Magus hit chance

[Angel Hunter D]

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

1: that seems like low AC for a boss type encounter at that level - where you'd actually wanna use your spells.

2: Flank and debuffs are not givens, very often I'll see fights where they can't happen or don't happen. I mostly Play PFS, but I'm also running Age of Ashes, and a party composition that guarantees that kind of setup is not what I would call the norm.

[Djinn71]

TSRodriguez wrote:

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.

I'm pretty sure that Vrock Ressy mentioned is actually from

AP name:

Extinction Curse, though that might be at lvl 7.

.

Regardless, most boss fights or miniboss fights will be against things above your level and you will certainly be unlikely to crit them. Being bad at boss fights is not really where you want to be with a class built around having limited resources, but high spikes of damage.

[beowulf99]

Bast L. wrote:

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?

I'm not actually sure to be honest. The only sorta relevant rules text I can find is the following:

CRB PG. 446 "Determine Success or Failure" wrote:

Some other abilities can change the degree of success for

rolls you get. When resolving the effect of an ability that
changes your degree of success, always apply the adjustment
from a natural 20 or natural 1 before anything else.

No word on whether "positive" or "negative" effects go first.

Personally, I say the two effectively cancel out regardless of which is factored first, like a Fortune/Misfortune effect. Otherwise you are being denied an advantage, or a penalty is being ignored.

[Unicore]

Anything +2 levels or higher should not be encountered in a fashion where the monster out numbers the PCs, meaning flanking against higher level monsters is usually a viable tactic.

The only problem I see with the accuracy of the striking spell mechanic, is that it just benefits too much from true strike for any build that doesn't include getting a staff of divination a top priority.

A smartly played magus is capable of brutal damage when buffed and attacking a debuffed foe. It just creates too much pressure on the rest of the party to focus all of their actions on setting up the magus, because none of them are going to be able to touch what a magus can do as soon as they can be hasted to be able to:
Striking spell
Cast a 2 action damage spell (hopefully be able to move into position at the same time with sliding spell)
cast true strike
then attack with their shifted staff into a D8 melee weapon.

The math on true strike gets a lot better when you can use it on weapon attack shifted 3 to 6 points in your favor and can basically turn a saving throw spell that comes after it into an anti-incapacitation spell.

It is a mechanic that stresses what is possible with system mastery, while looking really bad at the non-mastery level.

[Capn Cupcake]

Unicore wrote:

Anything +2 levels or higher should not be encountered in a fashion where the monster out numbers the PCs, meaning flanking against higher level monsters is usually a viable tactic.

The only problem I see with the accuracy of the striking spell mechanic, is that it just benefits too much from true strike for any build that doesn't include getting a staff of divination a top priority.

A smartly played magus is capable of brutal damage when buffed and attacking a debuffed foe. It just creates too much pressure on the rest of the party to focus all of their actions on setting up the magus, because none of them are going to be able to touch what a magus can do as soon as they can be hasted to be able to:
Striking spell
Cast a 2 action damage spell (hopefully be able to move into position at the same time with sliding spell)
cast true strike
then attack with their shifted staff into a D8 melee weapon.

The math on true strike gets a lot better when you can use it on weapon attack shifted 3 to 6 points in your favor and can basically turn a saving throw spell that comes after it into an anti-incapacitation spell.

It is a mechanic that stresses what is possible with system mastery, while looking really bad at the non-mastery level.

I don't disagree that things bet better when you account for buffs, debuffs, positioning, etc.

The problem with that argument is it also gets better for other classes that don't rely on those things so they *still* come out ahead.

[Unicore]

Best case scenario for the Magus Lvl 1
Magus has an 18 STR and a 16 INT
attacking with a Long sword +7 1d8+4
Spell attack +6 Save DC 16

The party is built around boosting the Magus attacks (I know this won’t be the norm, but we really need to see what can be most effective here).
So the magus is attacking with Inspire courage active, against a flat-footed foe that has just been intimidated for a moderate -1)

Attacking an Ogre Warrior
HP: 50
AC 17
F: +11
Ref +6
Will +5

Full round routine:
Striking spell (free)
Cast a spell slot spell and move
attack.

The sword attack will now be +8 vs AC 14 for hitting on a 7+ ( 25% chance of no hit, 50% chance of hit, 25% chance of crit which will impact spell damage immensely)

DPR Calc for the sword attack: (.25x0)+(.5x9.5)+(.25x19) = 0+4.75+4.75=9.5

Lets look at what happens if the spell is hydraulic push

The spell attack is a +7 vs AC 14 (adding in a +1 to the damage roll for IC as well)

DPR calc, 1st attack not critical: (30% miss / 50% hit / 20% crit) (.3x0)+(.5x11.5)+(.2x22) = 5.75+4.4 = 10.15

DPR calc, 1st attack a critical: (5% miss/50%hit/45% crit) (.05x0)+(.5x11.5)+(.45x22) = 5.75+9.9= 15.65

Someone smarter than me can make that into a real chart to compare with other classes, but getting a 25% chance of doing 64% more damage is pretty good.

Where this really gets bonkers though, is up 4 levels, when the bard is casting haste on the magus, and the magus is attacking with a staff of divination to make the same combat routine boosted with true strike on the first attack. Even though it would be with level 3 spells, it is a lot easier to just evaluate based off of what true strike does with everything else being the same. By my calculations True strike adjusts an attack that hits on a 7 from being a (25% miss / 50% hit / 25 crit) to a (6.25% miss/ 50%hit/ 43.75% crit).

This turns the sword attack into (.0625x0)+(.5x9.5)+(.4375x19)= 4.75+8.3125=13.0625

and then gives you a 43.75% chance of getting the critical effect out of your hydraulic push instead of 25%.

That seems incredibly good to me. Am I wrong? If someone else wants to really crack down the full math to what a level 5 magus is going to be doing vs a level +2 creature, go for it, but it seems like the magus is going to be coming out ahead when they can get closer to a 50% crit on their first attack, which is not going to be that rare with true strike.

[Capn Cupcake]

Unicore wrote:

Best case scenario for the Magus Lvl 1

Magus has an 18 STR and a 16 INT
attacking with a Long sword +7 1d8+4
Spell attack +6 Save DC 16

The party is built around boosting the Magus attacks (I know this won’t be the norm, but we really need to see what can be most effective here).
So the magus is attacking with Inspire courage active, against a flat-footed foe that has just been intimidated for a moderate -1)

Attacking an Ogre Warrior
HP: 50
AC 17
F: +11
Ref +6
Will +5

Full round routine:
Striking spell (free)
Cast a spell slot spell and move
attack.

The sword attack will now be +8 vs AC 14 for hitting on a 7+ ( 25% chance of no hit, 50% chance of hit, 25% chance of crit which will impact spell damage immensely)

DPR Calc for the sword attack: (.25x0)+(.5x9.5)+(.25x19) = 0+4.75+4.75=9.5

Lets look at what happens if the spell is hydraulic push

The spell attack is a +7 vs AC 14 (adding in a +1 to the damage roll for IC as well)

DPR calc, 1st attack not critical: (30% miss / 50% hit / 20% crit) (.3x0)+(.5x11.5)+(.2x22) = 5.75+4.4 = 10.15

DPR calc, 1st attack a critical: (5% miss/50%hit/45% crit) (.05x0)+(.5x11.5)+(.45x22) = 5.75+9.9= 15.65

Someone smarter than me can make that into a real chart to compare with other classes, but getting a 25% chance of doing 64% more damage is pretty good.

Where this really gets bonkers though, is up 4 levels, when the bard is casting haste on the magus, and the magus is attacking with a staff of divination to make the same combat routine boosted with true strike on the first attack. Even though it would be with level 3 spells, it is a lot easier to just evaluate based off of what true strike does with everything else being the same. By my calculations True strike adjusts an attack that hits on a 7 from being a (25% miss / 50% hit / 25 crit) to a (6.25% miss/ 50%hit/ 43.75% crit).

This turns the sword attack into (.0625x0)+(.5x9.5)+(.4375x19)= 4.75+8.3125=13.0625

and then gives you a 43.75% chance of getting the critical...

The real kick in the teeth is the farther you go up in level the worse your spell attacks get because one, they're behind in proficiency, two, they're behind in ability modifier, and three, they don't get the bonus from a potency rune. At level 13 your spell attack is at a -5 compared to your main attack. So now you've got an ability that:

Takes 3 actions to use properly
Maths out to actually going off about 1.5 out of 4 attempts
Does about the same damage as attacking twice if it goes perfectly with a cantrip
Is STILL less effective than just attacking twice with an agile weapon (which saves on an action too!)
Can be used with your spell slots, however you get 4 of them and pound for pound they are better spent on buff spells like haste

If you bend every possible modifier to your advantage, then you can, sometimes, be on par with other party members but the rogue doesn't have these problems. Neither does the wizard, or swashbuckler, or ranger, etc. And the real kick in the pants is that the Eldritch Archer already showed us we can have a fun, flavorful and engaging gish type character that's still balanced and entertaining to use.

[WWHsmackdown]

Unicore wrote:

Best case scenario for the Magus Lvl 1

Magus has an 18 STR and a 16 INT
attacking with a Long sword +7 1d8+4
Spell attack +6 Save DC 16

The party is built around boosting the Magus attacks (I know this won’t be the norm, but we really need to see what can be most effective here).
So the magus is attacking with Inspire courage active, against a flat-footed foe that has just been intimidated for a moderate -1)

Attacking an Ogre Warrior
HP: 50
AC 17
F: +11
Ref +6
Will +5

Full round routine:
Striking spell (free)
Cast a spell slot spell and move
attack.

The sword attack will now be +8 vs AC 14 for hitting on a 7+ ( 25% chance of no hit, 50% chance of hit, 25% chance of crit which will impact spell damage immensely)

DPR Calc for the sword attack: (.25x0)+(.5x9.5)+(.25x19) = 0+4.75+4.75=9.5

Lets look at what happens if the spell is hydraulic push

The spell attack is a +7 vs AC 14 (adding in a +1 to the damage roll for IC as well)

DPR calc, 1st attack not critical: (30% miss / 50% hit / 20% crit) (.3x0)+(.5x11.5)+(.2x22) = 5.75+4.4 = 10.15

DPR calc, 1st attack a critical: (5% miss/50%hit/45% crit) (.05x0)+(.5x11.5)+(.45x22) = 5.75+9.9= 15.65

Someone smarter than me can make that into a real chart to compare with other classes, but getting a 25% chance of doing 64% more damage is pretty good.

Where this really gets bonkers though, is up 4 levels, when the bard is casting haste on the magus, and the magus is attacking with a staff of divination to make the same combat routine boosted with true strike on the first attack. Even though it would be with level 3 spells, it is a lot easier to just evaluate based off of what true strike does with everything else being the same. By my calculations True strike adjusts an attack that hits on a 7 from being a (25% miss / 50% hit / 25 crit) to a (6.25% miss/ 50%hit/ 43.75% crit).

This turns the sword attack into (.0625x0)+(.5x9.5)+(.4375x19)= 4.75+8.3125=13.0625

and then gives you a 43.75% chance of getting the critical...

Spellstrike is the basic core mechanic. I don't want the core mechanic to be made widely unreliable due to teamwork and buff considerations. I'd rather the damage of my core mechanic be tuned down to acceptable perameters so that I can reliably do what my class is made to do without fretting over whether ideal conditions have been met. Give me an arcane power attack and I'll be happy.

[Unicore]

But the disparity between proficiencies is made incredibly less significant the better you can get at getting the first hit to crit. It probably feels counter intuitive, but having your spell attack slide by 3 points + item bonus isn't a big deal if you are managing to crit on the first attack. The benefits of this vastly exceed the benefits of just casting true strike on a spell by itself, like other casters are left to do.

I am not saying the mechanic is tuned correctly, I am just saying that it is not tuned towards being bad all the time. True strike on the weapon attack starts to make the math really swing in the magi's favor.

It is important that the "fix" to make the math work for less optimal magus builds don't make the optimal builds game wreckers.

Edit: For example, having the mechanic work where the weapon attack is also the spell attack roll would make truestrike unbelievably good.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

But the disparity between proficiencies is made incredibly less significant the better you can get at getting the first hit to crit. It probably feels counter intuitive, but having your spell attack slide by 3 points + item bonus isn't a big deal if you are managing to crit on the first attack. The benefits of this vastly exceed the benefits of just casting true strike on a spell by itself, like other casters are left to do.

I am not saying the mechanic is tuned correctly, I am just saying that it is not tuned towards being bad all the time. True strike on the weapon attack starts to make the math really swing in the magi's favor.

It is important that the "fix" to make the math work for less optimal magus builds don't make the optimal builds game wreckers.

Edit: For example, having the mechanic work where the weapon attack is also the spell attack roll would make truestrike unbelievably good.

having the value of your spells being made relevant soley through critting with your melee feels and is bad. they need to nix the increase by one step success critical mechanic and allow the class to be consistently compelling, not RNG swingy.

[Callin13]

If you have to get outside help or spend a resource to just get to competent then its not tuned right.

[beowulf99]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Spellstrike is the basic core mechanic. I don't want the core mechanic to be made widely unreliable due to teamwork and buff considerations. I'd rather the damage of my core mechanic be tuned down to acceptable perameters so that I can reliably do what my class is made to do without fretting over whether ideal conditions have been met. Give me an arcane power attack and I'll be happy.

So what you are asking for, is the ability to reliably deal adequate damage on demand without any outside influences, like teamwork or buffs/debuffs.

Okay, so take that ideal and add teamwork and buffs and debuffs into the equation, and what do you get?

An imbalanced mechanic.

The Barbarian is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Ranger is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Magus has to be balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs. I don't think that it works fine <yet>, but if you are going to do a damage evaluation, it helps to take into account best and worst case scenarios.

Imo, the OP's chart is a baseline, which is fine to look at. But in practice, you will rarely make an attack without some buff or debuff on one side or the other. Whether that is flanking, conditions like frightened or weakened effecting dpr, status/circumstance bonuses/penalties etc... These things are prolific in the game.

[Sporkedup]

beowulf99 wrote:

The Barbarian is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Ranger is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

What? No. They don't need anything additional. They hit very reliably without any accuracy help. The ranger is literally the second most accurate class in the game...

[beowulf99]

Sporkedup wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

The Barbarian is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Ranger is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

What? No. They don't need anything additional. They hit very reliably without any accuracy help. The ranger is literally the second most accurate class in the game...

Oh, so the Ranger works just fine in practice? So what you are saying is that, despite the existence of all of the buffs/debuffs available in game (some of which the ranger is excellent at providing I'd add), they aren't over powered?

Well, it seems like they are exactly what I said: Balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs, and working fine.

[Capn Cupcake]

beowulf99 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Spellstrike is the basic core mechanic. I don't want the core mechanic to be made widely unreliable due to teamwork and buff considerations. I'd rather the damage of my core mechanic be tuned down to acceptable perameters so that I can reliably do what my class is made to do without fretting over whether ideal conditions have been met. Give me an arcane power attack and I'll be happy.

So what you are asking for, is the ability to reliably deal adequate damage on demand without any outside influences, like teamwork or buffs/debuffs.

Okay, so take that ideal and add teamwork and buffs and debuffs into the equation, and what do you get?

An imbalanced mechanic.

The Barbarian is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Ranger is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Magus has to be balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs. I don't think that it works fine <yet>, but if you are going to do a damage evaluation, it helps to take into account best and worst case scenarios.

Imo, the OP's chart is a baseline, which is fine to look at. But in practice, you will rarely make an attack without some buff or debuff on one side or the other. Whether that is flanking, conditions like frightened or weakened effecting dpr, status/circumstance bonuses/penalties etc... These things are prolific in the game.

Addendum: The Barbarian and Ranger are also balanced around never having those buffs and they work fine. The Magus currently does not. If you drew up a chart comparing hit chance and damage for any other martial they'd come up far, far ahead and the 4 spell slots a day doesn't even come close to making up that deficit. I'd rather keep the 4 slots a day (really I want 2/2/2 instead of 2/2 but that's another conversation) but bring the core mechanic up to snuff because currently using it makes you worse than if you just ignored it.

[Sporkedup]

beowulf99 wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

The Barbarian is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Ranger is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

What? No. They don't need anything additional. They hit very reliably without any accuracy help. The ranger is literally the second most accurate class in the game...

Oh, so the Ranger works just fine in practice? So what you are saying is that, despite the existence of all of the buffs/debuffs available in game (some of which the ranger is excellent at providing I'd add), they aren't over powered?

Well, it seems like they are exactly what I said: Balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs, and working fine.

I guess I'm missing your point, then. Even if the Magus went full throttle and always successfully hit the spell automatically as soon as the melee strike hits, it would still not be the highest leveraging of accuracy in the game, despite the existence of all the buffs and conditions possibly at play.

[Unicore]

The nature of the striking spell mechanic makes front loading bonuses and effects on the first strike ripple through the rest of the turn in ways that no other class experiences. It is why you need to actually playtest the class instead of just white room it, because the math that the developers have looked at is going to be tighter than what any of us throw together in a couple days here on the boards.

I get not liking what it does, but you should at least evaluate how it will most often work in real play, not in a world where the magus has no allies.

[Martialmasters]

beowulf99 wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Spellstrike is the basic core mechanic. I don't want the core mechanic to be made widely unreliable due to teamwork and buff considerations. I'd rather the damage of my core mechanic be tuned down to acceptable perameters so that I can reliably do what my class is made to do without fretting over whether ideal conditions have been met. Give me an arcane power attack and I'll be happy.

So what you are asking for, is the ability to reliably deal adequate damage on demand without any outside influences, like teamwork or buffs/debuffs.

Okay, so take that ideal and add teamwork and buffs and debuffs into the equation, and what do you get?

An imbalanced mechanic.

The Barbarian is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Ranger is balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs and works fine.

The Magus has to be balanced around the availability of accuracy boosting buffs. I don't think that it works fine <yet>, but if you are going to do a damage evaluation, it helps to take into account best and worst case scenarios.

Imo, the OP's chart is a baseline, which is fine to look at. But in practice, you will rarely make an attack without some buff or debuff on one side or the other. Whether that is flanking, conditions like frightened or weakened effecting dpr, status/circumstance bonuses/penalties etc... These things are prolific in the game.

actually no, what you get, is basically every martial in the core classes. not imbalance, you get the line to meet.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

The nature of the striking spell mechanic makes front loading bonuses and effects on the first strike ripple through the rest of the turn in ways that no other class experiences. It is why you need to actually playtest the class instead of just white room it, because the math that the developers have looked at is going to be tighter than what any of us throw together in a couple days here on the boards.

I get not liking what it does, but you should at least evaluate how it will most often work in real play, not in a world where the magus has no allies.

and its still lacking

[Martialmasters]

doing quick math, the strongest points of a magus's career is when its to hit with weapons is the same as with spells before item bonuses.

this means 1-4, and 19-20.

at 20, your to hit with a spell will be 4 behind a regular caster with an apex item, and effectively -4 behind your melee to hit due to capping at 20 int vs 22 STR and no item bonuses.

so the spell being cast essentially has the agile trait for purposes of comparison.

however levels 5-18, this is -6 to -7 behind your melee to hit chance. thus becoming worse than just attacking twice in terms of to hit.

cantrip attack, say best option is a TKP.

10d6+5+4d8+3d6+7+6, you average about 81 damage a round, provided you could do this every round.

a monk, one of the least damaging martials currently in the game in terms of DPR, will average 77 with one action using a d8 stance.

if you blow a 9th level polar ray your average DPR balloons to a whopping 102. maxing at 167 damage.

the ONLY saving grace is the critical effect boosting the effect of the spell/cantrip by one step. turning your miss into a hit and your hit into a critical provided you crit with your martial attack.

all that does is create a unfun swingy feeling where you are at more mercy to the dice gods than the average character.+

[Callin13]

And here I saw a Fighter double crit a Double Slice on monday for 130 damage at lvl 12.... using picks of course, but still.

[Sporkedup]

Unicore wrote:

The nature of the striking spell mechanic makes front loading bonuses and effects on the first strike ripple through the rest of the turn in ways that no other class experiences. It is why you need to actually playtest the class instead of just white room it, because the math that the developers have looked at is going to be tighter than what any of us throw together in a couple days here on the boards.

I get not liking what it does, but you should at least evaluate how it will most often work in real play, not in a world where the magus has no allies.

There's a middle ground to find here between "don't need nobody" and "can't succeed at my core functions without direct and predictable team support."

I don't expect the fighter or ranger level of self-sufficiency, but it does need to get ramped way, way, way up from needing multiple conditions on one enemy and buffs on the magus to get better than even odds to hit a baddie.

[WWHsmackdown]

Sporkedup wrote:

Unicore wrote:

The nature of the striking spell mechanic makes front loading bonuses and effects on the first strike ripple through the rest of the turn in ways that no other class experiences. It is why you need to actually playtest the class instead of just white room it, because the math that the developers have looked at is going to be tighter than what any of us throw together in a couple days here on the boards.

I get not liking what it does, but you should at least evaluate how it will most often work in real play, not in a world where the magus has no allies.

There's a middle ground to find here between "don't need nobody" and "can't succeed at my core functions without direct and predictable team support."

I don't expect the fighter or ranger level of self-sufficiency, but it does need to get ramped way, way, way up from needing multiple conditions on one enemy and buffs on the magus to get better than even odds to hit a baddie.

I kind of expect ranger or barbarian levels of being able to reliably do their thing. Barbarians can reliably get off rage damage. Rangers can reliably get off extra hits or precision damage. I want the fellow master martial magi to reliably get off their spell strike. I am perfectly comfortable with spell strike damage being nerfed to whatever level is fair to achieve this. Just let me do my thing with the same efficacy that other martials do their thing. If I have to jump through hoops I'll just keep playing a fighter x caster

[Unicore]

Sporkedup wrote:

Unicore wrote:

The nature of the striking spell mechanic makes front loading bonuses and effects on the first strike ripple through the rest of the turn in ways that no other class experiences. It is why you need to actually playtest the class instead of just white room it, because the math that the developers have looked at is going to be tighter than what any of us throw together in a couple days here on the boards.

I get not liking what it does, but you should at least evaluate how it will most often work in real play, not in a world where the magus has no allies.

There's a middle ground to find here between "don't need nobody" and "can't succeed at my core functions without direct and predictable team support."

I don't expect the fighter or ranger level of self-sufficiency, but it does need to get ramped way, way, way up from needing multiple conditions on one enemy and buffs on the magus to get better than even odds to hit a baddie.

My point is that you can't ignore either extreme when talking about its balance. The magus works differently than other classes so really maximizing the first attack roll plays a pretty wild swing into what the damage output of the class can be, and that needs to be considered along side everything else.

That is why suggestions to fold the two attacks into one roll are a bad suggestion, it will make the maximized magus into an absolute destroyer when they truestrike and have a 40+% chance of getting a critical on both attacks. The eldritch archer avoids this problem by being incompatable with truestrike. It requires three actions and the only time it will ever be able to be used with true strike is with a quickened spell, so a grand total of once a day max.

On the flip side, there is probably room to boost the magus spell casting attack modifier because it won't really effect what happens with the sword attack. Potentially letting them add an item bonus to spell attack rolls could work out fine (maybe even DCs if it is limited just to the magus), because you are never going to be able to truestrike both rolls.

[PossibleCabbage]

Purely based on "proficiencies" the Magus is every bit as good at hitting people with their weapon of choice as the ranger, monk, or champion. I don't think it really needs to be better than those classes.

It may be that striking spell needs a rework or the rest of the class chassis needs reworking but the accuracy is fine, unless we also need to improve the accuracy of monks, champions, rangers, etc.

The real issue as I see it is not the chance of striking spell doing nothing, but that striking spell really doesn't do that much to begin with.

[Unicore]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Purely based on "proficiencies" the Magus is every bit as good at hitting people with their weapon of choice as the ranger, monk, or champion. I don't think it really needs to be better than those classes.

It may be that striking spell needs a rework or the rest of the class chassis needs reworking but the accuracy is fine, unless we also need to improve the accuracy of monks, champions, rangers, etc.

The magus is actually more accurate, if built right, because it will be able to use truestrike on its weapon attack pretty regularly and get the added benefit of adding a nasty spell effect on top when you crit with it.

[beowulf99]

I feel like a lot of the disconnect we are seeing here is coming from an expectation that the Magus should ONLY be compared to Martial Classes.

But that's not true is it? It's in the book, the Secrets of Magic after all.

So how does the Magus Compare to a Wizard or Sorcerer?

Well, instead of standing and casting a 2 action spell, then having a 3rd action to move/meta magic/raise a shield (cast shield) etc..., you are making an accurate melee attack with a spell as a rider.

I don't have the time atm, but I'd like to see a distribution of the average DPR of a full caster vs. a Magus on a given round using the same spell at the same level, including the strike damage.

Then you have other angles that are being ignored:

The critical effect of Striking Spell (which amounts to a +10 to the Spell attack roll/-10 to the enemies save contingent on a critical hit with your more accurate attack).

Any secondary effects of whatever spell you used to strike with.

And the ability of the magus to do all of this while benefitting from Martial AC levels rather than caster AC (The magus is tied with Ranger in that department, and 2 levels ahead of a Barbarian for getting Expert).

[Unicore]

A barbarian without flanking or any debuffing actually struggles a lot with accuracy against higher level enemies. It only makes up the DPR by having really high damage spike potential, but that is very similar to the magus actually. In play the barbarian often feels like a giant miss machine unless the rest of the party pitches in.

[Lelomenia]

Unicore wrote:

The nature of the striking spell mechanic makes front loading bonuses and effects on the first strike ripple through the rest of the turn in ways that no other class experiences. It is why you need to actually playtest the class instead of just white room it, because the math that the developers have looked at is going to be tighter than what any of us throw together in a couple days here on the boards.

I get not liking what it does, but you should at least evaluate how it will most often work in real play, not in a world where the magus has no allies.

issue is that as structured, i don’t think it’s possible to balance it ‘properly’. As your crit chance goes up, it becomes much more effective; for low hit/low crit situations, it’s often suboptimal to use it at all. Highly optimizing groups are going to max out the situational buffs/debuffs, and if they balance with that in mind, then the break even point for optimal groups might be against +1 or +2 enemies and for average groups against -1 or at level enemies, so their core mechanic doesn’t normally help them. In any scenario, magus in that structure is a class that’s optimized for single target damage against weak opponents, which is the least useful skillset there is. Other class mechanics reliably make them better at their thing, and those mechanics are much easier to balance.

[PossibleCabbage]

Like the precision ranger with a crossbow reliably spends 3 actions to deal 1d8 P + 1d8 precision.

By level the damage is:
1-3: 1d8 P + 1d8 precision
4-10: 2d8 P + 1d8 precision
11: 2d8 P + 2d8 precision
12-18: 3d8 P + 2d8 precision
19-20: 4d8 P + 3d8 precision

For a shooting star magus with the same weapon at the same level using a cantrip to striking spell, the relevant breakpoints are:

1st: 1d6 P + 1(d4/d6) * + IntMod
4: 2d6 P + 2(d4/d6) * + IntMod
12: 3d6 P + 6(d4/d6) * + IntMod
19: 4d6 P + 10(d4/d6) * + IntMod

* variable damage type based on choice of cantrip, subject to a save.

The Magus has the same hit chance on the crossbow bolt, has the ability to choose a damage type to get around immunities, resistances, target weaknesses, and put a rider effect on the spell. The Magus also has the chance of failing on the spell and doing half, or no extra damage.

But this doesn't seem totally out of whack to me.

[Martialmasters]

i ran comparisons at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, with optimal stat spread of

18str
14dex
10con
16int
10wis
8cha

voluntary flaw build.

i compared the best damage spell, to the best cantrip damage, to attacking twice with a d8 weapon.

what i found, is that the description of spellstrike action is misleading. It mentions not incurring map, and objectively this is true. but the way spells work, you are still mimmicking that map incursion by using a spell anyways due to not hit runes, lower proficiencies, and lower stats at various levels.

but the maximum deficiency with this stat spread, is -4, so your spell is functionally an agile weapon attack. best case scenarios at specific levels, -2, better than an agile weapon attack.

as far as damage. the cantrips are largely sidegrades most of the time to attacking twice. you do a little less or a little more depending on the level and the cantrip.

spells obviously allow for some burst, but not nearly as much as you think.

then, the other thing to weigh is this is 3 actions, casting the spell and attacking. the only way to fix this action economy issue is with slide casting, allowing you to move while casting a spell with spellstrike. making it, imo, absolutely mandatory and makes sustaining steel absolutely horrid.

or rather, shooting star doesnt need it because it thinks it can stay still and do it. sustain steel can use a d12 weapon, so its probably being valued that its going to use spell strike less and more often only for spell slots. wich..is bad given its feat choices.

slide casting is the only good synthesis.

what this also means? in actual play, you will do better than you think you would be doing, provided you optomize your stats as i have. and the critical causing spell effects to go up one step, could potentially help more than we think, but only if you can critical with relative frequency with your melee attack. if you cannot, the magus is strictly subpar/underwhelming. just not by the degree many assumed.

[Capn Cupcake]

Martialmasters wrote:

i ran comparisons at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, with optimal stat spread of

18str
14dex
10con
16int
10wis
8cha

voluntary flaw build.

i compared the best damage spell, to the best cantrip damage, to attacking twice with a d8 weapon.

what i found, is that the description of spellstrike action is misleading. It mentions not incurring map, and objectively this is true. but the way spells work, you are still mimmicking that map incursion by using a spell anyways due to not hit runes, lower proficiencies, and lower stats at various levels.

but the maximum deficiency with this stat spread, is -4, so your spell is functionally an agile weapon attack. best case scenarios at specific levels, -2, better than an agile weapon attack.

as far as damage. the cantrips are largely sidegrades most of the time to attacking twice. you do a little less or a little more depending on the level and the cantrip.

spells obviously allow for some burst, but not nearly as much as you think.

then, the other thing to weigh is this is 3 actions, casting the spell and attacking. the only way to fix this action economy issue is with slide casting, allowing you to move while casting a spell with spellstrike. making it, imo, absolutely mandatory and makes sustaining steel absolutely horrid.

or rather, shooting star doesnt need it because it thinks it can stay still and do it. sustain steel can use a d12 weapon, so its probably being valued that its going to use spell strike less and more often only for spell slots. wich..is bad given its feat choices.

slide casting is the only good synthesis.

what this also means? in actual play, you will do better than you think you would be doing, provided you optomize your stats as i have. and the critical causing spell effects to go up one step, could potentially help more than we think, but only if you can critical with relative frequency with your melee attack. if you cannot, the magus is strictly subpar/underwhelming. just not by the degree many...

Honestly I wish that crit rider wasn't there at all. I would really, REALLY rather it not be balanced around a maybe sometimes +10 to the spell attack/ -10 to the saving throw. That's so swingy and weird and makes it so inconsistent. I'd rather be able to reliably do my cool thing that nobody else gets to do rather than fail it most of the time and possibly get one huge encounter ending explosion. Especially since it just doesn't seem worth it to try and use my real spell slots with it.

[Martialmasters]

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

[WWHsmackdown]

Martialmasters wrote:

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

I'd be fine with that second roll at -4 if spellstrike were two actions. As it stands I'd rather just swing a d8 weapon followed by an agile weapon. Then I'd still have an action left over.

[Capn Cupcake]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

I'd be fine with that second roll at -4 if spellstrike were two actions. As it stands I'd rather just swing a d8 weapon followed by an agile weapon. Then I'd still have an action left over.

This is really the big kicker. If it were 2 actions but kind of inaccurate it's be fine (a bummer but fine). If it were 3 actions but reliable it would feel pretty good. But 3 actions and being really inaccurate is just unsatisfying.

[Unicore]

Martialmasters wrote:

i ran comparisons at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, with optimal stat spread of

18str
14dex
10con
16int
10wis
8cha

voluntary flaw build.

i compared the best damage spell, to the best cantrip damage, to attacking twice with a d8 weapon.

what i found, is that the description of spellstrike action is misleading. It mentions not incurring map, and objectively this is true. but the way spells work, you are still mimmicking that map incursion by using a spell anyways due to not hit runes, lower proficiencies, and lower stats at various levels.

but the maximum deficiency with this stat spread, is -4, so your spell is functionally an agile weapon attack. best case scenarios at specific levels, -2, better than an agile weapon attack.

as far as damage. the cantrips are largely sidegrades most of the time to attacking twice. you do a little less or a little more depending on the level and the cantrip.

spells obviously allow for some burst, but not nearly as much as you think.

then, the other thing to weigh is this is 3 actions, casting the spell and attacking. the only way to fix this action economy issue is with slide casting, allowing you to move while casting a spell with spellstrike. making it, imo, absolutely mandatory and makes sustaining steel absolutely horrid.

or rather, shooting star doesnt need it because it thinks it can stay still and do it. sustain steel can use a d12 weapon, so its probably being valued that its going to use spell strike less and more often only for spell slots. wich..is bad given its feat choices.

slide casting is the only good synthesis.

what this also means? in actual play, you will do better than you think you would be doing, provided you optomize your stats as i have. and the critical causing spell effects to go up one step, could potentially help more than we think, but only if you can critical with relative frequency with your melee attack. if you cannot, the magus is strictly subpar/underwhelming. just not by the degree many...

This is what my gut was telling me about the class when I first read it. I like it because spells also often do pretty interesting and powerful things when they do crit (even cantrips), and I think it is unique and cool that the magus gets to experience that more often when they load a spell into their weapon than when they attack normally. Electric arc being the exception that really is the only cantrip not made better by casting through the weapon, but that also feels like a positive intentional choice to me, because every other class overvalues it.

The magus is a gambler class for sure. That makes it more interesting to me, but you are definitely going to have some frustrating rounds. Especially if the rest of your party doesn't want to play the make you better game. They pair really, really well with a bard though, almost as much as a flurry ranger.

[Martialmasters]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

I'd be fine with that second roll at -4 if spellstrike were two actions. As it stands I'd rather just swing a d8 weapon followed by an agile weapon. Then I'd still have an action left over.

I think you may be misunderstanding me?

If it was 2 actions and your spell was done at -4. It would be at -6 to -8 respectively. So it would be equivalent of a third attack from a agile weapon. Making it unlikely to do anything save for on a 20 in many scenarios.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

i ran comparisons at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, with optimal stat spread of

18str
14dex
10con
16int
10wis
8cha

voluntary flaw build.

i compared the best damage spell, to the best cantrip damage, to attacking twice with a d8 weapon.

what i found, is that the description of spellstrike action is misleading. It mentions not incurring map, and objectively this is true. but the way spells work, you are still mimmicking that map incursion by using a spell anyways due to not hit runes, lower proficiencies, and lower stats at various levels.

but the maximum deficiency with this stat spread, is -4, so your spell is functionally an agile weapon attack. best case scenarios at specific levels, -2, better than an agile weapon attack.

as far as damage. the cantrips are largely sidegrades most of the time to attacking twice. you do a little less or a little more depending on the level and the cantrip.

spells obviously allow for some burst, but not nearly as much as you think.

then, the other thing to weigh is this is 3 actions, casting the spell and attacking. the only way to fix this action economy issue is with slide casting, allowing you to move while casting a spell with spellstrike. making it, imo, absolutely mandatory and makes sustaining steel absolutely horrid.

or rather, shooting star doesnt need it because it thinks it can stay still and do it. sustain steel can use a d12 weapon, so its probably being valued that its going to use spell strike less and more often only for spell slots. wich..is bad given its feat choices.

slide casting is the only good synthesis.

what this also means? in actual play, you will do better than you think you would be doing, provided you optomize your stats as i have. and the critical causing spell effects to go up one step, could potentially help more than we think, but only if you can critical with relative frequency with your melee attack. if you cannot, the magus is strictly subpar/underwhelming.

...

I honestly think that makes for bad game design. Personally.

[Capn Cupcake]

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

i ran comparisons at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, with optimal stat spread of

18str
14dex
10con
16int
10wis
8cha

voluntary flaw build.

i compared the best damage spell, to the best cantrip damage, to attacking twice with a d8 weapon.

what i found, is that the description of spellstrike action is misleading. It mentions not incurring map, and objectively this is true. but the way spells work, you are still mimmicking that map incursion by using a spell anyways due to not hit runes, lower proficiencies, and lower stats at various levels.

but the maximum deficiency with this stat spread, is -4, so your spell is functionally an agile weapon attack. best case scenarios at specific levels, -2, better than an agile weapon attack.

as far as damage. the cantrips are largely sidegrades most of the time to attacking twice. you do a little less or a little more depending on the level and the cantrip.

spells obviously allow for some burst, but not nearly as much as you think.

then, the other thing to weigh is this is 3 actions, casting the spell and attacking. the only way to fix this action economy issue is with slide casting, allowing you to move while casting a spell with spellstrike. making it, imo, absolutely mandatory and makes sustaining steel absolutely horrid.

or rather, shooting star doesnt need it because it thinks it can stay still and do it. sustain steel can use a d12 weapon, so its probably being valued that its going to use spell strike less and more often only for spell slots. wich..is bad given its feat choices.

slide casting is the only good synthesis.

what this also means? in actual play, you will do better than you think you would be doing, provided you optomize your stats as i have. and the critical causing spell effects to go up one step, could potentially help more than we think, but only if you can critical with relative frequency with your melee attack. if you cannot, the magus is strictly subpar/underwhelming.

...

I think the fundamental disconnect is most of us don't WANT to play a gambler. We want to play a class that can reliably pull off it's really, really cool gimmick. Even if that means it needs power siphoned off from it, either from the gimmick itself or the rest of the class. I don't want to have 3 bad turns of trying and failing and then have one explosive turn. I don't want to spend 4 spell slots missing with my spells only to crit with the 4th slot. None of that sounds like fun to play. It may be interesting from a design stand point but it sure as hell doesn't sound fun.

[Unicore]

Martialmasters wrote:

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

But the magus does get a second round to make that spell stick though which no other caster gets. And, if you have an agile weapon, you can even get two more, (possibly even 4 once you are regularly getting hasted), chances to get the spell to go off. That is not nothing.

[Angel Hunter D]

Unicore wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Purely based on "proficiencies" the Magus is every bit as good at hitting people with their weapon of choice as the ranger, monk, or champion. I don't think it really needs to be better than those classes.

It may be that striking spell needs a rework or the rest of the class chassis needs reworking but the accuracy is fine, unless we also need to improve the accuracy of monks, champions, rangers, etc.

The magus is actually more accurate, if built right, because it will be able to use truestrike on its weapon attack pretty regularly and get the added benefit of adding a nasty spell effect on top when you crit with it.

How does a class with 4 spell slots get True Strike regularly?

[Unicore]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

I think the fundamental disconnect is most of us don't WANT to play a gambler. We want to play a class that can reliably pull off it's really, really cool gimmick.

Maybe it is a language usage thing, but a "reliable gimmick" doesn't really feel like a gimmick to me, it feels like basic fundamental every round activity. That would just be casting a spell and attacking regularly, something every caster or MC caster can do already.

[swoosh]

Unicore wrote:

A barbarian without flanking or any debuffing actually struggles a lot with accuracy against higher level enemies.

A magus without flanking or any debuffing struggles a lot with accuracy against same level enemies.

The most likely outcome for a level 10 magus against a same level opponent is that they lose their spell slot to no effect. Over the course of the whole day, if half their spells land they've beaten the odds.

If you think that's okay because if you stack every buff in the game on a Magus they look pretty good, I guess more power to you.

But there's nothing particularly shocking about other people not liking that reality.

[Capn Cupcake]

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

But the magus does get a second round to make that spell stick though which no other caster gets. And, if you have an agile weapon, you can even get two more, (possibly even 4 once you are regularly getting hasted), chances to get the spell to go off. That is not nothing.

No, that's false. It gets multiple chances to give up its opportunity to make the spell stick which is still something other classes get, and I'm not sure they want. Once the weapon strike hits you still only get one shot to hit with the spell itself. And don't forget existing MAP still applies to the spell, so if you hit with your 2nd melee strike your spell attack is at a -5.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

But the magus does get a second round to make that spell stick though which no other caster gets. And, if you have an agile weapon, you can even get two more, (possibly even 4 once you are regularly getting hasted), chances to get the spell to go off. That is not nothing.

Are you referring to high level feats and features? Last thing I read was it went away when you missed.

[swoosh]

Unicore wrote:

Maybe it is a language usage thing, but a "reliable gimmick" doesn't really feel like a gimmick to me, it feels like basic fundamental every round activity. That would just be casting a spell and attacking regularly, something every caster or MC caster can do already.

Wow, yeah. Imagine someone wanting to play a battle mage, expecting to be able to cast spells and attack people with some degree of reliability.

What an idiot that person must be.

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

I think the fundamental disconnect is most of us don't WANT to play a gambler. We want to play a class that can reliably pull off it's really, really cool gimmick.

Maybe it is a language usage thing, but a "reliable gimmick" doesn't really feel like a gimmick to me, it feels like basic fundamental every round activity. That would just be casting a spell and attacking regularly, something every caster or MC caster can do already.

I think the incorrect word here is gimmick. Spell strike isn't a gimmick. It's a core class feature.

[Capn Cupcake]

Martialmasters wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

I think the fundamental disconnect is most of us don't WANT to play a gambler. We want to play a class that can reliably pull off it's really, really cool gimmick.

Maybe it is a language usage thing, but a "reliable gimmick" doesn't really feel like a gimmick to me, it feels like basic fundamental every round activity. That would just be casting a spell and attacking regularly, something every caster or MC caster can do already.

I think the incorrect word here is gimmick. Spell strike isn't a gimmick. It's a core class feature.

I typically see the word gimmick to mean the same thing as "cool thing it does". IE Wizard's gimmick is all it's spells, Barbarian's gimmick is Rage, etc. etc. etc.

That said, I think nitpicking the fact that I used the word gimmick is really childish and detracts from the overall conversation about the health of the design (directed at Unicore, not you)

[Unicore]

Martialmasters wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Maybe. I'm just relaying what I've found. My understanding is that a -4 is acceptable to try ty hit with. -2 could be argued to be pretty good.

What I don't like is losing one of your very few spells if you miss the roll. Wich could easily happen. Not good. Would be different if you had more spells.

But the magus does get a second round to make that spell stick though which no other caster gets. And, if you have an agile weapon, you can even get two more, (possibly even 4 once you are regularly getting hasted), chances to get the spell to go off. That is not nothing.

Are you referring to high level feats and features? Last thing I read was it went away when you missed.

I was misreading it a bit, but also thinking about its capstone ability of getting to use the same spell 2 times.

I am not saying that the magus should not have reliable actions, I am saying that the striking spell feature is probably more of an every other round feature that can be exploited well to crit fish in ways that stack on very powerful magical effects. That is not an ability that should be expected to work optimally every round.

My point about true strike is not that it is easy to get, it is that it so clearly the most superior way to build a magus, that it is a mistake not to, at least when using your actual spell slot attack spell.

I do see how that is problematic generally. But I also see how it is a pretty incredible and awesome build that sounds really fun to play.

[graystone]

Martialmasters wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

I think the fundamental disconnect is most of us don't WANT to play a gambler. We want to play a class that can reliably pull off it's really, really cool gimmick.

Maybe it is a language usage thing, but a "reliable gimmick" doesn't really feel like a gimmick to me, it feels like basic fundamental every round activity. That would just be casting a spell and attacking regularly, something every caster or MC caster can do already.

I think the incorrect word here is gimmick. Spell strike isn't a gimmick. It's a core class feature.

Niche, calling card, distinctive feature, signature move, ect...