Comparing Magus Striking Spell Damage to a Flurry Ranger

[kripdenn]

I posted this on the reddit too, but I made some graphs comparing the magus using striking spell to a flurry ranger, the magus attacking three times, and an alternative striking spell where the degree of success for the spell is the same as the strike. I also looked at what true strike does for the damage of striking spell.

More info is in the Google Doc.

[Kalaam]

This is very interresting, just using a single roll seems to make the magus more in line with similar martials, only outdamaging them noticingly when using a spell slot, which is what it should be.

[kripdenn]

Kalaam wrote:

This is very interresting, just using a single roll seems to make the magus more in line with similar martials, only outdamaging them noticingly when using a spell slot, which is what it should be.

Yeah, I think if they're going to tweak striking spell, this should probably be the route to go. The question then is whether or not to give it the fortune trait.

Another thing I noticed is that cascading ray is nearly useless if you a -10 MAP and deals about 1 damage on average and is slightly more useful at -5 MAP, dealing about 5 damage. So that feat either needs to be reworked or replaced.

[Kalaam]

I think that Cascading Ray would work better if another feat is implemented, similar to Furious Focus for Power Attack.

Could I ask you to run a calculation ?
If the Magus could spellstrike both by infusing the spell as now, and by replacing the somatic component of an attack spell (so doing it as part of the spell). Both using the Strike result for determining the spell's success. That would take 1 turn of setup, and a full turn to do both strikes.
What would the damage of such a turn be ? Assuming the second strike is at -10 MAP, then at -5 if a "Spellstrike Focus" feat exists around level, say, 12 or 14.

I dunno if I was clear.

[kripdenn]

Kalaam wrote:

I think that Cascading Ray would work better if another feat is implemented, similar to Furious Focus for Power Attack.

Could I ask you to run a calculation ?
If the Magus could spellstrike both by infusing the spell as now, and by replacing the somatic component of an attack spell (so doing it as part of the spell). Both using the Strike result for determining the spell's success. That would take 1 turn of setup, and a full turn to do both strikes.
What would the damage of such a turn be ? Assuming the second strike is at -10 MAP, then at -5 if a "Spellstrike Focus" feat exists around level, say, 12 or 14.

I dunno if I was clear.

I think that's clear. A feat like furious focus but for striking spell sounds interesting. I'll try to calculate it but I'm also in grad school so it depends on if I have the time.

[Kalaam]

Take your time, I have no idea how to run that kind of program so people like you with the skill and patience are welcome to take all the time you need.

If it worked like this, I'd expect a big spike around level 12/14, though it'd be quite a costly nova (taking 2 spellslots and 2 turns to perform)

[kripdenn]

For anybody interested, I added comparisons where the item bonus from potency runes is added to the striking spell spell attack roll since it has been a common suggestion for a fix and since it's a quick thing to do.

[vagrant-poet]

This is very cool!

Is there any chance we could get lines for attacking Twice in a turn as well as 3 times, to compare with turns you have to move but Slide Casting would help?

[Lelomenia]

Is this just for one round?

From my read, you are calculating Ranger damage assuming he is in position and already has Hunter’s Mark, which would be a dramatic artificial increase to their DPR,

and you are counting Magus for just one round, having him spend actions to set up Striking Spell, which would be a dramatic artificial decrease to Magus DPR.

These two classes both are extremely dependent on 2 rounds of combat to get any sense of actual play DPR for those reasons.

I would assume for Magus: round 1 is Striking Spell, slide, 1 attack; round 2 is three strikes
For ranger, round 1 starts with Hunters Mark and a move action, then do whatever from there.

[CrypticSplicer]

Lelomenia wrote:

Is this just for one round?

From my read, you are calculating Ranger damage assuming he is in position and already has Hunter’s Mark, which would be a dramatic artificial increase to their DPR,

and you are counting Magus for just one round, having him spend actions to set up Striking Spell, which would be a dramatic artificial decrease to Magus DPR.

These two classes both are extremely dependent on 2 rounds of combat to get any sense of actual play DPR for those reasons.

I would assume for Magus: round 1 is Striking Spell, slide, 1 attack; round 2 is three strikes
For ranger, round 1 starts with Hunters Mark and a move action, then do whatever from there.

He's assuming both the Magus and the Ranger are adjacent to their target. I think he also is assuming that the Magus cast Magus Potency last turn, so they've both had the chance to do equal amounts of setup. The Magus in this comparison is using a Greatsword, so he wouldn't benefit from Slide Casting. Since he's just doing these calculations with Telekinetic Projectile it wouldn't really help the Magus to spend get two turns, I expect his damage would be just slightly higher using striking spell and then making four attacks across two rounds than if he had made 6 attacks across two rounds- he's still be way behind the Ranger. The spike the Magus see's from casting something out of a spell slot would go up around 15% though from taking two turns to get the spell off.

[Lelomenia]

CrypticSplicer wrote:

He's assuming both the Magus and the Ranger are adjacent to their target. I think he also is assuming that the Magus cast Magus Potency last turn, so they've both had the chance to do equal amounts of setup. The Magus in this comparison is using a Greatsword, so he wouldn't benefit from Slide Casting. Since he's just doing these calculations with Telekinetic Projectile it wouldn't really help the Magus to spend get two turns, I expect his damage would be just slightly higher using striking spell and then making four attacks across two rounds than if he had made 6 attacks across two rounds- he's still be way behind the Ranger. The spike the Magus see's from casting something out of a spell slot would go up around 15% though from taking two turns to get the spell off.

Yeah, i think that’s a misleading approach. If you are assuming two handed weapon, your primary Striking Spell benefit is temporary HP, so you can’t compare directly on a DPR basis. Magus Potency is usually not better than just carrying a level appropriate weapon, so that’s not really making a fair trade either.

Turn 2 is where Magus currently makes his money. Starting the turn with a Striking Spell stored, odds are you hit on the first action, and if you do, it triggers a suped-up Telekinetic Strike that is more likely to hit and more likely to crit than a non-Striking Spell Telekinetic. After that, with two actions left and under heavy MAP, you can still fire off a full strength Electric Arc or other save cantrip. Those are very good damage rounds; I’d guess significantly exceeding normal martial damage. They do only occur following 0 damage setup rounds, but that’s my whole point: you need to compare both of these classes including setup round and payoff round. Right now the plot is for Ranger payoff vs Magus setup.

[Midnightoker]

Lelomenia wrote:

CrypticSplicer wrote:

He's assuming both the Magus and the Ranger are adjacent to their target. I think he also is assuming that the Magus cast Magus Potency last turn, so they've both had the chance to do equal amounts of setup. The Magus in this comparison is using a Greatsword, so he wouldn't benefit from Slide Casting. Since he's just doing these calculations with Telekinetic Projectile it wouldn't really help the Magus to spend get two turns, I expect his damage would be just slightly higher using striking spell and then making four attacks across two rounds than if he had made 6 attacks across two rounds- he's still be way behind the Ranger. The spike the Magus see's from casting something out of a spell slot would go up around 15% though from taking two turns to get the spell off.

Yeah, i think that’s a misleading approach. If you are assuming two handed weapon, your primary Striking Spell benefit is temporary HP, so you can’t compare directly on a DPR basis. Magus Potency is usually not better than just carrying a level appropriate weapon, so that’s not really making a fair trade either.

Turn 2 is where Magus currently makes his money. Starting the turn with a Striking Spell stored, odds are you hit on the first action, and if you do, it triggers a suped-up Telekinetic Strike that is more likely to hit and more likely to crit than a non-Striking Spell Telekinetic. After that, with two actions left and under heavy MAP, you can still fire off a full strength Electric Arc or other save cantrip. Those are very good damage rounds; I’d guess significantly exceeding normal martial damage. They do only occur following 0 damage setup rounds, but that’s my whole point: you need to compare both of these classes including setup round and payoff round. Right now the plot is for Ranger payoff vs Magus setup.

I think the major difference is that a Ranger doesn't require a lot of setup. A Ranger can begin with Hunt Prey if they were tracking the target, which lasts far longer than 1 minute.

And as they person above stated, assuming the Magus can move, cast Potency, and still land attacks as the Ranger is way heavier on their action economy than the Ranger.

Ranger is generally going to get 3 strikes a turn even if they have to move to keep up.

If a Magus opponent moves every turn, the Magus can't even use Striking Spell without Haste, because Striking Spell costs all their actions to even use.

Now theoretically, on turn 2, the Magus can move and attack, but then their only option for follow up is a Strike, Stride, or some 1 action spell (potentially Shield).

The action economy is far more constrained for the Magus than the Ranger and the Ranger can certainly start combats with Hunt Prey already up (if they've been tracking the prey, ambushing, or otherwise aware of them before combat breaks out) without a time limit.

And Magus Potency is better than a weapon of your level in quite a few circumstances. Once you reach 7, it's a bad idea not to use it IMO.

[Lelomenia]

Midnightoker wrote:

I think the major difference is that a Ranger doesn't require a lot of setup. A Ranger can begin with Hunt Prey if they were tracking the target, which lasts...

most of that argument doesn’t apply to the Shooting Star, Slide Casting, and Sustaining Steel syntheses though. Shooting Star doesnt need to move, Slide gets the movement for free, and Sustaining Steel is going to Haste pretty much every relevant encounter starting at Level 5.

I’d be surprised if most Rangers found that they usually enter combat with Hunt Prey already active, but even then that only works until the first enemy goes down.

But even pretending that rangers start every round adjacent to their enemies with Hunt Prey active doesn’t make it okay to assume Magi start every round without an active Striking Spell.

[Squiggit]

Hunt Prey is one action once per enemy. Striking Spell is two actions every round or every other round, depending on how successful your strikes are.

You're right about the numbers being abstracted a bit, but acting like the two are equivalent expenditures clearly isn't right either.

Quote:

odds are you hit on the first action, and if you do, it triggers a suped-up Telekinetic Strike that is more likely to hit and more likely to crit than a non-Striking Spell Telekinetic.

The Spell is only 'suped-up' if the strike itself crits. Definitely not something you can rely on happening as you're suggesting.

[Midnightoker]

Lelomenia wrote:

But even pretending that rangers start every round adjacent to their enemies with Hunt Prey active doesn’t make it okay to assume Magi start every round without an active Striking Spell.

Let me put it to you this way, if we assume that neither are next to their target at the start of the round, and the target always moves on their turn, can you guess whose DPR is affected more?

The Magus. By a lot.

Even shooting star requires they be within 30 feet, which if we assume the enemy can return fire at a further distance (or attack someone else) still puts them in the same spot.

Also I think "Sustaining Steel always has Haste after level 5" is a pretty ridiculous assumption for a variety of reasons.

If you want to make that classification for Magus, you might as well make the same stand for Ranger. You can't give one Class a permanent buff and not the other just to prove your point.

[WatersLethe]

I've had two rangers in one campaign. They *aggressively* sought chances to track their prey before combat, and they were often successful, needing only to hunt prey when they switched targets.

And yeah, the whole "assume the Magus is hasted" thing is pretty unfair.

[Lelomenia]

Squiggit wrote:

Hunt Prey is one action once per enemy. Striking Spell is two actions every round or every other round, depending on how successful your strikes are.

You're right about the numbers being abstracted a bit, but acting like the two are equivalent expenditures clearly isn't right either.

Quote:

odds are you hit on the first action, and if you do, it triggers a suped-up Telekinetic Strike that is more likely to hit and more likely to crit than a non-Striking Spell Telekinetic.

The Spell is only 'suped-up' if the strike itself crits. Definitely not something you can rely on happening as you're suggesting.

my argument was that two actions to Striking Spell+Slide was equivalent to 2 Ranger actions to Hunt + Stride. If in-combat Hunt Prey isn’t common, then this is a weak argument,

However, even allowing Ranger to operate under that optimal condition, restricting Magus only counting his bad round isn’t fair. If he misses on his round 1 Strike, that Telekinetic Strike doesn’t go away, most of that damage just gets delayed to Round 2.

By “Suped Up” I mean that the expected damage of a Telekinetic Strike triggering from that hit is significantly higher than a 0 MAP Telekinetic Strike cast normally: yes, only because of crit potential, but 77% chance of normal damage and 23% chance of 250% or whatever damage ends up being a 34% damage increase.

[Midnightoker]

Right but remember, we're already adding a scenario to this that favors the Magus and not the Ranger (being adjacent).

And the Ranger spending his first action on Hunt Prey doesn't actually drop his DPR as much as you think, because he only loses his 4th attack in that scenario (which was already at a -6 to hit if it was Agile).

If you want to see it become a little more competitive/egregious, we might try comparing to an Animal Companion, Heavy Crossbow Running Reload Ranger with Precision. Way more mobile, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had comparable damage.

Or even just a Ranger TT Flurry with an AC using the Support Benefit (lose your -6 attack in favor of a Support Bene on the first 3).

You're acting like this is some "slight" to the Ranger in order to favor it over the Magus, and I promise it isn't.

And even over two rounds, where the Magus finally gains back comparable bonus to damage, the Magus actually still loses in DPR.

Like, having to spread your damage potential that widely in hopes of Criting once in a while just does not sound like a fun time. If I succeed, well I just won the encounter with a crit and my team feels like they just watched me win the whole thing. If I miss, well golly I'm basically a whirling tornado of whiffs.

[Lelomenia]

Midnightoker wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

But even pretending that rangers start every round adjacent to their enemies with Hunt Prey active doesn’t make it okay to assume Magi start every round without an active Striking Spell.

Let me put it to you this way, if we assume that neither are next to their target at the start of the round, and the target always moves on their turn, can you guess whose DPR is affected more?

The Magus. By a lot.

Even shooting star requires they be within 30 feet, which if we assume the enemy can return fire at a further distance (or attack someone else) still puts them in the same spot.

Also I think "Sustaining Steel always has Haste after level 5" is a pretty ridiculous assumption for a variety of reasons.

If you want to make that classification for Magus, you might as well make the same stand for Ranger. You can't give one Class a permanent buff and not the other just to prove your point.

for that first question, Slide Caster is affected less than Ranger, Shooting Star is affected less until things turn into a 1-on-1 Kiting scenario, and unhasted Sustaining Steel is hurt more.

In general, all the syntheses have strengths and weaknesses:
Slide Caster: effective when you assume movement is required every turn or two; suboptimal in extended toe-to-toe
Sustaining Steel: effective in extended toe-to-toe, struggles when you assume movement required every round or two unless they use built-in Haste access
Shooting Star: effective outside of 1 on 1 kiting scenarios

I’m not sure how it is ‘unfair’ to allow the Magus to cast one of his spells each combat, but I’ll let that go too.

[Midnightoker]

Lelomenia wrote:

for that first question, Slide Caster is affected less than Ranger, Shooting Star is affected less until things turn into a 1-on-1 Kiting scenario, and unhasted Sustaining Steel is hurt more.

Sliding on Turn 2 you cannot use Striking Spell and therefore, you have to move normally and you still lose an action, and can't use a 2 action cantrip. This hurts the Magus way more, because a big argument of why a Magus turn 2 is good is because they can Strike and use a Cantrip which they cannot do in a Striding enemy case.

As for Shooting Star, you are still limited by the Spell range, which without defining the Spell you are using, is hard to parley with, but the assumption that your target cannot move beyond that range is a farse in almost any case that isn't Ray of Frost (lower damage and cold only)

Quote:

I’m not sure how it is ‘unfair’ to allow the Magus to cast one of his spells each combat, but I’ll let that go too.

You're complaining about the Ranger getting to have Hunt Prey before combat, totally doable and as others have said actually happens, but Magus has time to cast 2 action spells?

Not even touching the fact that a Magus has 2 opportunities to even cast Haste (without heightening it for no benefit), which means if he uses Haste for all 4 of his slots he's working with Cantrips only, and can do that 4 combats per day maximum.

Oh, and he has to prepare Haste in his slots even after he gets past level 3, which grants him 0 benefits until he reaches 12th level.

[cithis]

Lelomenia wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

But even pretending that rangers start every round adjacent to their enemies with Hunt Prey active doesn’t make it okay to assume Magi start every round without an active Striking Spell.

Let me put it to you this way, if we assume that neither are next to their target at the start of the round, and the target always moves on their turn, can you guess whose DPR is affected more?

The Magus. By a lot.

Even shooting star requires they be within 30 feet, which if we assume the enemy can return fire at a further distance (or attack someone else) still puts them in the same spot.

Also I think "Sustaining Steel always has Haste after level 5" is a pretty ridiculous assumption for a variety of reasons.

If you want to make that classification for Magus, you might as well make the same stand for Ranger. You can't give one Class a permanent buff and not the other just to prove your point.

for that first question, Slide Caster is affected less than Ranger, Shooting Star is affected less until things turn into a 1-on-1 Kiting scenario, and unhasted Sustaining Steel is hurt more.

In general, all the syntheses have strengths and weaknesses:
Slide Caster: effective when you assume movement is required every turn or two; suboptimal in extended toe-to-toe
Sustaining Steel: effective in extended toe-to-toe, struggles when you assume movement required every round or two unless they use built-in Haste access
Shooting Star: effective outside of 1 on 1 kiting scenarios

I’m not sure how it is ‘unfair’ to allow the Magus to cast one of his spells each combat, but I’ll let that go too.

Depending on the number of combats you run into during any given day (I've heard 4 is not an outlier) then you would be assuming that every spell slot is dedicated to haste, and therefore they have no more slots to use for damage spells. In that case, their numbers are going to drop like a rock because cantrips are strictly less effective than multiple attacks as it stands.

[breithauptclan]

Not sure that Flurry Ranger would be the best direct comparison. Are people choosing that for comparison because Flurry Ranger has the best damage in a whiteroom?

For comparing playstyle, maybe compare Precision Ranger with Gravity Weapon to Magus with Striking Spell and Magus Potency. Each get a damage boost to one of their hits and a focus spell to play with.

[kripdenn]

breithauptclan wrote:

Not sure that Flurry Ranger would be the best direct comparison. Are people choosing that for comparison because Flurry Ranger has the best damage in a whiteroom?

For comparing playstyle, maybe compare Precision Ranger with Gravity Weapon to Magus with Striking Spell and Magus Potency. Each get a damage boost to one of their hits and a focus spell to play with.

I used a flurry ranger because it was a high damage, master martial, that had a simple strategy that encourages using 3 actions for attacks (like the magus has to), and that only used feats building on their class feature. Some people on the PF2 reddit didn't like comparisons to fighters because they get legendary with weapons so that was another reason I avoided fighters.

And no the flurry ranger doesn't have the most damage anyway. You can use a furious focus, brutal finish, fighter that multiclasses into spellcasting to get true strike and haste till they get weapon supremacy at lvl 20. That fighter can do true strike power attack and then brutal finish for 100.0275 damage at lvl 20 against 46 AC and can use that strategy as early as lvl 12 with haste. (The flurry ranger does 83.7 at lvl 20, and impossible flurry at lvl 18 is their biggest damage boost.)

[RexAliquid]

I'd like to see a swashbuckler comparison. The Ranger doesn't really cycle turns the way the magus and swashbuckler do.

[Djinn71]

kripdenn wrote:

And no the flurry ranger doesn't have the most damage anyway. You can use a furious focus, brutal finish, fighter that multiclasses into spellcasting to get true strike and haste till they get weapon supremacy at lvl 20. That fighter can do true strike power attack and then brutal finish for 100.0275 damage at lvl 20 against 46 AC and can use that strategy as early as lvl 12 with haste. (The flurry ranger does 83.7 at lvl 20, and impossible flurry at lvl 18 is their biggest damage boost.)

I don't think that works. Haste and Weapon Supremacy give you quickened that can only be used to Strike (or Stride in Haste's case) which means that they can only be used to do the basic action Strike. Brutal Finish is a separate action that includes a Strike, it is not a Strike in itself.

[HumbleGamer]

Djinn71 wrote:

kripdenn wrote:

And no the flurry ranger doesn't have the most damage anyway. You can use a furious focus, brutal finish, fighter that multiclasses into spellcasting to get true strike and haste till they get weapon supremacy at lvl 20. That fighter can do true strike power attack and then brutal finish for 100.0275 damage at lvl 20 against 46 AC and can use that strategy as early as lvl 12 with haste. (The flurry ranger does 83.7 at lvl 20, and impossible flurry at lvl 18 is their biggest damage boost.)

I don't think that works. Haste and Weapon Supremacy give you quickened that can only be used to Strike (or Stride in Haste's case) which means that they can only be used to do the basic action Strike. Brutal Finish is a separate action that includes a Strike, it is not a Strike in itself.

Exactly.

Anyway, I wouldn't have compared a flurry ranger with a magus.

Maybe with a Champion, Monk, Rogue, Investigator or Swashbuckler. Eventually, a precision ranger.

[Falco271]

RexAliquid wrote:

I'd like to see a swashbuckler comparison. The Ranger doesn't really cycle turns the way the magus and swashbuckler do.

Agree, Swashbuckler is a perfect example of once per turn attacks. And with Perfect finisher the class has it's own built in true strike.

Weapon: 4d6/14 (rapier) + 6d8/27 (deadly grace)
Strength + GWS: 10
Precise strike: 6d6/21
Total 72

@lvl 20 vs lvl 20 opponent (AC 46), with flanking: 65 hit chance, so with Perfect finisher that would be a miss change of 12.2%, a hit change of 60% and a crit change of 27.8% -> 43.2 + 40 ~ 83 dam.

Any rune or sneak damage would add 3.5 to that amount (3 runes + sneak would be another 15 dam).

I'm not sure if there are any other extra damage option but the deadly grace feat, which is quite nice at higher levels. A lot of dice, for one attack... :-) The only class that has no use for a hasted extra action.

Flurry ranger doesn't really compare, as the flurry ranger has a lot of attacks, extra damage from runes/sneak/twin/backstabber/status really works to make the damage in one round go to insane levels.

[Falco271]

Falco271 wrote:

@lvl 20 vs lvl 20 opponent (AC 46), with flanking: 65 hit chance, so with Perfect finisher that would be a miss change of 12.2%, a hit change of 60% and a crit change of 27.8% -> 43.2 + 40 ~ 83 dam.

Any rune or sneak damage would add 3.5 to that amount (3 runes + sneak would be another 15 dam).

Lethal Finisher is also a very nice option, if you have true strike from another source which you could use instead of Perfect Finisher. Its against a fortitude save, but a crit means a degree of success higher. Not going to try to calculate that, but it's a lot of extra dice.

[Unicore]

It might be fair to compare a shortbow wielding flurry ranger making 3 attacks (simulating picking a new target) to a shortbow wielding Magus making a striking spell telekinetic projectile attack, but then one of the things you want to also check is how much of an attack bonus does the magus need to tip the scales in their favor?

Personally, if the magus using a cantrip can outpace a flurry ranger making 3 strikes with an attack bonus of +3 to +4, I'd say the class is in pretty strong shape damage-wise.

The vast majority of other martial characters will not have nearly the reliability of action economy to keep up with more than 2 strikes a round, and that really should be the basis of all melee combat math, which the Magus will be close on with no bonus and rise above with as little as flanking.

It seems like a massive mistake to balance in the magus at better than non-spell casting martials, with a cantrip, with as little as flanking.

[Claxon]

So what I'm seeing is that the only way the magus works is with using True Strike all the time, and with perfect set up and tweaks so that his action economy is affected in this simulation by something like the enemy walking away further than the magus can reach in a single move.

So the class sucks, got it.

[richienvh]

Claxon wrote:

So what I'm seeing is that the only way the magus works is with using True Strike all the time, and with perfect set up and tweaks so that his action economy is affected in this simulation by something like the enemy walking away further than the magus can reach in a single move.

So the class sucks, got it.

Yep. At least this is what my group has been observing so far.

Magus works when the stars align or when you give it something like Devise a Stratagem through multiclassing.

To me, at least regading attack spells, it kind of plays like a barbarian, if you required a Nature check against the target’s AC for them to get the bonus damage from Rage.

[Lelomenia]

Unicore wrote:

It might be fair to compare a shortbow wielding flurry ranger making 3 attacks (simulating picking a new target) to a shortbow wielding Magus making a striking spell telekinetic projectile attack, but then one of the things you want to also check is how much of an attack bonus does the magus need to tip the scales in their favor?

Personally, if the magus using a cantrip can outpace a flurry ranger making 3 strikes with an attack bonus of +3 to +4, I'd say the class is in pretty strong shape damage-wise.

The vast majority of other martial characters will not have nearly the reliability of action economy to keep up with more than 2 strikes a round, and that really should be the basis of all melee combat math, which the Magus will be close on with no bonus and rise above with as little as flanking.

It seems like a massive mistake to balance in the magus at better than non-spell casting martials, with a cantrip, with as little as flanking.

you mean an extra +3 to all attacks for the Magus to break even with the Ranger?

That sounds...awful. I’d be looking for Magus with an extra +1 to be even when spamming cantrip spellstrike, and slightly ahead of Ranger when using a slot. Magus is already less durable and less consistent, if they are also dramatically lower on average after accounting for the spikes, that’s pretty sad.

That’s been my main point: I’d like to see Magus compared to Ranger in circumstances that are reasonably favorable to the Magus; if Magus is still behind Ranger there, that’s a huge problem. But comparing Ranger to Magus in comparisons that are unfavorable to the Magus and seeing that in those comparisons Ranger comes out ahead, that means nothing whatsoever.

[Unicore]

Lelomenia wrote:

Unicore wrote:

It might be fair to compare a shortbow wielding flurry ranger making 3 attacks (simulating picking a new target) to a shortbow wielding Magus making a striking spell telekinetic projectile attack, but then one of the things you want to also check is how much of an attack bonus does the magus need to tip the scales in their favor?

Personally, if the magus using a cantrip can outpace a flurry ranger making 3 strikes with an attack bonus of +3 to +4, I'd say the class is in pretty strong shape damage-wise.

The vast majority of other martial characters will not have nearly the reliability of action economy to keep up with more than 2 strikes a round, and that really should be the basis of all melee combat math, which the Magus will be close on with no bonus and rise above with as little as flanking.

It seems like a massive mistake to balance in the magus at better than non-spell casting martials, with a cantrip, with as little as flanking.

you mean an extra +3 to all attacks for the Magus to break even with the Ranger?

That sounds...awful. I’d be looking for Magus with an extra +1 to be even when spamming cantrip spellstrike, and slightly ahead of Ranger when using a slot. Magus is already less durable and less consistent, if they are also dramatically lower on average after accounting for the spikes, that’s pretty sad.

That’s been my main point: I’d like to see Magus compared to Ranger in circumstances that are reasonably favorable to the Magus; if Magus is still behind Ranger there, that’s a huge problem. But comparing Ranger to Magus in comparisons that are unfavorable to the Magus and seeing that in those comparisons Ranger comes out ahead, that means nothing whatsoever.

I mean that a magus with flanking and a status bonus will out pace even a flurry ranger with the same benefits, because increases to accuracy affect the magus DPR more than other martials, because of how much more powerful the magus is when it crits with the weapon attack, than any other martial character doing the same. I may not have been clear about that.

If you balance the magus around being close to the same as a flurry ranger (already at the high end of single target damage output) when both are attacking with no bonuses, and then the magus's damage increases at a much more exponential rate than other martial's from the same benefit, then system mastery will make the magus the ultimate martial by a wide margin.

Some people want to reduce the impact of the magus criting on their damage potential, but that is very difficult to do without completely divorcing the weapon attack from the spell attack, and at that point, the only thing the magus can have to offer is either just better proficiencies and spell access than every other class can manage through Dedication feats, or more major action economy boosts.

I may not have explained myself clearly so I wanted to make sure I wasn't saying comparing the magus with bonuses to a ranger without them. The flurry ranger with a short bow, and maybe a monk is the only one that I reasonably see regularly making three attacks in a combat round to compare to a magus with striking spell. At least 2 out of the 3 magus synthesis provide ways of keeping up with doing their whole routine in 1 round, with the added boon of having a more powerful second round lined up if they miss with their attack the previous round.

[Lelomenia]

So you are saying if both Ranger and Magus have an extra +3, they might be comparable?

I think i can see that perspective, but
(1) flanking is hard for Shooting Star Magus, so they need extra help
(2) i would suggest Cantrip Striking should break even with Ranger assuming flanking, ahead using slots. Even there they’ll struggle when they cant get flanking and vs above CR enemies, and will be less reliable even in favorable scenarios, but at least then they have a potential payoff (being able to do the same damage as another class under ideal circumstances is not a payoff)

[Martialmasters]

Unicore wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

Unicore wrote:

It might be fair to compare a shortbow wielding flurry ranger making 3 attacks (simulating picking a new target) to a shortbow wielding Magus making a striking spell telekinetic projectile attack, but then one of the things you want to also check is how much of an attack bonus does the magus need to tip the scales in their favor?

Personally, if the magus using a cantrip can outpace a flurry ranger making 3 strikes with an attack bonus of +3 to +4, I'd say the class is in pretty strong shape damage-wise.

The vast majority of other martial characters will not have nearly the reliability of action economy to keep up with more than 2 strikes a round, and that really should be the basis of all melee combat math, which the Magus will be close on with no bonus and rise above with as little as flanking.

It seems like a massive mistake to balance in the magus at better than non-spell casting martials, with a cantrip, with as little as flanking.

you mean an extra +3 to all attacks for the Magus to break even with the Ranger?

That sounds...awful. I’d be looking for Magus with an extra +1 to be even when spamming cantrip spellstrike, and slightly ahead of Ranger when using a slot. Magus is already less durable and less consistent, if they are also dramatically lower on average after accounting for the spikes, that’s pretty sad.

That’s been my main point: I’d like to see Magus compared to Ranger in circumstances that are reasonably favorable to the Magus; if Magus is still behind Ranger there, that’s a huge problem. But comparing Ranger to Magus in comparisons that are unfavorable to the Magus and seeing that in those comparisons Ranger comes out ahead, that means nothing whatsoever.

I mean that a magus with flanking and a status bonus will out pace even a flurry ranger with the same benefits, because increases to accuracy affect the magus DPR more than other martials, because of how much more powerful the magus is when it crits with the...

what you describe is a good argument against keeping the critical effect for magus, if its holding it back that much.

[Xethik]

So I think there are a few flaws here. One of which was mentioned above, which is that saving throw spells are just superior to spell attack spells. I really think that spell attacks need to be readjusted across the board, but especially with Striking Spell, where you may suffer MAP when following up on Turn 2.

Secondly, if the Ranger is picking up feats to improve damage, it feels only fair for the Magus to be doing the same. Yes, Ranger feats are critical for certain weapon styles, but giving the Magus something like Bespell Weapon to accommodate an expenditure of class feats certainly helps.

Lastly, and most importantly, when comparing highest level saving throw spells + Striking Spell vs Flurry Ranger, I am calculating the Magus as having a substantial advantage over the Flurry Ranger at most levels.

For example, at level 10, my calculations show the Ranger at ~32 DPR, which matches your graph. Three strike Greatsword Magus is at 25 DPR, which also matches. Everything seems good thus far. However, highest spell slot used on Sudden Bolt I have as ~43 DPR, and Electric Arc (single target) DPR at ~28. This has the Magus as slightly below the Ranger when not using any resources, and fairly sizably above when using a spell slot.

I've been seeing a lot of people state that even when using their high level spell, Magus DPR pales to Rangers but this just seems untrue. I tried picking a level where the damage difference was significant between the two classes and without being at such a high level, I would have to adjust the math for things like Second Chance Strike or Double Spell Strike. I have saved a version of my spreadsheet with these calculations here.

You can say the Magus isn't getting enough extra damage from the spell, or that Striking Spell does not increase damage by enough to make it more interesting than just casting + striking normally. But to say that the Magus deals less damage when using a spell than a Ranger does at a rest state seems false.

[Lelomenia]

Xethik wrote:

So I think there are a few flaws here. One of which was mentioned above, which is that saving throw spells are just superior to spell attack spells. I really think that spell attacks need to be readjusted across the board, but especially with Striking Spell, where you may suffer MAP when following up on Turn 2.

Secondly, if the Ranger is picking up feats to improve damage, it feels only fair for the Magus to be doing the same. Yes, Ranger feats are critical for certain weapon styles, but giving the Magus something like Bespell Weapon to accommodate an expenditure of class feats certainly helps.

Lastly, and most importantly, when comparing highest level saving throw spells + Striking Spell vs Flurry Ranger, I am calculating the Magus as having a substantial advantage over the Flurry Ranger at most levels.

For example, at level 10, my calculations show the Ranger at ~32 DPR, which matches your graph. Three strike Greatsword Magus is at 25 DPR, which also matches. Everything seems good thus far. However, highest spell slot used on Sudden Bolt I have as ~43 DPR, and Electric Arc (single target) DPR at ~28. This has the Magus as slightly below the Ranger when not using any resources, and fairly sizably above when using a spell slot.

I've been seeing a lot of people state that even when using their high level spell, Magus DPR pales to Rangers but this just seems untrue. I tried picking a level where the damage difference was significant between the two classes and without being at such a high level, I would have to adjust the math for things like Second Chance Strike or Double Spell Strike. I have saved a version of my spreadsheet with these calculations here.

You can say the Magus isn't getting enough extra damage from the spell, or that Striking Spell does not increase damage by enough to make it more interesting than just casting + striking normally. But to say that the Magus deals...

it sounds like your analysis assumed that combat would last more than 1 round, which in this thread has been a very unpopular view.

[Claxon]

Lelomenia wrote:

it sounds like your analysis assumed that combat would last more than 1 round, which in this thread has been a very unpopular view.

Oh, combat will definitely last more than 1 round in cases where it actually matters what the DPR is, but the problem I think many of us have is that the setup assume perfect circumstances for the magus.

Which makes the magus look a lot better than the actual play experience would indicate. Because you wont have these perfect conditions happening that often, especially not multiple rounds in a row. And the magus effectiveness is heavy impacted by things that impact their ability to hit, because it also increases crit chance which has a huge swing in damage.

To get a full comparison you have to kind of assume the worst condition (no bonuses), the best conditions, and a middle ground and compare them all together.

The magus under perfect conditions is amazing. The magus under other circumstances is lackluster.

I think what many of us who are complaining would prefer is to even that out. Make the perfect conditions less good, but make the low and middle better. I'm not sure what that looks like exactly, but that's the desire.

[Lelomenia]

Xethik, how would your numbers shift if Ranger and Magus both had consistent flanking?

[Martialmasters]

lets just not use ranger.

lets use swashbuckler vs slide casting magus over multiple rounds?

one with the enemy staying still, the other with the enemy moving.

[Ferious Thune]

Martialmasters wrote:

lets just not use ranger.

lets use swashbuckler vs slide casting magus over multiple rounds?

one with the enemy staying still, the other with the enemy moving.

Swashbuckler is an underwhelming class that also has problems getting its main damage boost to work. Proving that the Magus is equal to that or even a little better is not proving that the Magus works.

[Xethik]

Lelomenia wrote:

Xethik, how would your numbers shift if Ranger and Magus both had consistent flanking?

Magus:

51.5 DPR with spell
33.6 DPR with cantrip
33.0 DPR with 3x Strike
Ranger:
38.4 DPR for Flurry Ranger

EDIT: I mistakenly gave the Ranger 1d8 shortswords for my calculations but that should not significantly alter the results, especially if you gave both characters flaming runes.

[Lelomenia]

Xethik wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

Xethik, how would your numbers shift if Ranger and Magus both had consistent flanking?

Magus:

51.5 DPR with spell
33.6 DPR with cantrip
33.0 DPR with 3x Strike
Ranger:
38.4 DPR for Flurry Ranger

EDIT: I mistakenly gave the Ranger 1d8 shortswords for my calculations but that should not significantly alter the results, especially if you gave both characters flaming runes.

while the straight numbers there may not be wildly unacceptable,

You are showing a trend where strikestrikestrike is catching up to the Spell Striking Magus as conditions becomes more favorable. That’s not good: i think Spell Striking is also bad under low accuracy situations; if it’s worse with good accuracy and marginal at best in the middle, with worse consistency, that’s ugly.

It’s possible you need to shift to Telekinetic Strike at high accuracy, but i don’t think that should be a dramatic change to the trends.

[Martialmasters]

Xethik wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

Xethik, how would your numbers shift if Ranger and Magus both had consistent flanking?

Magus:

51.5 DPR with spell
33.6 DPR with cantrip
33.0 DPR with 3x Strike
Ranger:
38.4 DPR for Flurry Ranger

EDIT: I mistakenly gave the Ranger 1d8 shortswords for my calculations but that should not significantly alter the results, especially if you gave both characters flaming runes.

i assume this is save spell/cantrips?

what happens if we target weaknesses with the cantrip aspect? as that would be something we'd be uniquely able to do

[kripdenn]

Unicore wrote:

I mean that a magus with flanking and a status bonus will out pace even a flurry ranger with the same benefits, because increases to accuracy affect the magus DPR more than other martials, because of how much more powerful the magus is when it crits with the...

The flurry ranger also gains a lot of benefit from flanking since they make more attacks in a round though. I added comparisons while flanking the creature to the google doc to see what happens.

[kripdenn]

Xethik wrote:

So I think there are a few flaws here. One of which was mentioned above, which is that saving throw spells are just superior to spell attack spells. I really think that spell attacks need to be readjusted across the board, but especially with Striking Spell, where you may suffer MAP when following up on Turn 2.

Secondly, if the Ranger is picking up feats to improve damage, it feels only fair for the Magus to be doing the same. Yes, Ranger feats are critical for certain weapon styles, but giving the Magus something like Bespell Weapon to accommodate an expenditure of class feats certainly helps.

Lastly, and most importantly, when comparing highest level saving throw spells + Striking Spell vs Flurry Ranger, I am calculating the Magus as having a substantial advantage over the Flurry Ranger at most levels.

For example, at level 10, my calculations show the Ranger at ~32 DPR, which matches your graph. Three strike Greatsword Magus is at 25 DPR, which also matches. Everything seems good thus far. However, highest spell slot used on Sudden Bolt I have as ~43 DPR, and Electric Arc (single target) DPR at ~28. This has the Magus as slightly below the Ranger when not using any resources, and fairly sizably above when using a spell slot.

I've been seeing a lot of people state that even when using their high level spell, Magus DPR pales to Rangers but this just seems untrue. I tried picking a level where the damage difference was significant between the two classes and without being at such a high level, I would have to adjust the math for things like Second Chance Strike or Double Spell Strike. I have saved a version of my spreadsheet with these calculations here.

You can say the Magus isn't getting enough extra damage from the spell, or that Striking Spell does not increase damage by enough to make it more interesting than just casting + striking normally. But to say that the Magus deals...

I want to do calculations for spell saves too, but my initial impression comparing electric arc to telekinetic projectile is that electric arc does a little more if targeting a weak save, a little less if targeting a moderate save, and even less if targeting a high save. But electric arc is a d4 and tkp is a d6, while shocking grasp is a d12 compared to, usually, a d6 like burning hands. So I'm not sure if spell saves will out damage spell attacks for most situations.

Also sudden bolt is uncommon so I'm not sure most people would have access to it.

[Martialmasters]

kripdenn wrote:

Xethik wrote:

So I think there are a few flaws here. One of which was mentioned above, which is that saving throw spells are just superior to spell attack spells. I really think that spell attacks need to be readjusted across the board, but especially with Striking Spell, where you may suffer MAP when following up on Turn 2.

Secondly, if the Ranger is picking up feats to improve damage, it feels only fair for the Magus to be doing the same. Yes, Ranger feats are critical for certain weapon styles, but giving the Magus something like Bespell Weapon to accommodate an expenditure of class feats certainly helps.

Lastly, and most importantly, when comparing highest level saving throw spells + Striking Spell vs Flurry Ranger, I am calculating the Magus as having a substantial advantage over the Flurry Ranger at most levels.

For example, at level 10, my calculations show the Ranger at ~32 DPR, which matches your graph. Three strike Greatsword Magus is at 25 DPR, which also matches. Everything seems good thus far. However, highest spell slot used on Sudden Bolt I have as ~43 DPR, and Electric Arc (single target) DPR at ~28. This has the Magus as slightly below the Ranger when not using any resources, and fairly sizably above when using a spell slot.

I've been seeing a lot of people state that even when using their high level spell, Magus DPR pales to Rangers but this just seems untrue. I tried picking a level where the damage difference was significant between the two classes and without being at such a high level, I would have to adjust the math for things like Second Chance Strike or Double Spell Strike. I have saved a version of my spreadsheet with these calculations here.

You can say the Magus isn't getting enough extra damage from the spell, or that Striking Spell does not increase damage by enough to make it more interesting than just casting + striking normally. But to

...

the only people that wouldnt are maybe society and stickler DM's that like to gate their players arbitrarily

[Unicore]

Well a magus wielding a two handed weapon attacking 3 probably should out damage a single attack and a cantrip. We really cannot expect a cantrip to keep up with two 2 handed weapon attacks without also skewing the math on the overall caster martial balance.

It is also incredibly difficult to set up, which is why I think comparisons with the sliding magus and a D8 weapon are more honest, as is using a flurry ranger with a short bow. These will give much more representational of what actually happens in play.

Remember, without striking spell, that 2 handed magus is leaving themselves open to a monster round of counter attacks with no defense at all, as is a ranger. Both of them are probably better off spending one action protecting themselves in some fashion than attacking 3 times, unless they are relatively certain 3 attacks will kill the enemy, and even then, your odds of missing on that individual last strike make it more difficult a decision than just trying to keep up with raw DPR data that says attacking 3 times equals and extra 3.5 points of damage per combat round.

The nice thing about the Magus damage is that it works well with the ebb and flow of actual combat play: take a chance on a big round. Hit? get the payout. Miss? Next round be able to repeat the whole process with only one action, and have two more for anything else, or else evaluate if you need another big damage round.

It is a very different style of play than "line up your routine and find ways to do that routine as often as possible," but there is a significant group of players who have been waiting for a class to fill that.

[AnimatedPaper]

Lelomenia wrote:

Xethik wrote:

Lelomenia wrote:

Xethik, how would your numbers shift if Ranger and Magus both had consistent flanking?

Magus:

51.5 DPR with spell
33.6 DPR with cantrip
33.0 DPR with 3x Strike
Ranger:
38.4 DPR for Flurry Ranger

EDIT: I mistakenly gave the Ranger 1d8 shortswords for my calculations but that should not significantly alter the results, especially if you gave both characters flaming runes.

while the straight numbers there may not be wildly unacceptable,

You are showing a trend where strikestrikestrike is catching up to the Spell Striking Magus as conditions becomes more favorable. That’s not good: i think Spell Striking is also bad under low accuracy situations; if it’s worse with good accuracy and marginal at best in the middle, with worse consistency, that’s ugly.

It’s possible you need to shift to Telekinetic Strike at high accuracy, but i don’t think that should be a dramatic change to the trends.

From what I've seen in my own calculations, the critical effect hits diminishing returns once you can reliably get that 10% (correction:) 25% crit chance on your strikes. So while it yanks up the average the more you can leverage it, the boost to average starts to fade once it would be a reliable outcome.

In other words, you would have crit with or without the crit boost at high accuracy situations, so that boost rapidly becomes less impactful as your Strike damage becomes more consistent.

Dunno if that is intended or good, but that might be what you are seeing there.

[Kalaam]

Aiming for weaknesses would fore sure increase the Magus' dpr. However not all ennemies have elemental weaknesses.

But I aggree that it's one thing where a consistant Spell Strike would make the Magus very strong even with just cantrips.