What ELSE do you want to see improved?

[Ferious Thune]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

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, this is something that I very much miss. The Magus I played the most in 1E was a kapenia dancer. She didn't deal out massive damage, because of a x2 crit weapon and not taking traits to get 1st level metamagic'd shocking grasps. But she could boost her defenses with spells and be an effective tank when needed. While still getting to attack thanks to spell combat. And I think as I mentioned way upthread was a controller using trip.

Even if spell combat as it was isn't possible under 2E's action economy, getting to do something when casting defensive spells would be welcome. Or really just any spell. Might even be a buff for an ally, if you can imagine that. Bespell Strikes just doesn't feel like the answer as the main benefit you can get from casting a utility/defensive spell. (EDIT: The main class benefit. Obviously the spell itself is worth something).

[Temperans]

Magus 100% needs a better action economy. Part of what made Magus Spell Combat and Spellstrike fun was the fact they could cast and strike simultaneously.

I could see Spellstrike being done like this:

"Free action flourish: Trigger Casting a spell with a melee spell attack.

Make a strike, use the result as the result for the spell. This counts as two attacks when calculating your MAP."

When using cantrips you will deal less damage then a full martial. But you will deal more damage than a caster. When using the very limited high level spell slots, you might get more damage than a martial for 1 attack.

Spell Combat can be a version that lets you raise a shield or parry when you cast a spell.

This would free up the Magus third action for doing something more useful, without feeling like a waste. Heck it could be used to sustain a spell if you missed. Then you have the choice of "when do you want to move, before or after casting".

[Cyrad]

Changing Magus Potency to a class feat and then giving a 1st level class feature at 1st level.

This would greatly improve customization and make brawler magi not so feelbad at having to wait until level 2 to get the feat absolutely crucial to the build/concept.

[drakinar 451]

The more I try and build a shooting star magus the more I think it's just not good as a synthesis. As a lvl 2 class feat it works well especially given the range restrictions. Thematically slide casting and thrown weapons with shooting star go very well together. I really think moving it to a class feat and making a defensive synthesis would be better. Like a magus that specifically wields a tome in the off hand and gets a shield item bonus for using striking spell to charge a weapon. It's sword and shield except sword and tome.

[Physicskid42]

A sword sain ’t type option would be nice

[Kalaam]

Physicskid42 wrote:

A sword sain ’t type option would be nice

You choose one weapon, and are only able to reach legendary with THAT weapon period. And only expert in spells?

[Exocist]

Kalaam wrote:

Physicskid42 wrote:

A sword sain ’t type option would be nice

You choose one weapon, and are only able to reach legendary with THAT weapon period. And only expert in spells?

Legendary in one weapon of choice and legendary in all weapons is basically the same thing. This option would not be balanced against a fighter.

[Kalaam]

Exocist wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Physicskid42 wrote:

A sword sain ’t type option would be nice

You choose one weapon, and are only able to reach legendary with THAT weapon period. And only expert in spells?

Legendary in one weapon of choice and legendary in all weapons is basically the same thing. This option would not be balanced against a fighter.

I know, but then how to make it feel like a sword saint, master of a singular weapon ? Give it special feats ? Or give him a bonus to magus abilities with that weapon?

[richienvh]

I don't know about what would be the capstone, but could start with the crit specialization effect.

[Greg.Everham]

Cyrad wrote:

Changing Magus Potency to a class feat and then giving a 1st level class feature at 1st level.

This would greatly improve customization and make brawler magi not so feelbad at having to wait until level 2 to get the feat absolutely crucial to the build/concept.

Magus Potency is kinda weird, because it's only good for a few levels.

As a 1st level spell, it gives a +1 rune. If you're playing an AP, you'll typically get that rune mid-2nd level.

As a 3rd level spell, it's a +1 striking rune. This is strictly inferior to what could be had by a 5th level character. It is never good.

As a 4th level spell, it's a +2 striking rune. This is 3 levels ahead of the normal pacing.

As a 7th level spell, it's a +3 greater striking rune. This is 2 levels ahead of pace.

So... Magus Potency has value at first and part of 2nd level, then again from 7th to 16th.

Taking away 1st level Magus Potency would make it a Focus spell that you could acquire that early, but you wouldn't actually get value from it until 7th level. Ooooooof.

And considering the Magus has very serious and dysfunctional action economy issues, it's hard to slot in this solution to it's very serious and dysfunctional accuracy issues. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Greg.Everham]

Exocist wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

Physicskid42 wrote:

A sword sain ’t type option would be nice

You choose one weapon, and are only able to reach legendary with THAT weapon period. And only expert in spells?

Legendary in one weapon of choice and legendary in all weapons is basically the same thing. This option would not be balanced against a fighter.

I'm 100% certain we can make a better Magus with Legendary weapon usage, fake-ish sometimes-legendary casting proficiency, and keep from stepping on Fighter or Wizard in the process.

Here's the basics:
- Weapon Proficiency grows at the rate of a caster's spellcasting proficiency. Trained at 1st, Expert at 7th, Master at 15th, Legendary (with one weapon) at 19th.
- Spell Proficiency never grows beyond Trained at 1st level.
- Striking Spell does the same "deliver through the weapon" metamagic, but instead of the current mechanic, it forces the Magus to use spell attack spells (I know, I know, there's not many of these yet) and allows the Magus to use a normal attack roll instead. No bonus damage from the weapon here.
- The Magus would receive no support for melee attacks otherwise. No MAP reducers in class, no two-attacks-in-one-action in class, no Weapon Spec, no Crit effects.
- The Magus would also receive "reduced" spellcasting of some variety (talk amongst yourselves).

The end result would be that the Magus can deliver Strikes with accuracy that wavers in degree of being martial+, but it will lack the oomph and DPR expectations of other martials. It will have the full Arcane spell list to dig through, but after the earliest of levels the Magus would not be able to compete with a Wizard in direct spell casting. Instead, the Magus would have to lean heavily on delivering spell attacks through their weapon... you know, the class narrative we're looking for.

Accuracy issues? Solved. Magus gets accurate with Striking Spell to make it playable.
DPR issues? Solved. It's now better to use Striking Spell than to simply Strike.
Action economy issues? Solved. The Magus will, at worst, be using a 2-action spell each turn to make their attack, opening up all sorts of 1-action options.
Delayed start of combat issues? Solved. The Magus wouldn't take a full round of crank-starting their engine before they join the fray. They can run right in and feel good about it!

[Martialmasters]

real easy, you only have the higher proficiency bonus *when using spellstrike*

therefore you only get that accuracy bump when using your class feature. make it apply to spell proficiency too.

[PossibleCabbage]

The Magus probably shouldn't be able to to be better with their weapons of choice (without magic) than the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk can be with their weapon of choice.

I mean, the Magus was still a 3/4 BAB class in PF1 and the other four were full BAB in some capacity. The Magus essentially became a full BAB class in the 2e playtest, it shouldn't also get weapon training (which is what the fighter's legendary proficiency models).

[Strill]

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. 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.

I'm really struggling to understand why you thought people would cast anything other than attack spells with Spell Strike. If you cast a save spell with Spell Strike, you're running the risk of losing your spell, and in exchange you get no benefit except some piddly little extra 1/20 chance of a crit.

If you're casting a save spell, what incentive is there to spell strike when you could just cast the spell directly for immediate benefit, with no need to worry about moving into melee or striking? And if there's no incentive to spell strike, why are you even playing a magus, and not a Wizard? That incentive to use Spell Strike only exists with attack spells, and so the Magus playtesters are using attack spells.

[Shinimas]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Magus probably shouldn't be able to to be better with their weapons of choice (without magic) than the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Monk can be with their weapon of choice.

I mean, the Magus was still a 3/4 BAB class in PF1 and the other four were full BAB in some capacity. The Magus essentially became a full BAB class in the 2e playtest, it shouldn't also get weapon training (which is what the fighter's legendary proficiency models).

Magus doesn't get Crit Spec or any weapon combat related feats.

[Unicore]

People are confusing attack spells and damage spells. Logan said that the system was designed to allow magi to use more than just damage spells. I think we have all clearly debunked that the magus only crits 5% of the time with their weapon so claiming the crit effect does nothing is not representational of actual play. I found lower level debuff worth while as striking scroll fodder to use early in combat and occasionally set up a nasty next round.

Again, it sounds like they have several alternative ideas up their sleeve they may end up going with and hopefully everyone’s feedback will help make sure that it is the right one for what developers want out of the class, but I hope keeping it worth casting non-attack roll spells and non-damage spells stays a target goal.

[Kalaam]

But most non-damage spells are save based, which doesn't really benefit much from striking spell as it is.

[Unicore]

Kalaam wrote:

But most non-damage spells are save based, which doesn't really benefit much from striking spell as it is.

This has not been my experience in play. The odds of getting a crit on 1 of 2 attacks (over 2 rounds) with no penalty have been significantly higher than the odds of missing with all attacks. Having a saving throw targeting spell loaded into a weapon on a round where you can easily use a true strike to boost the weapon attack is pretty cool and a unique feature of the current striking spell mechanic.

We still need more spells generally that target 1 (or more) creature so there is interesting variety at all levels of play, but there is definitely a benefit to casting a spell slot saving throw targeting spell through a weapon - you can significantly increase your odds of landing a more powerful effect with it.

If you use the scroll strike feat at all, you quickly see that spell attack roll spells are only viable options in your highest level spell slots. After that their damage becomes trivial.

[kripdenn]

Unicore wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

But most non-damage spells are save based, which doesn't really benefit much from striking spell as it is.

This has not been my experience in play. The odds of getting a crit on 1 of 2 attacks (over 2 rounds) with no penalty have been significantly higher than the odds of missing with all attacks.

Even if you assume a high base crit rate of 15% and true striking the next round, the chance of getting a crit with 1 of 2 strikes across rounds is about 24.7%, which is not great. This is of course not possible on higher level enemies. Having to rely on crits is just not great in general.

[Unicore]

You are not relying on them. Your are just acknowledging that they are going to happen more frequently for you than they are for other casters, especially if you take advantage of good tactics in play. That is an interesting and different dynamic without just clearly being better, and it makes having access to spells that do interesting things on crits more interesting. Which is why the "want" from this is more spells that interact interestingly with whatever striking spell mechanic they end up adopting.

[kripdenn]

Unicore wrote:

You are not relying on them. Your are just acknowledging that they are going to happen more frequently for you than they are for other casters, especially if you take advantage of good tactics in play. That is an interesting and different dynamic without just clearly being better, and it makes having access to spells that do interesting things on crits more interesting. Which is why the "want" from this is more spells that interact interestingly with whatever striking spell mechanic they end up adopting.

But you are relying on critting because striking spell offers no advantage to you over just casting a spell save unless you crit. In fact, it's probably better to just use a multi-target spell save because then you can affect more enemies.

So it's interesting if you like being disappointed over 75% of the time. Because keep in mind, that 15% base crit chance is unlikely on an at level enemy let alone higher level ones. Against an enemy 2 levels higher than you, that chance to crit on either a strike or a true strike on the next round is going to drop to 9.875% while the chance to miss four strikes in a row goes up to 17.8%. Making striking spell only worth it on lower level enemies is the exact opposite way a class should be designed.

[Unicore]

This is a rehash of an old conversation that probably doesn't need to take up space in a section that is asking for things beyond the actual mechanics of striking spell.

But I will say your math estimates do not represent my play experience, so it would probably be better not to generalize statements about playtest mechanics, so much as to say, "I did not see any reason to choose x spells."

[Inquisitive Tiefling]

This is not a thread to talk about Striking Spell. If you want to do that, take it elsewhere.

[graystone]

Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

This is not a thread to talk about Striking Spell. If you want to do that, take it elsewhere.

Hey, you just talked about Striking Spell! Bad! We aren't suppose to talk about Striking Spell club! ;)

[Exocist]

Capture Spell needs some work.

Currently there’s a very narrow band of monsters it works on, and from that an even narrower band of monsters it will do anything against. In my level 20 playtest, there was precisely one monster capture spell could be used against, and that monster was immune to its own spell anyway (Finger of Death from a Grim Reaper) so it would have been pointless.

I imagine this is a problem with many monsters that have targeted spells - being immune or highly resistant to their own spell.

Perhaps expand what it functions on? Would be nice to have a Stance for spell parry as well.

[Doorslammer]

Exocist wrote:

Would be nice to have a Stance for spell parry as well.

Stances are absolutely something I would like to see from the Magus class, focus stances especially. I feel like there should be more classes than just Monks and one or two archetypes that get to explore that design space.

[Midnightoker]

Exocist wrote:

Capture Spell needs some work.

Currently there’s a very narrow band of monsters it works on, and from that an even narrower band of monsters it will do anything against. In my level 20 playtest, there was precisely one monster capture spell could be used against, and that monster was immune to its own spell anyway (Finger of Death from a Grim Reaper) so it would have been pointless.

I imagine this is a problem with many monsters that have targeted spells - being immune or highly resistant to their own spell.

Perhaps expand what it functions on? Would be nice to have a Stance for spell parry as well.

Honestly, the entire "Spell Parry/Spell Counter Measures/Capture Spell" situation could use a little extra versatility IMO.

I generally hate when things that are that niche can't provide benefits to a Magus on the regular.

Then as the GM I feel compelled to provide those circumstances so they don't feel like they "wasted" the Feats.

Don't get me wrong, in the context of them working as intended and having something that triggers them, they have EXCELLENT benefits, but I think I'd rather the benefits be less good if that meant they provided something of greater applicability.

I.E. if Spell Parry read "You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to a Save of your choice. If you are the subject of a Spell with a Spell Attack Roll, you gain this circumstance bonus to AC as well."

Or something in that vein, IMO.

[Unicore]

I am sure in a campaign where you are primarily fighting spell casting NPCs, the whole spell parry/capture feat chain is interesting, but it uses so many feats and ones that are competing with other magus feats that give you the most versatility.

[richienvh]

One option that I think could be cool to see would be something that made a Maneuver Magus. Maybe a feat that lets you unleash Striking Spell through a Grapple, Trip, Shove or Disarm.

I remember seeing something about this type of build in a 1e Guide.

[Inquisitive Tiefling]

Well, it's the final stretch of the playtest. This thread is confirmed to have the developer's eyes on it for things unrelated to Striking Spell.

In short, if there are any ideas or criticisms or suggestions you want to throw out there, do it now or forever hold your piece!

[Temperans]

Make sure the feats dont use up a bunch of actions for no benefit.

I see no reason for Magus focus spells to be special. But if Magus Arcana could be made to work it would be great to fit the preexisting Golarion lore.

Scrap Striker's Scroll, or severely change how it works. Right now its just weird and doesn't make much sense.

I would love to see Weapon Wand, Wand Wielder, Staff wielder etc. as feats. I really would love to be able to cast a spell from a wand/staff and deliver it via a weapon.

Dont make a pick a list caster. Focus on the arcane feel of the class and add class archetypes as needed.

Magus Potency nd Rune spells might work better if they are combined into one and the player is able to pick a rune which to give their blade.

I think a good capstone for Magus is being able to add more property runes than normal when using their Focus spell. This is very much a call back to the "Legendary Blade" capstone that Paizo added to Magus.

If Magus really wont get more than 4 spells slots. Than they should get Spell Recall and let them spend focus points to recall/prepare a previously cast spell. Improved Spell Recall can then let them prepare a new spell instead of one they previously cast. Would that not be fair? Of course it should be limited only to spells gained from the Magus class, to avoid archetype shenanigans.

[Lelomenia]

For improvements, too many feats and syntheses are overly specific about hand use and availability. If you want to limit a feat to a specific synthesis, just put the synthesis down as a prereq.

Too many feats triggering off casting spells from a slot for a class largely without slots.

Either make Magi good with attack spells when using Striking Spell or get rid of the mechanical MAP reduction feature that pushes players toward trying to make it work and ending up disappointed.

[Unicore]

It would be really cool if one of the synthesis combat styles was weapon in one hand, wand in the other, and it got a wand quick draw ability. Characters not getting wands at 1st level didn't stop staff thesis wizards from becoming a thing, so I think it could be made to work.

Book and fist would be a cool style as well.

two handed staff fighting as well.

Basically, it would be really cool if the magus fighting styles were a little less traditional martial fighting styles and more centered around being mystic fighting styles that built upon the mystical tools present in PF2.

[Draco18s]

Martialmasters wrote:

Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

Well, it's the final stretch of the playtest. This thread is confirmed to have the developer's eyes on it for things unrelated to Striking Spell.

In short, if there are any ideas or criticisms or suggestions you want to throw out there, do it now or forever hold your piece!

My only suggestions, interest and criticism has to do with striking spell.

Good to know that will be ignored

Its not being ignored. They know about it. Just that this thread is not about it.

[Martialmasters]

Draco18s wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:

Well, it's the final stretch of the playtest. This thread is confirmed to have the developer's eyes on it for things unrelated to Striking Spell.

In short, if there are any ideas or criticisms or suggestions you want to throw out there, do it now or forever hold your piece!

My only suggestions, interest and criticism has to do with striking spell.

Good to know that will be ignored

Its not being ignored. They know about it. Just that this thread is not about it.

Do you have a link to the post where they iterated as much? As I have not seen paizo admit any knowledge whatsoever in regards to this class yet.

[Midnightoker]

Martialmasters wrote:

Do you have a link to the post where they iterated as much? As I have not seen paizo admit any knowledge whatsoever in regards to this class yet.

Logan commented in this exact thread for that exact reason. Your indignation is unwarranted.

[Martialmasters]

Midnightoker wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Do you have a link to the post where they iterated as much? As I have not seen paizo admit any knowledge whatsoever in regards to this class yet.

Logan commented in this exact thread for that exact reason. Your indignation is unwarranted.

Wasn't indignation. Merely an (incorrect) observation. As I simply missed that a dev replied to this thread or just didn't remember.

If you want feathery fluffy prose instead of simple english I am not the person to discuss with. And I won't apologize for that.

But good to know they have said something at least.

[Draco18s]

Martialmasters wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

My only suggestions, interest and criticism has to do with striking spell.

Good to know that will be ignored

Its not being ignored. They know about it. Just that this thread is not about it.

Do you have a link to the post where they iterated as much? As I have not seen paizo admit any knowledge whatsoever in regards to this class yet.

Earlier in the thread?

Logan Bonner wrote:

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

[Shisumo]

I would like to see some way to bring the black blade back. Not only was it an exceptionally popular option in 1E, but the fantasy archetype it represents is deep and wide, which (to me) justifies its inclusion more than most.

[VictorFafnir]

Okey so quick list:
Currently if you are not taking archetype into fighter you are kindas screw.

- More 1 action cantrips and spells

- Let have magus some kinds of bonus when having high int, its not usefull at all and honestly I can see people just ignoring it to be full fighter as you can get cricticals easier.

- Spell strike, either be it part of casting spell or let us deliver spells by weapon attack roll, and let us hold it for few rounds

- Give use 2/2/2 system or 3/3. 2/2 can work but it is kinda pain in the ass, limiting our spell, limiting whenever we can cast boost spells on ourself like haste without feats, Temperans idea with spell strike is nice. It just feels like they should have a little bit more spells but at the same time not being a full or half caster. Current idea with limited spells that grow in power is good.

- Synthesis, make it a little bit powerfull and give them some kind of lvl progression (not much like little bust, sustning steel being able to hold his tm hp for 1 or more rounds,) Rebuild shooting star, currently taking archetype is better than being magus and shooting star synthesis)
Lets think about adding 2 more synthesis, martial changing arcane fist to synthesis, and raise a thome because currently it either you have to wait to 2nd lvl to fist someone or you don't use it because none of synthesis have free hand for tome and usage of raise a tome.

- Lvl Progression, magus have only 4 spells and some good feats, but his on his own he doesn't rly have anything on his own, that's why progression synthesis can be nice, and will not make class overpower.

- Rising shield, This one is special because none of synthesis can rly benefit out of it, i suggest making it new synthesis like in
"Recommended Adjustments for the Magus" where where magus can also access wands, rods, scrolls etc.

- Magus potency, progression is slow but I don't know if it can even be combined with already enchanted weapon so on 5th lvl you can have weapon +1 and add amgic potency making it +2, maybe combine it with runic impression like Temparans suggested but anyway.

- Magus having spell mastery 6 lvls after weapon mastery, its rly too late, at last make it 4 lvls or something. Double Spellstrike, yea... lets just change it. Also if magus will be martial focused class let us have 1st lvl feat.

- Feats,
Raise tome and Arcane fists are better of as synthesis, A lot of players love those ideas but they need to be avaliable for 1st lvl, Aracne fist can get away first 1st lvl feat but raise tome is idea that can be expanded

Spirit sheat - it would be nice if this wouldnt be one of 3 feats that is usable only by slide casting, and letting us hold to 2 bulk or more, it is okay that you can draw from it as part of casting but I would like to see it being drawn as part of attack with weapon that discharge your striking spell, (and letting us use spell strike on weapons in spirit sheats) this way when we hold striking spell it still work

Bspell Strikers - Very nice

Steady Spellcasting - Don't rly have solution but I would like it to be on 2nd lvl or be a bit better.

Striker's scroll - Its nice if you want to go with archetype or have a lot of spells, its 1 free spell at cost of gold or many in form of arrows can be usefull with a lot of low lvl spells.

Capture spell - Is good, it would be nice to know what spell is being casted at us (in some fort of spell check according to spell) But I guess it would make it kinda overpower, but considering it only work with slide casting.

Comet spell - Very cool idea, I would only at explotion around target (5 or 10ft) that doesn't affect said target.

Healer's Steel - Very nice feat that I love.

Portal Slide - Even if portal is sligthly usefull in some situation it still need to be improved or remaked IMO

Preternatural parry - Yet another feat that currently only works for Slide casting synthesis or arcane fist, is that 4 if I count correctly ? Its of course good option and solid feat but let other synthesis get some love :(

[VictorFafnir]

Lets also think about Synthesis that doesn't restric you to your weapon allowing you to have sustaning steel on 1h weapon ? How about slide casting on 2h weapon.
Problem stands about balance. I think fair enough would be if slide casting would allow you to have something in other hand like shield or tome,(raise a thome) This also work around idea of spell strike giving us some more action economy (by leting us hold spell by rounds or striking being part of spell casting)

[VictorFafnir]

VictorFafnir wrote:

- Spell strike, either be it part of casting spell or let us deliver spells by weapon attack roll, and let us hold it for few rounds

- Synthesis, make it a little bit powerfull and give them some kind of lvl progression (not much like little bust, sustning steel being able to hold his tm hp for 1 or more rounds,) Rebuild shooting star, currently taking archetype is better than being magus and shooting star synthesis)
Lets think about adding 2 more synthesis, martial changing arcane fist to synthesis, and raise a thome because currently it either you have to wait to 2nd lvl to fist someone or you don't use it because none of synthesis have free hand for tome and usage of raise a tome.

Make int mod matter, make me don't ignore int, why shouldn't I just have 0 int mod and build to be pure martial ?

Someone proposed idea that we could remore limitation of spell strike "Spell have to target one creature or object" I want for example teleport and stab someone while benefit from my spell strike bonuses, or cast haste on myself and others by imbuing spell into my body. Why shouldn't I, its not like other classes can't do that. (Also we need some feats that are martial-fighter or wizard-related, having too much feats that base on spel strike cna backfire, martial caster is very good example of it.

Sustaning steel having ability to call shield as free action is nice touch if we are talking to make it better, Other than that I am giving my hopes into developers hands

Finally but perhaps not last, give us more trained skills, we won't have inteligence of a wizard on magus without good reason, like being able to replace our attack weapon abiltity to int (doesn't change dmg abiltity of weapon like str)

[Martialmasters]

Currently, Magus stat spread is possibly the most rigid out of any class in the game.

You need str of 18. Dex of 14 and int of 16.

Your basically a 8 hit die front line flanker with 15 or do hp usually.

I'm fine with this I guess. Because I guess you could go 18 dex and 10str and rely on using finesse weapons. Rely on spell strike more probably. But I doubt I'd ever build it that way.

[Angel Hunter D]

The stat spread is something that should be looked at, building one was very unsatisfying because I always felt like i needed more stats for basic funtion.

[drakinar 451]

I can not understand why the magus is a Str primary class when even the investigator gets Int to attacks via devise stratagem and has class abilities that key off of getting Int to attacks yet the magus is left with a massive split in Stat requirements. If you want to make a hybrid martial caster then Use your weapon Proficiency and casting stat to make an attack. It just seems cleaner and more thematically sound IMO.

[Temperans]

If there is a class that would justify the choice between 3 primary stats its the Magus: Int for caster, Dex for finesse magus, and Str for the heavy armor magus.

[fanatic66]

Martialmasters wrote:

Currently, Magus stat spread is possibly the most rigid out of any class in the game.

You need str of 18. Dex of 14 and int of 16.

Your basically a 8 hit die front line flanker with 15 or do hp usually.

I'm fine with this I guess. Because I guess you could go 18 dex and 10str and rely on using finesse weapons. Rely on spell strike more probably. But I doubt I'd ever build it that way.

Wait why Dex 14? With medium armor, all you need is a 12. I do agree they are very MAD