Get a Gnome Flickmace. Then, if the foe doesn't have reach, you can use the spellstrike to step away and make them waste an action to move adjacent every round. If the enemy has Attack of Opportunity but not Reach, this also lets you avoid the AoO.
Meh... Wasting someone's 3rd option in melee often doesn't do much and might lead it to spending the action to attack someone else in and leave you with a worse tactical position than you where in to start. It's something I guess but you're forced to human or gnome.
| 2 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. 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.
Saying a Magus and a Summoner aren’t casters is a pretty out there claim IMO
They may be less caster focused this edition, but justifying their limited casting as some kind of intentional move towards them being Martials now is not at all going to work with the lore or with my personal tastes in Magus particularly.
If they weren’t casters they wouldn’t have multiple class feats that straight up grant spells, quite a few I might add. And the general consensus is they are a bit spell starved on paper (not enough play experience for most to confirm).
Is it far off? Probably not. But they are casting way more often than any focus class by a substantial amount. They are casters.
My thoughts after creating a handful of 7th level gish character: 4 slots isn't great. It is better than Wizard MCD though. They only get 2 slots at level 7. And low level slots at that.
But compared to a Wizard MCD Fighter, the Wizard still has full spellcasting slots. Terrible HP...
I also whipped up a Ranger MCD Wizard. That actually worked a lot better for the feel of a magical melee warrior. Mostly because of the Warden Spell focus spells that are available. And after picking up the first one (Gravity Weapon), I decided to also pick up the Wizard Arcane School Spell to get Force Bolt.
With those two focus spells, that was feeling a lot more like a mage/warrior hybrid. Even with only a couple of low level spell slots.
So that is my recommendation for Magus too. Limited spell slots is fine - higher spell slots are preferable to low level slots obviously. But they are primarily for utility spells or going nova in a battle. Do signature abilities using focus spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the current options on the table:
Option A. 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/2/2: The current implementation. It's not unworkable, but the lack of utility casting is an issue, making spellcasting dedications near-mandatory is an issue, and the limited reliability of four spells with poor proficiency is an issue.
Option B. 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1: The 'dedication' implementation. Enables more emphasis on utility casting while still providing a little high-grade fuel for powerful moments. Provides a quality spellcasting experience while not stepping on the toes of full casters. A good option. Could probably stand to gain an extra 8th level slot at 19th level just so there's still some spell progression in the endgame.
option C. 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/2/2: The 'half-caster' implementation. A strict upgrade on the current model. Provides enough support for utility casting while maintain the emphasis on high-end power. Another good option.
Option D. 0/0/0/0/0/0/0/3/3: The 'more power' implementation. Means that spells are punchy and impactful, albeit at the cost of utility. Looks good in the long run, but the slot progression at early levels is liable to be too close to full casters, and thus be too powerful early on. Would need an odd curve to be balanced.
Option E. 0/0/0/0/0/0/2/2/2: The 'slightly more power' implementation. Better than the current model, and enables some utility casting without being too highly impactful. Probably the best of the 'power' options.
Of these options, B and C look the most appealing. Magi get a spellbook, and a big part of the appeal of a spellbook is having a Swiss Army knife selection of options to deal with problems. Summoners would likewise benefit from having some utility options.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree b and c look best to me.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I like about B is that the top level spell slots aren't weighing the class down as much, allowing a potential for a punchier class feature, like magus only single actiom cantrips or better focus spells.
It actually feels like 50-50 caster-martial.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree b and c look best to me.
Yep, B or C. Between the 2 I think C is closer to what we have but B might be thought of as less powerful.
Not a fan of A, D or E as you lose your utility and buffs from the lower levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen the idea being thrown around where they get to keep their martial caster feat stuff. That is not a bad start. Let that get expanded upon. a few more spells make it standard instead of a feat. IT kind of gives them a Jedi feel. so that plus option C would make me pretty satisfied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure how much I like it. I probably will never playtest a class though since there are so many classes that are out right now.
Too me it just feels like Magus/Summoner will excel at low encounter adventuring. Since they are close to having the same amount of high level spell slots.
I am a little torn since I see two ways to play...
-Play without a caster dedication and pretty much never use any spells except against bosses.
-Pick a spellcaster dedication just to make up for their missing spells. Honestly if I played I would most likely go this route.
Just not sure if I would like to play a class that has 4 amazing turns and rest of the turns are just kind of okay...
I like option C. Also hope the magus gets more fun focus powers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I originally imagined the Magus with something like option B, I think C or E are the best choice given what we know now. I feel like Magi have enough high-level slots, but need a few more lower-level ones.
Also, Option C would immediately solve a lot of the wierdness with Staves.
Option E probably would need to change the progression to 1/2/2/1 on new spell levels (the odd lvls) to get 2/2/2 on the even ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like option A. I think the choice to take a dedication for utility spells feels like neat synergy, while you can just choose to take the powerful combat spells and do other things!
|
I feel like A would be acceptable if both classes got strong class exclusive cantrips to balance the lack of resources. Both the Bard and Witch get some powerful options (and the Oracle to a lesser extent) for having one less slot than the Wizard and Sorcerer. I get that the Magus is supposed to be a hybrid caster but having to multiclass to pull off the caster part doesn't feel great. The Summoner has it even worse. Once you blow through your 4 slots, you're more or less a sitting target, spamming boost.
Another option, would be for the Magus to count as having both the fighter and wizard dedication feats (without actually having them, so not getting the actual benefits of those feats) for the purpose of qualifying for wizard or fighter multiclass feats... It would make sense as the magus is literally a blend of combat prowess and magic prowess.
I think the way *I* would have done this class would have been:
> counts as having the fighter and wizard dedication feats for the purpose of meeting requirement for the multiclass feats.
> adds weapon/armour bonus to spell attack rolls/DCs for spells cast into weapons/armour.
> make base spell slots work like option C above
This is a cool idea... just not for this system. It pushes up against a lot of safety valves this system has.
Getting pushed towards particular dedications is weird, there's probably some rules finangling needed if you want to take other dedications, and giving the Basic, Expert and Master spellcasting things as a core part of a class is very, very weird.
Heck, even just getting to access both early Fighter feats and Wizard spells is meant to be balanced by having to take their dedications and wait between them, so to keep things balanced, you'd have to weaken the rest of the class to compensate for this.
At which point it becomes feat tax because it's just the best option.
Anything but B, in my opinion. I really love that they're trying some new formats of spellcasting via the slots. I really hope they don't just fall back into exactly what's already in the game--option B is literally just the spellcasting components of a wizard dedication. I vote we see something new. Players who want to invest more heavily in utility casting have a bunch of ways to spend class feats to do so.
I'm probably leaning towards E, personally.
would need to be a huge boost. they're going to have a 25% success rate on average with those 4 slots. i.e. 1 successful use per day.
if it stays as is, honestly id have their spellcasting proficiency progression be the same as their weapon one. And i'd include the potency in the casting of spells through weapons too.
25% over two turns? That sounds wildly off.
Where is the math on that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
another option would be to change martial magic to work similarly to arcane breadth and be +1 slot to all levels except the two highest.
I feel like it you do that, Martial Caster will become even more of a must-pick option than it already is. Any spell slot increases need to be a core part of the class, otherwise you run the risk of said options becoming nigh-mandatory picks like how Wizard dedication is for current Magus.
would need to be a huge boost. they're going to have a 25% success rate on average with those 4 slots. i.e. 1 successful use per day.
if it stays as is, honestly id have their spellcasting proficiency progression be the same as their weapon one. And i'd include the potency in the casting of spells through weapons too.
25% over two turns? That sounds wildly off.
Where is the math on that?
It’s actually not that far from the truth due to having approx. a 50% chance to succeed on rolls and then one of your rolls being contingent on the strike.
Even over two turns, you still need to land the strike on turn two, so while the overall probability does increase for that specific spell to be able to trigger, the multiple turn action penalty is conceivably just as “damaging” to them.
It becomes especially egregious when you consider casting a save spell in tandem with a single strike, where doing one and then the other without spellstrike is just straight up mathematically more effective.
Now I’m going to say something people might not agree with, but I actually like the way using a save spell separate from a strike is better than doing it via the weapon, as it allows the types of Magus I tended to play far more than “spam shocking grasp” that some might be accustomed to.
But then I’d have just limited spell strike to only work with spell attack rolls and then remove the second attack roll (like eldritch shot).
What was wrong with 3/4 casters (max level 6 spells with Master proficiency) or half casters (max level 4 with Expert proficiency). I saw nothing wrong with them in 1e and think they still have a place in 2e, these two classes being prime examples. Lots of lower haste and buffing spells, with very few high end spells.
What is wrong with not full casters in PF2 is that their offensive power is severely lacking, The magus is much better off with 2 max level spells and 2 level-1 spells than with 6 spells spread out from the lowest levels they could cast.
Also, they get access to the top level spells at the same rate as a wizard up to level 9. This means that they can use items at the same level as a the wizard in the group and even make scrolls at much higher levels than MC casters, which old models of 6th level caster more closely replicate.
A summoner and a magus are both just as good at casting incapacitation spells and damage spells as equal level casters, with just one or two fewer spells per level with this model. With the flexibility of archetypes, there are tons of unique and different ways to fill in low level slots if you want them, but you could also just purchase items and use those feats for cool abilities or more martial archetypes, which you can really kick butt with because your martial proficiencies are higher than any other full caster in the game. It really does give you some interesting and creative options.
Honestly the biggest problem with 4 slot casting is it can’t start any better early or it’d just be straight up better than most casters but later the chosen scaling just doesn’t fill the void.
Now later they compensate with things like Stand By Spell, Spell Swipe, and martial casting feat that grants a bunch of level 1 specialty spells.
Part of me wishes that each class path got built in version of the martial casting class feat but to a smaller list of spells that specifically synergizes with your Magus path. That’d help define the paths a little more than “uses big weapon, mobile, and ranged”
Honestly the biggest problem with 4 slot casting is it can’t start any better early or it’d just be straight up better than most casters but later the chosen scaling just doesn’t fill the void.
Now later they compensate with things like Stand By Spell, Spell Swipe, and martial casting feat that grants a bunch of level 1 specialty spells.
Part of me wishes that each class path got built in version of the martial casting class feat but to a smaller list of spells that specifically synergizes with your Magus path. That’d help define the paths a little more than “uses big weapon, mobile, and ranged”
One thing I like about the 4 spell thing is that we can get multiple different paths through class feats that start opening up around level 6 that accomplish this in interesting ways. Making the extra spells come through feats is a better plan to me than building it into the class chassis, because MC basically covers this if someone wants to go that route, and if you want to really focus on a different aspect of your build, you aren't locked into specific low level buff spells that you might never use.
say level 10 character started with 16 int (likely seeing as class is increasing strength or dex.)
They probably have +4 from Int, trained proficiency +2 so +16 to hit with the spell so 40% chance of actually hitting with the spell attack. and thats after having to have already hit with the weapon attack which is probably only on +18 or 19 itself for a 45 or 50% chance for that hit. If they whiff, they can try again next round, but are still only on 45-50% chance, if they used the magus potency it goes up to 55-60% to hit followed by the 40% chance to also hit with the spell.
The above really doesn't feel acceptable with such limited slots.
the above was vs a clay golem
if it were a stone golem and the magus was level 11. Their spell chance goes up by 10% because they became expert... but even then thats a 55% (on average) followed by 50%.Those are just bad numbers to be working with for your limited resource abilities when they're as limited use as they are for the magus at the moment.
they need more slots or more accuracy, technically doesn't matter which one I guess, although generally more slots makes for a more interesting character with options outside of just hitting stuff - something I like about games like RuneQuest.
This kind of white room analysis is pretty disingenuous as it ignores all of the accuracy enhancers already built into the game.
Over two rounds, you will hit a Strike over 90% of the time. Your spell has a typical chance of failure for a caster, but you have a higher chance of getting a crit on one Strike than missing both.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of white room analysis is pretty disingenuous as it ignores all of the accuracy enhancers already built into the game.
As stated before requiring accuracy enhancers to make the class function is bad. Take a look at another non-fighter martial and check their accuracy (sans boosters) when it comes to their shtick. For example, how often does Double Slice or Twin Takedown connect?
The reason accuracy is so crucial in the case of the Magus is that their shtick is hit by it twice: they don't even get to MAKE the spell attack roll unless their melee attack hits!
Sure, they can hold the charge for another attempt, but the probability that the spell misses is greater than the probability that the melee strike crits. And accuracy boosters can only affect that calculation so much.
Spellstrike objectively (with and without accuracy boosters, regardless of spell or cantrip) is worse than not using it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of white room analysis is pretty disingenuous as it ignores all of the accuracy enhancers already built into the game.As stated before requiring accuracy enhancers to make the class function is bad. Take a look at another non-fighter martial and check their accuracy (sans boosters) when it comes to their shtick. For example, how often does Double Slice or Twin Takedown connect?
The reason accuracy is so crucial in the case of the Magus is that their shtick is hit by it twice: they don't even get to MAKE the spell attack roll unless their melee attack hits!
Sure, they can hold the charge for another attempt, but the probability that the spell misses is greater than the probability that the melee strike crits. And accuracy boosters can only affect that calculation so much.
Spellstrike objectively (with and without accuracy boosters, regardless of spell or cantrip) is worse than not using it.
This is true and not true. The magus has the rather unique ability to chose whether to go with a spell that will benefit from basic accuracy enhancers like flanking and Inspire courage, or to go with a safer option based off of saving throws for half damage. Accuracy enhancers are not necessary, in fact, against very difficult to hit enemies, the magus is going to be able to be more likely to be able to do some damage on their second attack than many martials (use a spell with a save or magic missile), while, if they can get the accuracy boosters, attacking with a spell attack roll spell can get pretty nasty (Land a crit on the melee attack, and getting to apply those bonuses to have a 50% crit chance on a spell that might otherwise not even have a 50% Hit chance on).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or Strike, and cast a spell with a saving throw. If the strike misses the spell still hits. "Saving it" for next turn is not an advantage.
This is true and not true. The magus has the rather unique ability to chose whether to go with a spell that will benefit from basic accuracy enhancers like flanking and Inspire courage, or to go with a safer option based off of saving throws for half damage. Accuracy enhancers are not necessary, in fact, against very difficult to hit enemies, the magus is going to be able to be more likely to be able to do some damage on their second attack than many martials (use a spell with a save or magic missile), while, if they can get the accuracy boosters, attacking with a spell attack roll spell can get pretty nasty (Land a crit on the melee attack, and getting to apply those bonuses to have a 50% crit chance on a spell that might otherwise not even have a 50% Hit chance on).This kind of white room analysis is pretty disingenuous as it ignores all of the accuracy enhancers already built into the game.As stated before requiring accuracy enhancers to make the class function is bad. Take a look at another non-fighter martial and check their accuracy (sans boosters) when it comes to their shtick. For example, how often does Double Slice or Twin Takedown connect?
The reason accuracy is so crucial in the case of the Magus is that their shtick is hit by it twice: they don't even get to MAKE the spell attack roll unless their melee attack hits!
Sure, they can hold the charge for another attempt, but the probability that the spell misses is greater than the probability that the melee strike crits. And accuracy boosters can only affect that calculation so much.
Spellstrike objectively (with and without accuracy boosters, regardless of spell or cantrip) is worse than not using it.
These kinds of decisions are just the kinds of tactical thinking that makes playing Pathfinder interesting. Is this a situation where an attack spell or a save spell is better? What options do i have to adjust the situation in my favor?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying a Magus and a Summoner aren’t casters is a pretty out there claim IMO
I would observe that prior to this playtest, the primary complaint about gish attempts was not "My fighter/wizard doesn't get enough magic" but "no matter how much I invest in the fighter dedication, my wizard still isn't good at hitting anything." The Magus at least seems clearly designed with this in mind.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly think *if* striking spell were good when combined with cantrips, and things like Martial Caster are extensible for utility spells (or just built into the class), there's no reason the Magus can't work with 4 top level spell slots.
Extra damage on your strikes with cantrips *should* be the reliable offense option for the Magus. I've played a crossbow precision ranger so adding 6d4 to your one strike seems preferable to 2d8 of a type that some things are straight up immune to.
I honestly think *if* striking spell were good when combined with cantrips, and things like Martial Caster are extensible for utility spells (or just built into the class), there's no reason the Magus can't work with 4 top level spell slots.
Extra damage on your strikes with cantrips *should* be the reliable offense option for the Magus. I've played a crossbow precision ranger so adding 6d4 to your strikes seems preferable to 2d8 of a type that some things are straight up immune to.
I absolutely agree. I don't know what that would look like, mechanically, but I do think that if it "works for cantrips" it would also work for higher level spells as well, but that you wouldn't invest too much of your minimal slots doing it.
It'd be a sort of "1 of these slots is [Chain Lightning], the other three are buffs" and you pull that big spell out at the right time, but most rounds and most combats you're relying on your cantrips.
Which means I think most of the magus's feats need to be tweaked to not trigger off "non-cantrip" spells.
What if, when using cantrips with striking spell, the Magus got to add their item bonus to the spell attack roll?
It's probably fine if the Magus ends up better delivering cantrips than anybody else provided they have to be delivering them through the sharp end of a magic sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal hope for the magus would be closer to E, but I'd also hope they lean a little more into the focus spells to help cover that, possibly a 1-action focus cantrip intended to work smoothly with spellstrike to help cover for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if, when using cantrips with striking spell, the Magus got to add their item bonus to the spell attack roll?
It's probably fine if the Magus ends up better delivering cantrips than anybody else provided they have to be delivering them through the sharp end of a magic sword.
s/cantrip/spells in general
But yeah, something like that could work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like about the 4 spell thing is that we can get multiple different paths through class feats that start opening up around level 6 that accomplish this in interesting ways. Making the extra spells come through feats is a better plan to me than building it into the class chassis, because MC basically covers this if someone wants to go that route, and if you want to really focus on a different aspect of your build, you aren't locked into specific low level buff spells that you might never use.Honestly the biggest problem with 4 slot casting is it can’t start any better early or it’d just be straight up better than most casters but later the chosen scaling just doesn’t fill the void.
Now later they compensate with things like Stand By Spell, Spell Swipe, and martial casting feat that grants a bunch of level 1 specialty spells.
Part of me wishes that each class path got built in version of the martial casting class feat but to a smaller list of spells that specifically synergizes with your Magus path. That’d help define the paths a little more than “uses big weapon, mobile, and ranged”
I mean just about every additional spell option has a choice that any Magus can choose and feel good about it.
I hear what you’re saying but considering all Magus right now are starved for spells, granting spells via a class path choice (similar to a bloodline or even something with a more variable choice) IMO is better than taxing a feat just to cast spells.
Especially since people keep pointing out how going an MCD is a comparable way to solve the problem of too few of spells.
I only said I liked that those class feats help supplement the problem, not that they should be translated into the paths. The two would both exist in this scenario, as well as stand by spell and the other “spell conservation” aspects.
|
would need to be a huge boost. they're going to have a 25% success rate on average with those 4 slots. i.e. 1 successful use per day.
if it stays as is, honestly id have their spellcasting proficiency progression be the same as their weapon one. And i'd include the potency in the casting of spells through weapons too.
25% over two turns? That sounds wildly off.
Where is the math on that?
Right here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1b7pYqRliIUyYeeaqEsfRPjmodYUTGXA 0cD3HWewKxw4/htmlview
Saying a Magus and a Summoner aren’t casters is a pretty out there claim IMOI would observe that prior to this playtest, the primary complaint about gish attempts was not "My fighter/wizard doesn't get enough magic" but "no matter how much I invest in the fighter dedication, my wizard still isn't good at hitting anything." The Magus at least seems clearly designed with this in mind.
Whose primary complaint? And I would argue that prior to the APG that was more of an issue than now, because now all casters can actually get MCDs that expand martial prowess where as before they could only hope to be good with their base weapons/armor which were limited.
So while sure that was the case, that was not “prior to this Playtest” so much as it was “prior to the APG”, which IMO is completely irrelevant now.
Magus is supposed to solve the marriage of the two equally, which is possible with neither.