| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The conversation about to buff or not to buff with offensive spell casting is something that has been discussed at great length with casters generally. There are some people who feel like caster casting is too inaccurate and casters should just spend their spells on buffing martials. Whether you feel this way also tends to tie in closely with whether or not you should be expected to spend up to a round accuracy boosting before you unleash a top level spell (remember even in the best case scenario a full wizard only has 8 top 2 level spells to throw around in a day).
I am clearly someone who thinks that it is ok that spells, without buffing are worse than martial attacking, but with buffing can be better than martial attacking (because buffing around making one attack land is easier and more powerful than spreading that out over 2 or 3 attacks), but I recognize that not everyone is going to feel that way. But even if you don't feel that way though, it seems relevant to point out that this assumption is built into the math around casting. Playing a caster without taking advantage of tactical bonuses is a frustrating experience for many players.
Some folks clearly want the magus to be different, but that is going to be very difficult to do without invalidating what has already been built around the way spells work. What if we stop even thinking about damage and look at debilitating. Let's say I have a slow spell memorized. Should casting slow through striking spell always be the go to move when confronting the boss monster? The increased chance of landing a crit with a debilitating spell is pretty tempting, but giving yourself a miss chance on even getting the spell off is risky.
You could just cast the spell first, and then likely the monster will make the save and be slowed for one round. An effective use of a spell in a boss fight that most casters are happy to attempt.
The magus though, could striking spell it, and attempt to land the hit the first round, with the risk of not slowing the monster at all the first round. Maybe this results in the monster focusing fire on the magus to drop them, which is also a difficult reality to factor into the math, preventing a second round at all. But if the magus is still standing, then they have the opportunity to take more drastic action to land the spell, like target themselves with some kind of buff (ie truestrike) that can give them a greatly increased chance of landing a critically bad effect on a boss monster than any caster can come close too. Most casters will never be looking at a 15%+ chance land a critical effect on a boss monster.
Riding the line between making that the obviously better option than normal casters get, and being too swingy to be usable is not easy, but I think the math on this mechanic is very close, because a +3 total bonus is enough to clearly swing it in the magi's favor.
I wonder how many people arguing for more magus reliability feel like the accuracy on casting as a whole is in a good place and it is just the magus who is suffering? Or if they are people who also think that casting generally needs something like an item bonus to attack rolls? If that is the case, it seems better to me to keep the magus in line with other casters and then maybe offer up a general casting accuracy booster.
If your argument is that an unboosted caster of any type, should be capable of keeping up with 3 weapon attacks from a full martial then you are probably someone who feels like casting generally is just too inacurate. The magus is a full martial with feat and focus power support for doing boosted and flexible damage that can take advantage of enemy weaknesses, even with no casting ability what so ever. They are weak defensively, and not in as good of shape as other martial classes for winning with their martial abilities alone, but then they also get casting stacked on top of that frame including spell access that MC martials will never get: 1st level spells at level 1, 3rd level spells at level 5. 9th level spells, period. And can still MC to grab either more martial or more casting depending upon their build.
Personally, I think it is ok for the magus to either want to focus on finding tactical bonuses to make their casting worthwhile, while having a strong martial frame to fall back on when that is not possible, rather than trying to make the class require always trying to cast a spell every round of combat when part of what everyone was begging for all along was a caster who had weapon proficiencies advance to master.
FOr the record, this was not at all how I hoped the magus was originally going to be built. I wanted expert weapon proficiency so the class could focus more on its casting abilites, with a built in accuracy booster for weapon attacks when the magus had already cast a spell, but in retrospect, I think that the striking spell mechanic is a much better way to show actually channeling a spell into a weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Taking two turns to do your thing does not feel good. Nor is it meaningful damage contribution (over two turns) to the party unless you're burning one of your precious slots and praying to RNJesus for your spell to land.
Taking two turns to do your thing does not feel good. Nor is it meaningful damage contribution (over two turns) to the party unless your burning one of your precious slots and praying to RNJesus for your spell to land.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?
Getting two spells and a strike off in one turn can feel pretty good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
High AC is the most common, but I’m not sure that Level+0 is. What are your most common encounter make ups?
Oh, most common is going to be "several level -2s" but that's not what I said. I said standard creature:
TABLE 10–2: CREATURE XP AND ROLE
Party level 40 Any standard creature or low-threat boss
A moderate encounter (the most common) can be two creatures of the party's level. It could also be three -1s or four -2s.
But the balance point is that you should be hitting an equal level creature on a 10 and they hit you on a 10. That's why its called the balance point. The balance point is the baseline: its from where all of the other math extends.
The whole point is that the game is balanced around the core class's features and abilities and that all the math-enchancers are balanced around all the other math enhancers so that when the two meet and combine everything is fine and balanced.
Requiring one class to take advantage of math enhancers and another doesn't is not balanced.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The conversation about to buff or not to buff with offensive spell casting is something that has been discussed at great length with casters generally. There are some people who feel like caster casting is too inaccurate and casters should just spend their spells on buffing martials. Whether you feel this way also tends to tie in closely with whether or not you should be expected to spend up to a round accuracy boosting before you unleash a top level spell (remember even in the best case scenario a full wizard only has 8 top 2 level spells to throw around in a day).
I am clearly someone who thinks that it is ok that spells, without buffing are worse than martial attacking, but with buffing can be better than martial attacking (because buffing around making one attack land is easier and more powerful than spreading that out over 2 or 3 attacks), but I recognize that not everyone is going to feel that way. But even if you don't feel that way though, it seems relevant to point out that this assumption is built into the math around casting. Playing a caster without taking advantage of tactical bonuses is a frustrating experience for many players.
Some folks clearly want the magus to be different, but that is going to be very difficult to do without invalidating what has already been built around the way spells work. What if we stop even thinking about damage and look at debilitating. Let's say I have a slow spell memorized. Should casting slow through striking spell always be the go to move when confronting the boss monster? The increased chance of landing a crit with a debilitating spell is pretty tempting, but giving yourself a miss chance on even getting the spell off is risky.
You could just cast the spell first, and then likely the monster will make the save and be slowed for one round. An effective use of a spell in a boss fight that most casters are happy to attempt.
The magus though, could striking spell it, and attempt to land the hit the first round, with the risk of not slowing the monster...
God help me I wish they would atomize true strike from this edition and make attack spells slighty better in accuracy. "Here is this limited resource math fixer to shore up the subpar accuracy we gave you. Remember, it'll be a waste to use this on cantrips. Better to keep your bog standard attacks inaccurate." Feels....bad (it's not like accurate cantrips are gonna outshine martial damage anyway)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are low bar adjustments every party can and should be taking advantage of.
Not in every party in every situation. Not every creature can be flanked or frightened, or [fill in the blank]. No every party has a bard or a caster that's passing buffs out like candy. The ONLY that can be counted on it starting out at the base numbers before SITUATIONAL modifiers are added.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What situational modifiers came into play resulting in success/failure, and how often" is the sort of thing that's much better modeled by "actually playing the character in a variety of situations" than by making arguments about probabilities.
It's true, but both are useful. It's rare for something to work extremely well in a play while the math say it shouldn't. A player could just be extremely lucky (which is part of it! don't get me wrong!).
I personnaly focus more on the gameplay than raw propabilities (so stuff like the possibilities, the "in universe aspect" like how does it work, how do I explain a striking spell missing while the sword is hitting the ennemy on the face, what else can the character do on their turn etc)
"What situational modifiers came into play resulting in success/failure, and how often" is the sort of thing that's much better modeled by "actually playing the character in a variety of situations" than by making arguments about probabilities.
It should be factored in just to confirm edge cases don't go way out of bounds (see the Status bonus of Dragonheart Mutagen), but not to apply them as the standard that's for sure.
There will always be people trying to break the game by optimizing the heck out of a build/feature (I mean that's litteraly what is asked of us here, to put it to the extreme and try to break it).
Like giving a Magus a staff of diviniation and a shifting rune and spamming True Strike before any Spellstrike to fish for crits. It's optimal, boring but optimal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The base math behind a mechanic is absolutely important. It gives you a starting point for the class. But at the same time, from an overall design view, you have to account for the availability of modifiers on those base numbers, their availability, and how they swing the equation in one parties favor or the other.
The critical effect on Striking Spell for example, is Very potent on the math side of PF2. It equates to a +10 bonus to your spell result, which is a crazy bonus when you consider that the largest circumstance bonus a GM is supposed to give out is +4. So any modifier that can make that more reliable (flanking, frightened, heroism, inspire courage etc...) must be looked at and weighed. If you don't, you could end up designing a monster and not even know it.
This is why I believe actual play data (specifically exactly what Mark Seifter stated that he wants to see more than anything in this post) is the best contribution we can make to the playtest.
If the Magus has issues without support, that should be noted. If the Magus becomes an Unstoppable juggernaut when the party gets behind him and pushes, that should be noted. Go out and play the Magus in game. Try things out, then report on it. Give Paizo the data they need to really get the class where it needs to be.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The critical effect on Striking Spell for example, is Very potent on the math side of PF2. It equates to a +10 bonus to your spell result, which is a crazy bonus when you consider that the largest circumstance bonus a GM is supposed to give out is +4.
While I hear you on that being a good bonus, it's not a healthy one even by the math you've stated, correct?
Like the solution to not being able to land your spells isn't to grant a 10% chance for their spells to gain a +10.
It has been claimed that if you play basic strategy Black Jack and have at least 10,000 in capital to wager at the standard rules (soft 17 hits) that theoretically your 10,000 should net a return (albeit a small percentage).
The reality is though that churning through 10,000 playing basic strategy is not something a lot of people would even consider fun or worth doing to achieve this "theoretical" makeup of percentage, and at the end of the day, it still comes down in some part to luck.
So while 10% of the time you get a fantastic boost, which is certainly a significant increase, it's not exactly making them work "regularly" so much as it is making them super streaky.
And I'll add that Magus are not nearly as successful at casting spells as a Wizard (non-primary casting, slower proficiency progression) so this only really allows them to net a slightly more effective landing of their spells. This is why I fancy the "+2 on landing the strike" for Save spells and removing the second attack roll for attack spells. The +2 sounds like a huge deal, but due to their slow progression of proficiency and non-primary INT, this puts them "even" with the Wizard if they land the strike which is still a "misfortune" effect on the spell itself (in the case of the Save).
The spell attack roll might just benefit from potency of the weapon, which does well with the Focus spell they get, or some other slight boost.
But as of now, I can certainly play a Magus just as effective (and I'd argue more effective) if I just straight up don't use Spell Strike at all.
Mathematically, they are already at a disadvantage to land their spells since all Spell Attack Rolls and Spell Saves are proficiency and ability score dependent.
And I agree, playtesting is key, but the design of the abilities as they are I don't really want to use the abilities as intended.
I'd rather cast Electric Arc and strike separately and gain sweet weapon benefits while dishing damage out without worrying about MAP. If I don't want to use a mechanic that's supposed to be "core" then it's probably in need of something.
I think the "increase a step" piece should go if we're being honest because it makes their sustained value much lower, and while "big win" opportunities are certainly iconic of the PF1 Magus (particularly Kensai) I don't know that it should be integrated in the core concept.
Honestly, a Class Feat that applies some kind of crit changes would be way more apt and then integrating one of the other solutions into the base mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Midnightoker,
Now your in my wheel house. I'm actually a recently promoted floor supervisor in a casino, and I believe I've heard something to that effect, but its much more complicated than following basic strategy. Table minimum comes into play with factoring what your bankroll needs to be, as what you are actually trying to do is average out your income/#of hands, and get out when you hit an up curve.
The fact is that over the long term, any Casino game will run you out of your bankroll, unless you use a strategy that moves the odds more in your favor. That would be counting, or sliding dice etc.. on craps.
Sometimes, even using advantage play doesn't help: you still just get unlucky.
That being said, I hear what you are saying about the magus. I am just not convinced that we as a community should be basing our feedback on pure chance distribution. That isn't what Paizo is asking for. I have faith that Mark, who is an MIT grad from what I recall, can do a better job of that than I could. Instead, we should be doing our best to kick the tires on both classes, and 4 slot casting, and reporting our findings, for better or worse.
@beowulf99 that’s a fascinating job you have there! Glad I used that analogy then.
And absolutely on Mark and them being ultra intelligent, but I can’t help but feel this version of the Magus isn’t even what they would want to publish themselves.
It is what they wanted to Playtest, but that doesn’t mean it’s even intended to be the final product or that they haven’t identified issues were talking about right now themselves. It’s totally possible they wanted to just hear us confirm the problems they’ve already identified.
I don’t even hate the idea that spellstrike simply isn’t a “do it every turn always” ability. It certainly wasn’t for me when I played Magus, most turns I was just casting spells while swinging a sword, the actual transfer of spell through the weapon happened but not every spell or even every offensive spell.
Table minimum comes into play with factoring what your bankroll needs to be, as what you are actually trying to do is average out your income/#of hands, and get out when you hit an up curve.
Sure, absolutely. And that's why looking at the chassis ignoring options like True Strike are important. The ability to go above the norm exists, but just like table minimums putting a damper on your bankroll, you aren't going to have True Strike every time.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do they only have 4 chances? You can use Spellstrike with attack Cantrips as well for all day spellstriking.But that is the problem.
Magus is supposed tonbe able to land spells with their strike consistently. Needing a critical hit to make sure the spell lands goes against the premise of of the Magus.
Its like trying to get black jack to land your spells. Sure they could do it, but that would be incredibly boring and rare when you only have 4 chances.
Because the slot spells are the ones that have the more interesting effects and several abilities care whether you cast a spell or a cantrip and favour the spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One option feeling so optimal that you have to take it or else your class feels bad to play is a bad option.
If you need to "cheese" the game in order for your class to work it's not fun. I like the Divination Staff trick, I used it on a Ranger/Wizard before. But I didn't HAVE to. It was strong, it was optimal, but it wasn't necessary.
As far as being limited to 4 spells, scrolls are a real way to boost spells per day. For the summoner, they are an easy addition. A staff and a scroll in the other hand is pretty typical caster load out.
The magus has a bit more trouble using scrolls, but actually not the shooting star synth. Otherwise the scroll feat of the magus is pretty much required but it gives you one addition spell per encounter, which really should be enough. The magus focus powers should make it clear that the developers expect scroll purchase and use to be an assumption of the class
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as being limited to 4 spells, scrolls are a real way to boost spells per day. For the summoner, they are an easy addition. A staff and a scroll in the other hand is pretty typical caster load out.
The magus has a bit more trouble using scrolls, but actually not the shooting star synth. Otherwise the scroll feat of the magus is pretty much required but it gives you one addition spell per encounter, which really should be enough. The magus focus powers should make it clear that the developers expect scroll purchase and use to be an assumption of the class
If you were that worried about a single additional spell per encounter, there are better options than Scrolls IMO (Spell Swipe, Stand By Spell, Wizard/Witch MCD, etc.)
Generally, throwing gold at the problem isn't a great solution. If your character concept requires gold to work, it's really just a currency tax on the concept.
If it's an option, it means it isn't something all magus are expected to do.
I agree it isn’t meant to be mandatory, magus have an playtest class feat that grants additional spells, access to dedications or scrolls, wands and staves for additional spells. The “equipment isn’t a part of character building” boat sailed on D&D editions ago. There is no character for whom equipment is not a fundamental part of their build. Even monks have some must buy items to keep up with expected numbers and additional wealth that they are expected to spend on other things. There wouldn’t be a feat for adding a scroll to your weapon so you can still cast it without using up a free hand if the developers did not already think about and want to see how players use consumables to supplement the 4 spells per day system. The magus is heavily discouraged from using wands, but a staff with a shifting rune (that they can apply with a focus spell, but is cheap and common enough to be worth buying) is going to be one of the most common higher level builds for sure. Additionally, scrolls work out pretty well for an extra spell per encounter. I’d guess most folks will go back to max spell level -1 or -2 spells for these scrolls for economy purposes but we should test out what a magus looks like that consistently has 1 extra max level spell as well through scrolls.
But magus cant really use staff with the current 4 slot casting.
That is highly debatable, at the least ambiguous, and easily made untrue by at most 2 feats. SO the most you could say is that it is sometimes true.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's an option, it means it isn't something all magus are expected to do.
Right, so saying "they can just use scrolls" is a pretty bad argument for why their limited spells are so hampering, right?
And as Temperans points out, Staffs aren't really an option.
There wouldn’t be a feat for adding a scroll to your weapon so you can still cast it without using up a free hand if the developers did not already think about and want to see how players use consumables to supplement the 4 spells per day system.
I mean adding support for a prepared caster to use a scrolls would be expected, but requiring them to be able to reach a threshold of acceptable spells isn't IMO.
Like, scrolls should be a bonus benefit, not a requirement to maintain "caster" status.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's an option, it means it isn't something all magus are expected to do.Right, so saying "they can just use scrolls" is a pretty bad argument for why their limited spells are so hampering, right?
And as Temperans points out, Staffs aren't really an option.
There wouldn’t be a feat for adding a scroll to your weapon so you can still cast it without using up a free hand if the developers did not already think about and want to see how players use consumables to supplement the 4 spells per day system.I mean adding support for a prepared caster to use a scrolls would be expected, but requiring them to be able to reach a threshold of acceptable spells isn't IMO.
Like, scrolls should be a bonus benefit, not a requirement to maintain "caster" status.
My point is not that scrolls are required. My point is that the class has built in options that make 4 spells per day only one way to play the magus. If you have a feat heavy build that has no room for MC feats, then scrolls become another way you can stretch the limitations, even though the magus otherwise looks like it couldn't use scrolls, because its hand usage is so regulated. If you would rather pick up a casting MC dedication that is another option. A third is that you use martial caster to supplement your spells per day, and I wouldn't be surprised to see other versions of that feat that focus on specific kinds of buffing with lower level slots. A fourth option is that you build your magus to be more martially oriented and save your 4 slots just for your high impact spell strikes and don't do anything to pick up additional slots. Or for the summoner, you have 4 powerful summons and typically only expect to cast about 1 spell an encounter and otherwise fight with your eidolon. The point is that neither the magus nor the summoner is forced into any of these 1 options. They have choices based upon how they want to play. Testing them out and responding to the survey is a great way to let the developers know how they feel in comparison to other classes.
# of spell slots is something that a lot of casters struggle with in PF2 if they do not utilize outside options to supplement their casting. I don't expect the magus or the summoner to be different than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The scroll feat seems more intended for 2 handed weapon users.
The one handed caster needs a free hand when the cast the spell to gain the benefits of the slide casting. That means you could only do it with a no weapons style or a gauntleted fist style, without loading it into your weapon with the feat. Only a 1+ bow wielding archer magus can use scrolls for the spell without losing the benefit of their synthesis. At least by playtest rules.
The summoner seems fine for scroll usage though. Really the summoner is in great shape overall to use items for spells, as long as the wording on staves issue gets worked out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't always need the benefit of the synthesis though. Gotta pay a price if you want to circumvent your spell slot limitation
just to be clear, other than making sure that both the magus and the summoner are cleared to be able to use staves without having to invest in MC feats (that just feels way too sloppy to me), I am fine with the hands restriction of the magus limiting their scroll usage. I just think the striking scroll feat is useful for the sliding magus as well as the steel magus.
You don't always need the benefit of the synthesis though. Gotta pay a price if you want to circumvent your spell slot limitation
Juuust going to point out that if you aren't weilding your weapon when you use the Cast a Spell action after Striking Spell, you can't imbue your weapon.
You drastically alter a spell to combine it with a martial attack.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one
creature or object, instead of casting it as normal, you place
its magic into one melee weapon you’re wielding or into your
body to use with an unarmed attack
I don't see how that relate to what I said sorry^^'
My point is that "using a scroll" for the magus doesn't just cost him his synthesis. It costs him his primary defining class feature.
Ie scrolls do not in fact make up for the lack of spells per day.
My point is that "using a scroll" for the magus doesn't just cost him his synthesis. It costs him his primary defining class feature.
Ie scrolls do not in fact make up for the lack of spells per day.
But it doesn't.