What exactly should a magus be?


Magus Class


Looking at the playtest forums, I feel like there is a lot of unhelpful conversation (and occasional hostility) that seems to be rooted in people having different internal definitions of what a magus is. Obviously you can't please everyone, but having an idea of what people might want from a class feels like a good start.

So, what does a magus need to have in order to be a magus?


I believe the expectation is to be like the PF1 magus, which was defined by full attacking and casting a spell and being able to deliver touch range spells through their weapon.

In PF2 full attack don't really exist. And the class ability to help with action economy is....lack luster.

Paizo attempted to make it as close as they could with the new game mechanics...but I think it's unsatisfying. The whole shtick of the magus was subverting the standard action economy to cast and attack while paying no extra cost.

It seems the devs do not think that balanced in this edition, or at least it feels that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, I think the key part of Magus is to be someone who combines moderate skill in both spell and sword into a unique form of combat. 2e made it so that Striking+Casting a spell is something anyone could do, so I expected the Magus to have something only they could do that would take this simple idea and elevate it to the next level.
In the context of 2e, it means I was expecting them to have spellcasting abilities on par with those of a spellcasting archetype and martial abilities on par with that of a gimmicky martial (like Rogue), alongside some sort of gimmick allowing you to fuse Casting a Spell and Striking seamlessly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, there are some pretty strong arguments that the magus' current version of spell combat is worse than a multiclass fighter wizard casting a spell and swinging a sword.

And a big deal is that the multiclass fighter wizard will have more spells per day and in general be better at magic and fighting than the magus.

I honestly can't really see an appeal to the magus as its currently designed.

I haven't tried to play or build one yet, so there may be synergy that I'm missing. But in reading through the class write up and reading other's analysis it just seems...disappointing.


I wonder if, based on what you guys have said, a real simple idea might be better. Something like a generic martial progression with multiclass caster spell progression bolted on, and a feature that lets you make a strike as a free action after casting a spell with a somatic component, a bit like flurry of blows. Maybe if it is a touch spell you can use the strike's roll instead of a spell attack. Give it some good focus spells, maybe some unique focus cantrips if we want to go wild with it, and we're away.


Honestly, not that it would be satisfying but I've long that the "best" mechanical implementation of the magus with the mechanics of the system as they are is:
Being a fighter, taking the wizard dedication with all the feats to boost casting, and some imaginary feat that would let you deliver spells through your weapon. Unsure if the spell should require a separate attack roll or not, though almost certainly save based spells would still require a save.

A big benefit of the magus was delivering weapon attack and spell attack in a single roll. (PF1) Since the spell was delivered through your first attack its chance of missing was very low (at least a mid level and above) but in PF2 the chances of missing an attack, even your first, are significant. And having to roll multiple times makes that worse. However, it wouldn't be balanced against spells with a saving throw (in PF2) you didn't require a second roll. Which is a problem.

I wonder if making the magus as a class which goes up to master weapon proficiency, master armor proficiency, with a good version of spell combat, and built in spells but only what a wizard dedication would grant with class feats to increase it as per the wizard dedication. It's about the only way I can think to balance things and actually have a good character. Yes, you're essentially spending class feats to buy iconic class features but it's really the only way I can see to balance it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1d6 that is basically what a lot of people have been asking for.

I see a Magus as someone who casts a spell and delivers it with their weapon. AoEs become single target bombs to drop on someone, touch spells are funneled through the blade of your sword, save or sucks are delivered unto your foe with a horrific slash. Casting fly on your self to go chasing after the elusive dragon. Hasting your party members and then standing next to them against the coming horde.

All a few times a day if you blow through your limited slots and upcast others.


Claxon wrote:
Yes, you're essentially spending class feats to buy iconic class features but it's really the only way I can see to balance it.

I feel like there is wiggle room to have it as a class feature, you just wouldn't have room for much else. Look at what Rangers get in their high level features for example.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

For me there are 3 (somewhat esoteric & cyclical) pillars to the Magus:

-"Blends Martial Combat with Spellcasting Seemlessly"

In 3.5 & PF1 casting & fighting was clunky and most of the core classes weren't good at it, leaving it in the realm a prestige class to even try to blend together full BAB & any casting progression. The Magus did that out the gate and satisfied it in a way better than any previous attempts had(Looking at you Duskblade).

PF2's Magus has a hard time doing that because the 3 action system of PF2 is just so much more flexible and thus is more casting friendly than it was before. I'd say that the current offerings are... flawed but not without some good elements to build upon.

Someone else said that Striking Spell more closely resembles Spellcombat from PF1 and I think that's correct. I also have seen people say that the PF2 Magus "Feels like a class that is trying to full attack in a game that doesn't do that anymore" and I think that's true too. So a problem is that it's not doing it in a way that is seemless for the system.

-"A Magus was (almost) always 'on'"

If you never played a PF1 Magus(I still think most of PF2 players come from PF1 but in case you didn't) the Magus had a great deal of staying power despite their reputation as Nova-ing Crit-Fishers. They got a good chunk of spells, got extra spells from having a high INT, which meant more arcane pool, which also meant more spells via spell recall, and being limited to 2/3's casting meant that pearls of power for your highest level spells were cheaper than the Wizards at mid to higher levels. And even when they finally ran out of spells completely, they could still cast the Arcane Mark Cantrip and with their enhanced weapon(which if they weren't a Black-Blade user, they likely used the last point from their Pool to enhance it) to ride out the remaining combat. My point was that they always felt like they were a Magus. I think one of the concerns I have is that I'm not sure 4 spells is enough and that Cantrips aren't good enough to let them feel like they're still "on". They rarely felt like a sub-optimal fighter or wizard at any point. That one though will totally be subject to each campaign though and largely depend on if encounter design is being framed around the dreaded "15-minute adventuring day" or more closely resemble a traditional dungeon crawl. I'm not sure if 4 spells + cantrips a day will cut it but hey, we'll see.

-"A One-Stop-Shop For your Gish Needs."

By this I don't mean, it's the best at everything, even in PF1 they were still 3/4s BAB And 2/3's Casters. I mean that the suite of abilities the class had were strong enough at both casting and martial abilites that you didn't *need* to multi-class or supplement your features with others. One of the most disheartening things currently is that it seems that other packages(Fighters w/ Wizard Archetype Feats) seem better than the PF2 Magus on paper or that the Magus *needs* to take wizard specialization to get more spells.

The Magus was the Gish class to play in PF1 out the box without more toys, we want it to be so here as well. It was NOT the best at any of those but it was strong enough that it never felt like it was behind.

-----

And these things are definitely cyclical right? Like seamlessly blending spellcasting & combat in addition to always having your features online makes it less likely you'll turn elsewhere for supplemental class features for instance. But just my two copper on this which I'm glad to type out.


That's a good summary. In 1E magus was (as someone said elswhere) 75% fighter, 75% wizard for 150% something else.
In 1e, a magus without spells is a worse fighter. A magus without a weapon is a (way) worse wizard. But when they have both, they do something neither the fighter nor the wizard could ever do and stands as an equal to both.

As of right now it feels like Magus without spells is a worse fighter (no dedicated martials feats as of now, so you only have basic strikes, no power attacks or fancy stuff like that) and without weapons you clearly are a way, way worse wizard (4 spells a day, weaker proficiency).
The issue is the the blend does really take on. As we say here, the sauce isn't mixing properly, it's not seamless and it still feels like two different ingredients together rather than a new special flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:

-"A Magus was (almost) always 'on'"

If you never played a PF1 Magus(I still think most of PF2 players come from PF1 but in case you didn't) the Magus had a great deal of staying power despite their reputation as Nova-ing Crit-Fishers. They got a good chunk of spells, got extra spells from having a high INT, which meant more arcane pool...

This was also one of my initial reactions making it seem like the 2e Magus will play something like the 1e Bloodrager where you have to be very careful about your use of spells because you get so few per day..


Kalaam wrote:
The issue is the the blend does really take on. As we say here, the sauce isn't mixing properly, it's not seamless and it still feels like two different ingredients together rather than a new special flavor.

What, you didn't like your Strawberry Pickle ice cream?

pjrogers wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:

-"A Magus was (almost) always 'on'"

If you never played a PF1 Magus(I still think most of PF2 players come from PF1 but in case you didn't) the Magus had a great deal of staying power despite their reputation as Nova-ing Crit-Fishers. They got a good chunk of spells, got extra spells from having a high INT, which meant more arcane pool...

This was also one of my initial reactions making it seem like the 2e Magus will play something like the 1e Bloodrager where you have to be very careful about your use of spells because you get so few per day..

This a great observation, the current magus design seems like a good starting point to make a bloodrager, but a bad magus.


pjrogers wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:

-"A Magus was (almost) always 'on'"

If you never played a PF1 Magus(I still think most of PF2 players come from PF1 but in case you didn't) the Magus had a great deal of staying power despite their reputation as Nova-ing Crit-Fishers. They got a good chunk of spells, got extra spells from having a high INT, which meant more arcane pool...

This was also one of my initial reactions making it seem like the 2e Magus will play something like the 1e Bloodrager where you have to be very careful about your use of spells because you get so few per day..

Having seen a few Bloodragers in action, I totally agree that's what it more feels like. Within my own playgroup there are a few people who've drawn the comparison to 5e Warlocks but a fundamental difference is that they can short rest to recover spells which a Magus can't do. Either way, I think the Magus is closer mechanically to either of those than the original magus.

Looking the package over again, I sorta think it would have been better suited without the Magus branding and called it something else, just like how there aren't Paladins and just Champions now. I think I would have been sold better on this as a spiritual successor rather than a conversion of the Magus as a class. But we'll see how much feedback they take on this and what happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I brought this up in a different thread, but I feel I might be on to something here.

We want RELIABILITY first and foremost. As a Magus, we want to be able to reliably make contact with our spells- to make it worth the time we spend casting them.

One option would be to have the spell result just follow the weapon result, but that results in a higher crit rate for attacking spells than we'd like. It's a little too good. It also means that you could completely dump Intelligence and still hammer away with magic, which probably isn't what we want.

I'd instead have Striking Spell include a clause along the lines of "If the result of your spell attack roll for a Striking Spell would be a failure, it becomes a success instead. If the result of a saving throw against your Striking Spell would be a critical success, it becomes a success instead."

You can still critically fail attacks, but even against severe bosses that's still only happening about a quarter of the time (a much more palatable failure rate), and save based spells, while unlikely to have the full impact as often as a regular spellcaster, are guaranteed to do something. It attaches a safety valve to the Magus' weak spellcasting proficiency while still asking them to invest in it.

(You could add another safety clause in there about Incapacitation spells if you want, but I don't think it would be a problem.)

With this change, we get a proper fusion of martial and magic abilities. Your weapon attacks enable your spellcasting to be reliable, and the impact your spellcasting is the reward for using your weapon attacks.

At the same time, while the floor on your damage is high, you're still very unlikely to put out encounter-breaking crits that could make the character OP.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Magus Class / What exactly should a magus be? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Magus Class