What do we need to do for one roll spell strike


Magus Class

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

VictorFafnir wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


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.

Well, yeah. If a class has no reason for existing other than as a combination of two other classes, what's the point? It needs to bring something interesting to the table beyond what multi-classing does.


Draco18s wrote:
VictorFafnir wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


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.

Eh.. that's only true to a point. Granted, the Magus is still casting a spell and swinging a weapon, but Striking Spell does offer a couple of perks:

- You get the benefit of your synthesis. This is intended to reward the Magus in terms of action economy by providing additional benefit when performing this activity. A Fighter/Wizard casting a 2-action spell and swinging a weapon would be done with their round with no additional benefit. A Magus might have teleported a short distance as well, gained temporary hit points, or ... well... then there's Shooting Star...
- If you crit with your weapon strike, your spell gets bumped up a level in effect. I see this a little more as the damage boost that other martials get, but it's still something that your Fighter/Wizard would not have.

And of course, a Magus would still have the option of just casting said spell normally, in case they still wanted the area of effect rather than single targeting.

And strictly speaking, to get the spells in the first place, the Fighter/Wizard is using their feats on a dedication. Which dedication would you like the Magus to pick up? Which might give them additional spells to cast with? Wouldn't that put them ahead on spells available per day?

And of course, while a Wizard/Fighter would have vastly more spells per day, their HP would be even lower, as would their AC.

I'm not completely comfortable with where the Magus sits right now, but I think it has a place. I think you should have the ability to add additional Synthesis options to choose from down the road, and I think you should have something to gain some endurance through the day like a Focus spell to recast previously cast spells (e.g. Spell Buffer - Focus 1 - cast the last memorized spell you cast again). But there seems to be enough to differentiate that warrants the Magus as a class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalaam wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
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.

Sure it does make sense. Hit point damage is not always literal wounds. It represents quite a lot more than that, not every successful hit is making it's way into a the flesh of an enemy and thus not every time it hits them will the spell discharge correctly into the opponent. If you look up the intent behind the concept of hit points you can reasonably understand how this could make sense


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintessentially Me wrote:

Eh.. that's only true to a point. Granted, the Magus is still casting a spell and swinging a weapon, but Striking Spell does offer a couple of perks:

- You get the benefit of your synthesis. This is intended to reward the Magus in terms of action economy by providing additional benefit when performing this activity. A Fighter/Wizard casting a 2-action spell and swinging a weapon would be done with their round with no additional benefit. A Magus might have teleported a short distance as well, gained temporary hit points, or ... well... then there's Shooting Star...

I mean, yes, they do get that. But that isn't the reason you play a magus instead of a Fighter/Wizard. That's the icing. I'm talking about the cake.

Quote:
- If you crit with your weapon strike, your spell gets bumped up a level in effect. I see this a little more as the damage boost that other martials get, but it's still something that your Fighter/Wizard would not have.

Heavy "meh." This is a cherry on top of an iced cake. I'm looking for the cake.

Quote:
And strictly speaking, to get the spells in the first place, the Fighter/Wizard is using their feats on a dedication. Which dedication would you like the Magus to pick up? Which might give them additional spells to cast with? Wouldn't that put them ahead on spells available per day?

I mean, its been pointed out several times that the only way to make a viable magus is to multiclass into Wizard...and they'd be giving up less than the fighter does. Magus class feats are awful (and fighter class feats are amazing).

Quote:
And of course, while a Wizard/Fighter would have vastly more spells per day, their HP would be even lower, as would their AC.

I never mentioned Wizard/Fighter. Primarily because that pair in that order is bad all around. While a wizard dedication can get you half-spellcasting, half-spellcasting is Pretty Good, while the reverse is basically nothing (you never get beyond Expert weapons, have to spend a feat to get Attack of Opportunity).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
I mean, its been pointed out several times that the only way to make a viable magus is to multiclass into Wizard...and they'd be giving up less than the fighter does. Magus class feats are awful (and fighter class feats are amazing).

That is far from the only way to make a viable magus.


RexAliquid wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
I mean, its been pointed out several times that the only way to make a viable magus is to multiclass into Wizard...and they'd be giving up less than the fighter does. Magus class feats are awful (and fighter class feats are amazing).
That is far from the only way to make a viable magus.

While true, that's what it feels like, which is why it has come up so much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Draco is correct about what I meant, the Swashbuckler offers a really cool Boom-Bust playstyle, doing stunts with it's Panache mechanic the Scoundrel Rogue and Duelist Fighter don't have access to. The investigator offers us all its mechanics for interacting with information and exploration, but also the unique "Devise a Stratagem" and the Semi Unique "Pursue a Lead" mechanic.

Champions cut this balance particularly well, where a class that could theoretically be a cleric/fighter is completely different from both, offering more armor than a fighter and fantasy-tailored mechanics like ally and focus spells. This line is danced well enough we can have Cleric/Fighters, Champions, and Warpriests all in the same game.

For Magus, there should be more to them than just a Fighter/Wizard in a can, because a Fighter/Wizard already works, and we already have a very cool and powerful variant of Striking Spell in the game in the Form of the Eldritch Archer, and honestly just for customization sake i still want an Eldritch Knight.

I think the Magus still deserves to exist, but that's why I'm such a big proponent of the focus spell solution, letting them take over the conceptual space of the class that mixes Magic techniques and Martial techniques directly without a spell/strike separation leaves room for both kinds of spell sword to be well represented in the game--

We could have an Eldritch Knight with an Eldritch Strike that lets you hit em with the ol' real spell + blade combo, the patch that knocks your Fighter/Wizard (or any combination of Martial + Caster, a big advantage!) out of the park.

Meanwhile you'd have a Magus that has Swordmage style techniques that represent its unique thing... and those could still be pilfered by multiclassing into Magus, and that Magus could still get proper spells by multiclassing (or through in built class feats for a spell book and multiclassing spell progression!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco is correct about what I meant, the Swashbuckler offers a really cool Boom-Bust playstyle, doing stunts with it's Panache mechanic the Scoundrel Rogue and Duelist Fighter don't have access to. The investigator offers us all its mechanics for interacting with information and exploration, but also the unique "Devise a Stratagem" and the Semi Unique "Pursue a Lead" mechanic.

Champions cut this balance particularly well, where a class that could theoretically be a cleric/fighter is completely different from both, offering more armor than a fighter and fantasy-tailored mechanics like ally and focus spells. This line is danced well enough we can have Cleric/Fighters, Champions, and Warpriests all in the same game.

For Magus, there should be more to them than just a Fighter/Wizard in a can, because a Fighter/Wizard already works, and we already have a very cool and powerful variant of Striking Spell in the game in the Form of the Eldritch Archer, and honestly just for customization sake i still want an Eldritch Knight.

I think the Magus still deserves to exist, but that's why I'm such a big proponent of the focus spell solution, letting them take over the conceptual space of the class that mixes Magic techniques and Martial techniques directly without a spell/strike separation leaves room for both kinds of spell sword to be well represented in the game--

We could have an Eldritch Knight with an Eldritch Strike that lets you hit em with the ol' real spell + blade combo, the patch that knocks your Fighter/Wizard (or any combination of Martial + Caster, a big advantage!) out of the park.

Meanwhile you'd have a Magus that has Swordmage style techniques that represent its unique thing... and those could still be pilfered by multiclassing into Magus, and that Magus could still get proper spells by multiclassing (or through in built class feats for a spell book and multiclassing spell progression!)

The reason I think focus spells work for the champion and ranger is because they were full BAB 1/3 casters. Focus spells are about as much magic as they would need to function. The magus was far different in that it was both a two weapon fighter sword and spell, but also a combination of the two in addition to having extra resources on top of that. Right now a magus can improve it's runes, add element damage and give themselves haste in addition to attacking with a cantrip or slotted spell. What you suggest actually feels like a huge downgrade from what they do right now, which is both having powerful spells and powerful focus spells. Mind you focus spells are three times a combat at most and you'd realistically only get to attempt one striking spell a turn if the other two focus spells were buffs. Where as right now you can apply all three buffs in a single turn and then every round use a full spell or cantrip to use your class feature every round if you'd like to, with the added benefit of getting to use CC, party buffs, utility or what have you. Especially if you grab a few wizard dedication feats. Magus also gets a feat to add slots for other useful and necessary spells, and instead of stripping the very potent and interesting spell casting we could just ask for that feat to be lower level and potentially get more slots. Focus spells would make them feel like Witcher when a magus should feel like Vilgefortz (little witcher book reference for all who've read the books)

The problem for most people right now seems like, they feel two rolls lacks verisimilitude, the magus doesn't have enough spell resources and the magus needs some fighter feats(which is pretty much a given upon full release if you ask me)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I dont want Magus to be a Swordmage. Magus are not 4e Swordmages that only get some spell like abilities.

Magus are supposed to be actual casters with actual spells, while wearing heavy armor with no penalty and wielding a martial weapon, or wearing no armor and using an exotic weapon (Kensai). Their thing was not spell powers. It was being able to cast, step/move, and strike on the same turn, while delivering their spell via their weapon all as 1 roll.

Right now the Magus has no way near enough spells to work properly. Their action economy is way below what its supposed to do. And the "arcane pool" abilities (reaction abilities) are largely meh except for a few.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

I dont want Magus to be a Swordmage. Magus are not 4e Swordmages that only get some spell like abilities.

Magus are supposed to be actual casters with actual spells, while wearing heavy armor with no penalty and wielding a martial weapon, or wearing no armor and using an exotic weapon (Kensai). Their thing was not spell powers. It was being able to cast, step/move, and strike on the same turn, while delivering their spell via their weapon all as 1 roll.

Right now the Magus has no way near enough spells to work properly. Their action economy is way below what its supposed to do. And the "arcane pool" abilities (reaction abilities) are largely meh except for a few.

Well, those are all things you can already do with a fighter/wizard who has the Eldritch Archer Archetype-- although currently that is specifically with a bow, but that's easily fixed by paralleling that archetype for melee.)

So maybe they need a new thing if they should exist at all, something that actually warrants a class.

I'd love for Magus to be a Swordmage personally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AestheticDialectic wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco is correct about what I meant, the Swashbuckler offers a really cool Boom-Bust playstyle, doing stunts with it's Panache mechanic the Scoundrel Rogue and Duelist Fighter don't have access to. The investigator offers us all its mechanics for interacting with information and exploration, but also the unique "Devise a Stratagem" and the Semi Unique "Pursue a Lead" mechanic.

Champions cut this balance particularly well, where a class that could theoretically be a cleric/fighter is completely different from both, offering more armor than a fighter and fantasy-tailored mechanics like ally and focus spells. This line is danced well enough we can have Cleric/Fighters, Champions, and Warpriests all in the same game.

For Magus, there should be more to them than just a Fighter/Wizard in a can, because a Fighter/Wizard already works, and we already have a very cool and powerful variant of Striking Spell in the game in the Form of the Eldritch Archer, and honestly just for customization sake i still want an Eldritch Knight.

I think the Magus still deserves to exist, but that's why I'm such a big proponent of the focus spell solution, letting them take over the conceptual space of the class that mixes Magic techniques and Martial techniques directly without a spell/strike separation leaves room for both kinds of spell sword to be well represented in the game--

We could have an Eldritch Knight with an Eldritch Strike that lets you hit em with the ol' real spell + blade combo, the patch that knocks your Fighter/Wizard (or any combination of Martial + Caster, a big advantage!) out of the park.

Meanwhile you'd have a Magus that has Swordmage style techniques that represent its unique thing... and those could still be pilfered by multiclassing into Magus, and that Magus could still get proper spells by multiclassing (or through in built class feats for a spell book and multiclassing spell progression!)

The reason I think focus spells work for the champion and ranger...

Maybe, they don't do any of those things especially well, and i think the problems you're noting all stem from the implementation as relying on real spells that at best, were designed for a spell strike mechanic only at major character investment (the eldritch archer.)

The current focus spell mechanics are unsatisfying because they're basically trying to exist while contributing as little extra power as possible and the entire Striking Spell mechanic is designed to be clunky, to balance the overwhelming damage by spreading it out and sometimes wasting it-- something handled in the Eldritch Archer's design simply by assuring that you either have high end slots, or high attack prof, but not both... and you have to give up a bunch of class feats to set it all up anyway.

I'm asserting the unsatisfying things with the class, are all balance points, so we need something that doesn't have that problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Well, those are all things you can already do with a fighter/wizard who has the Eldritch Archer Archetype-- although currently that is specifically with a bow, but that's easily fixed by paralleling that archetype for melee.)

Another nail in the coffin of "why does Magus need to be a separate class?" IMO.

The fact that that feat exists and its better than the entire Magus kit blows my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Well, those are all things you can already do with a fighter/wizard who has the Eldritch Archer Archetype-- although currently that is specifically with a bow, but that's easily fixed by paralleling that archetype for melee.)

Another nail in the coffin of "why does Magus need to be a separate class?" IMO.

The fact that that feat exists and its better than the entire Magus kit blows my mind.

Which I think is the purpose of this thread. If you give the Magus a single roll mechanic at some point, you eliminate that. Striking Spell becomes more versatile because it can also be applied with save spells, more meaningful because of the hold charge mechanic and the Magus class becomes the best spellstriker, as it should be.

The current Magus/Eldritch Archer situation, at least on the attack spell side, is akin to, I don’t know, having Martial Artist have flurry of blows while monk has to make a Wisdom check to trigger that extra attack.

On the Swordmage, I’m torn because I love the original class and the Magus. Maybe Fanatic66 or another skilled homebrewer could pull out a version so we could see it? :)

Edit: also, I’m going to have to agree that porting the Eldritch Archer to melee is so easy that it kind of bugs me why Paizo didn’t just do it. I know it’s probably because of the Magus and they wanted to give it more mobility, identity, etc, but even then... the other feats are very good... if one homebrews it and slaps, I don’t know, Mobile magic combat or some form of slide casting replacing Impossible Volley or that feat that gives you magic ammo one could argue that’d be a very nice arcane attacker.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, yeah.

The design of the Magus is like they are trying to make the Archetype better at doing the Class signature ability better than the actual ability.

Which just makes me think that Eldritch Archer should not had been released until after the Magus had been decided. Right now it just feels bad to know that there are multiple archetypes that are a better Magus than the actual Magus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Well, those are all things you can already do with a fighter/wizard

The fighter/wizard gets its first, singular spell slot at level 4 and has absolutely zero innate synergy between its martial and magical components (at level 8 I suppose you can pick up bespell weapon, so there's that). It also lags noticeably behind on spell levels, something that's very important for blasting.

It is objectively terrible at encapsulating any of concepts people liked about the 1e Magus... or for that matter even at the stuff the playtest magus does, for all of its issues. This argument is just so far removed from the reality of how either class plays it almost reads like bait at this point. Just stop.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You really can't pull off the 1E Magus feel at all with the current tools.

I love how Spellstrike was a singular ability that a Magus got in 1E and somehow now everyone associates that as the only ability they got.

I don't even consider Spellstrike the core ability of the 1E Magus, the core ability of the 1E Magus was Spell Combat, which was the only way to even make the concept function.

But just because Spell Combat is gone now doesn't mean Magus == Spellstrike now.

Heck, delete Spell Combat, and I'd argue Arcane Pool was 10x more important to the 1E Magus than Spellstrike. It was integral to every single archetype, it was a huge power boost and emphasized buffing weapons and using Magus Arcana.

The fact that Striking Spell is the central component of the current Magus (and a weird one at that) is part of the problem. The Class was much more than putting a spell in a weapon, it was the 50/50 mix of martial and magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure that the magus kit is any better at "encapsulating any of concepts people liked about the 1e Magus."

They have synergy between their magical and martial only in that you do both. You can pick up Bespell Weapon and a couple other feats, but they don't blend things together any better than a Fighter/Wizard because they either don't rely on Spellstrike at all (and are sometimes antisynergy*), or they 100% do...and Spellstrike itself isn't inherently synergistic, it just looks like it is.

And it isn't actually Spellstrike that generates what little synergy the magus has...It's their class path (synthesis) that does. A feature that 100% requires Spellstrike to function.

*Spell Parry only works if you have an action to use it, which you won't. Spell Swipe only works if you're hasted or missed your attack last round. Whirlwind Spell had a max targets hit by the spell equal to the max targets of the stored spell (1, as specified by Spellstrike). One feat only triggers if you spend a spell slot, a thing you only get 4 of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is one of my bigger nitpicks with the Class, is that all of the cohesion between the disciplines of the Class are literally contingent on using Striking Spell to do that.

The focus on Striking Spell and fixing Striking Spell I fear is going to be the biggest reason the Class remains in that state.

In general, the lack of incentive to be anything other than Martial with a sprinkling of magic is one of my biggest critiques and most of the changes I want with the Class are around fixing that.

When I see solutions that involve going even FURTHER into the martial aspects to fix Striking Spell, I consider it throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Striking Spell doesn't need an overhaul, new spells just for it, or any of that nonsense when a slight numbers change would solve most of its issues.

___________________

If we are to replicate things from the 1E Magus the following would do wonders:

- Focus Spells that are not Potency and are actually worth casting need to exist to emulate the old "Arcane Pool" field from before. Potency is pretty terrible and it frustrates the heck out of a player that already has an on-level Magis weapon (especially because previous editions having a Magic weapon and pool was such a big deal)

- They need more spells, more ways to prepare non-attack spells for utility, more incentives to use spells with Striking Spell, and in general, just a better routine when they do Cast a Spell. The routine of a Magus is almost as rigid as a tree.

- Synthesis needs to become untethered from Striking Spell, this is effectively your "Spell Combat" substitute. Let it work whenever they cast a spell, no reason to tether it to the Weapon delivery.

At least that's where I'd like to see it moved. Striking Spell is two line changes from being totally fine.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Well, those are all things you can already do with a fighter/wizard

The fighter/wizard gets its first, singular spell slot at level 4 and has absolutely zero innate synergy between its martial and magical components (at level 8 I suppose you can pick up bespell weapon, so there's that). It also lags noticeably behind on spell levels, something that's very important for blasting.

It is objectively terrible at encapsulating any of concepts people liked about the 1e Magus... or for that matter even at the stuff the playtest magus does, for all of its issues. This argument is just so far removed from the reality of how either class plays it almost reads like bait at this point. Just stop.

Its not bait, i thought it was 2 slots until I just rechecked and saw that comes from the Breadth feat at 8, which still isn't exactly crippling all things considered, you are primarily a Martial if you do it that way, or if you start with the Wizard, you're a full caster. As for synergy, in my eyes, that would be better served by an Eldritch Knight archetype.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
As for synergy, in my eyes, that would be better served by an Eldritch Knight archetype.

Which would come online at level 6 at the earliest.

Being dozens of hours into a campaign (and knowing how some games go, maybe even close to the end) before your character's concept even starts working sounds terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, your concept can come online immediately and be Terrible the Whole Time.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
As for synergy, in my eyes, that would be better served by an Eldritch Knight archetype.

Which would come online at level 6 at the earliest.

Being dozens of hours into a campaign (and knowing how some games go, maybe even close to the end) before your character's concept even starts working sounds terrible.

Maybe, it depends on the concept. To me, what you want is very much a multiclassing concept in the first place-- you want to be a fighter with wizard levels, or a wizard with fighter levels, full stop. That doesn't have to come online at 1 to me, but a committed swordmage would, because thats the whole class's shtick.

The fighter with Wizard levels can hit things without magic and still be itself because thats what one of its component pieces is, and a Wizard with Fighter levels can just cast and still be itself because again, component piece is a full caster.

A proper gish-in-a-can needs both to do its thing from the ground up, which is actually why it needs a class in a way the other approach doesn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
That doesn't have to come online at 1 to me

If your character concept is battlemage, anything that doesn't work at level 1 is wholly unacceptable.

Fighter/wizard is an acceptable build for someone who wants to play a fighter that somewhere later in their career dabbles in wizardry, but pretty much nothing else at all.

101 to 123 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Magus Class / What do we need to do for one roll spell strike All Messageboards
Recent threads in Magus Class