Magus hit chance

[Capn Cupcake]

Table is not mine though I did help some with the math.

The Magus's hit chance is absolutely atrocious. Due to the lack of potency runes on spell attacks, the delayed casting proficiency, and the lower starting Int compared to other classes the Magus's spell attack accuracy is honestly nothing short of atrocious. Your odds of hitting with a spell strike are less than 1/3 at any level. Needing to hit with a strike first, and then hit with another, less accurate attack makes this borderline unplayable.

From level 10 up you are quite literally more accurate, and more damaging, with less actions spent attacking twice than spell striking with a cantrip. The class doesn't function as written right now.

https://imgur.com/UJ43h8G

[Ressy]

Interesting, I feel like this is highlighting the problem casters in general have with attack-roll based spells now that they're targeting the same ACs as the item based party members rather than Touch AC.

I do have to ask, though, what you're using for weapon vs cantrip damage, or are you going straight off of the attack rolls? At 5th level, for example, a Psychokinetic Strike will deal 3d6+4 (14.5). While a weapon could deal anywhere from 2d6+4 (11) to 2d12+5 (18).

In case you're interested in folding it in, I put together an excel sheet for calculating the miss and crit chances, cumulative, over the 4 attacks made before your spells go poof into the aether.

Weird thought: what if Striking Spell had Failure and Success effects? Such as on Failure make the spell attack/save as normal, on a Success make them with a bonus to attack or DC, and on Crit Failure the spell poofs?

[Capn Cupcake]

Ressy wrote:

Interesting, I feel like this is highlighting the problem casters in general have with attack-roll based spells now that they're targeting the same ACs as the item based party members rather than Touch AC.

I do have to ask, though, what you're using for weapon vs cantrip damage, or are you going straight off of the attack rolls? At 5th level, for example, a Psychokinetic Strike will deal 3d6+4 (14.5). While a weapon could deal anywhere from 2d6+4 (11) to 2d12+5 (18).

In case you're interested in folding it in, I put together an excel sheet for calculating the miss and crit chances, cumulative, over the 4 attacks made before your spells go poof into the aether.

Weird thought: what if Striking Spell had Failure and Success effects? Such as on Failure make the spell attack/save as normal, on a Success make them with a bonus to attack or DC, and on Crit Failure the spell poofs?

For cantrip vs weapon damage I was folding in the accuracy into the over all DPR.

I honestly think Striking spell should just apply the spell you're attacking with. You're already spending 3 actions on it, why do you have to be punished with another attack roll at all? Treat save spells as a failure on a hit/crit failure on a critical hit too. Now the Magus has a fun, functional playstyle that doesn't step on anyone's toes and can do some really cool stuff 4 times a day, more if they invest heavily into multiclassing. They still can't AoE, or debuff more than one thing at a time and they certainly can't bring even a fraction of the raw utility of a full caster. It's their own little niche carved just for them.

[Enrif]

I wrote it in the other thread but here is my solution to this:

Enrif wrote:

I see one big problem with Magus, and others pointed it out. The Magus needs to hit, or rather, crit with their strike when using Striking Spell. This is the bread and butter ability of it afterall.

I think there is an easy solution to it: add your Intelligence Modifier to the attack roll made with a weapon or unarmed strike using Striking Spell. (and add your key ability modifier to the spell attack/save DC too.)
This way the magus can compensate for stopping at master proficiency, somewhat justify the few spell slots and the weird loss of action economy. When they hit, the really hit and make it count.

Also, Sustaining Steel should double those Temp HP i think. Twice the cantrip level, four times the spellslot level.

With this the Magus can be as accurate (Magus +3 from Str/Dex, +3 from Int, +2 from Proficiency = +8 = Fighter +4 Str/Dex, +4 Proficiency) or even more then a fighter, but not all the time. This would give the Magus the niche of a highly accurate, high damage character, but at the expanse of loosing actions, which the fighter could use to move around, raise a shield, trip, use an item, etc.

[Ressy]

Certainly being able to turn save effects into Strike effects would be interesting. I assume Failed Strike means no effect (Crit Success Save), rather than just the Successful Save effect?

[Glancer]

Curious what this would look like if you used save DC based spells instead.

[Ligraph]

Assuming you have access, could you do a similar table for save spells? I suspect they would be better off separate as well since you don't even get the bonus of avoiding MAP. Also, assuming you didn't include it, I'd be interested in seeing how striking spell compares with Strike > Cast Spell (including MAP).

[Ferious Thune]

I just don’t think two stats to one attack is in the design of the game or likely to ever be.

[beowulf99]

Instead of trying to get a second ability score added in, which will likely be +4 after 5th if you are really building for it, I say just make it so that you add +2 to your attack roll(s).

I've come to terms with Striking Spell. At first glance it feels "worse" than the Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot, since that uses your success on the attack roll as the success for whatever spell you added to the arrow.

But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason.

It sucks that you have to roll both attack rolls, but really it's not that big a deal. If you were a fighter making multiple attacks, you'd be doing the same thing, just with MAP in the way of your second strike.

[Enrif]

Ferious Thune wrote:

I just don’t think two stats to one attack is in the design of the game or likely to ever be.

Looking at the Math it would be around the fighters hit chance

1st level magus: +4 Str or Dex , +3 Int, +2 Proficiency, +level = +10 for Striking Spell, +7 for all other attacks.

1st level fighter: +4 Str or Dex, +4 Proficiency, +level = +9 on any attack

20th level magus: +6 Str or Dex, +5 Int, +6 Proficiency, +level = +37 for Striking Spell, +32 for all other attacks.

20th level fighter: +6 Str or Dex, +8 Proficiency, +level = +34 on any attack

And the fighter would be more flexible. Doing all kind of other actions, getting demoralize, feint, movement. The Magus is more restrained as a compromise.

[Callin13]

Yea using 2 Stats for Attacks is bonkers to be baked into the base of a class.

[Ressy]

beowulf99 wrote:

But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason.

The problem there is Bespell Strikes only triggers on non-cantrip spells. So your 4/day spell slots and your focus spells.

[Arakasius]

They’re never going to give Magus a +3 prof bonus over fighter at max level. Be serious that’s a +5 difference over every martial. It’s not happening. What they need to do is address the spell hit of the equation. Nothing needs to be changed with the martial to hit.

[beowulf99]

Enrif wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

I just don’t think two stats to one attack is in the design of the game or likely to ever be.

Looking at the Math it would be around the fighters hit chance

1st level magus: +4 Str or Dex , +3 Int, +2 Proficiency, +level = +10 for Striking Spell, +7 for all other attacks.

1st level fighter: +4 Str or Dex, +4 Proficiency, +level = +9 on any attack

20th level magus: +6 Str or Dex, +5 Int, +6 Proficiency, +level = +37 for Striking Spell, +32 for all other attacks.

20th level fighter: +6 Str or Dex, +8 Proficiency, +level = +34 on any attack

And the fighter would be more flexible. Doing all kind of other actions, getting demoralize, feint, movement. The Magus is more restrained as a compromise.

15% better than a fighter is never going to happen. That's what a +3 is after all, a 15% better chance, and 15% higher crit chance (assuming you don't still need 20's to hit).

The fighter is built around being the most accurate dude on the field. No way is Paizo going to casually make the Magus "better" than the whole point of one of the core classes.

At best I could see a side-grade situation, where you can be AS accurate as a fighter. But I can't see them making the Magus straight better.

[Capn Cupcake]

beowulf99 wrote:

Instead of trying to get a second ability score added in, which will likely be +4 after 5th if you are really building for it, I say just make it so that you add +2 to your attack roll(s).

I've come to terms with Striking Spell. At first glance it feels "worse" than the Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot, since that uses your success on the attack roll as the success for whatever spell you added to the arrow.

But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason.

It sucks that you have to roll both attack rolls, but really it's not that big a deal. If you were a fighter making multiple attacks, you'd be doing the same thing, just with MAP in the way of your second strike.

The issue is how incredibly inaccurate spell attacks are. Especially with a slower attack progression. After about 13th level they sit at around 35% accuracy. That means, combined with needing to already hit with your weapon, you're sitting at about an 18% of succeeding. This means out of ever 5 spell strikes, less than 1 will actually have the spell go off.

[beowulf99]

Ressy wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason.

The problem there is Bespell Strikes only triggers on non-cantrip spells. So your 4/day spell slots and your focus spells.

Right, but that is why I believe it's written the way it is, so that you can split up the Spell and the Strike.

And really, you are getting a good benefit out of Striking Spell: No MAP between the two. You are getting 2 attacks for the MAP cost of 1.

Sure, if you just use Electric Arc or any other spell that only requires a save, it doesn't matter. But for things like Acid Arrow, and most attack cantrips it does.

Also note that we are only looking at a small part of the book. The Secrets of Magic book will probably come out with another wave of spells, some are going to be purpose built for these classes.

I expect to see plenty of Magus pointed Spell Attack roll spells that are attractive.

[Enrif]

beowulf99 wrote:

15% better than a fighter is never going to happen. That's what a +3 is after all, a 15% better chance, and 15% higher crit chance (assuming you don't still need 20's to hit).

The fighter is built around being the most accurate dude on the field. No way is Paizo going to casually make the Magus "better" than the whole point of one of the core classes.

At best I could see a side-grade situation, where you can be AS accurate as a fighter. But I can't see them making the Magus straight better.

That's a fair point. The idea was not to make the Magus by default better then the fighter. Only for using basically a three action skill, which locks the magus down for one turn. And the current wording implies that to crit is a important part to it. And since getting a higher attack roll (or lowering the targets AC) is the only way to improve your crit chance..

[beowulf99]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

Instead of trying to get a second ability score added in, which will likely be +4 after 5th if you are really building for it, I say just make it so that you add +2 to your attack roll(s).

I've come to terms with Striking Spell. At first glance it feels "worse" than the Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot, since that uses your success on the attack roll as the success for whatever spell you added to the arrow.

But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason.

It sucks that you have to roll both attack rolls, but really it's not that big a deal. If you were a fighter making multiple attacks, you'd be doing the same thing, just with MAP in the way of your second strike.

The issue is how incredibly inaccurate spell attacks are. Especially with a slower attack progression. After about 13th level they sit at around 35% accuracy. That means, combined with needing to already hit with your weapon, you're sitting at about an 18% of succeeding. This means out of ever 5 spell strikes, less than 1 will actually have the spell go off.

That's not quite true. You use your Melee strike for Striking Spell, so whatever weapon you are wielding. Since the Magus follows other martials generally for proficiency, you are just as accurate as say a Ranger or Monk for the purposes of triggering your spell.

It would suck to have your spell then miss, but thems the breaks. At least you don't have to worry about MAP for your Other attack in the chain so to speak.

[Capn Cupcake]

beowulf99 wrote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

Instead of trying to get a second ability score added in, which will likely be +4 after 5th if you are really building for it, I say just make it so that you add +2 to your attack roll(s).

I've come to terms with Striking Spell. At first glance it feels "worse" than the Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot, since that uses your success on the attack roll as the success for whatever spell you added to the arrow.

But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason.

It sucks that you have to roll both attack rolls, but really it's not that big a deal. If you were a fighter making multiple attacks, you'd be doing the same thing, just with MAP in the way of your second strike.

The issue is how incredibly inaccurate spell attacks are. Especially with a slower attack progression. After about 13th level they sit at around 35% accuracy. That means, combined with needing to already hit with your weapon, you're sitting at about an 18% of succeeding. This means out of ever 5 spell strikes, less than 1 will actually have the spell go off.

That's not quite true. You use your Melee strike for Striking Spell, so whatever weapon you are wielding. Since the Magus follows other martials generally for proficiency, you are just as accurate as say a Ranger or Monk for the purposes of triggering your spell.

It would suck to have your spell then miss, but thems the breaks. At least you don't have to worry about MAP for your Other attack in the chain so to speak.

Except that is quite true, the math has already been done. For anything at L+0 it hovers around 20% to hit with an attack AND the spell. At L+1 it drops to about 18%, and gets substantially worse at L+2. This isn't a "them's the breaks" kind of thing, this is a "Your core class feature works less than 1/5 of the time. I posted an imgur link to the chart with the math, I encourage you to refer to it. The statistics have already been done.

[Callin13]

Yea that is a very frightening chart.

[beowulf99]

In practice I don't think that distribution will hold up. Things like Flanking, Fright etc... are too common not to come into play much of the time.

What does the distribution look like vs. Average Saves for Save based spells would be my next question, as the meta cantrip, electric arc, is save based as are a great number of single target damage spells like Sudden Bolt.

And how does the Critical Effect factor in? Assuming your numbers are accurate, you should have between a 10 and 15% chance of critting with your melee Strike, more with debuffs/buffs involved, which means that 10-15% of the time a Failure for your Spell Attack or Spell Save will upgrade to a success and so on.

This chart is great as a baseline to set expectations, but doesn't do much to tell the reader what will happen in practice. Unless you know any players who are fine with eschewing ANY buffs/tactics that increase their chances of success.

[Lelomenia]

beowulf99 wrote:

Ressy wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

But Striking Spell is built with Bespell Strikes in mind. You can use Striking Spell, cast the spell then Bespell Strike, then attack in one turn. If instead Magus had a melee capable version of Eldritch Shot, you couldn't use Bespell Strikes without making that feat a free action with a trigger, which I imagine Paizo wants to avoid for whatever reason.

The problem there is Bespell Strikes only triggers on non-cantrip spells. So your 4/day spell slots and your focus spells.

Right, but that is why I believe it's written the way it is, so that you can split up the Spell and the Strike.

And really, you are getting a good benefit out of Striking Spell: No MAP between the two. You are getting 2 attacks for the MAP cost of 1.

Sure, if you just use Electric Arc or any other spell that only requires a save, it doesn't matter. But for things like Acid Arrow, and most attack cantrips it does.

Also note that we are only looking at a small part of the book. The Secrets of Magic book will probably come out with another wave of spells, some are going to be purpose built for these classes.

I expect to see plenty of Magus pointed Spell Attack roll spells that are attractive.

it seems like even with 0 MAP the attack spell cantrips are still straight up worse than single target electric arc (because they are all bad), which makes the whole MAP advantage...not really an advantage. And that’s before you get to other MAP factors (1) if you finally get your hit off on the 2nd Or 3rd swing of round 2, you eat a big penalty on your spell attack when you finally get to use it and (2) if you hit on the 1st attack in round 2, you are under a big penalty right away.

[Angel Hunter D]

It doesn't have MAP, but proficiency and stat distribution basically make it an Agile weapon for a second attack in the best case.

[Capn Cupcake]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

It doesn't have MAP, but proficiency and stat distribution basically make it an Agile weapon for a second attack in the best case.

I would totally be fine with that if it didn't take 3 actions to get there personally.

Edit: Except that it's still very, very bad to use spell slots to attack with and this does nothing to fix that so never mind.

[BishopMcQ]

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

[beowulf99]

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

A buddy of mine pointed out that this is actually the only way we currently have of offsetting the downside of Incapacitation spells.

I doubt that many Magus' are going to really prepare too many incap spells, and even if you DID get the spell off, the opponent has to Critically fail the save still, but there is a slim chance.

And only based on 2 Die Rolls! (Both of which have to be Critically in your favor...) :)

[Shisumo]

Right now, the fact that the best option for Striking Spell usage is to basically ignore the benefit of Striking Spell, opting for save-based spells over attack-rolls, and just taking advantage of the synthesis abilities, seems to be the biggest problem in the playtest overall.

[TheGentlemanDM]

In order for Spell Strikes to be effective, I suspect they need to include the "if the attack hits, so does the spell" clause used by Eldritch Archers.

Because as is, Striking Spell looks like a massive trap of a feature.

The economy across multiple turns is what really kills it.

Looking at the graph, you are on average 16 percentage points more accurate with your weapon than your spells. A few back-of-an-envelope calculations also reveals that a d8 weapon with the regular upgrade suite does about the same amount of damage as a cantrip at any given level. d4 is a little below, d6 is a little above, but it's close enough. If we look at a d10 or d12 weapon, it's easily in favour of the weapon.

If we compare two rounds of attacks against on level-foes, assuming we can semi-reliably flank and that the base damage per hit is the same for weapons and cantrips...

Two strikes, two strikes: (0.65)+(0.4)+(0.65)+(0.4)+(0.4 crit bonus damage) = 2.6 hits worth of damage on average, with room to move or raise a shield. This is our baseline.

Cantrip, cantrip (no flank bonus): (0.44)+(0.44)+(0.1 crit bonus damage) = ~1 hits worth of damage, albeit at range.

Load striking spell, two strikes: (0.65)+(0.65*0.49)+(0.4)+(0.4*0.35*0.24)+(~0.25 crit bonus) = 1.65 hits worth of damage. Roughly. The math is gets a little busy once factoring the MAP and whether or not the spell triggers on the first attack. Either way, this doesn't look good.

Full spellstrike combo, full spellstrike combo: (0.65)+(0.65*0.49)+(0.65)+(0.65*0.49)+(0.4 crit bonus damage)+(0.4*0.35 for if the opening hit didn't land) = 2.48 hits worth of damage.

Unless my admittedly quick math is way off, using Striking Spell is only competitive if you're able to attack with it the turn you use it. And even then, it's not necessarily better than just attacking a bunch of times, since you don't have your third action free for defenses in such a case.

If we look at a case where the spell is tied to the melee attack...

Eldritch Spellstrike, Eldritch Spellstrike: (2*0.65)+(2*0.65)+(2*0.3 crit bonus damage)(0.4*0.35 for if the opening hit didn't land) = 3.35 damage. Roughly.

In this case, we have a situation where Striking Spell is actually better than just attacking, giving the Magus a cause to exist. I haven't considered all the possible outcomes (and would probably want a tree diagram to do so), but the other possible outcomes shouldn't affect the result by much.

Oh, and even in this situation, we're still doing less damage than Rage or Sneak Attack would. We're only making up the difference across the day when we Spellstrike out bigger spells from our slots.

[Angel Hunter D]

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

[beowulf99]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

I wouldn't say they are TOO rare in fights with on level enemies personally. And again, with judicious application of flanking/ a dirge of doom bard or any other buff vector, the chances of a crit get better and better.

Sure, they aren't your expected outcome, buuuut they can't be discounted as negligible. Especially in a game where a core mechanic allows you to Reroll attack rolls. (hero points).

[WWHsmackdown]

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

I wouldn't say they are TOO rare in fights with on level enemies personally. And again, with judicious application of flanking/ a dirge of doom bard or any other buff vector, the chances of a crit get better and better.

Sure, they aren't your expected outcome, buuuut they can't be discounted as negligible. Especially in a game where a core mechanic allows you to Reroll attack rolls. (hero points).

I don't want something with frequency of crits to be a balancing factor in the spell strikes accuracy/effectiveness

[kripdenn]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Table is not mine though I did help some with the math.

The Magus's hit chance is absolutely atrocious. Due to the lack of potency runes on spell attacks, the delayed casting proficiency, and the lower starting Int compared to other classes the Magus's spell attack accuracy is honestly nothing short of atrocious. Your odds of hitting with a spell strike are less than 1/3 at any level. Needing to hit with a strike first, and then hit with another, less accurate attack makes this borderline unplayable.

From level 10 up you are quite literally more accurate, and more damaging, with less actions spent attacking twice than spell striking with a cantrip. The class doesn't function as written right now.

https://imgur.com/UJ43h8G

Your chart is incorrect because you are not factoring in the step increase for the spell attack when you crit succeed the melee strike. For example, at 10th lvl the chance for both should be 25.5% and not 21%.

[Ressy]

Copied from somewhere else I posted it:

For reference, I put together an excel sheet of the cumulative miss/crit chances. Assuming an agile weapon (best case).

Base D20 roll needed to hit // Miss chance across 4 attacks (2 w/o MAP, 1 at -4, 1 at -8) // Chance that a Crit was scored.

Base // Miss // Crit
5 // 0.96% // 36.5%
6 // 1.83% // 31.7%
7 // 3.15% // 26.7%
8 // 5.05% // 21.2%
9 // 7.68% // 15.3%
10 // 11.19% // 8.9%
11 // 15.75% // 9.6%
12 // 21.55% // 10.4%
13 // 27.36% // 9.8%
14 // 34.12% // 10.4%
15 // 41.90% // 11.0%
16 // 50.77% // 11.6%
17 // 57.76% // 9.0%
18 // 65.21% // 9.2%
19 // 73.10% // 9.5%
20 // 81.45% // 9.8%

As you can see in the above, if you hit on a natural 14, you only have a 66% chance to even get to roll your spell attack. Not counting actually hitting with it. There's a 10% chance you'd crit within that 66%, meaning your spell attack would be 1-step higher.

Honestly, in that circumstance you'd be better off just casting and then striking, using a save-based spell.

Also worth considering, if you hit on the 2nd or 3rd attack of the round to deliver the spell, you're still eating a -5 or -10MAP to the spell's attack roll. Because you only ignore the MAP from the delivering strike, not any prior (missed) strikes.

[beowulf99]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

I wouldn't say they are TOO rare in fights with on level enemies personally. And again, with judicious application of flanking/ a dirge of doom bard or any other buff vector, the chances of a crit get better and better.

Sure, they aren't your expected outcome, buuuut they can't be discounted as negligible. Especially in a game where a core mechanic allows you to Reroll attack rolls. (hero points).

I don't want something with frequency of crits to be a balancing factor in the spell strikes accuracy/effectiveness

Sadly, with how Crits work in PF2, it will be a factor. A crit isn't just a 5% chance anymore. It's usually more in the 10-20% chance. And that's typically Before factoring in buffs/debuffs. and other hard to quantify variables.

You bet your bottom dollar that Paizo carefully factors in expected and average crit chances when designing mechanics.

[Angel Hunter D]

beowulf99 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

I wouldn't say they are TOO rare in fights with on level enemies personally. And again, with judicious application of flanking/ a dirge of doom bard or any other buff vector, the chances of a crit get better and better.

Sure, they aren't your expected outcome, buuuut they can't be discounted as negligible. Especially in a game where a core mechanic allows you to Reroll attack rolls. (hero points).

I don't want something with frequency of crits to be a balancing factor in the spell strikes accuracy/effectiveness

Sadly, with how Crits work in PF2, it will be a factor. A crit isn't just a 5% chance anymore. It's usually more in the 10-20% chance. And that's typically Before factoring in buffs/debuffs. and other hard to quantify variables.

You bet your bottom dollar that Paizo carefully factors in expected and average crit chances when designing mechanics.

That's sounds too high, I haven't seen that kind of frequency on crits ever.

[beowulf99]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

I wouldn't say they are TOO rare in fights with on level enemies personally. And again, with judicious application of flanking/ a dirge of doom bard or any other buff vector, the chances of a crit get better and better.

Sure, they aren't your expected outcome, buuuut they can't be discounted as negligible. Especially in a game where a core mechanic allows you to Reroll attack rolls. (hero points).

I don't want something with frequency of crits to be a balancing factor in the spell strikes accuracy/effectiveness

Sadly, with how Crits work in PF2, it will be a factor. A crit isn't just a 5% chance anymore. It's usually more in the 10-20% chance. And that's typically Before factoring in buffs/debuffs. and other hard to quantify variables.

You bet your bottom dollar that Paizo carefully factors in expected and average crit chances when designing mechanics.

That's sounds too high, I haven't seen that kind of frequency on crits ever.

Any time you hit on less than 10, you have a 10% or better chance to Crit. Rangers, Barbarians, Monks etc... all have plenty of vectors for reaching those numbers, and many of them are available to a Magus.

Flank, Frightened, a status bonus and some way of getting a circumstance bonus can add up quickly.

Crits are not rare. At best they are uncommon, and should be factored into any consideration of damage output/efficacy.

[TSRodriguez]

The damage potential of the Magus is too high, that's why the accuracy with spells isn't that great - A "Deadly" Critical hit plus some accuracy feat like exacting strike, ups the chance of doing catastrophic damage with some spells (Shocking grasp, Bolts, etc)
With master prof in melee, you hit a lot of crits in a day... based on actual play.
The narrative that Crits are too "unreliable" doesn't work with how the game plays - They have to take into consideration that the Magus has the potential to up-damage every class in the game

[Ressy]

In my experience playing Modules, hitting on less than a 10 is uncommon, unless you're fighting mooks. Frankly mooks are just there to bulk out the adventure, like the baking soda in drugs. It's not worth wasting spell slots on them.

If your GM is frequently throwing low AC enemies at you, then yes the ability to bump your spell via critting is nice. But you need to be on a situation when you're hitting on a natural 9 or lower before it comes into play at all.

[Angel Hunter D]

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

I wouldn't say they are TOO rare in fights with on level enemies personally. And again, with judicious application of flanking/ a dirge of doom bard or any other buff vector, the chances of a crit get better and better.

Sure, they aren't your expected outcome, buuuut they can't be discounted as negligible. Especially in a game where a core mechanic allows you to Reroll attack rolls. (hero points).

I don't want something with frequency of crits to be a balancing factor in the spell strikes accuracy/effectiveness

Sadly, with how Crits work in PF2, it will be a factor. A crit isn't just a 5% chance anymore. It's usually more in the 10-20% chance. And that's typically Before factoring in buffs/debuffs. and other hard to quantify variables.

You bet your bottom dollar that Paizo carefully factors in expected and average crit chances when designing mechanics.

That's sounds too high, I haven't seen that kind of frequency on crits ever.

Any time you hit on less than 10, you have a 10% or better chance to Crit. Rangers, Barbarians, Monks etc... all have plenty of vectors for reaching those numbers, and many of them are available to a Magus.

Flank, Frightened, a status bonus and some way of getting a circumstance bonus can add up quickly.

Crits are not rare. At best they are uncommon, and should be factored into any consideration of damage output/efficacy.

Any time you hit with less than a 10 (which I've only seen a handful of times, and I've played a Monk and Ranger) is not a time when you need to blow 25% of your spellpower.

[WWHsmackdown]

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

BishopMcQ wrote:

How does the effect of increasing the level of success for the Spell Attack when a Strike crits change the dynamic? Same with lowering the success of a save against the spell for spells with no attack roll separate from the Strike?

Significant change? Minor?

Negligible. Crits are too rare in the fights you'd want to use a spell slot in (level or higher), and overkill where you got things below your level.

I wouldn't say they are TOO rare in fights with on level enemies personally. And again, with judicious application of flanking/ a dirge of doom bard or any other buff vector, the chances of a crit get better and better.

Sure, they aren't your expected outcome, buuuut they can't be discounted as negligible. Especially in a game where a core mechanic allows you to Reroll attack rolls. (hero points).

I don't want something with frequency of crits to be a balancing factor in the spell strikes accuracy/effectiveness

Sadly, with how Crits work in PF2, it will be a factor. A crit isn't just a 5% chance anymore. It's usually more in the 10-20% chance. And that's typically Before factoring in buffs/debuffs. and other hard to quantify variables.

You bet your bottom dollar that Paizo carefully factors in expected and average crit chances when designing mechanics.

That's sounds too high, I haven't seen that kind of frequency on crits ever.

Any time you hit on less than 10, you have a 10% or better chance to Crit. Rangers, Barbarians, Monks etc... all have plenty of vectors for reaching those numbers, and many of them are available to a Magus.

Flank, Frightened, a status bonus and some way of getting a circumstance bonus can add up quickly.

Crits are not rare. At best they are uncommon, and should be factored into any consideration of damage output/efficacy.

Then they shouldn't add the crit ribbon on spellstrike and only let the weapon damage double. If (unmodified) unreliable spellstrike is the result of crit considerations then I'd rather they take that off the table.

[TSRodriguez]

Ressy wrote:

In my experience playing Modules, hitting on less than a 10 is uncommon, unless you're fighting mooks. Frankly mooks are just there to bulk out the adventure, like the baking soda in drugs. It's not worth wasting spell slots on them.

At level 9, you can crit an enemy of your level (AC27) easily with flanking and debuffs on a 6-8 (+13level prof, +4 ability, +2 flank, +2 item, -1 debuff) So you can crit them on a 16-20. And if you miss your first attempt, you mulligan for a second chance of 16-20 crit chance to out-damage every class in the game

[TSRodriguez]

Then they...

Yeah, they ARE considering the spell crit, thats why the proficiency of spell attack is so low. Im not necessarily agreeing with the logic, Im just saying that is most likely for that reason.

[Ressy]

TSRodriguez wrote:

Then they...

Yeah, they ARE considering the spell crit, thats why the proficiency of spell attack is so low. Im not necessarily agreeing with the logic, Im just saying that is most likely for that reason.

What kind of things are you fighting if they only have AC 27 at lvl 9?

My groups are fighting things with that kind of AC as early as level 6. With attack bonuses 6 lower.

[Ressy]

TSRodriguez wrote:

Ressy wrote:

In my experience playing Modules, hitting on less than a 10 is uncommon, unless you're fighting mooks. Frankly mooks are just there to bulk out the adventure, like the baking soda in drugs. It's not worth wasting spell slots on them.

At level 9, you can crit an enemy of your level (AC27) easily with flanking and debuffs on a 6-8 (+13level prof, +4 ability, +2 flank, +2 item, -1 debuff) So you can crit them on a 16-20. And if you miss your first attempt, you mulligan for a second chance of 16-20 crit chance to out-damage every class in the game

What kind of things are you fighting if they only have AC 27 at lvl 9?

My groups are fighting things with that kind of AC as early as level 6. With attack bonuses 6 lower.

[TSRodriguez]

The moderate AC for a 9 level monster is 27, High is 28 - Its in the rules...

[Ressy]

TSRodriguez wrote:

The moderate AC for a 9 level monster is 27, High is 28 - Its in the rules...

Meanwhile, Adventure paths like to do things like throw Vrocks (AC28) at lvl 6 parties.

[TSRodriguez]

Fall of Plaguestone and Age of Ages are over-tuned, It is a widely known fact. And no one crits the boss here... because a one shoted boss is the most boring thing ever. Against PL+2 or +3, you just have to chip away.

[Shisumo]

What if the second paragraph of Striking Spell was changed to read like this:

"If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit. The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving throw, but your spell attack roll cannot get a result worse than success. If your discharging Strike was a critical success and the discharged spell requires a save, the degree of success is one worse than the target rolls."

Changes bolded for clarity.

[Martialmasters]

The only saving grace to the action will be if when using said action it uses your melee to hit for the spells to hit and gives a circumstance bonus to spell saves you could invest in as a feat option.

[Bast L.]

beowulf99 wrote:

A buddy of mine pointed out that this is actually the only way we currently have of offsetting the downside of Incapacitation spells.

I doubt that many Magus' are going to really prepare too many incap spells, and even if you DID get the spell off, the opponent has to Critically fail the save still, but there is a slim chance.

And only based on 2 Die Rolls! (Both of which have to be Critically in your favor...) :)

Wait, what's the order of operations? Incap raises, then crit from magus lowers, or the other way?