Hey All,
Not sure if this has been punted around before, but I got to thinking about something.
In PF1, the Magus got Spellcombat, which was an exceptional ability that combined a strike and a spell.
One thing about that ability that I personally loved was this:
You can cast or strike in either order
___________________
Now, one of the things that I was hoping to see in the Magus is a nice "ebb and flow" of casting and striking, and there is a lot of that in the game.
But Striking Spell, which is sort of the stand-in for Spellstrike + Spell Combat, has to be Cast Spell into Weapon -> Strike -> Deliver Spell
And while there is discussion about the value of Striking Spell, I think the concept of the ability of course works, but maybe it's lacking in consistency and landing abilities.
So I got to thinking, what if there was a reverse option that changed things up.
That is to say: "What if you cast the spell first, and then if the spell lands, you get a Strike in response?"
AKA Something to this effect
STRIKING SPELL
__________________________
CONCENTRATE| MAGUS | METAMAGIC
____________________________________________________
Frequency once per round
__________________________
You drastically alter a spell to combine it with a martial attack. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one creature or object, you must choose whether to Cast a Spell normally or place its magic into one melee weapon you're wielding or into your body to use with an unarmed attack.
If you choose to Cast a Spell normally and the target of your spell fails or critically fails its save, or you critically succeed or succeed on the Spell Attack Roll you gain a free melee Strike as part of the casting but you do not increase your multiple attack penalty until after your Strike.
If you choose to place the spell in a receptacle, the next melee Strike using the receptacle for the spell, the spell is discharged, affecting only the target you hit.
The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving
throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell attack roll. If your Strike was at least a Success you may treat the Spell Attack Roll of the spell Cast as a Success. If the spell required a Save, increase the DC by 1.
If you don’t expend the stored spell, you lose the spell at the end of your next turn.The same thing happens if you take the Striking Spell action again or if the weapon is used for a non-melee Strike (such as a thrown weapon Strike). A spell stored with Striking Spell can’t be discharged by anyone but the caster.
_____________________________________
The former is now something that opens up their action economy. Need to move this turn? Better cast first and go for the free strike. Already toe to toe? Strike with weapon spell!
Thoughts? Just throwing and seeing what sticks :)
I don't really think anyone ever casted the spell first in spell combat outside of positioning power, buffs, or debuffs. As it is, I think spellstrike is fine in terms of the cast -> strike routine.
The only problem with spellstrike imo is how it works with attack spells. It really ought to just make it a rider effect like spell arrow instead of asking for a second roll. That said, it works great for save based spells
I don't really think anyone ever casted the spell first in spell combat outside of positioning power, buffs, or debuffs. As it is, I think spellstrike is fine in terms of the cast -> strike routine.
I mean, I stated in the OP that I did. In general, I don't think we can attribute one way or the other what "anyone" did.
The only problem with spellstrike imo is how it works with attack spells. It really ought to just make it a rider effect like spell arrow instead of asking for a second roll. That said, it works great for save based spells
As someone in a separate thread already did the numbers, Spell Save spells are only better with Striking Spell if the second turn DPR assumes both Magus are using a Cantrip.
When you compare Spell separately + Attack over two turns, Striking Spell, missing/hitting + Spell, the former is the same DPR with significant less risk as the DPR isn't inflated by criticals (less common).
And the DPR on round two for Striking Spell is significantly affected by the Magus getting an Electric Arc with their remaining two actions to edge the DPR in their favor.
And that really only works out that way mathematically because of the crit fishing.
________________
Not really crazy about this concept anymore anyways though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against the idea. But I do hope the hole critical interactions of spell strike go away as they are proving problematic for balance
I'm also more of a fan, given current mechanics of Magus right now in this playtest. Of spell strike being a rolled together attack instead of 2 seperate rolls with no map. So if you hit with the melee, the spell hits too as it's a part of the melee strike. And simply remove the critical rules as it's no longer needed.
From the DPR charts I've seen, that's the way it best scales compared to a flurry ranger, slightly below it but in line until level 18 where they pull ahead but you can spike better via spell slots.
Obviously the issue with that idea was true strike but there has been ideas on how to deal with that as well.
So in effect they would be happening simultaneously but would utilize your superior martial progression to hit
I know this isn't exactly what you wanted, I just didn't know if it might suffice to your mind.