How will you play / run your Magi and Summoners once the playtest ends?


Secrets of Magic Playtest General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So, with the playtest due to end next friday and these forums probably shutting down, I would like to make a thread for those that intend to keep playing with both classes to share the adjustments they will implement until we get their final versions. This will probably get moved to homebrew, but I'm posting here, because most of the fixes/additions are detailed in these forums.

Just share your adjustments (if any)!

Mine are as follows:

Magus I think we're just giving some adjustments to Striking Spell. Considering three candidates:

The Smite Variation:
(named after the 5e Paladin): Striking Spell remains as is with the exception that it does not necessarily trigger upon a successful melee Strike.

Instead, you spend a reaction to discharge the spell imediatelly after resolving the weapon attack. We're considering folding Energize Strikes into the ability (as suggested by MartialMasters in a similar thread) to give some sort of bonus while the charge is held.

One of my players pitched this as an alternative to the current Striking Spell in the sense that you could choose which Strike to discharge with, allowing you to discard a hit in favor of a potential crit.

The Logical Variation:
(named after the idea that it's narratively logical for a spellstrike to do something when you hit with a strike): Striking Spell remains as is with the exception that Attack Spells use the same degree of success as the martial attacks for their resolution.
Fortune trait gets added to the ability

The Martial Proficiency Variation:
: Striking Spell remains as is with two rolls and every other aspect, except you make spell attack rolls using the same proficiency as martial attack rolls. For example, if your weapon attack is a +26, then your Striking Spell Produce Flame is also a +26.

Summoner For Summoner, we've liked quite a few of the fixes on these forums and will probably go with:

a) Mark's Act Together alternative. Although we haven't played with it yet, feedback seems to be positive.

b) The Summoning Font, working akin to Cleric's Diivne Font, but for summoning spells. I don't know who proposed this first, so if it was you, feel free to comment.

So, if you, like myself, intend to keep playing or running characters from these classes until SoM comes out, what adjustments will you implement?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd probably houserule in the wave spell progression for both. Low level spells don't add too much power, but they add a lot of flexibility and flavor to both classes. Even if it does boost their power, both classes are far enough on the underpowered side of the scale that they would still not be overpowering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magus. Spell strike becomes one roll. Gains the fortune trait. Uses your martial to hit obviously. And you can 5ft step as a base with it.

IDGAF if paizo doesn't think it's balanced. I want it to work.

Summoner? Remove boost. Increase dice size of attacks by 1 to compensate. Have a high level feature that lets you Apex item also apply to eidolon str or dex.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think I would go for a combination of both of those for Magus. Unfortunately I would probably not be the person who gets to play it anyway. All said and done, Magus does not look like a fun class. It currently does not seem "magical" and is very "fiddly", you have to "Hit Twice" with two different proficiencies, and you can either cast cantrips or 4 high level attack spells.

Ohhh, and use a focus spell that gives you an extra attack to try to get off the spell you missed with earlier, but now at a -10 to hit,

ohh, and you have a focus spell to give your main weapon +2 and +2d6 (+2 greater striking)..... Just like that rune you found and put on it two levels ago.

The Magus is a bit under-tuned currently, as long as you are attacking Casters in no armor, and singular minions it is fine, but in high stress situations, many minions and Bosses, it does not deal well, and does not provide any support to the other party members.

A very disappointed
Nightfox


However my GM lets me :D

My GM isn't super comfortable with the Summoner as is, so if he'll tolerate letting me continue as is for the time being I'll take it.

Alternative would be to go back to Cleric-Beastmaster, which wasn't bad but was less interesting to play.


richienvh wrote:
I would like to make a thread for those that intend to keep playing with both classes

I don't foresee playing either as/is: both because neither really played well IMO and the few playtest games there where have already vanished [and I don't think I'll see anyone homebrew the classes on the off chance someone wants to play one] so I don't know where I'd play one if I did want to.

Good luck to those of you that want to continue.


Would depend on the final version.

I tend to play my summoners as the classic swarm summoners with multiple pets. Assuming there isnt much change, I would prolly multiclass into beastmaster or find a combination to play more than 2 pets at some point RAW. Im still hoping for an option for separate HP pools even at the cost of the 10 hp per level (I'd even settle for 4hp for summoner+4 hp for pet, regardless of how vulnerable that is).

For magi, again assuming no changes, Ill be multiclassing for more spell slots, or mainline a fighter that multiclasses into magus. For magi im hoping the 4 slot design isnt the final, they need more spell slots for sure if their accuracy isnt improved via spellstrike or spellcasting.


richienvh wrote:

So, with the playtest due to end next friday and these forums probably shutting down, I would like to make a thread for those that intend to keep playing with both classes to share the adjustments they will implement until we get their final versions. This will probably get moved to homebrew, but I'm posting here, because most of the fixes/additions are detailed in these forums.

Just share your adjustments (if any)!

Mine are as follows:

Magus I think we're just giving some adjustments to Striking Spell. Considering three candidates:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Summoner For Summoner, we've liked quite a few of the fixes on these forums and will probably go with:

a) Mark's Act Together...

For Magus, I'd probably turn Striking Spells into Spellstrike, where it's a passive ability that, when a spell that involves a Spell Attack Roll or Saving Throw is cast, it can be resolved with a Melee or Ranged Attack Roll (as is appropriate based on the chosen synergy) with a wielded weapon, treating the degree of success on the weapon proportionate to the success rate of the attack. This makes damaging and debuffing spells still useful for the Magus in a way that normal Spellcasters can't utilize, and still fulfills their hybrid niche they're designed for. I'd also give them 2 spell slots per level, or give them better martial capabilities via feats. Something's gotta give here; maybe it's one of those sub-paths they can develop, but I feel that this is beyond the scope of what the thread was meant to cover.

For Summoner, the Act Together variant helps out a lot in flexibility without really giving more action economy than the original, so I would definitely implement this. (I have a feeling we'll see this in the final product, too.) The Summoning Font is really nice and flavorful, but I'm curious how it will be balanced in regards to the Sorcerer-Lite mechanics they have with their spell list. It might be easier/safer to balance around a single spell list with their summoning font still being capable of being from any spell list, but if they are getting that instead of an Eidolon, then the Summoning Font needs to make their summons stronger to compensate for their current undermarked power level. As well as an activity to maintain all summoned creatures with a single action, if it comes down to it with a Master Summoner type. Of course, can just throw on an Uncommon tag so GM has ammunition to say "No" to. I'd also like to see a lot of the combination stuff go for simplicity reasons, as a lot of things have strange corner-case interactions with the Summoner and Eidolon combo. But, I know that Paizo is most likely going to roll up several PF1 classes into existing classes, which I feel they already did with the Spiritualist here, and with how many people like it, I doubt it's going to go away, so I better brush up on my Chess skills to make sure I can play the Summoner competently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undraxis wrote:

Would depend on the final version.

I tend to play my summoners as the classic swarm summoners with multiple pets. Assuming there isnt much change, I would prolly multiclass into beastmaster or find a combination to play more than 2 pets at some point RAW. Im still hoping for an option for separate HP pools even at the cost of the 10 hp per level (I'd even settle for 4hp for summoner+4 hp for pet, regardless of how vulnerable that is).

For magi, again assuming no changes, Ill be multiclassing for more spell slots, or mainline a fighter that multiclasses into magus. For magi im hoping the 4 slot design isnt the final, they need more spell slots for sure if their accuracy isnt improved via spellstrike or spellcasting.

I believe the point of the thread is to generate what sort of changes or implementations you'd make for your home game, maybe to see what ideas can spring to the devs' minds for contemplation.

One neat interaction here would be if you took Beastmaster dedication with a Summoner/Eidolon combo, where you can perform Act Together, commanding your Animal Companion, while your Eidolon gets an action as well, all with a single action of your own. And if you already have both an Eidolon, an Animal Companion, and a Summon (all viable with Primal Summoner spell list), you could do the optional Act Together 2-action variant to command both Summon and Animal Companion and Eidolon all at the same time.


KrispyXIV wrote:

However my GM lets me :D

My GM isn't super comfortable with the Summoner as is, so if he'll tolerate letting me continue as is for the time being I'll take it.

Alternative would be to go back to Cleric-Beastmaster, which wasn't bad but was less interesting to play.

Considering how nerfed the 2e version of the summoner is compared to the 1e version, it cant be because of potential abuse is it? Even though the melee dps of the eidolon is significant compared to fighters and barbarians, all their other abusable abilities like flight and so on are in the high teens where its expected.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Undraxis wrote:

Would depend on the final version.

I tend to play my summoners as the classic swarm summoners with multiple pets. Assuming there isnt much change, I would prolly multiclass into beastmaster or find a combination to play more than 2 pets at some point RAW. Im still hoping for an option for separate HP pools even at the cost of the 10 hp per level (I'd even settle for 4hp for summoner+4 hp for pet, regardless of how vulnerable that is).

For magi, again assuming no changes, Ill be multiclassing for more spell slots, or mainline a fighter that multiclasses into magus. For magi im hoping the 4 slot design isnt the final, they need more spell slots for sure if their accuracy isnt improved via spellstrike or spellcasting.

I believe the point of the thread is to generate what sort of changes or implementations you'd make for your home game, maybe to see what ideas can spring to the devs' minds for contemplation.

One neat interaction here would be if you took Beastmaster dedication with a Summoner/Eidolon combo, where you can perform Act Together, commanding your Animal Companion, while your Eidolon gets an action as well, all with a single action of your own. And if you already have both an Eidolon, an Animal Companion, and a Summon (all viable with Primal Summoner spell list), you could do the optional Act Together 2-action variant to command both Summon and Animal Companion and Eidolon all at the same time.

In that respect, at least for the games i GM, the first thing i would do is an option for seperate hp pools for the summoner and either more spell slots for the magus or an improved accuracy.

As a GM i wouldnt mind if at some point the magus has master proficiency in both melee and spell accuracyat an earlier level even if it means encroaching on the roles of the other classes. The math is just too tight in PF2e to worry about class balance if it comes at the cost of the magi's fun factor.

Edit Add: For the summoner, I want to make CHA matter more. One of the Feats im thinking of is some sort of reaction feat with a daily temporary hp pool equal to the summoner's Cha x3 to x5 that the summoner can use to save his Eidolon whether or not they have single hp pool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undraxis wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

However my GM lets me :D

My GM isn't super comfortable with the Summoner as is, so if he'll tolerate letting me continue as is for the time being I'll take it.

Alternative would be to go back to Cleric-Beastmaster, which wasn't bad but was less interesting to play.

Considering how nerfed the 2e version of the summoner is compared to the 1e version, it cant be because of potential abuse is it? Even though the melee dps of the eidolon is significant compared to fighters and barbarians, all their other abusable abilities like flight and so on are in the high teens where its expected.

I mean, first theres the fact that my Eidolon is dominant in combat because our party with with an unusual, low damage per hit setup - duelist fighter, two monks, and a wizard beside myself. Not only does my Eidolon hit hardest by a margin compared to all those, at the level 6-7 range their AC is the same as the monks, and I've taken the shield cantrip and Reinforce Eidolon to make my Eidolon the talkies member of the party as well.

On top of the fact that I'm the parties healer, and the medic archetype allows for significant single target healing, it leads to the short term perception of all damage to me being essentially irrelevant as well.

So combat looks really good related to my Summoner.

Then there's my general range of skills during Exploration/Skill challenges as well, where the Summoner is generally overpresent. Because the skills I chose to focus on keep coming up during exploration mode / skill challenges, and because between the Summoner and Eidolon I have more 18s than anyone else, way more of the time than anyone else I have the best modifier for attempting a skill test.

Then there's the fact that two exploration activities just looks really good, and allows for significant low key utility...

Add that to the fact that my ability to toss out clutch heals or end encounters before they begin with Calm Emotions hasn't gone away (in fact, since I didn't do those "often" as a Cleric, just when needed or when a ripe opportunity presented themselves, they happen apparently as often) and my spellcasting appears just as potent, if used less often...

At level 6-7 its not about abuse of the class so much as it being reasonably good at a LOT of things. While everyone agrees I dont get stuff thats interesting like monk abilities or fighter feats or spell slots, its hard to argue with- same attack bonus and ac as everyone else, competitive damage to anyone whose not a barbarian rogue or two handed fighter, a broad range of applicable skill modifiers, and relevant spellcasting all at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to run them as written for any of my players who want to play them, but I'm going to advise them to not play them until Secrets of Magic comes out. I generally like the direction of both classes but don't think either are there yet, and don't have the time to work on homebrew fixes.


I'm torn on whether I'm going to continue as a summoner or not. I was a dragon sorc, so becoming a dragon summoner fit really easily. I enjoy flinging around spells like there's no tomorrow, but I also really enjoy playing multiple characters at once, mostly for rp and banter reasons, and the party dynamic with my dragon eidolon in the mix is hilarious.

If I do stay a summoner though I will probably play them as written, mostly because our GM is pretty brand-new to GMing PF2E, and returning to GMing after a long hiatus to boot, and I don't want to overwhelm them with ideas for possible homebrew.


I'd probably homebrew them as things currently stand.

For the magus, I'd let them retain at least 1 spell slot for each level of their lower level spells. Striking spell I'd change to not trigger attacks of opportunity, spell attacks have the same degree of success as the strike, spell saves have opposite degree of success as the strike and no effect on a failed strike, and the player can choose to either gain the effects of their synthesis or choose to do a one action ability as part of casting the spell for striking spell. (And change the syntheses to reflect these changes.) For me, this would go a long way to fixing the magus and the only thing left to tweak is some of their feats and magus potency.

Not sure what I'd do with the summoner but I feel like some of their abilities are too weak at the moment.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to wait to see the final version. My answer for the summoner may be go play PF1 as that version was extremely fun. If the summoner is built to be a weak martial damage dealer with some extra spells and easily exploitable mechanics with the two bodies and one hit point pool mechanic, then I see no reason to play it. I'd rather play a strong martial than a weak martial.

My players are about to face two Grikktogs. I was thinking how terrible this creature would be attacking a summoner using Infestation Aura and how little damage the summoner could do to it being on the low end of martial damage expending all their actions.

At the moment I don't see much reason to play the summoner class. You would be better off playing a druid with an animal companion and using summon spells to simulate a summoner. The summoner isn't a very strong class. It sits on the lower end of the power spectrum from a combat effectiveness perspective. It's very generic lacking interesting customization for the eidolon. It's a shadow of what it was in PF1.

Looks like a class to avoid if you want to be a competitive combatant at the moment. Hopefully the final version will be something better. I'll adjust once I see it. But maybe the summoner is too hard to transfer over from PF1 and maintain what made it fun with all that versatility and power.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Secrets of Magic Playtest / General Discussion / How will you play / run your Magi and Summoners once the playtest ends? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion