| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the current implementation of striking spell is extra swingy and extra effective against weaker targets while being less effective against stronger targets because of the compounded rolls.
A very simple change would be for the spell imbued in the weapon to go off against the target of the strike, hit or miss, with no critical conversion.
That would be consistently effective against stronger and weaker targets, and the damage would be reliable rather than swingy.
In contrast to the eldritch archer method, it is also is not too effective with true strike, like just adding the spell damage to the strike is. It also works with save spells instead of just spell attack spells, which is vastly less limiting.
The benefit to imbuing the spell would be to get the magus synthesis effects, and a plus +X bonus could be added to the spell roll/DC to get the Magus dpr to the intended level. That bonus could vary with level/weapon item bonus, whatever would get the intended result.
I think that fits really well as a spell strike. You cast the spell into, and through, the weapon. For example a miss can just mean their armor makes the hit a glancing blow, but the electricity from shocking grasp still goes through.
I did the math on this change and it's basically my favourite option, because unlike any other buff that increases damage by ~10% (which IMO is a good target), it's the only option that really reduces the chance of having turns where you get nothing done. Accuracy boosts to the current system don't fix that, and only become equivalent if over-tuned.
At which point, one might ask, if the effects are, by any meaningful measure, independent, what is the point?
Two, very obvious ones:
1) No MAP for attack spells.2) Get sythesis abiltiy, a free move from slide magus lets you actually get into melee to spell and strike n the first place.
I also check what would happen if the Strike's success gave circumstance bonuses to hit to the spell attack roll (if there is one) and the math is decent but not over-powering there too.
At which point, one might ask, if the effects are, by any meaningful measure, independent, what is the point?
The rolls are independent, not the effects completely. Both attacks are tied to the same target and same action.
So you swing the weapon but miss, and the spell hits anyway?
I know from a white room simulation that might correct the math. But I think that's a tad broken to basically have something you can never miss with?
Wouldn't this still be a little overturned for effects that debuff or control?
It seems pretty powerful to be able to automatically make any enemy frightened 2 with just a 1st level fear spell, just because it was channeled through a blade. Or slowed 1 for a whole minute?
Also how does this interact with the incapacitation trait?
Weirdly this makes lower level debuff spells a lot more powerful but higher level debuff spells nearly useless, which feels like it works in conflict with the purpose of getting higher level spell slots.
Wouldn't this still be a little overturned for effects that debuff or control?
It seems pretty powerful to be able to automatically make any enemy frightened 2 with just a 1st level fear spell, just because it was channeled through a blade. Or slowed 1 for a whole minute?
Also how does this interact with the incapacitation trait?
Weirdly this makes lower level debuff spells a lot more powerful but higher level debuff spells nearly useless, which feels like it works in conflict with the purpose of getting higher level spell slots.
Wait, you can caste fear into your weapon? I thought it had to be a damage spell?
It sort of feels like if the sole purpose of spell strike is to add X amount of extra damage, but from variable energy sources, it is better to just do that than to tie it to spell casting at all.
Personally i much prefer it fully interacting with the ability to cast a spell with the full range of outcomes of doing so.
The spell just has to be able to target 1 creature or object.
The spell just has to be able to target 1 creature or object.
Hmm, well gives me ideas I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? The spell still has to roll, or the target still has to save. By the spell going off i mean if you miss you still get a chance to affect the target with it, in contrast to the current situation of that not happening on a miss.
What? The spell still has to roll, or the target still has to save. By the spell going off i mean if you miss you still get a chance to affect the target with it, in contrast to the current situation of that not happening on a miss.
Ahh, yeah that I can get behind. You could even try to balance it if they are worried they if you critically miss (below targets AC by at least 10) the effect of your spell is one degree worse.
And I only bring that up because I believe people will post about needing to give something in return for it.
So the current implementation of striking spell is extra swingy and extra effective against weaker targets while being less effective against stronger targets because of the compounded rolls.
A very simple change would be for the spell imbued in the weapon to go off against the target of the strike, hit or miss, with no critical conversion.
That would be consistently effective against stronger and weaker targets, and the damage would be reliable rather than swingy.
In contrast to the eldritch archer method, it is also is not too effective with true strike, like just adding the spell damage to the strike is. It also works with save spells instead of just spell attack spells, which is vastly less limiting.
The benefit to imbuing the spell would be to get the magus synthesis effects, and a plus +X bonus could be added to the spell roll/DC to get the Magus dpr to the intended level. That bonus could vary with level/weapon item bonus, whatever would get the intended result.
I think that fits really well as a spell strike. You cast the spell into, and through, the weapon. For example a miss can just mean their armor makes the hit a glancing blow, but the electricity from shocking grasp still goes through.
I’m sorry, but what do you mean by ‘the spell goes off, hit or miss, with no critical conversion?’
Is it just removing the crit effect? Does it add anything?
Again, I apologize if I did not get your meaning, but could you explain what would the difference be in regards to how the ability currently works?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the current implementation of striking spell is extra swingy and extra effective against weaker targets while being less effective against stronger targets because of the compounded rolls.
A very simple change would be for the spell imbued in the weapon to go off against the target of the strike, hit or miss, with no critical conversion.
That would be consistently effective against stronger and weaker targets, and the damage would be reliable rather than swingy.
In contrast to the eldritch archer method, it is also is not too effective with true strike, like just adding the spell damage to the strike is. It also works with save spells instead of just spell attack spells, which is vastly less limiting.
The benefit to imbuing the spell would be to get the magus synthesis effects, and a plus +X bonus could be added to the spell roll/DC to get the Magus dpr to the intended level. That bonus could vary with level/weapon item bonus, whatever would get the intended result.
I think that fits really well as a spell strike. You cast the spell into, and through, the weapon. For example a miss can just mean their armor makes the hit a glancing blow, but the electricity from shocking grasp still goes through.
I’m sorry, but what do you mean by ‘the spell goes off, hit or miss, with no critical conversion?’
Is it just removing the crit effect? Does it add anything?
Again, I apologize if I did not get your meaning, but could you explain what would the difference be in regards to how the ability currently works?
You chose a target, you roll the attack, you roll the spell, they resolve independently.
The benefit to imbuing the spell would be to get the magus synthesis effects, and a plus +X bonus could be added to the spell roll/DC to get the Magus dpr to the intended level. That bonus could vary with level/weapon item bonus, whatever would get the intended result.
So the current implementation of striking spell is extra swingy and extra effective against weaker targets while being less effective against stronger targets because of the compounded rolls.
A very simple change would be for the spell imbued in the weapon to go off against the target of the strike, hit or miss, with no critical conversion.
That would be consistently effective against stronger and weaker targets, and the damage would be reliable rather than swingy.
In contrast to the eldritch archer method, it is also is not too effective with true strike, like just adding the spell damage to the strike is. It also works with save spells instead of just spell attack spells, which is vastly less limiting.
The benefit to imbuing the spell would be to get the magus synthesis effects, and a plus +X bonus could be added to the spell roll/DC to get the Magus dpr to the intended level. That bonus could vary with level/weapon item bonus, whatever would get the intended result.
I think that fits really well as a spell strike. You cast the spell into, and through, the weapon. For example a miss can just mean their armor makes the hit a glancing blow, but the electricity from shocking grasp still goes through.
I’m sorry, but what do you mean by ‘the spell goes off, hit or miss, with no critical conversion?’
Is it just removing the crit effect? Does it add anything?
Again, I apologize if I did not get your meaning, but could you explain what would the difference be in regards to how the ability currently works?
You chose a target, you roll the attack, you roll the spell, they resolve independently.
The benefit to imbuing the spell would be to get the magus synthesis effects, and a plus +X bonus could be added to the spell roll/DC to get the Magus dpr to the intended level. That bonus could vary with level/weapon item bonus, whatever would get the intended result.
I see it now!
I would be okay with that!