| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because all of your spells can't hit unless your melee attack hits. Its an automatic "nothing" if your melee hits, it does not matter if the spell does half effect on save if the spell NEVER GOES OFF.
You have a better chance of gritting on one of your Strikes than missing all of them over 2 rounds. Magus can target all three saves with cantrips. Pick the enemies weakest and go to town.
Spell casting in PF2 has a reliability feature built into it in the form of half damage on saves. There are not a lot of real great damage spells that have 1 or more targets right now, so that does create a limit that feels glaring for the playtest, but more spells is a really easy way to add the reliability people are looking for in casting."1 or more targets" doesn't really help the Magus that much, because (except with Spell Swipe) they're limited to 1 target. Not even their capstone Whirlwind Spell actually lets them hit more targets with their spells.
Draco18,
I know that striking spell only lets the spell hit one target. I was talking about the kinds of spells you can cast through it, and how that is currently too limited. We need more spells that target saves and have a target feature at all, regardless of whether it is one target or one or more.
Of course more 1 target spells would be even better because they are usually ballanced around the total number of targets they can hit and the magus has to be level 20 with a feat to benefit from that aspect of a spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For attack based spells, they're ~3 points behind in accuracy compared to your melee hit. Yes, wizards have to deal with this too, but NEWS FLASH,...
This is spot on and what I think justifies the Magus' spell attack accuracy needing to be greater than a casters' specifically in a spellstrike situation. It could even justify folding the two rolls in one.
Like you said, what is the point of imbuing a spell into one's blade and then wading into melee if not getting an increased chance of it going off? I don't know but, to me, that increased chance shouldn't be limited to increased chance of it going off on a crit
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
People do play test the Magus you know.
Getting a second round with the spell is only impressive if you were a normal spell caster.
Magus is not. It only effects one enemy, you have lower chance of success, and if you are unlucky enough to miss the first attack of each round you are nearly better off just walking away then trying to land your -5 spell roll.
It doesn't move the needle enough in actual play to cover up the terrible feeling of wasting entire rounds.
Everything else boils down to you insisting you are right and everyone else is just looking at it wrong.
I don't want another swashbuckler fail personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its an automatic "nothing" if your melee misses (changed for intent), it does not matter if the spell does half effect on save if the spell NEVER GOES OFF.
For attack based spells, they're ~3 points behind in accuracy compared to your melee hit. Yes, wizards have to deal with this too, but NEWS FLASH, that's why you put it in your sword in the first place. No really. That was literally the whole point of the magus: to bypass a problem that other classes have.
If you don't bypass the problem, then what was the point of doing it?
Again, I really suggest trying it out before deciding this aspect of striking spell is a deal breaker. Having the spell stick around for a second turn is what makes the playtest magus far more interesting and option filled than something like the eldritch Archer.
I know there are some haters of the swashbuckler class, but overall, it received some of the most positive feedback of all the APG playtest classes, largely in part because of how flexible and dynamic the panache mechanic made the class feel in combat. The magus is cool because it has some of the benefit of high risk/high reward, but it actually doesn't penalize you into an all or nothing mechanic. Lots of martials miss on their first, most accurate attack of the round. For some (like the barbarian, or power attacking fighter) that often results in a completely dead round that carries nothing over to the next round. The magus will attack less overall, but can be prepared to make that second round really count with their build choices.
Putting the spell in the weapon will result in your spells having a bigger impact on the battle, against a single target, than a full caster casting those spells on their own. The fact that they managed that without just making the magus a flat out better caster, is a remarkable feat of game design.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The deveoplers probably looked at every single variation of this mechanic that has been suggested in the last year, many of them probably in small playtest situations, before they decided that they wanted a mass playtest of this one. That doesn't make this one, and all the other elements of the magus perfect, but it does mean that people that want to help the most probably should play test this version of the striking spell mechanic, and explicitly look for ways to make it do the things that people want it to do more generally, rather than invent their own new systems and test those out
I fiercely and emphatically disagree as wholeheartedly as I can.
This is a playtest. Saying that a mechanic does not work in a satisfying or fun way is feedback, and suggesting preferable alternatives is valuable. In no way, shape, or form is feedback suggesting alternatives perceived as more fun, more efficient, or more in line with what players want less valuable than whiteroom contortions trying to make it work. Both are feedback, both are subject to criticism, and both are being offered to make their case as to why something should be left alone or changed.
I seemingly cannot disagree with you enough on this mechanic, and I consistently do so on just about every aspect of the class, so I will leave you to your thread.
...People do play test the Magus you know.
Getting a second round with the spell is only impressive if you were a normal spell caster.
Magus is not. It only effects one enemy, you have lower chance of success, and if you are unlucky enough to miss the first attack of each round you are nearly better off just walking away then trying to land your -5 spell roll.
It doesn't move the needle enough in actual play to cover up the terrible feeling of wasting entire rounds.
Everything else boils down to you insisting you are right and everyone else is just looking at it wrong.
I don't want another swashbuckler fail personally.
We had very different play test experiences then.
Power attacking with true strike and a charged weapon made that needle move quite a bit for me.
The only thing that I am suggesting is "wrong" is thinking that attempting to redesign the mechanics yourself and then get other people to play test them is a useful activity to this playtest. I want other people to try out the existing class and report back. If they have fun, I want to hear about it. If they don't I want to hear about it.
But if they didn't have fun, because of something that can be done with the existing class, I'd like to know if they find that fun, because if so, it gives a very concrete way for the developers to make options available that fix the things that prevent people from having fun.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People didn't have fun, that's why they keep suggesting changes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I really suggest trying it out before deciding this aspect of striking spell is a deal breaker. Having the spell stick around for a second turn is what makes the playtest magus far more interesting and option filled than something like the eldritch Archer.
I've playtested it and it is NOT in any way shape of form "far more interesting": failing multiple times for some strange reason didn't improve my sense of fun over missing once. Then again, I don't really have an intense love of crit fishing with true strike staves over multiple rounds...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People didn't have fun, that's why they keep suggesting changes.
Clearly, they didn't True Strike enough. :P
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
especially because of how fluid PF2 combats are and how easy it is to shift target numbers up or down by as much as 4 points in combat.
I gotta say if it has been your experience to be able to shift numbers 4 points (ever) that's already different from my play experience in PF2 so far. Maybe it's more common at other tables.
But defining it as "easy" just doesn't seem possible. For starters, just about every reliable way to trigger any bonus period requires an on-level check of reasonable difficulty (Demoralize, Spells, Hexes, etc.) The only one I can think of that doesn't is Flanking for flat-footed, but that's only 2.
Either way, maybe this is why you love it so much. -4/+4 is not nearly that common at my tables to where I could expect it as a default assumption when discussing a baseline Class. Even then, I feel like those bonuses/penalties would be pretty powerful for any bonus damage based Class (Investigator, Rogue, Swashbuckler Finisher, Giant Barbarian, etc.)
All along, I have said their is probably room for the magus to pick up a little bit more spell accuracy, if that is all people are talking about with more reliability.
If they are talking specifically about folding the spell and the attack into one multiple action activity, that is the thing I am strongly opposed to.
I am actually on your side of leaving the two rolls, but it needs to be worth it to do two rolls and preferably without crit fishing (IMO). I do agree the two rolls is cool and I did like your idea of letting Potency apply to Spell Attack Rolls (thus making Magus one of the best Spell Attack Roll Casters in the game and also a nice tie in with their Focus Spell).
The deveoplers probably looked at every single variation of this mechanic that has been suggested in the last year, many of them probably in small playtest situations, before they decided that they wanted a mass playtest of this one.
I would certainly agree. But as we know, that doesn't mean the one we have is what they ultimately like the most.
If I were a betting person, I'd say they wanted to test the Critical integration to see how it felt to players as a default, because the alternatives are a LOT safer IMO (it's a playtest, might as well).
For me, The play test magus with more lower level spells was incredibly unsatisfying. That is easily done through scroll usage and what I want is more higher level spells that target 1 or more creatures to use with the striking spell mechanic.
This comes back to solving problems with methods that don't work for everyone.
A common problem/complaint I've seen is the inability to feel like you can actually cast spells and also Cantrips not feeling worth it. "Just use scrolls" is a pretty poor way to handle that if only for the fact that it assumes perfect access to scrolls, which is not guaranteed in all circumstances (and if we're being honest burdens the GM to provide them just so Magus can feel "whole").
Not my only problem with the "just add gold" solution, but I'd rather scrolls feel like a "bonus" than cheat sheets for a base competency test of casting.
The having the spell still available on the second round is an amazing feature of the striking spell mechanic that is totally lost in simulations, because you have a full 3 actions of a turn ahead of you.
It only feels like an "amazing feature" because of how necessary it is for Striking Spell to even work at all. Without the band-aid mentioned, it would be so abysmal it wouldn't get used ever (almost all DPR calculations that put them even remotely on par have to consider 2 rounds, and even then, it is close).
Regardless, spending 3 actions and getting 1 roll that ultimately does nothing (miss melee with Striking Spell) is never going to feel good, no matter how great Round 2 will feel.
It's also a race against time. If a combat lasts 5 rounds, the DPR of a Magus goes down considerably compared to 6 rounds where as just about every other class keeps a consistent average. That to me seems weird, but YMMV.
_____________________
I've got two more sessions queued up for Playtesting soon, so I'll be sure to judge based on what the players say and how they ultimately do in combat (probably gonna record just so I have the most accurate represenation of events and damage).
We'll see what playstyles work best with each of the new classes and go from there, and I'm doing my best to keep my opinions to myself when it comes to interacting with them (to remove my own biases). They are all relatively new players, which I think will be pretty telling.
Reporting that you didn't have fun is great. Explaining why is great.
Saying "I didn't have fun because my spells always miss" is great feed back.
Saying "I didn't have fun because I felt like I spent all my actions setting up big attacks that never landed, and I expected to be able to cast a spell and attack ever round" is great feedback.
Saying "I didn't have fun because the focus spells I got felt too situational and I couldn't figure out how to utilize them better than just giving me a direct attack focus spell, especially one that could be cast with one action" is great feedback.
Saying, "I had fun because I changed core mechanics of the class that may or may not be compatible with the game as a whole, and would probably require a whole new playtest to push the seams of those mechanics and make sure that it fits with everything else," is a good way to have your feedback ignored, because it is not usable by the developers.
Homebrewing content and redesigning things for your own house table is a blast, and PF2 is great for it. But a big part of why is because you don't have to worry about getting it anywhere close to perfect and when it breaks, you fix it at your table and that is the extent of the reach.
I have no idea how committed the developers are to this version of striking spell. There are nearly an infinite number of minor changes the developers are probably prepared to make, depending upon the feedback they get about it, but they are going to be better judges of that the more we can give them good feedback about what they ask us to playtest.
You can play test existing options right now that can spell strike, move and attack without even having to result to casting haste. Try it out if that is what you think will make the class work better, than report that and say you want to be able to do that from an earlier level.
Or if accuracy is what is killing your fun. Try out the ways the game gives you to boost accuracy. If getting flanking every round is enough for you to feel like your spells are finally hitting effectively, report that and we just might get more ways of accomplishing those accuracy boosts built into the class.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore that's not what we are saying. We playtested changes and went, look, this felt way better than what you, paizo, gave us.
That has value even if you don't necessarily agree if it's pertinent.
And so long as people are unsatisfied with it, this will keep happening.
Using magic items for things like scrolls is a great thing to do in a playtest because it helps dial in what buffs you actively wanted for each combat. I am not saying that they need to be necessary for the final product. In your playtest feedback you can say, I had fun when I was hasted and buffed with a +2 heroism spell, but really struggled without those things, and it shows a much clearer picture of where the dials of accuracy, and spells need to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just have a different approach to playtesting than you do. I generally want to keep it as close to an actual standard character as possible, as sprinkling in benefits that they can't expect to have in a standard game isn't a true test of what it would really be like.
I suppose as you state that if you disclose that in your playtest results that the devs can infer data, and I agree, but I'm probably not going to be the table that adds/changes a whole lot in this context.
To each their own I suppose. There are lots of ways to test things.
Unicore, I playtest both "vanilla" Magus and my own suggestion modification of it, I actually kept the part of Striking Spell you like, just tweaked it a bit. And honestly I think it plays much better, I barely care for the 4 spells a day with that.
I'd suggest you to try it and see if you notice an improvement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using magic items for things like scrolls is a great thing to do in a playtest because it helps dial in what buffs you actively wanted for each combat.
If I have to throw money at the class every combat to feel whole, the class is dead to me: I don't even want to do it in a playtest as I wouldn't do it in normal play.
As far as buffs, I prefer to see what it does on it's own: I don't see the value of saying 'haste was great' when EVERY class can say that and what class hitting with a weapons isn't going to say 'heroism helped'... These things sound self evident.
Again, I really suggest trying it out before deciding this aspect of striking spell is a deal breaker. Having the spell stick around for a second turn is what makes the playtest magus far more interesting and option filled than something like the eldritch Archer.I've playtested it and it is NOT in any way shape of form "far more interesting": failing multiple times for some strange reason didn't improve my sense of fun over missing once. Then again, I don't really have an intense love of crit fishing with true strike staves over multiple rounds...
Out of curiosity, Graystone, is there a PF2 caster that you do enjoy playing? It seems like from your comments generally that you usually have more fun with martial characters in PF2 and that the casting system is too inaccurate for your preferences anyway, but I may be wrong about that.
I do think that there could be an interesting phenomena happening of some people that are dissatisfied with the accuracy of casters generally looking to fix those issues with the magus class, and I am really not sure how that is going to work out in all the playtest feedback.
Afterall, if the developers wanted to "fix" the accuracy of casters, there have been a lot of opportunities to do so, and that hasn't happened yet. Single target casting has two threads in PF2, the reliable fear/slow/goblin pox style, and the wild/swingy shocking grasp, disintegrate, dominate route. Damage, with the exception of magic missile (not necessarily a single target spell), is much more likely to fall in the second, swingy camp than the first, reliable camp. It creates significant limits to the DPR of combining spells and attacks, as well as the benefit of accuracy boosts for sure.
Using magic items for things like scrolls is a great thing to do in a playtest because it helps dial in what buffs you actively wanted for each combat.If I have to throw money at the class every combat to feel whole, the class is dead to me: I don't even want to do it in a playtest as I wouldn't do it in normal play.
As far as buffs, I prefer to see what it does on it's own: I don't see the value of saying 'haste was great' when EVERY class can say that and what class hitting with a weapons isn't going to say 'heroism helped'... These things sound self evident.
But if you tried haste and heroism, and still found that you were not hitting and not having enough actions, that is very valuable information.
Playtesting the class as you would play it in a game is great. I am not hating on that. I am just saying that there are ways you can test out some of the dials that might feel unsatisfying other than trying to completely reinvent an existing mechanic.
Edit: That second part is not directed at you Graystone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using magic items for things like scrolls is a great thing to do in a playtest because it helps dial in what buffs you actively wanted for each combat.If I have to throw money at the class every combat to feel whole, the class is dead to me: I don't even want to do it in a playtest as I wouldn't do it in normal play.
As far as buffs, I prefer to see what it does on it's own: I don't see the value of saying 'haste was great' when EVERY class can say that and what class hitting with a weapons isn't going to say 'heroism helped'... These things sound self evident.
But if you tried haste and heroism, and still found that you were not hitting and not having enough actions, that is very valuable information.
Playtesting the class as you would play it in a game is great. I am not hating on that. I am just saying that there are ways you can test out some of the dials that might feel unsatisfying other than trying to completely reinvent an existing mechanic.
I think you misunderstand what playtest is for.
It's not about finding how to make something work.It's to find what doesn't work so it gets fixed (and suggest fixes)
Yeah, you can make it work by stacking tons of buffs.
But before level 5, what are you supposed to do ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just so its clear I think Casters are fine right now and I'm not looking to shoehorn fixes for Casters into the Magus on that assumption.
The fact that a Magus isn't accurate in any context is my big issue. They can't be given further minuses than casters, they just need to have selective moments and opportunities to be equal (preferably from landing a spell strike or Feat support).
Because a Magus cannot invest like a caster can but ultimately has to use Spells just the same, the only real option is to make it more selective when they can do those things.
Now landing a melee strike to get your casting bonuses back seems more than fair to me, because that's not a given to do as it is.
It is tricky, but the answer can't simply be "sorry we can't make you good at magic under any circumstances, so you better stick to swinging a sword" IMO.
They need a Class specific way to allow the use of casting as an option, even if that means only with specific types of spells or limited to within a certain routine (Striking Spell), but it does need to be equal, because the math expects those numbers to be equal to have success rates that feel good.
The whole "+1/2 means a lot in PF2" applies here. Magus needs a way to make up the deficit they are in compared to other casters if they are meant to use spells offensively, even if that comes at a smaller purview of actions.
The crit mechanic is doing exactly this, just not in the way people enjoy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore, I’ve also playtested Magus in several forms. I had it Vanilla, Eldritch Archer Style, with an Investigator Dedication and so on. Your suggestion of testing with and without buffs works fine.
However, I think we are also allowed to playtest (even if on our tables) and to propose fixes. For instance, I am for folding both rolls into one but am not opposed to keeping two if the second does not lag behind.
The only way I could tell Paizo that, based on what you propose, would be to bring an Npc to the table and test their ability as opposed to the Magus’s. That, I think, would be worse than slapping a fix on top of my player’s Magus and seeing if they outshine the Barbarian, for example.
I think all feedback, be it vanilla, theoretical or with homebrew adjustments is valid
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, Graystone, is there a PF2 caster that you do enjoy playing? It seems like from your comments generally that you usually have more fun with martial characters in PF2 and that the casting system is too inaccurate for your preferences anyway, but I may be wrong about that.
Casters are playable but I tend to avoid incapacitation spells. Plenty to do with classes that doesn't involve blasting people.
But if you tried haste and heroism, and still found that you were not hitting and not having enough actions, that is very valuable information.
Sorry, I don't see the point: if it doesn't work at base: full stop. I can right then and there say I'm "not hitting and not having enough actions". Why does it matter what the buffs do as the class needs to work without them. I don't care how well the windshield wipers on the car work if the thing doesn't drive well...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I playtest by treating it like a normal game. I think that's probably the ideal way to test, if I'm being honest.
The group doesn't bend over backwards to ensure one character gets the best shot at letting the new class shine. No one burns through consumables except for in emergencies. No one has access to higher than normal wealth to get access to expensive staves. The group isn't optimized more than usual.
If you want to see what extraordinary effects would do, like having access to tons of truestrikes and scrolls, that's where white room math can actually shine.
Subjective feelings about how a class plays in normal games inside and outside of combat is the gold standard. Trying to apply fixes on the fly by introducing non-standard magical item access will only obfuscate your impressions of the baseline.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you tried haste and heroism, and still found that you were not hitting and not having enough actions, that is very valuable information.
Know what that sounded like to me?
That sounded a lot like "Skyrim is great, all you have to do is add mods that fix all the problems!"| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you tried haste and heroism, and still found that you were not hitting and not having enough actions, that is very valuable information.Know what that sounded like to me?
That sounded a lot like "Skyrim is great, all you have to do is add mods that fix all the problems!"
Those spells are a standard part of the game. The kinds of spells you can expect to expend on level+ boss enemies. That’s not modding or changing the expectations of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly it sounds like Unicore is the one who likes playing on hardest difficulty settings for the feeling of accomplishment.
Not everyone's into that, some of us just want to play normal mode, rather than having to fight uphill to meet the baseline of other classes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those spells are a standard part of the game. The kinds of spells you can expect to expend on level+ boss enemies. That’s not modding or changing the expectations of the game.But if you tried haste and heroism, and still found that you were not hitting and not having enough actions, that is very valuable information.Know what that sounded like to me?
That sounded a lot like "Skyrim is great, all you have to do is add mods that fix all the problems!"
except it turns magus into
*do anything you can to get as many true strikes as possible and use them every single round you can outside of absolute mooks just so you can feel as though you are kinda/sorta accurate*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those spells are a standard part of the game.
Those spells sure do exist in the game: not so much as a standard that i've ever seen.
The kinds of spells you can expect to expend on level+ boss enemies.
It's nice you can: I can't. I don't have buffs falling out of the sky like mana from heaven every time a tough enemy comes along.
That’s not modding or changing the expectations of the game.
You are changing the expectations of MY game 100%. If YOU always have them, good for you but you might want to make a note of that in your playtest review as I really don't think such things are baseline.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*do anything you can to get as many true strikes as possible and use them every single round you can outside of absolute mooks just so you can feel as though you are kinda/sorta accurate*
If you just spend 2 spells and 5 or 6 actions you too can do the damage other martials can do in 1 round! But you might crit with 4 strike attempts and make it sort of seem close to worth it! I know I'm not chasing that dragon. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those spells are a standard part of the game. The kinds of spells you can expect to expend on level+ boss enemies. That’s not modding or changing the expectations of the game.But if you tried haste and heroism, and still found that you were not hitting and not having enough actions, that is very valuable information.Know what that sounded like to me?
That sounded a lot like "Skyrim is great, all you have to do is add mods that fix all the problems!"
Sigh.
The topic of discussion is "the magus" not "pathfinder 2."The base implementation of the magus is "skyrim" in this analogy. 4 spells + cantrips + spellstrike. The "mods" in this analogy is "getting the cleric to cast Heroism on you while the rogue flanks."
The "mods" in this analogy is "getting the cleric to cast Heroism on you while the rogue flanks."
Hate to spoil this for you, but other players are a part of this game and the experience of playing a magus.
If you just spend 2 spells and 5 or 6 actions you too can do the damage other martials can do in 1 round! But you might crit with 4 strike attempts and make it sort of seem close to worth it! I know I'm not chasing that dragon. :P
If you are playing a party of all martials, it might be tough. But then, you're probably picking up the slack as the caster in the group, and adjusting your playstyle to accommodate that.
One solid buff for a challenging combat is not too much to ask. You can achieve that with your own slots, purchased items, or friendly party members.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One solid buff for a challenging combat is not too much to ask. You can achieve that with your own slots, purchased items, or friendly party members.
Who are you to tell everyone else what to expect in THIER game? You sure haven't been playing in the games I have. I have NO idea what buffs if any I'll get when I walk into a new game: it SURE isn't my default assumption that someone is required to give them to me every game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "mods" in this analogy is "getting the cleric to cast Heroism on you while the rogue flanks."Hate to spoil this for you, but other players are a part of this game and the experience of playing a magus.
If you just spend 2 spells and 5 or 6 actions you too can do the damage other martials can do in 1 round! But you might crit with 4 strike attempts and make it sort of seem close to worth it! I know I'm not chasing that dragon. :PIf you are playing a party of all martials, it might be tough. But then, you're probably picking up the slack as the caster in the group, and adjusting your playstyle to accommodate that.
One solid buff for a challenging combat is not too much to ask. You can achieve that with your own slots, purchased items, or friendly party members.
my own slots eh? all 4 of them?
purchased items implies i was able to purchase said items and it was the exact items i needed
friendly players? that happens at times, but it takes away from them wanting help doing their things if they have to help me do my thing. id like a class that works together, not relies
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "mods" in this analogy is "getting the cleric to cast Heroism on you while the rogue flanks."Hate to spoil this for you, but other players are a part of this game and the experience of playing a magus.
How critical to "the Barbarian being a Barbarian" is the party having a cleric?
None?
Oh gosh. Then what about the Fighter?
Oh, cleric isn't essential there either. Wizard?
No? Huh, that's weird.
What makes the Magus different?
Out of curiosity, Graystone, is there a PF2 caster that you do enjoy playing? It seems like from your comments generally that you usually have more fun with martial characters in PF2 and that the casting system is too inaccurate for your preferences anyway, but I may be wrong about that.Casters are playable but I tend to avoid incapacitation spells. Plenty to do with classes that doesn't involve blasting people.
So here seems like an issue for the Magus. If you feel like "blasting" is a waste of time for casters generally, then you are basically saying that you feel like single target damage spells are a PF2 mechanic that you find underwhelming. Isn't that going to remain true for the class that doubles down on single target damage spells?
I am not saying your opinion on either casters generally or the magus specifically is wrong or invalid. I just wonder how consistently people dissatisfied with the accuracy of spell casting are also dissatisfied with the striking spell mechanic? It is an issue for discussing the magus because I think it is fair to ask whether the game is best balanced around establishing the expectation that casting can be reliable but relatively low impact (an option that is available for full casters and for Magi, but has nothing special to offer the magi) or swingy but very high impact (an option available for both, but has more to offer the magi than the full caster).
Maybe a good way forward is to add a feature or feat or ability, for making the reliable but relatively low impact spells fit better into the magi's wheelhouse or even just adding more spells that fit that bill.
I mean the only cantrip that really fits the reliable but relatively low impact wheelhouse currently is electric arc, and that is primarily from being used as a 2 target spell.
Why buff the magus when they could just buff the rogue in that example? The rogue is probably already out damaging the magus, and the rogue will do even better with heroism. This is the problem with the magus having to rely on buffs just to be decent, it would just be better to buff a different martial class anyways.The "mods" in this analogy is "getting the cleric to cast Heroism on you while the rogue flanks."Hate to spoil this for you, but other players are a part of this game and the experience of playing a magus.
If you just spend 2 spells and 5 or 6 actions you too can do the damage other martials can do in 1 round! But you might crit with 4 strike attempts and make it sort of seem close to worth it! I know I'm not chasing that dragon. :PIf you are playing a party of all martials, it might be tough. But then, you're probably picking up the slack as the caster in the group, and adjusting your playstyle to accommodate that.
One solid buff for a challenging combat is not too much to ask. You can achieve that with your own slots, purchased items, or friendly party members.
This is where you are actually wrong though. It is not "requires buffs to be decent." Buffs are what takes the magus damage output above other martial classes. It is not a linear comparison. That is the nature of a mechanic that ties a lot of potential damage output to critical hits with the first weapon attack. Circumstance bonuses (like from aid) also tend to only boost 1 roll, so the magus gets a massive boost in a party willing to take the extra step as a team to do the one big hit.
The thing is, this is true of casting generally, and single target damage casting in particular. Buffing the one nova attack has a greater impact than general party buffing. It is not a magus specific mechanic, but the magus is the single target damage dealer of the casting world. Yes it is great that Magi don't have to only memorize those spells and can benefit from self buffing and all the other resources of being a caster, but their damage mechanic is always going to be tied to trying to make one big hit stick. That is the nature of delivering powerful spells through the blade of your weapon.
Honestly, I think that a very similar thing would happen if the switch was to make the striking spell mechanic one die roll for both the weapon and the spell attack, and that may be what the developers are leaning towards in the end. I don't think that would kill the class for me, I think it extra doubles down on the magus as 75% martial character with some magical flavor, since you will just have a bunch of meathead bruisers that have dumped INT. Even if you keep INT as the damage stat for the spells, it becomes a trivial percentage of the damage of most spells pretty quickly.
If you feel like "blasting" is a waste of time for casters generally, then you are basically saying that you feel like single target damage spells are a PF2 mechanic that you find underwhelming. Isn't that going to remain true for the class that doubles down on single target damage spells?
It's not that I feel it's a waste but I'm not playing a caster for blasty damage: I'm more in it for the effects. For instance, fear is a perfectly fine spell that's not Incapacitation or damage. The difference here is that Magus is competing with martials for damage so it's a different focus than what I'm looking for for a caster.
I just wonder how consistently people dissatisfied with the accuracy of spell casting are also dissatisfied with the striking spell mechanic?
I wouldn't mind better accuracy in spell attack spells as they lag, but save spells are ok: my biggest issue with them is Incapacitation.
casting can be reliable but relatively low impact (an option that is available for full casters and for Magi, but has nothing special to offer the magi) or swingy but very high impact (an option available for both, but has more to offer the magi than the full caster).
From a 'fun' standpoint, reliable is more of a priority for martials IMO [though, I disagree with 'nothing special]: this is especially true with a VERY limited resource to nova. Bread and butter basic rounds should feel as reliable as a rogue getting sneak attack or a ranger Hunt Prey.
'Normal' casters can afford to be more swingy, IMO, as they have more resources: cantrips, Slots, Focus spells, ect: they fail a time or two they still have a dozen other things to fall back on. With 4 slots and cantrips, missing feels bad with the limited slots especially as you're accuracy takes a hit from 'normal' caster and IMO, spell attack are already behind.
Maybe a good way forward is to add a feature or feat or ability, for making the reliable but relatively low impact spells fit better into the magi's wheelhouse or even just adding more spells that fit that bill.
I see it the other way: make it reliable and add a feat for crit fishing. Seems easier to make a stable base and go from there than try to make a swingy result more stable.
I mean the only cantrip that really fits the reliable but relatively low impact wheelhouse currently is electric arc, and that is primarily from being used as a 2 target spell.
Not sure what you mean about 'low impact'.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is where you are actually wrong though. It is not "requires buffs to be decent." Buffs are what takes the magus damage output above other martial classes. It is not a linear comparison. That is the nature of a mechanic that ties a lot of potential damage output to critical hits with the first weapon attack.
If a magus is just as good as any other martial, then why be a magus?
What is it that they're brining to the group? What makes their actions worth taking over the actions another class gets?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Glad to see my concerns and interests dismissed as just not trying hard enough.
What a joke.
Striking Spell in its current incarnation is a good translation of PF1 Spell Strike, where you trade lower accuracy for a better crit effect, except for the small problem that spells are already less accurate and get generally better crit effects (note: not more damage, just better effects) than weapons in PF2. So while doubling down on that is a perfectly fine design space, I think it needs to not be the central ability of the class that drive several other abilities and many of your feats. Because that feels really unfun when you try to spec into the main ability of your class, the one thing you can do that separates you from a mere MC fighter/wizard, and the game's math punishes you for trying to use it as often as positioning allows.
I don't really understand what you mean here. Trying to spec into the main ability of the magus (I am guessing you mean striking spell) and using it as often as positioning allows, (if that includes being in a flanked position) was absolutely not punishing in my play experience.
AnimatedPaper, I am happy to discuss the mechanics of the magus in the playtest with you, and anyone else. Your rhetoric feels really charged though. Mine has probably gotten too charged as well, so I will try to watch my language and use more I feel and I think statements, but I'd appreciate it if everyone could avoid calling people's experiences and perspectives a joke.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm done.
You've said your piece, and I've seen how you react to outside perspectives. None of us have told you that you were wrong in your enjoyment. Most of us don't even want the crit fishing aspect you enjoy so much to go away entirely. I, and others, simply don't enjoy it and would rather the class be built along other lines.
And your reaction was to wonder aloud why anyone that doesn't want the same as you doesn't just play a MC character. (Edit) Which sounds a heck of a lot like the people that argued against the Magus being a class in the first place.
So I think that pretty definitively concludes any further discussions, at least as far as sharing my point of view is concerned. It certainly wraps up any interest I have in them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is important to look at the ways that the magus should be different than build options that are currently possible.
A character who wants to reliably hit with a spell every round and also one weapon attack a round is very much in the wheelhouse of the currently possible wizard with a martial archetype or Multiclass. I think everyone wants a striking spell mechanic that does more than that.
The existing mechanic grants 1 synthesis a pure action economy booster. And another that gives the class some durability. I thought for sure that the action economy booster was going to be the winner for me, but when I played both, I quickly discovered that that action economy boost was only sometimes useful and came at a significant penalty to survivability and damage output. I tried to make a debuffing sliding spell magus fun and could not do it with the rules available. I'd love to see an example of one that someone had fun with.
The sustaining steel magus became fun when I walked away from the caster first mentality and picked up the fighter MC (but in retrospect, the character is even better with just the mauler Archetype). It was fun, it would have been more fun if I could have gotten a feat like power attack (a 2 action activity that makes for one powerful swing) as a level 2 feat so I wouldn't have to give up a level 12 feat to go back and pick up striker's scroll (well really I take striker's scroll at level 6, but then had to back track to pick up energize strikes and runic impression), I stopped playing this character at level 13, but might pick it back up to look at the highest levels.
The character did not feel like any combination of MC possible because I was using powerful high level spells and hitting with the near force of a fighter. It was a pretty fun and awesome experience, even when I was using a cantrip that targeted a weakness, and I rarely felt like my accuracy was an issue but that is because I was often sacrificing another action or two to set up a big one. (I did also have a shifted staff of divination, which did make the class a lot more fun to play to).
That is my experience and the existing striking spell mechanic contributed a lot to the fun I had, in a way that felt unique to this class and very Pathfinder Second Edition. I really hope we end up with a magus that preserves those feelings of uniqueness and fitting squarely in with PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character who wants to reliably hit with a spell every round and also one weapon attack a round is very much in the wheelhouse of the currently possible wizard with a martial archetype or Multiclass. I think everyone wants a striking spell mechanic that does more than that.
What you can't do is hit with your weapon and channel your spell through it with a multiclass and I think that IS what every one wants. Accuracy vs crit fishing is a different issue. From my perspective, multiclassing just isn't what people want for a magus, which is why the current system kind of feels like you ARE just casting and Striking instead of channeling your spell through your weapon: or worse, it kind of feels punishing to have worse action economy that a multiclass.
I quickly discovered that that action economy boost was only sometimes useful and came at a significant penalty to survivability and damage output.
Agreed.
The sustaining steel magus became fun when I walked away from the caster first mentality
It worked for me if I toss away playing it like a caster or a magus and play it like a martial with free temp hp/healing by throwing away an action to cast message.
The sustaining steel magus became fun when I walked away from the caster first mentalityIt worked for me if I toss away playing it like a caster or a magus and play it like a martial with free temp hp/healing by throwing away an action to cast message.
I don't know what level you were playing it at, but you could try testing out grabbing a 1 action focus spell attack if you want to see what that feels like, or if you are level 13 or higher, grabbing fiery form. That would let you see if it felt more caster-like in a positive way or not, just for the comparison's sake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what level you were playing it at, but you could try testing out grabbing a 1 action focus spell attack if you want to see what that feels like, or if you are level 13 or higher, grabbing fiery form. That would let you see if it felt more caster-like in a positive way or not, just for the comparison's sake.The sustaining steel magus became fun when I walked away from the caster first mentalityIt worked for me if I toss away playing it like a caster or a magus and play it like a martial with free temp hp/healing by throwing away an action to cast message.
7th level spells is WAY too long for me to wait for a class to come together. As far as multiclass, I pretty much feel the same way about having to do that for a focus spell as I do needing to do that for lower level spells: If I have to do that, the class isn't doing it's job: I archetype to give my extras, not to make just get up to the basics.
That is fair, I was just suggesting that there are ways you could test out having 1 action offensive spells if you wanted to see what the class mechanics felt like with it.