In depth magus feedback

[Nymel]

Magus Feedback

Pre-Intro

You can find a better formatted version of this feedback in a google doc. I figured I should give the internet a chance to rip apart my feedback before I submit it to Paizo. Please let me know what you agree/disagree with.

Intro

To start with, I really like a lot of the core design decisions for Magus. The core chassis and gameplay loop is in a pretty good place. I also like how it differentiates itself from Eldritch Archer. I do not think that it needs to mess around with the action economy in order to work, or combine attack rolls with spell attack rolls/DCs. However, there are some pretty big problems with it too. Here are the three biggest issues which fundamentally need to be fixed.

* Striking Spell's short duration means that you will frequently lose spells and actions due to the duration expiring before you successfully hit
* Striking Spell does not provide enough of a benefit. This is most notable for the Shooting Star Synthesis since it is better to completely ignore both the main class mechanic and the Synthesis itself until ~level 10.
* Striking Spell's short duration particularly affects Sustaining Steel and it will frequently lose actions since it won't be able to get off as many attacks due to its low mobility/range

I also have a lot of smaller pieces of feedback.

During this feedback I'm going to make several napkin-math assumptions. The first is that when you are on-level you have a 50% chance to hit with an attack/spell or to have an opponent succeed on a DC and I'm assuming a 20 is a crit. Additionally, for iterative attacks I'm assuming that you have a 75% chance to hit at least once when making 3 attacks. This math is not precise, but it's close enough. I will also be referring to spells that are stored in a weapon as "invested" spells since it's simple and short.

Except in the section about multi-turn maneuvers I won't discuss extra actions from Hasted Assault, Supreme Spellstrike, or Haste and I won't discuss Quickened Spellstrike. These come online a little late and are neat, but don't change much.

At the moment, 1 action attacks suitable for Striking Spell don't exist. These would change some things regarding the multi-turn maneuvers section.

For bullet point suggestions I'm providing several options. Some of which work well together and some don't. The TLDR section mostly covers a combination of changes which I think would work well together.

Striking Spell

I really like the core mechanic of Striking Spell. I think that temporarily investing a spell in your weapon interacts well with the action economy and is a better way to implement this mechanic than Eldritch Archer. However, as it stands there are 2 main disadvantages of Striking Spell and only 1 advantage and they do not balance out, leading it to be weaker in many circumstances than casting the spell and attacking without using Striking Spell. The skill feats and Synthesis help provide a benefit but it often doesn't balance out.

For example, with the Shooting Spell synthesis there is no good reason to use Striking Spell until you can pick up Cascading Ray at level 10. While there is a small chance to increase the degree of success when you critically hit (~5%) on your attack roll, there is an even larger chance of missing all of your attacks for 2 turns and wasting the spell and the actions you spent casting it (~12.5%). To repeat, for this Synthesis using your core class ability is actively worse than not using it for a full 10 levels. (To be fair, Bespell Strike can provide a marginal damage boost a few times per day when using Striking Spell but it's a small bonus with limited uses and doesn't really change the math)

The first disadvantage is that an invested spell only lasts for 2 turns. Even if you spend all of your actions attacking, it means that there is a small but meaningful chance (~12.5%) that you will miss every single attack and both your spell and action are wasted. This feels absolutely terrible, particularly if you just wasted one of your 4 spells per day. It also more than negates the mathematical benefit you receive from increasing the degree of success on a critical hit. In normal play there will also be many situations where the player does not hit an enemy over 2 turns due to bad luck, or reduced actions. If an enemy simply backs up each turn it limits the player to a single turn of two attacks and at that point it's not worth using. I suggest changing the Striking Spell ability either at baseline or through a level 1 feat to reduce the chance and impact of this. Here are a few options.

*Increase the time that spell investure lasts by 1-8 turns.
*Provide a last-ditch chance for the player to use the spell. This could be done a number of different ways but I personally like this version

Attack of Arcane Desperation:

Attack of Arcane Desperation
Action Type: Reaction
Requirement: A spell invested in your weapon from Striking Spell dissipated harmlessly because it's duration expired at the end of your last turn
Trigger: <The same as attack of Opportunity>
Effect: <The same as attack of Opportunity>

*Return the spell to the caster if it dissipated harmlessly because it's duration expired.

The next disadvantage is the action economy. Investing a spell in your weapon is inherently a delayed action. If the player misses or is unable to attack then their turn will have had no effect. This is not a massive disadvantage, but I think that there needs to be a little bit more of a reason to use Striking Spell. The crit mechanic is nice, however it's highly RNG dependent. Personally, I like the idea of

*Use the attribute substitution mechanic from Investigator and allow the player to use their primary casting attribute during their attack roll when their weapon is invested with a Striking Spell.

This also helps differentiate Magus characters since players can focus on Striking Spell and primarily attack with their casting attribute while others can invest more into their iterative attacks with higher physical attributes.

I think that with these two changes the Striking Spell mechanic will be in a better place. Losing spells will be a less common occurrence, and there will always be a benefit to using Striking Spell.

Multi-turn maneuvers

Another thing I really like is how Striking Spell's duration plays with the action system and allows for multi-turn maneuvers.

Bespell Strike

Bespell Strike was not built with multi-turn maneuvers in mind. It can only be used on the turn you cast a non-cantrip spell and lasts until the end of the turn. Under normal circumstances you will only receive a benefit if you use a 2 action spell and hit on an attack with your next action. It does not work if you miss, or if you needed to move/cast. This is particularly bad since it only works on non-cantrip spells and therefore will only be usable 4 times per day without extra spell/day. It also means that it does not interact with the extra attack from Hasted Assault or Supreme Spellstrike. I suggest changing this to be a bit more flexible.

*Change the requirement so that it's usable as long as you have a non-cantrip spell invested in your weapon.
*Change the duration to last until the spell in your weapon is discharged.

Multi-Action Attacks

This class has several mechanics that encourage multi-turn maneuvers. The first is multi-action attacks like Spell Swipe and Dipelling Spellstrike which cannot be used in the same turn as Striking Spell unless the spell takes 1 action. It's certainly possible that additional 1 action spells will be added to facilitate this however for now these pretty much need to be used across 2 turns. As such, I think they are rather underpowered. At the moment, holding a spell across a turn means a meaningful chance of losing it without having any effect. It's a high-risk strategy without much of a reward. It's possibly a decent backup strategy if you fail the first attack but still pretty awkward. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing however I do think that this means that these options are a bit underpowered compared to similar level abilities and can be made available earlier.

*Reduce the chance of spell dissipation or it's cost
*Make these multi-turn actions available earlier since they are such high-risk high-reward.

As an aside, I think that Whirlwind Spell should be changed to match Spell Swipe and Dispelling Spellstrike. The action flexibility is an advantage of the class and as a 20th level ability I don't think it would be too strong if it's simply a 1 action ability that requires an invested spell.

Quickened Actions

Next are the additional actions from Hasted Assault and Supreme Spellstrike. I actually kind of dislike this because in P2 any quicked actions occur at the start of your turn so if you don't have an enemy in reach, such as if they took a step back, then the action is wasted. This class already is really tight on actions and is significantly harmed when it needs to spend actions on movement. At the very least, it should offer some kind of minor movement options as an alternative such as a Step or moving half of your speed. That way the action is not completely useless if you can't attack. The extra action also doesn't interact with Bespell Strikes which I've already mentioned. It also has negative synergy with the multi-action strikes. If you hit it automatically discharges the spell and prevents you from using the multi-action strike for the round (unless you have a 1 action spell). It might be worth making the spell discharge be optional just to help address this issue.

Activatable Items

There are also some interactions with activatable magic items. One interaction which I'm not sure is intended is with Penetrating Ammunition. It allows a Spell Strike to hit all enemies in a line which vastly increases its power. This is something that Eldritch Archer cannot do on their own due to the action economy. This particular interaction is so powerful that it's kind of crazy and might need an errata. Some other interactions are SpellStrike ammunition which can allow the caster to double up on spells and Starshot arrow. Those are pretty neat.

Additional Options

I would also like to see additional options that encourage holding a spell.

*Reactions that can be used when you have a spell invested.
*Actions that can be used when "Your most recent action discharged the spell invested in Striking Spell"

Arcane Renewal:

Arcane Renewal
Action Type: 1 Action
Requirement: Your most recent action discharged the spell invested in Striking Spell
Effect: This would be the same as Striking Spell but it only lasts until the end of the turn.

This would provide another high-risk high-reward strategy which could give a benefit in terms of action economy and resource in the right circumstance. It would require holding the spell, then hitting, using the action, and hitting again before the end of your turn. I think it would provide a really interesting choice to players in the right circumstance. It's also the type of thing that players can choose to build around and optimize around. But, I don't think it's too powerful given the investment required.

Spell per Day

I'm fine with the idea of a limited number of high-end spells. Limiting it 4 seems a bit too low at first glance but I'd need some time playing the class to get a better idea for what feels right.

However, I think that there should be in-class options for players who want to have more spells. Martial Caster does not provide a meaningful increase in spell/day. To that end I would suggest allowing Magus/Summoner to take the Basic/Expert/Master/Arcane Breadth Spellcasting Feats. This would allow players who want to fill out their spell list a way to do so without multiclassing.

That's not to say that multiclassing is bad, it's just that expanded spellcasting is still in the class identity and multiclassing can be pretty restrictive in terms of class feats.

As a side note, the XXX Breadth feat should really be part of all spellcasting archetypes. It feels really bad to go into something like Eldritch Archer and not have it be available. It's easily fixed with a houserule and GM permission, however it's such a basic part of multiclass spellcasting and almost every spellcaster archetype has it.

Spellcasting Proficiency

The Master Spellcaster benefit should be available earlier since multi-class archetypes get the Master Spellcasting feat at 18th level. Magus should not be behind multi-class spellcasters in terms of proficiency.

I think Magus could probably get full casting proficiency. Melee and spellcasters are pretty balanced with each other and Magus already pays for it's melee proficiency with it's lack of spells/day.

Synthesis

I don't like the current implementation of Shooting Star. At the moment the biggest reason the Magus has to use Spell Strike is the Synthesis benefit. With Shooting Star it's better to attack and cast independently and not even use Spell Strike. This does not change until level 10 when you get Cascading Ray. This is not ok and it should never be clearly mechanically better to completely ignore your core class ability. I suggest doing one or more of the following
*Buff Spell Strike
*Move Shooting Star to a feat
*Add a feat that removes the range requirement

That said, I expect it would work relatively well in play. The ranged attacks provide a similar role as Slide Casting and there are enough spells with decent range that the player can work around it. However that's because interspacing movement with attacks and spellcasting will actively cause problems for this class and because the ranged playstyle fundamentally has more synergy with it's core mechanics.

Slide Casting is a bit too good since actions are so tight and the class is so dependent on efficiently weaving spells/attacks. I suggest buffing the core movement options a little to help smooth things out for the other Synthesis.
*Change Hasted Assault/Supreme Spellstrike to allow for movement.
*Add some move/attack action options like Skirmish Strike as class feats

Sustaining Steel is weak due to the action dependency. Without a movement option it will often be unable to attack the same turn as casting a spell. With the short two turn window for Striking Spell this means that they will often have a ~1/4 chance of losing the spell and those two actions. This is pretty terrible but there are a few solutions
*Buff the inherent movement options that the class has. Even something like Skirmish Strike could go a long way
*Buff Striking Spell so that the player won't lose spells as often. This could also be part of Sustaining Steel as another way to differentiate the Synthesis
*Focus on the multi-turn maneuver aspect. This is a good chance for Sustaining Steel to have a stronger and more unique identity. This can either be additional actions, and it could be combined with Striking Spell duration buffs.

TLDR

Striking Spell needs several buffs so that it is worth using.
*Increase the duration by at least 1 round
*Allow the player to use their primary spellcasting modifier for their attack role when using it

Bespell Strike does not take Striking Spell's duration into consideration.
*Change the duration to last until the spell in your weapon is discharged.

Multi-Action Attacks have a decent amount of risk and are awkward/require planning to use. They are a bit weak in comparison
*Increasing Striking Spells duration would be a good buff to them
*It would be nice to have additional multi-action attack options. One 3 action attack that requires a pre-buffed Striking Spell would be really cool
*Due to their awkwardness/required planning I think they can be made available a few levels earlier. They provide some interesting gameplay choices and I could even see one being a core part of the class as a level 1 feat.
*It would be good to see more multi-round interactions that are not attacks such as reactions that require a stored spell or actions that require that your previous action is a discharged spell.
*Take a look at possibly doing an errata for Penetrating Ammunition. It's interaction with Striking Spell is way out of line compared to similar options.

Players should have in-class options to get additional spells per day.
*I suggest making the Basic/Expert/Master/Breadth spellcasting feats available without multiclassing

Spellcasting Proficiency could be higher
*At the very least it should match multi-class characters with Master proficiency at level 18 instead of 19
*Personally I think they should be able to just have full caster proficiency but I wouldn't really call this a suggestion, more of a preference

Synthesis options need some work
*Using Spell Strike with Shooting Star is actively worse than just casting a spell and attacking separately until level 10. This is not acceptable for a core class feature. My suggested buffs to Striking Spell would fix this. I don't think that the Synthesis itself necessarily needs a buff.
*Sustaining Steel has too high of a cost primarily because it has a higher chance to lose spells due to Spell Strike's duration expiring since it has problems making 2 turns of attacks. I suggest providing Sustaining Steel better tools to do multi-turn maneuvers. That would give it a cool and unique identity within the class. More detail is in the section

[richienvh]

Looks nice and the solutions you propose do help. One thing that I would suggest, if you're going with the increased spell investiture, is to further change the way spell attacks are discharged.

In the current iteration, Magus discharges the spell as soon as they hit with their weapon Strike with the spell staying on until they manage to hit with their weapon. That is, they need to hit with both rolls for the spell to do something.

Since they have only four slots per day, a better way to keep the mechanic as it currently stands and improve it would be for the spell not to be spent when the Magus misses the spell attack roll, remaining on for the duration you proposed.

To be clear, Striking Spell would still have the same action economy and mechanics, but attack spells would not be lost if you miss the respective spell attack rolls.

[Kalaam]

That was a very complete feedback and quite interresting to read. I mostly aggree with you though some of my ideas for changes are different.

Personnaly I would change Striking Spell to Spell Combat, and allow the use of any spell with it. Making it so when you invest a spell in yourself, you can then release it a single action (or a reaction upon landing a Strike) up until the end of your next turn.
I'd probably also add a "Hold the Charge" action with the concentrate trait, allowing the hold the spell in for one more round (up to 1 minute, after which you'd be tired) and triggering your synthesis by doing so.
That way it opens up more flexibility since you have a wider choice of spells to use, the bonus on crit is a fun mechanic that can stay.
You could for example, critically hit an ennemy, and then release a Gust of Wind you had been holding the charge of to send them flying.

Then Striking Spell/SpellStrike could be a separate action (either when you're holding a spell, or whenever you cast it) to use your Strike to deliver a spell that targets a single ennemy (or a minimum of one). Working similarly to Eldritch Shot or that NPC's Spell Strike ability.

The idea to add reactions when a spell is invested is cool. The Magus could have its own AoO that way, only triggereable when he has a SpellStriking eligible spell invested. Maybe even a special Lunge that has the same requirement, giving you extra reach, using your better weapon proficiency, but only applying the spell effect on a hit, no weapon dices.

The Magus still has a lot of potential!

[Nymel]

richienvh wrote:

Since they have only four slots per day, a better way to keep the mechanic as it currently stands and improve it would be for the spell not to be spent when the Magus misses the spell attack roll, remaining on for the duration you proposed.

To be clear, Striking Spell would still have the same action economy and mechanics, but attack spells would not be lost if you miss the respective spell attack rolls.

That would be an action economy buff for them since they would not "waste" actions or spell slots on failed spells.

It would effectively halve the number of actions they need to spend on casting spells and double the number of combat spells they get per day.

There is also a secondary problem where it would increase the power of spells with spell attack rolls compared to standard spell DCs. This is because on a failure spell attacks would miss completely and could be retried on the next action for full power, however spells with standard DCs would have half-effect and be expended.

I agree that they might have too few spells, but I think the best fix for that is to simply give them additional spells per day.

I think that the core design of the current implementation is well thought out and will work well. It just needs a few tweaks since right now it's too punishing when things go wrong and not rewarding enough when things go right.

richienvh wrote:

Personally I would change Striking Spell to Spell Combat, and allow the use of any spell with it. Making it so when you invest a spell in yourself, you can then release it a single action (or a reaction upon landing a Strike) up until the end of your next turn.
I'd probably also add a "Hold the Charge" action with the concentrate trait, allowing the hold the spell in for one more round (up to 1 minute, after which you'd be tired) and triggering your synthesis by doing so.
That way it opens up more flexibility since you have a wider choice of spells to use, the bonus on crit is a fun mechanic that can stay.
You could for example, critically hit an enemy, and then release a Gust of Wind you had been holding the charge of to send them flying.

I like that idea, and Striking Spell would allow you to release an invested combat spell through an attack. That would open up a lot more design space.

I think that might better as an archetype instead of part of the magus though. It's a little too much design space and magus has a good niche as a spellcasting class focused on melee combat. Really taking advantage of that design would require a bit of a class rework.

[Nymel]

I'm new to this forum and it looks like I can't edit the top post anymore. I suppose edits are time limited or something? In any event here is something I added to the Multi-turn maneuvers section.

I also think that there is some interesting design space for 3 action attacks that require a held spell. I think that there should be at least 1 of these available as a class feat. Given the difficulty to use it and the planning required it shouldn't need to be a capstone and can come earlier for players who are interested in the risk/reward. Maybe something like Penetrating Ammunition where it's a ranged attack that can hit all enemies in a line? Whirlwind spell could also be changed to be one of these and be moved to a lower level to compensate. It would be neat to get both of these as level 14 class feats.

[Angel Hunter D]

Nymel wrote:

richienvh wrote:

Since they have only four slots per day, a better way to keep the mechanic as it currently stands and improve it would be for the spell not to be spent when the Magus misses the spell attack roll, remaining on for the duration you proposed.

To be clear, Striking Spell would still have the same action economy and mechanics, but attack spells would not be lost if you miss the respective spell attack rolls.

That would be an action economy buff for them since they would not "waste" actions or spell slots on failed spells.

It would effectively halve the number of actions they need to spend on casting spells and double the number of combat spells they get per day.

There is also a secondary problem where it would increase the power of spells with spell attack rolls compared to standard spell DCs. This is because on a failure spell attacks would miss completely and could be retried on the next action for full power, however spells with standard DCs would have half-effect and be expended.

That's a resource efficiency boost, not an action economy boost

[AsuraKyoko]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

That's a resource efficiency boost, not an action economy boost

It's both, functionally. While it is primarily a resource efficiency boost, it also has the effect of boosting your action economy, because you wouldn't need to spend actions keeping your Spell Strike active, at least until you get the payoff of actually hitting with the spells.

[Ferious Thune]

AsuraKyoko wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

That's a resource efficiency boost, not an action economy boost

It's both, functionally. While it is primarily a resource efficiency boost, it also has the effect of boosting your action economy, because you wouldn't need to spend actions keeping your Spell Strike active, at least until you get the payoff of actually hitting with the spells.

Extending the duration that you can hold the spell just makes it more likely that you will get a chance to use the spell. Casting the spell without Striking Spell means that you have a 100% chance to use the spell (it might still miss, or they might make their save, but at least you got to the point of making that roll). And it's the same number of actions. The only action economy boost currently in Striking Spell is Stride Casting.

[Nymel]

I noticed a fundamental error with my math regarding critical hits.

Given a normal attack hits on an 11-20 and crits on a 20 that means that the chance that a spell will increase the degree of success due to a critical hit is 10%. This chance is increased for attacks with a smaller hit range with a 20% chance on the first iterative with an agile weapon and a 50% chance on the second iterative.

This puts the increased damage from that mechanic at a higher value than I had originally had. This damage increase is going to affect more of your hits against stronger enemies and less of your hits against weaker ones.

This does not change any of my conclusions and has been addressed in the google doc.

Here is my napkin math calculation which puts the increased damage at 8.63%

(Chance of iterative * Chance to hit * Chance to Crit)

0.0863 =
(1 * 10/20 * 1/10) +
(0.5 * 10/20 * 1/10) +
(.25 * 5/20 * 1/6) +
(.018 * 2/20 * 1/2)

[Ferious Thune]

I'm not sure how I follow. How is only critting on a 20 a 10% chance?

[Nymel]

Ferious Thune wrote:

I'm not sure how I follow. How is only critting on a 20 a 10% chance?

It's because a critical hit on the weapon attack both increases the success of the spell and also discharges a weapon while a miss does not do either of those.

So the odds for a weapon attack are roughly

50%: Miss
45%: Normal hit and discharge spell
5%: Critical hit and discharge spell

When we only look at the odds for a weapon hit and spell discharge this removes the misses from the table and changes the odds accordingly.

90%: Normal hit and discharge spell
10%: Critical hit and discharge spell

As an extreme example, if you were fighting an opponent who is way out of your league and you could only hit on a natural 20 then all of your hits would increase the success threshold of the spell.

[richienvh]

Nymel wrote:

richienvh wrote:

Since they have only four slots per day, a better way to keep the mechanic as it currently stands and improve it would be for the spell not to be spent when the Magus misses the spell attack roll, remaining on for the duration you proposed.

To be clear, Striking Spell would still have the same action economy and mechanics, but attack spells would not be lost if you miss the respective spell attack rolls.

That would be an action economy buff for them since they would not "waste" actions or spell slots on failed spells.

It would effectively halve the number of actions they need to spend on casting spells and double the number of combat spells they get per day.

There is also a secondary problem where it would increase the power of spells with spell attack rolls compared to standard spell DCs. This is because on a failure spell attacks would miss completely and could be retried on the next action for full power, however spells with standard DCs would have half-effect and be expended.

I agree that they might have too few spells, but I think the best fix for that is to simply give them additional spells per day.

I think that the core design of the current implementation is well thought out and will work well. It just needs a few tweaks since right now it's too punishing when things go wrong and not rewarding enough when things go right.

richienvh wrote:

Personally I would change Striking Spell to Spell Combat, and allow the use of any spell with it. Making it so when you invest a spell in yourself, you can then release it a single action (or a reaction upon landing a Strike) up until the end of your next turn.
I'd probably also add a "Hold the Charge" action with the concentrate trait, allowing the hold the spell in for one more round (up to 1 minute, after which you'd be tired) and triggering your synthesis by doing so.
That way it opens up more flexibility since you have a wider choice of spells to use, the bonus on crit is a fun mechanic that can

...

I don't disagree =) Like you pointed out, holding a spell ad eternum may not be the best route, which is why I am for changing Striking Spell in a way that makes it more functional and reliable.

[Angel Hunter D]

AsuraKyoko wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

That's a resource efficiency boost, not an action economy boost

It's both, functionally. While it is primarily a resource efficiency boost, it also has the effect of boosting your action economy, because you wouldn't need to spend actions keeping your Spell Strike active, at least until you get the payoff of actually hitting with the spells.

uh, no. spending your next turn to do something you failed to do last turn is the exact opposite of an efficiency boost.

[Capn Cupcake]

richienvh wrote:

Nymel wrote:

richienvh wrote:

Since they have only four slots per day, a better way to keep the mechanic as it currently stands and improve it would be for the spell not to be spent when the Magus misses the spell attack roll, remaining on for the duration you proposed.

To be clear, Striking Spell would still have the same action economy and mechanics, but attack spells would not be lost if you miss the respective spell attack rolls.

That would be an action economy buff for them since they would not "waste" actions or spell slots on failed spells.

It would effectively halve the number of actions they need to spend on casting spells and double the number of combat spells they get per day.

There is also a secondary problem where it would increase the power of spells with spell attack rolls compared to standard spell DCs. This is because on a failure spell attacks would miss completely and could be retried on the next action for full power, however spells with standard DCs would have half-effect and be expended.

I agree that they might have too few spells, but I think the best fix for that is to simply give them additional spells per day.

I think that the core design of the current implementation is well thought out and will work well. It just needs a few tweaks since right now it's too punishing when things go wrong and not rewarding enough when things go right.

richienvh wrote:

Personally I would change Striking Spell to Spell Combat, and allow the use of any spell with it. Making it so when you invest a spell in yourself, you can then release it a single action (or a reaction upon landing a Strike) up until the end of your next turn.
I'd probably also add a "Hold the Charge" action with the concentrate trait, allowing the hold the spell in for one more round (up to 1 minute, after which you'd be tired) and triggering your synthesis by doing so.
That way it opens up more flexibility since you have a wider choice of spells to use, the bonus on crit is

...

This opens up its own problems though. If you hit on your 2nd attack in a round the spell is cast at the same MAP. It's not a problem save spells but it's a major problem for attack spells, and that really needs to get ironed out in any solution that gets implemented. Saving the spell no matter what just means you'll be multi attacking more on subsequent rounds, but your 2nd attack, if a hit, will almost always result in a lost spell.

Some quick math on that:

At level 13 you're attacking at +26, and spell attacks are at +22. Already very bad. But if you hit with your second strike that drops to +21 and +17 on the spell. The spell is at an effective -9 basically guaranteeing it can't hit on a 2nd Strike. Again this doesn't affect saving throw spells, but I would really like a solution that doesn't make attack roll spells the objectively worst option in every situation.

[Nymel]

Ferious Thune wrote:

Extending the duration that you can hold the spell just makes it more likely that you will get a chance to use the spell. Casting the spell without Striking Spell means that you have a 100% chance to use the spell (it might still miss, or they might make their save, but at least you got to the point of making that roll). And it's the same number of actions. The only action economy boost currently in Striking Spell is Stride Casting.

While that's not wrong, there are a number of different ways of looking at the action economy. You can choose to take more or less mechanics into consideration depending on what is relevant. Usually things like attack rolls and spell DCs are not relevant since those are baked into the action. However, it's relevant in this specific case because the two options work in very similar ways. When it's such a direct apples to apples comparison and one option has an action penalty and the other does not then it becomes relevant.

In this case, you can expect to lose more than 15% of the actions that you invest into Striking Spell due to the duration expiring. If you had cast these spells instead then you would have been able to perform those actions. Therefore those actions were lost. This can be looked at as either a 15% damage penalty or as a 15% action penalty. Both are valid ways of looking at this.

This affects the Shooting Star synthesis the most since Striking Spell is a strictly worse option than attacking/casting separately until you start getting supporting class feats at level 10.

[Ferious Thune]

Nymel wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

Extending the duration that you can hold the spell just makes it more likely that you will get a chance to use the spell. Casting the spell without Striking Spell means that you have a 100% chance to use the spell (it might still miss, or they might make their save, but at least you got to the point of making that roll). And it's the same number of actions. The only action economy boost currently in Striking Spell is Stride Casting.

While that's not wrong, there are a number of different ways of looking at the action economy. You can choose to take more or less mechanics into consideration depending on what is relevant. Usually things like attack rolls and spell DCs are not relevant since those are baked into the action. However, it's relevant in this specific case because the two options work in very similar ways. When it's such a direct apples to apples comparison and one option has an action penalty and the other does not then it becomes relevant.

In this case, you can expect to lose more than 15% of the actions that you invest into Striking Spell due to the duration expiring. If you had cast these spells instead then you would have been able to perform those actions. Therefore those actions were lost. This can be looked at as either a 15% damage penalty or as a 15% action penalty. Both are valid ways of looking at this.

This affects the Shooting Star synthesis the most since Striking Spell is a strictly worse option than attacking/casting separately until you start getting supporting class feats at level 10.

I'm not sure where in there you disagreed with me? Whether you view it as a 15% damage penalty for the same number of actions or as a 15% action penalty, either way it's not an action advantage, which is what was claimed.

[Nymel]

Ferious Thune wrote:

I'm not sure where in there you disagreed with me? Whether you view it as a 15% damage penalty for the same number of actions or as a 15% action penalty, either way it's not an action advantage, which is what was claimed.

Fair, I misread your comment.

Capn Cupcake wrote:

This opens up its own problems though. If you hit on your 2nd attack in a round the spell is cast at the same MAP. It's not a problem save spells but it's a major problem for attack spells, and that really needs to get ironed out in any solution that gets implemented. Saving the spell no matter what just means you'll be multi attacking more on subsequent rounds, but your 2nd attack, if a hit, will almost always result in a lost spell.

The simple solution to this would be to give Magus access to Double-Strike or other multi-attack options. That might not even be needed since Dual-Weapon Warrior grants that at level 2 when you take the dedication and there are a few other archetype options that offer similar benefits.

That's a good point and if you want I can add a section on that to the document before I submit it to paizo (credits given of course).

On a side note, Dual Onslaught is pretty insane for Magus. "When you use Double Slice, if you miss with both Strikes, choose one of the two weapons and apply the effects of a hit with that weapon." This pretty much guarantees that you will always get the spell off.

Dual-Weapon Blitz is also really good. I think that this might be my favorite archetype to combine with Magus.

[Capn Cupcake]

Nymel wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

I'm not sure where in there you disagreed with me? Whether you view it as a 15% damage penalty for the same number of actions or as a 15% action penalty, either way it's not an action advantage, which is what was claimed.

Fair, I misread your comment.

Capn Cupcake wrote:

This opens up its own problems though. If you hit on your 2nd attack in a round the spell is cast at the same MAP. It's not a problem save spells but it's a major problem for attack spells, and that really needs to get ironed out in any solution that gets implemented. Saving the spell no matter what just means you'll be multi attacking more on subsequent rounds, but your 2nd attack, if a hit, will almost always result in a lost spell.

The simple solution to this would be to give Magus access to Double-Strike or other multi-attack options. That might not even be needed since Dual-Weapon Warrior grants that at level 2 when you take the dedication and there are a few other archetype options that offer similar benefits.

That's a good point and if you want I can add a section on that to the document before I submit it to paizo (credits given of course).

On a side note, Dual Onslaught is pretty insane for Magus. "When you use Double Slice, if you miss with both Strikes, choose one of the two weapons and apply the effects of a hit with that weapon." This pretty much guarantees that you will always get the spell off.

Dual-Weapon Blitz is also really good. I think that this might be my favorite archetype to combine with Magus.

Yeah go for it, with credit. I'm flattered. :)

[Ferious Thune]

Dual Onslaught would need some confirmation that "effects of a hit with that weapon" is sufficient to trigger the spell, but if it does, then that's a nice find. It doesn't directly benefit from any of the Syntheses, so a two-weapon Synthesis would be great to pair with it. Unless maybe you can somehow twist using a gauntlet into letting you Slide Cast and still TWF. That might work.

[AsuraKyoko]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

uh, no. spending your next turn to do something you failed to do last turn is the exact opposite of an efficiency boost.

It is an efficiency boost compared to losing the spell, assuming that you want to be attacking with a spell in your weapon as much as possible, which is kinda the point of the magus.

[Ferious Thune]

AsuraKyoko wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

uh, no. spending your next turn to do something you failed to do last turn is the exact opposite of an efficiency boost.

It is an efficiency boost compared to losing the spell, assuming that you want to be attacking with a spell in your weapon as much as possible, which is kinda the point of the magus.

If you cast the spell normally, you never lose the spell. (Well, if it’s not disrupted)

[graystone]

AsuraKyoko wrote:

It is an efficiency boost compared to losing the spell

No, because you only lost the spell because you used spellstrike: you could have just missed with the strike and cast the spell. You didn't gain anything, especially if you cast a save spell as whenever you managed to hit would have been using he exact same number

[AsuraKyoko]

graystone wrote:

No, because you only lost the spell because you used spellstrike: you could have just missed with the strike and cast the spell. You didn't gain anything, especially if you cast a save spell as whenever you managed to hit would have been using he exact same number

Agreed, it's a boost over using spellstrike currently. Assuming that you will be using spellstrike either way, it is more efficient. As it currently stands, though, spellstrike doesn't actually provide you any real benefits.

Basically, my point was not that it was more efficient than just casting the spell, but that it was more efficient than the current spellstrike.

[breithauptclan]

Nymel wrote:

The simple solution to this would be to give Magus access to Double-Strike or other multi-attack options. That might not even be needed since Dual-Weapon Warrior grants that at level 2 when you take the dedication and there are a few other archetype options that offer similar benefits.

Two attack options may help, but I don't think it would work with Double Strike or other two weapon abilities. The Strike Spell only puts the spell in one of the weapons.