You can't play this magus like the PF1E magus.

[Orithilaen]

In PF1E, the standard magus tactic was spell combat + spellstrike + spell slots loaded with touch attack spells. A typical combat round might be a full attack together with spellstrike with shocking grasp. What strikes me for this version of the magus is that, even though there is a superficial affinity, this is a suboptimal tactic here.

There are two reasons, which have already been widely noted. The first is action economy: when you use a full round to use Striking Spell and Strike, you only get off one spell (if it's a standard 2-action spell) and one Strike, just as if you were a fighter with the multiclass wizard archetype. The second is that, if your spell has a spell attack roll or a saving throw, you have to roll twice to succeed, both for the weapon attack and the spell. The compensations Striking Spell in itself gives you for these disadvantages are pretty weak. You lose the MAP for the spell attack but with weaker proficiencies and lower Int than the wizard you would never want to cast a spell attack with a MAP anyway. You get one degree of success better with the spell attack or save if you crit with your weapon, but that requires you to crit with your weapon, which isn't reliable enough for a character that isn't a fighter. Your spell isn't wasted if you miss with the weapon attack, but (1) you only get one more round to use it, in which you can't use Striking Spell again and (2) it's still a pretty big issue that you couldn't place the spell in the round you wanted to place it.

Does that mean Striking Spell is useless, or that the playtest magus is bad? No. It will require playtesting to find out for sure, but there are potentially very good ways to get around these disadvantages. They just require breaking from the PF1E way of playing a magus.

1. Don't use spells that require spell attack rolls with Spell Strike. (This was your only option in PF1E.) You want a spell that doesn't require a saving throw or spell attack, or, failing that, requires a saving throw with an effect on a success that you would still find useful. My cantrip of choice would be chill touch. My slots spell of choice would be magic missile--or, at higher levels, maze.

2. Use Striking Spell in circumstances where you can make really good use of the Magus Synthesis ability. In PF1E, the advantage of spellstrike was that you got off a weapon attack for free. If PF2E, the real advantage is the Magus Synthesis ability. You can cast chill touch, magic missile, or maze without using Striking Spell. But with Striking Spell, you can also Step or Stride, or get 2 temporary hit points per level.

3. Use the other tricks the magus class gives you. It's not just about spellstrike/Striking Spell anymore. Use your spell slots, which now match the highest-level spells other casters of your level can cast, for strong self-buffs that will last a whole combat or longer, or battlefield control that doesn't require a save or spell attack. Use Spell Parry/Capture Spell. Use your focus spells (Runic Impression and Hasted Assault seem especially good).

[Angel Hunter D]

If it can't play similarly to its origins it needs a different name or a change to mechanics. It's not delivering the gameplay to fulfil thtle promise that we hear when they say "Magus"

[Capn Cupcake]

Orithilaen wrote:

In PF1E, the standard magus tactic was spell combat + spellstrike + spell slots loaded with touch attack spells. A typical combat round might be a full attack together with spellstrike with shocking grasp. What strikes me for this version of the magus is that, even though there is a superficial affinity, this is a suboptimal tactic here.

There are two reasons, which have already been widely noted. The first is action economy: when you use a full round to use Striking Spell and Strike, you only get off one spell (if it's a standard 2-action spell) and one Strike, just as if you were a fighter with the multiclass wizard archetype. The second is that, if your spell has a spell attack roll or a saving throw, you have to roll twice to succeed, both for the weapon attack and the spell. The compensations Striking Spell in itself gives you for these disadvantages are pretty weak. You lose the MAP for the spell attack but with weaker proficiencies and lower Int than the wizard you would never want to cast a spell attack with a MAP anyway. You get one degree of success better with the spell attack or save if you crit with your weapon, but that requires you to crit with your weapon, which isn't reliable enough for a character that isn't a fighter. Your spell isn't wasted if you miss with the weapon attack, but (1) you only get one more round to use it, in which you can't use Striking Spell again and (2) it's still a pretty big issue that you couldn't place the spell in the round you wanted to place it.

Does that mean Striking Spell is useless, or that the playtest magus is bad? No. It will require playtesting to find out for sure, but there are potentially very good ways to get around these disadvantages. They just require breaking from the PF1E way of playing a magus.

1. Don't use spells that require spell attack rolls with Spell Strike. (This was your only option in PF1E.) You want a spell that doesn't require a saving throw or spell attack, or, failing that, requires a saving throw with an effect on a...

The problem with your first solution is it's literally, in every way, superior to just cast magic missile normally and then whack them in the head. Exact same damage outcome, 0% chance of wasting the magic missile, bonus points you don't have to be adjacent to hit them with the magic missile, AND you can spread the missiles out if need be. If you Spell Strike with Magic Missile now its relegated to melee, you can't spread them out, and if you miss with your attacks due to bad luck or status effects then you've wasted the spell entirely. Spell Strike is just really bad.

[gesalt]

From what my group and I have theorycrafted, this magus is unique in that its the best (only?) DoT build in the game. A wizard dedication combined with Bespell Weapon and Bespelled Persistence can rack up stacking DoTs that each require the flat save to shake off. Could be useful in longer encounters I suppose.

Striking Spell is used only if you're pushing through resistance with Overwhelming Spellstrike though. And even then you'll probably be sticking to spells like magic missile, vamp touch, phantasmal killer or sudden bolt.

[Capn Cupcake]

gesalt wrote:

From what my group and I have theorycrafted, this magus is unique in that its the best (only?) DoT build in the game. A wizard dedication combined with Bespell Weapon and Bespelled Persistence can rack up stacking DoTs that each require the flat save to shake off. Could be useful in longer encounters I suppose.

Striking Spell is used only if you're pushing through resistance with Overwhelming Spellstrike though. And even then you'll probably be sticking to spells like magic missile, vamp touch, phantasmal killer or sudden bolt.

Sadly I don't think 4 spells per day from the Magus and the additional spells from the Wizard are going to support that kind of play, at the very least not until way, way higher when everyone has vastly more impressive toys to play with than that.

[Orithilaen]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If it can't play similarly to its origins it needs a different name or a change to mechanics. It's not delivering the gameplay to fulfil thtle promise that we hear when they say "Magus"

I don't think this is how PF2E has ever worked. Alchemists now are tied to an item list instead of a spell list. Paladins have a signature ability that didn't exist in PF1E. Your PF1E celestial sorcerer now casts divine spells. All casters have different playstyles (not without a substantial amount of complaining). And the APG classes even more so: swashbucklers and investigators only resemble their PF1E versions in theme, and that pretty loosely.

If what people want is a character who's very good at synergizing shocking grasp spamming with weapon attacks, that may be doable, but it's not what we have. (And frankly I found that model of a magus to be a pretty boring way of implementing a gish, so I appreciate the change.)

[Orithilaen]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

The problem with your first solution is it's literally, in every way, superior to just cast magic missile normally and then whack them in the head. Exact same damage outcome, 0% chance of wasting the magic missile, bonus points you don't have to be adjacent to hit them with the magic missile, AND you can spread the missiles out if need be. If you Spell Strike with Magic Missile now its relegated to melee, you can't spread them out, and if you miss with your attacks due to bad luck or status effects then you've wasted the spell entirely. Spell Strike is just really bad.

You need to go to 2.: the advantage is the Magus Synthesis ability, which you're overlooking in your analysis.

FWIW I don't think you'll be wasting your spells that often--you can get off two or three Strikes in the next round if need be, so you're pretty likely to hit at least once. It's still a big disadvantage to not be sure you'll hit with the spell when you first cast it, which is why Spell Strike remains situational.

[Angel Hunter D]

Orithilaen wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If it can't play similarly to its origins it needs a different name or a change to mechanics. It's not delivering the gameplay to fulfil thtle promise that we hear when they say "Magus"

I don't think this is how PF2E has ever worked. Alchemists now are tied to an item list instead of a spell list. Paladins have a signature ability that didn't exist in PF1E. Your PF1E celestial sorcerer now casts divine spells. All casters have different playstyles (not without a substantial amount of complaining). And the APG classes even more so: swashbucklers and investigators only resemble their PF1E versions in theme, and that pretty loosely.

If what people want is a character who's very good at synergizing shocking grasp spamming with weapon attacks, that may be doable, but it's not what we have. (And frankly I found that model of a magus to be a pretty boring way of implementing a gish, so I appreciate the change.)

I'll have to say that you're wrong on many levels. Alchemist had spells as items in 1e, and actual items in 2e. It delivers the promise of item/consumable based gameplay with a mad pseudo science bend. Champions are very different, but still deliver the Divine Warrior promise - and the new reactions are both fun and effective. Celestia Sorcerer, the Divine is no longer a pseudo interaction but the full weight of their power, is say it delivers on the concept promise better than 1e.

The Magus was much more than just shocking grasp. That build became popular for a few reasons - mostly a bad spell list without a lot of good touch spells for a class that lives off touch spells, how early in the lifecycle it was possible, and the fact that it was fun to play one of them one time. I was a bigger fan of Hexcrafters, Eldritch Archers, Frigid Touch Kensais, and True Strike Wand Wielder Whip magi. All of those blended martial and magical talent in a satisfying way. Shocking Grasp was the meme,not the class.

[Orithilaen]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I'll have to say that you're wrong on many levels. Alchemist had spells as items in 1e, and actual items in 2e. It delivers the promise of item/consumable based gameplay with a mad pseudo science bend. Champions are very different, but still deliver the Divine Warrior promise - and the new reactions are both fun and effective. Celestia Sorcerer, the Divine is no longer a pseudo interaction but the full weight of their power, is say it delivers on the concept promise better than 1e.

Now I'm confused. Both in my original post and in my reply to you, I was specifically talking about playstyle. The PF1E magus and the playtest magus are both warriors who wield arcane magic to enhance their combat ability, so on that level they haven't changed either. (Whether they are "fun and effective" remains to be seen.)

Quote:

The Magus was much more than just shocking grasp. That build became popular for a few reasons - mostly a bad spell list without a lot of good touch spells for a class that lives off touch spells, how early in the lifecycle it was possible, and the fact that it was fun to play one of them one time. I was a bigger fan of Hexcrafters, Eldritch Archers, Frigid Touch Kensais, and True Strike Wand Wielder Whip magi. All of those blended martial and magical talent in a satisfying way. Shocking Grasp was the meme,not the class.

Sure. There was more than one way to play a magus in PF1E. (There were also 30+ archetypes so many more play options than we're likely to see for the PF2E magus for a long while.) I'm just talking about the standard build.

[LordVanya]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If it can't play similarly to its origins it needs a different name or a change to mechanics. It's not delivering the gameplay to fulfil thtle promise that we hear when they say "Magus"

Totally agree. I was promised my characters could fall asleep in 1e and wake up in 2e and I'm holding them to it. Just saying that the rules are an abstraction of what the characters were always doing is not good enough when they often have literally different abilities. So yeah, preserving as much of the play style as possible is paramount.

[Darth Grall]

Been skimming this over and yeah, it's very different. I just keep coming back to it and asking myself WTH?

I'm trying to view this as a new beast rather than a port of the Magus at this point, probably for the best.

[Temperans]

They really need to fix the Magus or change the name if they plan to release him as is. As it stands this is far from a Magus.

[PossibleCabbage]

"Shenanigans are going to let you make extra attacks" is just never going to be a thing in Pathfinder 2nd edition. The dex magus being able to cast a spell (even a cantrip), move, and strike in one round is about as good as you're going to get for anyone.

The problem the Magus has is that there's very little in terms of identity for the class previously that is not tied to mechanics.

[Angel Hunter D]

Orithilaen wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I'll have to say that you're wrong on many levels. Alchemist had spells as items in 1e, and actual items in 2e. It delivers the promise of item/consumable based gameplay with a mad pseudo science bend. Champions are very different, but still deliver the Divine Warrior promise - and the new reactions are both fun and effective. Celestia Sorcerer, the Divine is no longer a pseudo interaction but the full weight of their power, is say it delivers on the concept promise better than 1e.

Now I'm confused. Both in my original post and in my reply to you, I was specifically talking about playstyle. The PF1E magus and the playtest magus are both warriors who wield arcane magic to enhance their combat ability, so on that level they haven't changed either. (Whether they are "fun and effective" remains to be seen.)

Quote:

The Magus was much more than just shocking grasp. That build became popular for a few reasons - mostly a bad spell list without a lot of good touch spells for a class that lives off touch spells, how early in the lifecycle it was possible, and the fact that it was fun to play one of them one time. I was a bigger fan of Hexcrafters, Eldritch Archers, Frigid Touch Kensais, and True Strike Wand Wielder Whip magi. All of those blended martial and magical talent in a satisfying way. Shocking Grasp was the meme,not the class.

Sure. There was more than one way to play a magus in PF1E. (There were also 30+ archetypes so many more play options than we're likely to see for the PF2E magus for a long while.) I'm just talking about the standard build.

If you want to talk specifically about playstyle, the Magus interacted with action economy primarily through Spell Combat. This one can't do that. As for "standard builds" I don't really believe that one build that resulted from some poor design choices (class features + spell list) should be justification to hobble this Magus.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

"Shenanigans are going to let you make extra attacks" is just never going to be a thing in Pathfinder 2nd edition. The dex magus being able to cast a spell (even a cantrip), move, and strike in one round is about as good as you're going to get for anyone.

The problem the Magus has is that there's very little in terms of identity for the class previously that is not tied to mechanics.

I dunno man, there aren't things until there are. I really think that Spellslide should be the baseline for the Magus. This edition is defined by mobility and a class without a way to prevent AoOs on casting needs some way to move and do their thing. I don't really see any other class that needs two turns to do their basic routing.

[Darth Grall]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

"Shenanigans are going to let you make extra attacks" is just never going to be a thing in Pathfinder 2nd edition. The dex magus being able to cast a spell (even a cantrip), move, and strike in one round is about as good as you're going to get for anyone.

The problem the Magus has is that there's very little in terms of identity for the class previously that is not tied to mechanics.

I for one, do like all the synthesis options and the sliding synthesis, which is different from what we knew of the PF1 Magus but does a decent job refunding some of the action economy, though that does exclude the other play-styles then since those options don't get to move as well but I assume they'll get a feat to let them choose another option later on, so that might just be delayed, which would be okay then. If not it definitely should be in base PF2 Magus.

I'd disagree though that the identity of the Magus is solely tied to mechanics. Where the Magus shined was that they were the "out the box" Gish class, one that you could play from first level and effectively mix swords and sorcery out the gate. Sure and the action economy in PF1 was a big part of that but considering your classic Gish was locked until level 7 or so until they they qualified for Eldritch Knight, it's identity came from the fact it wasn't multiclassing and was already a cohesive package. Or more simply put, it was the thing you wanted to be already: a fusion of sword and magic in one. And it was arguably the best at that thing, even if it cost it other things like full BAB and Full Spell Progression. Add in all the classic archetypes(Kensai, Blade Bound, Hexcrafter, etc) you had a class with a lot of flavor.

While the PF2 Magus does do the Gish thing, it doesn't do it "the best" and as people have been pointing out it's not much better than just casting a cantrip and attacking. Add in the weird spell progression and it looks like taking multiclassing archetypes to combo fighter/wizard or magus with dedications to either and that seems to be better than the base class, in inherently doesn't feel like a real Magus, since it's whole thing was that it was the whole package. At least that's how I feel about it, and why I'd rather look at it as a separate class. Just like Champions are a re-imagining of a paladin-style class but it's not strictly the same thing. Having the same name doesn't help though.

[Orithilaen]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If you want to talk specifically about playstyle, the Magus interacted with action economy primarily through Spell Combat. This one can't do that.

Yep, this thread is literally about how the playtest magus is a different playstyle. (Just like many other PF2E classes are different playstyles, from the champion to the swashbuckler.)

Quote:

As for "standard builds" I don't really believe that one build that resulted from some poor design choices (class features + spell list) should be justification to hobble this Magus.

What I'm saying is that I don't operate on the a priori assumption that the PF2E magus should be built around using Striking Spell with spell attack spells just because the PF1E magus was. It's fine with me if Striking Spell is more situational and if other kinds of spells are better suited for it, assuming the magus remains fun and effective. Your preference may differ (that's part of what the playtest is for).

[Angel Hunter D]

Orithilaen wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If you want to talk specifically about playstyle, the Magus interacted with action economy primarily through Spell Combat. This one can't do that.

Yep, this thread is literally about how the playtest magus is a different playstyle. (Just like many other PF2E classes are different playstyles, from the champion to the swashbuckler.)

Quote:

As for "standard builds" I don't really believe that one build that resulted from some poor design choices (class features + spell list) should be justification to hobble this Magus.

What I'm saying is that I don't operate on the a priori assumption that the PF2E magus should be built around using Striking Spell with spell attack spells just because the PF1E magus was. It's fine with me if Striking Spell is more situational and if other kinds of spells are better suited for it, assuming the magus remains fun and effective. Your preference may differ (that's part of what the playtest is for).

As quite a few people have said, that "different" style isn't very satisfying. It doesn't really deliver on the thematic promise of the class.

And if Striking Spell is situational, it should be a feat, not a core class feature. Monks Flurry all the time, Champions get shield and reactions all the time, Rangers Hunt - Why aren't Magi supposed to be using Striking Spell?

[Ferious Thune]

Ironically, I feel like the 2E magus is focusing too much on trying to satisfy one aspect of the 1E magus, which was the most problematic aspect of the class in 1E. Striking Spell is all about crit fishing. It’s trying to maintain the nova feel of the 1E magus, which was a byproduct of a specific build that became the standard because of the large damage numbers. The Magus was so many more things than that if you didn’t just build the dervish dancing shocking grasp monster, but by reducing the number of spell slots so much here, it’s become more focused on doing big damage a few times a day and less focused on actually being a spellcasting warrior. I would much rather see extra critting with spells go away in favor of being able to cast your spells and make your attacks, even when those spells aren’t all about dealing massive amounts of damage.

[Kalaam]

Ironically the Magus is still a crit fisher yeah. Keen is probably one of the most worthwhile runes you can add to your weapon at the moment.

[Reticent]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

And if Striking Spell is situational, it should be a feat, not a core class feature. Monks Flurry all the time, Champions get shield and reactions all the time, Rangers Hunt - Why aren't Magi supposed to be using Striking Spell?

I'd be happy if they just split the difference-

It's okay if there are going to be turns where maybe you wouldn't want to use Striking Spell- but it pretty clearly needs to be more useful than it is currently (especially at low levels where there's not going to be a stack of feats to make it worthwhile).

[Lanathar]

There is a lot of complaining going on but I find it hard to believe anyone has actually playtested this yet. It came out yesterday. So could judgement be reserved?

I personally am thankful we aren’t getting a rapier/scimitar user spamming shocking grasp. Perhaps the harsh limit placed on it is a bit too much. They have taken the “wand of cure light wounds” approach by burying that idea

[Lanathar]

Temperans wrote:

They really need to fix the Magus or change the name if they plan to release him as is. As it stands this is far from a Magus.

Forgive me but why? What would you call this then?

And why is Magus not an appropriate name? The name isn’t really codified into fantasy.

And if we are using 1E basis then we have someone who casts and uses weapons at the same time (sometimes delivering a spell through a weapon). So where does this fall down in that regard ?

[Orithilaen]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

As quite a few people have said, that "different" style isn't very satisfying. It doesn't really deliver on the thematic promise of the class.

Hardly anyone has playtested and nothing about the "thematic promise of the class" locks in Striking Spell with spell attacks or Striking Spell every round. I think we should see how it plays. I think people aren't appreciating what this magus can do because they want it to do exactly what the PF1E magus did and it can't do that. (The fact that you get 2 high-level spell slots hasn't gotten enough attention, for example.)

Quote:

And if Striking Spell is situational, it should be a feat, not a core class feature. Monks Flurry all the time, Champions get shield and reactions all the time, Rangers Hunt - Why aren't Magi supposed to be using Striking Spell?

With a cantrip that requires a basic save and the slide casting Magus Synthesis, Striking Spell most rounds probably still makes sense, as long as you would normally Stride most rounds. Your weapon crits will be really nice and even when your enemy makes the save, you still get a damage bonus. But yeah I actually agree that there's a lot of focus on Striking Spell for an ability that you probably don't want to make as big a focus of your tactics.

[Angel Hunter D]

Lanathar wrote:

There is a lot of complaining going on but I find it hard to believe anyone has actually playtested this yet. It came out yesterday. So could judgement be reserved?

I personally am thankful we aren’t getting a rapier/scimitar user spamming shocking grasp. Perhaps the harsh limit placed on it is a bit too much. They have taken the “wand of cure light wounds” approach by burying that idea

Hard to believe doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Your disbelief doesn't make things go away.

Besides, we've had the system long enough to see that some things are not going to play well.

Lanathar wrote:

Temperans wrote:

They really need to fix the Magus or change the name if they plan to release him as is. As it stands this is far from a Magus.

Forgive me but why? What would you call this then?

And why is Magus not an appropriate name? The name isn’t really codified into fantasy.

And if we are using 1E basis then we have someone who casts and uses weapons at the same time (sometimes delivering a spell through a weapon). So where does this fall down in that regard ?

Magus is codified in Pathfinder. It falls down in that it absolutely sucks at its core class feature.

Orithilaen wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

As quite a few people have said, that "different" style isn't very satisfying. It doesn't really deliver on the thematic promise of the class.

Hardly anyone has playtested and nothing about the "thematic promise of the class" locks in Striking Spell with spell attacks or Striking Spell every round. I think we should see how it plays. I think people aren't appreciating what this magus can do because they want it to do exactly what the PF1E magus did and it can't do that. (The fact that you get 2 high-level spell slots hasn't gotten enough attention, for example.)

Quote:

And if Striking Spell is situational, it should be a feat, not a core class feature. Monks Flurry all the time, Champions get shield and reactions all the time, Rangers Hunt - Why aren't Magi supposed to be using Striking Spell?

With a cantrip that requires a basic save and the slide casting Magus Synthesis, Striking Spell most rounds probably still makes sense, as long as you would normally Stride most rounds. Your weapon crits will be really nice and even when your enemy makes the save, you still get a damage bonus. But yeah I actually agree that there's a lot of focus on Striking Spell for an ability that you probably don't want to make as big a focus of your tactics.

The thematic promise is from 1e, and the core class feature here - a feature which it is awful at doing. It's so bad at it, that we don't really care about the 2 high level slots because we will on average only be able to deliver 1 of our 4 slotted spells a day.

As for your last point - we aren't too far off here. Either it needs to be good enough to be a core feature (like, can you imagine telling a monk not to flurry all the time or a ranger not to Hunt a boss?) or not the core feature.

[Reticent]

Lanathar wrote:

There is a lot of complaining going on but I find it hard to believe anyone has actually playtested this yet. It came out yesterday. So could judgement be reserved?

There's always value in playtesting, but nothing here is so complex that certain things won't be apparent to simple inspection.

[Djinn71]

Lanathar wrote:

There is a lot of complaining going on but I find it hard to believe anyone has actually playtested this yet. It came out yesterday. So could judgement be reserved?

I personally am thankful we aren’t getting a rapier/scimitar user spamming shocking grasp. Perhaps the harsh limit placed on it is a bit too much. They have taken the “wand of cure light wounds” approach by burying that idea

The math is pretty trivial to calculate and a lot of people (myself included) don't need to have a full holistic picture of how the class plays to know that having Spell Strike probably only landing with one (I think the average is ~1.5/4) of your four big spells a day (assuming you get 4 Strike attempts with all four spells) is a non-starter.

With other disappointments like the lack of Battle Spells that you can actually use directly with Spell Strike, and the unfun action economy of Spell Strike, even if this Magus was by some miracle actually balanced in its current state, it isn't really the Magus people were hoping for.

That's why some people are complaining about some specific aspects of the class even though they haven't exhaustively tested it in actual play.

Most people that have issues with it have issues with only a couple of things: the limited lower level spells, the limited variety of Battle Spells, or the way Spell Strike works. Most of the other stuff, things like spell parry and school shroud, are pretty popular from what I've seen.

There is a lot of cool stuff in the class to work with, some of us just don't like how some of the math works out.

[Orithilaen]

Djinn71 wrote:

The math is pretty trivial to calculate and a lot of people (myself included) don't need to have a full holistic picture of how the class plays to know that having Spell Strike probably only landing with one (I think the average is ~1.5/4) of your four big spells a day (assuming you get 4 Strike attempts with all four spells) is a non-starter.

The two critical assumptions here are (1) you use your four spell slots with Striking Spell and (2) the spells you use with Striking Spell require spell attacks. I wouldn't do either. I would use most (say, 3 out of 4) of the spell slot spells for buffs or control spells that don't depend on attacks or saves, and I would use Striking Spell with a basic save cantrip like chill touch or electric arc (picking whichever save seemed weaker). That way you get the damage boost even when the creature saves. And it comes out pretty nicely when you crit with the weapon, with a decent chance of a double crit if you're targeting a low save.

[Jason Bulmahn]

As a note here folks,

We welcome all of your feedback and comments on these classes. We are NOT interested in watching you troll and bicker with each other. Folks who engage in such behavior will be asked to leave the playtest.

That said, noting that there is a playstyle difference in the Magus is something we will investigate, although I want it said that it has never been our intent to exactly recreate every class in the new edition. That simply is not an option. Once we get some actual play data from folks, we will be looking at ways to tweak and improve both of these classes. That is, after all, what a playtest is all about.

[Orithilaen]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The thematic promise is from 1e, and the core class feature here - a feature which it is awful at doing. It's so bad at it, that we don't really care about the 2 high level slots because we will on average only be able to deliver 1 of our 4 slotted spells a day.

You get 2 spells of the highest level and 2 spells of the second highest level with an unrestricted arcane spell list. If it doesn't work that well to put them into Striking Spell, don't! There's enlarge, invisibility, haste, fly, freedom of movement, dimension door, contingency, mind blank, foresight. That's what I'm saying. (Along with the point that you don't need spell attack spells with Striking Spell, so the 1/4 number isn't right.)

[Djinn71]

Orithilaen wrote:

Djinn71 wrote:

The math is pretty trivial to calculate and a lot of people (myself included) don't need to have a full holistic picture of how the class plays to know that having Spell Strike probably only landing with one (I think the average is ~1.5/4) of your four big spells a day (assuming you get 4 Strike attempts with all four spells) is a non-starter.

The two critical assumptions here are (1) you use your four spell slots with Striking Spell and (2) the spells you use with Striking Spell require spell attacks. I wouldn't do either. I would use most (say, 3 out of 4) of the spell slot spells for buffs or control spells that don't depend on attacks or saves, and I would use Striking Spell with a basic save cantrip like chill touch or electric arc (picking whichever save seemed weaker). That way you get the damage boost even when the creature saves. And it comes out pretty nicely when you crit with the weapon, with a decent chance of a double crit if you're targeting a low save.

That's kind of what I'm talking about though, even if that works (although I'm pretty sure DPR-wise you're better off just attacking more often than bothering with the Cantrip) I think some people would be highly disappointed if the optimal way to play Magus is to buff with your limited high level spells and only Spell Strike with save Cantrips because 70%+ of your spells are gonna miss.

[Orithilaen]

Djinn71 wrote:

That's kind of what I'm talking about though, even if that works (although I'm pretty sure DPR-wise you're better off just attacking more often than bothering with the Cantrip)

I've been wondering about this too, and someone should do the math, but I don't think so. You have a -5 penalty to the second attack from MAP and you have no failure effect--you do zero damage if you miss. Conversely, the big Striking Spell detriment is that you don't land the spell if you miss the weapon attack, but your miss chance with that attack is much lower and you can try again the next round. The crit bonus is a nice sweetener when you land it.

Quote:

I think some people would be highly disappointed if the optimal way to play Magus is to buff with your limited high level spells and only Spell Strike with save Cantrips because 70%+ of your spells are gonna miss.

You can use the same strategy with non-cantrips if you like--it's actually a little better with magic missile because you can control the action cost and there's no save. I just think the opportunity cost is too high to use too many of your high-level slots.

[Angel Hunter D]

Orithilaen wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

The thematic promise is from 1e, and the core class feature here - a feature which it is awful at doing. It's so bad at it, that we don't really care about the 2 high level slots because we will on average only be able to deliver 1 of our 4 slotted spells a day.

You get 2 spells of the highest level and 2 spells of the second highest level with an unrestricted arcane spell list. If it doesn't work that well to put them into Striking Spell, don't! There's enlarge, invisibility, haste, fly, freedom of movement, dimension door, contingency, mind blank, foresight. That's what I'm saying. (Along with the point that you don't need spell attack spells with Striking Spell, so the 1/4 number isn't right.)

So...don't use your core class feature? Really? And if you are kust using utility spells in your slots like that...wizard archetype does it better.

[Martialmasters]

Right now optimal Magus play is to take a caster dedication to get more spells and curve out better in the early levels actually having spells to cast and before level 4.

In other words. You don't use spell strike save for maybe to buff yourself.

That's really really boring.

[Ferious Thune]

Martialmasters wrote:

Right now optimal Magus play is to take a caster dedication to get more spells and curve out better in the early levels actually having spells to cast and before level 4.

In other words. You don't use spell strike save for maybe to buff yourself.

That's really really boring.

How do you use striking spell to buff yourself? You mean for Sustaining Steel?

If Slide Casting was just cast a two action spell and Stride and you didn't have to put the spell in your weapon, that would be interesting. Because then you could do Magus-like things like cast mirror images to buff your defenses, move up, and attack in the same round.

[Orithilaen]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

So...don't use your core class feature? Really? And if you are kust using utility spells in your slots like that...wizard archetype does it better.

The "core class feature" of the magus is having a master/master progression for weapon attacks and spells, together with spell slot casting at the highest spell levels of any character of your level. No other class gets that.

You can get master spellcasting as a martial with archetype feats, but that uses up your archetype slot and costs you a minimum of four and likely five class feats to make full use of it. And you're 1-2 spell levels behind a full caster in your highest spell slot the whole time.

The rest of the magus class--Striking Spell and the class feats--is various ways to build out the idea of a character who masters both physical combat and arcane magic. I don't see Striking Spell as the end-all and be-all of the concept. To me, the magus who can enlarge themselves at level 3, haste themselves at level 5, fly and teleport around the battlefield at level 7, prepare a daily failsafe at level 13, and gain a perpetual fortune/misfortune effect enhancing their defenses at level 17 is pretty cool. And it's nice that you can cast spells to boost your melee damage output too.

[Kalaam]

I don't think the "core class feature" of a class should be flat raw stats like "you're having master proficiency in weapons and spell by level 19".
Unless you're a fighter (because it gets Legendary in weapons at level 13).

A class feature is a mechanic, a way for you to play your class.
Ranger core feature isn't to have master proficiency in weapons and to just have a reduced multi attack penalty. It's to track a specific ennemy against which it gets several bonuses.
A monk's core ability isn't to be legendary in 2 saves, it's to be a highly mobile and fast hitting damage dealer/combat manoeuverer.
You get the idea.

[Angel Hunter D]

Exactly Kalaam, a chassis is not a class feature.

[Sporkedup]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Exactly Kalaam, a chassis is not a class feature.

For sure. Though the relative qualities and power does have to be balanced between the two.

[Kalaam]

Glad that we aggree on this Angel. Magus' chassis is good, it's the mechanic that needs tuning/rework.

...we do aggree, right ?

[ExOichoThrow]

Kalaam wrote:

I don't think the "core class feature" of a class should be flat raw stats like "you're having master proficiency in weapons and spell by level 19".

Unless you're a fighter (because it gets Legendary in weapons at level 13).

A class feature is a mechanic, a way for you to play your class.
Ranger core feature isn't to have master proficiency in weapons and to just have a reduced multi attack penalty. It's to track a specific ennemy against which it gets several bonuses.
A monk's core ability isn't to be legendary in 2 saves, it's to be a highly mobile and fast hitting damage dealer/combat manoeuverer.
You get the idea.

I think that's actually a big part of where we disagree.

To me, what you're describing is gimmicky and not accurate. Without considering the chassis as a massive feature, you just have a few gimmicks.

[Kalaam]

The chassis is an important part of the class. But you could remove the monk's legendary saves and the class would still feel like playing a monk.
Remove its flurry of blow or ki spells, and suddenly...what are you playing ?
Remove the barbarian's rage and then what? You're just a fighter with more HP and less proficiency.

That's why when you multiclass you don't take the class' chassis, but it's core mechanics.

[Throne]

If you're not using Striking Spell for spell attack spells, what are you using it for?
Buffs aren't eligible. Control and other spells with saves, you're better off just casting than risking missing your strike and not being able to cast.
Spell attack spells with Striking Spell are a bad choice, because Striking Spell is bad. There are no better choices.

Master Spellcasting at lvl 19 isn't a 'core class feature', it's bad comedy.
Someone dipping into spellcasting as a side-gig gets it earlier.

[beevee728]

I feel like the core Magus concept has been "Imbues their weapon with magic and discharges it with physical attacks", not "Is good but not exceptional with both weapons and magic". They need to be good at both to some extent to fulfill the first concept, but there's a bunch of ways to do the Gish in general with Archetypes now that are probably as good at just mixing Warrior/Caster without "Imbues their weapon".

If that isn't intended to be the Magus's concept, then I'd probably say Spell Strike shouldn't be a default part of the class, because the default, up front options signal "What does the class want to do", and putting Spell Strike up front signals that the Magus's game play should have "I imbue my weapon and discharge it with a physical attack" as a core element. Especially since Synthesises provide a SECOND effect which rides on that. If Spell Strike is going to be that central to the class, it should be a rewarding part of the game play loop, and you should want to choose it over other options on the regular, which I don't feel like happens now.

[Orithilaen]

I don't understand what's wrong, conceptually or thematically, with playing a character who combines magical and martial might but whose highest spell slots don't involve the specific trick of combining a spell and weapon attack, and who often chooses to do other things with their actions.

Doesn't seem boring. (Lots of cool things you can do with those spell slots.) Doesn't seem off-theme. (Still implements the idea of combining magic and might.) Doesn't break any other characters. (You have fewer spells and weaker spellcasting proficiencies than a full caster, you have less accuracy than a fighter, and you don't have the tricks of the other martials.)

Now maybe as implemented it doesn't work. That's what the playtest is for. But I really don't get why it needs to be the case that every part of the class needs to be built around Striking Spell.