In their video on the Magus, GameGorgon (Original) raised an interresting point.
The way it is written, it kind of sound like the Striking Spell end up counting for a single attack for your multiple attack penalty.
The spell still requires its normal spell attack roll or saving throw, but you don’t increase your multiple attack penalty until after attempting both the discharging Strike and the spell attack roll.
What made them think of that is the fact that, unlike most (if not all) actions doubling your MAP there is no line explicitely saying "this counts double toward your multiple attack penalty". Some of the other abilities the Magus get through feats do however.
. A Spell Swipe counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty.
You combine the might of a multitarget spell with a whirling flurry of attacks. You use Striking Spell, then Cast a Spell with a casting time of 1 or 2 actions, then make a melee Strike against each enemy within your reach. Each attack counts toward your multiple attack penalty but doesn’t increase your penalty until you’ve made all your attacks. If you discharge the spell, you can affect each creature you hit with a Strike, up to the spell’s normal maximum targets.
So does Striking Spell counts as a singular Strike toward MAP ?
Personnaly I think it still counts double when using an attack spell, but RAW it seems that using a save based spells would make it count as a single attack, so you'd get better accuracy on following actions (assuming you didn't Strike on the turn of the cast). So it has a better value than initially anticipated, but still clunky.
That is not better value. That is just not worse than it already was. Also, I do think most people read it as only increasing MAP once, but maybe I am misremembering.
So far I'm pretty sure everyone I've seen interpret it as doubling MAP.
So if we were indeed wrong it IS better value. It is still clunky and not very good, but it's a bit better than we interpreted it at first. No need to be so aggressive.
It counts as one attack for MAP if you make one attack (eg, save spell), and counts as two attacks for MAP if you make two attacks (eg Strike + spell attack). It doesnt have language making it explicit how many it counts as because there are no special rules for how many it counts as: it counts for however many MAP-contributing attacks as you make as normal.
Yeah I think that's what it meant too.
I don't think anyone misread it at least not the majority and the MAP as said above is dictated by the attack trait. The current issues with striking spell still exist because of differences in stat and proficiency.
I don't think anyone misread it at least not the majority and the MAP as said above is dictated by the attack trait. The current issues with striking spell still exist because of differences in stat and proficiency.
Yes I know of the accuracy issue, I'm not saying it's suddenly good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must confess I was reading it as only increasing MAP once, but the correct interpretation seems to be shroudb’s that the Attack trait is what causes the MAP to increase. Have done so in my tests and now am realizing my accuracy on the turns I manager to Strike after delivering Striking Spell should’ve gone downhill
Dang, it’s worse than I thought.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the way I had been running it. Is my map only went one stage after using spell strike.
I don't know why. Probably because I used *one* action for the strike. But I did roll twice.
What this means to me.
Attack spells and cantrips should be avoided if at all possible.
Spell strike is out useful to get energized strike rolling. After that I have almost no scenario where I'd want to waste my turn.
Due to this. This class, as it currently stands. Only serves one purpose. Getting sorry slots at level 1 while multicassing a caster dedication.
Is there another reason? I don't count just liking the class as a reason. It's a bad reason. Because the class is shit.
The wording is as it stands because Touch Spells with Saving Throws don't have the attack trait. So if you use another spell with an Attack Roll, it will increase your MAP, but if the spell you're using doesn't require one, it won't.
At least, that's why I think it's worded that way. Because when you use the Strike to deliver the spells, you roll for each separately and there's nothing but the critical hit mechanic tying them together, so I think their traits apply as usual. It's either that or the wording is indeed problematic.
I understand how someone could skim and miss it, but I don't see how anyone reading the text of the ability would conclude the spell attack doesn't add to MAP. You are making both a Strike and a spell attack in the same round.
I understand how someone could skim and miss it, but I don't see how anyone reading the text of the ability would conclude the spell attack doesn't add to MAP. You are making both a Strike and a spell attack in the same round.
Mainly due to the logic of balance assumption. Save spells were arguably better before. But with this somewhat obvious realization they are better always outside of true strike maybe.
There are situations where either save or attack will shine. Save spells don't benefit from a status bonus to attack and the enemy flat-footed, for instance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are situations where either save or attack will shine. Save spells don't benefit from a status bonus to attack and the enemy flat-footed, for instance.
And don't interfere with my ability to make multiple strikes. But attack spells do.
I don't see how the examples your provided push things into attack spells favor.
|
There are situations where either save or attack will shine. Save spells don't benefit from a status bonus to attack and the enemy flat-footed, for instance.And don't interfere with my ability to make multiple strikes. But attack spells do.
I don't see how the examples your provided push things into attack spells favor.
There’s still some use for spell attacks... heavily debuffed enemies and enemies with terribad AC (oozes e.g.) but given the rather low quantity of slotted spell attacks and the fact that few of them are particularly good as spells anyway, you’re mostly looking at a spell attack cantrip or focus spell to use.
There are situations where either save or attack will shine. Save spells don't benefit from a status bonus to attack and the enemy flat-footed, for instance.And don't interfere with my ability to make multiple strikes. But attack spells do.
I don't see how the examples your provided push things into attack spells favor.
How many times are you going to make a second strike?? There are so many better things to do than that.
How many times are you going to make a second strike?? There are so many better things to do than that.There are situations where either save or attack will shine. Save spells don't benefit from a status bonus to attack and the enemy flat-footed, for instance.And don't interfere with my ability to make multiple strikes. But attack spells do.
I don't see how the examples your provided push things into attack spells favor.
few things are better than a second strike, especially with agile weapons and a modicum of teamwork.
third strike though? nope.
few things are better than a second strike, especially with agile weapons and a modicum of teamwork.
I was always happy with a second maul attack. ;)
This is a big part of why a feat like power attack, using two actions to deliver a more powerful strike is such an attractive option for the magus that uses striking spell. You only really want to make one big attack a round and focus everything you can into landing it.