| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Curious to people's expectations from this class core feature.
For me.
I expect spell strike using cantrips to be better for me in combat than merely attacking 3x. The only one I'm not sure about is sustaining steel because d12 weapons scale nicely.
I expect my classes scaling to be roughly in line with other martials for combat power. This means doing away with the volatile scaling that is the critical effect spell strike currently has in exchange for making the activity more consistent and therefore less frustrating.
I expect the use of spell slots with spell strike to have enough accuracy to succeed more often then fail, at least for attack roll spells.
I won't have much interest in the class itself if it's just a martial light that just attacks every round and only uses it's core feature when burning one of 4 spell slots. That would be hugely disappointing to me. So spell strike with cantrips being bread and butter activity for me is very important.
Right now it often feels like the wrong choice and I don't like that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My expectations are basically the same.
Although I feel Magus could be more than spell strike, its baked in its identity and should be as reliable as other classes' similar features.
IMHO Magus does not need to match a Barbarian, but should be in line with other damage dealing classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add to that list the ability to cast buff spells targeting yourself with the better action economy.
They have Magus feats that give more spell slots but are restricted to buff spells. Unfortunately you can't use it with the Striking Spell. In PF1 I loved doing Spell Combat -- Shield and Strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect that casting a Spell or Cantrip through Striking Spell is superior to just casting it normally.
Either it costs less resources, takes less actions, is more likely to hit, or at the very least is on-par while activating useful rider abilities.