| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Then it's just a fighter with a wizard dedication. You get more spells (though no level 9 and only one level 8 and 7), have the same spellcasting proficiency and you are legendary in weapons, master in all armors and more HP.
how to play magus.
take a caster dedication, say screw you to your INT.
dont use spell strike. but you curve out nicely for spells, having them from level 1 onward instead of level 4 onward with a fighter/caster dedication build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then it's just a fighter with a wizard dedication. You get more spells (though no level 9 and only one level 8 and 7), have the same spellcasting proficiency and you are legendary in weapons, master in all armors and more HP.As a fighter with a wizard dedication, you can cast fly or dimension door at level 12. Once. At the cost of three archetype feats.
As a magus, you can cast fly or dimension door at level 7. Twice. For no class feats.
Ok.
Then a wizard with a fighter dedication. You are weaker in melee but have more spells.Yes the magus is meant to be a balance in between, and as it is, it does that rather well.
But there is no synergy between those two separate stats.
Play a dual class fighter/wizard and you get the same thing. It's not enough to justify a whole class, it needs to do more with those tools, something unique to it that cannot be easily duplicated by multiclassing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Fighter, and Magus should all be viable characters and should play somewhat differently.
The Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Fighter, and Magus should all be viable characters and should play somewhat differently.
Exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.You're not, because of magus synthesis. (As you get more class feats that play off Striking Spell, this gets even more true.)
For Slide Caster, maybe.
Shooting Star gives literally nothing, Sustaining Steel is just win-more. If you're taking enough damage it would make a difference, it's probably not going to make the difference.Which of the feats do you consider make it worthwhile?
Capture Spell looks decent, but then that neatly sidesteps most of the downside.
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.One level earlier. At the cost of an 18th level class feat. (Some "side-gig"!) Meanwhile, someone who uses a multiclass archetype is 1-2 spell levels behind you and can only cast one spell in their two top spell levels.
Earlier mastery, more spells, even better able to utilise staves since they don't 'grow out' of being able to cast certain level spells. I'm not saying there's no opportunity cost, just that it's a bit off that you're worse at the cornerstones of your class (castin' and fightin') than a fighter with a wizard dedication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Fighter, and Magus should all be viable characters and should play somewhat differently.
I'm not sure how that equates to what we're talking about. We're conflating "playing differently" with having a specific, consistently used unique set of actions. I don't think it's the same at all.
It's the same problem i had with 5E's class design.. Classes are being looked at in far too gimmicky ways. It's great to have unique features don't get me wrong, but I do think specific proficiency kits in of themselves define a class--probably moreso than people even realize.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the core issue:
Mathematically it makes no sense to use Striking Spell unless you're triggering something off of it.
Triggering something off of Striking Spell essentially comes at the COST of attaching spell-failure to your spells. It makes your spells worse, not better.
So, unless you want to trigger temp hp or a free stride action, or one of the Magus feats, you are very much better off not using Striking Spell.
So, now the question is why is the class designed around use of Striking Spell, an ability which makes your spells worse?
The class could ditch striking spell, and just attach the various abilities to the cast a spell action, or perhaps 2+ action casting, or attack spell casting.
As the class currently exists, Striking Spell isn't a benefit, it's a speed-bump. It's like if Rage only gave you the AC penalty, and not the damage bonus, but you had to activate it anyway to use your Rage abilities. That's, unfortunately, not a well designed class feature.
Look: Hunters Mark, Rage, Flurry of Blows, Panache, Sneak Attack. These are core features. All of them are things you absolutely want to use as much as possible, there's no question. Why is Magus the class with a core feature where you DON'T want to use it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core idea of a magus, borrowing from 1e ethos, is in essence a hybrid of a fighter and a Wizard, a unique kind of arcane warrior who seamlessly bended martial prowess with arcane casting. Current magus isn't really all that.
Magus had an arcane pool, pool that was mostly used to make his weapon even more magical. Easily becomes focus powers and feat options.
Magus had spell combat, the ability to cast a spell and attack at the same time, but with a penalty. Current irrigation appears to be very offense focused and with few spells per day you won't be doing all that much spell combating.
Magus could also deliver touch spells though his weapon. This you can do, but the need to hit twice is weird.
Magus arcana are just magus feats.
Later he could spend his limited resources on recalling some of the used up spells. Magus feats.
This is the 1e magus experience most of us loved. How do we translate some of this into p2e?
The idea that a fighter with a wizard dedication is better at casting than a magus is absurd...and unfortunately true.
To be fair, they are only really superior when it comes to supportive magic and relevancy over longer adventuring days. It just so happens that supporting is nearly always a more efficient use of spell slots (and ironically, spell efficiency is a big deal for Magi due to how limited they are in their casting).
Also, a Magus with Wizard dedication is straight-up a better Magus than a core Magus, which is the real absurdity for me. Multiclassing in this edition struck me as more of a versatility over power deal, but Magus synergizes so well with a Wizard dedication it ends up being a very significant power boost, one I fear will creep its way into many builds over Magus feats, especially with how many of its feats are based around enhancing the lackluster feature that is Striking Spell, or around spending your (very limited) spell slots for a minor bonus.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slide Casting is clearly the best of the three--this is a real issue with the class. Sustaining Steel effectively gives you fighter hit points, over and over again, which is nice but I appreciate that it makes the action economy tight. Shooting Star is useless from this perspective on Striking Spell.
Agreed Shooting Star is useless.
Sustaining Steel... only any help if you're casting striking steel every round you're taking damage. Worthless when you're not taking damage, and N/A when you're not Striking Spelling.Slide Casting far and away the no-brainer option here, which itself is bad design.
Portal Slide makes Slide Casting better. Quickened Spellstrike is great when you appreciate that it triggers your Magus Synthesis, so you get a kind of double-quickened effect: you can cast a 2-action spell (not level-limited, unlike other Quickened Casting feats), Stride, Strike, Strike. (It doesn't stack so you can also be actually quickened when you pull this off, if you have haste or hasted assault up.) Standby Spell lets you hold on to a spell that synergizes well with Striking Spell while still letting you prepare other spells in your few precious slots.
Portal Slide is max 4 times per day if you use all your slots for offensive spells. Quickened Spellstrike is once per day. Far too limited, would never take either of them even if Striking Spell was more worthwhile (my playtest magus has Spell Swipe in the level 10 slot, to throw back spells stored from Capture)
At high character levels, someone who invests almost half their class feats in a spellcasting multiclass archetype can get more spells, at lower levels, than a magus who invests zero class feats gets. A magus, meanwhile, has better spells, and can cast 2 each of their highest levels. If you really want the extra low-level spells, you can take the wizard multiclass archetype too.
The idea that a fighter with a wizard dedication is better at casting than a magus is absurd.
Not so absurd.
I'd take 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, 2 4th, 2 5th, 1 6th, 1 7th over 2 4th, 2 8th, 2 9th any day. It's a trade of a lot of utility, flexibility and versatility for a little raw power.It's not inarguably better, but it's not inarguably worse.
Sure, a Magus can take the Wizard dedication too, but my point is that they really shouldn't have to in order to be an inarguably better caster than a fighter who dabbles.
And that 6-slot Magus still has 9 Magus feats. The 12-slot Fighter still has 8 fighter feats. The opportunity cost doesn't balance it out as much as you seem to think, especially with what the Fighter chassis brings to the table before feats even come into the equation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd take 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, 2 4th, 2 5th, 1 6th, 1 7th over 2 4th, 2 8th, 2 9th any day.
Small nitpick: It's actually 2 spells for spells of 1st through 6th level and 1 spell for spells of level 7 and 8.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am probably one of the few people who think that the Magus looks cool and worthwhile to play as it is; however, I do not have many presumptions about the class besides that it is supposed to be a gish, as I abhorred PF1e for many of the reasons that people complain about this magus and quite a few others. Still, looking at the Magus, I see it as perfectly viable, especially because it offers many things that I think fill the lacuna in the game that is not breached between wizard/fighters or fighter/wizards. So, here are a few things that I find interesting about Magus possible playstyles:
1) They can make great switch hitters. With Magus Potency, as a one action focus spell, a melee Magus can pull out a bow and use it for a full fight without worrying about accuracy or damage. You're even getting +2 two levels before everyone else does with normal runes; also, with runic impression, the damage only increases, making switch hitting very viable.
2) Slide casting fixes has nice interactions with action economy. At level 1, it is possible to cast a Spell Strike, Stride, and Attack. If in melee, the Magus can Step (to avoid AoO), Spell Strike, and Stride away to attack next turn, especially if the opponent is dangerous. Also, Slide has the greatest synergy with spell parry.
3) Spell Strike gives the Magus versatility: precision or versatility. I have read so many times that spellcasters are bad because they cannot cast their AoEs when martials run in (which I wholeheartedly disagree with). With Spell Strike, a magus has the option to just focus an AoE into his or her weapon and strike (usually with 4 or five chances). If the magus picks up Bespell Weapon at Level 4, the damage is increased. Also, though probably rare unless you are setting up for it, criting using fortitude save spells at higher levels is a good usage for this ability.
4) Talking of Bespell Weapon, it is pretty great for a Magus. Using Magus Potency with a side weapon and increasing damage for a turn with it works out well. Also, if the Magus casts at the end of a round, he or she can benefit from the Bespell weapon in the next round. The Magus has better attacks than wizards and better synergy than a fighter. Unfortunately, the Magus does not have many universally useful focus spells in the playtest that also do not require a class feat, but that can be helped with archetypes.
5) And archetyping is really where I think Magus shines (as does every other class, in my opinion). Now, since I have not talked about the Magus Syntheses, I think now to be the most appropriate.
5a.Shooting Star is amazing in it's synergy and ability to remain out of melee. It has been compared as inferior to the Eldritch Archer, but the Eldritch Archer is a prestige archetype only available at level six, while Shooting Star is available at level one and is useful at all levels. More so, since Shooting Star and Eldritch Shot do not do the same thing, they can be used together to create synergy. For example, if you can only target a weakness with a saving throw spell or want to single target an AoE debuff, Shooting Star would be useful, and then there are interactions with comet spell. Also, a nova attack could be set up if you know combat will begin by spending one round to buff (Runic Impression or Hasted Assault later) and prepare spell strike with the next round being an eldritch shot if you see your enemies. It is situational, but possible. Also, Shooting star allows you to crit fish (effective -7 is the lowest we have gotten a creature in my group).
5b. Sustaining Steal seems more of a tankier style, so I would take sentinel archetype to get heavy armor. Fighter, with all the fighting styles and especially Exacting Strike is possibly the best multiclass dedication for a two-handed melee.
5c. For all the syntheses, I think spell casting multiclass archetypes are excellent choices; top tier of course would be the wizard followed by an arcane witch and arcane sorcerer. Scrollmaster is also really useful for a Magus that picks up Striker's Scroll.
(I got interrupted with class earlier, so I forgot a lot of the points I wished to make).
|
|
...Point about 3: You can't use it with AoE spells. Striking Spell can only be used for single target spells. Even spells like Electric Arc which normally targets 2 enemies can only target the enemy you Strike. Further the math has been done top to bottom and at every level, with every manner of buff and debuff, you're doing more damage on average by just attacking twice with an agile weapon and you're saving an action to boot. It is a feature that you are *actively worse* for engaging with. You are adding a miss chance to spells that don't have them and the crit chance of bumping the save a step down does not offset that.
And on 4) Bespell Weapon is a trap feat. Remember, you only get *4* spells for the entirety of your career and almost none of your focus spells are battle worthy so unless you archetype out to pick up focus spells or spell slots (which means you're not even getting Bespell Weapon at level 4) then it's something that adds almost no damage to your overall adventuring day.
The Magus has some EXCELLENT ideas on paper but until they get them ironed out (something I have faith in the developers for) it is, fundamentally, a broken class. It's own main class feature, at every instance, under every circumstance, is a detriment and a punishment to use.
3) You can use an AoE spell as a single target spell using Spell Strike. And has the math been done for every situation? If not, my point stands that the Magus has versatility on its side.
4) Bespell Weapon is only a trap feat if you cannot find a way to use it in your build. I explained a situation in which Bespell Weapon can be useful (point 1), and I am sure there are others that I just am not intelligent enough to have seen already.
I do not see what the point of complaining is without even trying to find ways to make the class not only viable but also very useful in a party with all the tools it has at its disposal.
About Bespell Weapon, it also triggers on focus spells, even on scrolls, staves and wands. Only requirement is "non-cantrip".
So you could use one of your focus spells to trigger it. Same with Persistant Bespell. So it's a bit more flexible than it's being given credit for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) You can use an AoE spell as a single target spell using Spell Strike. And has the math been done for every situation? If not, my point stands that the Magus has versatility on its side.
Up to interpretation.
You drastically alter a spell to combine it with a martial attack.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one
creature or object, instead of casting it as normal, you place
its magic into one melee weapon you’re wielding or into your
body to use with an unarmed attack.
My personal read is that it requires the spell to have the text "1 creature" or "1 object" in the spell's "Target" entry.
Which means you could use for instance Electric Arc "1 or 2 creatures", but not Fireball which has no target entry at all.
I assume "up to X creatures" or "any number of creatures" also works.
Yeah Magus is a great chassis to build a melee wizard. xD Good proficiency and all. Just invest mostly in other classes' feats and you're good to go!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Magus is a great chassis to build a melee wizard. xD Good proficiency and all. Just invest mostly in other classes' feats and you're good to go!
One could argue that if you removed the whole spell striking tree of abilities and replaced them with, say, combat oriented feats and focus spells, you could get a pretty decent class.
The problem is basing the entire thing around an unreliable mechanic
|
The funny thing about Magus right now is that if you aren't too concerned about building around using Striking Spell a lot, it's not really a bad class- some of those focus spells and feats are really nice!so it'll be a good archetype, but not a good class.I think it's a given that Striking Spell won't go to publication in its current state.
But if someone told me I HAD to play a Magus right now, I would dip into an archetype that offers some other offensive gimmick for my bread and butter.
After Ultimate Wilderness and 2E Alchemist I don't have that kind of optimism. I sure hope it's changed, but it's looking so fiddly I don't think 2 playtest will be enough.
|
|
3) You can use an AoE spell as a single target spell using Spell Strike. And has the math been done for every situation? If not, my point stands that the Magus has versatility on its side.Up to interpretation.
You drastically alter a spell to combine it with a martial attack.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one
creature or object, instead of casting it as normal, you place
its magic into one melee weapon you’re wielding or into your
body to use with an unarmed attack.My personal read is that it requires the spell to have the text "1 creature" or "1 object" in the spell's "Target" entry.
Which means you could use for instance Electric Arc "1 or 2 creatures", but not Fireball which has no target entry at all.
I don't think it is ambiguous. I just misread it. This makes it far less flexible than I originally thought.
I don't think it is ambiguous. I just misread it. This makes it far less flexible than I originally thought.
3) You can use an AoE spell as a single target spell using Spell Strike. And has the math been done for every situation? If not, my point stands that the Magus has versatility on its side.Up to interpretation.
You drastically alter a spell to combine it with a martial attack.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one
creature or object, instead of casting it as normal, you place
its magic into one melee weapon you’re wielding or into your
body to use with an unarmed attack.My personal read is that it requires the spell to have the text "1 creature" or "1 object" in the spell's "Target" entry.
Which means you could use for instance Electric Arc "1 or 2 creatures", but not Fireball which has no target entry at all.
I think I prefer your interpretation, and with the current Magus I'd probably houserule it to function that way at my table. It's not like letting someone channel their fireball into a melee strike at 1 target is going to cause any balance issues.
Wait there's going to be a second playtest?