My biggest problem with the way striking spell works right now is that it's basically a big gamble, it does lots of damage when it goes off, but you can't get it off reliably which feels bad-- so people want it's reliability increased, but then the spell slots we're using probably do too much damage (I'm unclear on why this isn't a problem for eldritch shot, maybe because you're either dropping your accuracy for more slots, or dumping lots of class feats for casting when you use it to get only two slots per level?) as far as I can tell, this somewhat links into how spell attacks are balanced in the first place. We talk about them being bad, but technically they're just swingy and my feeling's been that they're fine on average.
The reason why Eldritch Shot is not currently a problem as far as crit fishing with big spells is because:
As an archetype, no body gets here with excellent weapon proficiency and high level spells.
It only works on spell attack roll spells, which don't get nearly as powerful as saving throw spells do at higher levels.
It is one activity that takes up three actions, which makes it impossible to pair with true strike.
I like it as an archetype power but it is way too rigid to make be a central class feature. I was pretty down on the idea of the magus when I though that the eldritch shot ability was going to be the template for the magus, and I am very glad it is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the damage increase from accuracy on spellslots doesn't seem that high (especially if we remove the double occasion to crit). It's very high, yes, but 4 times a day at most. In white room tests it seemed fairly fair compared to other martials (at least to barbarian and ranger)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly, the Magus seems to ve the class that gets the best cost-benefits upon taking Eldritch Archer (consistent proficiency + high-level slots).
Yesterday I made the mistake of revisiting my 1e Magus and now I miss Spell Combat and keep wondering if, kind of like Kalaam proposed, turning Striking Spell into Spell Combat (exact same action economy and crit mechanics, just shifting the narrative to the Magus being dual wielding the spell) and reallocating Spellstrike to a feat (hence, not the core feat) wouldn’t do the Magus more justice.
Syntheses could need work, but I think the 1e magud could give an inspiration. Maybe I’ll make a post about it later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea that when we imbue ourselves or weapon with the spell we gain the effect of energized strikes essentially (this would remove energized strikes from the feat list) and we'd get to choose when we want to release the spell. I dunno how you'd balance that but it's one aspect I did like if the swashbuckler was the precision damage bonus when you had panache.
But I still say, that when using spell strike. You should be able to use your attack roll to determine the spell in the very least. Instead of a seperate spell roll. Would let Magus scale at endgame where they'd have 22str and an Apex str item and would succeed in their spell attacks rather than feeling bad about themselves.
I agree on the two rolls.
On your first idea, I've already put forth something similar on the Spell Combat thread, but I think the ability do discharge as a reaction or free action imediatelly after resolving the melee Strike could work. If nerfing is needed, could have the spell be lost if the Magus suffers a critical hit.
Example:
1st Magus' turn:
Free action to declare Striking Spell with, say, Produce Flame
two-action casts it. Energized Strikes automatically kicks in.
Attempts melee strike. It's a hit, but the player's not feeling confident or, I don't know, they can get a flank during the next round. They opt not to discharge
2nd Magus' turn
First action is moving to get a flank
Second action, attempts a Strike, gets a crit. Now the Magus opts to discharge, spending a reaction. They resolve their spell now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
maybe they could go with the 9th slot casting Mark alluded to during the panel, where the progression itself is just slower by two levels.Where was this discussed? or is this a previous panel?
What did mark suggest? What does "slower by two levels" mean?
The Gen Con Q+A panel after the book was announced, he referred to the Summoner and Magus as "9th Level Casters" which I assume means that they'd be two character levels behind the full casters on their spell progression, e.g. they'd be getting their second 5th level slot when casters are getting their second 6th level slot.
This also suggests that this spell progression was one of this 'bold, maybe crazy' things they sometimes put in playtests to see what the response is, but who knows.
My thoughts on the "two rolls:"
The most important thing is that the ability not be reduced to only work with spell attack roll spells. At first I thought it would be alright for this to happen if we got a bunch of new spell attack roll spells that spanned higher levels, but then I realized that there is a reason why there aren't loads of high level powerful spell attack roll spells, and that is because they are particularly dangerous to PCs, because they don't let PCs get a chance to make a roll that can be hero pointed if it goes badly. i.e: Disintegrate has a built in save + the attack roll, and polar ray doesn't do double damage on a crit.
Introducing a bunch of new spells that use spell attack rolls is only going to hurt players in the long run.
Because of that striking spell is going to need to work with saving throw spells as well, and you will never be able to fold the spell saving throw into the weapon attack roll for much of the same reason. I know there has been a suggestion to give saving throw spells a +2 to their DC when cast through striking spell and not have the crit mechanic, but that is actually a much, much worse option for the magus than the crit shifting option, because adding an attack roll to get a +2 to your spell save will almost never balance out in your favor, especially when the class has accuracy issues with their spell attacks/DCs at higher levels anyway, especially since you only get to target one enemy. I really don't want to loose a 10-25% chance of getting a +10 to your spell DC for peanuts on the return.
So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells, while just making your saving throw spells be about as effective as a full caster, only against a single target.
In the long run, I don't thing the benefit (beyond spell attack cantrips) is especially worthwhile. In many ways this will just make the magus worse at casting saving throw spells through striking spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells,...
So basically the same thing than now but more streamlined, and without the extreme lows when you just land a normal hit. This mostly make the bread and butter (cantrips) more usable as your base attack options since most of those are Attack Spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically the same thing than now but more streamlined, and without the extreme lows when you just land a normal hit. This mostly make the bread and butter (cantrips) more usable as your base attack options since most of those are Attack Spells.So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells,...
Now you just have to add the fortune trait to it to avoid true strike crit fishing and it looks good.
Now you just have to add the fortune trait to it to avoid true strike crit fishing and it looks good.So basically the same thing than now but more streamlined, and without the extreme lows when you just land a normal hit. This mostly make the bread and butter (cantrips) more usable as your base attack options since most of those are Attack Spells.So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells,...
You'd either try to crit fish on Spell Combat (working the same as now, you take a huge risk or wasting actions, but if you get that crit rider you get a huuuuge benefit especially with save spells), or you use the more reliable spell strike (that cannot be crit fished with true strike) for tamer situations.
Other advantage of Spell Combat would be that if the Strike kills the target, you can still follow up by releasing the spell in an Area or for a Ranged attack (if you cannot hold it for long)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
maybe they could go with the 9th slot casting Mark alluded to during the panel, where the progression itself is just slower by two levels.Where was this discussed? or is this a previous panel?
What did mark suggest? What does "slower by two levels" mean?
The Gen Con Q+A panel after the book was announced, he referred to the Summoner and Magus as "9th Level Casters" which I assume means that they'd be two character levels behind the full casters on their spell progression, e.g. they'd be getting their second 5th level slot when casters are getting their second 6th level slot.
This also suggests that this spell progression was one of this 'bold, maybe crazy' things they sometimes put in playtests to see what the response is, but who knows.
Oh.I have seen this quote.
I mean, they are 9th slot casters now, so I'm not sure that's what they meant, but if it's what you propose then I'd be interested to see it.
So basically the same thing than now but more streamlined, and without the extreme lows when you just land a normal hit. This mostly make the bread and butter (cantrips) more usable as your base attack options since most of those are Attack Spells.So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells,...
But you take away the way it boosts saving throw spells and basically gives you no reason to cast them through striking spell. Eldritch shot only works on spell attack roll spells and it is a good feature, for a dedication, because it isn't the center point of your entire class build.
Even giving the +2 bonus to saving throw DCs is something that make saving throw spell DCs as good as full casters casting the same spell, but requiring a weapon strike first and limiting it to 1 target, usually within melee range. It is a bad trade off with no potential upside.
Making spell strike only meaningfully interact with spell attack rolls is a secret trap for the whole class, because spell attack roll spells are a very limited subset of spells. It makes striking spell a feature that almost entirely is built around making cantrips better, and I think that can be done by increasing spell casting accuracy with striking spell (adding item bonus to spell attack roll spells with striking spell) and/or baking in a feature like bespell strike that works with cantrips in place of weapon specialization, without making the whole class not meaningfully interact with saving throw spells.
Do you guys have an opinion on my "weird idea" from the end of page 2? The one about moving Striking Spell out of the base class's power budget and into the class feats, to try and free up power budget for more spell slots without losing martial proficiency?
They'd basically be three action activities that let you mix up move/spell/strike in weird ways, tailored to different kinds of spells-- since its a class feat, there'd have to be multiple options in that slot. I'm thinking something inspired by the old "Spell Combat" for Cast-and-Swing, an Eldritch Shot Spell Attack Delivery, Cast a spell on yourself + Unsheathe (for two actions, which would let you toss a move or a strike in there, I imagined using haste or true strike or something with it).
Its a weird one, and it would mean the base class would just kind of be master/master proficiency that has more spells to use for whatever and *nothing else.*
So basically the same thing than now but more streamlined, and without the extreme lows when you just land a normal hit. This mostly make the bread and butter (cantrips) more usable as your base attack options since most of those are Attack Spells.So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells,...
But you take away the way it boosts saving throw spells and basically gives you no reason to cast them through striking spell. Eldritch shot only works on spell attack roll spells and it is a good feature, for a dedication, because it isn't the center point of your entire class build.
Even giving the +2 bonus to saving throw DCs is something that make saving throw spell DCs as good as full casters casting the same spell, but requiring a weapon strike first and limiting it to 1 target, usually within melee range. It is a bad trade off with no potential upside.
Making spell strike only meaningfully interact with spell attack rolls is a secret trap for the whole class, because spell attack roll spells are a very limited subset of spells. It makes striking spell a feature that almost entirely is built around making cantrips better, and I think that can be done by increasing spell casting accuracy with striking spell (adding item bonus to spell attack roll spells with striking spell) and/or baking in a feature like bespell strike that works with cantrips in place of weapon specialization, without making the whole class not meaningfully interact with saving throw spells.
We could also just add something separate for Saving Throw Spells.
So basically the same thing than now but more streamlined, and without the extreme lows when you just land a normal hit. This mostly make the bread and butter (cantrips) more usable as your base attack options since most of those are Attack Spells.So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells,...
But you take away the way it boosts saving throw spells and basically gives you no reason to cast them through striking spell. Eldritch shot only works on spell attack roll spells and it is a good feature, for a dedication, because it isn't the center point of your entire class build.
Even giving the +2 bonus to saving throw DCs is something that make saving throw spell DCs as good as full casters casting the same spell, but requiring a weapon strike first and limiting it to 1 target, usually within melee range. It is a bad trade off with no potential upside.
Making spell strike only meaningfully interact with spell attack rolls is a secret trap for the whole class, because spell attack roll spells are a very limited subset of spells. It makes striking spell a feature that almost entirely is built around making cantrips better, and I think that can be done by increasing spell casting accuracy with striking spell (adding item bonus to spell attack roll spells with striking spell) and/or baking in a feature like bespell strike that works with cantrips in place of weapon specialization, without making the whole class not meaningfully interact with saving throw spells.
The thing is that, unless we get more save cantrips, cantrip usage is still disincentivized. I'm not saying it doesn't work, only that there is a huge asterisk beside it, since most cantrips are attack-based.
I think that a better way to adress this than adding the item bonus would be to allow the spell attack roll made through striking spell to just be a second weapon roll. Same bonus as the martial attack. This is more consistent with the spell being delivered through the weapon.
I mean, if the spell is inside the weapon, you're not aiming arcane forces as if, say, firing a ray from your fingers.
It also padronizes the bonuses and modifiers.
Even with the rune item bonuses, Magus' accuracy would be floating:
1st to 4th - the difference would be -1
5th to 9th - the difference would be -2 (for the expert, assuming STR 19 and Int 18)
10th it would be -3 (assuming STR 20)
Then, from 11th to 12th, it would go back to -1 and then to -3
Better to just have it be the same 'to hit' bonus and the spell attack gets a -2 penalty to accuracy. That way, you don't have this wierd floating accuracy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way unicore. The two separate rolls are not fun for me. And I still view and feel in play that the critical fishing nature is bad for the class on the long run
Something needs changed in this regard. I'd much rather have consistency over wild swings of unreliability hinged on getting the exact gear upgrades over time that you want because your class is so non self sufficient.
That's not a Magus to me. That is more like a bad rogue swashbuckler hybrid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically the same thing than now but more streamlined, and without the extreme lows when you just land a normal hit. This mostly make the bread and butter (cantrips) more usable as your base attack options since most of those are Attack Spells.So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells,...
But you take away the way it boosts saving throw spells and basically gives you no reason to cast them through striking spell. Eldritch shot only works on spell attack roll spells and it is a good feature, for a dedication, because it isn't the center point of your entire class build.
Even giving the +2 bonus to saving throw DCs is something that make saving throw spell DCs as good as full casters casting the same spell, but requiring a weapon strike first and limiting it to 1 target, usually within melee range. It is a bad trade off with no potential upside.
Making spell strike only meaningfully interact with spell attack rolls is a secret trap for the whole class, because spell attack roll spells are a very limited subset of spells. It makes striking spell a feature that almost entirely is built around making cantrips better, and I think that can be done by increasing spell casting accuracy with striking spell (adding item bonus to spell attack roll spells with striking spell) and/or baking in a feature like bespell strike that works with cantrips in place of weapon specialization, without making the whole class not meaningfully interact with saving throw spells.
Unicore, I should also point out that, the way things currently stand, the Magus NPCs (at least the official ones), never mind, I should say Spellstriking NPCs, have already come with automatic spell hits, so changing the player ability does nothing against them.
The AoA NPC's ability, at least, worked on any spell they'd cast, if memory serves me right, and they also do so at two actions, so what you're pointing as the PCs being targeted by spells they cannot save can already occur with or without the adjustments to the Magus' ability.
Do you guys have an opinion on my "weird idea" from the end of page 2? The one about moving Striking Spell out of the base class's power budget and into the class feats, to try and free up power budget for more spell slots without losing martial proficiency?
They'd basically be three action activities that let you mix up move/spell/strike in weird ways, tailored to different kinds of spells-- since its a class feat, there'd have to be multiple options in that slot. I'm thinking something inspired by the old "Spell Combat" for Cast-and-Swing, an Eldritch Shot Spell Attack Delivery, Cast a spell on yourself + Unsheathe (for two actions, which would let you toss a move or a strike in there, I imagined using haste or true strike or something with it).
Its a weird one, and it would mean the base class would just kind of be master/master proficiency that has more spells to use for whatever and *nothing else.*
Give me one that works with Steal with a prerequisite of Master in Thievery and the Pick Pocket feat that allows the theft of a spell as a level 8 Feat and you got yourself a deal.
But in all seriousness, yes, anything that helps Magus differentiate themselves in terms of the HOW of using Striking Spell (or general magic+strike combination with variability) is a big yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you guys have an opinion on my "weird idea" from the end of page 2? The one about moving Striking Spell out of the base class's power budget and into the class feats, to try and free up power budget for more spell slots without losing martial proficiency?
They'd basically be three action activities that let you mix up move/spell/strike in weird ways, tailored to different kinds of spells-- since its a class feat, there'd have to be multiple options in that slot. I'm thinking something inspired by the old "Spell Combat" for Cast-and-Swing, an Eldritch Shot Spell Attack Delivery, Cast a spell on yourself + Unsheathe (for two actions, which would let you toss a move or a strike in there, I imagined using haste or true strike or something with it).
Its a weird one, and it would mean the base class would just kind of be master/master proficiency that has more spells to use for whatever and *nothing else.*
Some part of me believes that Spell Combat (in some form) being the base class feature, with Spellstrike being one way you could use it (and efficiently) could a way to solve this conondrum
Some part of me believes that Spell Combat (in some form) being the base class feature, with Spellstrike being one way you could use it (and efficiently) could a way to solve this conondrum
And then trigger synthesis on any use of a "Spell Combat"
nods emphatically
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if you remove striking spell. The Magus basically has no identity at that point that I can see. It's just a martial with spell mc without taking an mc lol.
It may be possible for striking spell to work exactly as it currently does with only one roll to strike for the weapon attack and then the spell either automatically hits with the same tier of success as the attack, if it was a spell attack roll spell, or if it is a saving throw spell, it works exactly the same way it does now, with the boost if the weapon was a crit, only have the whole thing have the fortune tag, to prevent true strike from having way too powerful of an effect of overcharging the potential DPR of spell attack roll spells. If it went this rout, there would be no need to boost the magus the spell casting accuracy.
A lot depends upon what kinds of spells they are planning to introduce to the game a long side the magus. If they don't introduce more high level spell attack roll spells, but maybe just some more single target interesting saving throw spells with good effects on a successful save and critical failure, with only moderately better effects on a failed save, then I think the above change to striking spell could work and "fix" a lot of the problems people have with it.
It would make some builds of the class be able to tank INT a little, (if you were only going to use spell attack roll spells and didn't care about losing a few points of damage from your cantrips), but I think that would be alright because you would get no skills with the class and you would be losing out on so many good spell options with an absolutely terrible saving throw DC. Shocking grasp heightened to level 9 is good damage, but it is not spectacular enough for the max STR, INT dumped magus to be some kind of DPR god. That and acid arrow are the only arcane spells you really have to be working with until you get polar ray.
I still think the loss of true strike for those second round attacks would be unfortunate, and the sustaining steel magus might still be better boosting up their weapon in early rounds and then just attacking with true strike and power attack after runic impression and energize strike are powered up than in using a cantrip to striking spell, but that is probably alright in the long run.
I have been pretty vocal about how bad an idea it is to adopt any version of striking spell that is a multiple action activity that includes the weapon strike, because of how it pigeonhole's the class into doing the same thing over and over again every round, and takes away all the interesting archetype interactions that happen when the spell can be triggered with any weapon attack. So I would much more be in favor of reducing it to one weapon attack, if that is not game shattering balance-wise, but if it goes that route, it absolutely has to keep the saving throw roll as something separate and something that really gets a good boost, and I still haven't seen any suggestion that is better or more interesting than what striking spell already does for saving throw spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you and I can agree. They finding a way to keep the striking spell to work with any strike action is a very nice thing to have. Really opens up the possibilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What this thread is really demonstrating to me is that they have a lot of options, because there's a lot of solutions that all sound like they could work, so long as we accept whatever the drawback happens to be, and double down on the execution details so its not too weak/strong. What I've yet to see is a solution that doesn't have any drawbacks.
_______________________________________________________________________
Focus Point Centric Magus dissatisfies people who view slotted spells as being important to maintaining the Magus's identity as part Wizard, and people who want the natural customization of using the ever-expanding list of spells the game naturally supports.
The current Magus demonstrates that the balance of doing (high end?) spell slots seems to require a low hit chance to make up for the massive spike in damage it represents, to drop the average.
The Eldritch Shot solution might be too good, and would probably result in a less customizable spell strike as it mirrors the spell-attacks-only nature of that feat.
The Magus that drops martial capability to get more magic is unpopular because people don't like Warpriests very much (they're fine, really, but they're off if you want them to function as a consistent warrior- they want to swing once and cast a buff or heal every turn.)
So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells, while just making your saving throw spells be about as effective as a full caster, only against a single target.Saving throws can have the opposite degree of success as the strike so that a successful strike means the enemy fails the save and a critically successful strike means they crit fail the save. And if true strike is a problem, just apply the fortune trait.
I think that would be way too powerful. Saves are usually better than AC (depending what you target) so that could be way too strong with some spells.
I think that would be way too powerful. Saves are usually better than AC (depending what you target) so that could be way too strong with some spells.So while collapsing the strike down to one roll would make it a more powerful feature, especially on spell attack roll spells, it maintains the feature as a massive crit fishing element focused on getting as many boosts to your weapon attack accuracy as possible (the whole, wait a round, true strike gambit remains exactly the same and will actually result in higher and more damaging highs from crits with the weapon), but only with a very small sub-set of spells, while just making your saving throw spells be about as effective as a full caster, only against a single target.Saving throws can have the opposite degree of success as the strike so that a successful strike means the enemy fails the save and a critically successful strike means they crit fail the save. And if true strike is a problem, just apply the fortune trait.
My answer was that for save spells, the spell automatically goes off regardless of whether you hit or not, (with a reaction to retain it if you want). If you miss, the foe gets a +2 bonus to their save. If you hit, they get a -2 penalty (which would give you something pretty close to full casters most levels, but still usually slightly under because Int isn't the primary ability of the Magus), and if you crit, they get a -4 pentalty to their save. Still making it more likely that you'll get a better result on your save, but less so than the effective -10 you get right now, while getting a bit of an improvement on a regular hit, and even an improvement on a miss, since you CAN still effect them with the spell, even if they're significantly more likely to save.
This would be paired with Attack roll spells just being tied to the degree of success of your hit, as it almost certainly should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may be possible for striking spell to work exactly as it currently does with only one roll to strike for the weapon attack and then the spell either automatically hits with the same tier of success as the attack, if it was a spell attack roll spell, or if it is a saving throw spell, it works exactly the same way it does now, with the boost if the weapon was a crit, only have the whole thing have the fortune tag, to prevent true strike from having way too powerful of an effect of overcharging the potential DPR of spell attack roll spells. If it went this rout, there would be no need to boost the magus the spell casting accuracy.
I agree. If they went this route, this in and of itself would boost spell accuracy, especially for spell attack rolls, into acceptable levels whenever you can get off a spell strike.
Might even yank up cantrip damage to where it would be worth using spellstrike-cantrip every round you're already in melee, not just when the odds are in your favor.
Thought of something about my idea of choosing arcane spells to become focus spells.
To limit their power, how about adding this "the spells repurposed this way grow in power at a diminished rate. In their "heightened effect" entry, consider all heightened level indications as 2 levels higher. "
So a spell like Shocking Grasp, improving every level, would only improve every 3 spell level, one improving every 2 would improve every 4... those improving at specific level would improve at 2 more.
You lose in power, but gain in sustainability. You could either keep general purpose spells that can also be useful, including some that do not even heighten. Or put in attack spells you like to use often while your slots are for really big stuff or important buffs.
Of course there is the need to limit the number of those Combat Spells. Maybe 4 at max ? Starting at level 5, you get one, then every 4 levels you get to choose one more ?
Changing them could require 1 day of downtime per spell.
I'll be honest, Kalaam, that seems overly complex, but at the same time still overpowered, as this would effectively give you more casting per day on your top slots than a spontaneous caster or wizard, even as your top slot is 2 levels below other casters. Especially since as you point out, lots of buff spells and some debuff spells wouldn't be bothered at all by being cast at an effectively lower level.
It is the same feedback I gave Manbearscientist with his kineticist conversion. He, too, wanted the ability to be able to select from the full list; in his case, he argued that thematically a Fire Kineticist should be able to cast any fire spell, as a focus spell at least. The problem, which he himself identified and so chose to not go the focus spell route, is that slot spells are balanced as being slots, and allowing even a fire kineticist the ability to cast fireball in every fight, more than once, is probably asking a lot.
True, that would probably be too strong. I'm just throwing ideas to find ways for a "slotless" Magus to still be a class that studies and learns spells from different sources instead of just have "their" own magic like a monk has ki techniques etc. While it would feel magical, it wouldn't make sense lore wise if the magus has no benefit studying "normal" magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, a reasonable compromise might just be replacing Striking Spell with focus based "Striking Spells" but still giving Magus a Spell Progression (2 per level up to 9th level casting?) that it can use for it's utility magic.
No one's going to really want to eat the -2 to launch attack spells normally, so it wouldn't be overpowered, and Oracles already have full casting in tandem with their focus point progression, so reduced casting proficiency and slots, coupled with Master weapon proficiency, and Striking Spells that bring it in line with Sneak Attack/Barbarian Rage/Hunter's edge/ Fighter's Legendary Prof should work well.
This leaves the Magus able to have the full flavor of a spellbook and utility magic, whilst circumventing the swingy nature of Striking Spell with real spells. Maybe include a "Spell Combat" feature that lets you try to hit someone to make your follow up spell more accurate so that swing-and-cast is viable as well?
True, that would probably be too strong. I'm just throwing ideas to find ways for a "slotless" Magus to still be a class that studies and learns spells from different sources instead of just have "their" own magic like a monk has ki techniques etc. While it would feel magical, it wouldn't make sense lore wise if the magus has no benefit studying "normal" magic.
My solution for that is a little more subtle-- it's Focus Spells *are* Wizard Spells, but altered to suit the purposes of the Magus. You'd be able to tell because each spell would be a riff on an existing Arcane Spell-- Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp, so forth.
One option is that maybe if this was done, each focus spell comes with the ability to cast the spell it was based on? This would need a mechanic to actually cast it of course, so this would work in a hybrid system where they have some slots.
Messing with saving throws can be really tricky, because there are many aspects of the game that interact with them. When thinking about mechanics like that I always think it is a good idea to think about how it would work if the tables were turned. PCs would hate having a spell effect them without being able to make a save, especially if the PC has some kind of feat or ability that allows them to re-roll saves or change the tier of success on a specific kind of spell.
Striking spell is already pushing the complexity limits of how you want a core mechanic of a class to operate. I would be very hesitant as a developer to want to introduce a new mechanic that will have so many strange interactions with other game mechanics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm for spell strike being better than it is currently. Balance budget aside. It's lacking in many ways. So it cannot simultaneously be bad and too good to be buffed. That makes no sense.
But I still say this is also a true strike and haste issue. These are non choice decisions. You are objectively worse for not leaning on them hard. Yet only one of them you get something from your class to help with.
True strike has rubbed me the wrong way since the beginning of 2e. I saw the potential issues it would create, watched as those issues have come true, and Magus is just the latest issue with it.
I would love to remove true strike and let item bonuses apply to dc/hit of spells. And I honestly don't care about that quality of life buff too spells in general.
Magus, hybrid caster with same old caster problems but arguably amplified
The problem with getting rid of true strike is that casting is too limited of a resource for even "close to martial proficiency to really be worth while, especially against higher level enemies. Without true strike, there is no reason ever to cast spell attack roll spells against a higher level enemy. Even with it, it is a bit risky, but you can feel like you are really doing everything you can to be more accurate. Spell slot spells being limited resources means that you either need to do away with spell attack roll spells from slots, or have some kind of mechanic like true strike to make a generally bad option have specific situations where it can really shine.
At this point I think there are way too many things that connect to it to take it away entirely.
As far as haste, it has been one of the best 3rd level spells for the entire history of the game. There really is no surprise that it is so valuable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still wish true strike didn't exist. It's causing nothing but issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the suggestion of True Strike being changed to "if you miss, roll again" so that it can't be used to fish for crits as much.
I liked the suggestion of True Strike being changed to "if you miss, roll again" so that it can't be used to fish for crits as much.
Heck, I'd go farther: allow a reroll but the highest degree of success possible on the reroll is a success to 1000% murder crit fishing. So the spell can help you hit reliably instead looking for that lucky crit hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, that would probably be too strong. I'm just throwing ideas to find ways for a "slotless" Magus to still be a class that studies and learns spells from different sources instead of just have "their" own magic like a monk has ki techniques etc. While it would feel magical, it wouldn't make sense lore wise if the magus has no benefit studying "normal" magic.My solution for that is a little more subtle-- it's Focus Spells *are* Wizard Spells, but altered to suit the purposes of the Magus. You'd be able to tell because each spell would be a riff on an existing Arcane Spell-- Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp, so forth.
One option is that maybe if this was done, each focus spell comes with the ability to cast the spell it was based on? This would need a mechanic to actually cast it of course, so this would work in a hybrid system where they have some slots.
Then it'd be a specific list, or would that be a feature including the detailed "rules" for how to convert a spell.
On another note, I'm really not fond of having Spellstrike be specific spells like 5E Greenflame Blade, Booming Blade etc. It's nice, but it absolutely kills diversity. You end up stuck with a few select spells to do your unique thing, that's a shame. That was kind of an issue in Pf1 too since we had the limit of touch spells, (and rays with an arcana) but whenever new touch or ray spells were added, the Magus could look forward to it.
Having some spells like GFB is a good thing (focus cantrips maybe ? Like Flame Blade, one action, make a strike, it deals 1d6 fire damage (heightened +2 for +1d6) or something like that) but Spellstrike absolutely needs to be opened to a wide array of spells that will increase naturally with future books without needing extra work to add Magus specific spells each time.
It's already great that the limitation is more loose than before, I'd even be open for it to be *any* harmful spell to be honest ! (And giving some more options in feats like "If the striking spell you are using is usually an area of effect spell, it becomes a cone/line of 15/30ft originating from the target you strike")
While I loved the idea of having GFB and BB spells in the game, I think Spellstrike is doable and should still be the way to go.
I know we have different perceptions of it, but we all, even Paizo, acknowledge the current implementation is not perfect.
Some have a problem with the action economy (Reddit seems to be going that route), while others have a problem with the accuracy (these forums seem to point that).
I think that a fix on either front, whatever Paizo chooses, could deliver a Magus worthy of their legacy in 2e.
I honestly try to address both issues matters, tho' the action economy of spell combat is basically the same and I think would work fine as is by opening it a bit to give options when the target dies from the strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both action economy and accuracy are issues. But you can more readily deal with the action economy issue with what the Magus offers at base.
The accuracy issues however, you cannot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all should get to Step as part of Striking Spell at minimum, at most move to half speed, and Slide moving at full.
I think 5 ft step is more than fair. Unless slide casting becomes universal for entire class though I don't know if I agree with half movement.
People might not jive with sustaining steel but it's not weak, it is more about buffing and having large heavy hitting basic strikes more than using cantrip spell strike though