If MAP applied normally, making the primary benefit the Strike action cost reduction, that should fly. It would make it less like Double Slice, and more like the various Flurries.
The added synthesis might push it to OP though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with this is that it flips the entire narrative of the striking spell feature. You are not using your weapon to connect with a spell. You are just casting a spell and getting a free strike with it. There would be absolutely no benefit to not taking that free strike because the additional activity you wanted to do would cost the same number of actions, probably meaning it has to wait until the following round and it would gain no benefit for doing so.
In the end you would also need to give the magus better casting proficiencies too because they have no way of boosting their accuracy with spells, like they do with the crit rider of the current striking spell.
If the idea is that you cast the spell into the weapon, the power really does have to work by requiring the weapon to hit before the spell can go off. Otherwise it should be renamed as well to something akin to spell combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with this is that it flips the entire narrative of the striking spell feature. You are not using your weapon to connect with a spell. You are just casting a spell and getting a free strike with it. There would be absolutely no benefit to not taking that free strike because the additional activity you wanted to do would cost the same number of actions, probably meaning it has to wait until the following round and it would gain no benefit for doing so.
In the end you would also need to give the magus better casting proficiencies too because they have no way of boosting their accuracy with spells, like they do with the crit rider of the current striking spell.
If the idea is that you cast the spell into the weapon, the power really does have to work by requiring the weapon to hit before the spell can go off. Otherwise it should be renamed as well to something akin to spell combat.
As it stands currently. Spell strike both insinuates you are hitting with it as a part of the attack and seperate.
Together = if you miss with the attack you don't get to use the spell
Seperate= even if you hit with the attack you still have to roll to hit with the spel
The worse of both worlds.
My problem with this is that it flips the entire narrative of the striking spell feature. You are not using your weapon to connect with a spell. You are just casting a spell and getting a free strike with it. There would be absolutely no benefit to not taking that free strike because the additional activity you wanted to do would cost the same number of actions, probably meaning it has to wait until the following round and it would gain no benefit for doing so.
In the end you would also need to give the magus better casting proficiencies too because they have no way of boosting their accuracy with spells, like they do with the crit rider of the current striking spell.
If the idea is that you cast the spell into the weapon, the power really does have to work by requiring the weapon to hit before the spell can go off. Otherwise it should be renamed as well to something akin to spell combat.
Pretty much, yes. The proposal more accurately maps to Spell Combat, which was a 2 weapon fighting replacement, instead of Spell Strike, which was a crit-fishing version of Power Attack (lower accuracy, harder hit).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstrike [A][A]
[Fortune][Flourish][Metamagic]
Cast a Spell that targets you or one creature. If the spell targets you, resolve the effects of the spell. If the spell targets another creature, instead of casting it as normal, you place the spell's magic into one melee weapon you're wielding or into your body to use with an unarmed attack. Make a melee Strike.
If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit if the spell is a spell attack. The spell attack is a success even if your discharging Strike was a critical success. If the spell requires a saving throw, the creature hit with the melee Strike rolls its saving throw as normal.
If you don't expend the stored spell with a Strike before the end of your next turn, it is lost and dissipates harmlessly. The same thing happens if you use the Spellstrike action again, or if the weapon is used for a non-melee Strike (such as a thrown weapon Strike). A spell stored with Spellstrike cannot be discharged by anyone but the caster.
I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.
I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.
Not for me. Spell Strike was also a combination of spells and strikes into a single action, which would have the effect of boosting spell accuracy (and thus damage) in PF2, where it used to lower it in PF1. I also wanted different variations of Spell Strike, including one each that resembles PF1 Spell Strike and Spell Combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.
I think people want to cast spells and hit with a weapon with an efficiency or accuracy boost over what a MCD fighter can do, and do it every turn if they so desire.
P1e parlance has nothing to do with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna state again here what I did in another thread, I strongly prefer the free action metamagic version over anything that combines the spell and strike into a single activity. It allows more interesting action sequencing and makes turns feel less samey.
I've been using a homebrew version for about a year that combines the spell with a free strike and the metamagic version is way cooler.
I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.
Or... Or... They do what is needed to make the class work. Instead of using budget balance system that leaves a character underpowered. Wich isn't balanced.
I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.
Not me either. I would much rather preffer they do whatever adjustments are necessary to make the ability more reliable (potency bonus to spell rolls, etc)
I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.I think people want to cast spells and hit with a weapon with an efficiency or accuracy boost over what a MCD fighter can do, and do it every turn if they so desire.
P1e parlance has nothing to do with it.
A big part of what the magus gets (power budget-wise) is access to equal level spells as any full caster. Remember, a MC fighter/caster might be close to a Magus on cantrip + strike damage, but will never catch up to the magus nova potential with actual spells. That is probably why some folks would rather see the magus entirely a cantrip and focus power caster, to gain back that power budget, but it would kill the class for a lot of folks not to get spell slot spells or get ones that trail so far behind full casters that there is no point in casting combat ones.
A big part of what the magus gets (power budget-wise) is access to equal level spells as any full caster. Remember, a MC fighter/caster might be close to a Magus on cantrip + strike damage, but will never catch up to the magus nova potential with actual spells. That is probably why some folks would rather see the magus entirely a cantrip and focus power caster, to gain back that power budget, but it would kill the class for a lot of folks not to get spell slot spells or get ones that trail so far behind full casters that there is no point in casting combat ones.I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.I think people want to cast spells and hit with a weapon with an efficiency or accuracy boost over what a MCD fighter can do, and do it every turn if they so desire.
P1e parlance has nothing to do with it.
Currently it seems pretty dead. And only person I've been seeing outright defending it is you.
As far as power budget is concerned. That's not actually how balance works. Because it ignores the impact of the individual parts. Just because x class and y class have a budget of 6. If you fill that 6 with crap it will be weaker than the other.
That's why power budget is a flawed design.
Paizo absolutely has to decide for themselves as a company if
A. Make the magus spell striking with cantrips as fully functional as a full martial, but also get 4 max caster level spells (or whatever number they settle on)
or
B. Make the magus spell striking with cantrips slightly less powerful than a full martial, but also get 4 max caster level spells (or whatever number they settle on)
is more balanced.
The current spell strike mechanic actually walks a line between these two because the balance of a magus spell striking with a cantrip is actually dependent upon what kind of accuracy boosts they can get. I do like the core idea of this mechanic (even if I have things I hope change a little) because it reminds me more of the rogue and encouraging the magus to think and fight tactically feels on par with an intelligence based martial character. It should be the character that benefits the most from taking advantage of tactics, or at least on par with the investigator.
If they walk back away from this mechanic choosing A will probably result in very few spell slots or reduced spell slot level and B would result in more spell slots.
Pretty much, yes. The proposal more accurately maps to Spell Combat, which was a 2 weapon fighting replacement, instead of Spell Strike, which was a crit-fishing version of Power Attack (lower accuracy, harder hit). Specifically, by default spells only crit on a 20, but with Spell Strike they crit at whatever range your weapon did.My problem with this is that it flips the entire narrative of the striking spell feature. You are not using your weapon to connect with a spell. You are just casting a spell and getting a free strike with it. There would be absolutely no benefit to not taking that free strike because the additional activity you wanted to do would cost the same number of actions, probably meaning it has to wait until the following round and it would gain no benefit for doing so.
In the end you would also need to give the magus better casting proficiencies too because they have no way of boosting their accuracy with spells, like they do with the crit rider of the current striking spell.
If the idea is that you cast the spell into the weapon, the power really does have to work by requiring the weapon to hit before the spell can go off. Otherwise it should be renamed as well to something akin to spell combat.
I'm not sure that I follow.
PF1 Spellstrike lets you cast a spell, and in place of its normal delivery method, channel it through a weapon attack into a target.
PF1 Spell Combat allows you to cast a spell in addition to your normal attack sequence, ala TWF. It allows you to e.g. cast Mirror Image on yourself while also making attacks, without giving any extra.
The spell would be the extra attack, in the case of Spell Combat. If you were able to make 3 attacks for example, you'd get those 3 attacks at -2, AND a spell cast. And possibly a 4th weapon attack if you chose to also use Spell Strike, which independently turned your more accurate touch attack into a less accurate melee attack, in trade for a better crit range.
I think a lot of playtest critiques are coming from a place of wanting striking spell to be spell combat and for spellstrike to be dropped from the game. Giving both, at least as class features, is probably way beyond one class' power budget without tanking proficiencies so low that the magus could not reasonably hit with a weapon or a spell without using whatever accuracy benefit would be factored into spell strike.
Pretty sure that's the opposite.
I do advocate for Striking Spell to be renamed Spell Combat and slightly rebalanced, yes. But also for Spell Strike to be implemented in a more streamlined and efficient way.
Honestly the current Striking Spell only needs a rename to be Spell Combat, since rolls are separate. Make it any spell instead and here you have 2E Spell Combat. A special way to reduce the casting time of spells, so to speak. Since it would actually take 3 actions to cast them, but you can weave the "letting loose" action anywhere in your following turn (or turns)
Maybe it'd be interresting to have the Magus "infuse" a spell that want to keep ready to cast in a single action.
In the meantime they can cast their other spells normally.
The ones with a set target can be done with a Strike (still take the appropriate amount of actions, so 2 for a Produce Flame for example) just that you do a melee weapon Strike instead to determine the results (saves are rolled normally, you just gain action economy at the cost of range/area).
So in a turn a magus could, if already at range:
-Produce Flame on spellstrike (2 actions) Oh, lucky, a crit, the target is set ablaze.
-Release "Combustion" spell (made up for example) that they had infused the turn prior for 1 action, doubling the current persistent fire damage (imaginary effect of that imaginary spell).
It actually took 5 actions (since they had to cast Combustion on a prior turn) but they can do that combo in a single round, where as someone else couldn't.
And to me it's part of what makes a Magus interresting and different from a martial/caster MC.
Based on this, the concept of casting a spell and getting a free strike seems to emulate Spellstrike. Emulating Spell Combat would be along the lines of being able to cast a spell as a free action alongside one or more strikes, but the strikes and spell take a -2 to hit and DCs. This would probably be overpowered if not regulated to a significant extent.
Well no, because this isn't PF1.
The reason your proposal resembles spell combat is because getting a free strike in PF2 is the same thing as getting a free spell in PF1 as far as the action economy goes. And you don't take accuracy penalties to 2wf until much higher level than 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstrike [A][A]
[Fortune][Flourish][Metamagic]Cast a Spell that targets you or one creature. If the spell targets you, resolve the effects of the spell. If the spell targets another creature, instead of casting it as normal, you place the spell's magic into one melee weapon you're wielding or into your body to use with an unarmed attack. Make a melee Strike.
If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit if the spell is a spell attack. The spell attack is a success even if your discharging Strike was a critical success. If the spell requires a saving throw, the creature hit with the melee Strike rolls its saving throw as normal.
If you don't expend the stored spell with a Strike before the end of your next turn, it is lost and dissipates harmlessly. The same thing happens if you use the Spellstrike action again, or if the weapon is used for a non-melee Strike (such as a thrown weapon Strike). A spell stored with Spellstrike cannot be discharged by anyone but the caster.
Interesting idea on this, and I see how you slid in casting a spell on yourself.
A big issue I have with your proposal is that it is a two-action metamagic, which traditionally is added to your spell casting actions, but yet I'm sure you mean it to replace it, but it seems to assume spells are always normally 2-actions.
Doing the Fortune and Flourish traits, and having a hit make the spell hit, (and always only a hit) is certainly a way of trying to subdue the ramifications/power of the ability, to curb the concerns over the weapon strike determining both the weapon and spell degree of success.
I'd be more inclined to leave the spellstrike as a Free-action metamagic, and have it require the caster to make a strike on their own, but if they hit, they hit with both. If they get a critical, they choose one (weapon or spell) to get the critical, while the other gets a standard hit. (if a spell save, have it reduce the success by one tier if it was chosen to benefit from the critical) That would be very in-line with a fortune, effect, by giving the choice, the caster can give it to the spell (which is probably stronger), and so the choice is a bit of power in and of itself.
Another option:
Spell Combat [metamagic] [flourish]
Free action, triggers on casting a spell. Allows you to cast a spell and hold its charge until you make a strike attack later. The spell can only be held until the end of your next round. (note: this does not place the charge in the weapon, it just is responsible for casting the spell (using the spell slot, and holding the charge for upcoming use) This may trigger synthesis bonus actions, potentially based on the number of actions required to cast the spell. If the spell has the Attack trait, the casting action it loses it, until it is triggered later.
Eldritch Slice [metamagic] [Flourish]
Free action, triggers when you make a melee strike, while you have a spell held. MAP doesn't increase until both attacks take place and increase normally afterwards, as usual for the attack and spell. Either the melee attack or spell attack can fail separately, they are separate attacks, released at the same time. If the melee strike hits, your spell attack if required gets a +2 circumstance bonus to hit, or you instead a +2 circumstance bonus to DC of your spell due to the unexpected combination. The target is bolstered from this bonus for 24 hours. IF the spell stored normally has the attack trait, this picks up the Attack trait.
Spell Strike [metamagic] [Fortune] [Attack]
Free action, triggers when you make a melee strike, while you have a spell held which has the attack trait. When you make the Strike, you roll two dice instead of one. The two dice are used to determine the melee strike, and the subsequent spell strike should the weapon strike hit. The player chooses which die is used for the weapon strike and which is used for the spell strike. If the weapon strike hits, the other die is used to determine if the spell strike hits. If the melee strike misses, the spell strike does not take place. Both Attacks are made before MAP is increased. Map increases for each attack that actually takes place. (if the weapon attack missed, then the spell attack did not take place, so map does not increase) If subject to a fortune effect already, this action loses the trait, and the original fortune effect will impact only the melee strike, and the spell attack will have to be rolled separately without a fortune modifier.
Conduit Strike [metamagic]
Free action, triggers when you make a melee strike, while you have a spell held which does not have the attack trait. You roll to strike, if the strike is successful, you get a +2 circumstance bonus to your DC. If the strike was a critical hit, you instead reduce the success of their save by 1 tier. This is the Spell Strike for save only spells. (neither of these effects are the same as the one Spell Strike's effect that targets can be Bolstered against)
This gives them several different strategies they can utilize to get spells to land successfully. It provides for casting spells and releasing them as separate distinct attack, sort of like a double-slice, and allows for a sort of Power-attack where they have to land their powerful blow to get the magic to trigger. There could even be instances where if they really need the spell to hit strong, they might intentionally allow themselves to miss with melee strikes, to get a chance to hopefully get good enough rolls to land their spell strike successfully.
And I specify melee strikes, but the specialists doing ranged attacks could modify the rules for it to me Melee, to include ranged weapon attacks. I don't intend to eliminate them as an option.
Yeah not going to lie Striking Spell just being cast a spell and get a free attack as a two action cost with it becoming a 3 action cost if you use the “deliver spell through weapon attack” action could work.
Then be super extra with it and give each class path a little twist on their own version of the spellstriking piece. keeping the current benefit for striking spell on your casting of the first.
That offers a lot to work with and is much closer to the old Magus feel too.
I'm more in favor of limiting Striking Spell to just spells that require a spell attack and allowing you to use the result of your next successful Strike before the end of your next turn as your spell attack roll. A feat later that grants the ability to cast saving throw spells where hitting with the Strike grants a +2 bonus to the DC. Another feat at some point allows you to retain a spell you put in your weapon but didn't manage to hit with.
Seconding this!
And before people ask ‘What about synthesis?’, they could be reworked to function in tandem with the new ability. Its not as if they are super unique and flavorful as is. Slide casting seems to be the better option and the other two have potential, but they feel more like they’re making the lacking striking spell minimally functional than acting as ‘subclasses’.
That would make a lot of feats that would feel kind of "essential" I feel.
Not getting all those abilities from level 1 is fine by me, but some of those I'd rather seem becoming part of the natural progression of the class. Plus this would avoid MCD Maguses from getting them. So the Fighter who dips into Magus would only access the attack spells, not the save ones.
Baking them into progression, rather than feats, would feel appropriate. That would also allow for customization on what would be accessible to a hypothetical magus multiclass dedication.
Yeah, there shouldn't have feats that feel like you have to take them. Of course they cannot all be super ultra mega super dooper good, but you'd like not to have one at a level feel like a no brainer 100% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baking them into progression, rather than feats, would feel appropriate. That would also allow for customization on what would be accessible to a hypothetical magus multiclass dedication.
Yeah like looking at Martial Caster, which gives you 12 spells known and 2 new slots that scale with level.
That's better than Basic Casting from a Dedication.
And what is it up against? Energized Strikes which is a small damage boost (considering you want to be casting spells, that's typically one maybe two Weapon attacks a turn) and a Reaction that only works against spells and costs a Focus point.
To me, the only thing that can compete with Martial Caster is Standby Spell (which is a level 8 Feat).
And if no Feats can compete with a given Feat, then it probably shouldn't be a Feat.
Oh yeah, Martial Caster is way too good for what else is available.