Is the Targeting Restriction Neccessary?


Magus Class


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell?

Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)?

Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell?

Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)?

Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?

I don't think it would myself. It's a terrible waste of a chain lightning to use it on a single target.


Chain Lightning is probably fairly interresting with a reach weapon at level 20, while surrounded by mooks and having the Whirlwind Spell Strike feat.


If the saving throws of the enemy are tied to whether you crit on the hit or not, then yes, the targeting restriction is necessary.
If one were to divorce the results for those not struck by the weapon, then I don't think it'd be that bad, especially since you're nearly always giving up range to do so (and losing out on the immediacy of having the spell simply happen w/ no Strikes necessary). And I could see some cool effects from a Fire Giant King Magus exploding parties with his Fireball Sword. :)


I'd love a feat/focus spells that allows to use AoE spells in spellstrike, like fireball, but changing the area into a cone starting on the target you strike. They get a penalty to the save in case of a crit, but everyone else rolls normally.
Admit it, it'd be kino as sh** to wack someone and have a massive wave of fire erupt from the impact.


Kalaam wrote:

I'd love a feat/focus spells that allows to use AoE spells in spellstrike, like fireball, but changing the area into a cone starting on the target you strike. They get a penalty to the save in case of a crit, but everyone else rolls normally.

Admit it, it'd be kino as sh** to wack someone and have a massive wave of fire erupt from the impact.

One reason I loved the spear/lightning Amazon in Diablo II was because of imagery like that. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like it.

Even with the crit element I would be happier with a spell strike that had the ability to cast the full spell if you wished and stayed in the weapon until a strike hit.

The core conceit of the magus works, but boy howdy does spell strike not feel great with 4 spell slots per level. At least in my limited testing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Castilliano wrote:

If the saving throws of the enemy are tied to whether you crit on the hit or not, then yes, the targeting restriction is necessary.

If one were to divorce the results for those not struck by the weapon, then I don't think it'd be that bad, especially since you're nearly always giving up range to do so (and losing out on the immediacy of having the spell simply happen w/ no Strikes necessary). And I could see some cool effects from a Fire Giant King Magus exploding parties with his Fireball Sword. :)

It's fairly easy to say that the crit bump only applies to the target struck by the weapon attack, yeah; that seems obvious to me as the way it would work.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell?

Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)?

Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?

That's an interesting idea. It would fix some of the annoying parts of restricting spells to just one target, while opening up a whole lot of new questions. Something worth exploring for us, I think.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Logan Bonner wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell?

Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)?

Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?

That's an interesting idea. It would fix some of the annoying parts of restricting spells to just one target, while opening up a whole lot of new questions. Something worth exploring for us, I think.

Appreciate the response, Logan. I think it would really help Shooting Star stand out synthesis as well, as it is a lot easier to deliver a Fireball into the middle of enemies with a ranged attack than a melee attack. Not sure if that's part of the multiple target spells you'd have in mind or if you were more thinking explicitly targeted spells.


Logan Bonner wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell?

Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)?

Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?

That's an interesting idea. It would fix some of the annoying parts of restricting spells to just one target, while opening up a whole lot of new questions. Something worth exploring for us, I think.

I really think there would be fun stuff to do if you could, say doa Fireball with it, and turn the area into a cone starting on the creature struck!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Related, with Whirlwind Strike (a capstone!) is there any reason to make the limit on target the: smaller of [number of targets you hit, number of targets the spell normally targets] when Sweeping Strike does not?

Radiant Oath

I would like to see the restriction removed so that a Magus can prepare something like Cone of Cold, and it gives the versatility of having an AoE if needed whilst still having a spell for Striking Spell on a single target. The damage wouldn't be as efficient as using a single target spell, but that's the trade off for more options.


Logan Bonner wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Just a random thought, as I'm building a Magus for playtest purposes. Considering spells are typically balanced around their number of targets... is there really a need to lock the Magus to one target with Striking Spell? Would it break anything if a Magus could Striking Spell someone with Chain Lightning and have it actually chain, or Striking Spell someone with Fear and include several other foes as targets at the same time (without weapon damage obviously)? Are there spells whose effects or targets would be hard to resolve in this case?
That's an interesting idea. It would fix some of the annoying parts of restricting spells to just one target, while opening up a whole lot of new questions. Something worth exploring for us, I think.

It seems hard to balance just giving normal AoE/multitarget effect when the main target is getting spell effect tier upgrade from weapon crits on significant number of hits. Perhaps that could be balanced by giving spell tier effect downgrade on other (non-primary or not identical to triggering strike target) AoE/multitarget victims? Or perhaps applying MAP as penalty to both DC or Spell Attack? (similar to previous, but less strong since it may not always downgrade tier) If not as core mechanic, it might be reasonable Feat?

That actually gets to something I noted in other thread, where somebody was proposing weapon stat/proficiency replacement to increase spell success when using spellstrike. I thought that too much (the underlying sentiment of idea seemed offended that Magus spell success is less than Wizard, but you can't really expect both that and full martial proficiency, and since latter helps spell tier upgrade I'd rather have that), but felt the issue does seem more critical for Attack spells which are so swingy anyways (no effect on miss VS half effect on 4-degree Save spells). I then proposed such a stat/proficiency swap just for Attack spells as way to ameliorate that and make them more equally attractive compared to 4-degree Save spells... But I think it may be more fruitful to look at just the basic mechanics here:

A major dynamic of Spellstrike is the spell effect tier upgrade from crits, which often comprise significant portion hits (i.e. excluding misses which don't trigger spell), and the fact it lasts until end of next round means you typically have 4 chances to hit with weapon strike (at least 2 at full bonus with no MAP), not even counting Haste, AoO/Reactions/etc. In other words, enough that the chance of not triggering spell is very low. And combined with weapon crits upgrading normal misses for Attack spells to normal hits, you are no more likely than typical caster, and possibly have better chances, to not "waste" a slot with no effect. For that calculus to be valid, we have to consider ALL of those 4+ strikes including the ones that suffer MAP. But when those MAP strikes are the ones that trigger the spell, MAP will also apply to the held spell (if it is Attack spell).

That is major dent to the efficacy of this combo, and it seems like it feels bad to spend action for spell casting upfront, and then fail the spell because of MAP applying. Whereas normally one could at least choose to cast the Attack spell first before the weapon strike if you wish to. Regardless, it's obvious that Attack spells are uniquely effected by this (while 4-degree Spells ignore any MAP), to the point that I see non-Attack spells with 4-degree Saves being radically preferred for this reason, ensuring that you don't just waste the slot and actions completely. That seems a bad dynamic to make Spellstrike so negatively biased against Attack spells (even if it's not apparent when 1st/no-MAP strike hits and triggers spell).

As far as I can tell, the wording being used is pretty standard for similar limited bypasses of MAP: "you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell attack roll." And I think that was just used because it was "standard". But I think the dynamics of Spellstrike do justify a variation to that standard... I think the Spellstrike spell should itself be immune to MAP, even that derived from strikes before the triggering strike. Perhaps less critical to Spellstrike viability itself, but I might also question if Attack spells used with Spellstrike should not even count towards MAP for subsequent attacks... It might be reasonable for follow-up strikes (for those with extra actions) to only suffer the basic MAP from 1st strike, which of course they don't currently if non-Attack spell was used.

That keeps the value the same (or closer to same) whether you trigger it on 1st strike or on last strike of next round, with better parity between Attack and Save spells. Of course it's still preferable to succeed on 1st strike as it itself (also AoO/Reactions) suffer no MAP and have best chance to crit and upgrade spell effect, but also just because it's better to trigger spell immediately instead of waiting until next turn. The 2nd/3rd MAP strikes are still worse on that account, but it is doubly punishing to also apply that pre-existing MAP to the triggered Attack spell... In terms of narrative logic, as spell was cast BEFORE any of these strikes, i don't see the necessity for later strikes to weaken it's power with MAP.

That still leaves Attack spells as inherently more "swingy" than 4-degree Save spells, albeit with weapon crits upgrading spell effect tier (and not applying MAP to spell itself) perhaps it is slightly better than for typical casters. I am still curious if it may be justified to allow stat/weapon proficiency swap for Attack spells specifically just to ensure their "position" VS 4-degree Save spells. Honestly, if all of the above were applied, I might start to thing Magus would become the best Attack spell caster in a way. Not sure if that is inherently a bad thing, although perhaps it raises questions of how Attack spells are balanced (for other casters vs for Magus). I don't think it's necessary to apply every potential buff to make Magus so superior in that realm though... Just "fixing" things to make Attack spells equally viable and not uniquely penalized by MAP seems enough to bring them to equal contention... and maybe even reinforce strong niche for Magus with these spells.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Magus Class / Is the Targeting Restriction Neccessary? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Magus Class