| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@midnightoker
I agree your one contentious proposal of losing medium armor is in fact contentious lol.
It would break the class for me as I'd no longer be able to hit 18str, 16int and 18ac with slide casting at level 1.
Considering Slide casting probably shouldn't get that type of enhanced movement with Medium Armor, I would call that a feature instead of a bug.
I'd be all for the two-handed Magus to get Medium Armor, but the one handers get Medium armor is also a little thematically "off" to me.
And again, a level 1 Class Feat could probably suffice. Most of them (IMO) aren't very good anyways (Eschew Materials... come on...).
YMMV clearly.
If we got a class feat at level 1 I'd settle for that, as we currently do not and I don't want to feel forced to play a human.
And I don't see the disconnect on the movement I guess. Rather I'd see sustaining steel get heavy armor.
If Magus got a level 1 class feat, they could choose an “upgrade armor” feat at that level and Sustaining Steel got Medium Armor, that would open up light armor Magus, allow a heavy armor Magus via sustaining steel and the first level feat, and still keep medium as an option for the sliders with the level one feat or just sustaining steel.
#NoOneAskedButIllDieOnThisHill
@midnightoker
I agree your one contentious proposal of losing medium armor is in fact contentious lol.
It would break the class for me as I'd no longer be able to hit 18str, 16int and 18ac with slide casting at level 1.
Considering Slide casting probably shouldn't get that type of enhanced movement with Medium Armor, I would call that a feature instead of a bug.
I'd be all for the two-handed Magus to get Medium Armor, but the one handers get Medium armor is also a little thematically "off" to me.
And again, a level 1 Class Feat could probably suffice. Most of them (IMO) aren't very good anyways (Eschew Materials... come on...).
YMMV clearly.
If we got a class feat at level 1 I'd settle for that, as we currently do not and I don't want to feel forced to play a human.
And I don't see the disconnect on the movement I guess. Rather I'd see sustaining steel get heavy armor.
If Magus got a level 1 class feat, they could choose an “upgrade armor” feat at that level and Sustaining Steel got Medium Armor, that would open up light armor Magus, allow a heavy armor Magus via sustaining steel and the first level feat, and still keep medium as an option for the sliders with the level one feat or just sustaining steel.
#NoOneAskedButIllDieOnThisHill
For what it's worth I hope they don't do what you ask. If I end up unable to achieve my 18str,16int and 18ac sliding Magus without outside feat investment I'd likely drop the class or home brew it.
For my part, I think letting the Magus have medium armor proficiency is a good middle ground compared to 1e. It started with only light armor but was able to eventually get to full-on heavy armor. Now it starts with medium armor at most and never goes any higher.
At worst I'd say maybe slow down the rate at which it increases its armor proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my part, I think letting the Magus have medium armor proficiency is a good middle ground compared to 1e. It started with only light armor but was able to eventually get to full-on heavy armor. Now it starts with medium armor at most and never goes any higher.
At worst I'd say maybe slow down the rate at which it increases its armor proficiency.
I'm trying to figure out why this is even a talking point. I already nixed using the warpriest due to proficiency issues lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slowing the Magus's armor proficiency doesn't do anything about the dex vs str question, it just reduces AC for all builds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if I brought it up here or not, but since this is the what else does the magus need thread:
On top of combat style feats that grant striking activities (like/but different from power attack, dragging strike, lunge, etc),
More spells that target 1 or more creatures. Too many of them are incapacitation spells, which is really hard to justify on the limited spell slots of the Magus, and there are too many levels where you only really have 1 or 2 options + heightening lower level spells and having some with interesting crit riders could keep them interesting.
I think we will see this in the "Secrets of Magic Book" but high level magi end up with a surprising low number of high level spells that are worth casting through striking spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the 30' range limit is based in the fact that most ranged attack spells have that range... which just makes it redundant, really. You could make an argument for spell strike being limited by the range increment of the spell in question, but I'd go for "within your first ranged increment" personally, it would help with Shooting Star actually feeling like it's doing something for you rather than just giving permission for your build to work.
Shooting star's range is only limited by the range of the spell cast. The 30ft example was just an example. With ray of frost, you would still have a range of 120ft, and make for a whammy of a sniper shot. I don't know where the argument that it turns off at 30ft would come from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slowing the Magus's armor proficiency doesn't do anything about the dex vs str question, it just reduces AC for all builds.
I’d argue there’s no trade off for choosing strength Magus at all. It’s strictly better to build for strength as it is.
I at least felt the option to grab heavy would be appetizing for some. Oh well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shooting star's range is only limited by the range of the spell cast. The 30ft example was just an example. With ray of frost, you would still have a range of 120ft, and make for a whammy of a sniper shot. I don't know where the argument that it turns off at 30ft would come from.
Always take Ray of Frost. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slowing the Magus's armor proficiency doesn't do anything about the dex vs str question, it just reduces AC for all builds.I’d argue there’s no trade off for choosing strength Magus at all. It’s strictly better to build for strength as it is.
I at least felt the option to grab heavy would be appetizing for some. Oh well.
That's every martial but thief's.
super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.
Comet Spell requires casting a spell from a spell-slot, it does not work with cantrips.
Heck, it doesn't even work with Focus spells...
super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.Comet Spell requires casting a spell from a spell-slot, it does not work with cantrips.
Heck, it doesn't even work with Focus spells...
Thnks I missed that. I haven't looked too closely at a shooting star magus yet, which is why I was confused about why people think its range is limited.
That's every martial but thief's.Slowing the Magus's armor proficiency doesn't do anything about the dex vs str question, it just reduces AC for all builds.I’d argue there’s no trade off for choosing strength Magus at all. It’s strictly better to build for strength as it is.
I at least felt the option to grab heavy would be appetizing for some. Oh well.
Swashbuckler, Investigator, Bow Ranger, Crossbow Ranger, one handed dex based fighter, Any rogue but ruffian, Ranged Repisal Champion, Monk with dex stances, etc
So no, not every martial but thief.
And if you’re about to make some rebuttal about swashbucklers/investigators being bad, I’ve seen them in play and I don’t agree in the slightest.
super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.Comet Spell requires casting a spell from a spell-slot, it does not work with cantrips.
Heck, it doesn't even work with Focus spells...
Where does it say that? Nothing in it mentions slots.
Where does it say that? Nothing in it mentions slots.super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.Comet Spell requires casting a spell from a spell-slot, it does not work with cantrips.
Heck, it doesn't even work with Focus spells...
COMET SPELL [free-action] FEAT 10
ARCANE EVOCATION MAGUS
Prerequisites shooting star magus synthesis
Trigger You hit with a ranged Strike and discharge a stored
spell that you had cast from a spell slot.You create a trail of magical energy that flows from your
target back to you. Each creature in a line between you and
the target, not including you or the target, takes force damage
equal to the spell’s level. If the triggering spell was of the
evocation school, increase the damage by half the spell’s level
and change the damage type to one type dealt by the spell
(your choice).
Now Cascading Ray will work with cantrips, but it also has a built-in -5 or -10 MAP, so frankly it's absolute garbage...
COMET SPELL
Ah, I see. Somehow I read that and saw Shooting Star not Comet Spell. Ignore my comment, I was mistaken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
super situational, but a spell like ray of frost and comet spell can make for a pretty devastating line of destruction.
Make that acid arrow for a rain of destruction using a spell slot.
I'd like to see some kind of synergy with touch spells. Magus' poor spell accuracy combined with touch spells having no effect on a miss make them quite unappealing. As is, all they get is the ability to ignore MAP (which I've always found a bit silly that touch spells even have to be subjected to).
I'd also accept a magic item that gives an item bonus to touch spells, or a rune that allows a weapon's item bonus to apply to touch spells.
I'd like to see some kind of synergy with touch spells. Magus' poor spell accuracy combined with touch spells having no effect on a miss make them quite unappealing. As is, all they get is the ability to ignore MAP (which I've always found a bit silly that touch spells even have to be subjected to).
I'd also accept a magic item that gives an item bonus to touch spells, or a rune that allows a weapon's item bonus to apply to touch spells.
Most touch spells don't have an attack roll. Shocking Grasp might be the only one. Most touch spells are just basic saving throws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's every martial but thief's.Slowing the Magus's armor proficiency doesn't do anything about the dex vs str question, it just reduces AC for all builds.I’d argue there’s no trade off for choosing strength Magus at all. It’s strictly better to build for strength as it is.
I at least felt the option to grab heavy would be appetizing for some. Oh well.
Swashbuckler, Investigator, Bow Ranger, Crossbow Ranger, one handed dex based fighter, Any rogue but ruffian, Ranged Repisal Champion, Monk with dex stances, etc
So no, not every martial but thief.
And if you’re about to make some rebuttal about swashbucklers/investigators being bad, I’ve seen them in play and I don’t agree in the slightest.
All my swashbuckler have at least 16str if not 18. Regardless of Wich one.
My investigator bumps str every asi, do does my bow rangers
Crossbow ranger is a thing?
My one handed fighters all have 18str, I have no reason to go dex based
All my rogues have 18str save for ones that use bows, then I run then as my investigator.
All my monks even with dex stances run 18str
Have not played a reprisal champion. But I'd run it and as investigator.
Point is, just because you feel you could sack str doesn't mean everyone views it as a build. I don't, it's merely as choice in sub optimal play (Wich is valid)
Wich
The word is "which" with two 'h's and not capitalized. Just fyi. :)
I keep trying to read it as "Witch (the class)"| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said it was always better to build strength over dexterity, and in all of those cases you advance dexterity higher than strength. If you don't, you actually lose DPR because 10% chance to hit is worth more than a +1 to Damage.
I never said you don’t want or need strength at all, just that building dex on several of the listed is basically required.
I said Magus has no incentives to go dex at all, which as of now, they don’t really. There is no incentives to go dex while in all of the above cases (particularly swashbuckler and Investigator) you have high incentives to scale dex.
Also, just as an FYI, if you do something that doesn’t mean it’s the most optimal thing or better than other choices. Your choices are not the standard by which others judge the value of a class, so when you say things like “all my X do Y” it doesn’t really mean anything in the grand scheme of measuring what a class can do or is worth.
You said it was always better to build strength over dexterity, and in all of those cases you advance dexterity higher than strength. If you don't, you actually lose DPR because 10% chance to hit is worth more than a +1 to Damage.
I never said you don’t want or need strength at all, just that building dex on several of the listed is basically required.
I said Magus has no incentives to go dex at all, which as of now, they don’t really. There is no incentives to go dex while in all of the above cases (particularly swashbuckler and Investigator) you have high incentives to scale dex.
Also, just as an FYI, if you do something that doesn’t mean it’s the most optimal thing or better than other choices. Your choices are not the standard by which others judge the value of a class, so when you say things like “all my X do Y” it doesn’t really mean anything in the grand scheme of measuring what a class can do or is worth.
It does in terms of optimization. The only ones I don't focus on strength in your examples are the ranged damage dealers. Not the finesse ones.
It does in terms of optimization. The only ones I don't focus on strength in your examples are the ranged damage dealers. Not the finesse ones.
So you think your personal choices on what a Class should or shouldn't be doing is the definition of optimization?
Is that about it?
And no, Investigator and Swashbuckler are not optimized by going full STR over DEX. They might want some, but STR over DEX is straight-up sub-optimal on both. Advancing it at level 5 doesn't change that DEX needs to be higher in most cases.
The definition of optimization isn't contingent on 18 STR. You can't even get 18 STR on Swashbuckler/Investigator at level 1, no matter what you do, and therefore your bonus to hit is always 10% below the expected maximum, which drastically reduces your DPR compared to +1 damage.
"All my X do Y" is not a statement that holds value to anyone but yourself.
It does in terms of optimization. The only ones I don't focus on strength in your examples are the ranged damage dealers. Not the finesse ones.So you think your personal choices on what a Class should or shouldn't be doing is the definition of optimization?
Is that about it?
And no, Investigator and Swashbuckler are not optimized by going full STR over DEX. They might want some, but STR over DEX is straight-up sub-optimal on both. Advancing it at level 5 doesn't change that DEX needs to be higher in most cases.
The definition of optimization isn't contingent on 18 STR. You can't even get 18 STR on Swashbuckler/Investigator at level 1, no matter what you do, and therefore your bonus to hit is always 10% below the expected maximum, which drastically reduces your DPR compared to +1 damage.
"All my X do Y" is not a statement that holds value to anyone but yourself.
I have generalized too much and as a result came off as more binary than I actually am.
My expectations for any martial for level 1 is that I get my ac to at least 18, then I invest into my damage stat. If my accuracy stat is seperate from my damage stat and I have no way to get around this then I build them as a ranged bow attacker.
Ranged martials are different because the value of str is halved on my compound bow and I need dex to hit unless I take to a throwing weapons build.
So the amount I invest into str is dependant upon those variables.
Atm, how the Magus works is I need 18str,18ac,16int. Medium armor allows for this. If any of the synthesis makes this not possible, I'm not on board flat out.
It does in terms of optimization. The only ones I don't focus on strength in your examples are the ranged damage dealers. Not the finesse ones.So you think your personal choices on what a Class should or shouldn't be doing is the definition of optimization?
Is that about it?
And no, Investigator and Swashbuckler are not optimized by going full STR over DEX. They might want some, but STR over DEX is straight-up sub-optimal on both. Advancing it at level 5 doesn't change that DEX needs to be higher in most cases.
The definition of optimization isn't contingent on 18 STR. You can't even get 18 STR on Swashbuckler/Investigator at level 1, no matter what you do, and therefore your bonus to hit is always 10% below the expected maximum, which drastically reduces your DPR compared to +1 damage.
"All my X do Y" is not a statement that holds value to anyone but yourself.
I have generalized too much and as a result came off as more binary than I actually am.
My expectations for any martial for level 1 is that I get my ac to at least 18, then I invest into my damage stat. If my accuracy stat is seperate from my damage stat and I have no way to get around this then I build them as a ranged bow attacker.
Ranged martials are different because the value of str is halved on my compound bow and I need dex to hit unless I take to a throwing weapons build.
So the amount I invest into str is dependant upon those variables.
Atm, how the Magus works is I need 18str,18ac,16int. Medium armor allows for this. If any of the synthesis makes this not possible, I'm not on board flat out.
Aren't the damage stats irrelevant if they're not your accuracy stat? +5 or +6 damage doesn't mean too terribly much when you're rolling 3 or 4 weapon damage die plus weapon damage die from abilities and spells
Aren't the damage stats irrelevant if they're not your accuracy stat? +5 or +6 damage doesn't mean too terribly much when you're rolling 3 or 4 weapon damage die plus weapon damage die from abilities and spells
It does in terms of optimization. The only ones I don't focus on strength in your examples are the ranged damage dealers. Not the finesse ones.So you think your personal choices on what a Class should or shouldn't be doing is the definition of optimization?
Is that about it?
And no, Investigator and Swashbuckler are not optimized by going full STR over DEX. They might want some, but STR over DEX is straight-up sub-optimal on both. Advancing it at level 5 doesn't change that DEX needs to be higher in most cases.
The definition of optimization isn't contingent on 18 STR. You can't even get 18 STR on Swashbuckler/Investigator at level 1, no matter what you do, and therefore your bonus to hit is always 10% below the expected maximum, which drastically reduces your DPR compared to +1 damage.
"All my X do Y" is not a statement that holds value to anyone but yourself.
I have generalized too much and as a result came off as more binary than I actually am.
My expectations for any martial for level 1 is that I get my ac to at least 18, then I invest into my damage stat. If my accuracy stat is seperate from my damage stat and I have no way to get around this then I build them as a ranged bow attacker.
Ranged martials are different because the value of str is halved on my compound bow and I need dex to hit unless I take to a throwing weapons build.
So the amount I invest into str is dependant upon those variables.
Atm, how the Magus works is I need 18str,18ac,16int. Medium armor allows for this. If any of the synthesis makes this not possible, I'm not on board flat out.
Never useless. However the value does slide depending on how many attacks your build averages per turn.
An investigator with Eldritch Archer dedication as example. Is probably where I'd value it least. But it still has value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An investigator with Eldritch Archer dedication as example. Is probably where I'd value it least. But it still has value.
When people point out this observation I wonder how often they are attacking the subject of their case.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it happens, but it's nowhere near frequent enough to even consider it a good combination for Investigators specifically.
I've got two investigators in two different campaigns and have run one myself as an NPC, and Free Action Devise a Strategem is relatively rare. And that's the only way you can trigger this with Eldritch Shot.
The action economy doesn't line up often enough to make Investigator any better at this than others (in fact, I'd argue it's worse because a standard archer with high DEX will have more to hit than an Investigator purely because of the Class Key Ability Score being INT).
An investigator with Eldritch Archer dedication as example. Is probably where I'd value it least. But it still has value.When people point out this observation I wonder how often they are attacking the subject of their case.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it happens, but it's nowhere near frequent enough to even consider it a good combination for Investigators specifically.
I've got two investigators in two different campaigns and have run one myself as an NPC, and Free Action Devise a Strategem is relatively rare. And that's the only way you can trigger this with Eldritch Shot.
The action economy doesn't line up often enough to make Investigator any better at this than others (in fact, I'd argue it's worse because a standard archer with high DEX will have more to hit than an Investigator purely because of the Class Key Ability Score being INT).
Definitely depends on the campaign.
But I also find great value in the other feats that are attacks and only 2 actions with summoner. Not just the 3 action base attack.
Definitely depends on the campaign.
I mean if your GM is playing by the rules for subject of Pursue a Lead, then it really shouldn't vary that much.
This subject is typically a single creature, item, or small location (such as a room or corridor), but the GM might allow a different scope for your investigation.
You'd have to one, at least have the switch leads feat (once per day), and to encounter the single creature(s) that is the subject of your lead more than once.
Realistically, the enemy would have to be "getting away" extremely often only to fight you again later the same day.
In either case, Investigator is pretty much at the back of the pack when it comes to classes that can benefit from Eldritch Archer (at least Eldritch Shot, which is one of the biggest portions of the class). Assassin is a far better choice for an Investigator.
Definitely depends on the campaign.I mean if your GM is playing by the rules for subject of Pursue a Lead, then it really shouldn't vary that much.
This subject is typically a single creature, item, or small location (such as a room or corridor), but the GM might allow a different scope for your investigation.You'd have to one, at least have the switch leads feat (once per day), and to encounter the single creature(s) that is the subject of your lead more than once.
Realistically, the enemy would have to be "getting away" extremely often only to fight you again later the same day.
In either case, Investigator is pretty much at the back of the pack when it comes to classes that can benefit from Eldritch Archer.
From the 3 action strike yes. From the utilities aspect of the other feats you can get from it I think it excels. Because it can identify that weakness and select the perfect arrow for the roll and situation.
But investigator in general is in back of the pack in terms of combat in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also interested in seeing focus spell stances for the Magus.
In particular, something with a spell school tag that lets you cast a specific cantrip for 1 fewer action while in the stance, or which provides a related damage/buff/debuff aura, or which allows you to sacrifice prepared spells to cast a spell based on the stance all seem like they'd help drive home the "I fight using magic" theme without just relying on Striking Spell.
Having stances that focus on Martial vs Magic aspects could also help players choose between themes of using magic to augment skill vs weaving spells into combat. "Martial" stances could be non-focus but give new options for saccing spells similar to Channel Smite, while "Magic" stances could be focus driven and provide persistent AOE effects or reward using indirect damage and control spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay this is a reminder for everyone: this is a thread about the Magus, and what people want to see improved or changed besides the hot topic Striking Spell. If you wanna argue things like STR vs DEX damage comparisons for other classes like Swashbuckler or Investigator, you are more than welcome to do so elsewhere.
Please keep focused on the topic at hand.
Okay this is a reminder for everyone: this is a thread about the Magus, and what people want to see improved or changed besides the hot topic Striking Spell. If you wanna argue things like STR vs DEX damage comparisons for other classes like Swashbuckler or Investigator, you are more than welcome to do so elsewhere.
Please keep focused on the topic at hand.
It's an important comparison if we are going to discuss dex Magus. I don't see the issue in that regard.
Most touch spells don't have an attack roll. Shocking Grasp might be the only one. Most touch spells are just basic saving throws.I'd like to see some kind of synergy with touch spells. Magus' poor spell accuracy combined with touch spells having no effect on a miss make them quite unappealing. As is, all they get is the ability to ignore MAP (which I've always found a bit silly that touch spells even have to be subjected to).
I'd also accept a magic item that gives an item bonus to touch spells, or a rune that allows a weapon's item bonus to apply to touch spells.
Force of habit. I meant spell attack roll spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also interested in seeing focus spell stances for the Magus.
In particular, something with a spell school tag that lets you cast a specific cantrip for 1 fewer action while in the stance, or which provides a related damage/buff/debuff aura, or which allows you to sacrifice prepared spells to cast a spell based on the stance all seem like they'd help drive home the "I fight using magic" theme without just relying on Striking Spell.
Having stances that focus on Martial vs Magic aspects could also help players choose between themes of using magic to augment skill vs weaving spells into combat. "Martial" stances could be non-focus but give new options for saccing spells similar to Channel Smite, while "Magic" stances could be focus driven and provide persistent AOE effects or reward using indirect damage and control spells.
When I think of Focus Stances, I'll be honest here, I think of Bleach and Monk Stances (with the focus cost of Wild Winds and Grasping Shadows) having an unholy lovechild we get to play with. And going full weeb, I wonder if this might be better done with a Black Blade archetype.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I think of Focus Stances, I'll be honest here, I think of Bleach and Monk Stances (with the focus cost of Wild Winds and Grasping Shadows) having an unholy lovechild we get to play with. And going full weeb, I wonder if this might be better done with a Black Blade archetype.
Hey, I'd play the f~*@ out of that. Frankly I'd play the hell out of both stance ideas.
Now I'm also imagining a "sword beam" stance where you can make (short, 30ft at max) ranged spell attacks with your melee modifier, similar to how Wild Winds works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason I do not want to see focus spell stances, is that the magus is incredibly flexible right now in how you can stack it with almost anything. Turning its focus spells (which last for a whole combat now) into something that prevent you from picking up monk or fighter or archetype combat stances feels like it would be more limiting than expansive of options. The unarmed magus with a monk dedication is a wide open template right now that interacts very flexibly with the striking spell mechanic and all of the monk stances. I'd really like to keep that.
I'd enjoy stances too
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reflected a bit on the class today, I think some martial options would be nice:
- Attack of Opportunity (same level as Champ/Barb), improving action economy through the ability to deliver striking spell while waiting for the next turn.
- Double Slice
- a two action feat that worked like twin feint but for the spell attack. You’d spend your two actions and if your melee strike hit, the target would be flat-footed against the spell attack
I just realized that this thread is starting to become less "what do we want to see improved" and more another "wishlist" thread.
So let's try and build specifically on what the Magus already has or is sorely lacking, rather than what would be "nice" to have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe improve or review the Magus’ key ability?
I don’t know if it works, but it has occurred me that Magus could maybe get to apply Int to their attacks like an Investigator? They are after all, pretty MAD and should be blending might and magic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligence as a Key Ability, and the ability to use Intelligence for weapon attacks while Striking Spell is loaded up is an interesting direction.
It does weaken their baseline martial abilities, so Striking Spell would need to be properly buffed to compensate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like the potency and rune focus spells be combined so potency isn't made useless by upgrading your items, would improve the action economy slightly, and free up design space for another focus spell.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to be able to cast spells that aren’t attack spells and still be blending magic and martial attacks. As written, the class can’t ever cast mirror images, move, and attack, for example. At least not without haste. The 1E Magus couldn’t necessarily cast a non-attack spell, move more than 5 feet, and attack, but they could take a 5-foot step. So maybe a two action ability that lets the Magus cast any 2-action spell and Step would help.
But I’d also like enough spell slots to be able to prep some non-attack spells. In my test runs, I’ve been using to two highest level slots for attack spells and the two lower level for buffs or utility spells, but for anything more than a single fight day, that just feels like too little spellcasting ability. The wave casting that’s been suggested elsewhere feels like a good compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to be able to cast spells that aren’t attack spells and still be blending magic and martial attacks. As written, the class can’t ever cast mirror images
Yeah I gotta say, Mirror Image was too strong in the first edition, but it was SO needed on just about every Magus I played.
Being in melee is tough as a caster and Mirror Image was a staple of a few of my Magus as basically my primary defensive ability.
I'd like to be able to have it without burning one of my precious 4 slots.