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 RangerEDIT: 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.
Not bad.
From d8 to d6 would change 1 damage per dice more or less, isn't it?
If so, there would be really great news.
though if that is with a 2h d12 weapon getting optimal placement im less than enthused. but i guess that style of play would expected to take energize strikes and rely more on basic attacks and spell strikes, this is less interesting to me as the magus, to myself is about using spells with melee, not melee with melee.
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.
I should really add spell attacks to my sheet as well, tbh. It might not be as bad as it initially seems, but the MAP penalty for hitting on attack 3 or 4 nearly guarantees the spell won't hit. The fact that save spells do half damage on a success is a really big bonus for them, and I imagine a quite relevant one for the Magus will their lower spell save DC.
It is definitely worth having a save cantrip on your Magus regardless, as if you discharge a spell on Strike 2 (MAP 0 on round 2), you'll probably consider a save cantrip to finish out your turn. Defensive options like Spell Parry also shine there.
And RE: strikestrikestrike vs striking spell, I am using a Greatsword for these comparisons which I normally don't do. I think the mobility from Slide Casting is really great and often worth forgoing the larger weapon die size, but in a whiteroom a two-hander gets more and more significant as your striking rune improves. It seems like such a playstyle would end up using Striking Spell more for the temp HP then anything else, and pick up improvements like Energizing Strikes, I'd imagine.
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 RangerEDIT: 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.
Not bad.
From d8 to d6 would change 1 damage per dice more or less, isn't it?
If so, there would be really great news.
Yeah, 2 damage in total since the weapons are 2d8. My quick math on a d6 + flaming rune + twin takedown (MAP 0, MAP 1, MAP 2, MAP 2) DPR at the same level is 42 DPR.
I should really add spell attacks to my sheet as well, tbh. It might not be as bad as it initially seems, but the MAP penalty for hitting on attack 3 or 4 nearly guarantees the spell won't hit. The fact that save spells do half damage on a success is a really big bonus for them
I mean, why not compare it to a Magus not using Striking Spell at all with Save Spells.
I'd be curious to see if the 2 round DPR is better with Striking Spell versus not using it at all (since you are far more likely to succeed at least in part on the first round).
I should really add spell attacks to my sheet as well, tbh. It might not be as bad as it initially seems, but the MAP penalty for hitting on attack 3 or 4 nearly guarantees the spell won't hit. The fact that save spells do half damage on a success is a really big bonus for themI mean, why not compare it to a Magus not using Striking Spell at all with Save Spells.
I'd be curious to see if the 2 round DPR is better with Striking Spell versus not using it at all (since you are far more likely to succeed at least in part on the first round).
Yeah, I have that as well. Comparing:
A)R1
Spell + Strike
R2
Cantrip + Strike (or Strike, Strike, Strike, if that is higher)
vs
B)
Striking Spell + Spell + Strike
Variable round2, depending on success of round 1 but generically attacking until you discharge the spell and then Cantrip/strike with any remaining actions.
Just using the level 10 numbers no flanking I had typed in, scenario (A) has 41.3 DPR on round 1, 24.5 DPR on round 2 (average: 32.9 DPR). Scenario (B) has 42.95 DPR across both rounds, on average.
In terms of how much the spell slot contributes, just casting it is average 27.30 damage. Striking spell with it is 28.93 DPR.
In a bubble, if you want the spell damage immediately (as in, it might kill the target) you will probably want to cast it without Striking Spell. For sustained long term damage, Striking Spell is preferred against level +0, high AC target.
At this level 10 scenario, it takes a level + 2 High AC, moderate saves opponent until the Spell + Strike beats out Striking Spell. They are baaarely different at level + 1.
EDIT: Said level + 4, but I was misreading the GM chart. Fixed it and it looks like the difference happens at level 12. Spell casting separate of the strike has ~1.3 DPR more.
Right but that's a single target Save spell and using a Cantrip on round two for both right?
In the former scenario, a Magus is guaranteed to be able to use a Spell and that spell might not be a Cantrip.
Now a Magus in the latter can cast a non-Cantrip spell too, but not nearly as often given that they may have to Strike up to two more times.
The DPR would lean further to the former in the case of two on-level spells and if the Save spell can target more than one target, it favors the former considerably.
Right but that's a single target Save spell and using a Cantrip on round two for both right?
In the former scenario, a Magus is guaranteed to be able to use a Spell and that spell might not be a Cantrip.
Now a Magus in the latter can cast a non-Cantrip spell too, but not nearly as often given that they may have to Strike up to two more times.
The DPR would lean further to the former in the case of two on-level spells and if the Save spell can target more than one target, it favors the former considerably.
Yup, correct. If you just want to spam out your slots and deal the damage ASAP, you are not losing much sustained DPR by forgoing Striking Spell and just casting the spell directly (41.3 vs 42.95). Quickened and bonus to hit slightly favor the Striking Spell approach, but they are relatively close nonetheless.
There are also other incentives for casting any non-single target spells directly when multiple enemies can be targeted, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like killing the first target and firing a spell at a distant, secondary target.
It's really sad to see such little benefit of striking spell. Paizo please fix
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of your graphs. The same striking spell option looks the best where use of cantrip with spell strike is sightly ahead of striking 3 times (as it should be).
With keeping it largely on line with the ranger.
Then it gets a little out of whack with the true strike being thrown in (I can tell this spell is going to be a balance problem that holds design space back for years to come).
I WANT that graph to be our reality, to the point that if it's not where we end up I'll just ignore paizos option and use this as home brew. I'll give it the fortune trait if I have to. In reality though, I'd probably just remove true strike from our games.
Of your graphs. The same striking spell option looks the best where use of cantrip with spell strike is sightly ahead of striking 3 times (as it should be).
With keeping it largely on line with the ranger.
Then it gets a little out of whack with the true strike being thrown in (I can tell this spell is going to be a balance problem that holds design space back for years to come).
I WANT that graph to be our reality, to the point that if it's not where we end up I'll just ignore paizos option and use this as home brew. I'll give it the fortune trait if I have to. In reality though, I'd probably just remove true strike from our games.
Honestly this version (same strike) looks like the simplest solution.
Which often is the best.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of the same degree of success on spell attacks, and leave spells without attacks (AKA saving throw spells) as-is. Spells with both just get the spell attack bonus. I think that gives a really good reason to use spell attack rolls, while also not making debuffs too reliable (which usually come off saving throws).
EDIT: I do think there may be too much consistency with landing spell attacks when you get multiple tries to discharge. That likely needs to be addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of the same degree of success on spell attacks, and leave spells without attacks (AKA saving throw spells) as-is. Spells with both just get the spell attack bonus. I think that gives a really good reason to use spell attack rolls, while also not making debuffs too reliable (which usually come off saving throws).
EDIT: I do think there may be too much consistency with landing spell attacks when you get multiple tries to discharge. That likely needs to be addressed.
Consistency with a finite resource and things they amount to taking your entire turn, are not issues. So I simply disagree.
Yeah I'm more inclined to same striking spell option with the fortune trait. Not sure how using spell saves with striking spell should be treated though.Of your graphs. The same striking spell option looks the best where use of cantrip with spell strike is sightly ahead of striking 3 times (as it should be).
With keeping it largely on line with the ranger.
Then it gets a little out of whack with the true strike being thrown in (I can tell this spell is going to be a balance problem that holds design space back for years to come).
I WANT that graph to be our reality, to the point that if it's not where we end up I'll just ignore paizos option and use this as home brew. I'll give it the fortune trait if I have to. In reality though, I'd probably just remove true strike from our games.
I think they balance out a bit of you target weak saves? Plus the half of fail is nice.
I like the idea of the same degree of success on spell attacks, and leave spells without attacks (AKA saving throw spells) as-is. Spells with both just get the spell attack bonus. I think that gives a really good reason to use spell attack rolls, while also not making debuffs too reliable (which usually come off saving throws).
EDIT: I do think there may be too much consistency with landing spell attacks when you get multiple tries to discharge. That likely needs to be addressed.
OH it definitely has to go after the first miss. You miss, you miss.
Now if you want, you can maybe introduce a Spell Recall Focus Spell that recovers a missed spell. That'd soften the blow for a miss you really needed.
I like the idea of the same degree of success on spell attacks, and leave spells without attacks (AKA saving throw spells) as-is. Spells with both just get the spell attack bonus. I think that gives a really good reason to use spell attack rolls, while also not making debuffs too reliable (which usually come off saving throws).
EDIT: I do think there may be too much consistency with landing spell attacks when you get multiple tries to discharge. That likely needs to be addressed.
OH it definitely has to go after the first miss. You miss, you miss.
Now if you want, you can maybe introduce a Spell Recall Focus Spell that recovers a missed spell. That'd soften the blow for a miss you really needed.
That is the perfect design for a base focus spell tbh.
Incredibly useful, but not something you are required to use every single round.
It's on the level of cackle for witches. Wich I am a huge fan of.
Just for my own clarification. The part of the graph I am referring to that's with the spell using your melee attacks to hit bonus? Or the attack being all rolled into one attack.