| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An oracle can be very focus heavy for example, but they still have full casting aside from it so they can vary a bit more which focus spell they'll use.
The Oracle is also based around using a focus spell to turn on their actual marquee mechanic, the curse benefits/maluses. You don't really mind if you only use a focus spell once a combat or twice at higher levels because what you really care about is turning on the moderate or major curse.
I guess we just fundamentally disagree then. Spellstrike should be the Magus's bread and butter, as much as Precise Strike is for the Swashbuckler. Spellstrike is the fundamental idea that defines the Magus and separates it from a martial with a caster archetype aesthetically and mechanically.
But Precise Strikes is just a damage patch, Spending Panache on Finishers is the Swashbuckler mechanic, and its very much not something you do every turn.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are playing Swashbucklers very strangely if you're not trying to use a finisher every turn. If the Magus wants to have a bunch of different feats that are all variations on the same basic idea like the Swashbuckler then that's fine, I guess.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are playing Swashbucklers very strangely if you're not trying to use a finisher every turn. If the Magus wants to have a bunch of different feats that are all variations on the same basic idea like the Swashbuckler then that's fine, I guess.
I'd expect it to take place over two rounds, earn panache, attack with precise strikes, first action of next turn, spend with a finisher, and re-earn.
But even if we accepted the optimal loop is for the Swash to get rid of Panache ASAP, does every class have to be doing its 'main thing' every single turn? There's no texture there. Focus points for Spellstrike would provide an interval of usage that is actually very frequent (even at low levels, allowing you to potentially do it more than once in a single encounter, and at least once in every encounter) without destroying the variety you could get from keeping it limited, or the feeling of a Nova when it is used.
I aggree that if too many abilities are focus spells, you end up having too many of them competing.
Especially regarding your core gimmick.
An oracle can be very focus heavy for example, but they still have full casting aside from it so they can vary a bit more which focus spell they'll use.The magus has a very limited selection of spells, if most/all of its class abilities require focus spells, you won't be able to do much things.
Sure Sasuke could do one or two chidori a day at first, but he had lots of other jutsus to perform aside from it and he still could rely on his sharingan. If you get what I mean
I do think the Magus should have other stuff it can fall back on-- it should be able to use its slotted spells / martial casting equivalent class feature effectively, it should be a competent warrior in its own right, it should be able to potentially infuse its weapon with lower end magic for damage riders, it should have class feats the give it other magic/martial techniques, even if they're a lot 'simpler' than spellstrike.
If all we can do is spell strike, its not likely to be a good class, and I question where its feats went-- does it not have any multi-action maneuvers for instance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
does every class have to be doing its 'main thing' every single turn?
Well let's go through the list. I'll stick just with martials since obviously all spellcasters want to be casting a spell of some kind every turn.
Alchemist - Tossing a bomb or have a mutagen active at all times.
Barbarian - Are you really doing combats while not raging?
Champion - I guess you don't have much control over when reactions go off.
Fighter - Literally impossible to turn off the Fighter's accuracy bonus.
Investigator - The only time you wouldn't be using Strategic Strike is when you rolled low on Devise a Stratagem and are targeting someone else on purpose... which I would argue is using the mechanic as intended.
Monk - The entire point of Flurry is being very easy to fit two strikes into your rotation every round. I guess there ARE situations where you'd choose not to Flurry though if you pick up certain feats.
Ranger - Uh yeah you're always using Hunt Target before attacking.
Rogue - Similar to the Swashbuckler, you only aren't Sneak Attacking because something went wrong.
So I guess that's one and a half between the Champion and the Monk (Monk only if you deliberately opt into certain builds). These "math fixers" are important to do every round because if you aren't doing them your damage just doesn't keep up with expectations. The key with martial design is making the math fixer a cool and interesting thing you want to be doing, which is what Spellstrike would be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of those are passive though, you can't turn off the fighter's accuracy bonus, but if one turn you're using power attack, another you're using quick reversal, or knockdown, or sudden charge. That's intrinsically different than "I Spellstrike" every turn, they take different action costs, and they have different effects.
Your ranger hunts prey, but 'Twin Takedown' is still a separate move, even though it builds off hunt prey. Rogues might want sneak attack on every attack, but they still have maneuvers and their debilitation mechanic at higher levels. Once Barbarian rage is on, they start spending actions on doing actual things-- especially if they're optimizing and get their hands on real fighting moves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I understand the issue here. I think you're assuming that Spellstrike would just be a copy-paste of Eldritch Shot with no modifiers or feats designed to change the ability's behavior.
That is. Obviously not how that would work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monk chooses to Flurry, Ranger chooses to hunt his prey and exploit his hunter's edge against it.
Magi might not use Spellstrike every single turn, especially if it, for example, stays loaded if you missed it. Giving you a 2nd turn during which you can use other Strike actions to apply it and either load another spell or do something else.
Hell, maybe Spellstrike will have the "Open" trait ! So you can only "charge" a spell as the first thing you do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I understand the issue here. I think you're assuming that Spellstrike would just be a copy-paste of Eldritch Shot with no modifiers or feats designed to change the ability's behavior.
That is. Obviously not how that would work.
Thats some big talk given that the only thing we know about it is that they got it down to one roll, and that the version in the playtest wasn't a self contained rich tactical experience.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over and above everything else, the playtest Magus was built on a martial chassis with spellcasting and striking spell as their class abilities. If they're not using Striking Spell every round or close to it, what the heck else are they doing?
All those passive class features other martials get? Magi have none of them. Every class feature they did have was either an active ability or a passive improvement of a level 1 active ability.
So a focus Striking spell would allow for 1 attack. And then they're done for the encounter because they have neither the slots (or ability scores) to be a caster nor the passive math fixers to be keep up with the martials. In essence, that would be the worst of all worlds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, we already know it's got some sort of recharge mechanic so talking about spamming it every round is already misrepresenting where we're starting from.
That doesn't make turning it into a focus spell a good idea though, because focus spells should be one of the main ways to enrich a class and enhance flexibility. You talk about 'texture' but suffocating magi out of the focus spell mechanic by tying one of their main mechanical and thematic features to it just kills an entire avenue of flexibility and versatility outright while also locking the use of it behind something you might not even be able to use every combat if you ever get dragged into an encounter without a ten-minute cooldown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the Magus would be better off bridging that gap you guys are discussing with other resources than focus points.
The reason I say that is because they naturally have their fingers in a bunch of pies. They not only get real spellcasting, they could easily have the class feature version of martial casting providing a rich variety of in combat magic. They can fundamentally hit thing with weapons and could easily have something provide them a small round to round rider, with burst damage from the spell strikes making up the difference.
They have class feats that can give them lots of tricks to play.
They just don't need focus points to play that role, necessarily and it might be healthier for the class overall to have focus points be tied into this mechanic, and add all kinds 'other stuff' around the periphery, becayse then the other stuff doesnt have to compete fir the points.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See I don't think Spell strike should be the Magus bread and butter
Boy, if it isn't I have a hard time figuring out what WOULD be their "bread and butter". :P
See I don't think Spell strike should be the Magus bread and butterBoy, if it isn't I have a hard time figuring out what WOULD be their "bread and butter". :P
See the following line, I qualified it for a reason. XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See the following line, I qualified it for a reason. XDSee I don't think Spell strike should be the Magus bread and butterBoy, if it isn't I have a hard time figuring out what WOULD be their "bread and butter". :P
Ok, I'd read it when I posted it but I went back are reread the line that follows it... Not really seeing when alternative you propose in that sentence. Now the next paragraph suggests it's best for them to not have a "bread and butter" action where you're kind of rudderless, doing whatever the magic 8 ball says that round: I also don't foresee spellstrike backed up by normal casting unless we're seeing a substantial boost in the number of spells we're able to cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'd read it when I posted it but I went back are reread the line that follows it... Not really seeing when alternative you propose in that sentence. Now the next paragraph suggests it's best for them to not have a "bread and butter" action where you're kind of rudderless, doing whatever the magic 8 ball says that round: I also don't foresee spellstrike backed up by normal casting unless we're seeing a substantial boost in the number of spells we're able to cast.See the following line, I qualified it for a reason. XDSee I don't think Spell strike should be the Magus bread and butterBoy, if it isn't I have a hard time figuring out what WOULD be their "bread and butter". :P
Bread and Butter being something you must do every round,specifically, being the relevent part. Thats not rudderless, you make attacks, cast spells and use maunevers, but spellstriking shouldnt be a given every turn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll bet my house on spellstrike not being a focus spell unless it's an omega spellstrike on top of a normal one. Im fairly confident they would never regulate it to a once per combat (possibly zero times per combat if using other focus spells) thing for all of tier 1 of play. No way
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bread and Butter being something you must do every round,specifically, being the relevent part. Thats not rudderless, you make attacks, cast spells and use maunevers, but spellstriking shouldnt be a given every turn.
Well, we already know it isn't. But there's a lot of daylight between "not every round" and "focus spell".
Edit: I would also say that making it cost a focus point on top of one of your spell slots (because few are going to blow a focus point on a cantrip) is pretty high. Your Spell Synthesis probably needs to have some hefty bonuses to make up for spending all that much on a single attack.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's my pitch for how it works.
- Spellstrike costs two actions to do, needs to be primed, and has the flourish trait.
- The action to prime a spellstrike has the flourish trait.
Then you can give the Magus a focus spell that lets them prime and spellstrike in one round.
My current take would be something like this:
Spellstrike is:
1- A free action metamagic with the Open trait
2- Possibly allowing folding an attack roll into the spell's casting (so most of the time 2 actions for a strike counting double to MAP)
3-On a miss, the spell is kept "loaded" for one or two rounds, during which any strike can release it (allowing the use of other Strike actions the Magus may have from its own feats or archetypes, such as power attack, certain strike, etc etc)
4- After a spellstrike, there is a flat DC (let's say 5 at first) that increases after each spellstrike as the weapon becomes "overheated" with residual magic. If you fail the check, you can't spellstrike until you spend an interract action to purge the weapon of excess magic.
4(a)- This could be played around with feats or features that grant some bonuses when a weapon is overheated, or giving some feats that would be like "Once a day, make a Strike with an overcharged weapon, you release the excess energy on a hit. Add flat damage equal to twice the number of weapon damage dice. The weapon is then purged"
The Open trait is here to avoid True Strike abuse now that the Spellstrike has potential better action economy (in the case of attack spells). But it can still be used a bit more seldomly on subsequent turns if you already have a spell loaded and it'll dissipate at the end of the round.
I'm a bit iffy about "stealing" the inventor's mechanic but I feel like it fits so...
You've mentioned that before, but where did you hear that Unstable was going to have a ratchetting failure chance? Not only does that seem pretty unbalanced (Unstable actions are equivalent to focus spells in power, that many focus spells for free seems like a lot), but that also isn't what Mark described on Know Direction.
But if I missed something, I'd like to see it.
I found several people quoting it but I'd need to go through the whole G&G forum to find the original quote.
Something I had missed is that yes the DC would be reduced as 17 was way too high but apparently no mentions of making it increase (maybe I saw someone suggest it and misremembered).
If I find the quote I'll repost it here.
Edit: First post of the "Welcome to the inventor's playtest" topic.
And rementionned here
That's not what you're saying though. That's just confirmation that the playtest unstable was not true to the final version.
I meant specifically where did they mention the failure chance would start low and then rise?
I'm not surprised you couldn't get him to take a risk on unstable. As mentioned in the welcome thread, the version that's in the file was a mistake and will not be the final version; you won't have to gamble your turn like that during an encounter. If there's a gamble, it'll be for the consequences that happen to you after.
This is closer to what he mentioned on the podcast; he said the failure chance was fine, what he disliked was the consequence of there being no action as a result. He said there that he wanted the the unstable action to happen, but then a failed check consequence to be something like "the innovation then explodes in your face".
That's not what you're saying though. That's just confirmation that the playtest unstable was not true to the final version.
I meant specifically where did they mention the failure chance would start low and then rise?
I'm not surprised you couldn't get him to take a risk on unstable. As mentioned in the welcome thread, the version that's in the file was a mistake and will not be the final version; you won't have to gamble your turn like that during an encounter. If there's a gamble, it'll be for the consequences that happen to you after.This is closer to what he mentioned on the podcast; he said the failure chance was fine, what he disliked was the consequence of there being no action as a result. He said there that he wanted the the unstable action to happen, but then a failed check consequence to be something like "the innovation then explodes in your face".
Yes as I said I mixed it up with someone suggesting that the DC might start low and increase as you used Unstable actions. My bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's my pitch for how it works.
- Spellstrike costs two actions to do, needs to be primed, and has the flourish trait.
- The action to prime a spellstrike has the flourish trait.Then you can give the Magus a focus spell that lets them prime and spellstrike in one round.
Your pitch is pretty close to my own guess for how they would do it. I'd expect something like the following (which I've written with informal rules language):
Store Spell [A]
[Concentrate]
You cast a spell of 2 or fewer actions that targets one or more creatures. It doesn't take effect. Instead this spell is stored in a held weapon for up to 10 minutes, during which time you can Release Spell to discharge it. If you cast another spell while you have a Stored spell, the Stored spell is lost.
Release Spell [AA]
You Strike. If you have a Stored spell charged on the weapon you used for the Strike and you successfully Strike a creature, the spell is discharged, affecting the target you hit as if you had cast it against that target. If the spell requires a spell attack roll, use the result of your Strike as the result of the spell attack roll. If the spell requires a save, the creature saves normally, but with a -2 circumstance penalty. Release Spell counts as two attacks for your MAP.
----
Why I think this guess is likely to be the way they do it:
Potentially, I could also see Store Spell being two actions. So you get one nova spellstrike at the start of a combat, then have to dedicate most of a round to getting it ready again. That would make it a kind of soft 1/combat restriction. I could see Paizo doing something like that, especially if they grant Magus more spell slots.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that having the release be a specific strike might be a missed opportunity to play with the action economy.
If it can be on any strike, you'd benefit from it while using things like Combat Assessment, Revealing Stab, Second Sting, Sudden Charge, etc etc etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a really fun part of the play test was being able to release a spell on any kind of strike, including strikes you picked up from archetypes. I can't imagine anyone was complaining about that element of the play test.
Agreed with Kalaam and Unicore.
Related, while the idea of having Store Spell and Release spell being separate actions with the Flourish trait has some possibilities, but I dislike the action costs being attached to them. Make them both free actions with the triggers of "Cast a spell" and "Succeed or Critically Succeed at a strike", still with the Flourish trait though. I don't think there were too many complaints about the action economy of Striking Spell, except maybe in the "it takes too many actions" direction.
Edit: To be clear, when I say "free action to store" I mean free action only to store; casting the actual spell is still separate and cost the normal amount of actions.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely disagree - Spellstrike, IMO, needs to be a specific Action that CANNOT be folded together with other things that CAN trigger off of Strikes.
Adding a Spell to the Strike resolution on its own is going to require over half a page of text, allowing this to interact with dozens of other feats, most of which also significantly empower the Strike to deal a bunch of extra damage or otherwise impose potentially crippling conditions to the opponent. I do NOT want to see Magus in a situation where they can resolve a top-level spell slot + weapon damage dice + enhancements to their weapon from buffs + additional weapon damage + additional weapon damage dice and then combine all of this with True Strike (as will be the case more often than not I guarantee) in order to have a guaranteed critical hit that deals literally 2-3x the damage any other PC could do even if that non-Magus does critically hit.
It is not reasonable to expect this to be allowed, even if it IS relegated to a 1/encounter ability, it's just too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely disagree - Spellstrike, IMO, needs to be a specific Action that CANNOT be folded together with other things that CAN trigger off of Strikes.
Adding a Spell to the Strike resolution on its own is going to require over half a page of text, allowing this to interact with dozens of other feats, most of which also significantly empower the Strike to deal a bunch of extra damage or otherwise impose potentially crippling conditions to the opponent. I do NOT want to see Magus in a situation where they can resolve a top-level spell slot + weapon damage dice + enhancements to their weapon from buffs + additional weapon damage + additional weapon damage dice and then combine all of this with True Strike (as will be the case more often than not I guarantee) in order to have a guaranteed critical hit that deals literally 2-3x the damage any other PC could do even if that non-Magus does critically hit.
It is not reasonable to expect this to be allowed, even if it IS relegated to a 1/encounter ability, it's just too much.
To be fair, we're talking about the damage of a normal strike + a spell regardless of anything else, and then action economy might make such a strike surprisingly weak in overall DPR. Also usually rider features (sneak attack/precision edge/rage), or extra accuracy (Legendary Attack/Flurry Edge) make up a lot of the damage on a strike.
So a rogue can combine: Weapon Damage Dice + Enhancements to their Weapon from Buffs + sneak attack + extra weapon damage dice + additional weapon damage. All of which can be combined with True Strike (its not hard to get level 1 castings on a rogue)
They're just missing the actual spell slot, in place of sneak attack, and usually get more mileage out of multiple attacks that include most of that (minus the additional dice from what I assume was power attack?) but multiple times without any limiting resource.
I'm not saying it would definitely be alright, but the balance of the game is surprisingly robust.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if riding another Strike action was overpowered, we would have seen that in the playtest.
Several people noted (including Unicore if I recall ?) that using Strike actions from archetype was both strong and fun, but not incredibly unbalanced. Especially since a lot of special strikes cost 2 actions, or have a specific trait like Press that make them unusable on your first attack etc.
I honestly wouldn't be surprise to see the Magus having some alternative Strikes built in already, including some exclusive ones like Riving Strike or stuff like this that would require a Spellstrike loaded, or to be in cooldown etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
combine all of this with True Strike (as will be the case more often than not I guarantee)
Won’t if “Release spell” is a fortune effect.
Given that the combined strike and spell attack roll falls into the “bypass a roll with a different roll” effect that is generally fortune, it arguably should be.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am in the minority here, but I enjoy the playtest Magus. Even more so than rogues, I like the combat style I use with him. Of course, I also like that I built him to take advantage of the action system: spirit sheath, slide casting, and spellstrike, allowing him to draw, store a two action spell, stride, and strike in one actions. I admit that 5-6 were a little choppy with the lower attack, but it wasn't that noticeable because I think I did a lot of the damage in the group, but I also got haste and fireball for those levels, so it wasn't that bad.
I am also not thrilled about the one attack spellstrike or recharge. The one attack probably means that either spellstrike isn't going to be available with the Magus archetype or fighter with the magus archetype will just be a better Magus. At least these are my thoughts now, but I will wait until the class is released in July to make my final judgements.
I am in the minority here, but I enjoy the playtest Magus. Even more so than rogues, I like the combat style I use with him. Of course, I also like that I built him to take advantage of the action system: spirit sheath, slide casting, and spellstrike, allowing him to draw, store a two action spell, stride, and strike in one actions. I admit that 5-6 were a little choppy with the lower attack, but it wasn't that noticeable because I think I did a lot of the damage in the group, but I also got haste and fireball for those levels, so it wasn't that bad.
I am also not thrilled about the one attack spellstrike or recharge. The one attack probably means that either spellstrike isn't going to be available with the Magus archetype or fighter with the magus archetype will just be a better Magus. At least these are my thoughts now, but I will wait until the class is released in July to make my final judgements.
I think the best way to address "Fighter is a better Magus" or "there is no point in getting MCD Magus" is that the OG Magus' spellstrike gets upgraded at higher level, like the Barbarian's Rage, Ranger's Edge, etc...
Be it with an innate save debuff on SpellStrike saves that becomes higher, an easier time to perform the famed recharge (likely through our Synthesis, which a MCD wouldn't have access to btw !) or some other ways.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While my math skills are non-existent, I seem to recall people that ran simulations during the playtest saying that Strike + cantrip damage was not unbalanced as opposed to a martial's three Strike routine, especially the damage of classes like Rangers and Barbarians.
There was some debate as to the effect being able to hold the charge would have on the average damage, but it was pretty controversial.
Slot Spells could provide spikes ( then again you had four of them per day), but cantrips seemed fine.
That is to say that, while we know Magi won't be able to spam their spellstrikes every round, I don't think that it will be a long cooldown.
I mean (again, math is not my forte and we're speculating on something that has already been through its final approval stage), even considering that spellstrike spamming would be too much, I don't think that the Magus would need a cooldown longer than one round - that is, assuming Magi will still be wanting to use Cantrip Striking Spell and will save the sloted Striking Spells for tougher situations.
Example
Rd 1: Striking Spell turn (possibly attempting a first strike)
Rd 2: (a) Possible second turn (attempting to discharge the Striking Spell) or (b) Martial turn to recharge the Striking Spell
Rd 3: Striking Spell turn (if a) or Martial turn (if b)
I will admit, though, that this could fit under a 'focus spell' chassis, considering most combats tend to last between 3 to 5ish rounds.
Striking Spell taking place over 2 rounds might be a bit awkward though, of course we don't know the final action economy of it. Or if new spells will change that (1 action spells or modular casting time spells like Magic Missile/Heal/Harm)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thread kind of highlights part of the problem, I think. The PF1 magus could be a lot of things, especially with archetypes, so we have people essentially asking for Paizo to take the class in completely opposite directions based on their preconceptions of how to 'best' play the class.
The depth and breadth of the magus honestly my favorite thing about the class in 1st Edition. You could have wildly different characters depending on which combination of weapon, spells, archetype, and flavor. You could end up as a spell fencer, a Naruto-style ninja with spell-infused shurikens, Thor with thundering hammer strikes, Nightmare with a sentient sword and vampric touch, etc.
I know people pretty overwhelmingly wanted to see the striking spell mechanic change, and we know that it Eli from what we have heard, but the play test magus was pretty faithful to keeping its mechanics open to many, varied types of builds.
I am still hopeful that changes to striking spell are done with an effort to preserve the flexibility of the class. People could make a lot of interesting different Magi based upon archetypes and feat selection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The old mechanic was just too much for too little unless you went all in.....and most of the time I'm just gonna want to spellstrike with cantrips. Heck, one or two of my slots might be utility spells. The fact that a divination staff can no longer morph into a greatsword would've maid the old mechanic a lot more difficult. Hopefully their new solution pleases the greatest number of people they could've with all the options on the table.
I think the change to the mechanic won't disturb the potential variety of the playtest. If anything I hope it'll open it even more with a more flexible action economy, and hopefully allowing even more spells (maybe for special spellstrikes) than strictly targetted ones.