Can't argue with that. Sliding synthesis is certainly the most useful but most restrictive in terms of weapon choice; Sustaining Steel adds some amount of durability that isn't going to be captured in any sort of DPR spreadsheet, and Shooting Star just seems... kind of eh. I think it needs to be able to extend spell range or give some advantage other than allowing you to ranged Striking Spell. It should make you good at ranged spell striking.
The temp-HP isn't great though, its about half of what it would really need to be to be worth it (remember, you're not attacking this round if you have to move). Remember for a cantrip you're getting at most 9 hp (at level 20) or 18 from a spell slot. That's basically nothing: you get about the same amount (as a cantrip) from a level 4 sturdy shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some things I find weird with this table:
Are you assuming the Cantrip always lands?
It doesn't seem like this calculates for the failure of a Cantrip that is behind by multiple bonuses.
Spell Save spells, even though using them separately from Spellstrike is in fact better, do still fail on a Critical Failure with no damage.
And while I'm all for targetting the lowest save, assuming that you will always be targetting the lowest save for calculations of your spell damage is pretty disingenuous as well when you consider the circumstances of assuming "average AC" and then pairing it with the best case scenario save.
Can't argue with that. Sliding synthesis is certainly the most useful but most restrictive in terms of weapon choice; Sustaining Steel adds some amount of durability that isn't going to be captured in any sort of DPR spreadsheet, and Shooting Star just seems... kind of eh. I think it needs to be able to extend spell range or give some advantage other than allowing you to ranged Striking Spell. It should make you good at ranged spell striking.The temp-HP isn't great though, its about half of what it would really need to be to be worth it (remember, you're not attacking this round if you have to move). Remember for a cantrip you're getting at most 9 hp (at level 20) or 18 from a spell slot. That's basically nothing: you get about the same amount (as a cantrip) from a level 4 sturdy shield.
Yeah, to be honest I haven't evaluated Sustaining Steel much. The temp HP seems pretty minimal, but I think that gets away from the core of the discussion here.
Each synthesis is restrictive on your weapon choices. Sustaining steel maybe less so 'cause you can two-hand a one-handed weapon but then why would you take that synthesis
I suppose rather than restriction I should say restrictions opposed to what you'd normally want to do. As a ranged character, well you want to use a ranged weapon. For a melee damage focused character, you'd probably prefer a two-handed weapon or two one-handed weapons. Shooting Star and Sustaining Steel keep you at your preferences, but Slide Casting asks you to give up something (a hand on a weapon) and needs some more pay-off. Maybe those pay offs could be made up in feats like Spell Parry rather than upfront with a strong Synthesis ability.
I certainly wouldn't be against Slide Casting being the default, and it doesn't greatly affect the numbers that have been going around. But fwiw, I have been assuming a one-handed 1d8 or 1d6-agile weapon for most of my examples, but the spreadsheet will support whatever you throw at it.
Again, to be clear, I'm not against complaints regarding the Magus, it's efficiency or design. I think where I am at with analysis is that it could use a bit more to smooth out the gameplay (give more space for interesting plays rather than cookie-cutter action routines), personally, but I also haven't playtested it. I just put the spreadsheet together because I wanted to make sure people (myself included) weren't using mathematics as justification for their feelings without that math being correct (or close to it).
Some things I find weird with this table:
Are you assuming the Cantrip always lands?
It doesn't seem like this calculates for the failure of a Cantrip that is behind by multiple bonuses.
Spell Save spells, even though using them separately from Spellstrike is in fact better, do still fail on a Critical Failure with no damage.
And while I'm all for targetting the lowest save, assuming that you will always be targetting the lowest save for calculations of your spell damage is pretty disingenuous as well when you consider the circumstances of assuming "average AC" and then pairing it with the best case scenario save.
I've been using High AC and moderate Saves, as I have been told those most accurately match what you'd find out of a Bestiary. I'd be happy to move those values around (and you can make a copy and play with it yourself) to better suit a real-world example.
Cantrips are not assuming they always land, but it is assuming the cantrip is a spell save rather than spell attack roll. I haven't added spell attacks to the spreadsheet, but you can imagine how it affects things: external bonuses to AC go up, but the cantrip's value goes down significantly if you are on a MAP 1 or MAP 2+ attack (E through I on the scenario table).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could have other features scaling off intelligence. Focus spells damage modifier, some spells do too. Saves do, and if you can use some cool save spells with spellstrike you'd like your saves to be somewhat high.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who dislike having both the spell attack roll as well as the normal strike roll. I am fairly certain this exists to make the magus' spell attack modifier matter, while still having an advantage of gaining weapon proficiency faster. If it was just the one roll, the strike roll, then there's very little reason for the average Magus to invest in Intelligence at all. They simply focus spells that don't care about their spell attack/ability mod and flail away.
In fact its also a balance against multi-classing, or gaining innate spells, and not caring about ever getting above trained in that particular spell list.
Even with auto hits Int is still valuable - many of the best spell strike options are save spells (crit fishing for daze comes to mind), bonus damage on cantrips, the occasional AoE. It won't be mandatory anymore, bad the Magus is MAD as hell right now.
Even with auto hits Int is still valuable - many of the best spell strike options are save spells (crit fishing for daze comes to mind), bonus damage on cantrips, the occasional AoE. It won't be mandatory anymore, bad the Magus is MAD as hell right now.For those who dislike having both the spell attack roll as well as the normal strike roll. I am fairly certain this exists to make the magus' spell attack modifier matter, while still having an advantage of gaining weapon proficiency faster. If it was just the one roll, the strike roll, then there's very little reason for the average Magus to invest in Intelligence at all. They simply focus spells that don't care about their spell attack/ability mod and flail away.
In fact its also a balance against multi-classing, or gaining innate spells, and not caring about ever getting above trained in that particular spell list.
Right, exactly. Even if Spell attack went away, which I think it should if you're using Striking Spell, you'd still want Intelligence as high as you could arrange to maximize failure and crit failure chances.
Even just taking as many spell save crit successes off the table as possible is a worthy enough use for your int modifier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, exactly. Even if Spell attack went away, which I think it should if you're using Striking Spell, you'd still want Intelligence as high as you could arrange to maximize failure and crit failure chances.
Even just taking as many spell save crit successes off the table as possible is a worthy enough use for your int modifier.
Even if they decide to dump INT, who cares? They've cut their potential opportunities down significantly by basically allocating their spells to only Spell Attack Roll spells and buffs.
And who am I to say that a Magus that basically wants to go full ham on the physical aspects of it can't do that. That's exactly how the Eldritch Archer works.
That's more or less how the Warpriest can function now, where a 14 WIS (maybe even a 12) with Heal/Buff spells can function pretty effectively as long as they aren't throwing out save spells on the regular.
A Magus that chooses to go with low INT removes options from themselves (and if you're going DEX based, not exactly a smart choice).
The main contenders are STR, DEX, CON, and INT. And Dex and Str are opposed, so they have options to grab the three they like.
Now how high they go on those 3 depends, but I wouldn't hate the idea of a 14 INT Magus being viable, which honestly as is, not possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's more or less how the Warpriest can function now, where a 14 WIS (maybe even a 12) with Heal/Buff spells can function pretty effectively as long as they aren't throwing out save spells on the regular.
A Magus that chooses to go with low INT removes options from themselves (and if you're going DEX based, not exactly a smart choice).
The main contenders are STR, DEX, CON, and INT. And Dex and Str are opposed, so they have options to grab the three they like.
Now how high they go on those 3 depends, but I wouldn't hate the idea of a 14 INT Magus being viable, which honestly as is, not possible.
This is a great point; INT shouldn't be more important for a Magus then WIS for a Warpriest. As things currently stand INT is mandatory in order for a Magus to use their main class feature.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a misconception that people criticizing the Magus are hating on it or wanting it to be bad.
I can't speak for others, but Magus is my *favorite* class. I want it to be good (and fair). That's why i criticize it. I want the final version to be great.
It sounds like you're trying your hardest to make the current magus *look* good but that's not the point of the playtest. The point is to find where it breaks and how. So it can be fixed for the final release.
Couldn’t summarize it better! Magus is also my favorite class.
The criticisms I have posted so far are aimed at improving the class.
I think even those that see some merit to the current striking spell mechanics would not be opposed to some adjustments.
I mean, its pretty clear that the feature is pretty divisive and shouldn’t be published without at least some adjustment. I think that the extent and the form are up for debate
Why not just graph the resultant expected damage/round values vs the roll required to hit?
If you do it that way it becomes pretty obvious that Magus' damage is more dependent on bonuses/penalties to hit than other classes.
By which I mean that a +1 to-hit for a Magus is a larger relative boost to their damage than it would be for a Rogue or a Barbarian.
You can add labels such as: normal enemy AC, flat-footed enemy, high-AC enemy, etc...
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am 100% in favor of removing the stupid crit mechanic, at least as a base part of the class.
It's become obvious that so long as it's there, everything will be balanced around it, which means that we end up with abilities that are very "swingy", as in high highs, and low lows.
I'd much rather it be reserved for a synthesis, so that people who want a reliable class can play a Magus that's not forced to go for buff/flanking/true-strike builds.
By all means, leave it as an option for people who want it, but please don't make it a default ability that's costing feature budget to everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am 100% in favor of removing the stupid crit mechanic, at least as a base part of the class.
It's become obvious that so long as it's there, everything will be balanced around it, which means that we end up with abilities that are very "swingy", as in high highs, and low lows.
I'd much rather it be reserved for a synthesis, so that people who want a reliable class can play a Magus that's not forced to go for buff/flanking/true-strike builds.
By all means, leave it as an option for people who want it, but please don't make it a default ability that's costing feature budget to everyone else.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Keeping the crit fishing part of Magus in may also lead to builds focusing around how to fit in the most True Strike casts in a day, which can lead to very stale gameplay where every Magus is wielding a Shifting Staff of Divination and is multiclassed into Wizard/Witch for maximum True Strikes per day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Keeping the crit fishing part of Magus in may also lead to builds focusing around how to fit in the most True Strike casts in a day, which can lead to very stale gameplay where every Magus is wielding a Shifting Staff of Divination and is multiclassed into Wizard/Witch for maximum True Strikes per day.I am 100% in favor of removing the stupid crit mechanic, at least as a base part of the class.
It's become obvious that so long as it's there, everything will be balanced around it, which means that we end up with abilities that are very "swingy", as in high highs, and low lows.
I'd much rather it be reserved for a synthesis, so that people who want a reliable class can play a Magus that's not forced to go for buff/flanking/true-strike builds.
By all means, leave it as an option for people who want it, but please don't make it a default ability that's costing feature budget to everyone else.
i honestly think this is an issue with true strike in general.
i honestly think this is an issue with true strike in general.I agree wholeheartedly with that. Keeping the crit fishing part of Magus in may also lead to builds focusing around how to fit in the most True Strike casts in a day, which can lead to very stale gameplay where every Magus is wielding a Shifting Staff of Divination and is multiclassed into Wizard/Witch for maximum True Strikes per day.I am 100% in favor of removing the stupid crit mechanic, at least as a base part of the class.
It's become obvious that so long as it's there, everything will be balanced around it, which means that we end up with abilities that are very "swingy", as in high highs, and low lows.
I'd much rather it be reserved for a synthesis, so that people who want a reliable class can play a Magus that's not forced to go for buff/flanking/true-strike builds.
By all means, leave it as an option for people who want it, but please don't make it a default ability that's costing feature budget to everyone else.
It's true that True Strike is problematic in of itself, but Magus having such a strong critical hit effect and not natively having the slots to cast True Strike normally exacerbates all the problems with it even further.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If losing the critical clause on Striking Spell enables it to be balanced for a more consistent and reliable damage curve, I'm happy for that tradeoff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If losing the critical clause on Striking Spell enables it to be balanced for a more consistent and reliable damage curve, I'm happy for that tradeoff.
True strike is a compromise of the developers allowing you to use your limited resource (spells) to shore up the subpar accuracy you're made with just for being a caster....,..and I hate it from concept to execution. If true strike is a +5 to accuracy I'd rather they split the difference and just give us a +3 to our spell attack rolls...........but it's too late now. I don't think paizo will ever axe an entire spell from the crb so casters as a whole will never get potency bonuses (unless they gain the fortune effect or just straight up call out not letting you have true strike on your build)
Paying the troll toll just to accurately cast telekinetic projectile would be a waste.......which just really really hurts on mundane turns when you don't wanna sling spell slots. Wasted cantrip turns were some of the most crestfallen moments I saw in my caster players as a dm bc my players couldn't even effectively do their bread and butter safety fallback option.Edit: quoted the wrong comment. Lol, sorry
I really think it is a mistake, even with the magus, to think of the cantrip as a "bread and butter" round. At the earliest levels, 1-3ish, this might be true, but past that, especially for full casters, cantrips are for targeting specific saves and weaknesses, or for casting electric arc if possible. By level 4 to 5 you have enough resources to be able to use scrolls pretty regularly and can be using spell slot spells at least once a combat, (with using 3 or more against a tough higher level enemy).
The magus is a little different because they are a full martial with a lot of ways to buff up their regular weapon attack. Even casting message to set off your synthesis feature of striking spell (mostly for sustaining steel), or your focus spell to set off bespell strikes, or a specific damage type cantrip just to target weakness with Energize strikes means you are blending magic into your attack routine, even you are not using your striking spell every round with an attack spell.
Spell striking with telekinetic projectile, when you can secure decent accuracy boosts from flanking, buffing or debuffing is an absolutely worthwhile round, but doing it just because you think you are supposed to use striking spell every round is choosing to be ineffective. The magus has the really cool ability to evaluate when it is better to focus on your martial attacks or when to focus on striking spell, and often times doing one one round will set up the other really nicely for the next round (bespell strikes and energize strikes both require that you have cast spells to be useful, for example). Some people think theis means looking at a spread sheet, but it is way more intuitive than that 90% of the time. Does it seem like it is going to be difficult for me to hit this enemy with a single weapon attack per round? If so, striking spell is a waste of actions until the party can shift the accuracy balance back in our favor. If not, then spell strike away.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell striking with telekinetic projectile, when you can secure decent accuracy boosts from flanking, buffing or debuffing is an absolutely worthwhile round, but doing it just because you think you are supposed to use striking spell every round is choosing to be ineffective.
While I agree this does look like the intent, to not be using Striking Spell every single round, by tethering their Class Path Synthesis to Striking Spell, allowing non-spell attack rolls (saves) to be used in tandem with Striking Spell (thus opening its compatibility much more than PF1), the intent isn't exactly being carried.
Like the more I look at Striking Spell, the more I think "Oh, this allows me to play the Magus that I actually asked for, where Striking Spell isn't really required to be effective, but it has opportunities for it to shine."
But again, because of the aforementioned things, it seems like its supposed to be used all the time.
And while I certainly don't want it to be mandatory, I don't want it to feel like a "trap" action where players are going for that sweet critical only to botch all 3 actions to get nothing.
Honestly, if it was less action intensive or the Class Path benefits weren't directly tethered to Striking Spell, I think that'd go a long way.
Like for instance, if the Class Path granted a benefit on a Strike and on landing a Successful Spell but that was not in relation to Striking Spell, then it could encourage Striking Spell by proxy without making it feel "mandatory".
That is an interesting point, but I feel like the synthesis abilities are not really things that you need to trigger every single round. The closest to that is the sustaining steel one, but that is why there are times where it is worth casting message through striking spell, just to gain some temp HP while you wield a 2 handed weapon that wouldn't work with a shield anyway. They can even tank up decently for 1 round by casting message through striking spell, then shield and then shield block with shield to stop a pretty serious blow, and still have an action left either for attacking or moving. People write off low levels of temp HP but being able to renew it every round for an action can result in a lot of damage prevented over time, and the magus is an incredibly fragile class otherwise.
The same is kind of true for sliding synthesis once you have the ability to teleport. It is a little weird though that you cast message to earn a teleporting action that can let you move 10-15ft without provoking a reaction, even through difficult terrain (at 10th level, with a feat). But I feel like that kind of weirdness rises to the surface best in a playtest of these abilities. Maybe by changing the language around the ability to make it sound less like "do this one free action every round or you are a failure of a magus" could help make the final product less jarring to people picking up the class and trying to figure out what to do with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think it is a mistake, even with the magus, to think of the cantrip as a "bread and butter" round. At the earliest levels, 1-3ish, this might be true, but past that, especially for full casters, cantrips are for targeting specific saves and weaknesses, or for casting electric arc if possible. By level 4 to 5 you have enough resources to be able to use scrolls pretty regularly and can be using spell slot spells at least once a combat, (with using 3 or more against a tough higher level enemy).
The magus is a little different because they are a full martial with a lot of ways to buff up their regular weapon attack. Even casting message to set off your synthesis feature of striking spell (mostly for sustaining steel), or your focus spell to set off bespell strikes, or a specific damage type cantrip just to target weakness with Energize strikes means you are blending magic into your attack routine, even you are not using your striking spell every round with an attack spell.
Spell striking with telekinetic projectile, when you can secure decent accuracy boosts from flanking, buffing or debuffing is an absolutely worthwhile round, but doing it just because you think you are supposed to use striking spell every round is choosing to be ineffective. The magus has the really cool ability to evaluate when it is better to focus on your martial attacks or when to focus on striking spell, and often times doing one one round will set up the other really nicely for the next round (bespell strikes and energize strikes both require that you have cast spells to be useful, for example). Some people think theis means looking at a spread sheet, but it is way more intuitive than that 90% of the time. Does it seem like it is going to be difficult for me to hit this enemy with a single weapon attack per round? If so, striking spell is a waste of actions until the party can shift the accuracy balance back in our favor. If not, then spell strike away.
If that is truly the case, then, bluntly put, the class is a complete design failure for my taste, and a misuse of page space in a book that is supposed to infuse more magic into PF2 games.
If you aren’t encouraged to cast spells as often as possible, if they’re only supposed to be a tactical application, or worse depend on GM-dependent consumables to achieve basic function, then I have no reason to not just play a fighter or rogue.
There is no spreadsheet or high potential damage or synthesis effect that can overcome that fundamental of a design mismatch for me.
Edit: In fact, I'll go further. That kind of playstyle would be great on an Eldritch Knight archetype or Fighter feat chain. Offering it as an alternate for current multiclass paradigms, where you apply limited spell slots judiciously for maximum effect or use a cantrip in your opening round to power up your weapons for the fight would be a great class path (to the extent that fighters have those).
But not this class.
There is so much more to magic in golarion than just spell casting though, and if the thing people wanted out of the magus was a full martial character (as in having full martial weapon proficiency progression, then the class was always going to have very limited space to work in with what they could give towards casting. At most it was always going to have to be situationally more useful than attacking 3 times. Luckily, between the slight action economy boosters of the synthesis AND the ease of gaining an accuracy advantage, it really does not take much to make the circumstance work out in striking spell's favor. It really should be at least 50-60% of rounds that the magus will want to use striking spell, with 10 to 20% of those rounds being massively more successful than just attacking 3 times, but 30-40% of those rounds being duds that can still have massively more successful rounds the following round (as the spell is still loaded in the weapon).
I wonder if part of the feel bad of the class isn't so much that it requires multiple rolls for success, but that the entire round essentially rides on one weapon strike that can still miss and result in a dead round for the magus.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I would argue that the Synthesis for Slide is pretty much a "do it every round" kind of ability.
But regardless, giving them abilities that they are not supposed to be using every round that only have the restriction of "once per round" gives the illusion that it should be used, well, every round.
And if you allow, and outright encourage the use of an ability every round (which you are, because two abilities are essentially weighted on the same thing), then some of the blame for "wanting" to use them every round falls on the design itself.
Like if you put a big sign on a door that says "you can open this and might get a present" but then you find out you're only supposed to open the door on Christmas, that's pretty misleading, no?
So the door either needs to be worth opening more often, maybe with smaller gifts, or it needs to have more circumstances that limit it so that it's only opened on Christmas.
I get that it's maybe not a power/balance issue directly, because it is in fact a choice, but considering how making the "wrong" choice is actually more prevalent than the "right" choice is the problem.
Basically, if you used it every round, which the ability allows you to do, you'd be having an "ineffective turn" more often than an "effective" turn by the current design. And that's probably not a good thing.
They can even tank up decently for 1 round by casting message through striking spell, then shield and then shield block with shield to stop a pretty serious blow, and still have an action left either for attacking or moving.
If by 'shield' you mean a wooden one, you need to take into account how you're doing that because sustaining steel uses a 2-handed weapon and shields take a hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is so much more to magic in golarion than just spell casting though, and if the thing people wanted out of the magus was a full martial character (as in having full martial weapon proficiency progression, then the class was always going to have very limited space to work in with what they could give towards casting. At most it was always going to have to be situationally more useful than attacking 3 times.
Why? Every other martial has a baseline ability that boosts their attack routine past just attacking three times, either by incentivizing alternate actions with their third action or simply boosting their damage.
I don't expect the Magus to be as good as the other martials at first, due to the nova potential (though it should be by the time *their* novas come online around 8-10), but better than just attacking 3 times? That's just a basic expectation of a class.
They can even tank up decently for 1 round by casting message through striking spell, then shield and then shield block with shield to stop a pretty serious blow, and still have an action left either for attacking or moving.If by 'shield' you mean a wooden one, you need to take into account how you're doing that because sustaining steel uses a 2-handed weapon and shields take a hand.
She means the shield cantrip.
Like if you put a big sign on a door that says "you can open this and might get a present" but then you find out you're only supposed to open the door on Christmas, that's pretty misleading, no?
So the door either needs to be worth opening more often, maybe with smaller gifts, or it needs to have more circumstances that limit it so that it's only opened on Christmas.
Great analogy!
But yes. I don't fundamentally object to this kind of design. But I do for this class, and if has to be attached to this class, then I object to it in this book. Punt it to a more combat oriented or tactically minded book, and print a class that makes more interesting use of magic every round.
Or at this point, just more archetypes and new spells/rituals/alternate magic systems.
If by 'shield' you mean a wooden one, you need to take into account how you're doing that because sustaining steel uses a 2-handed weapon and shields take a hand.She means the shield cantrip.
I meant to address this too. I wouldn't consider a one-time (per fight) DR from the shield cantrip to be worth using in this manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrip is absolutely the bread and butter. It's assumed to be their basic attack bc their martial proficiency doesn't stack up. Unless the casters were made with the intention of not contributing meaningfully every single round like martials (and if they weren't I question the entire caster design philosophy) then cantrips are very much so their flexible BASIC attack option
I don't know, turtling up one round to move into position, take the big hit from the enemy and then be in position to unleash a spell slot spell through striking spell with a 2 handed weapon is a pretty cool ability. At level 1 it is only 6DR instead of 5, but at level 13 it is 27 DR instead of 20. That is pretty good for setting up your big hit next round. Heck, you could cast your power spell into your weapon, and shield cantrip the first round if you expect the monster to come at you, because you are in the front of the marching order and end up with 34 damage reduction, and then have multiple actions to hit with the weapon on the following round.
The ranger, the swashbuckler and the rogue often have to spend one action a turn, or sometimes an entire turn, setting up their signature damage abilities, the magus is about in the same boat, only with an even greater ceiling of what they can accomplish, in exchange for their really big setups taking 2 actions instead of 1, but stack a two action spell into it so not really spending 2 actions). All the while also being able to use spells (and items that give spells) at the same level as a wizard up to level 19 outside of combat as well, so able to use scrolls and wands and staves without having to worry so much about having their hands full.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If cantrips are not our bread and butter and spell strike isn't meant to be used almost every round.
Then this isn't the Magus for me.
I don't play a barbarian to not rage
I don't play a swashbuckler to not use finishers
I don't play rogues to not sneak attack
I don't play investigator to not devise stratagem
I don't play a ranger to not hunt prey
I don't play monk to not flurry of blow's
I don't play Magus to not spell strike
Cantrip is absolutely the bread and butter. It's assumed to be their basic attack bc their martial proficiency doesn't stack up. Unless the casters were made with the intention of not contributing meaningfully every single round like martials (and if they weren't I question the entire caster design philosophy) then cantrips are very much so their flexible BASIC attack option
By level 5, a caster using a cantrip is behind martial characters on damage output by a significant amount, sometimes able to get a little bit back by boosting damage with a ranged weapon attack as a 3rd action.
There are threads and threads analyzing this and discussing whether casters are or should be capable of keeping up with martial single target damage. The overwhelming consensus is not without using their spell slots.
The magus gets multiple damage boosts that do often require some spell casting, but that that work particularly effectively on their weapon attacks. TO benefit from bespell strikes, energize strikes, and runic impressions/magus potency, you do have to cast spells and spend actions casting to set these up, but it is the weapon attack that benefits most from the damage boost. Cantrips can be used to set up Energizing strikes to target weaknesses, and if you find yourself flanking, you are better off using striking spell with cantrip like telekinetic projectile than attacking 2 times (sliding spell makes this a flat comparison instead of 3 strikes. Neither the sustaining steel or shooting star synthesis are good at getting striking spell and attacking a flat-footed foe). Cantrips have a place in the striking spell routine, but I don't want the magus to just have 1 three action routine that they are expected to take 95% of the time, doing something slightly different 4 times a day. The class has a lot of depth, which is what is fun about other martial characters as well. Most fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers are better off using 1 or even 2 actions every other turn gaining a massive tactical advantage as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then it isn't a Magus to me. It's a MC pretending. Ineffectively.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong for enjoying what they put out. Indeed, I appreciate you pointing out some of the ways to make the design work, even if I don't always sound appreciative. But this is what I would enjoy, what I would want out of a class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also if you were expected, able, and it was better, to spell strike every round even with cantrips.
That's 5 cantrips potentially that offer up variety every round, on top of the feats you can take, on top of and multicass dedications you take, on top of skills you invested in.
To say that if you were expected to use it every round reduces variety isn't exactly true.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ranger, the swashbuckler and the rogue often have to spend one action a turn, or sometimes an entire turn, setting up their signature damage abilities, the magus is about in the same boat
That's the thing, it's not the same boat.
Ranger wants to spend an action to gain access to a strictly beneficial ability. It has a clear path, use Hunt Prey -> Attack
Swashbuckler, same story, acquire panache and then keep or use panache, rinse and repeat.
Rogue wants a FF target, so acquire positioning/condition, then Sneak attack.
All three of these have a "goal 1" and then "goal 2".
Magus skips straight to Goal 2, with no contingencies on how to arrive successfully at Goal 2, and then fails to "succeed" at Goal 2, because they were never informed they needed to accomplish "Goal 1".
That's precisely my point. If the goal is to get Magus to use Striking Spell only in the right circumstances, that is not how the ability/design is set up to function.
To put it into perspective, if you told a Rogue they only had a 50% chance to get Sneak Attack on hit, but 100% if they Critical and FF wasn't in the equation at all, while probably a net "even" in terms of power it's extremely unstructured on how the Rogue is actually supposed to fight (since they don't need FF anymore).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ranger, the swashbuckler and the rogue often have to spend one action a turn, or sometimes an entire turn, setting up their signature damage abilities, the magus is about in the same boatThat's the thing, it's not the same boat.
Ranger wants to spend an action to gain access to a strictly beneficial ability. It has a clear path, use Hunt Prey -> Attack
Swashbuckler, same story, acquire panache and then keep or use panache, rinse and repeat.
Rogue wants a FF target, so acquire positioning/condition, then Sneak attack.
All three of these have a "goal 1" and then "goal 2".
Magus skips straight to Goal 2, with no contingencies on how to arrive successfully at Goal 2, and then fails to "succeed" at Goal 2, because they were never informed they needed to accomplish "Goal 1".
That's precisely my point. If the goal is to get Magus to use Striking Spell only in the right circumstances, that is not how the ability/design is set up to function.
To put it into perspective, if you told a Rogue they only had a 50% chance to get Sneak Attack on hit, but 100% if they Critical and FF wasn't in the equation at all, while probably a net "even" in terms of power it's extremely unstructured on how the Rogue is actually supposed to fight (since they don't need FF anymore).
I want to favorite this post multiple times. This sums up the design implementation so well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also if you were expected, able, and it was better, to spell strike every round even with cantrips.
That's 5 cantrips potentially that offer up variety every round, on top of the feats you can take, on top of and multicass dedications you take, on top of skills you invested in.
To say that if you were expected to use it every round reduces variety isn't exactly true.
I wouldn't say no to more cantrips either, by the way. Especially ones that hand out minor status and conditions instead of straight damage.
I have a little list...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fishing for crits and holding back your ability for special, desperate scenarios are two polar opposite playstyles. If I am supposed to be crit fishing, I want to be spamming my ability early and often, every round, to maximize the number of crits I can get. If I am holding it back for the best rounds to nova, I don't want it going off 10% of the time; I want it every. damn. time. Otherwise, why did I hold it back for so long?Well I would argue that the Synthesis for Slide is pretty much a "do it every round" kind of ability.
But regardless, giving them abilities that they are not supposed to be using every round that only have the restriction of "once per round" gives the illusion that it should be used, well, every round.
And if you allow, and outright encourage the use of an ability every round (which you are, because two abilities are essentially weighted on the same thing), then some of the blame for "wanting" to use them every round falls on the design itself.
Like if you put a big sign on a door that says "you can open this and might get a present" but then you find out you're only supposed to open the door on Christmas, that's pretty misleading, no?
So the door either needs to be worth opening more often, maybe with smaller gifts, or it needs to have more circumstances that limit it so that it's only opened on Christmas.
I get that it's maybe not a power/balance issue directly, because it is in fact a choice, but considering how making the "wrong" choice is actually more prevalent than the "right" choice is the problem.
Basically, if you used it every round, which the ability allows you to do, you'd be having an "ineffective turn" more often than an "effective" turn by the current design. And that's probably not a good thing.
That's sort of the "Feast or famine" aspect coming into play as well.
So now, even though your ability functions much better when you are buffed or the enemy is debuffed, you still want to be swinging as often as possible (even over multiple turns) to trigger your Crits/hits more often.
But if you compare a standard EA + a strike without Striking, would you look at that, it's statistically more likely to succeed and a better DPR (not even counting a 2 enemy scenario for EA).
Realistically though, I'd like to see Crit fishing go to a feat.