| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But removing Striking Spell just to give the Magus "Flame Blade" "Ice Blade" etc is way, way less interresting.If I have to spend highly limited daily resources to do a thing, I'd rather have those be consistent and maybe a little more limited in scope than be able to do awesome things but only have them work 25% of the time.
Also, I did suggest class feats giving riders to various elemental attacks (ideally, with enough variety to provide real choice). So a low-level fire feat would be a "sweep", and a somewhat higher-level fire feat could be a cone. A cold feat could slow the opponent down (either the slowed condition or speed penalty), or maybe immobilise them, or knock them prone. And stuff like that.
Think of it like the rogue's sneak attack. On its own, it's a nice damage boost, but when combined with debilitations you get to do some fun stuff.
The Magus could still Spellstrike with actual spells and be reliable (cantrips, scrolls, some focus spells etc).
Removing the actual casting from the Magus makes it...not the Magus. It's a Spellsword, which I would very much like, but it's not the Magus. The whole point of the Magus (and it's even stated in the class description) is that it spends all its free time studying either new fencing styles or old spellbooks to learn new spells. If all his abilities are specific focus spells, it doesn't work anymore.
But removing Striking Spell just to give the Magus "Flame Blade" "Ice Blade" etc is way, way less interresting.If I have to spend highly limited daily resources to do a thing, I'd rather have those be consistent and maybe a little more limited in scope than be able to do awesome things but only have them work 25% of the time.
Also, I did suggest class feats giving riders to various elemental attacks (ideally, with enough variety to provide real choice). So a low-level fire feat would be a "sweep", and a somewhat higher-level fire feat could be a cone. A cold feat could slow the opponent down (either the slowed condition or speed penalty), or maybe immobilise them, or knock them prone. And stuff like that.
Think of it like the rogue's sneak attack. On its own, it's a nice damage boost, but when combined with debilitations you get to do some fun stuff.
The Magus could still Spellstrike with actual spells and be reliable (cantrips, scrolls, some focus spells etc).
Removing the actual casting from the Magus makes it...not the Magus. It's a Spellsword, which I would very much like, but it's not the Magus. The whole point of the Magus (and it's even stated in the class description) is that it spends all its free time studying either new fencing styles or old spellbooks to learn new spells. If all his abilities are specific focus spells, it doesn't work anymore.
So, question, how do we make it consistent, not lose martial proficiencies, and not be unbalanced.
Right now it's not consistent at all. And so long as it's two rolls to use your main class feature, it won't be consistent.
But removing Striking Spell just to give the Magus "Flame Blade" "Ice Blade" etc is way, way less interresting.If I have to spend highly limited daily resources to do a thing, I'd rather have those be consistent and maybe a little more limited in scope than be able to do awesome things but only have them work 25% of the time.
Also, I did suggest class feats giving riders to various elemental attacks (ideally, with enough variety to provide real choice). So a low-level fire feat would be a "sweep", and a somewhat higher-level fire feat could be a cone. A cold feat could slow the opponent down (either the slowed condition or speed penalty), or maybe immobilise them, or knock them prone. And stuff like that.
Think of it like the rogue's sneak attack. On its own, it's a nice damage boost, but when combined with debilitations you get to do some fun stuff.
The Magus could still Spellstrike with actual spells and be reliable (cantrips, scrolls, some focus spells etc).
Removing the actual casting from the Magus makes it...not the Magus. It's a Spellsword, which I would very much like, but it's not the Magus. The whole point of the Magus (and it's even stated in the class description) is that it spends all its free time studying either new fencing styles or old spellbooks to learn new spells. If all his abilities are specific focus spells, it doesn't work anymore.So, question, how do we make it consistent, not lose martial proficiencies, and not be unbalanced.
Right now it's not consistent at all. And so long as it's two rolls to use your main class feature, it won't be consistent.
Just make it one roll for the attack spells, and give a penalty to saves on success/crit strike for save spells. (maybe make the compatibility with save spells a feat or a higher level upgrade)
I suggested to keep the current working of Striking Spell as Spell Combat, with the ability to deliver a held charge with any Strike, and make Spellstrike a special strike you can do as part of an attack spell (so just for 2 actions most of the time)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every fighter/ wizard and wizard/ fighter has to make two attacks to get both a Strike and a spell off.
I’m not convinced a single roll is necessary or necessarily an improvement.
Then what does the magus gain by being a magus? They're already losing multiple-targets and range* in order to do exactly what a fighter/wizard can in the same number of actions with lower accuracy on the melee strike.**
* Shooting star not withstanding
** Spell accuracy gets complicated
In line with this thread, I went ahead an homebrewed a level 6 feat to allow for a one action spellstrike with attack spells. It's basically a broader version of the Eldritch Archer's that also applies to melee attacks but has nothing to do with Striking Spell.
I think it adresses most of the concerns pointed in this thread:
- It doesn't replace Striking Spell and you don't get it from the get go, but you can get it as soon as level 6 kicks in, which is kind of when the proficiency gap starts to widen (actually, it's at level 5).
- It gives a nod to concerns that a full activity is not good enough to be the class' main feature because it is entirely optional, Magi can choose which approach to take. By going the Striking Spell route, they get to hold the charge, combine it with other Strike activities and so on. By going the Eldritch Strike route, they get one roll delivery.
- It is balanced because it works exactly as the Eldritch Archer's ability and here's the thing, a fighter can't get it that easily through MCD. It's also obtained at the exact same level as the other ability.
I know there's bound to be an issue with movement, but I think it's adressed by the fact that the Magus can still rely on their Striking Spell routine. It's there for when the enemy's already in front of them.
- Lastly, it does away with maybe every Shooting Star Magus taking Eldritch Archer. The option's already there, within the class that's supposed to be the best at spellstriking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not super fond of it being a feat. It makes it mandatory for your class to be reliable and you have to wait 6th level. So if you want it you are stuck playing with a class you are not enjoying until then.
True, but I don't think the issues become apparent during the lower levels.
I was also considering lowering it to level 4 for the Magus as there are certain classes that can take feats earlier than archetypes.
My ideal solution would have it (one roll spell attack delivery) be part of Striking Spell either from the get go or as an improvement you automatically get. I'm looking for a middle point that still makes it viable without having the crit fish crowd and the one roll crowd disappointed haha
Honestly, this is also blindly considering that the second turn with the held spell is a massive boost to the Magus, which I doubt because I think it just make a clunky ability less clunky, but I'm just going along with what the detractors of the one roll idea point out.
Make it built-in progression that turns on at level 5 or 6, or whenever. Leave the feat selection selectable but the fact that it is its own action means its not a change to Striking Spell so you can still use the regular version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually make it the default version and the "gambling strike" the optional feat.
Make it built-in progression that turns on at level 5 or 6, or whenever. Leave the feat selection selectable but the fact that it is its own action means its not a change to Striking Spell so you can still use the regular version.
That's interesting. Could be at level x, you get the Eldrtich Strike or Spellstrike activity and then just have it come online.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually make it the default version and the "gambling strike" the optional feat.
That could be more intuitive. You start with the simpler, consistent version and then unlock the 'let's go full tactical, complex version
Which is why I kind of hope they break the ability into Spell Combat and Spellstrike along the lines you suggested.
I'm for the current version that is less reliable but not tactical (I'm not sure how those two go together but whatever) being a feat.
But would probably result in needing a lot of adjustment.
What I'd like is the damage you do via spell strike cut in half, making it one roll, but the spell doesn't fizzle until you have hit with it twice. Or at the end of your next turn after the first strike.
Result would be more longevity for the 4 slots. Less problematic burst potential and therefore less issue with true strike interaction.
Edit: also a nice little side benefit us having two chances of proccing the spells critical effect
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
not tactical (I'm not sure how those two go together but whatever)
Me neither, but it's what those that support it feel. Everytime I tried to relay an experience I had in which Striking Spell didn't perform well, someone asked me whether I employed tactics x, y and z (concurrently). Kind of made me feel like Paizo forgot to send me the instruction manual for making it work.
What I'd like is the damage you do via spell strike cut in half, making it one roll, but the spell doesn't fizzle until you have hit with it twice. Or at the end of your next turn after the first strike.
I don't know if we need to reduce the damage per se.
I think that this is built upon the assumption that a Magus with a one hit striking spell would be 'broken' due to having multiple shots at landing their Strike+Cantrip in the sense that you'd do Strike + Cantrip damage whether you hit on the last attack of the first round or the third on the last round.
I don't know if that's entirely true because we'd still have to compare the damage a Strike + Cantrip deals with the damage any martial deals over those two rounds and the martials already outdo the Magus, at least on the cantrip side. I think the Magus is behind the Fighter, the Flurry Ranger and the Barbarian with all cantrips and only gets ahead of the Rogue with Telekinetic Projectile and this requires the martials to only hit twice over the potential six strikes they make over those two rounds.
I think the only potential point of abuse would be True Strike to attempt to get a crit, to be honest.
Yes, all white room tests have shown that one-roll+True Strike would indeed be OP. Which is why we just need to find a way to remove it (fortune trait or other, which would make sense since you get to hold the charge on a missed strike, which gives you a second "chance", hence Fortune effect).
Without True Strike it's comparable with other martials, slightly below but not too far. And only exceeds them when burning a slot, so a very limited ressource. A Monk burning a Ki Strike for a bump in damage would recover it with 10 minutes for example. (Which as a reminder is a stacking +1 to hit on all your strikes +Xd6 on both strikes from the flurry of blow)
Yes, all white room tests have shown that one-roll+True Strike would indeed be OP. Which is why we just need to find a way to remove it (fortune trait or other, which would make sense since you get to hold the charge on a missed strike, which gives you a second "chance", hence Fortune effect).
Could justify it via the narrative that the Striking Spell process alters the way the magic works, thus making it incompatible with True Strike and similar effects.
Without True Strike it's comparable with other martials, slightly below but not too far. And only exceeds them when burning a slot, so a very limited ressource.
I think this would be ideal
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against the fortune trait I'm exchange for spell strike being one roll.
I just for some reason really don't expect paizo to give it to us
Maybe they have other ideas, we'll see.
We have a heavy bias because it's an idea that we came up with. So of course we'll tend to like it more. We'll have to see what the devs think and decide to do.
I don't know. A lot of people seem to favor this solution (at least on forums and similar media, could be the surveys point otherwise) and there is precedent in the rules (Eldritch Archer, NPC abilities, Spell Storing Runes).
However, if I had to place a bet, I'd say we'll end up with just +item bonus to the Spell Attack roll, which is not as good, but not that bad.
Yeah it would help though not solve the issue.
Another way to get there would be some kind of clause where you cannot cast a spell while you are holding a spell with spell combat.
Some might consider that too crippling I dunno.
But it means you'd be unable to true strike yourself.
Could adjust the clause to spell slots thus allowing cantrips and focus spells maybe.
You know, that makes sense. I mean, casting again could alter the arcane energies and cause the stored spell to dissipate.
Adds more text than just fortune trait but I liked it too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does remove what could be some interresting combos though. I prefer to add the fortune trait, even if it prevent you from getting bonuses from fortune effect from your allies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would also hamstring the magus pretty badly against mobile enemies who move through terrain that will require the magus to cast a spell to get there. As well as make magus want to avoid spells which use a reaction as it will disrupt their held spell, especially if this includes focus spells and cantrips.
It kinda feels like it would defeat the point of being able to hold a charge if the magus became a flat martial character while their weapon was charged.
True. In that sense, I think the Fortune trait does the least harm. Not many feats or spells that use it (and which the Magus could benefit from) aside from True Strike, which is exactly the one that could be exploited.
I think it would still be a Magus if they went the 'Striking Spells' as consistent focus spells route, because regardless of anything else, in the fiction they're still studying magic and blending it with martial techniques. Nothing about the narrative really changes, save whatever they feel they want to change or clarify going into 2nd edition-- which in fairness, 2nd edition is an opportunity *to* redefine classes a little, make them more narratively satisfying, I'd sure hate it if 1e baggage stopped us from getting to have the best implementation of a class we can, a good second edition definetly trumps adherence to first edition.
If we want to get into what a Magus is, can the Magus 'identity' even exist in a system where artifacts from 3.5 don't make arcane gish a shit show in need of a patch?
This came up in the other thread as well, but if a Magus is just a fighter/wizard, then what justifies its presence in a game system that went out of its way to ensure fighter/wizard can be played? Spell Strike? We've already seen an archetype handle that in a satisfying way, save only for the way it restricts it to ranged weapons-- an eldritch knight would not only be sufficient, it would be better because you could use it to play more than just Fighter + Wizard.
I think the real value of the Magus, conceptually, is as the class that truly blends martial and magic capability in ways a regular gish-- even one where we don't arbitrarily hold back a melee eldritch archer equivalent to make room -- just can't. They aren't Wizards, because they don't have Wizard levels, they have Magus levels and that should mean something different
To me, that says that the Magus should be doing that with class specific powers, like the Champion, but with it's Focus Spells amped up to be the main course of the classes power budget-- Focus cantrips that can be your bread and butter, with Oracle focus progression with powerful 'Striking Spells' for cool magic/martial techniques. They become the consummate warrior who wields magic, and is defined by doing so (in other words, conceptually the class's fighting style is Magic + Martial, in a core fundamental way.)
We can make accommodations from there I think, in-class multiclassing spell progression through class feats could be a satisfying compromise, in practice, for those that insist we must have spell slots- you'd only be saving a single class feat that way (vs. Multiclassing), so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be overpowered, and it would fit the Magus's flavor very well.
I haven't seen any other solution that's anywhere near as satisfying or elegant, and the main 'problem' with it seems to be that some people don't really consider focus spells magic for some reason, which is a pretty tame problem compared to the gnarly mechanical hurdles with every other solution proposed.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then you end up with a narrative dissonance.
"I am a Magus, I study magic and swordmanship and combine them"
-We need a spellcaster to solve this issue, could you cast a spell?
"No. I do not know how to cast spells"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then you end up with a narrative dissonance.
"I am a Magus, I study magic and swordmanship and combine them"
-We need a spellcaster to solve this issue, could you cast a spell?
"No. I do not know how to cast spells"
To be fair, I think it's easy enough to justify this narratively. In this interpretation of the Magus, they would study magic and channel it through their weapon in a unique way a regular caster can't replicate. To further spend time on their fighting skills and unique sword magic, Magus eschew learning normal spellcasting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All Magus are able to cast spells like a Wizard or Sorcerer (for Eldritch Sion).
Even the Magus that would trade spellcasting for more martial power still only traded 1 spell/level, not all spells.
Thats the dissonance we are having. Some people have not seen the Magus and just want "martial with magic power". When the theme for the Magus is specifically "Wizard who studies less to train in fighting".
I also really want the magus to use spell slots, but I think there needs to be more to it than just a "wizard who studies less to train in fighting." To me, that sounds exactly like a Multiclass Wizard/Fighter or Fighter/Wizard gish depending upon what the emphasis is.
I think a big part of that will be that wizards feel pretty different than just generic caster (at least to me) in that they have a school focus and thesis, but I definitely want feats if not class features that focus on casting a spell with with or through a weapon, as that really feels like the unique class angle to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I think class feats that give utility magic solves that problem quite handily-- its not like every caster can solve every problem anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I think class feats that give utility magic solves that problem quite handily-- its not like every caster can solve every problem anyway.
How is that functionally different than the magus just multiclassing wizard?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I think class feats that give utility magic solves that problem quite handily-- its not like every caster can solve every problem anyway.How is that functionally different than the magus just multiclassing wizard?
While I have suggested in-class Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting feats like would normally be gotten from a Wizard (you'd save the dedication feat for your trouble) I meant more like class feats that gave you specific abilities that would provide a source of magical utility-- leaving you able to help with those problems, just much like your striking spells, it wouldn't revolve around formal slots.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I have suggested in-class Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting feats like would normally be gotten from a Wizard (you'd save the dedication feat for your trouble) I meant more like class feats that gave you specific abilities that would provide a source of magical utility-- leaving you able to help with those problems, just much like your striking spells, it wouldn't revolve around formal slots.I mean, I think class feats that give utility magic solves that problem quite handily-- its not like every caster can solve every problem anyway.How is that functionally different than the magus just multiclassing wizard?
But that just sounds worse than getting slots that you can instead fill with whatever spells you want day to day like you'd get from multiclassing. Or are you talking about focus spells like Hasted Assault which gets naturally bottlenecked the more you take? I'm really having a hard time seeing path for such feats that doesn't look inferior to multiclassing unless they provide similar slots and then it's more of a side-grade.
|
A single attack roll for both the melee and spell would be detrimental to my magus-rogue, though it does not fully come online until level 8. While that might not be good enough for many, in the campaigns I play in, which go to level 20, level 8 is only two-fifth of the entire game. Also, while an eldritch archer-esque character (not my character) benefits from one attack roll, I agree with the sentiment that Int would become a dump stat; yes, the magus would still need Int for non-spell strike spells, but I think most people would still dump it, as normally casted spells would be put on the backburner for the spell strikes, utility, and buffs. That seems bloaty to me and a powergamey issue that Paizo has reported trying to get away from in this edition.
Ancestry: Cavern Elf
Background: Martial Disciple
Class: Magus
Stats: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 12 Cha 10
Skills: Arcana (T), Acrobatics (E), Warfare Lore (T), Stealth (M), Athletics (T), Elven Lore (T), Treerazor Lore (T), Underdark Lore (T), Thievery (T), Occult (T)
Languages: Common, Elven, Abyssal, Undercommon, Sylvan
Feats:
1: Nimble Elf (A), Cat Fall (B)
2: Rogue Dedication (C), Arcane Sense (S)
3: Fleet (G)
4: Sneak Attacker (C), Quiet Allies (S)
5: Ancestral Suspicion (A)
6: Basic Trickery: Tumble Behind (C)
7: Improved Initiative (G)
8: Advanced Trickery: Magical Trickster (C), Swift Sneak (S)
Spells:
C: Ray of Frost, Telekinetic Projectile, Acid Splash, Produce Flame, Chill Touch
1: Shocking Grasp, Ray of Enfeeblement
2: Acid Arrow, Invisibility
3: Haste, Vampiric Touch
4: Phantasmal Killer, Dimension Door
*After level 5, half spell slots were dedicated to invisibility/haste with Phantasmal Killer being a slot spell at level 7 as well as heightened invisibility.
This build works much better with the free archetype, but I like how it plays out. Early levels, damage is sacrificed until sneak attack becomes an option at 4, but it was not too bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I'm missing something, I fail to see how better accuracy with the same action economy can be detrimental to your build. A one roll Striking Spell would keep the second round held charge and the action economy, so it wouldn't affect how your character functions. You'd still crit, apply sneak attack and do everything else that is described in your character sheet in the same manner. If anything, it would improve it.
Edit: I think that what you seem to be going for is applying sneak attack to the strike and to the spell with Magical Trickster. It seems possible. I don't know how I'd rule it as a GM. I don't know if that's the case, but then this is an extremely specific approach as opposed to every vanilla Magus needing to rely intensily on buffing and true strike routines to function just so that one build gets to use sneak attack twice...
On the Int issue, I don't how if that's how it'd go, because a Magus that focuses only on attack spells is pretty limited. There aren't many of such spells and they are not that powerful (those that are require saves as well, which would require Int). And, well, what you described is already possible. Any Magus could hang on until level 6, take Eldritch Archer and never worry about Int again in their lives.
Also going to disagree on the one roll being powergamey, especially if you take away True Strike. Like Kalaam pointed out, white room simulations appear to show that it's more about bringing the Magus' damage to be slightly below a martial and slightly higher when burning one of their precious slots, which IMHO, is fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I'm missing something, I fail to see how better accuracy with the same action economy can be detrimental to your build. A one roll Striking Spell would keep the second round held charge and the action economy, so it wouldn't affect how your character functions. You'd still crit, apply sneak attack and do everything else that is described in your character sheet in the same manner. If anything, it would improve it.
Edit: I think that what you seem to be going for is applying sneak attack to the strike and to the spell with Magical Trickster. It seems possible. I don't know how I'd rule it as a GM. I don't know if that's the case, but then this is an extremely specific approach as opposed to every vanilla Magus needing to rely intensily on buffing and true strike routines to function just so that one build gets to use sneak attack twice...
On the Int issue, I don't how if that's how it'd go, because a Magus that focuses only on attack spells is pretty limited. There aren't many of such spells and they are not that powerful (those that are require saves as well, which would require Int). And, well, what you described is already possible. Any Magus could hang on until level 6, take Eldritch Archer and never worry about Int again in their lives.
Also going to disagree on the one roll being powergamey, especially if you take away True Strike. Like Kalaam pointed out, white room simulations appear to show that it's more about bringing the Magus' damage to be slightly below a martial and slightly higher when burning one of their precious slots, which IMHO, is fine.
"If the spell required a Spell Attack Roll, resolve the effects of the spell with the same degree of success as your strike." is likely similar to the wording of a single roll Striking Spell, I included it in my suggestions and I've seen the same wording in several other suggestions. Under this wording I would rule that Magical Trickster applies as the Spell Attack Roll is effectively being resolved with the Strikes result. Perhaps the phrasing could be something like "resolve the roll of the spell" to ensure Magical Trickster applies?
I agree the testing implies a single roll Striking Spell isn't overpowered and in line with other abilities, assuming it has the Fortune trait. Therefore, I suspect this Magus / Trickster build would maintain its power or receive a mild buff.
If a Magus using Striking Spell or Spellstrike spends more actions and still deals less damage than the spell+attack something is seriously wrong with the class.
The entire point of Spellstrike is that the you have better action economy for the same damage. Not a worse one for less.
Also if saving an action is too much at level 1 make it a level 2 or 5 feat/ability. But the combined roll is needed.
I think most people agree that Striking Spell is a little weak, the only player's that have praised the ability have maximised its potential by stacking various effects (Flanking, Haste, True Strike and more). While its nice to know its possible to utilise the ability it can't be balanced around stacking a cornucopia of auxiliary effects.
That said, I'm fairly certain the LD is aware of that and is looking to improve the viability of Striking Spell (While searching the forums for the rare mention of something other than Striking Spell).
Here is a weird idea, idk if anyone has mentioned this, but how about making the weapon proficiency expert but when you imbue it with magic, a spell or use a focus spell to give it extra elemental damage, you add you int in addition to your str or dex to the attack roll and the spell auto succeeds on a hit. Then remove the crit clause altogether. I think the math might be a little much, could be adjusted more. But we want that int to matter
Could also make it so any spell affecting you gives you that int bonus to make it more reliable. Could be interesting that if you're set on fire you can use the residual magical energy to power your melee strikes
Alternatively keeping both die rolls I thought of maybe leaning into the crit mechanic hard and making the melee go to legendary but be behind fighter progression, and then making the spell proficiency end at expert
I like these idea because there is a sort of sense of using magic to guide your attacks into vital organs and what not. I'm just afraid both are too good
Yeah adding int is probably needs to bring prof down to trained even, or add a -2 or -3 to hit. At end game it's 4+7+5+3+20, which is 39, one above fighter, at trained or -2 it's 37, one above other martials. -3 makes them at exactly other martials when trained
Legendary martial+expert casting puts your spell attack rolls at 7 points behind martials the bonus would be +29 as opposed to the martials' +36 on attacks, a 35% higher chance to crit fail, and lose the spell even on a weapon crit. Afaik the spell attack roll isn't boosted by true strike, only the weapon attack roll. So it doesn't seem too bad after thinking about it for a while
Using 2 stats on one attack roll would be way overkill.
At most you can make it somewhat similar to investigator, substituting Int for Dex/Str in case you Attack with a weapon benefiting from Striking Spell.
That said, as far as the OP is concerned:
I think that limiting the "attack roll sharing" to Attack spells and adding the clause that misses causes the spell to miss as well (you don't get to hold on to it for next round) should be enough.
Int still stays relevant if you want to use save based spells, it's also your "spellcasting DC" for every ability that might matter for it (like crit specializations and general save based feats)
If there's a need to push Int even more, you can make a small Font like pool similar to how Clerics use Cha for.
For the Font itself, something like a Focus based 1 action spell, like Force Bolt, would be sufficient imo to help with action economy and allow you to still use spellstrike when you have to move, without being overly damaging.
I think the devs are avoiding tacking on mechanics like that last bit, though personally I wouldn't mind seeing an additional mechanic that utilizes int to give additional magic effects or restore expended spell slots. But yeah adding both str/dex and int is a fair bit clunky and it needs to also add -3 to be fair etc etc, it's too much math nonsense. I do like my idea of leaning hard into crit fishing with legendary and expert, I don't think something being around the effectiveness of a fighter is a big deal, they would still have slower progression and far fewer of the feats while still needing to use most actions in a round to pull off those sick bursts, but people don't wanna roll 2 dice for some reason. I'm not opposed to it, but I've played less than everyone else
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but people don't wanna roll 2 dice for some reason.
You might want to read up on why people don't want to roll 2 dice.
Hint: its not because we don't like "rolling 2 dice."
but people don't wanna roll 2 dice for some reason.You might want to read up on why people don't want to roll 2 dice.
Hint: its not because we don't like "rolling 2 dice."
Yeah, we're fine doing it when using stuff like Double Slice for example 'cause it makes sense. We are fine rolling two dice when Spellstriking a Save Spell because it makes sense.
We are not when it's with an Attack Spell because it both doesn't make sense (in the way the action is described) and is pretty weak.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are not when it's with an Attack Spell because it both doesn't make sense (in the way the action is described) and is pretty weak.
This, plus the fact that it's not just weak proficiency for the spell attack. The numbers are all over the place and the Magus' situation gets worse as they level up. My level 13 Magus is at a whopping -6 to make spell attacks through their weapon.
I know I speak only for myself, but I wouldn't have half the reservations I have about the current ability if they just removed the spell off the weapon/body part and flavored the narrative as dual-wielding Spell Combat, meaning during your turn you could Strike and Cast a Spell in any order, save MAP and also trigger Synthesis. Could even keep the crit fishing in some sense.
My main issue with it is that it wants to be a spell striking mechanic, but what it does is tying two activities together in a barely functional way (at least on the attack spell side).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in the other thread as well, but if a Magus is just a fighter/wizard, then what justifies its presence in a game system that went out of its way to ensure fighter/wizard can be played?
Well I guess now there is no need for any calss that is mix of other 2 classes.
Say goodbye to magus, shaman, swashbuckler, investigator, hunter, arcanist, brawler, bloodrager.
I think that was kind of Magic Sword's point:
What justifies them as separate classes?Swashbuckler has panache (and people think it works) and investigator has his cases (and people think its at least functioning).
But the magus? The magus's special action is to "do exactly what a fighter/wizard can do" except have less to-hit, less HP, and less spells.