| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve seen that error floating around, as well. Too much focus on single round performance, when (like the Ranger) the class evens out and does quite well over two rounds.
If you hit with your first Strike on round two, you could be delivering two damaging spells on a target in one turn, which is very impressive.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been a lot of talk about the supposed mathematic probability of a spell strike working I would like to debunk this data. There is at least one major flaw in the analyst that’s being passed around. This analysis is based on a single chance to hit with the melee attack which is a fallacy. Once the Strike Spell action has been started the character has 4 chances to hit with a probability of hitting the target once in those 4 attempts approaching 100%. It not quite at 100% but it’s high enough in the 90’s for it not to matter. So the true question is will the spell hit? Analyst of this is actually fairly accurate meaning the chance is in the 40%-50% range generally falling off at some levels. Since this is a bonus damage effect it should no be automatic especially since it has the potential to inflict both devastating damage and one or more afflictions or Conditions, that said the chance should be higher. I would suggest that any Potency effects either Rune or Magus Potency focus spell be added to the spells to hit/DC, this should give the desired improvement to the spell effect going off without breaking a interesting mechanic.
Why is this analysis so far off? Simply it’s a common mistake not to take multiple attempts into consideration. What they have done is a 2 dimensional analysis rather than a 3 dimensional analysis which is what’s required for this case. It’s a common mistake.
I think what people have been saying is that the chance to hit with the melee attack is ok as it its (four chances to land the strike). The problem, at least when I playtested (did not do math analysis) is that the chance of effectively channeling an attack spell (such as shocking grasp, acid arrow and others) is quite low (like you said, you will most likely hit with the melee strike, but the chance of the spell actually doing something seems to be quite mediocre or low).
In one of my playthroughs, I faced a lvl +3 creature and tried do use my 4 slots with striking spell. I did not manage to hit once with the spell attacks. The save spells were better. Cantrips were just similar or worse than just attacking twice or thrice.
I think the issue most people have with the ability is not that they need to hit with it every time, but rather that the class already has so few slots that wasting them on a swingy feature that is supposed to be its main gimmick is kind of disappointing.
That said, I woukd totally be okay with a solution such as yours, that potency shoukd be factored in the spell attack roll. So far, I haven’t seen a downside to it. That way, spellstriking would work like a Ranger’s Flurry hunted shot, which, IMO, would be totally fine and balanced.
Another solution that I saw around here would be for the attack spells delivered through striking spell to cause half damage if the spell attack fails
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's true that, when you think about it, the current spell strike is like doing Double Slice, but your second weapon cannot get potency runes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve seen that error floating around, as well. Too much focus on single round performance, when (like the Ranger) the class evens out and does quite well over two rounds.
If you hit with your first Strike on round two, you could be delivering two damaging spells on a target in one turn, which is very impressive.
The alleged problem is not the chance to hit with the melee attack, but rather the fact that if you miss with the spell attack, you still did nothing and the spell is wasted
Example:
1st round - i spell strike shocking grasp, do not hit with the melee attack.
2nd round - i continue to attempt to hit and land the first blow, but my shocking grasp misses... I just wasted three actions and a slot to land a single melee attack.
If you had something like the op said (adding potency to the spell attack for spell strike only) you wouldn’t break anything not outshine anyone. You could also cause half damage on a miss with the spell attack (only if delivered through spell strike) which would make it work like a save spell
The problem seems to not be delivering the spell (hitting with the strike), but rather it actually doing something (hitting with the second roll)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been a lot of talk about the supposed mathematic probability of a spell strike working I would like to debunk this data. There is at least one major flaw in the analyst that’s being passed around. This analysis is based on a single chance to hit with the melee attack which is a fallacy. Once the Strike Spell action has been started the character has 4 chances to hit with a probability of hitting the target once in those 4 attempts approaching 100%. It not quite at 100% but it’s high enough in the 90’s for it not to matter. So the true question is will the spell hit? Analyst of this is actually fairly accurate meaning the chance is in the 40%-50% range generally falling off at some levels. Since this is a bonus damage effect it should no be automatic especially since it has the potential to inflict both devastating damage and one or more afflictions or Conditions, that said the chance should be higher. I would suggest that any Potency effects either Rune or Magus Potency focus spell be added to the spells to hit/DC, this should give the desired improvement to the spell effect going off without breaking a interesting mechanic.
Why is this analysis so far off? Simply it’s a common mistake not to take multiple attempts into consideration. What they have done is a 2 dimensional analysis rather than a 3 dimensional analysis which is what’s required for this case. It’s a common mistake.
With four attacks, assuming your first two have a 60% chance to hit (not unlikely, even with the party focusing on buffing you/debuffing the enemy if it is a boss), that's 0.4 * 0.4 * 0.65 * 0.95 = 0.0988, or 9.88% chance of missing all four strikes. That is a significant miss chance, and it is added on to the very poor spell attack (which will suffer MAP in 16% of outcomes) and spell saves the Magus has.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve seen that error floating around, as well. Too much focus on single round performance, when (like the Ranger) the class evens out and does quite well over two rounds.
If you hit with your first Strike on round two, you could be delivering two damaging spells on a target in one turn, which is very impressive.
How? By simply casting a spell at them with your remaining two actions? I fail to see how that is impressive when literally any caster could have gotten the same result by just casting a spell last turn (no need to hit with a strike) and then casting a spell on the current turn. That is certainly not impressive.
I think what people have been saying is that the chance to hit with the melee attack is ok as it its (four chances to land the strike). The problem, at least when I playtested (did not do math analysis) is that the chance of effectively channeling an attack spell (such as shocking grasp, acid arrow and others) is quite low (like you said, you will most likely hit with the melee strike, but the chance of the spell actually doing something seems to be quite mediocre or low).
In one of my playthroughs, I faced a lvl +3 creature and tried do use my 4 slots with striking spell. I did not manage to hit once with the spell attacks. The save spells were better. Cantrips were just similar or worse than just attacking twice or thrice.
I think the issue most people have with the ability is not that they need to hit with it every time, but rather that the class already has so few slots that wasting them on a swingy feature that is supposed to be its main gimmick is kind of disappointing.
That said, I woukd totally be okay with a solution such as yours, that potency shoukd be factored in the spell attack roll. So far, I haven’t seen a downside to it. That way, spellstriking would work like a Ranger’s Flurry hunted shot, which, IMO, would be totally fine and balanced.
Another solution that I saw around here would be for the attack spells delivered through striking spell to cause half damage if the spell attack fails
Out of curiosity, did you use Hero Points on any of those spell rolls? With the low number of spell slots, it feels like Fortune effects would be pretty clutch and I'd be inclined to spend them there instead of saving throws. That and using a turn to set up a True Strike ahead of time seems like a solid bet.
Honestly if the magus could spellstrike by replacing the somatic component of an attack spell with a strike, and with striking while a spell is "infused" in his body/weapon. Yeah you could get pretty impressive nova turns where you do two spellstrike in one turn.
Would require some setup and leave you quite open afterward but it'd be possible
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
My analysis did include two rounds, and anyone can do the analysis with the tool
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1yNIsvqBljzB9U0K1UVTEElXOEmD9Wu_FDv9 qxiLOdMg/mobilebasic#heading=h.ivma4exfkib7
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doing a analysis and interpreting one are two different thingsMy analysis did include two rounds, and anyone can do the analysis with the tool
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1yNIsvqBljzB9U0K1UVTEElXOEmD9Wu_FDv9 qxiLOdMg/mobilebasic#heading=h.ivma4exfkib7
so you misunderstood? its ok, it happens.
Out of curiosity, did you use Hero Points on any of those spell rolls? With the low number of spell slots, it feels like Fortune effects would be pretty clutch and I'd be inclined to spend them there instead of saving throws. That and using a turn to set up a True Strike ahead of time seems like a solid bet.I think what people have been saying is that the chance to hit with the melee attack is ok as it its (four chances to land the strike). The problem, at least when I playtested (did not do math analysis) is that the chance of effectively channeling an attack spell (such as shocking grasp, acid arrow and others) is quite low (like you said, you will most likely hit with the melee strike, but the chance of the spell actually doing something seems to be quite mediocre or low).
In one of my playthroughs, I faced a lvl +3 creature and tried do use my 4 slots with striking spell. I did not manage to hit once with the spell attacks. The save spells were better. Cantrips were just similar or worse than just attacking twice or thrice.
I think the issue most people have with the ability is not that they need to hit with it every time, but rather that the class already has so few slots that wasting them on a swingy feature that is supposed to be its main gimmick is kind of disappointing.
That said, I woukd totally be okay with a solution such as yours, that potency shoukd be factored in the spell attack roll. So far, I haven’t seen a downside to it. That way, spellstriking would work like a Ranger’s Flurry hunted shot, which, IMO, would be totally fine and balanced.
Another solution that I saw around here would be for the attack spells delivered through striking spell to cause half damage if the spell attack fails
Did not manage to. Used it on a saving throw that I would crit fail earlier.
I will say, however, that the time I managed to MC Magus and Investigator, Devise a Stratagem proved really useful (I was hasted and only used Strinking Spell when I devised a stratagem that resulted in a crit)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, did you use Hero Points on any of those spell rolls? With the low number of spell slots, it feels like Fortune effects would be pretty clutch and I'd be inclined to spend them there instead of saving throws. That and using a turn to set up a True Strike ahead of time seems like a solid bet.I think what people have been saying is that the chance to hit with the melee attack is ok as it its (four chances to land the strike). The problem, at least when I playtested (did not do math analysis) is that the chance of effectively channeling an attack spell (such as shocking grasp, acid arrow and others) is quite low (like you said, you will most likely hit with the melee strike, but the chance of the spell actually doing something seems to be quite mediocre or low).
In one of my playthroughs, I faced a lvl +3 creature and tried do use my 4 slots with striking spell. I did not manage to hit once with the spell attacks. The save spells were better. Cantrips were just similar or worse than just attacking twice or thrice.
I think the issue most people have with the ability is not that they need to hit with it every time, but rather that the class already has so few slots that wasting them on a swingy feature that is supposed to be its main gimmick is kind of disappointing.
That said, I woukd totally be okay with a solution such as yours, that potency shoukd be factored in the spell attack roll. So far, I haven’t seen a downside to it. That way, spellstriking would work like a Ranger’s Flurry hunted shot, which, IMO, would be totally fine and balanced.
Another solution that I saw around here would be for the attack spells delivered through striking spell to cause half damage if the spell attack fails
Did not manage to. Used it on a saving throw that I would crit fail earlier.
I will say, however, that the time I managed to MC Magus and Investigator, Devise a Stratagem proved realy useful (I was hasted and only used...
this is probably what id do for every magus ever in current version of its existence, all i need is known weaknesses.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am staunchly opposed to designing a class based on the assumption of using Hero Points to get its thing done.
I don't know if that's what's being suggested, but I want to get that out there now.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
so you misunderstood? its ok, it happens.Doing a analysis and interpreting one are two different thingsMy analysis did include two rounds, and anyone can do the analysis with the tool
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1yNIsvqBljzB9U0K1UVTEElXOEmD9Wu_FDv9 qxiLOdMg/mobilebasic#heading=h.ivma4exfkib7
No not at all! as has been pointed out on this very thread you chances of missing a BBG with no bonuses are less than 10% add in Magus potency it drops down now since this was a BBG in the above example the magus is going to have other bonuses from the rest of the group dropping the chance to miss with all four attacks down to less than 5%. So the issue is two fold. One should the spell alway go off? Answer no in general the spells are a major bump in damage often with a added effect. Two is the chance of the spell itself missing to high? Answer yes but no were to the level it’s being portray at. My solution adding the potency bonus to the spell attacks brings 5hings into the right range.
Does there need to be other work done to the class? Yes but spell strike itself is a fairly easy fix.
until cantrips are a better option to use with spell strike than just attacking twice with your weapon with energized strikes on, i see no reason to believe spell strike is largely fine. im fine with not doing stellar damage with a spell slot spell strike because its still a damage bump. but if the only time spell strike isnt a side grade or a minimal downgrade/upgrade that you need to run math on to even notice, its not finished.
I am staunchly opposed to designing a class based on the assumption of using Hero Points to get its thing done.
I don't know if that's what's being suggested, but I want to get that out there now.
Oh, I wouldn't say the Magus needs to use Hero Points to get its thing done. Most rounds you're gonna be using cantrips and you'd never spend the Hero Point there unless you really need it to land. But anyone who wants to use spell slots for attacks rolls should at least TRY and keep a Hero Point in the tank for those big rolls. The Magus just does it better what with the possibility of a critical weapon strike boosting the degree of success.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am staunchly opposed to designing a class based on the assumption of using Hero Points to get its thing done.
I don't know if that's what's being suggested, but I want to get that out there now.
Oh, I wouldn't say the Magus needs to use Hero Points to get its thing done. Most rounds you're gonna be using cantrips and you'd never spend the Hero Point there unless you really need it to land. But anyone who wants to use spell slots for attacks rolls should at least TRY and keep a Hero Point in the tank for those big rolls. The Magus just does it better what with the possibility of a critical weapon strike boosting the degree of success.
most rounds you will be attacking twice. unless you can electric arc>attack and have EA affect 2 targets. especially with energized strikes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SO the magus has spell options based upon how easy or difficult it is to hit the target and I think that versatility is a strength of the class, but it does make "running the numbers" very complicated because some spells are going to work much better than others based upon strong or weak save or your ability to flank and gain status bonuses to your attack roll (making spell attack roll spells as much as +3 to 5 over the course of your career).
But the losing your spell without it doing anything is a separate issue that could be addressed without adjusting the accuracy of the class.
What if you could get a feat that made it so that the spell was only discharged if it actually did damage to the target, otherwise it lasted until the end of turn after it was cast? That would really help with people being afraid of losing their spell slot spells, but not radically change the math on the probability of critting with the spell.
SO the magus has spell options based upon how easy or difficult it is to hit the target and I think that versatility is a strength of the class, but it does make "running the numbers" very complicated because some spells are going to work much better than others based upon strong or weak save or your ability to flank and gain status bonuses to your attack roll (making spell attack roll spells as much as +3 to 5 over the course of your career).
But the losing your spell without it doing anything is a separate issue that could be addressed without adjusting the accuracy of the class.
What if you could get a feat that made it so that the spell was only discharged if it actually did damage to the target, otherwise it lasted until the end of turn after it was cast? That would really help with people being afraid of losing their spell slot spells, but not radically change the math on the probability of critting with the spell.
store spell: cast a spell into your body/weapon, reduce the actions to cast by 1 to a minimum of 1, you can store the spell for up to 1min, and doing so gives you 1 damage for every weapon dice you have of the energy type of the spell.
spells trike: 2 actions, you strike with your weapon and release the stored spell.
do whatever is needed to the second one to make it work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the stored spell should remain at 1 round, but you can prolong it with a concentrate action (which would trigger the synthesis) for up to 1 minute.
Spell strike, when a spell is stored, could be a single action (counting double for attack penalty) since it already took 2 actions and potentially a spell slot to prepare. Could also work by replacing somatic component of a spell by a strike, maybe with an attack penalty.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is a bonus damage effect it should no be automatic especially since it has the potential to inflict both devastating damage and one or more afflictions or Conditions, that said the chance should be higher.
Let's be clear, this is a "bonus" you paid 1-2 actions to generate.
Personally, I had been counting the extra melee swing in my analysis. Generally, it doesn't add enough of a chance to matter, as it is a fractional addition. If you had a reasonable chance to hit, there's not too many chances for the second swing to affect. If you did not have a reasonable chance to hit in the first place, you have more chances for the second swing to have an effect, but the odds aren't good to get that effect. You'd see the best performance around the 50/50 mark, just like with True Strike.
Which is why I keep banging the "separate attack roll for the spell is needlessly complicated" drum. It wouldn't turn enough hits into crits to really raise the DPR of the class (with a lot of odds situations, the crit rate would actually drop simplifying this way); the real addition would come from spell misses that became spell hits. Given the action penalty, and the fact that the many arcane attack spells are cantrips and so not particularly high damaging, or are spells like Telekinetic Maneuver that do no damage at all, I don't think that would push the Magus into OP territory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so you misunderstood? its ok, it happens.Doing a analysis and interpreting one are two different thingsMy analysis did include two rounds, and anyone can do the analysis with the tool
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1yNIsvqBljzB9U0K1UVTEElXOEmD9Wu_FDv9 qxiLOdMg/mobilebasic#heading=h.ivma4exfkib7
No not at all! as has been pointed out on this very thread you chances of missing a BBG with no bonuses are less than 10% add in Magus potency it drops down now since this was a BBG in the above example the magus is going to have other bonuses from the rest of the group dropping the chance to miss with all four attacks down to less than 5%. So the issue is two fold. One should the spell alway go off? Answer no in general the spells are a major bump in damage often with a added effect. Two is the chance of the spell itself missing to high? Answer yes but no were to the level it’s being portray at. My solution adding the potency bonus to the spell attacks brings 5hings into the right range.
Does there need to be other work done to the class? Yes but spell strike itself is a fairly easy fix.
The chance of missing a BBEG (assuming they are APL+3 moderate AC, let's say level 5 when your party gets the proficiency boost) with no bonuses over four attacks is actually 22.9%. My calculation was assuming significant bonuses against a BBEG or no bonuses versus a mook.
Level 5 is +14 to hit (+4 STR, +9 Prof, +1 Item) versus 26 AC, hitting on a 12. 55% chance to miss, so .55 * .55 * .80 * .95 = 0.2299 = 22.99%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so you misunderstood? its ok, it happens.Doing a analysis and interpreting one are two different thingsMy analysis did include two rounds, and anyone can do the analysis with the tool
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1yNIsvqBljzB9U0K1UVTEElXOEmD9Wu_FDv9 qxiLOdMg/mobilebasic#heading=h.ivma4exfkib7
No not at all! as has been pointed out on this very thread you chances of missing a BBG with no bonuses are less than 10% add in Magus potency it drops down now since this was a BBG in the above example the magus is going to have other bonuses from the rest of the group dropping the chance to miss with all four attacks down to less than 5%. So the issue is two fold. One should the spell alway go off? Answer no in general the spells are a major bump in damage often with a added effect. Two is the chance of the spell itself missing to high? Answer yes but no were to the level it’s being portray at. My solution adding the potency bonus to the spell attacks brings 5hings into the right range.
Does there need to be other work done to the class? Yes but spell strike itself is a fairly easy fix.
The chance of missing a BBEG (assuming they are APL+3 moderate AC, let's say level 5 when your party gets the proficiency boost) with no bonuses over four attacks is actually 22.9%. My calculation was assuming significant bonuses against a BBEG or no bonuses versus a mook.
Level 5 is +14 to hit (+4 STR, +9 Prof, +1 Item) versus 26 AC, hitting on a 12. 55% chance to miss, so .55 * .55 * .80 * .95 = 0.2299 = 22.99%.
The issue is more that the spell is more likely to miss. At that level it'd be +3 or 4 INT (don't remember when you get the ability boost) +7 Prof +0 items) so +10 or +11. Hitting on a 16.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
An actual spellcaster would soon hit 3 to 4 better and have that advantage for most of the characters' carreer, while being at range. The magus doesn't need to have the same spell proficiency as Wizards and such. They take a risk in melee to deliver somewhat stronger/comparatively strongers spell, and limit it to single target. Where a Wizard would do devastating AoEs/multitarget damage/control.
With four attacks, assuming your first two have a 60% chance to hit (not unlikely, even with the party focusing on buffing you/debuffing the enemy if it is a boss), that's 0.4 * 0.4 * 0.65 * 0.95 = 0.0988, or 9.88% chance of missing all four strikes. That is a significant miss chance, and it is added on to the very poor spell attack (which will suffer MAP in 16% of outcomes) and spell saves the Magus has.There has been a lot of talk about the supposed mathematic probability of a spell strike working I would like to debunk this data. There is at least one major flaw in the analyst that’s being passed around. This analysis is based on a single chance to hit with the melee attack which is a fallacy. Once the Strike Spell action has been started the character has 4 chances to hit with a probability of hitting the target once in those 4 attempts approaching 100%. It not quite at 100% but it’s high enough in the 90’s for it not to matter. So the true question is will the spell hit? Analyst of this is actually fairly accurate meaning the chance is in the 40%-50% range generally falling off at some levels. Since this is a bonus damage effect it should no be automatic especially since it has the potential to inflict both devastating damage and one or more afflictions or Conditions, that said the chance should be higher. I would suggest that any Potency effects either Rune or Magus Potency focus spell be added to the spells to hit/DC, this should give the desired improvement to the spell effect going off without breaking a interesting mechanic.
Why is this analysis so far off? Simply it’s a common mistake not to take multiple attempts into consideration. What they have done is a 2 dimensional analysis rather than a 3 dimensional analysis which is what’s required for this case. It’s a common mistake.
You also have a significant critical chance, and with a 60% hit chance that is more than 10%. Mathematically, it will usually offset the penalty on saving throw based spells when compared to just casting the spell and then attacking.
Not untrue that the Magus saves/spell attacks are unfortunately low in the higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SO the magus has spell options based upon how easy or difficult it is to hit the target and I think that versatility is a strength of the class, but it does make "running the numbers" very complicated because some spells are going to work much better than others based upon strong or weak save or your ability to flank and gain status bonuses to your attack roll (making spell attack roll spells as much as +3 to 5 over the course of your career).
But the losing your spell without it doing anything is a separate issue that could be addressed without adjusting the accuracy of the class.
What if you could get a feat that made it so that the spell was only discharged if it actually did damage to the target, otherwise it lasted until the end of turn after it was cast? That would really help with people being afraid of losing their spell slot spells, but not radically change the math on the probability of critting with the spell.
store spell: cast a spell into your body/weapon, reduce the actions to cast by 1 to a minimum of 1, you can store the spell for up to 1min, and doing so gives you 1 damage for every weapon dice you have of the energy type of the spell.
spells trike: 2 actions, you strike with your weapon and release the stored spell.
do whatever is needed to the second one to make it work.
Since this is a more appropriate thread for it, I will restate here:
This would lose a huge amount of build flexibility from the Magus and I would be strongly against that. The fact that you can deliver a spell with any Strike, and not just a specific action, is a huge point in the Magus' favor right now. It allows it to combo Striking Spell with things like Double Slice, Power Attack, Twin Takedown, or Flurry, and it also means that if you start your turn with a spell stored you have a lot of flexibility in how you spend your turn; much like Swashbuckler, you only need one action to get the job done and can do whatever you want with the other two.
I would be extremely disappointed to see Magus locked into needing a single, specific, non-comboable activity to deliver spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You also have a significant critical chance, and with a 60% hit chance that is more than 10%. Mathematically, it will usually offset the penalty on saving throw based spells when compared to just casting the spell and then attacking.Not untrue that the Magus saves/spell attacks are unfortunately low in the higher levels.
True, but you can't simply compare a Magus using Spell Strike with a single target save spell to a Magus doing the same spell without Spell Strike, you need to compare it to other classes, or simply the Magus using an AoE spell like Electric Arc. If you do that you can see that the marginal benefits of Spell Strike are very weak compared to things like Rage and Sneak Attack (even when using your few spell slots for it), and the reason it is weak is because of the low odds of the enemy failing compounded with the chance to straight up lose the spell.
The increased crit chance makes Spell Strike slightly better than Strike + Spell in the case of a few single target spells, but it is still usually worse than simply striking three times, let alone another martial class striking three (or even two) times.
SO the magus has spell options based upon how easy or difficult it is to hit the target and I think that versatility is a strength of the class, but it does make "running the numbers" very complicated because some spells are going to work much better than others based upon strong or weak save or your ability to flank and gain status bonuses to your attack roll (making spell attack roll spells as much as +3 to 5 over the course of your career).
But the losing your spell without it doing anything is a separate issue that could be addressed without adjusting the accuracy of the class.
What if you could get a feat that made it so that the spell was only discharged if it actually did damage to the target, otherwise it lasted until the end of turn after it was cast? That would really help with people being afraid of losing their spell slot spells, but not radically change the math on the probability of critting with the spell.
store spell: cast a spell into your body/weapon, reduce the actions to cast by 1 to a minimum of 1, you can store the spell for up to 1min, and doing so gives you 1 damage for every weapon dice you have of the energy type of the spell.
spells trike: 2 actions, you strike with your weapon and release the stored spell.
do whatever is needed to the second one to make it work.
Since this is a more appropriate thread for it, I will restate here:
This would lose a huge amount of build flexibility from the Magus and I would be strongly against that. The fact that you can deliver a spell with any Strike, and not just a specific action, is a huge point in the Magus' favor right now. It allows it to combo Striking Spell with things like Double Slice, Power Attack, Twin Takedown, or Flurry, and it also means that if you start your turn with a spell stored you have a lot of flexibility in how you spend your turn; much like Swashbuckler, you only need one action to get the job done and can do whatever you want with...
that would matter to me if we got strikes in the base class, the only benefit of this is multiclassing. in wich, its still not a loss. as example, you could, store spell while you are next to an enemy and flurry of blows getting the + damage and spell strike next round. just as an example.
...SO the magus has spell options based upon how easy or difficult it is to hit the target and I think that versatility is a strength of the class, but it does make "running the numbers" very complicated because some spells are going to work much better than others based upon strong or weak save or your ability to flank and gain status bonuses to your attack roll (making spell attack roll spells as much as +3 to 5 over the course of your career).
But the losing your spell without it doing anything is a separate issue that could be addressed without adjusting the accuracy of the class.
What if you could get a feat that made it so that the spell was only discharged if it actually did damage to the target, otherwise it lasted until the end of turn after it was cast? That would really help with people being afraid of losing their spell slot spells, but not radically change the math on the probability of critting with the spell.
store spell: cast a spell into your body/weapon, reduce the actions to cast by 1 to a minimum of 1, you can store the spell for up to 1min, and doing so gives you 1 damage for every weapon dice you have of the energy type of the spell.
spells trike: 2 actions, you strike with your weapon and release the stored spell.
do whatever is needed to the second one to make it work.
Since this is a more appropriate thread for it, I will restate here:
This would lose a huge amount of build flexibility from the Magus and I would be strongly against that. The fact that you can deliver a spell with any Strike, and not just a specific action, is a huge point in the Magus' favor right now. It allows it to combo Striking Spell with things like Double Slice, Power Attack, Twin Takedown, or Flurry, and it also means that if you start your turn with a spell stored you have a lot of flexibility in how you spend your turn; much like Swashbuckler, you only need one action to get the job done and
Spell sweep is one example we have already within the class, asking for more martial feats is also reasonable.
Dispelling Strike would also need to... what, be a three-action activity?
That said, Spell Sweep... The more I've looked at Magus the more I'm questioning why Striking Spell has a single target limitation. Spells like Chain Lightning and Lv3 Fear seem like they should be good Magus spells, but they just fizzle around the target limitation.
I think it would be a vast improvement to just say "the spell gets its normal number of targets, but one of them must be the target of your weapon attack".
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has its own 'fallacy'
If we're going to be taking two rounds to deliver our payload, then the average has to be compared to two rounds of attacking normally.
Amy timeframe included in the analysis has to use the same timeframe for the alternatives it's being compared to--
Also if Striking Spell isn't putting us ahead with cantrips, we're dealing the same damage as a rogue with no sneak attack, or a barbarian with no rage.
So it has to be better than equal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With limited slots, I don't think it would be broken as:
2-actions [fortune][flourish]. Strike and cast spell that targets a single target. If it's a buff, resolve the buff first. If it's an attack spell and the strike hits, deliver spell. If not, spell is discharged at the end of your turn. Crits only count for the strike, not the delivered spell.
If you want to crit with a spell, cast it separately. Maybe have a feat that unlocks crit fishing.
I'm not sure that the Magus can actually release the spell with any actions (double slice etc) since it states that doing so counts double toward your MAP.
So if you use an ability that already doubles it... there is no downside ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has its own 'fallacy'
If we're going to be taking two rounds to deliver our payload, then the average has to be compared to two rounds of attacking normally.
Amy timeframe included in the analysis has to use the same timeframe for the alternatives it's being compared to--
Also if Striking Spell isn't putting us ahead with cantrips, we're dealing the same damage as a rogue with no sneak attack, or a barbarian with no rage.
So it has to be better than equal.
Any of the math that I have done has accounted for the number of rounds to deliver it, to be clear.
That being said, do you think it would be balanced if a Magus had consistent damage like a Barbarian Raging or a Rogue setting up flat-footed and attacking twice? An honest question. The Magus is getting some spellcasting (though not a lot, to be fair, but at least it is high level) without spending any feats, so shouldn't it's damage be necessarily lower as a baseline? It feels like it would be unfair to pull consistent Barbarian damage while being able to pull out some big spells for burst, party buffs, utility when needed, etc. I think it needs to be close for the Magus to feel satisfying, but I don't think it should be on par with just cantrips. Just my opinion, though!
EDIT: Feat expenditure is a part of it, as well. A rogue spending a large number of class feats in spells should match up similarly in consistent damage to a Magus spending theirs on improving their attacks. But from a core class level, I think Magus should be a tad lower than Barb/Rogue/Ranger.
EDIT2: And to also be clear, I'm not advocating for Magus non-resource damage to be as bad as no rage barbarian or no sneak attack Rogue. But I don't think it should be as high as those either.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone said a Magus should be doing the exact same damage as a Barbarian every round.
But it's also unfair to characterize spell strike as a "bonus" or free damage as some people in this thread have either, because it is their equivalent to a Barbarian's Rage or Sneak Attack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus outdamaging a rogue 4 rounds a day should not be an issue.
Honestly the rogue, at high level, does 8d6 per attack with Sneak Attack and a Rapier, just with base class features and no feats.
Goes up to 8d6x2 (or 16d6 if you roll instead of doubling) and 3d8 on a crit with a rapier, for a single action.
I don't see how it'd be an issue if the Magus could outdamage this *occasionally*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus outdamaging a rogue 4 rounds a day should not be an issue.
Honestly the rogue, at high level, does 8d6 per attack with Sneak Attack and a Rapier, just with base class features and no feats.
Goes up to 8d6x2 (or 16d6 if you roll instead of doubling) and 3d8 on a crit with a rapier, for a single action.I don't see how it'd be an issue if the Magus could outdamage this *occasionally*.
Fully agreed. If you're spending one of your few spell slots or even a focus spell, I think your expected damage should certainly outpace the Rogue. Hell, even if you aren't using Striking Spell for whatever reason, hopefully you still manage to have an advantage against the same rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like someone to tell how it's fair that the rogue can get that much damage on a single action just from flanking :D (Note: it's fine that it is btw. I'm just saying that those calling for the Magus to not be stronger should look at other damage focused class and consider that the magus usually spend limited ressources to deal damage while some of thoses, like rogue, do not)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any of the math that I have done has accounted for the number of rounds to deliver it, to be clear.
That being said, do you think it would be balanced if a Magus had consistent damage like a Barbarian Raging or a Rogue setting up flat-footed and attacking twice? An honest question. The Magus is getting some spellcasting (though not a lot, to be fair, but at least it is high level) without spending any feats, so shouldn't it's damage be necessarily lower as a baseline? It feels like it would be unfair to pull consistent Barbarian damage while being able to pull out some big spells for burst, party buffs, utility when needed, etc. I think it needs to be close for the Magus to feel satisfying, but I don't think it should be on par with just cantrips. Just my opinion, though!
EDIT: Feat expenditure is a part of it, as well. A rogue spending a large number of class feats in spells should match up similarly in consistent damage to a Magus spending theirs on improving their attacks. But from a core class level, I think Magus should be a tad lower than Barb/Rogue/Ranger.
I think part of the issue is that the Magus's baked in damage boost coming from very limited spells is hard to compare with other Martials, who get (pretty much) always on damage boosts. If we're looking to balance it in this way then we're forced to compare it to things like a Fighter or Barbarian with a Wizard Multiclass that uses a limited number of True Strikes per day to boost damage, or to an Alchemist who can (sort of) Nova a few times a day, although the Alchemist has some decent support and also kind of sucks.
Ideally we'd want Magus + 2nd and 4th Magus feats to roughly compare to Barbarian + Wizard Dedication + Basic Spellcasting or Fighter + Wizard Dedication + Basic Spellcasting. So we're looking at Spellstrike + Cantrip + 2 Magus feats generally equalling the non-True Strike Barb/Fighter, and Spellstrike + Spell + 2 Magus feats equalling the True Strike Barb/Fighter.
This comparison is a gross simplification, but just eyeballing it that is definitely not what Spell Strike currently delivers. Currently it looks like Spell Strike + Spell + the damage Magus feats might sometimes equal regular Barbarian or Fighter but it will rarely exceed them, and Spell Strike + Cantrip is almost always worse.
Magi do eventually get some potential advantages over these other Martials by ignoring Spell Strike and using their high level slots to do utility magic, but that benefit very difficult to compare to raw damage. Maybe it would be better then to compare a Rogue with a Wizard Dedication as they will have a bunch of utility due to their skills/skill feat progression.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a fair question.
Being a martial isn't just master proficiency in weapons (eventually). It's decent proficiency plus the other stuff; Sneak Attack, Flurry, Hunt/Edge, Rage... Even Investigators get an advantage over just proficiency.
Arguably, it's also the availability of class feats that further enhance combat options. If those aren't available you start falling more into the Oracale and Warpriest category, where casting is the main deal with a side of attacking.
Any of the math that I have done has accounted for the number of rounds to deliver it, to be clear.
That being said, do you think it would be balanced if a Magus had consistent damage like a Barbarian Raging or a Rogue setting up flat-footed and attacking twice? An honest question. The Magus is getting some spellcasting (though not a lot, to be fair, but at least it is high level) without spending any feats, so shouldn't it's damage be necessarily lower as a baseline? It feels like it would be unfair to pull consistent Barbarian damage while being able to pull out some big spells for burst, party buffs, utility when needed, etc. I think it needs to be close for the Magus to feel satisfying, but I don't think it should be on par with just cantrips. Just my opinion, though!
EDIT: Feat expenditure is a part of it, as well. A rogue spending a large number of class feats in spells should match up similarly in consistent damage to a Magus spending theirs on improving their attacks. But from a core class level, I think Magus should be a tad lower than Barb/Rogue/Ranger.
I think part of the issue is that the Magus's baked in damage boost coming from very limited spells is hard to compare with other Martials, who get (pretty much) always on damage boosts. If we're looking to balance it in this way then we're forced to compare it to things like a Fighter or Barbarian with a Wizard Multiclass that uses a limited number of True Strikes per day to boost damage, or to an Alchemist who can (sort of) Nova a few times a day, although the Alchemist has some decent support and also kind of sucks.
Ideally we'd want Magus + 2nd and 4th Magus feats to roughly compare to Barbarian + Wizard Dedication + Basic Spellcasting or Fighter + Wizard Dedication + Basic Spellcasting. So we're looking at Spellstrike + Cantrip + 2 Magus feats generally equalling the non-True Strike Barb/Fighter, and Spellstrike + Spell + 2 Magus feats equalling the True Strike Barb/Fighter.
This comparison is a gross...
It would definitely be easier to compare if the Magus had a burst damage source that was consistently available for each fight, rather than trying to guess the number of fights per day and how many spells you'd use for utility. I think that's a good incentive for the Magus Focus 1 spell being some direct sort of burst that synergizes well with the chassis; you can generally expect that once every fight.
SO the magus has spell options based upon how easy or difficult it is to hit the target and I think that versatility is a strength of the class, but it does make "running the numbers" very complicated because some spells are going to work much better than others based upon strong or weak save or your ability to flank and gain status bonuses to your attack roll (making spell attack roll spells as much as +3 to 5 over the course of your career).
But the losing your spell without it doing anything is a separate issue that could be addressed without adjusting the accuracy of the class.
What if you could get a feat that made it so that the spell was only discharged if it actually did damage to the target, otherwise it lasted until the end of turn after it was cast? That would really help with people being afraid of losing their spell slot spells, but not radically change the math on the probability of critting with the spell.
Although I’d still prefer to apply potency to spell attacks, Incouls live with that solution, but why not make it baseline. I see no reason to create another feat that would pratically be mandatory.
Maybe change the second paragraph to something like this:
If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell may discharge, affecting only the target you hit. The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell attack roll. [b] The spell remains in the receptacle if it does not affect its target [\b]
And then the third paragraph would have the whole ‘until the end of next turn’ rule.
SO the magus has spell options based upon how easy or difficult it is to hit the target and I think that versatility is a strength of the class, but it does make "running the numbers" very complicated because some spells are going to work much better than others based upon strong or weak save or your ability to flank and gain status bonuses to your attack roll (making spell attack roll spells as much as +3 to 5 over the course of your career).
But the losing your spell without it doing anything is a separate issue that could be addressed without adjusting the accuracy of the class.
What if you could get a feat that made it so that the spell was only discharged if it actually did damage to the target, otherwise it lasted until the end of turn after it was cast? That would really help with people being afraid of losing their spell slot spells, but not radically change the math on the probability of critting with the spell.
Although I’d still prefer to apply potency to spell attacks, Incouls live with that solution, but why not make it baseline. I see no reason to create another feat that would pratically be mandatory.
Maybe change the second paragraph to something like this:
If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell may discharge, affecting only the target you hit. The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell attack roll. [b] The spell remains in the receptacle if it does not affect its target [\b]
And then the third paragraph would have the whole ‘until the end of next turn’ rule.
Isn't this just Second Chance Strike? A feat that let's you keep making strikes up to the end of your next turn, and the Striking Spell only discharges if it takes effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The fact that the Magus has not dedicated martial feats (yet) is part of its design. It's good at using weapons, but it does not have special abilities with it. It doesn't do any of the fancy stuff the fighter does with it. No Snagging Strike, Power Attack, Draging Strike, Dual-Handed Assault, Advantageous Assault, Shattered Defenses etc.
But it's more than just having spells, like a fighter investing only in wizards feats would get. Yeah that fighter wouldn't get a lot of weapon related feats (tho he would still get a level 1 one like Power Attack AND 2 feats that he can change daily) but he'd get lotsa spells.
The Magus should have some, basic, martial feats but mostly feats about mixing sword and sorcery. Some could be reflavored Fighter feats requiring Spell Strike or Spell Combat (a Lunge extending your reach by releasing the spell from the tip of your weapon, only doing the spell's damage on the strike, a Furious Focus equivalent for SpellStrike etc).
The meat of the Magus is using spells with your combat abilities to flavor up your fighting prowess.
Yeah, the Fighter can do fancy stuff with his sword.
But can he do dis ? *bonk a foe with a sword and releases a huge conic explosion doing so*
He can't. And shouldn't be able to just by taking a Wizard dedication or very basic magus one.
Just realized but I assume Striking Spell was balanced to avoid a Fighter taking some Magus feats to get that feature and then take bunchs of Wizard ones to crit very easily on Striking Spell thanks to his legendary ability with weapons.