| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like many, I love the concept of playing a gish, having had Swordmages in both 4e and 13th Age and Magi in my 1e campaign and Kingmaker playthrough.
With that in mind, I admit to share most of the concerns raised in these forums over the last couple of days, especially regarding the Spell Striking ability, a Magus core feature that seems to need some adjustments.
With that in mind, I managed to play a Magus last night and would like to share my experience.
To sumarize, I felt that many of the concerns we have been debating are completely valid and justified, having emerged in my playthrough, which did not go very well.
A bit of context : I play twice a week in a homebrew campaign that is co-GM'ed by myself and a friend.
My character is a human artisan universalist wizard with a fighter dedication whose routine is to basically benefit from Haste and then True Strike Shocking Grasp and Strike with Bespell Weapon during most turns. Although the character is somewhat fragile, gameplay is rewarding. While I don't often hit with the melee Strike, it does not concern me much because I usually manage to deal significant damage with the spell.
I play alongside an Elf Ranger, an Elf Witch and a Human Redeemer
So, with the long-awaited Magus in hands, I got my GM's permission and started converting :
Lvl. 10 human artisan Magus (Slide Synthesis)
STR 18, DEX 18, CON 16, INT 18, WIS 12, CHA 12
AC 28 (+1 leather armor)
+2 striking longsword with a +20 to hit
Spell Attack Roll of +16, Spell DC of 26
Prepared Spells: Shocking Grasp (Standby Spell), 5th level Vampiric Touch (x2), 4th Level Shocking Grasp and 4th Level Enlarge plus 2x 4th level True Strike (from Martial Caster)
Cantrips: Electric Arc, Light, Detect Magic, Mage Hand and Shield
Additional Magus Feats: Bespell Strikes, Spirit Sheath and Cascading Ray
During our game, we faced a Purple Worm (lvl 13) - severe encounter : I will try to compile the fight as me and the GM best recalled it. My numbers will be provided through our roll20 logs.
I rolled very low on initiative and got to act last.
== 1st round ==
Ranger manages to hit twice, Champion engages and hits once with Lion Shield but gets attacked and swallowed during the Worm's turn. Then, the Witch casts 5th level Summon Fey and its my turn.
I decide to go in guns blazing and attempt to save the poor Champion, so I free action Spell Strike to imbue a 4th level Shocking Grasp on my blade, use Synthesis to Stride and engage and attempt to hit with my Strike.
I roll a 12 for 32 to hit and the GM says that barely makes it. Then, I deal 21 slashing damage and 3 electricity damage due to bespell strike and proceed to roll the spell attack. I get a 13 on the die for a total of 29, which the GM says does not hit.
I lose my spell slot, but the champion is freed.
== 2nd round ==
Ranger hits with first strike, misses the second one and crits the third one for a regular hit. They then miss the fourth one.
Champion hits twice with their striking cold warhammer and deals some nice damage.
Purple Worm goes all out on me. It body slams and crits me and then stings me twice, missing the third strike. Champion uses their reaction and etc. I manage to resist the poison and am still standing and thankful for those extra Magus HP.
Witch uses Phantasmal Killer. GM consults that rules and thinks the Purple Worm could be affected by it. The Worm fails its save, takes some nasty damage and is frightened 2. She then commands their Unicorn to engage and attack, horribly missing.
Then its my time to go. I do the Spell Striking with a 4th level Shocking Grasp hit with the strike (it is frightened 2, now is the time!) but then I roll a 9 for a total of 25 on my spell attack and miss.
== 3rd round ==
Ranger only manages to hit once.
Champion hits twice and uses once action to Lay on Hands on me.
Purple Worm body slams me once, then hits and swallows the Champion again.
Witch Hastes me and commands Unicorn, who misses again.
While Hasted, I decide to True Strike, then Spell Strike Vampiric Touch. I roll a 13 for 33 to hit with the Strike and kindly remind the GM that the creature is still frightened. The GM says I hit. I deal 20 slashing damage and 5 negative damage, freeing the Champion once again and then the Worm critically succeeds against my Vampiric Touch, which is lost.
== 4th round ==
Ranger hits twice. They are on fire tonight
Champion hits once, casts lay on hands on me and raises shield.
Purple Worm stings me thrice, critically hitting with the first strike. I fail my save against the poison, take 23 damage and am enfeebled something (can`t remember if 1 or 2).
Witch commands unicorn to cast neutralize poison and manages to counteract the poison. Then they cast Shadow Blast and I think they caused half damage.
My turn. I spell strike with electric arc, roll a 17 for 37 to hit and cause 11 slashing and 1 electricity damage. Purple Worm succeeds at its Reflex save and my 16 damage becomes 8 damage.
== 5th round ==
Ranger hits once, I think.
Champion keeps fighting and hits twice.
Purple Worm crits against the Champion, swallows them whole again.
Witch commands unicorn to miss and casts a focus spell they did not have logged on their roll20 spell list.
My turn. I decide to true strike shocking grasp as a 5th level spell instead of spell striking. I roll a 10 and an 18. The 18 becomes a 38, which we know hits. I cause 44 electricity damage.
== The combat goes on for two more rounds. I get swallowed and regurgitated during the 5th and we eventually win on the 6th with me striking four times and benefitting from Haste
Overall Impressions I think that, out of the 4 times I tried Spell Striking, I only managed to land it once, which is quite frustrating. In the end, I kept thinking on how better it would have been to just have used true strike alongside an attacking spell or to have more slots as a Wizard.
I did not have a problem with having to roll for the spell to hit, but there was at least one instance in which I actually rolled higher than my attack and still missed (the Worm`s AC is 32 as it turned out).
There were times when I really wished there was a way for me to use True Strike with the Spell Attack or some mechanic like Devise a Stratagem, or even to use Spell Strike like the Eldritch Archer. I was hitting with my Melee Strikes, so there`s not a problem there. Its the spell accuracy that seems to need fixing.
Out of all the solutions people have proposed, the ones I seemed to be more fond of, after playing, were the ones that did away with the spell attack roll for the spell to discharge. You could even apply a penalty to the melee strike and it would still be viable because of the runes.
I have yet to test my character against enemies of a lower level, but the save spell striking did not seem to do much and the cantrip damage just seemed to be on par with what a second attack would do.
Although it does not solve the problem of not being able to do your stuff consistently, holding on to the charge until you manage to hit with your spell or until the end of the next turn rather than until you hit with the melee strike would help.
Overall, I found my Wizard Fighter to be more satisfying simply due to the fact that I got a better chance at dealing that significant spell damage and then maybe landing an enhanced strike. With Magus, it is the other way around. You hit with your enhanced strike and maybe, just maybe get to use that big juicy spell, which is kind of a bummer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attack rolls are a bad idea for most casters, and especially bad for a magus. Also you imbued a vampiric touch when you still had a shocking grasp because you missed with your attack. You already hold a charge until the end of your next turn, so that addresses one of your complaints.
you are playing it wrong... i mean you are using the spell strike action in a way that it is not written. like citricking said if you miss you hold the spell in your weapon until the end of the next turn. also imagine doing that with MAP prior to the magus (+5 to hit).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attack rolls are a bad idea for most casters, and especially bad for a magus.
Yes, but most casters can remedy that through the use of True Strike. A Magus is far more restricted on that end, so you would expect some other bonus to compensate. Also, he used two save spells in the form of Electric Arc and Vampiric Touch, and the results were no better. On top of all of that, spell attack rolls being bad for a Magus seems like an important issue to address, considering it is supposed to be an important part of their main gimmick.
Also you imbued a vampiric touch when you still had a shocking grasp because you missed with your attack. You already hold a charge until the end of your next turn, so that addresses one of your complaints.
You read it wrong. He hit the strike but missed the spell, which does make you lose the charge unless you have the level 18 Second Chance Strike feat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell attack rolls are a bad idea for most casters, and especially bad for a magus.Yes, but most casters can remedy that through the use of True Strike. A Magus is far more restricted on that end, so you would expect some other bonus to compensate. Also, he used two save spells in the form of Electric Arc and Vampiric Touch, and the results were no better. On top of all of that, spell attack rolls being bad for a Magus seems like an important issue to address, considering it is supposed to be an important part of their main gimmick.
Also you imbued a vampiric touch when you still had a shocking grasp because you missed with your attack. You already hold a charge until the end of your next turn, so that addresses one of your complaints.You read it wrong. He hit the strike but missed the spell, which does make you lose the charge unless you have the level 18 Second Chance Strike feat.
To be clear, I never missed with a Melee Weapon Strike, so the spells discharged every time I attempted to Spell Strike with them. The only way for me to hold on to the charge would be if the Melee Strike missed
you are playing it wrong... i mean you are using the spell strike action in a way that it is not written. like citricking said if you miss you hold the spell in your weapon until the end of the next turn. also imagine doing that with MAP prior to the magus (+5 to hit).
As I pointed out, my Wizard had a way of circumventing that with True Strike.
As a Magus, I can only apply True Strike to the weapon attack with the rules as they are presented, making the spell striking portion of the feat kind of useless.
I get it that save spells could be the way to do it, but most creatures that are at least your level or higher will just shrug them off. Spell attacks can make a difference in that context.
Also, while some ideas from the previous edition may not translate directly into this one (Mutagenist, I am looking at you), Shocking Grasp still screams Magus to me.
My main point is that the Magus' spell striking felt poorly executed in the sense that your main gimmick is 'You place spells into your weapon or body to hit enemies with a powerful Strike and spell combination. Because your spells per day are limited, you rely on trusty, carefully chosen cantrips. Even without spells, you can hold your own in battle.' but your little spells do not count as much for doing that and the cantrips that currently exist do not present great alternatives.
Yea I think the biggest issue is the spell accuracy. AC takes into account potency runes but spells cant benefit from those. Its a basic failing of the system I feel every week on my Wizard. If there we Potency Runes for spell attacks and" Power" Runes for DCs I think it would alleviate some issues.
This. Maybe we get some magic items that work as potency runes for spells in the book (after all, its named Secrets of Magic).
I was going to post that i’m concerned that all ‘actual play’ threads will be plagued with people posting that people are playing Magus wrong, as no one really understands how to play it right yet, at least as far as the core mechanic goes.
Looks like im too late though.
Sure. It would be nice if one of the designers or devs gaves us some clues on what the goal really is.
I just tried to rely on the class description and emulate a 1e Magus as best as I could, but I may be getting something wrong. Maybe those 4 slots should be used for buffing, but I feel that using them for spell striking should be supported.
Even on the cantrip side, I find the idea of spell striking odd. Having a 1 action damage cantrip that worked like Force Bolt or Elemental Toss but maybe with a save like some have mentioned could help, though.
Yea I think the biggest issue is the spell accuracy. AC takes into account potency runes but spells cant benefit from those. Its a basic failing of the system I feel every week on my Wizard. If there we Potency Runes for spell attacks and" Power" Runes for DCs I think it would alleviate some issues.
Or even the ability for the Magus to apply their weapon potency runes to spell attacks and (maybe) DCs. Heck, attacking with magic through a weapon is their thing, so I don't see how it would not be justified (if properly balanced with the proper costs, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious as to the math concerns on this are, from a design standpoint.
Functionally, since striking spell doesn't get MAP applied to it, with how the magus's proficiency works, the spell attack is about 3 to 5 lower than the weapon attack, which is about comparable to MAP, but is definitely a feelbad moment when your 4 times a day showstopper power is hooked up to fairly high chance of failure to hit.
It makes me wonder if there's some reason they dont make striking spell work similar to eldritch archer, where the spell attack uses the same result as the weapon strike, or at the very least, allow the spell attack to use thw weapons item bonus for attack rolls.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea I think the biggest issue is the spell accuracy. AC takes into account potency runes but spells cant benefit from those. Its a basic failing of the system I feel every week on my Wizard. If there we Potency Runes for spell attacks and" Power" Runes for DCs I think it would alleviate some issues.This. Maybe we get some magic items that work as potency runes for spells in the book (after all, its named Secrets of Magic).
Perhaps spell strike adding your potency runes to the spell attack would be a nice fix for the class?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you are playing it wrong... i mean you are using the spell strike action in a way that it is not written. like citricking said if you miss you hold the spell in your weapon until the end of the next turn. also imagine doing that with MAP prior to the magus (+5 to hit).As I pointed out, my Wizard had a way of circumventing that with True Strike.
As a Magus, I can only apply True Strike to the weapon attack with the rules as they are presented, making the spell striking portion of the feat kind of useless.
I get it that save spells could be the way to do it, but most creatures that are at least your level or higher will just shrug them off. Spell attacks can make a difference in that context.
Also, while some ideas from the previous edition may not translate directly into this one (Mutagenist, I am looking at you), Shocking Grasp still screams Magus to me.
My main point is that the Magus' spell striking felt poorly executed in the sense that your main gimmick is 'You place spells into your weapon or body to hit enemies with a powerful Strike and spell combination. Because your spells per day are limited, you rely on trusty, carefully chosen cantrips. Even without spells, you can hold your own in battle.' but your little spells do not count as much for doing that and the cantrips that currently exist do not present great alternatives.
i see.. you can still true strike and shocking grasp as a magus without the strike, but i think you want more.
if the wording of spell strike was put in a way you could use true strike with the second part of the hit (with spell strikes too) it would be too strong in my opinion, and also would make true strike an must have which i don't like.i would not like if the spell would always hit in case on the weapon strike hitting, because in this way every magus could dump int and this would not make sense.
i think one of the best ways to fix the proficiency (or save dc) of the spell would be make the spell attack part of the magus spellstrike a spell save!
i'll expain my idea
you use striking spell into a shocking grasp.
you hit the strike and roll to hit the "imbued" shocking grasp you fail!
you still hit for half the damage dice you would deal with the spell.
in this way you did :
1) 2 strike at the same map
2) apply the synthesis
3) made the spell more reliable even without buffing the magus casting proficiency
4) still get the i hit the enemy with the strike and grazed him with the spell kind of vibe
i think it would be a cool failure effect and paizo did something similiar with fighter feat.
what do you think about it?
Sure. It would be nice if one of the designers or devs gaves us some clues on what the goal really is.I was going to post that i’m concerned that all ‘actual play’ threads will be plagued with people posting that people are playing Magus wrong, as no one really understands how to play it right yet, at least as far as the core mechanic goes.
Looks like im too late though.
I'd agree that "you're playing it wrong" is not a really helpful contribution to a critique of this sort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you are playing it wrong... i mean you are using the spell strike action in a way that it is not written. like citricking said if you miss you hold the spell in your weapon until the end of the next turn. also imagine doing that with MAP prior to the magus (+5 to hit).As I pointed out, my Wizard had a way of circumventing that with True Strike.
As a Magus, I can only apply True Strike to the weapon attack with the rules as they are presented, making the spell striking portion of the feat kind of useless.
I get it that save spells could be the way to do it, but most creatures that are at least your level or higher will just shrug them off. Spell attacks can make a difference in that context.
Also, while some ideas from the previous edition may not translate directly into this one (Mutagenist, I am looking at you), Shocking Grasp still screams Magus to me.
My main point is that the Magus' spell striking felt poorly executed in the sense that your main gimmick is 'You place spells into your weapon or body to hit enemies with a powerful Strike and spell combination. Because your spells per day are limited, you rely on trusty, carefully chosen cantrips. Even without spells, you can hold your own in battle.' but your little spells do not count as much for doing that and the cantrips that currently exist do not present great alternatives.
i see.. you can still true strike and shocking grasp as a magus without the strike, but i think you want more.
if the wording of spell strike was put in a way you could use true strike with the second part of the hit (with spell strikes too) it would be too strong in my opinion, and also would make true strike an must have which i don't like.
i would not like if the spell would always hit in case on the weapon strike hitting, because in this way every magus could dump int and this would not make sense.
i think one of the best ways to fix the proficiency (or save dc) of the spell would be make...
Yeah, I think a solution like this could do it!
Like you pointed out, maybe automatically hitting with the spell is too much. I see no problem in also rolling to hit with the spell if it is at least guaranteed to do do something on a miss. After all, you've only got four slots, so gotta make them count!
And your solution sinergizes well with the mechanics for the save spells while keeping the mechanic as is for the most part.
Either that or a solution that allows us to use the weapon runes for the spell attack roll (kind of mimicking the lessened MAP a Ranger gets when hunted shooting with flurry).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious as to the math concerns on this are, from a design standpoint.
Functionally, since striking spell doesn't get MAP applied to it, with how the magus's proficiency works, the spell attack is about 3 to 5 lower than the weapon attack, which is about comparable to MAP, but is definitely a feelbad moment when your 4 times a day showstopper power is hooked up to fairly high chance of failure to hit.
It makes me wonder if there's some reason they dont make striking spell work similar to eldritch archer, where the spell attack uses the same result as the weapon strike, or at the very least, allow the spell attack to use thw weapons item bonus for attack rolls.
They probably are not allowing a single roll to determine both effects for a pair of reasons. One if a single roll determined both physical and magical strikes, then true-strike spell becomes extremely powerful effect, basically driving two attacks resolution instead of just one. Also, if you have a single roll drive both, and you are also allowing the spell to remain powered until a hit until the end of the next round, you create a situation where the spell hitting may be too close to automatic in the end? (or that might be their fear) It also creates a question as to what you do for save based spells. (is that where you would have it reduce the save one step on a crit)
I'd really like to see reducing the number of rolls required, but admit it needs to be fair, both to the Magus, as well as other martial and spell-casting classes.
I wonder if instead of having it improve the second roll on a crit, you could have it have a rider that effects that increase the save (or reduce the hit effect) by a step, don't occur, or are reduced by one step effect, if the hit is a critical. i.e. a critical strike with a spellstrike by a magus could allow an incapacitation effect to land against a boss creature normally resistant to them? Perhaps by not boosting it, but stopping it from being lowered, it might make balance concerns with improving the chances of landing the spell strike more in line with balanced expectatoins?
If True Strike is too powerful, the limit in spell slots is here for that.
So how many of your spell slits does your wizard tie up with true strike if you're using it all day like that?
Because I like to play the archetypal wSpellstrike is 1/round every round. True strike is what three or four times a day ?
I don't know if this was adressed at me, but I usually have three 1st level slots tied up with True Strike and, since I am a universalist, I can usually get a fourth.
To be clear, the point is I do not want the Magus to outshine other classes in damage, nor do I necessarily need Magus to be able to True Strike everything.
I may be wrong, but Magus feels to me like it should be better at delivering touch spells, especially since they use their weapon to do so while Wizards have a bunch of additional spells plus metamagic, schools, etc.
The way it played, my character as a Wizard felt better at hitting people with his electricity charged hand than they were when taking a class that is supposed to be about spell combat.
I am not saying Magus needs a huge boost in accuracy, I am just saying that the whole deliverying a spell through a weapon, especially if it is a slotted spell needs some adjustment
i would not like if the spell would always hit in case on the weapon strike hitting, because in this way every magus could dump int and this would not make sense.
I don't think they would. Spell attack rolls would always hit, but saves would be unaffected.
This would more or less boost cantrips (except Electric Arc and Daze) and a handful of slotted spells, while leaving the stronger save based spells untouched. Which is a good thing. I want cantrips to be stronger on a Magus.
I would accept as a compromise the one roll deal only being good for cantrips and focus spells, and spell slots requiring the current second roll or saving throw. My concern is mostly making cantrip spamming feel like a rewarding choice, possibly even to the point of encouraging you to save your spell slots for incap and utility spells instead of more attacks. It would also get around the problem of where a lot of Magi feel they need a wizard multiclass.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It makes me wonder if there's some reason they dont make striking spell work similar to eldritch archer, where the spell attack uses the same result as the weapon strike, or at the very least, allow the spell attack to use thw weapons item bonus for attack rolls.
That's a thing?! Seems like that'd be an easy, potential fix for the Magus.
With how I read it feels like the spell should be one degree better if the strike hits not if the strike crits
I wonder if that would be too powerful or balanced
(2) if you crit with the original weapon attack, the spell is Heightened +1 level if applicable.
Okay I LIKE this instead of the 1 degree of success movement. Much cleaner and not nearly as swingy, so you can safely boost the baseline accuracy.
With how I read it feels like the spell should be one degree better if the strike hits not if the strike crits
I wonder if that would be too powerful or balanced
I think it's a cool idea for what it's worth, definitely another option imo.
Also, the only reasons i can see to not give Magi “legendary for spell attacks” are (1) even though every class has been worded to handle spell attack and DC proficiencies separately, they’ve always been the same and (2) they specifically want Magi to be particularly bad with this generally low performing category of spells.
I see those as bad reasons.
I think they wanted to keep the 1E feel of "2/3's caster & Not full BAB", so they only get to master but not legendary on either of those(unless I'm missing something).
I do think there have been a few suggestions that would help, getting Item Bonuses was suggested by Alchemic_Genius, but Seisho's improving degree better if the strike hits would also work since the actual spell attack value would be less important then.
What if the successful strike is a condition to a 'free' aid preparatory action and roll for the spell attack roll? It also opens up the ability to use the weapon used's item bonus as an item bonus to the spell attacks' roll?
This would mean if you hit, it triggers you getting to make a spell attack roll, and you get a +1 circumstance bonus from being aided by your strike (+2 if you crit, or +3 if you have Master weapon proficiency), and you would also then be able to apply your weapon's potency item bonus to the attack as well. I'm actually going to suggest excluding the attack from the MAP penalty, since it is dependent on the original strike, and expected to be weak bonus, but for flavor want it to tend to hit. The attack roll would still count as an attack after the strike is resolved, for MAP, but you wouldn't apply MAP to the actual roll itself, even if the spell attack roll was triggered by a third strike at -10 MAP, the spell attack would be rolled as a -0 MAP, giving the Magus several attempts to get a strike, in order to make the actions spent on the spell have a chance to kick off successfully.
You'd still have a risk of losing the spell, both to missed spell attack rolls, or not managing to land a physical attack. (however, if you didn't manage to land any physical attacks, it might be likely you wouldn't' have landed the spell attack either.
So the Magus would have the benefit of being better at getting off spells attack, even then a mage, by using magic items, and passing them through physical attacks. Guess what, they can even do straight magical attacks, but they find themselves far less accurate (they are used to the benefit of boosted attacks via item bonuses) and can just attack physically, but aren't any better at that than any other martial. (their benefit being being able to use actions to get off spells more accurately)
The aid roll is basically using already existing mechanics, but making it a triggered free action. Adding on the side benefit of opening up item bonuses to your spell attack roll as well, is a simple addition. The concept of an attack excluding MAP is kind of out of current established scope (as AoO occurring on your turn still end up using MAP if used during your turn). However, it could be a simple as Spell Attack having the MAP base be -0 (unaffected by map reducing effects) so that if you are on your 3rd attack, your map is simply at -0 for the purpose of the spell attack. Actually, in that sense it would not be that new a mechanic, just a new value used in that one case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With how I read it feels like the spell should be one degree better if the strike hits not if the strike crits
I wonder if that would be too powerful or balanced
Way too strong. That would give Magus +7/+8 to spell DCs over Wizard, which makes them the game's best enchanters, debuffers, save-or-suck, etc. It would also mean that basic save spells and cantrips are guaranteed to do damage.
The attack cantrips eventually scale to be just a little shy of greatsword damage, and you'd be rolling something like a 1/3 crit chance on them. I think that would reliably outdamage Fighter; if it doesn't, it would feel like it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea that making contact with Striking Spell automatically results in the spell being one degree better, but it would be too good.
From the math I've seen, the hit rate on an attack spell is about 40%.
Moving to a 40% crit rate (with a 90% hit rate overall) might be too much.
We want RELIABILITY first and foremost. We want a low failure rate, and we'll accept crits being very rare in exchange for that.
I'd instead include the 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 do a lot, are guaranteed to do something.
With how I read it feels like the spell should be one degree better if the strike hits not if the strike crits
I wonder if that would be too powerful or balanced
This certainly is a compromise between two attack rolls and autohit if the Strike hits, I can see a world where a Magus has a Two Action Spell Strike and the effects follow this structure. Albeit, I think instead of a general degree bump I think it would be "better" (As in a possibility to nerf it in case it was too good) if it turned critical failures into failures and failures into successes, for spell attack rolls I think the success-> Hit bump would keep the power level in check. If instead of Spell Strike we remained with the Hold The ChargeStriking Spell feature, then a general bump would definitely be warranted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea that making contact with Striking Spell automatically results in the spell being one degree better, but it would be too good.
From the math I've seen, the hit rate on an attack spell is about 40%.
Moving to a 40% crit rate (with a 90% hit rate overall) might be too much.
We want RELIABILITY first and foremost. We want a low failure rate, and we'll accept crits being very rare in exchange for that.
I'd instead include the 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 do a lot, are guaranteed to do something.
I think that would be good for FEEL. I'm going to check the numbers.
I like the idea of heightening the discharged spell on a critical Strike.
Honestly, just making attack spells hit on a successful strike is fine. Saves should still be rolled but explain to me how you miss a shocking grasp when you litteraly bonked the ennemy with your weapon.
Against a higher level foe like that, you are better off Spellstriking with save spells than attack spells. The electric arc was the only spellstrike that did anything. If you have attack spells, using true strike on them rather than on your weapon strike is the way to go.
I hope you face lower level enemies soon! I expect the combat routine will be very different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea that making contact with Striking Spell automatically results in the spell being one degree better, but it would be too good.
From the math I've seen, the hit rate on an attack spell is about 40%.
Moving to a 40% crit rate (with a 90% hit rate overall) might be too much.
We want RELIABILITY first and foremost. We want a low failure rate, and we'll accept crits being very rare in exchange for that.
I'd instead include the 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 do a lot, are guaranteed to do something.
This takes Spellstrike with a cantrip to about 75% of a two-handed fighter, and 100% when using spell-strike to deliver shocking grasp. Which IMO seems pretty right for what you'd want. Also it looks like a REALLY good feels-good improvement while only a modest 10% or so damage increase. At least for attack spells. I didn't check saves, but your proposal buffs them less anyway (which is fine, attack spells need the help).
Using level 1 spells heightened to 5th and 6th level is probably going to result in a some underwhelming experience. Unless you are attacking a foe in metal armor, even cone of cold would have been better than using shocking grasp.
Another factor that would sour the experience with this character is if the character is porting over a really expensive +2 striking longsword that a magus can make for free every combat for the cost of 1 action and a focus point. Using an expensive sword instead of your focus powers means that you are losing on a lot of the class power budget. If your character had started as a magus, I doubt you would have gone the direction of building this weapon up that way.
At level 13 you can get fiery form and see what happens when you do get a 1 action powered up cantrip you can fire off every round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This takes Spellstrike with a cantrip to about 75% of a two-handed fighter, and 100% when using spell-strike to deliver shocking grasp. Which IMO seems pretty right for what you'd want. Also it looks like a REALLY good feels-good improvement while only a modest 10% or so damage increase. At least for attack spells. I didn't check saves, but your proposal buffs them less anyway (which is fine, attack spells need the help).I do like the idea that making contact with Striking Spell automatically results in the spell being one degree better, but it would be too good.
From the math I've seen, the hit rate on an attack spell is about 40%.
Moving to a 40% crit rate (with a 90% hit rate overall) might be too much.
We want RELIABILITY first and foremost. We want a low failure rate, and we'll accept crits being very rare in exchange for that.
I'd instead include the 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 do a lot, are guaranteed to do something.
The other thing that I like about this is that it means you're still rewarded for investing in Intelligence (because your spells can still critically fail), but don't really need to start with 16 Intelligence (since the difference between a 80% and an 85% success rate is not significant), thus enabling you to put some points into CON at level 1 to help with your otherwise not-too-sturdy chassis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using level 1 spells heightened to 5th and 6th level is probably going to result in a some underwhelming experience. Unless you are attacking a foe in metal armor, even cone of cold would have been better than using shocking grasp.
Another factor that would sour the experience with this character is if the character is porting over a really expensive +2 striking longsword that a magus can make for free every combat for the cost of 1 action and a focus point. Using an expensive sword instead of your focus powers means that you are losing on a lot of the class power budget. If your character had started as a magus, I doubt you would have gone the direction of building this weapon up that way.
At level 13 you can get fiery form and see what happens when you do get a 1 action powered up cantrip you can fire off every round.
While I get it that cone of cold could have been better and that I could have used the focus spell, I don't think any of these issues are what resulted in my underwhelming experience.
Keep in mind that I did use cantrips and a higher-level save spell with my spell striking and, against a higher level antagonist, I still felt pretty meek compared to the other characters.
I think the point I am trying to make is that the Magus' Spell Striking should not be something that only comes online at level 13 or against lower-leveled enemies.
The mechanic is expressly stated to be the class' main thing. Why should the character not get a chance to shine when facing powerful foes?
If a class can can only work in some situations, with the certain gear or a specific build, this clearly means that some adjustment (I do not know which) needs to be made.
Again, I am not saying to let the Magus hit with massive damage every time, just make it a bit more consistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, these are a lot of the exact same concerns that people bring up about the wizard, and even casters generally when they are first trying them out. Spell selection is incredibly important in PF2. You need to target the right defense, do the right kind of damage, and make sure that you are not wasting your limited resources on attacks unlikely to hit. That is a feature (or bug, depending upon your perspective) that is inherent to the edition, not to the magus. It takes some time to figure out how your class features, feats, and items can all be used together to make your spells more effective.
Working together with your team to make sure that you are lining things up to maximize the effectiveness of your big whammy move is often worth a round or even two of set up if it can shift the numbers by 3 to 5 points (which is definitely possible). This is true for all casters, but it is very true for the magus, which can really shine against big scary solo monsters, making spells stick that other casters can't (because of the crit rider on striking spell, but to do that, you need to make sure that you can hit the monster with your weapon attack on better than a 10+, where as you were stuck at a 12+.
I am not blaming you, or saying that you did your build or combat wrong. Obviously the whole party wasn't going to start over at level 1 for you to build up slowly. I'd just talk to your GM about getting to change around some of your options because they probably don't work as well with the magus as they did with the caster/martial gish, or vis-a-versa. All I am really saying is, keep playing with it. Look at what didn't work and see if there is a way within the rules that already exist to make it work better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, these are a lot of the exact same concerns that people bring up about the wizard, and even casters generally when they are first trying them out. Spell selection is incredibly important in PF2. You need to target the right defense, do the right kind of damage, and make sure that you are not wasting your limited resources on attacks unlikely to hit. That is a feature (or bug, depending upon your perspective) that is inherent to the edition, not to the magus. It takes some time to figure out how your class features, feats, and items can all be used together to make your spells more effective.
Working together with your team to make sure that you are lining things up to maximize the effectiveness of your big whammy move is often worth a round or even two of set up if it can shift the numbers by 3 to 5 points (which is definitely possible). This is true for all casters, but it is very true for the magus, which can really shine against big scary solo monsters, making spells stick that other casters can't (because of the crit rider on striking spell, but to do that, you need to make sure that you can hit the monster with your weapon attack on better than a 10+, where as you were stuck at a 12+.
I am not blaming you, or saying that you did your build or combat wrong. Obviously the whole party wasn't going to start over at level 1 for you to build up slowly. I'd just talk to your GM about getting to change around some of your options because they probably don't work as well with the magus as they did with the caster/martial gish, or vis-a-versa. All I am really saying is, keep playing with it. Look at what didn't work and see if there is a way within the rules that already exist to make it work better.
And that's fine for regular casters who have truckloads of slots. Not so much for the four spell magus. Much better to have spellstrike damage nerfed to the ground and balanced around reliably hitting like other martials. Make it 60-75 percent as much damage as two martial swings. Whatever level people need to feel comfortable. Just let the magi reliably do what they're made to do
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not super great for normal casters either, Wizard just makes it work by throwing True Strike on their spells, or having so many prepped that they have something with the right saving throw.
There's a reason why buff spells, spells which don't require opposed rolls, are so good.
AoE also gets a pass, since the whole point is to target enough enemies with the spell that statistically one or more are likely to fail their save, so it at least does something.
Single target spells... They are definitely a gamble.
"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."
How is that going to interact with the Incapacitation trait?
|
"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."How is that going to interact with the Incapacitation trait?
incapacitation runs the other way, they'd basically cancel out.