Why doesn’t Magus have something like Channel Smite?


Magus Class


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know that striking spell has been debated, calculated and analyzed in depth. While I do get that it is tied to a benefit supposedly coming from synthesis and applicable with any spell, I am still baffled at how Warpriests get a much better version of it.

Channel Smite, a level 4 Cleric feat works like this:

You siphon the destructive energies of positive or negative energy through a melee attack and into your foe. Make a melee Strike and add the spell’s damage to the Strike’s damage. This is negative damage if you expended a harm spell or positive damage if you expended a heal spell. The spell is expended with no effect if your Strike fails or hits a creature that isn’t damaged by that energy type (such as if you hit a non-undead creature with a heal spell).

The way it reads, it is IMO, a better version of spell strike.

Sure, one could argue that clerics lag behind Magi in weapon proficiency, but they get many more slots opposed to the Magus’ 4 slots per day, trigger their ability as a two action routine that does not provoke attacks of opportunity (the spell’s damage is just added to the weapon attack’s own damage) and, unless I’m wrong, can be combined with Guidance and True Strike (through Multiclassing or a diety that provided it).

I keep asking myself: why not have the Magus have a feat like this (applicable for damaging spells or some specific spell) or striking spell be built more in its likeness.

The way things currently stand, warpriests, eldrtich archers and characters with a functional spell storing weapon seem to have a better shot at doing the Magus’ nova routine better than them, which is strange.

I mean, I get that striking spell provides some benefits, but more and more they do not seem enough to justify the other limitations already placed upon the class


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as damage is concerned it's less versatile but it is also much more consistent.


Channel Smite only works for Harm and Heal and with the effect of the 1 action version, so you basically is doing the same amount of actions of Harm + Strike, the difference is that now both target AC and if the class miss the spell is gone as well.

So a Magus version of Channel Smite would still be 3 actions when using a 2 action spell and it would probably limit to only spells with the attack trait and lose the spell when you miss the strike.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know Magus is supposed to benefit from versatility, but I really don't think it translates so well, especially when taking the number of slotted spells the class gets into consideration.

Magi are supposed to be the ones to be able to better blend magic and combat, so their main ability shouldn't provide such shallow benefits as it does now.

My point is, why not take an ability like channel smite and use it as the baseline for striking spell instead of the current iteration?

Or even lock it behind a 6th level feat that works akin to the Eldritch Archer's one. Could call it 'Improved Spell Strike'.

That way, the Magus would still get the baseline striking spell for save spells and the 'improved' version for the attack spells.

I don't think this would break anything (a Magus could just take the Eldritch Archer dedication to use their spells in the exact same manner, except it now works while within melee range).


The one advantage the Magus has over Channel Smite and such is that they can keep the charge on a miss. This is really cool because it helps them not waste their few spell slots, and it leads to more turn variation when you start a turn with an already charged weapon. That's definitely something that needs to be factored into the balance but I'd hate to lose that to wind up with something like Eldritch Shot or Channel Smite.

Eldritch Shot is a much better example than channel Smite, though, just by virtue of the action costs involved. Harm is way too unique to use as a broader model.


Multicass to get harm spell.

Use spell strike to channel harm into your weapon.

?? I dunno it's something.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A Warpriest that completely dumps Wisdom would not be better off, but I could see a warpriest MCing into Magus and using Harm through spell strike to be a pretty strong option for sure. MCing to get harm is tough because, without the font you just don't get enough of them at high enough level (jusst 1 at your highest MC level so probably 1 to 2 levels behind). It is the whole reason the Magus needs a front loaded spell level per day chart. Other than cantrips, MCing for more damage spells to cast through striking spell is a pretty big let down. There are some good debuffs worth casting through a sword for the extra crit chance, but harm is not one of them.


Unicore wrote:
A Warpriest that completely dumps Wisdom would not be better off, but I could see a warpriest MCing into Magus and using Harm through spell strike to be a pretty strong option for sure. MCing to get harm is tough because, without the font you just don't get enough of them at high enough level (jusst 1 at your highest MC level so probably 1 to 2 levels behind). It is the whole reason the Magus needs a front loaded spell level per day chart. Other than cantrips, MCing for more damage spells to cast through striking spell is a pretty big let down. There are some good debuffs worth casting through a sword for the extra crit chance, but harm is not one of them.

As Magus you are a prepared caster and if you MC into say, witch for harm. Could you not write the harm spell down into your Magus spell book?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Unicore wrote:
A Warpriest that completely dumps Wisdom would not be better off, but I could see a warpriest MCing into Magus and using Harm through spell strike to be a pretty strong option for sure. MCing to get harm is tough because, without the font you just don't get enough of them at high enough level (jusst 1 at your highest MC level so probably 1 to 2 levels behind). It is the whole reason the Magus needs a front loaded spell level per day chart. Other than cantrips, MCing for more damage spells to cast through striking spell is a pretty big let down. There are some good debuffs worth casting through a sword for the extra crit chance, but harm is not one of them.
As Magus you are a prepared caster and if you MC into say, witch for harm. Could you not write the harm spell down into your Magus spell book?

Definitely not accross traditions, no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

The one advantage the Magus has over Channel Smite and such is that they can keep the charge on a miss. This is really cool because it helps them not waste their few spell slots, and it leads to more turn variation when you start a turn with an already charged weapon. That's definitely something that needs to be factored into the balance but I'd hate to lose that to wind up with something like Eldritch Shot or Channel Smite.

Eldritch Shot is a much better example than channel Smite, though, just by virtue of the action costs involved. Harm is way too unique to use as a broader model.

Sure. I get that there are benefits.

However, they do not seem to be enough.

Personally, I think they would be if the Magus had a reaction, focus spell or drain bonded item-like ability to refrain from discharging the spell if they hit with the weapon, but miss with the attack.

I’m not arguing that Striking Spell should be as channel smite, but that Magus should get a feat or at least something that harkens to it.

My point is: Warpriest can go nova and cast a pretty devastating spell usually four to five times a day with a two action activity. I see no reason why the Magus has to spend three actions to then roll twice just to gain synthesis and keep the spell for a round (while still discharging on hit/miss scenario). Eldritch Archer’s the same.

This is akin to having Martial Artist outshine the Monk.

Does not have to be the core ability, but a feat or focus spell wouldn’t break anything.

I mean the Magus is supposed to be the king of delivering spells with strikes. In its current iteration, other classes and archetypes outclass it in that particular regard. IMHO, there’s no reason why a Magi wanting to do that shouldn’t just take Eldritch Archer and deliver their higher level slots from safety.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:

Multicass to get harm spell.

Use spell strike to channel harm into your weapon.

?? I dunno it's something.

I think the point would not be for Magus to get Harm, but an ability, feat or focus spell similar to channel smite for attack spells.

The point is, it a Warpriest can have it, why shouldn’t the spellstriking class have something more in line with it (given the proper adjustments) instead or alongside the two-roll controvery spawning ability?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
richienvh wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Multicass to get harm spell.

Use spell strike to channel harm into your weapon.

?? I dunno it's something.

I think the point would not be for Magus to get Harm, but an ability, feat or focus spell similar to channel smite for attack spells.

The point is, it a Warpriest can have it, why shouldn’t the spellstriking class have something more in line with it (given the proper adjustments) instead or alongside the two-roll controvery spawning ability?

Because warpriest weapon and armor proficiency sucks.

They are tied to just harm/heal in order to perform their feat ( a magus can choose between many spells ).
They also have to invest into a lvl 4 feat.
Not to say a warpriest is tied to a specific weapon.

Spellstrike is ok for what concerns actions, and depends your synthesis you could also get a free one ( a stride or step ). Issues with it concerns the spell attack proficiency, which is weak, and the cantrip version of spellstrike, which is something not really interesting if compared to 2x Strikes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
richienvh wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

The one advantage the Magus has over Channel Smite and such is that they can keep the charge on a miss. This is really cool because it helps them not waste their few spell slots, and it leads to more turn variation when you start a turn with an already charged weapon. That's definitely something that needs to be factored into the balance but I'd hate to lose that to wind up with something like Eldritch Shot or Channel Smite.

Eldritch Shot is a much better example than channel Smite, though, just by virtue of the action costs involved. Harm is way too unique to use as a broader model.

Sure. I get that there are benefits.

However, they do not seem to be enough.

Personally, I think they would be if the Magus had a reaction, focus spell or drain bonded item-like ability to refrain from discharging the spell if they hit with the weapon, but miss with the attack.

I’m not arguing that Striking Spell should be as channel smite, but that Magus should get a feat or at least something that harkens to it.

My point is: Warpriest can go nova and cast a pretty devastating spell usually four to five times a day with a two action activity. I see no reason why the Magus has to spend three actions to then roll twice just to gain synthesis and keep the spell for a round (while still discharging on hit/miss scenario). Eldritch Archer’s the same.

This is akin to having Martial Artist outshine the Monk.

Does not have to be the core ability, but a feat or focus spell wouldn’t break anything.

I mean the Magus is supposed to be the king of delivering spells with strikes. In its current iteration, other classes and archetypes outclass it in that particular regard. IMHO, there’s no reason why a Magi wanting to do that shouldn’t just take Eldritch Archer and deliver their higher level slots from safety.

The warpriest also maxes out at expert weapon proficiency (in 1 weapon) while the magus gets master weapon proficiency. Which means that the warpriest ability is running against their proficiencies while just giving the magus the same ability would make it work much much better for the magus than for the warpriest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
richienvh wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

The one advantage the Magus has over Channel Smite and such is that they can keep the charge on a miss. This is really cool because it helps them not waste their few spell slots, and it leads to more turn variation when you start a turn with an already charged weapon. That's definitely something that needs to be factored into the balance but I'd hate to lose that to wind up with something like Eldritch Shot or Channel Smite.

Eldritch Shot is a much better example than channel Smite, though, just by virtue of the action costs involved. Harm is way too unique to use as a broader model.

Sure. I get that there are benefits.

However, they do not seem to be enough.

Personally, I think they would be if the Magus had a reaction, focus spell or drain bonded item-like ability to refrain from discharging the spell if they hit with the weapon, but miss with the attack.

I’m not arguing that Striking Spell should be as channel smite, but that Magus should get a feat or at least something that harkens to it.

My point is: Warpriest can go nova and cast a pretty devastating spell usually four to five times a day with a two action activity. I see no reason why the Magus has to spend three actions to then roll twice just to gain synthesis and keep the spell for a round (while still discharging on hit/miss scenario). Eldritch Archer’s the same.

This is akin to having Martial Artist outshine the Monk.

Does not have to be the core ability, but a feat or focus spell wouldn’t break anything.

I mean the Magus is supposed to be the king of delivering spells with strikes. In its current iteration, other classes and archetypes outclass it in that particular regard. IMHO, there’s no reason why a Magi wanting to do that shouldn’t just take Eldritch Archer and deliver their higher level slots from safety.

The warpriest also maxes out at expert weapon proficiency (in 1 weapon) while the magus gets master weapon proficiency. Which means...

But shouldn’t it be the point?

I mean, Magus has to spellstrike better than warpriest and eldritch archer...

Also, the class has four spell slots.

A Warpriest could prepare several harm spells and even combine them with guidance and true strike (with MC, diety, etc)?

I am not pro copy paste, but Magus should be the best spellstriker with other classes lagging behind it, not the other way around.


richienvh wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

The one advantage the Magus has over Channel Smite and such is that they can keep the charge on a miss. This is really cool because it helps them not waste their few spell slots, and it leads to more turn variation when you start a turn with an already charged weapon. That's definitely something that needs to be factored into the balance but I'd hate to lose that to wind up with something like Eldritch Shot or Channel Smite.

Eldritch Shot is a much better example than channel Smite, though, just by virtue of the action costs involved. Harm is way too unique to use as a broader model.

Sure. I get that there are benefits.

However, they do not seem to be enough.

Personally, I think they would be if the Magus had a reaction, focus spell or drain bonded item-like ability to refrain from discharging the spell if they hit with the weapon, but miss with the attack.

I’m not arguing that Striking Spell should be as channel smite, but that Magus should get a feat or at least something that harkens to it.

My point is: Warpriest can go nova and cast a pretty devastating spell usually four to five times a day with a two action activity. I see no reason why the Magus has to spend three actions to then roll twice just to gain synthesis and keep the spell for a round (while still discharging on hit/miss scenario). Eldritch Archer’s the same.

This is akin to having Martial Artist outshine the Monk.

Does not have to be the core ability, but a feat or focus spell wouldn’t break anything.

I mean the Magus is supposed to be the king of delivering spells with strikes. In its current iteration, other classes and archetypes outclass it in that particular regard. IMHO, there’s no reason why a Magi wanting to do that shouldn’t just take Eldritch Archer and deliver their higher level slots from safety.

I think you're overstating this. Harm does 1d8 per level. At level 1 that does less damage than almost any cantrips when you factor in ability scores. Telekinetic Projectile does better damage until you start casting 5th level spells. Actual two action spells do significantly better damage. Even Shocking Grasp puts it to shame.

Channel Smite banking everything on one attack roll is nice, but it much less damage and gets expended on a miss. That's especially significant because you can also just do a strike and one action harm. The Spike damage may not be as high, but it has no MAP and is more likely to do something. And you can't get 5 castings until level 15th without using your actual spell slots, which is just a bad buy.

It also doesn't work on tons of creatures, triggers no weaknesses, and has no riders without additional feats. Channel Smite has too many disadvantages to compare to spell strike.


Also war priests can smite with heal and harm because they're really weak damage spells. Even with true strike they aren't really out damaging a fighter. A Magus doing that with actual good offensive spells and a better attack bonus A: makes true strike necessary to make the most use of their high level spell and B: probably does too much damage.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You are right.

My original intent was to pick more on the action economy of Channel Smite, rather than its damage.

Your points are fair and I concede that Harm/Heal is not the greatest spell to channel. The comparison should not have been made.

However, what I have been pointing out across this and other threads is that there are already options within the rules (Eldritch Archer, Channel Smite, the NPC Spellstrike and Storing Spell) that either tie the spell attack to the result of the melee attack or have better action economy than the current version of striking spell.

What I am trying to say is that I don't think that the ability to keep the spell for an extra round, given the fact that it still discharges on a martial hit and spell miss, and the crit rider effect are enough to tie the Magus' ability behind a taxing action economy and at least two rolls. I don't think these small bonuses justify the current ability in detriment of a mechanic more akin to channel smite or the NPC's ability.

That is why I concur with those that state that striking spell needs better action economy or fewer rolls.

If, however, that is the baseline upon which the class is to be built, I was advocating for in this thread was for the Magus to have a specific ability tied behind a feat to allow them to discharge spells in a way that is similar to that of a Warpriest's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically. It's the same action economy.

It's just using a spell that costs one action and combining it with an attack.

The difference is it increases accuracy via making them count as one attack, (so there is precedence for this if you wanted to make that argument for spell strike) as opposed to ignoring map.

But that also means you probably need to look at it's limitations as well for modeling it after.

Over time the action economy is seeming less of an issue to me rather than the accuracy issues. Just ignoring map isn't enough imo. Rather I'd like some kind of bonus to the spell when used with spell strike. Or give it the channel smite treatment and it's considered one attack. Wich map's out extremely well provided you disallowed it from working with true strike.


Spell storing runes are a 13th level item you can use once per fight at most that work with a very narrow range of spells. They cost gold, and more importantly a precious property rune slot that could have made your weapon keen or add 1d6 more damage on every strike. They aren't a good comparison to a first level at will class feature.

Eldritch Shot is, on the other hand. The biggest disadvantages it has are it only works, which is where I think the Magus should excel I'll admit, and that you are tied to either worse weapon proficiency on a spell caster or limited slots and progression on a multi class caster.

Ironically, this does mean a comet Magus should probably pick up the archetype and use Eldritch Shot instead of spell strike. I don't see my disadvantages for them and they seem like they'd be better at it then any other class. I wonder what their DPR looks like firing off Disintegrates or Acid Arrows or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

True I see no reason to not always go Eldritch Archer with comet


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
True I see no reason to not always go Eldritch Archer with comet

I may be missing something, but Eldritch Archer could be useful for all Magi, not just Comet ones.

I may be wrong, but since they become masters in all martial weapons, taking just the dedication feat could add a whole new routine to exploit from afar even for those that fight in melee.

You could enter the fray with cantrips and save spells and fire those big attack spells from afar.

That said, yesterday, we playtested a Shooting Star Magus and the player got the E. Archer. They tried out both options and, even though the action economy is the same and striking spell has its advantages, they said the preferred the archer’s ability for the sake of making a single roll with their highest to hit. Curiously, they said they felt safer trying that.

Later, as I reflected upon it, I felt Eldritch Shot was good when you hit, but it is a high risk, high reward option and is certainly not safer...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:

Technically. It's the same action economy.

It's just using a spell that costs one action and combining it with an attack.

The difference is it increases accuracy via making them count as one attack, (so there is precedence for this if you wanted to make that argument for spell strike) as opposed to ignoring map.

But that also means you probably need to look at it's limitations as well for modeling it after.

Over time the action economy is seeming less of an issue to me rather than the accuracy issues. Just ignoring map isn't enough imo. Rather I'd like some kind of bonus to the spell when used with spell strike. Or give it the channel smite treatment and it's considered one attack. Wich map's out extremely well provided you disallowed it from working with true strike.

I could be totally fine with an accuracy fix, but do not deny dreaming of seeing it work like the Rinnarv’s (the NPC) ability


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

Spell storing runes are a 13th level item you can use once per fight at most that work with a very narrow range of spells. They cost gold, and more importantly a precious property rune slot that could have made your weapon keen or add 1d6 more damage on every strike. They aren't a good comparison to a first level at will class feature.

Eldritch Shot is, on the other hand. The biggest disadvantages it has are it only works, which is where I think the Magus should excel I'll admit, and that you are tied to either worse weapon proficiency on a spell caster or limited slots and progression on a multi class caster.

Ironically, this does mean a comet Magus should probably pick up the archetype and use Eldritch Shot instead of spell strike. I don't see my disadvantages for them and they seem like they'd be better at it then any other class. I wonder what their DPR looks like firing off Disintegrates or Acid Arrows or something.

You know, we don’t disagree here. I just think it’s extremely odd that you have all these system elements kind of intruding in the Magus’ territory. I get that this happened because Magus came in later, but, to myself, I would prefer Magus set the norm and the other classes, items and etc had lesser versions of their ability.

Again, I get it that Magus has some advantages, but ai think that the ability to tie the hit with the spell and only roll once should be baked into the class, if not in the core feature, then in an optional, even if high level feat

Instead we have something like Eldritch Shot that’s kind of a spellstrike but is already out while we’re left pondering how to make the one that should be the original.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Magus Class / Why doesn’t Magus have something like Channel Smite? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Magus Class