Are you referring to high level feats and features? Last thing I read was it went away when you missed.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.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.
We disagree on what spell strike should be then. Because without it. Your just a bad martial and a very bad spell caster.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Right, and likewise on the spell side they are incentivized to Save-Target (or AC target vs low AC), coincidentally they have Feat for free Recall action to be aware of those factors. Having Focus Haste really normalizes that enhanced action economy, so they should have plenty of opportunity for 1-action debuffs and actions to gain tactical advantage. Building up tactical advantage is name of the game anyways, and Magus can work that to their advantage.
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.
Right, I think that's what significantly improves their average damage with spells/slots, I think more than a mere +2 proficiency alone would do. Not to mention missing weapon in 1st round still leaves them "holding" spell charge, so next round they can attack multiple time to trigger it, or even cast True Strike to fish for best Crit chances, leaving action(s) for Focus spell or movement etc.
With more than 1 full round of attacks, it just seems very unlikely to fail to trigger the spell effect before end of next round... If we remove weapon misses as irrelevant to spell effect (whenever it is triggered eventually), I think it's reasonable to say weapon Crits are significant portion of your hits considering Magus Rune advantage and plausible buffs/debuffs/Flanking. If ~25% of weapon HITS are crits, the total effect equals 25% of all spells being upgraded one category... That seems more impactful than a vanilla +2 proficiency atop naked d20 variance. Low level enemies being even easier to Crit probably makes "just Cantrip" combos even more viable vs them (and low level enemies are likely to be found in groups, so you can recycle Recall Knowledge info advantage).
I would guess it's more likely a Wizard ends up wasting spell slot with no effect or only partial effect, even if Magus might need a second swing to achieve that, so perhaps "reliability" is in eye of beholder. I don't think the entire viability of Magus comes down to looking only at one hypothetical weapon roll and one hypothetical spell roll, even if the ease of that comparison might feel like it grants legitimacy. Multi-round dynamics are important, and they bring plenty of other value to th table, from skills and free Recall Knowledge, to mobility and utility including via items, with Haste economy letting them aid allies as well...
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Focus Haste is at, what, level 14? so many people will never get that far for a "normal" feature.
As for crits, they aren't that reliable and I don't think the class should be built around them with those proficiencies. Besides, you cast before you swing so you have no control over it anyways.
I think the incorrect word here is gimmick. Spell strike isn't a gimmick. It's a core class feature.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 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)
My appologies if it felt like I was being critical of you, I was really trying to focus on talking about the ability itself and I think it might be a mistake to assume that striking spell is supposed to be an action that you always use every round. The way it is worded, I think it is ok to think about your combined attack and spell as a special power move you set up with the best possible chance of getting a critical hit on the weapon attack. To the point that you sometimes take other actions to set it up, because you can reasonably hit 25% crit chances on your weapon attack, and when you do, you will be doing a lot more than just double damage on that one attack.
That makes it more of a gimmick to me (in a good way), that you have to work to set up, rather than just a typical combat routine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...i ran comparisons at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, with optimal stat spread of
18str
14dex
10con
16int
10wis
8chavoluntary 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 don't wanna gamble though. I just wanna function
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We shouldn't HAVE to be roided out on buffs and trying to hit a hamstringed opponent to have a reasonable chance of our core class feature working. That's not good design even if it's "balanced".
Saying it is not good design, like that is a provable fact and not an opinion is pretty rude to the developers that have put it forward for playtesting. They want people to try it out and see in play, if it makes the class feel different from other martial characters that are more prone to just brow beating their way through encounters. It creates a more tactical and intellectual feel for the class, which is kinda cool. It is ok not to like it and be vocal about that, but if you are calling it bad design like that is a fact, you are going to get push back from people that feel differently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We shouldn't HAVE to be roided out on buffs and trying to hit a hamstringed opponent to have a reasonable chance of our core class feature working. That's not good design even if it's "balanced".Saying it is not good design, like that is a provable fact and not an opinion is pretty rude to the developers that have put it forward for playtesting. They want people to try it out and see in play, if it makes the class feel different from other martial characters that are more prone to just brow beating their way through encounters. It creates a more tactical and intellectual feel for the class, which is kinda cool. It is ok not to like it and be vocal about that, but if you are calling it bad design like that is a fact, you are going to get push back from people that feel differently.
Well a gambling feature on a Gambler or Chaos type class/archetype would be appropriate: one on magic channeling warrior using their bread and butter feature... Not so much IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't wanna gamble though. I just wanna function
Pathfinder 2nd edition is pretty conclusively based around a philosophy of "in a game largely about rolling dice, what you roll should matter." People miss more often than they did in first edition, and you fail more skill checks- largely because you cannot stack math enhancers sky high.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a dice based game, 2E made "autopass plateaus" a thing of the past so dice variance is always real. So if you don't like "gambling" you probably don't like this game already. In actual fact plenty of people do like "gambling", which is why it is near univeral concept across cultures.
A good amount of the time there will be no difference in outcome despite +/-2 proficiency, and the amount of time it does make a difference can be balanced against the amount of time a weapon crit upgrades the effect. That this dynamic isn't neatly collected in a single neat one dimensional metric doesn't change that, even if such narrow focus might lend false sense of certainty. Refusing to address multifactor dynamics and bigger picture does not seem good qualification to assess good or bad system design. Asserting consumer assumptions and preferences is not game system design.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We shouldn't HAVE to be roided out on buffs and trying to hit a hamstringed opponent to have a reasonable chance of our core class feature working. That's not good design even if it's "balanced".Saying it is not good design, like that is a provable fact and not an opinion is pretty rude to the developers that have put it forward for playtesting. They want people to try it out and see in play, if it makes the class feel different from other martial characters that are more prone to just brow beating their way through encounters. It creates a more tactical and intellectual feel for the class, which is kinda cool. It is ok not to like it and be vocal about that, but if you are calling it bad design like that is a fact, you are going to get push back from people that feel differently.
Gambling is not tactical. Rewarding or intellectual. It's just frustrating.
I too feel having your character's main feature revolve around luck is not only not compelling. It's insulting. The very nature of this game is RNG. We shouldn't be looking to compound that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious as to whether the MC magus is going to get the spell striking ability, or some kind of more traditional MC casting ability. The spell striking feature can also be used pretty interestingly with the inquisitor 's ability to know the attack roll before making it.
There are some pretty interesting ways to exploit the feature as it currently exists.
In the end, I don't know that the existing striking spell feature is the best option, or that it wouldn't benefit from upping the magus' spell accuracy a point or three over the course of 20 levels. I am just saying that is sounds interesting and exciting to test out, and that some of the "corrections" I have seen made for "fixing" the magus' accuracy are going to result in some massively overpowered builds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't wanna gamble though. I just wanna functionPathfinder 2nd edition is pretty conclusively based around a philosophy of "in a game largely about rolling dice, what you roll should matter." People miss more often than they did in first edition, and you fail more skill checks- largely because you cannot stack math enhancers sky high.
Yes, but this feature doubles down and makes you even more likely to fail: there a big difference between needing a coin flip and needing to roll five 6's on 5d6's [yahtzee!]. This especially true when you compare it to just making a Strike and casting a Save spell vs spell striking [possibly with multiple targets].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reliably hitting with a weapon attack and casting a spell in the same turn is already an easily accomplishable build in PF2 before the existance of the magus playtest class. Use a bow and you can do this almost every round either as a caster/martial MC or as a Martial/Caster MC.
People wanted something different than what was already possible with the magus class.
A lot of folks were specifically wanting action economy exploits. We got that with the Slide casting magus. The developers are obviously also looking for way to give the magus a unique way to have a damage booster that plays into the magus's strengths and lore. Big powerful critical hits that devastate when they tack on a spell effect have long been a part of the pathfinder magus lore. There is a reason so many Magi in PF1 ran around with scimitars and other crit centered weapons. This isn't a shocking departure from the previous magus niche.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, does anybody LIKE the name "Striking Spell"? I keep wanting to say "Spell Strike" which just flows better IMHO. All of the follow on Feats seems to use the term "Spellstrike" e.g. "Quickened Spellstrike" "Dispelling Spellstrike" etc., so I'm not really sure what's going on. Is consistency dead? ;-)
"Spirit Sheath" is another ability name I dislike, because "Spirit" has specific connotation re: Occult magic, while Magus is supposed to be all about Arcane. Just call it Extradimensional Sheath or something that sounds Arcane-y.
Spirit Sheath is somewhat relevant to Spell Strike/Striking Spell efficacy discussion, in that you can swap to more optimal backup weapon as free action. Having right damage type or ideal trait is usually useful and saving that action to swap weapons is legit.
Striking Spell is probably because the ability modifies the spell, not the strike.
|
Why are we even bothering with spell attacks? It’s very clear striking spell heavily favours spells with saves, because if you hit at your second MAP increment with a save spell... it’s still full effectiveness, whereas the spell attack will be at -5.
So, as usual, the best cantrip is electric arc (I guess you can use chill touch as well for the melee synthesises, though ref is a better save to target). Don’t bother with that spell attack nonsense.
Speaking of gambling, does anyone know how Magus interacts with Phantasmal Killer? Would the - DoS apply to only the initial save or the incapacitation save as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Spirit Sheath" is another ability name I dislike
Mana Sheath? Arcane Sheath? Reequip? [or Requip if you like Fairy Tail].
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a couple of issues with the names used for abilities within the class. Striking Spell is confusing because of the existence of Striking Runes, which another abilitiy in the class can add to a weapon.
Magus Synthesis and the Synthesis Summoner Feat being in the same book just seems really odd.
Why are we even bothering with spell attacks? It’s very clear striking spell heavily favours spells with saves, because if you hit at your second MAP increment with a save spell... it’s still full effectiveness, whereas the spell attack will be at -5.
That is covered by core mechanic of Spellstrike:
"The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell attack roll."Now that just puts Attack spells nominally on par, but still plenty of reason to favor Save spells as they have better reliability with partial effect on Save, vs a big nothing on attack miss... Not to mention if you do have action for 2nd weapon strike after triggering spell, a Save Spell avoids imposing more MAP.
EDIT: On the other hand, if you don't have useful spell targetting a weak save of enemy and/or weakness that could trigger even from partial effect on Save, using an Atttack spell might be good idea especially if you can also benefit from Flanking/Flat-Footed which Save spells cannot.
But worrying about suffering -5 on spell attack itself is not accurate or relevant to the calculus there. Anyways, some spells will seem better than others, so do what the Archwizards do: don't worry about the bad ones, and use the good ones.
Speaking of gambling, does anyone know how Magus interacts with Phantasmal Killer? Would the - DoS apply to only the initial save or the incapacitation save as well?
Interesting question! The text of Spellstrike (ahem) says: "or one worse than the target rolls for a saving throw". EDIT: note the singular "a saving throw", which perhaps limits the effect to only one saving throw per spell... Even without getting upgrade to 2nd Save, just getting that upgrade to CritFail to more often trigger the 2nd save seems solid enough as nice spell for this.
Why are we even bothering with spell attacks? It’s very clear striking spell heavily favours spells with saves, because if you hit at your second MAP increment with a save spell... it’s still full effectiveness, whereas the spell attack will be at -5.
That's not how I read the ability at all. Here's my read on it.
Turn 1:
AA: Cast a spell, make a spell attack roll. Do not increase your MAP.
A: Make a strike. Afterwards you incur the MAP from both.
You're out of actions (barring haste or something).
Turn 2:
You suffer MAP as normal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we even bothering with spell attacks? It’s very clear striking spell heavily favours spells with saves, because if you hit at your second MAP increment with a save spell... it’s still full effectiveness, whereas the spell attack will be at -5.That's not how I read the ability at all. Here's my read on it.
Turn 1:
AA: Cast a spell, make a spell attack roll. Do not increase your MAP.
A: Make a strike. Afterwards you incur the MAP from both.
You're out of actions (barring haste or something).Turn 2:
You suffer MAP as normal.
I'm pretty sure you don't make the spell attack roll until you discharge the spell. If that happens when your MAP is -5 or -10 then you take a -5 or -10 on the spell attack roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 16The 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 +5Full 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...
Overall though, the odds still suck.
First, we're assuming the sword strike is getting True Strike, yes? That one has better odds.
Given that the sword swing succeeds on a 7 or higher and crits on 17 or higher on either swing, that gives us 36 chances out of 400 to whiff, 220 chances to hit, and 144 chances to crit. Or roughly 9% miss, 55% hit, 36% crit with True Strike.
Since that roughly tracks to missing on a 2 or less, hitting from 3-13, and critting on a 14 or higher (with the actual odds of critting 1% higher and missing 1% lower, I will come back to that), I went ahead and plugged that into my Excel matrix.
A 1 on the spell attack roll will still crit fail (turning all of the sword crits into spell misses). Given that, with True strike, we have 101 chances to miss, 163 chances to hit, and 136 chances to crit succeed on the spell after adjusting for the 1% and assuming you take a second swing the next round sans truestrike on the 9% chance you missed your sword swing despite true strike. Or roughly 25% chance to miss, 41% chance to hit, and 34% chance to crit.
Mind, those numbers are still a lot better than 48% chance to miss with the spell, 31% chance to hit, and 21% to crit, which is what it looks like without True Strike. But still not great.
Edit: I just found a math error. I showed 8 as a miss on the spell attack instead of a hit. I'm adjusting shortly.
Edit edit: Numbers adjusted.
I'm pretty sure you don't make the spell attack roll until you discharge the spell. If that happens when your MAP is -5 or -10 then you take a -5 or -10 on the spell attack roll.Why are we even bothering with spell attacks? It’s very clear striking spell heavily favours spells with saves, because if you hit at your second MAP increment with a save spell... it’s still full effectiveness, whereas the spell attack will be at -5.That's not how I read the ability at all. Here's my read on it.
Turn 1:
AA: Cast a spell, make a spell attack roll. Do not increase your MAP.
A: Make a strike. Afterwards you incur the MAP from both.
You're out of actions (barring haste or something).Turn 2:
You suffer MAP as normal.
This is certainly correct.
The only benefit I can see for spell attack options is that they can benefit from status bonuses to hit as well as flat-footed.
Out of curiosity, what if you just true strike the spell on the first round? No striking spell.
In that case, you are simply worse off than a Wizard/Witch/Sorcerer, etc. But that's a worthy comparison point as well.
Out of curiosity, what if you just true strike the spell on the first round? No striking spell.
As a magus? Even at level 1 you would have been better off being a wizard. It only gets worse later on. The magus definitely is aiming for truestrike on the weapon attack of the striking spell.
Out of curiosity, what if you just true strike the spell on the first round? No striking spell.
49 chances to miss, 240 chances to hit, and 131 chances to crit, for 12% miss, 60% hit, and 28% crit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do some people assume you have buffs like True Strike and Flanking and all that? Thats not base numbers. Thats not how you establish a baseline. If you want to add buffs you should at least figure out the unbuffed first and then get the numbers modified by both to show variables.
I have seen baseline numbers and I was not happy with them. Others were not as well. Thats why we have been having these discussions about it. Then someone comes along and says "But if you add in True Strike the numbers are really good so the ability is fine yall just havent playtested it yet" it is fairly insulting.
In no way talking about anyone in particular. I have seen it in a few different threads all day.
Because looking at base line numbers alone for a ballanced ability, on a feature that really really rewards fishing for crits, is going to result in an overpowered feature when someone comes along playing to the classes strength. You do have to look at baseline ability, but not baseline ability alone. I am not saying that the ability is fine because of truestrike. I am saying if you modify the wrong part of the magus' accuracy, you are going to make a crit death machine class that has no rival. That is something we should avoid. Part of testing that out is trying to see how often in play you are having to deal with no modifiers and how often your crit chances are getting up around 25% or better, where truestrike really throws everything out of balance. (A big part of why wizards don't have item bonuses to their spell attack rolls in the first place).
Why do some people assume you have buffs like True Strike and Flanking and all that? Thats not base numbers. Thats not how you establish a baseline. If you want to add buffs you should at least figure out the unbuffed first and then get the numbers modified by both to show variables.
I have seen baseline numbers and I was not happy with them. Others were not as well. Thats why we have been having these discussions about it. Then someone comes along and says "But if you add in True Strike the numbers are really good so the ability is fine yall just havent playtested it yet" it is fairly insulting.
In no way talking about anyone in particular. I have seen it in a few different threads all day.
Well, the baseline should not be given as the only option, as it discounts the resources the class has to offer. This isn't a Rogue or Barbarian with always on damage, there is going to be variance. That being said, I do think finding the baseline damage (only strikes, Striking Spell cantrips, etc) is very important to the analysis.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what if you just true strike the spell on the first round? No striking spell.49 chances to miss, 240 chances to hit, and 131 chances to crit, for 12% miss, 60% hit, and 28% crit.
So you're increasing your chance of missing entirely with the spell by 16% in order to increase your chance to crit with the spell by 4%. I don't feel like that is the best tradeoff. And you're waiting until round 2 to do it. A crit from the spell on round 1 might kill the thing.
Yes, you're also benefitting from true strike on the weapon attack, but at higher levels (assuming staves eventually work for a Magus) you can just true strike the next round when you attack.
Out of curiosity, what if you just true strike the spell on the first round? No striking spell.49 chances to miss, 240 chances to hit, and 131 chances to crit, for 12% miss, 60% hit, and 28% crit.So you're increasing your chance of missing entirely with the spell by 16% in order to increase your chance to crit with the spell by 4%. I don't feel like that is the best tradeoff. And you're waiting until round 2 to do it. A crit from the spell on round 1 might kill the thing.
Yes, you're also benefitting from true strike on the weapon attack, but at higher levels (assuming staves eventually work for a Magus) you can just true strike the next round when you attack.
By level 5 as a party, you might very well be hasted and thus doing all of it together on the first round. Striking spell, cast a spell (and move), cast truestrike, hasted action attack with a weapon that is true striked. and it is more than a 4% increase in your odds of getting a crit on the weapon. It fluctuates wildly based upon what you need to hit to begin with. If you can line up true strike with flanking, a status bonus and a debuff, just true strike can shift your odds of getting a crit by almost 20%.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what if you just true strike the spell on the first round? No striking spell.49 chances to miss, 240 chances to hit, and 131 chances to crit, for 12% miss, 60% hit, and 28% crit.So you're increasing your chance of missing entirely with the spell by 16% in order to increase your chance to crit with the spell by 4%. I don't feel like that is the best tradeoff. And you're waiting until round 2 to do it. A crit from the spell on round 1 might kill the thing.
Yes, you're also benefitting from true strike on the weapon attack, but at higher levels (assuming staves eventually work for a Magus) you can just true strike the next round when you attack.
Don't forget you're also paying at least 1 additional action to do so.
I can think of much better ways to use those actions. Like just hitting them with a sword, or casting another cantrip. Or raising a shield, or Spell Parry, or striding. Because you're an 8hp class, with only medium armor, and 3 other stats you need more than Dex. You're going to be squishy AF with all that standing still.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish one of the designers could come and give us their thought processes and help us figure out what we're missing (if anything). I'm sure they have their reasons for designing it this way, I just don't know what they are and it's frustrating.
man, that would be nice. but they don't like coming out of the bunker very often these days.
or delaying your turn till the party and the monster go to move into position is a strong first move for a rogue and a barbarian as well. Again I am not saying every round will be like this, but a characters best round needs to factor into their overall balance just as much as what will happen when the character is struggling, as well as what will be a typical average. A character with a very high ceiling might have a lower base. Fixes that target the base, but also boost the ceiling are going to create real problems for overall balance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
or delaying your turn till the party and the monster go to move into position is a strong first move for a rogue and a barbarian as well. Again I am not saying every round will be like this, but a characters best round needs to factor into their overall balance just as much as what will happen when the character is struggling, as well as what will be a typical average. A character with a very high ceiling might have a lower base. Fixes that target the base, but also boost the ceiling are going to create real problems for overall balance.
What it really shows is why the critical fishing aspects is bad for the game and balance of the class and should be removed.
I would not wager on Rogue and Barbarian being removed or total overhauled.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not wager on Rogue and Barbarian being removed or total overhauled.
?
Talking about the budget for Magus being used up on a critical effect resulting in people arguing it should be weak so it can't be overpowered if people use teamwork.
That's a bad design.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
or delaying your turn till the party and the monster go to move into position is a strong first move for a rogue and a barbarian as well. Again I am not saying every round will be like this, but a characters best round needs to factor into their overall balance just as much as what will happen when the character is struggling, as well as what will be a typical average. A character with a very high ceiling might have a lower base. Fixes that target the base, but also boost the ceiling are going to create real problems for overall balance.
But every character benefits from those same conditions being imposed. A Rogue attacking twice under those conditions is going to do a lot of damage. Possibly just as much damage as the Magus getting everything to fire perfectly. The Magus has to jump through a lot of hoops just to keep up with other classes. That's why it's a problem.
(Edit: Adjusted the numbers, because I forgot the casting stat on the cantrip. This makes the Magus's attacks both critting on par with a Rogue critting once hitting once in the situation, but max possible damage still goes to the Rogue by a considerable amount).
Say a Magus is 2d8+4 with their weapon at 5th level and 3d6+4 with their cantrip. If they get both of them to crit, they're doing 4d8+8+6d6+8 = 56 damage. It's taken them 4 actions to get there.
A Rogue dealing 2D6+4+2d6 sneak on a crit will do 8d6+8 = 36 avg and if they hit with their second attack (roughly as likely as the spell hitting from what's been posted), they're doing an additional 18 damage for 54 average damage. If they're hasted like the Magus and we assume 1 action to move up, they can move away, or raise a buckler, or intimidate, or whatever 1 action thing they want to do. And they haven't used up a limited ability in order to do it.
In a max damage situation, the Magus would do 84 damage. The Rogue would do 84 damage. The Rogue's peak damage in that situation, however, is critting on both attacks. Far less likely, but possible given all the buffs/debuffs. That's a max of 112 damage. 28 more than the nova class can get. So if you're wanting to gamble on big damage, there are better classes than the Magus.
If you want to knock the Rogue down to two hits instead of letting their first attack crit hit, it's still 36 avg dmg and 56 max dmg without expending any resources and with an action left over. So on average the Magus is getting about 20 points of damage for spending a spell slot (or a charge from a staff) and an additional action.
That's just not enough of a boost. It's better with the casting stat added into the damage, but still a lot to go through to get there.
or delaying your turn till the party and the monster go to move into position is a strong first move for a rogue and a barbarian as well. Again I am not saying every round will be like this, but a characters best round needs to factor into their overall balance just as much as what will happen when the character is struggling, as well as what will be a typical average. A character with a very high ceiling might have a lower base. Fixes that target the base, but also boost the ceiling are going to create real problems for overall balance.But every character benefits from those same conditions being imposed. A Rogue attacking twice under those conditions is going to do a lot of damage. Possibly just as much damage as the Magus getting everything to fire perfectly. The Magus has to jump through a lot of hoops just to keep up with other classes. That's why it's a problem.
Say a Magus is 2d8+4 with their weapon at 5th level and 3d6 with their cantrip. If they get both of them to crit, they're doing 4d8+8+6d6 = 47 damage. It's taken them 4 actions to get there.
A Rogue dealing 2D6+4+2d6 sneak on a crit will do 8d6+8 = 36 avg and if they hit with their second attack (roughly as likely as the spell hitting from what's been posted), they're doing an additional 18 damage for 54 average damage. If they're hasted like the Magus and we assume 1 action to move up, they can move away, or raise a buckler, or intimidate, or whatever 1 action thing they want to do. And they haven't used up a limited ability in order to do it.
In a max damage situation, the Magus would do 76 damage. The Rogue would do 84 damage. The Rogue's peak damage in that situation, however, is critting on both attacks. Far less likely, but possible given all the buffs/debuffs. That's a max of 112 damage. 36 more than the nova class can get. So if you're wanting to gamble on big damage, there are better classes than the Magus.
If you want to knock the Rogue down to two hits instead of letting their first attack...
For what it is worth, the cantrip for the Magus adds their Int (should be a +4 at level 5) for an extra 8 damage on the crit. And with Slide Synthesis, they can effectively get into position without using an action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I knew I was going to forget something. I'll adjust the numbers. Slide Synthesis was already factored in. That and haste are the only thing letting the Magus even do this in 1 round. That's also why the Rogue has an extra action (1 action move up, 2 attacks, no need to cast).
We shouldn't HAVE to be roided out on buffs and trying to hit a hamstringed opponent to have a reasonable chance of our core class feature working. That's not good design even if it's "balanced".Saying it is not good design, like that is a provable fact and not an opinion is pretty rude to the developers that have put it forward for playtesting. They want people to try it out and see in play, if it makes the class feel different from other martial characters that are more prone to just brow beating their way through encounters. It creates a more tactical and intellectual feel for the class, which is kinda cool. It is ok not to like it and be vocal about that, but if you are calling it bad design like that is a fact, you are going to get push back from people that feel differently.
Gambling is not tactical. Rewarding or intellectual. It's just frustrating.
I too feel having your character's main feature revolve around luck is not only not compelling. It's insulting. The very nature of this game is RNG. We shouldn't be looking to compound that.
Gambling isn't tactical, rewarding or intellectual?
Professional poker players who consistently win would love a word with you.