What ELSE do you want to see improved?


Magus Class

101 to 150 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it might be good to give the magus a way to cast a spell and either move or strike as part of that activity.

It very well could be Spell Combat and Spellstrike respectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think Kalaam pointed it out and I agree that the current striking spell plays much more like Spell Combat. Personally, I think that something akin to the Eldritch Archer (and I have my proposition that does not make it a 3 action activity) feels more like Spellstrike.

As for Mirror Image, I agree. Perhaps bake it into Martial Caster or a similar feat? That is, if Magus does not end up with more slots in the final design


2 people marked this as a favorite.
richienvh wrote:
As for Mirror Image, I agree. Perhaps bake it into Martial Caster or a similar feat? That is, if Magus does not end up with more slots in the final design

As long as they add the trait “mandatory” to Martial Caster to clear up player confusion.

grumble... wish I had more spells... wave progression... grumble..

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, it could be mirror image, or any other non attack buff. I know I may be in the minority, but I used spell combat quite often to cast buff spells and still get some attacks off in a round.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:
I mean, it could be mirror image, or any other non attack buff. I know I may be in the minority, but I used spell combat quite often to cast buff spells and still get some attacks off in a round.

Buff spells, Grease, Color Spray, Mirror Image, Fly, Web, etc

I used attack spells like shocking Grasp too, but I generally used spells that help me hit and my teammates hit over juicing myself exclusively.

This is why I think they need spells to be able to define themselves and relying on Class Feats to have the specific ones you’ll need is an uphill battle.

If nothing changes spell slot wise, I’ll have to grab an MCD Wizard/Witch just about every time, it’ll be the only way to play the Magi I used to play and it’s a lot of value to just do that if there’s no way to get it natively.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
If nothing changes spell slot wise, I’ll have to grab an MCD Wizard/Witch just about every time, it’ll be the only way to play the Magi I used to play and it’s a lot of value to just do that if there’s no way to get it natively.

Pretty much: without those lower level spells, it's hard to feel whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would like Sustaining Steel to allow for the option of a Sword and Board build. Right now the Striking Spell with that synthesis requires that you use a two handed weapon. If they did this change, they should also give the Shield Block reaction to the Sustaining Steel synthesis magus.

I think a big part of making the magus work will be adding spells that work well with Striking Spell. A cantrip for each energy type. Make sure there are at least two spells at every spell level a Magus can cast that work well with Striking Spell.

I would also like Striking Spell to allow you to cast defensive or other spells. You have feats like Martial Caster, but you can't use the spells there with Striking Spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

I would like Sustaining Steel to allow for the option of a Sword and Board build. Right now the Striking Spell with that synthesis requires that you use a two handed weapon. If they did this change, they should also give the Shield Block reaction to the Sustaining Steel synthesis magus.

I think a big part of making the magus work will be adding spells that work well with Striking Spell. A cantrip for each energy type. Make sure there are at least two spells at every spell level a Magus can cast that work well with Striking Spell.

I would also like Striking Spell to allow you to cast defensive or other spells. You have feats like Martial Caster, but you can't use the spells there with Striking Spell.

I get the feeling that, much like with the prior playtests, we haven't been shown all of the Syntheses that Magus will have available to it. More than likely we've been shown the most contentious or most complete ones, and Paizo is going to use the tests involving these three as a frame of reference for whatever else is used.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm very in favor of propping up the class fantasy by adding more 'magical
non spell abilities.

I also want focus spells that are a little more direct, the focus point stance idea is a good one (and was actually something I pushed for in the speculation threads we had), but it might not be compatible with spell-strike as it currently stands.

I'd like to see a little more support for the knowledgeable/scholarly side of the Magus.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Someone said wrote:
I'd like to see a little more support for the knowledgeable/scholarly side of the Magus.

Agreed. Honestly I don't even care of Spellstrike or Spell Combat is removed, I really just wanted that flavor of fighter/magic-user that no edition except the magus really got. This version is just a fighter w a few spells. Would really like a 50/50 martial/caster not a Spellstriker


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rude_ wrote:
Someone said wrote:
I'd like to see a little more support for the knowledgeable/scholarly side of the Magus.

Agreed. Honestly I don't even care of Spellstrike or Spell Combat is removed, I really just wanted that flavor of fighter/magic-user that no edition except the magus really got. This version is just a fighter w a few spells. Would really like a 50/50 martial/caster not a Spellstriker

Fighter+caster dedication says hi


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I built my old 1e magus's with that style. Not really what I was hoping for in a magus. It seems Fighter/Wiz or Wiz/fighter is still a 75/25 thing, not an interesting blend of the two

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to see a whole branch of options devoted to whacking enemies with a Spellbook, treating it as a proper Weapon, turning the Spellbook into a Familiar OR an Arcane Bonded Object, and being able to spend Focus Points to cast a Spell from the Spellbook WITHOUT using a Spell Slot.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

People really interested in what the magus class would be like with 1 action focus spells or cantrips should try building a magus with a witch MC and pick up some one action hexes. I think that version of the hexblade is entirely buildable with the existing playtest class and will let you do what you are wanting when you are asking for striking spell to collapsed into a two action activity that lets you cast as spell and strike (a way overpowered option when tagged on to all the rest of the spells of the game).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A wizard with a martial MC dedication and choosing martial feats is much closer to the 50/50 split people are talking about. Expert weapon proficiency + a fully upgraded weapon and status bonuses from buff spells is more than equivalent to a 3/4 BAB caster in PF1. It will be enough to reliably hit with a weapon 1x per turn and still get a powerful spell off. I don't want to see the magus turned into that + permanent haste, which is what a lot of the changes people are calling for amount to, or would be worse than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
spend Focus Points to cast a Spell from the Spellbook WITHOUT using a Spell Slot.

That's actually a really cool ability, regardless of what class ends up with it (personally that sounds like a really neat Wizard focus power, but that's just me and the wizard needs some love).

Probably would need a restriction, eg. "2 spell levels lower than your max" or whatever, for a class like the wizard, just because getting *another* top level spell (that could be ANYTHING) would be a lot.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Unicore, MCD isn't a solution to everything.
You should not *need* MCD for magus to play better.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kalaam wrote:

Unicore, MCD isn't a solution to everything.

You should not *need* MCD for magus to play better.

I agree. But the magus needs to be more than "This existing class and an archetype." Also, for playtesting purposes, if you find yourself saying, I really wish the magus had an x like ability, and the game already has a way to give that to you, you should try it out and see what it is like in play.

At high levels, the playtest magus has access to the ability to cast produce flame as a 1 action cantrip, and to gain focus spells that only take 1 action, that would even be cast with your arcane casting proficiency.

People should test those options out and see how they feel in play, rather than not test them out and just decide that they are what the class needs.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Or the fact that the base class doesn't have what you need means the class because some work still


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
People really interested in what the magus class would be like with 1 action focus spells or cantrips should try building a magus with a witch MC and pick up some one action hexes. I think that version of the hexblade is entirely buildable with the existing playtest class and will let you do what you are wanting when you are asking for striking spell to collapsed into a two action activity that lets you cast as spell and strike (a way overpowered option when tagged on to all the rest of the spells of the game).

The problem with Witch hexes is that the low level ones are sustain spells, which is fine for a caster. For a melee Magus, hexes eat up a valuable action every turn, only leaving 2 actions for other stuff. Its certainly doesn't work well if you want to use Striking Spell on future turns. With that said, I'm going Witch for my free archetype in a campaign I'm in for the extra spell slots. I wasn't going to pick up the hexes for the reasons I mentioned, but I might

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:
Since it has your attention I'm actually curious; what do you think of the Magus and the feedback you've gotten so far? (snip) Anything else in particular that's stood out as an issue for players?

I'll avoid talking about the solutions we're looking at. The main reason I appreciate this thread is that there are a few people saying the same things about Striking Spell and/or lower number of spells in every thread, which makes finding other information tough to find. Having a spot dedicated toward everything else gives room for the rest to get some attention.

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think some of that is primed by both the P1 magus and by eldritch archer. The playtest magus is a way to try broadening that formula a bit, but hits the action economy wall.

The posts of people who do like Striking Spell often rely on a pretty intense buff and true strike regime to get the results they want. That's not ideal. We don't really want players to only get full enjoyment out of the class with that level of complexity and, often, repetition.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Need more Slots if we are to be encouraged to burn them on non damage options imo. Especially with how Magus damage generally is.

But interesting to get a peak into your thoughts.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage.

I get what you're saying, but honestly, part of that is driven by the nature of what Striking Spell does, which is inflict damage or condition on a target via hitting them with a weapon.

Rehash:
Sure, a lot of the talk has been on the damage side, but you get pretty comparable results when using debuff spells (one: there aren't any cantrips and two: they're less reliable than other methods anyway).

As for other types of spell, they have no combo potential with Striking Spell. You can't use it with Haste because that doesn't affect you, it affects your enemy, etc. You can't use it with your own focus spells for the same reason. Half your feats don't trigger if you don't use spell slots.

Quote:
The posts of people who do like Striking Spell often rely on a pretty intense buff and true strike regime to get the results they want. That's not ideal. We don't really want players to only get full enjoyment out of the class with that level of complexity and, often, repetition.

No, its not. I completely agree.

Quote:
The main reason I appreciate this thread is that there are a few people saying the same things about Striking Spell and/or lower number of spells in every thread, which makes finding other information tough to find. Having a spot dedicated toward everything else gives room for the rest to get some attention.

Oh for sure. And I wish I had stronger opinions on some of them myself. I can certainly agree with the desire to "try something new" but I don't think the mechanics as presented are doing a good job of doing that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Logan Bonner wrote:
Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:
Since it has your attention I'm actually curious; what do you think of the Magus and the feedback you've gotten so far? (snip) Anything else in particular that's stood out as an issue for players?

I'll avoid talking about the solutions we're looking at. The main reason I appreciate this thread is that there are a few people saying the same things about Striking Spell and/or lower number of spells in every thread, which makes finding other information tough to find. Having a spot dedicated toward everything else gives room for the rest to get some attention.

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think some of that is primed by both the P1 magus and by eldritch archer. The playtest magus is a way to try broadening that formula a bit, but hits the action economy wall.

The posts of people who do like Striking Spell often rely on a pretty intense buff and true strike regime to get the results they want. That's not ideal. We don't really want players to only get full enjoyment out of the class with that level of complexity and, often, repetition.

This was the idea (going for debuff spells instead of damage) behind the sliding magus with a whip I built, but lack of spell slots was definitely an issue with making the debuff magus fun, since they could only target 1 person and most of the good debuffs start being to be able to affect many foes especially once they are of high enough level (fear, slow, and some of the incapacitate options).

One problem was that you end up having to sacrifice all of your fun feats to get enough spell slots that you just have nothing left to make the magus aspect really pop out.

Debuff cantrips (or even focus spells) might solve that. If I had the time, I would try rebuilding the character building towards a witch MC hex magus, but I don't think I will before the play test is over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage.
I get what you're saying, but honestly, part of that is driven by the nature of what Striking Spell does, which is inflict damage or condition on a target via hitting them with a weapon.

Very interesting point, Draco. Now I'm curious what a Striking Spell-esque mechanic that isn't an attack might look like. Right now that's handled by the Synthesis, but perhaps more options could be explored.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I was just reflecting and thought that one thing that could be improved could be removing the 1 creature targeting restriction from Striking Spell and maybe letting spells cast through it still have their multiple target effects.

I don’t know exactly how this could be balanced, but I just love the concept of a Magus running up against a pack of trolls, sword held high, and, as the first one gets struck, BAM, heightened Burning Hands goes off and the other trolls just scream in pain.

I know this one would be way off, but if we get something like an ability to hold the charge, something that could be had was a high level feat causing non-heightened versions of the same spell as we strike multiple times with them. For example, Magus, goes in, imbues Lvl 6 Phantasmal killer and hits foe one, then hits foe two for a 5th level one and misses foe three with the 4th level one and the charge goes off. That would probably be too OP, but the idea would be fun

Radiant Oath

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage.

What non-damage spells is the Magus set up for using? Most of them are save spells, which aren't particularly better with Spell Strike unless you are consistently critting (which you aren't against threats worth using a rare spell slot on), and you have worse save DCs than an actual caster 90% of the time. They are certainly capable of channeling more than damage spells through their weapons, but not mechanically encouraged to do so.

Most PF2 players have seen the benefit of debuffs and they are a much bigger part of the game for a lot of parties than they were in PF1, but as designed the Magus is positioned to be one of the classes benefiting from them, not setting them up. "Folks on this forum" are playing it focused on damage because that's what the current design encourages.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:
Since it has your attention I'm actually curious; what do you think of the Magus and the feedback you've gotten so far? (snip) Anything else in particular that's stood out as an issue for players?

I'll avoid talking about the solutions we're looking at. The main reason I appreciate this thread is that there are a few people saying the same things about Striking Spell and/or lower number of spells in every thread, which makes finding other information tough to find. Having a spot dedicated toward everything else gives room for the rest to get some attention.

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage. Nothing wrong with that, but I do think some of that is primed by both the P1 magus and by eldritch archer. The playtest magus is a way to try broadening that formula a bit, but hits the action economy wall.

The posts of people who do like Striking Spell often rely on a pretty intense buff and true strike regime to get the results they want. That's not ideal. We don't really want players to only get full enjoyment out of the class with that level of complexity and, often, repetition.

I think this is slightly untrue. We're not *just* worried about doing damage, we're worried about general accuracy. Our saving throw spells are also quite inaccurate so we're running into a situation where both debuffs and damage options are lackluster. I would honestly love to play a non-damage focused hexblade style build, where I debuff and cripple the enemies with my Striking Spells, but my DC being a full -3 compared to "full" casters makes that an impossibility. I'm not going to use my spell slots on 30% accurate debuff spells any more than I will on 30% accurate attack spells. Neither option is attractive which leaves self buff and attack spam.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the reason that there’s been so much emphasis on Striking Spell in other threads is because it’s the main class feature that a Magus gets that a Fighter/MC Wizard doesn’t get. And Striking Spell is tied to attacking and spells that target another creature. To play a Magus that isn’t focused on attacking with Striking Spell is to ignore what is different about the class.

I would love to be able to build a Magus that isn’t all about critting with attacks to get a better chance to crit with a spell. But that’s the mechanic we’re given in this version. If I’m casting a buff, I get no benefit from Striking Spell or my Synthesis that round.

Like others, I don’t find the 4 spell slots to be enough. I’ve tried in the test scenarios I’ve run to stick to using the 2 highest level slots for damaging spells and the two lower level slots for buffs or utility, but it’s not enough slots. The impulse is to save them all for the biggest fight. And having to take feats like Martial Caster to improve the situation in a very limited way doesn’t feel good. I’m even having trouble prepping utility cantrips, because so much of the Magus being effective seems to depend on being able to target multiple saves or multiple energy types. I’m never going to feel like a 50% caster if I don’t have room to prep detect magic or read aura, because I need 5 different attack cantrips.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I’m with those that feel that Striking Spell is not delivering, not just from a damage perspective, but also when channeling debuffs and other effects. So far, I’ve had playthroughs with Magi at levels 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15 and, unless facing level (-) creatures, those crits felt hard to get (even with flanking, hasting and debuffing).

From what I observed, the Magus was Good against mooks, Fair against equal level creatures and weaker than other classes against stronger foes. Could be we had bad luck, but me and my players wasted most of out slots, regardless of whether they had Shocking Grasps, Sudden Bolts or Slows and Fears.

Like Logan pointed out, you can only seem to get a workable version through heavy tactical use and a haste+true strike routine.

As an aside, although the 1e Magus and Eldritch Archer should not force the 2e Magus into a specific niche, they do interact with people’s perception of it. The first kind of defined a role some of the class’s fans expect to be at least one of its viable builds while the second heavily interacts with the class to the point that some people in these forums have felt that it is very enticing for Shooting Star Magi to get Eldritch Shot and just favor it instead of their own Striking Spell routine.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Let's not turn this thread into another Striking Spell thread please!


WatersLethe wrote:
Let's not turn this thread into another Striking Spell thread please!

Yeah, that's why I left my two paragraph summary reshash in a spoiler and labeled it as a rehash. It was relevant to the bit I was replying to, but I didn't want to rehash the same argument all over again in a thread that wasn't supposed to be about it.

Its probably still my fault, though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:

I think the main thing is that the class was set up to allow for more variety in the spell effects you're putting out by allowing more spells, but folks on this forum are more interested in dealing damage.

What non-damage spells is the Magus set up for using? Most of them are save spells, which aren't particularly better with Spell Strike unless you are consistently critting (which you aren't against threats worth using a rare spell slot on), and you have worse save DCs than an actual caster 90% of the time. They are certainly capable of channeling more than damage spells through their weapons, but not mechanically encouraged to do so.

Most PF2 players have seen the benefit of debuffs and they are a much bigger part of the game for a lot of parties than they were in PF1, but as designed the Magus is positioned to be one of the classes benefiting from them, not setting them up. "Folks on this forum" are playing it focused on damage because that's what the current design encourages.

Yeah, I'm legitimately confused about what Logan has said the design team imagined the Magus to be. What part of "You get 4 spells a day" makes you think there's going to be a variety in what the Magus does? How was the Magus ever supposed to overcome serious accuracy issues AND serious action economy issues?

And yeah, the rather dismissive "folks on the forum" stuff just screams "You're playing MY game wrong." Wanna know what needs improvement? That mindset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1- Shooting star upgraded to be at least as decent as eldrtich archer. The range requirement on shooting star kills it. At bare minimum let shooting star spell strike use the weapons range instead of the spells.

2- switch levels for bespell strikes and energized strikes. Or just give us a better bespell strikes. It’s a copy / paste from sorcerer and wizard and while it fits the theme a magus should be better at it then a pure caster.

3- deal with crit fishing in some way be it fortune tags or other method that lets some feats and abilities be improved without worry of things getting out of hand.

4- we really need at least 1 more 1 action strike mechanic at level 2 or 4 for a spell strike discharge option. At this point I think most everyone would take fighter dedication plus a 4th level feat just to gain a decent attack option. I’ve tried that route and a turn 2 sudden charge + spell strike is actually quite fun.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
drakinar 451 wrote:
2- switch levels for bespell strikes and energized strikes. Or just give us a better bespell strikes. It’s a copy / paste from sorcerer and wizard and while it fits the theme a magus should be better at it then a pure caster.

I actually really like Bespell Strikes on a Magus, but it's clunkier than on a Wizard for one key difference:

A Magus when using Striking Spell generally has to make a Strike after casting the Spell in the same turn, which means at most, Magus get this on the Strike they make during the same turn they use Striking Spell.

Thus the best you can get out of Bespell Strikes is a True Strike open, Strike, Strike, or a Cast a Spell to end your last round, and start the following turn (if no reaction) with Strike, Strike, Strike.

That to me seems, idk, clunky and weird when you consider how starved the action economy is right now.

I would really like for it to work a little more fluidly with Striking Spell (if you're going to give them their own Feat, you can do more than make it work with unarmed attacks).

I mean as is, I suppose it's fine, I just find it a bit weird that a Wizard who casts Fireball and then makes a Strike after using Bespell Weapon almost derives more value than a Magus simply because they are taking advantage of AoE and range.

And in addition to that, it's reserved for slotted spells only, which a Magus is extremely limited on and means they get to use this less than a standard Caster would.

I would like to see it work slightly better for the Magus than other Classes and heck, I personally wish it worked with any weapon or unarmed attack they were wielding instead of having to choose.

If they get more spells, it might be fine as is, but I would love to see "your last action was to cast a spell or make a Strike with a Striking Spell" just to allow a little more mileage on round 2 (if they continue with this truncated progression).


Midnightoker wrote:
drakinar 451 wrote:
2- switch levels for bespell strikes and energized strikes. Or just give us a better bespell strikes. It’s a copy / paste from sorcerer and wizard and while it fits the theme a magus should be better at it then a pure caster.

I actually really like Bespell Strikes on a Magus, but it's clunkier than on a Wizard for one key difference:

A Magus when using Striking Spell generally has to make a Strike after casting the Spell in the same turn, which means at most, Magus get this on the Strike they make during the same turn they use Striking Spell.

Thus the best you can get out of Bespell Strikes is a True Strike open, Strike, Strike, or a Cast a Spell to end your last round, and start the following turn (if no reaction) with Strike, Strike, Strike.

That to me seems, idk, clunky and weird when you consider how starved the action economy is right now.

I would really like for it to work a little more fluidly with Striking Spell (if you're going to give them their own Feat, you can do more than make it work with unarmed attacks).

I mean as is, I suppose it's fine, I just find it a bit weird that a Wizard who casts Fireball and then makes a Strike after using Bespell Weapon almost derives more value than a Magus simply because they are taking advantage of AoE and range.

And in addition to that, it's reserved for slotted spells only, which a Magus is extremely limited on means they get to use this less than
a standard Caster.

I would like to see it work slightly better for the Magus than other Classes and heck, I personally wish it worked with any weapon or unarmed attack they were wielding instead of having to choose.

If they get more spells, it might be fine as is, but I would love to see "your last action was to cast a spell or make a Strike with a Striking Spell" just to allow a little more mileage on round 2 (if they continue with this truncated progression).

During play test my best use of the magus was a bandolier filled with scrolls of true strike and bespell weapon. At level 5 I was more effective using scroll and striking twice. It’s a decent feat in that it will trigger off of scrolls and staves but as you say it is clunky.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If the magus is going to focus on cantrip use (as stated in the class description and what ELSE I want to see improved), then we definitely need more of them and we need for non damage dealing ones to interact more effectively and interesting with what ever core class mechanic the magus gets (striking spell/spell combat/etc).

One idea for that would be to have feats that let you use mage hand or message or other cantrips to be cast through the mechanic and then used to perform actions like demoralize or feint. Even better if you could use your spell casting modifier in place of your skill proficiency, since charisma + social skills are going to be tough for a magus to keep up with.

The problem with this currently is that mage hand takes 2 actions and has to be sustained to messages 1 action, so the action economy of it would be a little wonky. It would be nice to be able to cast spells like that in combat though, have it trigger the synthesis, and get some interesting use out of them.


Unicore wrote:

If the magus is going to focus on cantrip use (as stated in the class description and what ELSE I want to see improved), then we definitely need more of them and we need for non damage dealing ones to interact more effectively and interesting with what ever core class mechanic the magus gets (striking spell/spell combat/etc).

One idea for that would be to have feats that let you use mage hand or message or other cantrips to be cast through the mechanic and then used to perform actions like demoralize or feint. Even better if you could use your spell casting modifier in place of your skill proficiency, since charisma + social skills are going to be tough for a magus to keep up with.

The problem with this currently is that mage hand takes 2 actions and has to be sustained to messages 1 action, so the action economy of it would be a little wonky. It would be nice to be able to cast spells like that in combat though, have it trigger the synthesis, and get some interesting use out of them.

I really like the idea of a spell with a single action Verbal component metamagic that allows a Demoralize as part of the casting.

It might be able to be Free since it still requires a roll, but that would be a really cool thing.

Kinda depends though, I don't feel like Magus can afford Feint or Demoralize at this point, as CHA is basically a non-option without taking some serious hits, but I suppose it depends. A Buff focused Magus might be able to get away with getting CHA, but still pretty hefty to pay for.

If it cost an additional action (like a standard Metamagic) then you could theoretically let it use Spell modifier, but then it doesn't work with other metamagic.

There's something there maybe, but as you say, a little wonky.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

If the magus is going to focus on cantrip use (as stated in the class description and what ELSE I want to see improved), then we definitely need more of them and we need for non damage dealing ones to interact more effectively and interesting with what ever core class mechanic the magus gets (striking spell/spell combat/etc).

One idea for that would be to have feats that let you use mage hand or message or other cantrips to be cast through the mechanic and then used to perform actions like demoralize or feint. Even better if you could use your spell casting modifier in place of your skill proficiency, since charisma + social skills are going to be tough for a magus to keep up with.

The problem with this currently is that mage hand takes 2 actions and has to be sustained to messages 1 action, so the action economy of it would be a little wonky. It would be nice to be able to cast spells like that in combat though, have it trigger the synthesis, and get some interesting use out of them.

I really like this! More incentives for cantrip using would be great!


A cantrip to make a target flat footed to yourself on a failed save would be wonderful. Most melee classes have a means of making a target flat footed to them or the whole party. The Magus does not. You could have heighten on it to upgrade the flat footed to the whole party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Unicore wrote:

If the magus is going to focus on cantrip use (as stated in the class description and what ELSE I want to see improved), then we definitely need more of them and we need for non damage dealing ones to interact more effectively and interesting with what ever core class mechanic the magus gets (striking spell/spell combat/etc).

One idea for that would be to have feats that let you use mage hand or message or other cantrips to be cast through the mechanic and then used to perform actions like demoralize or feint. Even better if you could use your spell casting modifier in place of your skill proficiency, since charisma + social skills are going to be tough for a magus to keep up with.

The problem with this currently is that mage hand takes 2 actions and has to be sustained to messages 1 action, so the action economy of it would be a little wonky. It would be nice to be able to cast spells like that in combat though, have it trigger the synthesis, and get some interesting use out of them.

I really like the idea of a spell with a single action Verbal component metamagic that allows a Demoralize as part of the casting.

It might be able to be Free since it still requires a roll, but that would be a really cool thing.

Kinda depends though, I don't feel like Magus can afford Feint or Demoralize at this point, as CHA is basically a non-option without taking some serious hits, but I suppose it depends. A Buff focused Magus might be able to get away with getting CHA, but still pretty hefty to pay for.

If it cost an additional action (like a standard Metamagic) then you could theoretically let it use Spell modifier, but then it doesn't work with other metamagic.

There's something there maybe, but as you say, a little wonky.

I personally would rather just get a new cantrip that had the same effect via a spell attack roll or your spell DC. Cleaner, easier, and less potential for hitting rule interactions on accident.

Yeah, spell attack for the demoralize one. That leaves room for Fear to still be stronger, since it still has an effect on a Successful save.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually tried using Dominate during a fight, and while I don't know the arcana spell list in and out, I had trouble finding interresting debuffs spells that could work with the Magus' mechanic.

However regarding the comment that most people focused on damage, well allow me to take a very slight issue with it (mostly for argument's sake).

Maybe it's because of 1E experience, but I think that for a lot of people the Magus is a "striker" type of character, here to nova and dish out damage. Debuff and control is something the wizard is amazing at thanks to the high saves DC they can reach and the area of their spells, both things that the Magus, as of now, lacks. Except on a Striking Spell crit of course.
Not to say that the Magus cannot be a very effective control character (I even built a few like that in 1E and it was funnier than pure shocking grasp stuff). The fact that the Magus is open to even more spells to spellstrike now is great, though the weird restriction to "spells that can target a creature" is kind of weird. A lot of very good control spells are area ones, things like Grease, Glitterdust, Gust of Wind, Color Spray... all of which would be wonderful control tools for the Magus to use effectively in melee without endagering his allies with an AoE are, as of now, unusable.
Plus, the current limit in spell slots (which is not a bad idea, I reiterate) would rather encourage keeping either buffs (that are always useful, whereas a particular debuff or control spell might be useless against a type of ennemy, like Grease will be way less useful against flying foes, preparation is part of battle of course but you get what I mean) or nova spells, because as my (terrible) healer friends say "If the ennemy is dead, I won't have to heal you".
Then, as of now there is few control options in cantrips, which are the bread and butter of the Magus, his double slice (of cake), his flurry of blow, etc. If we are supposed to use our slots for strong, situation reversing saves/debuff/control spells, our cantrip should perform well enough on their own as our go-to damage option, which is where the accuracy argument came into being.

To stay on topic, something else I'd like to see improve is giving a stronger magical flavor to the martial part of the chassis, I think I said it before but stuff like making Energize Strike replace weapon specialization would be a flavorful choice. Having other "magical weapon strikes" having supportive effect/benefits could also be a good way to add variety, again, calling for Riving Strike to make its way in 2E !


Yeah, a warrior type class that casts magic by hitting people in the face with a sword appeals to people that want to kill stuff and be effectve in combat.

What else are you supposed to do with Magus anyway if it's not dishing out damage?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Insofar as the Magus should serve as the happy medium between a wizard with the fighter dedication, and a fighter with a wizard dedication I really would like the option to play a Magus who is primarily an abjurer or just otherwise focuses on defensive magic.

This might be more of an Eldritch Knight than a Magus, but the Magus kind of existed in PF1 because an Eldritch Knight was hard to build and didn't really fulfill its thematic role from level 1 onwards.

My favorite PF1 magus was a Skirnir with a Dorn-Dergar who was more interested in casting mirror image than shocking grasp. If we keep the spell scaling the way it is, I'm going to need more defensive spells that scale well to heightening and also a synthesis that isn't about landing striking spell.


Yeah a Magus focused on using defensive spells would be neat. I guess Sustaining Steel would be the base for that.


Kalaam wrote:
Yeah a Magus focused on using defensive spells would be neat. I guess Sustaining Steel would be the base for that.

But sustaining steel works for striking spells, it does nothing if you're casting shield as a cantrip, or you're casting Fiery Body, or Stoneskin, or Mirror Image.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Kalaam wrote:
Yeah a Magus focused on using defensive spells would be neat. I guess Sustaining Steel would be the base for that.
But sustaining steel works for striking spells, it does nothing if you're casting shield as a cantrip, or you're casting Fiery Body, or Stoneskin, or Mirror Image.

Yeah, maybe if the Magus had another mechanic to trigger their synthesis.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think it would be interesting if the Magus became the warrior most capable of getting around DR/resistances and most likely able to take advantage of weaknesses.

Get them the full suite of energy attacks for their spell strikes. Get them ways to align weapon or give it other properties that allow them to target the creature they are fighting. Average damage when not doing either of these should be slightly lower, but quite flexible in dealing with situational defenses.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem of the Magus using primarily attack spells is entirely on how the mechanic for striking spell works, there's no reason to do it with such a rare resource when it's better in every way to just cast it normally.

This is much like the problem of the 1E Magus mostly using Shocking Grasp and Frostbite - what other real options were there? That Magus had a list with a dismal number of touch spells for a class who's main gimmick was smacking touch spells into people with a bit of steel.

It's the same intent-design disconnect. The mechanics need to reward their use, and not with just 1 or 2 spells (otherwise just give us Focus Spells /Cantrips and be done with it). You want to see us use non-damage spells? We'll need more slots, better base damage, and some non damage spells that are better when done with Striking Spell. Otherwise what's the point in punishing ourselves?

101 to 150 of 240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Magus Class / What ELSE do you want to see improved? All Messageboards