I’ve seen true strike brought up in several threads by now, so I thought it should have a dedicated thread.
To summarize, here’s the story with true strike as I see it:
- True strike is an extremely good spell essential for caster hit chances, and is at the base of most pre-magus gish builds
- The magus has no in-built support for true strike due to low spell slots
- True strike synergises well with spell strike crit fishing (2 round routine: cast into weapon, stride, true strike, strike)
As things currently stand the concern is that we’ll see almost all Magi either taking caster MCDs or using shifting divine staff shenanigans, cutting on build variability. On the other hand, giving Magi additional access to true strike might be too strong (not to mention that it might go against paizo’s plans with these new half casters).
So what do you guys think? How can this issue be avoided? Is it even a problem?
My opinion is that it’s a bit weird and anti-thematic that THE gish doesn’t get the gishiest spell. I think they should get good access to it, but make it mostly exclusive to spell strike in some way.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easiest thing to do is just give the magus a good rider on striking spell that has the fortune tag.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once you remove the crit-fishing nature of Spellstrike it becomes significantly less of a problem.
If it remains too powerful to ensure landing spells and an attack (or something along those lines) spellstrike could gain the fortune tag.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fortune tag. Class design shouldn't be limited by one 1st-level spell. Use true strike with your other attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortune tag is crude, blunt-hammer design. And honestly adding it and buffing spell strike in general or at least for cantrips seems good to me.
But I'm pretty sure Logan Bonner can come with something better than that.
Easiest thing to do is just give the magus a good rider on striking spell that has the fortune tag.
I didn’t even consider the fortune tag, that’s an excellent idea.
I was thinking of changing spell strike into something closer to eldritch shot, that is making it an three action activity (or two action for a one action spell) with one roll and no carrying over to the next round; this way there won’t be any actions left for true strike on big two action spells. Then you can either add some true strike access (I’m fond of a combat font option I presented in a different thread), or just ignore it without risk of every build being decided in order to get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The martial caster feat lets the magus always have a spell slot open for truestrike if they want it.
Personally, I think letting the magus have access to true strike so they can use it when they cast one of their 4 spell slot spells into their weapon is a good design goal. Its added accuracy is nice for when you are really sinking a lot of non-daily renewable resources into an attack, and it would be a bummer to not have a way to be extra accurate when you are ready to invest extra spell casting and actions to do so.
Letting the Magus work for the benefit of true strike is not terribly destructive to the class as a whole. The payout of casting true strike on your cantrip striking spells is not game breaking enough to make the divination staff magus some kind of god character.
As long as the striking spell mechanic doesn't change to load the spell and the weapon attack into one roll that can benefit from truestrike, the mechanic as is pretty decent. It takes some resource investment to get there.
Truestrike is only a problem for people who think that the overall accuracy issues of the magus are overwhelming bad. Even if Magi had a +1 or +2 boost to their spell casting accuracy, with striking spell working the same, truestrike would not be game breaking because you can't apply it to both rolls anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a general principle, abilities that alter rolls and play with levels of success have the Fortune trait, so the most elegant solution is to give Striking Spell the Fortune trait. Just like Devise a Stratagem.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once you remove the crit-fishing nature of Spellstrike it becomes significantly less of a problem.
If it remains too powerful to ensure landing spells and an attack (or something along those lines) spellstrike could gain the fortune tag.
I gotta agree, the crit effects is why it's so good. Remove those and the "problem" goes away.
I gotta agree, the crit effects is why it's so good. Remove those and the "problem" goes away.Once you remove the crit-fishing nature of Spellstrike it becomes significantly less of a problem.
If it remains too powerful to ensure landing spells and an attack (or something along those lines) spellstrike could gain the fortune tag.
But it makes the magus terrible with spells. Let’s say spell strike will be changed to double slice only with a spell, this will leave the magus with terrible spell proficiency and nothing to shore it up. Going nova against a boss will be almost worthless.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or let's say spell strike just lets the spell hit when the weapon attack hits and we don't have to talk about spell proficiency.
We have one design for Striking Spell. So far it seems problematic in some regards and alright in others, but we aren't trapped with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it makes the magus terrible with spells. Let’s say spell strike will be changed to double slice only with a spell, this will leave the magus with terrible spell proficiency and nothing to shore it up. Going nova against a boss will be almost worthless.I gotta agree, the crit effects is why it's so good. Remove those and the "problem" goes away.Once you remove the crit-fishing nature of Spellstrike it becomes significantly less of a problem.
If it remains too powerful to ensure landing spells and an attack (or something along those lines) spellstrike could gain the fortune tag.
well, yeah that would be awful. And so is the crit effect and how it affects the ability. Get rid of the crit effect and now we might have some design room to make it not suck, like the metric ton of alternatives we see everywhere on this forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Change the crit effect to be less powerful.
Assuming attack spells just use the Strike's result, saves would gain a +2 to DC on a crit. That +2 could increase at higher level, naturally, so MCD into Magus wouldn't get the full power of it like they could right now.
Imagine a Fighter getting the current Spell Strike.
EDIT:
Or let's say spell strike just lets the spell hit when the weapon attack hits and we don't have to talk about spell proficiency.
We have one design for Striking Spell. So far it seems problematic in some regards and alright in others, but we aren't trapped with it.
Yeah some part of it are good and I think we should keep them. Especially the ability to "hold" a spell ready to release at a later turn. That's, imo, the best way to reintroduce Spell Combat.
I kinda disagree with the idea of just having spells hit with weapon attacks due to:
1) Magus will then have to restrict spells to those that use a spell attack roll, and I kinda like how they can load save spells, etc into spell strike.
2) INT rapidly loses meaning to the class if spells hit based purely on your melee stats.
3) Spell hits when weapon attack hits would imply that spell automatically misses if weapon attack misses. With limited spell slots, I'd rather expand the current ability of a Magus to hold the spell on a missed weapon attack rather than make them all-or-nothing.
---
Regarding True Strike, I'm leaning towards the idea of spell strike having the fortune trait so they can't stack. Regardless of how the final version of spell strike turns out - it'll be linked to the weapon attack somehow, which means potential combinations with True Strike. Either the entire class has to balance around the idea that players can use other options to get multiple True Strikes a day, the fortune trait prevents True Strike from combining with spell strike, or you risk some combination (now or in the future) making True Strike practically mandatory to remain "optimal" with the class.
Change the crit effect to be less powerful.
Assuming attack spells just use the Strike's result, saves would gain a +2 to DC on a crit. That +2 could increase at higher level, naturally, so MCD into Magus wouldn't get the full power of it like they could right now.
Imagine a Fighter getting the current Spell Strike.EDIT:
Yeah some part of it are good and I think we should keep them. Especially the ability to "hold" a spell ready to release at a later turn. That's, imo, the best way to reintroduce Spell Combat.Or let's say spell strike just lets the spell hit when the weapon attack hits and we don't have to talk about spell proficiency.
We have one design for Striking Spell. So far it seems problematic in some regards and alright in others, but we aren't trapped with it.
One thing I like about striking spell is that it doesn't do too much on its own at this point. If the MC doesn't give you a synthesis benefit, the fighter is going to be switching to an "attack every other round if I ever have to move" mechanic that will really throw off their damage, especially because they will only be gaining cantrips to attack with it, and they have no way to get on level attack spell slots or the proficiency to really make that work out in a way that is just flatly better than a magus.
This becomes untrue if the striking spell mechanic lets you just use your weapon attack roll for both attacks. The level of thought that went into the current system is pretty impressive. I really think micro changes will get us to where people feel like they are plenty accurate with weapon and spell attacks.
Other than for spell slot spells, truestrike might improve DPR with a striking spell and a cantrip, but it also requires haste or only intending to attack every other round, as well a source of outside spell slots. It is a good build, but not a cheap one. The only really problem I see is that, with only 4 regular spell slots, using spell strike with those and not truestrike is a good way to end up feeling bad about the class overall. Which gets back to making sure that doesn't exist as any more of a secret class code than it does for wizards or other full casters.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like about striking spell is that it doesn't do too much on its own at this point.
I see this is where our fundamental disagreement lies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda disagree with the idea of just having spells hit with weapon attacks due to:
1) Magus will then have to restrict spells to those that use a spell attack roll, and I kinda like how they can load save spells, etc into spell strike.
2) INT rapidly loses meaning to the class if spells hit based purely on your melee stats.
3) Spell hits when weapon attack hits would imply that spell automatically misses if weapon attack misses. With limited spell slots, I'd rather expand the current ability of a Magus to hold the spell on a missed weapon attack rather than make them all-or-nothing.---
Regarding True Strike, I'm leaning towards the idea of spell strike having the fortune trait so they can't stack. Regardless of how the final version of spell strike turns out - it'll be linked to the weapon attack somehow, which means potential combinations with True Strike. Either the entire class has to balance around the idea that players can use other options to get multiple True Strikes a day, the fortune trait prevents True Strike from combining with spell strike, or you risk some combination (now or in the future) making True Strike practically mandatory to remain "optimal" with the class.
To answer your concerns:
1: Not necesseraly, Spell Strike could still work with saves (which would be an incentive to raise INT)2: Depends if you wish to use your spells for other things or if you want to use saves. Some spells also gain damage based on your ability modifier. It should be possible to play a Magus that doesn't rely heavily on INT, their saves would suck and they'd lose some damage on cantrips, and in exchange they'd gain whatever they want. More HP, social abilities or wisdom saves.
3: You wouldn't necesseraly lose the spell, depends on how it's done. If the "Hold Charge" is implemented, doing a spellstrike while you don't hold any charge would give you the ability to hold it if your melee attacks fails. Maybe a reaction after using a normal spellstrike (in 2 actions to cast the spell) if at the end of your turn you haven't landeda hit. You spend your reaction to retain the charged spell for a turn. There is a lot of ways to make it work.
One thing I like about striking spell is that it doesn't do too much on its own at this point.
I see this is where our fundamental disagreement lies.
I can see that. I like that the entire class, and what you get out of it, are not entirely defined by this one feature, but that the feature works really well with what the class otherwise gives you.
Like the ranger is basically worthless as an MC dedication because everything rides in the boons you get from your hunter's edge. Without that, no multiclass character feels terribly like a ranger, but giving that away in MC would have been giving the only unique thing the class brings away.
Striking spell has a few niche benefits, but without a good weapon proficiency AND access to decent spells, it doesn't offer too much when it loses its synthesis.
Whereas the Eldritch Archer dedication is 100% about gaining this one 3 action activity that will then become the entire focus of your identity as an eldritch archer. That is ok for a dedication, but it doesn't work as a mechanic to define a whole character class around.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like about striking spell is that it doesn't do too much on its own at this point.
I see this is where our fundamental disagreement lies.
I can see that. I like that the entire class, and what you get out of it, are not entirely defined by this one feature, but that the feature works really well with what the class otherwise gives you.
Like the ranger is basically worthless as an MC dedication because everything rides in the boons you get from your hunter's edge. Without that, no multiclass character feels terribly like a ranger, but giving that away in MC would have been giving the only unique thing the class brings away.
Striking spell has a few niche benefits, but without a good weapon proficiency AND access to decent spells, it doesn't offer too much when it loses its synthesis.
Whereas the Eldritch Archer dedication is 100% about gaining this one 3 action activity that will then become the entire focus of your identity as an eldritch archer. That is ok for a dedication, but it doesn't work as a mechanic to define a whole character class around.
I understand that you're focusing on what a Magus MCD brings to the table here, but I think a class' core feature shouldn't be defined by what it does for other classes. Magus should first and foremost be a functional Magus, with considerations of whether it's a delightful splash for another class far, far behind.
And at risk of derailing, Ranger is not a worthless MC. There are many Ranger feats that only want you to have a Hunted target, and the Warden Spells have a proper Ranger flavor to them. I really don't understand this point, just looking at the level 1 and 2 Ranger feats there are a lot of interesting options if you want to go down that path.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
focus on core over MCD
To answer your concerns:
1: Not necesseraly, Spell Strike could still work with saves (which would be an incentive to raise INT)
2: Depends if you wish to use your spells for other things or if you want to use saves. Some spells also gain damage based on your ability modifier. It should be possible to play a Magus that doesn't rely heavily on INT, their saves would suck and they'd lose some damage on cantrips, and in exchange they'd gain whatever they want. More HP, social abilities or wisdom saves.
Focusing on these two... you've just made the optimal Magus build one that ignores INT (since it's a weak stat otherwise) and limits themselves to attack spells so they can ignore INT in favor of things that affect more of their basic combat - like HP, WIS saves, better perception/initiative, etc.
INT doesn't really do anything else for the class, which makes it seem really counter-intuitive that a (partial) caster could ignore their casting stat to almost no detriment.
I agree that it is important for the magus to work as a stand alone class. I just like that the striking spell feature works with the rest of the things you get as a class (high level spell access, strong weapon proficiencies) to be more than just: Here is 1 activity you can take that defines your whole class, (like the eldritch archer, or any version of striking spell that is one full activity).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer your concerns:
1: Not necesseraly, Spell Strike could still work with saves (which would be an incentive to raise INT)
2: Depends if you wish to use your spells for other things or if you want to use saves. Some spells also gain damage based on your ability modifier. It should be possible to play a Magus that doesn't rely heavily on INT, their saves would suck and they'd lose some damage on cantrips, and in exchange they'd gain whatever they want. More HP, social abilities or wisdom saves.Focusing on these two... you've just made the optimal Magus build one that ignores INT (since it's a weak stat otherwise) and limits themselves to attack spells so they can ignore INT in favor of things that affect more of their basic combat - like HP, WIS saves, better perception/initiative, etc.
INT doesn't really do anything else for the class, which makes it seem really counter-intuitive that a (partial) caster could ignore their casting stat to almost no detriment.
I think as is INT is way too important for the Magus. They all ready need STR, CON, DEX probably too. I think there’s nothing wrong with leaving high INT to only some of the Magus builds, letting the rest be front liners.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it is important for the magus to work as a stand alone class. I just like that the striking spell feature works with the rest of the things you get as a class (high level spell access, strong weapon proficiencies) to be more than just: Here is 1 activity you can take that defines your whole class, (like the eldritch archer, or any version of striking spell that is one full activity).
Given how flexible current spell strike is I don't see your point. You still have variable tactics to use within the spell strike itself. If I had to pay in spell proficiency so they spell strike is better and more consistent I believe, from what I've seen of this subforum, most would settle for that.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, or that it would be required to happen.
But spell strike is not just some aspect of the class. It's a core feature that you can adjust with many feats, your synthesis, etc. It's equivalent to wizard's spell slots in terms of importance. Just as their studies affect how they interact with their spell slots.
No class should suffer from lack of focus and I'd gladly give things up for that consistency and focus.
I think as is INT is way too important for the Magus. They all ready need STR, CON, DEX probably too. I think there’s nothing wrong with leaving high INT to only some of the Magus builds, letting the rest be front liners.To answer your concerns:
1: Not necesseraly, Spell Strike could still work with saves (which would be an incentive to raise INT)
2: Depends if you wish to use your spells for other things or if you want to use saves. Some spells also gain damage based on your ability modifier. It should be possible to play a Magus that doesn't rely heavily on INT, their saves would suck and they'd lose some damage on cantrips, and in exchange they'd gain whatever they want. More HP, social abilities or wisdom saves.Focusing on these two... you've just made the optimal Magus build one that ignores INT (since it's a weak stat otherwise) and limits themselves to attack spells so they can ignore INT in favor of things that affect more of their basic combat - like HP, WIS saves, better perception/initiative, etc.
INT doesn't really do anything else for the class, which makes it seem really counter-intuitive that a (partial) caster could ignore their casting stat to almost no detriment.
It's somewhat binary but hold scar orc fixes your starting stat spread nicely able to get 20hp with 10con.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who cares what optimal build is if it's just a matter of number. You could make a magus with more int if you wish to use saves spells and have better damage on attack spells (especially your cantrips, your bread and butter) if you wish. Or focus on more survivability if you need it. I don't see how this is an issue to have that choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who cares what optimal build is if it's just a matter of number. You could make a magus with more int if you wish to use saves spells and have better damage on attack spells (especially your cantrips, your bread and butter) if you wish. Or focus on more survivability if you need it. I don't see how this is an issue to have that choice.
?
The only viable build I see for Magus involves taking voluntary flaw's to get
18str(maximum damage and to hit bonus with weapons)
14dex(let's you hit 18ac at level 1 with medium armor)
10con
16int(maximizes spell to hit and save DC's)
10wis
8cha
Bumping str/con/int/Wis the entire time expect for level 20 where I bumped Cha to pull it out of it's hole cuz why not.
I suppose you can stat him different. But I'd never want to.
I think Kalaam was responding to Charon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking if you are adding a tag to an action or activity, that tag has to have something to do with the action or activity. If you just added the fortune tag to Striking Spell, it'd be simply a nerf, designed only to stop True Strike from working with Striking Spell.
If instead you added an actual fortune effect to Striking Spell, then you have justification, and you make Striking Spell not need true strike as much.
Maybe give the delivered spell a +2 accuracy bump to bring it in line with your Martial proficiency, then add the Fortune Tag to explain that. Save based spells could also get a +2 bump to DC when delivered via Striking Spell. Striking Spell would Always be a more efficient way to deliver your spells this way.
This would address a lot of the common complaints I see about Striking Spell, but I'm not sold that it's really that great of an idea, or that True Strike is really problematic for the class.
For a Magus to have reliable access to True Strike, it requires either Feats for MCD casting, a reasonable trade, or Gold and a GM who allows Shifting a staff into a weapon (until we get any clarification at all on that issue).
So you are either paying for the privilege with feats or GP. Feels okay to me.
I don’t think anybody is suggesting adding the fortune tag while keeping Striking Spell the same. The point is that adding the tag could free up the design space to things more vulnerable to True Strike.
Other than a slight thematic issue, I agree that the Magus having the option to get True Strike from an external source for a reasonable price is fine. I just think at the moment True Strike benefits heavily outweigh the cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tag can do whatever you want it to do, and there's no reason to add arbitrary mechanics to fit the "theme" of a tag.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tag can do whatever you want it to do, and there's no reason to add arbitrary mechanics to fit the "theme" of a tag.
I strongly disagree. Traits are there to sum up what traits an action or item/character has.
You wouldn't add the fire trait to something that had nothing to do with Fire. You wouldn't add the good trait to something that wasn't good aligned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So call it the "Can't Use This With True Strike" trait if you really want to dig in deep there.
Something doing fire damage with the Fire trait isn't arbitrary. Something not working with other fortune effects also getting a +2 slapped on because it has the Fortune trait is arbitrary. Devise a Stratagem's fortune tag seems pretty much there just to prevent shenanigans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tag can do whatever you want it to do, and there's no reason to add arbitrary mechanics to fit the "theme" of a tag.I strongly disagree. Traits are there to sum up what traits an action or item/character has.
You wouldn't add the fire trait to something that had nothing to do with Fire. You wouldn't add the good trait to something that wasn't good aligned.
I strongly disagree with you. Because I want what I saw in that chart. And doing this makes it line up. I couldn't give two s#%*s about anything else
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking if you are adding a tag to an action or activity, that tag has to have something to do with the action or activity. If you just added the fortune tag to Striking Spell, it'd be simply a nerf, designed only to stop True Strike from working with Striking Spell.
Among the various uses of the Fortune tag is the ability to substitute one roll for another. That is what you are doing with this; using the Melee attack roll in place of the spell attack roll.
Edit: Admittedly, that is a stretch of interpretation, but I think it flies, especially if some descriptive text was added of you honing spell chance to your blade chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So call it the "Can't Use This With True Strike" trait if you really want to dig in deep there.
Something doing fire damage with the Fire trait isn't arbitrary. Something not working with other fortune effects also getting a +2 slapped on because it has the Fortune trait is arbitrary. Devise a Stratagem's fortune tag seems pretty much there just to prevent shenanigans.
Devise a Strategem has the Fortune trait because you are using foresight (divination, if mundane) to mitigate chance. You are literally taking chance out of the equation here. That is a perfectly good explanation for the fortune tag.
You are correct, something doing fire damage with the fire trait is Not arbitrary. Slapping the fortune tag on an ability that has nothing to do with foresight or divination (by default anyway) IS arbitrary, and against Paizo's design philosophy as we see it up to this point.
Show me an example of a trait being slapped on anything arbitrarily.
I strongly disagree with you. Because I want what I saw in that chart. And doing this makes it line up. I couldn't give two s~*$s about anything else
I don't think we actually disagree. I think you Think I disagree with you because I've disagreed with you in the past.
Could the Fortune tag be beneficial on Striking Spell? Maybe. Do I think it should be arbitrarily placed on the ability simply to stop some characters from using True Strike with it? No.
If instead it was added organically into Striking Spell, with the ability adjusted to reflect the addition, I'd be less against it.
Generally speaking if you are adding a tag to an action or activity, that tag has to have something to do with the action or activity. If you just added the fortune tag to Striking Spell, it'd be simply a nerf, designed only to stop True Strike from working with Striking Spell.Among the various uses of the Fortune tag is the ability to substitute one roll for another. That is what you are doing with this; using the Melee attack roll in place of the spell attack roll.
That would only really apply if you allowed the Spell to use the degree of success from the Strike made, something that is on the table, but I doubt will happen.
As written, I don't see any "fortune effect" involved in Striking Spell. The Critical Effect could be argued, though that is less "controlling fate/chance" and more taking advantage of chance.
Generally speaking if you are adding a tag to an action or activity, that tag has to have something to do with the action or activity. If you just added the fortune tag to Striking Spell, it'd be simply a nerf, designed only to stop True Strike from working with Striking Spell.Among the various uses of the Fortune tag is the ability to substitute one roll for another. That is what you are doing with this; using the Melee attack roll in place of the spell attack roll.That would only really apply if you allowed the Spell to use the degree of success from the Strike made, something that is on the table, but I doubt will happen.
As written, I don't see any "fortune effect" involved in Striking Spell. The Critical Effect could be argued, though that is less "controlling fate/chance" and more taking advantage of chance.
My mistake, I thought that's what was being discussed.
But broadly speaking, any action that manipulates your dice roll is a fortune effect, and every version of Spell Strike I've seen proposed does that in some fashion, including yours. In the case of the current Striking Spell incarnation, you're manipulating the chance of the spell hitting and critting by letting the strike crit modify it.
Edit: wait, no I lie. The version someone proposed where the real ability was to store the spell into your weapon, and various class abilities keyed off that stored state until you finally discharged it, that would be too far of a stretch to be a Fortune.
Generally speaking if you are adding a tag to an action or activity, that tag has to have something to do with the action or activity. If you just added the fortune tag to Striking Spell, it'd be simply a nerf, designed only to stop True Strike from working with Striking Spell.
If instead you added an actual fortune effect to Striking Spell, then you have justification, and you make Striking Spell not need true strike as much.
Maybe give the delivered spell a +2 accuracy bump to bring it in line with your Martial proficiency, then add the Fortune Tag to explain that. Save based spells could also get a +2 bump to DC when delivered via Striking Spell. Striking Spell would Always be a more efficient way to deliver your spells this way.
This would address a lot of the common complaints I see about Striking Spell, but I'm not sold that it's really that great of an idea, or that True Strike is really problematic for the class.
For a Magus to have reliable access to True Strike, it requires either Feats for MCD casting, a reasonable trade, or Gold and a GM who allows Shifting a staff into a weapon (until we get any clarification at all on that issue).
Maybe at a higher level you could add your INT modifier to the attack roll as a fortune bonus.
So you are either paying for the privilege with feats or GP. Feels okay to me.
- True strike synergises well with spell strike crit fishing (2 round routine: cast into weapon, stride, true strike, strike)that sequence seems sub-optimal in general;
Slide caster and Shooting Star aren’t going to need the move action Round 1, which leaves them with an extra action sitting there in Round 1 that could (should) be a 0 MAP Strike. They could do something defensively with it, which is fine but i think holding off until Round 2 for True Strike/Striking Strike will be lower DPR than alternative no-True Strike sequences, at which point viewing True Strike as a design-warping factor seems off.
Suboptimal with a cantrip (which Spell Strike is in general), optimal with a slotted spell. When you have a very limited resource with a powerful crit effect this is what you get. Shooting Star can just add another strike in round 1 before spell striking in order to become more optimal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Striking spell could mimic Eldritch shot without any major issues when it comes to accuracy and resolving spell effects (single hit roll). Now truestrike is no longer combinable with striking spell. Or it could remain as separate actions so truestrike, striking spell, strike are possible with haste again with a single attack roll. The issue isn't how bad striking spell is (it is weak in its current form compared to abilities like Eldritch Shot & Channel Smite), but how few spell strikes per day a single class Magus will be capable of. They'll miss with most of their spell slot striking spells per day vs at or higher level enemies, which is problematic.
For reference
Eldritch Shot:
"Activate Three Actions Eldritch Shot; Requirements You are wielding a bow; Effect You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell do not occur immediately but are imbued into the bow you're wielding. Make a Strike with that bow. Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't apply the penalty until after you've completed both attacks."
Channel Smite:
"Channel Smite Two Actions, Feat 4
Traits Cleric,Divine,Necromancy
Source Core Rulebook pg. 122 1.1
Cost Expend a harm or heal spell.
Prerequisites harmful font or healing font
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)."
Is everyone so sure True Strike works with Striking Spell?
It doesn't look like it works to me.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one creature or object, instead of casting it as normal, you place its magic into one melee weapon you're wielding or into your body to use with an unarmed attack.
If you hit with a melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit.
True Strike doesn't have a target.
Honestly, a lot of buff spells don't work with Striking Spell either. The way I read it, using Striking Spell with Resist Energy would give the enemy the Resistance.
Truestrike works as a round 2 spell to make sure the big spell goes off on the second round if you missed with the weapon attack the first time. YOu can spam it if you are hasted to get an attack spell off, then truestrike, then attack with your hasted action but that is pretty resource intensive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is everyone so sure True Strike works with Striking Spell?
It doesn't look like it works to me.
You don't use True Strike as the spell you're Spellstriking with, you use it to land an already charged blade.