| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly enough, Power attack on a Sustaining steel magus is actually a whole lot of fun for some big nasty hits on that 2nd round smash, that can easily be set up to benefit from true strike. The Mauler archetype provides easy access and crit specializations by 5th level. It is a very good magus build.
Sometimes attacking multiple times with a 2 handed weapon will be the best thing you can do, but often times, trying to set yourself up to attack multiple times with a 2 handed weapon equals making bad tactical mistakes, especially with a pretty fragile class. (I mean the barbarian with a 2 handed weapon is relatively fragile in play, the magus is even more so.)
In actual play rushing forward and striking as many times as possible is often a terrible, terrible strategy unless your goal is to get yourself killed. Luring an enemy into coming to you is often much, much better and having ways to really put the smack down when they do has been incredibly rewarding in my play experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. The magus is not a class that will always do the same thing. Not from round to round, or combat to combat. Their combat versatility is really incredible. Power attack is a fun option for a magus to have, but at most it is getting used every other round, and only when the action economy lines up well for it. Many times, they will want to move, cast spells, use their focus spells, etc.
The more closely I look at the striking spell mechanic, especially after filling out the class surveys, the more likely it seems to me that we are either getting this version of striking spell (or something very, very close to it) or we are going to see the magus lose out on spell slots and have their whole focus shift to using focus spells for their spell striking mechanic. The kind of accuracy boosts and reliability that people are looking for with spell slots is not compatible with the structure of spell casting in PF2. A three action single activity (like eldritch shot) is not a good mechanic to build a whole class around and anything more condensed than that is a huge slap in the face to all the existing casting classes. I don't see any mechanic making a new class more accurate with spells than a current wizard is, and still using spell slots.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any mechanic making a new class more accurate with spells than a current wizard is, and still using spell slots.
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with this.
From a narrative standpoint, there's no reason for the benefit of striking spell to be simply a crit rider.
IMO, Magi should be offensive casters, war mages and the like. I get it that they should not be as good at casting as Wizards, but its very hard to justify for a Wizard with a shocking grasp imbued hand to be more accurate than a Magus, who spent their entire life training to hit things with magic, using the same spell imbued to their sword.
That alone could justify (a) the spell attack to be made with weapon proficiency - keep int for saves- ; (b) the target to be flat-footed regarding the spell attack or some other significant accuracy booster.
Note that I am not removing the crit effect, nor killing the mechanic, just bringing it more in line with tools available to other characters like Rogues, for instance.
That said, you may have a point that the Eldritch Archer's mechanic is too limited to build a class around. However, that does not mean such mechanic should not exist in the game.
If, like you said, we get striking spell as is, I strongly hope to see it implemented as a mid or high tiered feat or the basis to build an Eldritch Knight or Striker archetype . The ability already exists for ranged characters, including Magi (I've had 3 Shooting Star players and each of them got said archetype when available or said they would consider doing so), so we have this strange scenario where a Magus could Eldritch Shot but not a version of it for melee attacks 'because reasons', so there's no reason for it to not exist at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. The magus is not a class that will always do the same thing. Not from round to round, or combat to combat. Their combat versatility is really incredible. Power attack is a fun option for a magus to have, but at most it is getting used every other round, and only when the action economy lines up well for it. Many times, they will want to move, cast spells, use their focus spells, etc.
The more closely I look at the striking spell mechanic, especially after filling out the class surveys, the more likely it seems to me that we are either getting this version of striking spell (or something very, very close to it) or we are going to see the magus lose out on spell slots and have their whole focus shift to using focus spells for their spell striking mechanic. The kind of accuracy boosts and reliability that people are looking for with spell slots is not compatible with the structure of spell casting in PF2. A three action single activity (like eldritch shot) is not a good mechanic to build a whole class around and anything more condensed than that is a huge slap in the face to all the existing casting classes. I don't see any mechanic making a new class more accurate with spells than a current wizard is, and still using spell slots.
Not really sure what to say Unicore except I really hope you're wrong that it will either be Striking Spell as is or Focus Spells.
I want more spells and a less finicky striking mechanic that isn't based on crit fishing, and if it's anything like you describe/theorize, my most played and favorite Class from PF1 will likely become one of my least.
By all means, if the surveys suggest that is something the community wants, then I suppose it is what it is, but based on the number of people here staunchly opposed to less spells and the current Striking Spell I can't help but feel like that isn't the case.
I suppose we will see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any mechanic making a new class more accurate with spells than a current wizard is, and still using spell slots.I'm sorry, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with this.
From a narrative standpoint, there's no reason for the benefit of striking spell to be simply a crit rider.
IMO, Magi should be offensive casters, war mages and the like. I get it that they should not be as good at casting as Wizards, but its very hard to justify for a Wizard with a shocking grasp imbued hand to be more accurate than a Magus, who spent their entire life training to hit things with magic, using the same spell imbued to their sword.
That alone could justify (a) the spell attack to be made with weapon proficiency - keep int for saves- ; (b) the target to be flat-footed regarding the spell attack or some other significant accuracy booster.
Note that I am not removing the crit effect, nor killing the mechanic, just bringing it more in line with tools available to other characters like Rogues, for instance.
That said, you may have a point that the Eldritch Archer's mechanic is too limited to build a class around. However, that does not mean such mechanic should not exist in the game.
If, like you said, we get striking spell as is, I strongly hope to see it implemented as a mid or high tiered feat or the basis to build an Eldritch Knight or Striker archetype . The ability already exists for ranged characters, including Magi (I've had 3 Shooting Star players and each of them got said archetype when available or said they would consider doing so), so we have this strange scenario where a Magus could Eldritch Shot but not a version of it for melee attacks 'because reasons', so there's no reason for it to not exist at all.
I am down for a eldritch knight archetype that folds the spell into a three action activity. I hope I didn't sound like I was saying "never this." It works well as an archetype because an archetype stacks on top of a full class with interesting features, and I agree that there is a problem currently with the shooting star magus where there is absolutely no reason not to take the eldritch archer archetype. It is the only way to really give a lot of spells the reach that using a ranged weapon most benefits from. I am hoping we get more interesting feats for the shooting star synthesis than we have seen thus far as far as working well with different kinds of ranged weapons too.
Edit: I just don't see this happening with a 2 action activity that lets you cast a 2 action spell and make an attack because that is just clearly better than a full caster can do, especially if the spell gets to use a full martial's weapon attack bonus + item bonus.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a Magus designed to utilize lower level damage dealing spells, offsetting the accuracy by doing less spell damage.
There's honestly a lot that can be done to bring expected damage in line.
Crit fishing is my all time least favorite playstyle, and should be avoided as a design prinicple for a class's baseline kit at all costs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: I just don't see this happening with a 2 action activity that lets you cast a 2 action spell and make an attack because that is just clearly better than a full caster can do, especially if the spell gets to use a full martial's weapon attack bonus + item bonus.
I don't really see a problem with it. For one thing a Wizard could do the spell in 2 actions at range, with a similar to-hit bonus (higher proficiency, higher stat).
Nothing wrong with being equal or slightly better in a very narrow area than a pure caster, especially if the narrow area is "hitting things with weapons while casting spells in melee".
However, if 2-action cast+Strike is too powerful, we could see a flexible free action attached to the 3-action cast+Strike, similar to Slide Casting. For example as base allow Step, then with feats or auto-progression move to allow things like raising a shield, Stride, casting a 1-action cantrip (shield), reloading a ranged weapon, or other options.
Heck, if the free action is part of the base ability, you could attach various options for it to the Synergies. Such as the 2-handed synergy allowing casting shield, a sword+board style allowing raise a shield, free-hand style allowing a full Stride (or possibly activating Spell Parry), and Shooting Star allowing a reload action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, if 2-action cast+Strike is too powerful, we could see a flexible free action attached to the 3-action cast+Strike, similar to Slide Casting. For example as base allow Step, then with feats or auto-progression move to allow things like raising a shield, Stride, casting a 1-action cantrip (shield), reloading a ranged weapon, or other options.
This is exactly what I would imagine a Eldritch Knight Archetype Mechanic to look like. Although note that for the ranged version, it seems like the developers are pretty confident that 3 actions to cast a spell and make a ranged attack is as many things as you need to load into a single activity. I doubt we get something that is squarely better than what the eldritch archer already has.
I could see a Magus designed to utilize lower level damage dealing spells, offsetting the accuracy by doing less spell damage.
There's honestly a lot that can be done to bring expected damage in line.
Crit fishing is my all time least favorite playstyle, and should be avoided as a design prinicple for a class's baseline kit at all costs.
The issue with giving the magus greater accuracy on lower level spells than the wizard, is that damage is only one feature of spells. Debuffs are already great spells to cast out of lower level slots, unless they are incapacitation spells, which the magus won't be able to touch because they will be too low of level and can't be heightened to a usable level. I guess that would at least be different, but then you are warping the magus into just running around casting slow and fear and working much more like an Anti-bard. It just seems weird for the magus to be better at casting fear than shocking grasp.
Edit: I just don't see this happening with a 2 action activity that lets you cast a 2 action spell and make an attack because that is just clearly better than a full caster can do, especially if the spell gets to use a full martial's weapon attack bonus + item bonus.I don't really see a problem with it. For one thing a Wizard could do the spell in 2 actions at range, with a similar to-hit bonus (higher proficiency, higher stat).
Nothing wrong with being equal or slightly better in a very narrow area than a pure caster, especially if the narrow area is "hitting things with weapons while casting spells in melee".
However, if 2-action cast+Strike is too powerful, we could see a flexible free action attached to the 3-action cast+Strike, similar to Slide Casting. For example as base allow Step, then with feats or auto-progression move to allow things like raising a shield, Stride, casting a 1-action cantrip (shield), reloading a ranged weapon, or other options.
Heck, if the free action is part of the base ability, you could attach various options for it to the Synergies. Such as the 2-handed synergy allowing casting shield, a sword+board style allowing raise a shield, free-hand style allowing a full Stride (or possibly activating Spell Parry), and Shooting Star allowing a reload action.
I have to admit, I dislike all the actions that seem to presume that casting a spell costs 2 actions. There are 1 action spells and 2 action spells, and so I strongly dislike the general concept of talking about give me cast a spell and strike for 2-actions.
Now that doesn't mean I'm not for some kind of action benefit being gotten during your casting of a spell, but the spells need to retain their normal aspect of having 1/2/3-action casting for the variety of them. If anything, I'm wondering if for instance slide casting grants too much for 1 action spells, for instance. Maybe the benefits of the synthesis might be related to the number of actions used in casting. 1-action for Slide nets you at most a step. 2-action, you can choose between a step and a stride, your choice. Maybe a 3 action spell gives you 2 steps or a stride. You might even be able to come up with a potential benefit for reaction spells in some cases. (getting 1 temporary HP for a minute if you don't have one already)
Agreed. The magus is not a class that will always do the same thing. Not from round to round, or combat to combat. Their combat versatility is really incredible. Power attack is a fun option for a magus to have, but at most it is getting used every other round, and only when the action economy lines up well for it. Many times, they will want to move, cast spells, use their focus spells, etc.
The more closely I look at the striking spell mechanic, especially after filling out the class surveys, the more likely it seems to me that we are either getting this version of striking spell (or something very, very close to it) or we are going to see the magus lose out on spell slots and have their whole focus shift to using focus spells for their spell striking mechanic. The kind of accuracy boosts and reliability that people are looking for with spell slots is not compatible with the structure of spell casting in PF2. A three action single activity (like eldritch shot) is not a good mechanic to build a whole class around and anything more condensed than that is a huge slap in the face to all the existing casting classes. I don't see any mechanic making a new class more accurate with spells than a current wizard is, and still using spell slots.
While I don't think they would ever come out with making the Magus be more accurate with spells out of the gate than a full-time spell-caster. On the other hand, making them more accurate with spells after having had to successfully hit with a weapon before, seems like something that may very well be reasonable.
I'm really liking the idea of making someone flat-footed to the spell-strike after being hit by the weapon strike. It is very thematic and reasonable and as people have mentioned, if not already flanking, is similar to a bump in proficiency. Potentially have the flat-footed penalty on a striking spell's spell strike apply as a circumstance bonus to the target's save, or better yet a circumstance bonus to the Spell's DC and it gives the spells a decent extra kick.
Then simply double the penalty/bonus if the weapon strike gets a critical, instead of having it raise the impact by a tier on the critical. Note that the +2 might be seen as a 20% chance of raising the chance of the critical, while managing the +4 would be similar to getting a 40% chance of turning a hit into a critical hit. They both would be significant boost, but not as swingy as raising it by a tier (which is like a +10)
But you could add a rider that says that on the critical, it stops/reduces effects that increases the tier of success of saves, or reduces the tier of success of an attack. It reduces the impact by one tier. This could give magus an ability to bypass some creatures and other individuals abilities to avoid certain types of damage if they can manage to crit on the weapon strike and hit with the spell strike. Incapacitation comes to mind. (which may of course bring fire from both sides of that argument down on my suggestion)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt we get something that is squarely better than what the eldritch archer already has.
Why not? The Level 1 Ranger feat that gives them an Animal Companion is straight better than the entire Cavalier Dedication. It's literally just an Animal Companion with more restrictions.
Even the Monk Archetype dedication is just flat better than the Martial Artist one, but that doesn't invalidate the Martial Artist because the MA has less restrictions and access to other new feats.
The Eldritch Archer has things like Precious Arrow, Magic Arrow, Arrow of Death, ect. Striking Spell, being straight better isn't going to invalidate the Eldritch Archer and a core feature of a class that accounts for a huge amount of its class value SHOULD be better or at least as good as the core feature of a major Archetype.
Striking Spell may very well not be part of the Magus dedication at all, requiring a second feat to get. There is no reason Striking Spell being better than Eldritch Shot should invalidate the Eldritch Archer.
Allowing a free reload action wouldn't invalidate Eldritch Archer. Especially with how Eldritch Shot/Striking Spell are currently: Where one has much more strict range limitations and requires two rolls, whereas the other is single-roll and lets you use melee spells at 100' with a longbow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That absurd attitudeSo, I agree with you that the Magus isn't great as is, but... absurd attitude, really?
I feel like it shouldn't be an even remotely controversial take that "Is this thing fun?" should be a really important aspect of making, y'know, a piece of entertainment.
The notion that that's somehow 'absurd' or bizarre to consider is something I can't really wrap my head around at all.
Fun is entirely subjective in a way that numbers aren't.
One person might find missing their strike, requiring them to be extra careful next turn so as not to waste that spell fun.
Another is going to find missing their strike frustrating, because that's a waste of two actions they wouldn't have suffered if they hadn't used striking spell.
Fun for one, not fun for the other, but both are going to have their numbers in the toilet.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. The magus is not a class that will always do the same thing. Not from round to round, or combat to combat. Their combat versatility is really incredible. Power attack is a fun option for a magus to have, but at most it is getting used every other round, and only when the action economy lines up well for it. Many times, they will want to move, cast spells, use their focus spells, etc.
The more closely I look at the striking spell mechanic, especially after filling out the class surveys, the more likely it seems to me that we are either getting this version of striking spell (or something very, very close to it) or we are going to see the magus lose out on spell slots and have their whole focus shift to using focus spells for their spell striking mechanic. The kind of accuracy boosts and reliability that people are looking for with spell slots is not compatible with the structure of spell casting in PF2. A three action single activity (like eldritch shot) is not a good mechanic to build a whole class around and anything more condensed than that is a huge slap in the face to all the existing casting classes. I don't see any mechanic making a new class more accurate with spells than a current wizard is, and still using spell slots.
Power Attack is an option, not a baked in feature. Comparison of the two is not meant to be favourable.
Personally, I could live with Focus Spells and Focus Cantrips if that means the class doesn't play like a crank start truck. Beyond that, I think the Magus drives home the pain points with casters and makes them break points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On terms of power attack: kinda wish that mauler dedication gave power attack when you pick it, similar to dual weapon warrior and double slice. Spending two feats, one of which is a dead feat to get power attack at level 6 seems like a very steep investment.
Striking spell seems rather rigid to me. Spending all three actions is harsh especially without shifting spell. And often it seems better to use AE and then attack. Or just attack normally. Choosing which of these to do kinda feels like chosing the "least bad" option which leaves a sour taste.
And as is it also kinda doesnt fit the class fantasy.I rather doubt that we are gonna see striking spell implemented as is with all the feedback.
Mauler dedication gives nothing when you take it at level 2, but it gives you weapon crit specialization at level 5, when you gain expert in your weapon, which is actually a lot of fun with a magus so it is worth it when that kicks in for sure.
Striking spell is, thankfully not one, three action activity. If it were, I think the class would be terrible, and I really think that a lot of the perception of whether you like or dislike the class boils down to whether you are trying to force striking spell into something you have to do every round to be a magus, or if you see it as one tool in the magus' toolkit. For me, the Magus would be a very boring class, if all three of my actions were predetermined every round. Luckily the magus we are playtesting gets a some interesting actions that encourage you to do other things than just ttry to use striking spell, like your focus powers, and energizing strikes. Bespell was just too hard to factor into play when I tested it, but feats like it (but not dependent on casting spells from spell slots) add a lot to the class. Keeping the strike action separate from the casting action is the best part of the existing striking spell mechanic and of the magus as a whole right now. I would be interested to see them play more with the spell loaded vs no spell loaded state for feats, but I wouldn't want that to become too much like the swashbuckler class.
I think it is likely that we will see some changes, but I just urge caution that people be careful what they ask for. Some people really seem like they are trying to use the magus to "fix" the potential accuracy issues that casters face with offensive spell casting, which is most difficult on the player when the caster is trying to use single target damage spells against powerful solo creatures. It would be a big mistake for the game to give the magus ways to trivialize using those spells in comparison to full casters, especially because there are ways, as a caster, to boost your accuracy to reasonable numbers, and learning how to be more successful using tactics in combat is a feature of PF2's more challenging base mechanics. Everyone knows you don't win PF2 combats in the drawing room or in character building. You win them with the choices you make on the battlefield.
The one thing the magus needs to fix, but is very common in playtests, is making sure that it is not super easy to lose the battle in character building by having too many trap choices that are not as usable as they appear. But that is exactly the kind of thing that you playtest to catch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find issue with the claim and perception that if you use spell strike every turn your rounds are boring. You have 5 cantrips as well as 4 spell slots, more if you take martial caster and cantrip expansion. That's not including any magical equipment to get more spells.
That's a lot of options. The fact that the strike portion also combines with other strike actions shoot's they up when higher.
If spell strike was like bard inspire courage or summoner boost eidolon. I'd agree your are doing the same thing every turn and it's boring.
But when I played the Magus with slide casting. I stocked up on every useful offensive or utility cantrip I could think of along with finding more ways to get my spell strikes more times per day.
Using spell strike almost every turn I rarely had a similar round.
I tried to make it clear that I was speaking specifically about my own experience, that focusing more on trying to cast a spell and attack every round would have been a lot more boring than seeing that the Magus is still a full martial, with ways of getting damage boosts for attacks outside of just striking spell. This is especially true on the sustaining steel magus.
I had much less fun with the sliding magus that I play tested, but that is probably more because I tried to make that magus more of a caster and less of a martial and it just wasn't fun in play for me, but I was testing it in more of a battle arena setting than in a full adventure, so it is possible that the extra casting would have been more fun for out of combat stuff. I just discovered that additional casting does not make the magus more fun in combat, at least not for me. Scrolls and items are more than enough to cover in combat extra casting for the class, especially because you don't have to spend all of your money on the most expensive runes. (This isn't saying don't ever spend money on runes as a magus, but that you don't have to make it your number one priority to keep up with any other full martial, leaving you wealth to spend on more caster focused items).
I think it is a very good thing that our experiences with slide magi were so different, and that the experience of playing a sustaining steel magus is so different than playing a slide magus. There is a lot of flexibility in the playtest magus class. You don't just make one choice in character creation that defines every other choice you need to make because there is only one true path that leads to success. The shooting star magus feels a little to pigeon-holed to me, but I would love to see someone prove me wrong or for their options to get expanded.
So far PF2 has done an excellent job of keeping new classes flexible and full of interesting options that make them different in play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't had a chance to test the Magus as a permanent GM, but I do share Unicore's interest in the tactical implications of the current model. It plays very differently from other classes and provides you with a lot of different options. I dig it.
The math may need some buffs, and it shouldn't be something you need a spreadsheet to calculate optimal damage turn to turn, but the current version is more interesting to me than the PF2 version was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the current Striking Spell has merits as the new Spell Combat.
I hope it is kept as a way to "delay" a spell with the benefit of releasing it as a single action (or even a reaction on a successful Strike) while opening it to any type of spell. Striking a foe, then tossing a Fireball behind them before enterring Spell Parry would be something only a Magus could do.
Spellstrike itself needs a rebuild, something as simple as "cast a spell with the attack trait, Strike and uses the result of the Strike to determine the spell's success. Double MAP" and "if you have a spell charge "loaded" you can announce a Spellstrike as part of the action used to release that spell, even if it does not have the attack trait. It will only target the target of the Strike, roll saves normally. If the Strike is a crit, the DD of the saves increases by 2"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of martial characters have at least one action every other round that goes into their combat effectiveness.
The Barbarian has to rage, and then not get knocked out, or else becomes a shade of their former selves and can't use the vast majority of their feats. Seriously, a barbarian that has been knocked out one time in a combat is pretty much reduced to a level far beneath a fighter in effectiveness. Their glassiness cannot be understated.
The monk must enter a stance, and is then usually limited to a very narrow set of attacks, unless they spend another action to change it.
The ranger has to have a hunted target or else their edge and many of their feats don't work.
The rogue needs to be attacking a flat-footed foe or otherwise enable their sneak attack.
The swashbuckler needs panache, and has to earn it with actions that require rolls.
The investigator spends an action to devise a stratagem and if that roll is bad, the action was largely wasted.
Alchemist bombers can have pretty big nova rounds, but then are spent pretty fast. Other alchemists have to use a lot of their daily resources to be adequate at combat, maybe a couple of times a day.
The fighter doesn't really have any of these issues because they are the fighter. It is their entire class focus and they skate by entirely with a little more accuracy than a magus and better defensive abilities.
So it is not like the design of the playtest magus has come to us completely out of left field, or doesn't line up with other classes.
A lot of people are underestimating how competent the class is, even without striking spell as a mechanic at all. I guess some folks are thinking the class would be better if it was more dependent upon having to spell strike/striking spell mechanic for its base level competency, but that seems like a huge mistake to me, because anyway that is designed is going to be action intensive. You may get a rider that lets you move on top of it, but it will extremely unlikely to see the mechanic exist where you get to cast a functional offensive spell and make an attack in two actions. If we ever get one action cantrips, they are going to pale behind the damage that even a one handed finesse based magus is going to be able to do attacking with their weapon 2 times, because weapon attacks in pathfinder second edition are good. Even for wizards and other full casters, attacking with a weapon as a 3rd action is a strong use of that action.
Spells in PF2 are incredibly dependent upon situational awareness, by design. Many caster players have a frustrating set of early levels, as they learn their spell list and how their spells actually affect the battlefield. It seems inevitable to me that the magus is going to experience some of this growing pain, because it is a caster, right from level 1. Electric Arc is pretty much a waste of space for the magus, outside of the occasional and situation use as a ranged multi-target attack (with less accuracy than a full caster). Save targeting cantrips can be nice for reliability against bosses, but you still want one with some kind of interesting crit rider, so that when things go well, you do more than an extra 2 or 3 points of damage. It becomes pretty clear that this is the case when you playtest the magus and realize that you are a full fledged martial that has a ton of combat versatility added on from being a caster as well.
Striking spell as it currently exists is not a three action activity. You will not hit with every attack you make with your weapon, and it is much cooler that you don't have to cast your spell again, than for all of your actions last turn to be wasted if your weapon attack misses. I am sympathetic to folks that have struggled with the spell accuracy part of their playtest experience. I think that is something that can get boosted a little without completely redesigning the striking spell mechanic. I have faith that it will by the time the class goes to print. I highly recommend that, for the playtest, people lean into using all of the tricks, bells and whistles that a magus can use to boost their accuracy (even while actively and vocally expressing a desire for a slightly higher baseline spell accuracy), just to get a feel for the striking spell mechanic when it is working, instead of trying to judge it from outside of play experience or refusing to look at what it can do when you do get those little accuracy bumps. If you are struggling to find a party conducive to that kind of testing and you play online, I will happily whip up a bard character to accompany your magus through your play test adventures so you can get a feel for it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say when you refer to Magus as a "Martial Character" it makes my stomach turn.
They are intended to be a 50/50 of both. The fact that they gain less than the standard progression for Martial Characters (no specialization effects for weapons or armor, only increased damage and proficiency) and they have spells is a pretty big departure from any Martial Class, even the Alchemist.
And I don't think it's fair to build assumptions on what to do with the Magus based on the premise that they are a "Martial Class" just because they currently lean more Martial than Caster.
I will debate them being a "Martial Class" with all my being, and I would hope they were never intended to be a "Martial Class". They were NOT a martial class at all in PF1 and to move away from that is more than just a departure in mechanics, its a departure in theme entirely (which no other Class has really done).
The Class has the preposition for magic in the name.
Do you believe it is intended for the Magus to feel more martial the magical?
I gotta say when you refer to Magus as a "Martial Character" it makes my stomach turn.
They are intended to be a 50/50 of both. The fact that they gain less than the standard progression for Martial Characters (no specialization effects for weapons or armor, only increased damage and proficiency) and they have spells is a pretty big departure from any Martial Class, even the Alchemist.
And I don't think it's fair to build assumptions on what to do with the Magus based on the premise that they are a "Martial Class" just because they currently lean more Martial than Caster.
I will debate them being a "Martial Class" with all my being, and I would hope they were never intended to be a "Martial Class". They were NOT a martial class at all in PF1 and to move away from that is more than just a departure in mechanics, its a departure in theme entirely (which no other Class has really done).
The Class has the preposition for magic in the name.
Do you believe it is intended for the Magus to feel more martial the magical?
I hear you. My original take on the magus was for it to be an expert weapon proficiency class with weapon accuracy boosts granted from casting spells.
In retrospect, I do see how that is something radically different than "delivers magic through the edge of my blade," and I think the playtest magus is a better representation of that than anything I was previously thinking. I do think the play test class is less of a full caster or a full martial than any existing version of either of these, but certainly much more than a MC version of the other as well. That is what everyone was asking for in the lead up to the playtest, and I think the class delivers. But their weapon accuracy + their magus potency item bonus is ahead of any martial accuracy than a fighter and their feats that boost weapon damage are some of the most fun feats they have. The fact that they also have access to on level spells feels like the class should be completely broken, and if you had told me before the playtest they were going to give us all that and not break the class, I would not have believed you. As I mentioned in my previous post, the magus is a caster and has to be treated like one, even though it is also a martial and has to be treated like one as well. It is certainly a razor thin line to walk.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having had a chance to run some players through a few test encounters, I can agree that the magus feels perfectly capable as a martial even when it isn't firing on all cylinders. It wields two handed weapons as well as a Ranger and has plenty of utility via cantrips and the arcane spell list. Fundamentally, it works as a martial - it can fight and has some extra bonus stuff.
However, that doesn't mean I like where it is right now. From my players:
----
When I look at a class, I want to see what cool thing the class is letting people do. For Fighter that's getting tons of crits and cool weapon maneuvers. For Barbarian its big damage numbers and cool supernatural stuff. For Rogue its being able to say "oh yeah, I have the skill/skill feat for that" and slipping into position to deliver big sneak attacks. For Monk its zipping around and flurry flurry flurry. Even Alchemist has the moments of "Oooh, I have an alchemical item for that!".
For Magus, your core trick, the thing you envision when you pick the combatant thats supposed to mix magic and weapons, splutters out more often than not. I'm just not a big fan of that.
|
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of martial characters have at least one action every other round that goes into their combat effectiveness.
The Barbarian has to rage, and then not get knocked out, or else becomes a shade of their former selves and can't use the vast majority of their feats. Seriously, a barbarian that has been knocked out one time in a combat is pretty much reduced to a level far beneath a fighter in effectiveness. Their glassiness cannot be understated.
The Barbarian spends one action to rage for 1 minute (longer than most fights). They have Sudden Charge as a 1st level feat to more or less offset that one action in round 1.
The monk must enter a stance, and is then usually limited to a very narrow set of attacks, unless they spend another action to change it.
Monks spend 1 action at the start of combat to enter a stance, get flurry to make up for action economy loss, and get increased move speed to get more out of the actions they have to use to Stride.
The ranger has to have a hunted target or else their edge and many of their feats don't work.
Rangers either get a straight up damage boost (Precision) or accuracy boost (Flurry) and have two different first level feats for the equivalent of flurry to make up for the action economy loss. Or a feat for an animal companion for another damage boost.
The rogue needs to be attacking a flat-footed foe or otherwise enable their sneak attack.
Every discussion you've had about the Magus and Striking Spell being good has assumed that the Magus gets a flank/flat-footed. The difference is Rogues have several options in-class to improve their chances of getting someone to be flat-footed, starting at level 1 with Twin Feint, and by level 6 Gang Up so they just have to be attacking a target than any other ally threatens. They can also get their bonus damage on multiple attacks in a round.
The swashbuckler needs panache, and has to earn it with actions that require rolls.
Of all of these classes, the Swashbuckler has the most issues. Which is why it should not be used as a reason that the Magus works. The Swashbuckler largely doesn't work. It's an example of why the Magus should be able to more reliably use its abilities, not why it's ok that they can't.
The investigator spends an action to devise a stratagem and if that roll is bad, the action was largely wasted.
Devise a stratagem is not a wasted action when you roll low, because you can decide to do something else without incurring MAP. If they were just attacking with INT to attack, then a low roll would miss, and their next attack would both be having to use a different stat AND take MAP. Plus Investigator has feats that build on Devise a Stratagem to let you do things like get a free recall knowledge check.
Alchemist bombers can have pretty big nova rounds, but then are spent pretty fast. Other alchemists have to use a lot of their daily resources to be adequate at combat, maybe a couple of times a day.
I'm not super familiar with Alchemists in 2E, other than the ones I've seen at tables. Generally bombers have an ability to throw a bomb as 1 action (they might be taking a feat to do that, not sure). It does seem like a class with some issues, though, which, again, should not make it one that the Magus aspires to be like.
The fighter doesn't really have any of these issues because they are the fighter. It is their entire class focus and they skate by entirely with a little more accuracy than a magus and better defensive abilities.
Fighter was largely made good in 2E by locking other classes out of abilities that used to be accessible to everyone, or making those only accessible at higher levels. I'm not the biggest fan of that decision. And the accuracy boost.
So it is not like the design of the playtest magus has come to us completely out of left field, or doesn't line up with other classes.
But it kind of is out of left field. The Magus has a one action ability to buff their weapon (Magus Potency) that's only a buff at less than half their levels. Using that ability makes it impossible to Striking Spell and attack in that round. They have other boosts to damage (Bespell Strike) that are limited use per day due to their limited spell slots. They have a feat that is incompatible with the most common styles of play (Raise a Tome). And most importantly, their main class feature severely restricts their action economy, with the only thing they have in-class to correct that being a 3rd level spell... that other characters can also get access to on top of all of the action economy boosts available to them that the Magus doesn't have or a 14th level feat to accomplish almost the same thing (EDIT rephrased to clarify). Throw in Eldritch Shot and the "Magus" that appears in a published AP including a Strike in the action, and the way that Striking Spell functions was very much unexpected and out of left field.
Yeah being a good Martial as it currently is written to me says there is room in the power budget to reduce the Martial aspects a nudge (or alter them) in order to create a better structure that allows for both magic and martial.
Like, being able to swing with the best on a two-handed weapon is great and all, but being "just as good as other martials" at doing a purely martial thing seems like hitting the bullseye on the dartboard in the lane next to you. It may look like a good shot, but it (to me) is a complete miss from what is the expected target.
Eldritch shot (the mechanic by itself) and the NPC magi are one trick ponies.
They work with an even more narrow band of spells than striking spell does (which is too few for a full class right now, I am sure we will be getting more with the final class though, but probably not a whole lot more. It would be awesome, but completely unexpected, to get more than another one or two cantrips a year, and even just spells that have a target line and not just an area of effect line are not as common as I would like for a class essentially limited to using them).
They are all or nothing mechanics. They take a lot of actions and when they miss, that is the end of your round and you have to repeat the whole thing over again to do your thing. They are still crit fishing mechanics, only they are much harder to be able to do anything to really help yourself do more effectively. This is fine for them, because, they are designed as add ons for existing complete characters, or as the one interesting thing a character is going to do in their 60 second lifetime.
I agree that some of the practical applications of the class are all over the place and need a lot of refinement. Raise a tome is interesting but unusable as it currently stands. Magus potency pushes the class too hard to completely ignore fundamental runes until level 8 and then have to fully invest in them again because the class can, at most, recharge 2 focus points 1 time a day and only by having a familiar. (Bespell strike actually works off of your cantrip as well so your first round could be magus potency or runic impression, depending upon level, followed up by a movement and bespell strike. In fact if you have Bespell strike, you probably don't want to cast a spell regularly until you are done casting any/all focus spells you are going to cast, because bespell strike makes extra attacks better than striking spell for those rounds. Honestly, this doesn't seem like a bad thing. round 1: Magus potency, move, attack with bespell strike. round 2: load a spell into the weapon, striking spell. round 3: Energize strikes and attack 2 times. round 4. Cast a spell and attack. It is pretty fluid and dynamic and not confusing or limiting.)
The thing that seems contentious on these forums is that casting is restrictive of the action economy. For all casters. I don't think it would be healthy for the game for the magus to be casting an offensive spell, moving, attacking, and doing something else every round of combat, without at least investing some resources in it, but both the sliding spell magus and the sustaining steel magus (like working in the DR of a shield block) are capable of doing this with haste already.
If you want to see what that feels like, try being a sliding spell magus at 13th level with fiery spell active and haste. You can striking spell with a super charged produce flame, move, make your attack and still have 2 actions a turn. It is fun, but it should only be possible with a cost.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to cast spells move and attack would be problematic if it were exactly like a caster and had martial scaling.
But it isn't like a caster. It is behind on 4 fronts:
1. Lower Proficiency at every stage from level 7 onward
2. Lower main casting stat that cannot be overcome
3. Dependent delivery of said spells via weapon (as in, you get no spell if you miss) in order to use most of its kit
4. Less spells than a caster by a huge stretch. Even discounting the loss of lower slots, at level 1 a Wizard has 2 more of their highest level slot than a Magus and it still remains at least 1 higher (even levels 2 higher) than the Magus at all stages. It always remains 1 higher on the secondary slots too.
They are massively behind casters on all the casting fronts. They have less spells, less potent spells, an unreliable delivery system, and an unmaxed Primary Casting Stat.
Now, they aren't terribly behind Martials on the martial fronts, as they only lose out on Specialization effects, but to me that's a "bug" and not a "feature" if the cost is Casting at the current state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having had a chance to run some players through a few test encounters, I can agree that the magus feels perfectly capable as a martial even when it isn't firing on all cylinders. It wields two handed weapons as well as a Ranger and has plenty of utility via cantrips and the arcane spell list. Fundamentally, it works as a martial - it can fight and has some extra bonus stuff.
However, that doesn't mean I like where it is right now. From my players:
Striking spell reads very badly. All of my players that read the ability didn't respond well. There was a lot of "So it doesn't DO anything?" being thrown around until I explained what the benefits were. Even then, people didn't feel like they were getting to do anything cool.
Syntheses all feel like they're patches for Striking Spell to allow the ability to not work so clunkily (or at all). They kinda hit that mark, but only after you sit and digest what they do.
In play, you mostly feel like a bog-standard martial. Most of my players have picked up innate cantrips when they played other classes, and the magus doesn't feel like you're getting anything different than that at low levels.
When they did use striking spell, it failed to work the way they imagined it much more often than it succeeded. I could tell from the sound of their voices (over Discord) that they were disheartened when they invested so many actions (and sometimes resources) into something only for it to fizzle. ----
When I look at a class, I want to see what cool thing the class is letting people do. For Fighter that's getting tons of crits and cool weapon maneuvers. For Barbarian its big damage numbers and cool supernatural stuff. For Rogue its being able to say "oh yeah, I have the skill/skill feat for that" and slipping into position to deliver big sneak attacks. For Monk its zipping around and flurry flurry flurry. Even Alchemist has the moments of "Oooh, I have an alchemical item for that!".For Magus, your core trick, the thing you envision when you pick...
I agree with most of this. I think a lot of the perception issues can be addressed with the writing and a lot of the accuracy issues can be dialed in with pretty minor changes though. Low level play does make your martial side shine, but it is also where you can just straight up cast your electric arc at only a single point of accuracy and damage behind the most dedicated wizard. Yeah that is not any different than having a cantrip from an ancestry feat, but first level casting is like that everyone. Getting an ancestry cantrip is a very strong low level choice that looses its value pretty quickly unless you really build on it. The magus doubles the amount of spells they can cast at level 2, and then gets another significant boost of additional spells at level 3 and 4. It is not until level 5 that the magus plateaus out at 4 spells, and at that point, you are past the "low-level blues."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of martial characters have at least one action every other round that goes into their combat effectiveness.
The Barbarian has to rage, and then not get knocked out, or else becomes a shade of their former selves and can't use the vast majority of their feats. Seriously, a barbarian that has been knocked out one time in a combat is pretty much reduced to a level far beneath a fighter in effectiveness. Their glassiness cannot be understated.
The monk must enter a stance, and is then usually limited to a very narrow set of attacks, unless they spend another action to change it.
The ranger has to have a hunted target or else their edge and many of their feats don't work.
The rogue needs to be attacking a flat-footed foe or otherwise enable their sneak attack.
The swashbuckler needs panache, and has to earn it with actions that require rolls.
The investigator spends an action to devise a stratagem and if that roll is bad, the action was largely wasted.
Alchemist bombers can have pretty big nova rounds, but then are spent pretty fast. Other alchemists have to use a lot of their daily resources to be adequate at combat, maybe a couple of times a day.
The fighter doesn't really have any of these issues because they are the fighter. It is their entire class focus and they skate by entirely with a little more accuracy than a magus and better defensive abilities.
So it is not like the design of the playtest magus has come to us completely out of left field, or doesn't line up with other classes.
A lot of people are underestimating how competent the class is, even without striking spell as a mechanic at all. I guess some folks are thinking the class would be better if it was more dependent upon having to spell strike/striking spell mechanic for its base level competency, but that seems like a huge mistake to me, because anyway that is designed is going to be action intensive. You may get a rider that lets you move on top of it, but it will extremely unlikely to see...
Except each of these classes you mentioned pretty much does their routine and then does not have to keep doing it unless something like they getting knocked out happens.
Your point would be valid if the Magus didn't have to set up again and again or if something like Second Chance Strike was baked into the striking spell feature or if, like someone, I think it was Kalaam, proposed, the Magus got to choose on which attack to deliver the charged spell as a reaction. Then you'd have something that you could begin to compare to a barbarian, a rogue or a monk's routine.
I'm sorry, but I never had a Barbarian player pondering whether to Rage or a Ranger player that just kept Striking instead of using Hunt Prey and, although you can question the math, it is pretty debatable whether Magus can actually get anything out of spamming striking spell.
As one of my players put it, even though it has its merits, Magus is pretty much a slot machine class now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of martial characters have at least one action every other round that goes into their combat effectiveness.
The Barbarian has to rage, and then not get knocked out, or else becomes a shade of their former selves and can't use the vast majority of their feats. Seriously, a barbarian that has been knocked out one time in a combat is pretty much reduced to a level far beneath a fighter in effectiveness. Their glassiness cannot be understated.
second wind
The monk must enter a stance, and is then usually limited to a very narrow set of attacks, unless they spend another action to change it.
there are several stances that do not have this limitation. In fact most of the weaker ones are the ones that have this limitation.
The ranger has to have a hunted target or else their edge and many of their feats don't work.
one action per enemy, feats later to help it along.
The rogue needs to be attacking a flat-footed foe or otherwise enable their sneak attack.
of wich there are 42 ways to generate, along with your unique subclass method, and unique feats like gang up. by level 6 this is a non issue.
The swashbuckler needs panache, and has to earn it with actions that require rolls.
swashbuckler is the weakest of these that you listed (though monk has its own limiting issues) due to its resource management system of panache resulting in swingy turns and super frustrating sessions because you are so subject to RNG.
The investigator spends an action to devise a stratagem and if that roll is bad, the action was largely wasted.
any good investigator build will take this into account and prepare for it, plus there is times when its a free action, plus investigator is purposely one of the lowest damage martials outside of many monk/champion due to its gimmick.
Alchemist bombers can have pretty big nova rounds, but then are spent pretty fast. Other alchemists have to use a lot of their daily resources to be adequate at combat, maybe a couple of times a day.
ive yet to see these nova rounds unless you count making a lot of enemies very mad at you with you no way to escape next round.
The fighter doesn't really have any of these issues because they are the fighter. It is their entire class focus and they skate by entirely with a little more accuracy than a magus and better defensive abilities.
the fighter feats are beautifully designed as almost all of them involve you cheating the action economy via actions or accuracy, both with investment.
So it is not like the design of the playtest magus has come to us completely out of left field, or doesn't line up with other classes.
current playtest most resembles a swashbuckler, and that bodes poorly, as it is a swingy unfun class that has a lot of flavor that could lure people into thinking its more fun than it is, then they get frustrated with how their luck plays a bigger role into them doing well or not then other classes. its a badly designed class.
A lot of people are underestimating how competent the class is, even without striking spell as a mechanic at all. I guess some folks are thinking the class would be better if it was more dependent upon having to spell strike/striking spell mechanic for its base level competency, but that seems like a huge mistake to me, because anyway that is designed is going to be action intensive. You may get a rider that lets you move on top of it, but it will extremely unlikely to see...
its competent if everyone plays your way, good for your playstyle.
you assume much due to past building blocks of the system, paizo can break the mold if it would result in better gameplay, and they should.
I gotta say when you refer to Magus as a "Martial Character" it makes my stomach turn.
They are intended to be a 50/50 of both. The fact that they gain less than the standard progression for Martial Characters (no specialization effects for weapons or armor, only increased damage and proficiency) and they have spells is a pretty big departure from any Martial Class, even the Alchemist.
And I don't think it's fair to build assumptions on what to do with the Magus based on the premise that they are a "Martial Class" just because they currently lean more Martial than Caster.
I will debate them being a "Martial Class" with all my being, and I would hope they were never intended to be a "Martial Class". They were NOT a martial class at all in PF1 and to move away from that is more than just a departure in mechanics, its a departure in theme entirely (which no other Class has really done).
The Class has the preposition for magic in the name.
Do you believe it is intended for the Magus to feel more martial the magical?
they reach master in weapon and armor proficiency, they are currently the only non martial class to get this in the game if you are going to stick with the notion that they arenot ma rtials. plus it destroys the entire paradigm of what a martial is if not for those bonuses.
wich means i later expect a expert level armor/weapon class with more spell slots to be called a martial later somehow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they reach master in weapon and armor proficiency, they are currently the only non martial class to get this in the game if you are going to stick with the notion that they arenot ma rtials. plus it destroys the entire paradigm of what a martial is if not for those bonuses.
wich means i later expect a expert level armor/weapon class with more spell slots to be called a martial later somehow.
Martials get Weapon Critical Specialization and generally the real martials (Rogue/Investigator/Swashbuckler have baked in Utility) get Armor Specialization as well.
They get neither.
And again, as is current, they might be considered a "Martial" for some, which is why I compared it to landing a bullseye on the wrong dartboard.
Personally, I would rather see them drop Specialization (which is literally just bonus damage) as it would be far more thematic for them to get something more caster related than a direct damage bump, especially when their primary mechanics are applying damage in singular powerful attacks.
If you asked anyone that played PF1 Magus if it was a "Martial" class 3 years ago, all of them would have given an emphatic "no", because it wasn't. I do not consider a rough and abrupt departure from those themes a good thing.
they reach master in weapon and armor proficiency, they are currently the only non martial class to get this in the game if you are going to stick with the notion that they arenot ma rtials. plus it destroys the entire paradigm of what a martial is if not for those bonuses.
wich means i later expect a expert level armor/weapon class with more spell slots to be called a martial later somehow.
Martials get Weapon Critical Specialization and generally the real martials (Rogue/Investigator/Swashbuckler have baked in Utility) get Armor Specialization as well.
They get neither.
And again, as is current, they might be considered a "Martial" for some, which is why I compared it to landing a bullseye on the wrong dartboard.
Personally, I would rather see them drop Specialization (which is literally just bonus damage) as it would be far more thematic for them to get something more caster related than a direct damage bump, especially when their primary mechanics are applying damage in singular powerful attacks.
If you asked anyone that played PF1 Magus if it was a "Martial" class 3 years ago, all of them would have given an emphatic "no", because it wasn't. I do not consider a rough and abrupt departure from those themes a good thing.
i am fairly neutral, but thats because while i loved the customization of pathfinder, i found a lot of aspects of it annoying so didnt play it a lot. 5e was an opposite issue for me, complete lack of customization bothered me, but rest didnt.
pf2e is then, a new beast for me in that it ticks both boxes that i liked from each of those editions. so my notion of magus is loose.
that said, considering magus is already behind in DPR, what would you offer them for losing weapon specialization? just more low level slots wouldn't really do much to alleviate that issue to my mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
that said, considering magus is already behind in DPR, what would you offer them for losing weapon specialization? just more low level slots wouldn't really do much to alleviate that issue to my mind.
I mean they have plenty of ways to mitigate the DPR if we consider changes to Striking Spell and the numerous feats that deal damage based on casting spells.
So lower level casting slots enable Bespell Strikes, Energized Strikes, Bespell Persistence, and then they are going to be the masters of targeting weaknesses and bypassing resistances simply due to their damage versatility.
The loss of 2/4/8 damage to Strikes when you get one Strike per round with Striking Spell (or any combination of casting), isn't even a monstrous loss in DPR if you're playing a Magus as a 50/50. It only amounts to a lot of damage lost when all you're doing is making strikes.
Not to mention I personally don't see a Magus as the "I MUST DO DPR OR I AM NOT EFFECTIVE" type of Class. It can be an option for those that focus on damaging based spells and singular powerful strikes, but DPR isn't the single measure of the value of a Class.
Correct. Though given the lore of the Magus. Vs say, investigator. Dpr is a large and valid concern imo. It's on par with saying fighter shouldn't be held up to the notion of doing damage.
Correct. Though given the lore of the Magus. Vs say, investigator. Dpr is a large and valid concern imo. It's on par with saying fighter shouldn't be held up to the notion of doing damage.
You think a Magus should have equivalent concerns for damage as a Fighter? Why?
they have utility, battlefield control, save or suck, weakness flexible damage, with martial prowess.
Saying they need to have the same DPR concerns as a Fighter is crazy to me.
If a Magus wants DPR they should have to build for it as a choice of spells and Feats, and as I pointed out on the expectation of one strike per round with striking spell or combo casting with a weapon, you’re missing minimal damage with Weapon Specialization or Greater Weapon Specialization If the Magus can cast more spells due to their Feat support. Right now they do decent damage over two rounds, it’s the lackluster feel of the mechanic that is the issue.
If you want something that casts spells with the DPR of a Fighter, that exists, it’s called a Fighter with an MCD Caster.
The goal of the Magus isn’t to be Fighter + Magic it’s to be somewhere between a Wizard and Fighter, and I’m sure no one here would claim the Wizards only build path is DPR (or even the optimal one necessarily).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
they have utility, battlefield control, save or suck, weakness flexible damage, with martial prowess.
Saying they need to have the same DPR concerns as a Fighter is crazy to me.
If a Magus wants DPR they should have to build for it as a choice of spells and Feats, and as I pointed out on the expectation of one strike per round with striking spell or combo casting with a weapon, you’re missing minimal damage with Weapon Specialization or Greater Weapon Specialization If the Magus can cast more spells due to their Feat support. Right now they do decent damage over two rounds, it’s the lackluster feel of the mechanic that is the issue.
If you want something that casts spells with the DPR of a Fighter, that exists, it’s called a Fighter with an MCD Caster.
The goal of the Magus isn’t to be Fighter + Magic it’s to be somewhere between a Wizard and Fighter, and I’m sure no one here would claim the Wizards only build path is DPR (or even the optimal one necessarily).
Literally the lore of a Magus is about combat. Is about combining spell with your martial prowess. I see nothing about being a detective, criminal mastermind, or any possible non combat role.
Just like a fighter. They just go about it in different ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
they have utility, battlefield control, save or suck, weakness flexible damage, with martial prowess.
Saying they need to have the same DPR concerns as a Fighter is crazy to me.
If a Magus wants DPR they should have to build for it as a choice of spells and Feats, and as I pointed out on the expectation of one strike per round with striking spell or combo casting with a weapon, you’re missing minimal damage with Weapon Specialization or Greater Weapon Specialization If the Magus can cast more spells due to their Feat support. Right now they do decent damage over two rounds, it’s the lackluster feel of the mechanic that is the issue.
If you want something that casts spells with the DPR of a Fighter, that exists, it’s called a Fighter with an MCD Caster.
The goal of the Magus isn’t to be Fighter + Magic it’s to be somewhere between a Wizard and Fighter, and I’m sure no one here would claim the Wizards only build path is DPR (or even the optimal one necessarily).
Literally the lore of a Magus is about combat. Is about combining spell with your martial prowess. I see nothing about being a detective, criminal mastermind, or any possible non combat role.
Just like a fighter. They just go about it in different ways.
“There are those who spend their lives poring over ancient tomes and texts, unlocking the power of magic, and there are those who spend their time perfecting the use of individual weapons, becoming masters without equal. The magus is at once a student of both philosophies, blending magical ability and martial prowess into something entirely unique, a discipline in which both spell and steel are used to devastating effect. “
“The physicality and technique of combat are thrilling, and the intricacies and power of arcane magic impressive, but the combination of the two is where things get really interesting. You’re a polymath, schooled in both spells and strikes. A hefty spellbook boasts your arcane research, and your skill on the battlefield shows how you’ve trained your body. Combining these two arts, you can channel spells into your weapon or body to inflict on your foes with your attacks.
Secrets of Magic”
Incorrect.
Magic doesn’t have to equal DPR even if you think weapons do. And Magus DPR would be fine regardless. Spells do translate to damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combining these two arts, you can channel spells into your weapon or body to inflict on your foes with your attacks.
Secrets of Magic”
Yeah, when I think of a class that specializes in combining spells and swordplay to assault their enemies I think "probably should do really low damage."