actually give the class a role, beyond 'the eidolon is far more important (and more interesting), than that mobile anchor who wanders around in the back somewhere). I like the idea of the summoner, even some of the implementation here, but the caster feels like a real drag on the gestalt character's ability to act.
I agree with everything you're saying. I just mean to say that I think they're fine with fewer spell slots; instead they should be balanced around their cantrips/strikes/other things that expend no resources. What form that balance takes, I'm not sure. Maybe it's as simple as raising when a magus gets their casting proficiency, maybe they get an attack bonus to their spell attack, etc. I would like something like that much more than just adding more spell slots.