I am not absolutely certain that this is an error, but it appears that the magus does not have any way to start with a level 1 class feat. Most classes either get to take one at level one, or receive one in connection selecting a subclass (e.g., druid order, arcane thesis). Unless I am missing something, the only way a magus gets a level 1 feat would be to select one at a later even level.
Maybe its intended, but I have doubts.
No class with spell slots gets a level 1 feat I believe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No class with spell slots gets a level 1 feat I believe.
The bard and druid get one through their muse and order respectively, and I believe the OP was surprised the Magus didn't work a similar way.
Edit: Although I understand why they don't. The Bard and Druid can have their subclasses mixed. In that case it's easier to just say "here's the feat" rather than reprinting the subclass. The Magus can't get another subclass than the first they pick.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An errata note potentially for Elemental Annihilation Wave (pg. 102):
Baseline, it does 1d6 fire damage and 3d6 bludgeoning damage, to represent all four elements damaging the targets. Then, for its Heightened (+2): "The damage increases by 2d6," But it doesn't say how to split that up. Is it 1d6 fire, 1d6 bludgeoning? Is it 2d6 bludgeoning, but missing an additional amount of fire damage? It's just a bit confusing.
One thing I'm a bit unclear on is if using spell strike would provoke an attack of opportunity. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't. You seem to be using the new spellstrike action which doesn't have the manipulate or move trait, rather than either a strike action or the cast a spell action (which might have the manipulate component).
Probably just missed it but would have thought it would be something that is clearly spelt out considering how critical it is.
Nothing says you don't, it says you Cast a Spell. Anything that triggers off of casting a spell will trigger. If a subordinate action triggers something, it's still triggered.One thing I'm a bit unclear on is if using spell strike would provoke an attack of opportunity. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't. You seem to be using the new spellstrike action which doesn't have the manipulate or move trait, rather than either a strike action or the cast a spell action (which might have the manipulate component).
Probably just missed it but would have thought it would be something that is clearly spelt out considering how critical it is.
Yep. Using spells that don't use a component that has the manipulation trait helps helps avoid some reactions. It's a good reason to use a cantrip/spell that just uses verbal. ;)
|
I am not absolutely certain that this is an error, but it appears that the magus does not have any way to start with a level 1 class feat. Most classes either get to take one at level one, or receive one in connection selecting a subclass (e.g., druid order, arcane thesis). Unless I am missing something, the only way a magus gets a level 1 feat would be to select one at a later even level.
Maybe its intended, but I have doubts.
Typically caster classes don't get lvl 1 feats at lvl 1. It is the trade off for starting with spells to use. The reason most (all?) classes have lvl 1 feats is because there are ways to get them (easiest is being human).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing says you don't, it says you Cast a Spell. Anything that triggers off of casting a spell will trigger. If a subordinate action triggers something, it's still triggered.One thing I'm a bit unclear on is if using spell strike would provoke an attack of opportunity. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't. You seem to be using the new spellstrike action which doesn't have the manipulate or move trait, rather than either a strike action or the cast a spell action (which might have the manipulate component).
Probably just missed it but would have thought it would be something that is clearly spelt out considering how critical it is.
That is going to hurt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I doubt this will actually be errata'd, I'd /love/ if the Inner Fire feat also worked with the Rain of Embers Stance. It's kind of a feelbad to have to choose between different types of Fire Monk.
Like what? I can’t think of a offensive spell that just uses verbal.
Spellstrike should at least not trigger AoO when using cantrips, as that is their basic damage rotation.
Offhand, Elemental Wrath, the various power words, air burst and various focus spells [if you archetype].
There are also many spells and abilities that reduce reactions, and most monsters don't have AoO.
It's both possible and totally reasonable that you don't want to be in Melee much vs big single monsters with AoO that much either as a d8 hp guy with needs for Str and Int.
I do wish it was in a sidebar in the book though. Because it's going to be a nasty surprise to some of the people learning the magus forever now
Nothing says you don't, it says you Cast a Spell. Anything that triggers off of casting a spell will trigger. If a subordinate action triggers something, it's still triggered.One thing I'm a bit unclear on is if using spell strike would provoke an attack of opportunity. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't. You seem to be using the new spellstrike action which doesn't have the manipulate or move trait, rather than either a strike action or the cast a spell action (which might have the manipulate component).
Probably just missed it but would have thought it would be something that is clearly spelt out considering how critical it is.
Yeah. Rereading the text, Cast a Spell is capitalised so it does refer to the specific action. Although it reduces the output of the class it probably makes them more intresting as you will have to think how to avoid the AoO if you are up against creatures that possess one.
I can see Starlight Span hybrids being quite popular too,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
p. 102: The fire mote on element embodied does bludgeoning damage instead of fire damage
pp. 198, 200: Storm druids are listed as an elementalist druid but aren't allowed to take the elementalist druid focus spells.
|
pp. 198, 200: Storm druids are listed as an elementalist druid but aren't allowed to take the elementalist druid focus spells.
I don't believe this to be an error. An elementalist archetype druid of the storm order can take the elementalist druid spells.
Druid Elementalist Adjustments: If you’re a druid of the storm order, you can choose to replace your starting order spell, tempest surge, with updraft (page 201).
They can then take Advanced Elemental Spell (pg 199) to gain powerful inhalation, which is true regardless of whether they take the archetype or not.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish it was in a sidebar in the book though. Because it's going to be a nasty surprise to some of the people learning the magus forever nowThis. I was quite surprised when I realized spellstrike triggered AoO with 99% of spells. To the point that I thought it must be an error. That should really have been spelled out.
Maybe I'm just too used to the system, but Cast a Spell (or rather the somatic component of the spell) is probably the most notorious trigger for AoO apart from movement. Balance discussions aside, I'm really wondering why this is taking people by surprise.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will grant you all that, but you realize magus normal strikes are subpar to any other martial and at d8 hp? Magus without spellstrike is giving up a HUGE chunk of its damage.I do wish it was in a sidebar in the book though. Because it's going to be a nasty surprise to some of the people learning the magus forever nowThis. I was quite surprised when I realized spellstrike triggered AoO with 99% of spells. To the point that I thought it must be an error. That should really have been spelled out.Every character triggers AoO with different actions.
Magus can perform normal strikes in addition to spellstrike.
Not even 15% of the enemies have AoO.
It's fine way it is, since the game requires pro and cons, as well as tactics.
I'd keep in mind different approaches.
First things first, Magus is not a brainless bot who spams spellstrike.Like an eldritch archer.
An eldritch trickster.
And so on.The eldritch archer also can't use its feature if he move, and trigger even without using eldritch shot because of ranged attacks. Unless quickened.
And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?
They have trouble against oozes and you need to think tactically against Fighters and Chimeras.Edit: Or don't and eat the AoO. At least you'll still do your extra damage unlike the Rogue.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?
Not many, it's pretty rare.
But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?Not many, it's pretty rare.
But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.
After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.
Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.
Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or an example of how the system emphasizes tactical flexibility over using the same move over and over, take your pick.
What tactical flexibility? There's no fancy new combat style you unlock when fighting a ghost as a rogue... you just do less damage that fight.
Anyways, wrong thread to have this conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a bug in the PDF bookmarks: the bookmark for chapter 3 is named "Character 3: Spells".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?Not many, it's pretty rare.
But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.
After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.
Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.
Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.
According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.
The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Page 122, I'm fairly certain Prismatic Armor is lacking the Light trait (which all published Prismatic spells seem to have). Notably, Chromatic Armor (p. 95), which is referenced by Prismatic Armor, does have the Light trait.
Chromatic Image, also on Page 95 doesn't have the Light trait either. While I bring it up just in case, I suspect it might be intentional since Chromatic Wall doesn't have that trait either.
Also, I might be alone in this, but I thought it was a bit odd that the Shadowcaster does not seem to gain darkvision in any way. It might very be entirely intentional, however.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?Not many, it's pretty rare.
But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.
After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.
Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.
Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.
The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.
I haven’t updated this spreadsheet since FotRP came out, it takes a long time to run and some parts (speed, a few errors) I have to fix up manually afterwards, so 2288 is a little under the current monsters in the game (missing Malevolence, FotRP 1-3 and SoT 1, along with any PFS scenarios that have come out).
Should still be a pretty good indicator of the overall frequency of precision immunity and AoO (note: this is things specifically named AoO, not any other feature that is like AoO and can still significantly disrupt a magus’ turn like twisting tail or lurking death).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are a number cruncher. Does melee magus not having spellstrike without triggering AoO massively hamper it in those kinds of fights, or are there sufficient ways to avoid them? Are there enough of them to make magus hard to play late game?And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?Not many, it's pretty rare.
But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.
After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.
Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.
Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.
The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.
I haven’t updated this spreadsheet since FotRP came out, it takes a long time to run and some parts (speed, a few errors) I have to fix up manually afterwards, so 2288 is a little under the current monsters in the game (missing Malevolence, FotRP 1-3 and SoT 1, along with any PFS scenarios that have come out).
Should still be a pretty good indicator of the overall frequency of precision immunity and AoO (note: this is things specifically named AoO, not any other feature that is like AoO and can still significantly disrupt a magus’ turn like twisting tail or lurking death).
I couldn't tell you for certain, I've only had players try melee wizards before SoM released and they stopped due to fragility.
AoO and similar move-disrupting actions hurt bad at that level even for fighters, even if they only appear in 1/5 or 1/4 encounters. Doing it on a squisher chassis, needing to provoke it every turn to use your main damage booster ability... doesn't sound great.
Yes, swashbucklers/invests/rogues have to deal with precision immunity, barbs have to deal with energy immunity (except giant who deals with clumsy 1), ranger has to deal with multiple enemies and maybe precision immunity, monk/champion don't really do damage.
Fighter... doesn't have to deal with any of that. Maybe that's why people find that they're that much better to play. They don't have to deal with a downside that seemingly gets flipped on and off at random, they just do their thing.
From experience seeing rogues/swashbucklers/invests against precision immune enemies, it isn't really a challenge to overcome. Your chassis doesn't have anything that you can switch to when dealing with those. You just contribute 20% less that combat. Which feels pretty unfun when there's fighter taunting you on the other end telling you that you could not be dealing with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Swashbuckler, and Rogue. How many things are immune to precision damage?Not many, it's pretty rare.
But I mean, also an example of a pretty bad mechanic.
After a quick glance at AoN... looks like anything with the Incorporeal trait, the ooze trait, the swarm trait, and a few other types of undead.
Depending on campaign of course, I wouldn't call that rare.
Edit: Which doesn't mean I like it. I agree it's not a great mechanic. I was using it as an example of a mechanic that's worse then AoO.
At least AoO can be played around. If something has precision immunity half the martials are SOL.According to the monster spreadsheet which is available on the PF2 Tools site, there are 154 monsters immune to precision out of 2288.
The same tool has 312 out of the 2288 monsters with Attacks of Opportunity however this ramps up quite significantly at higher levels where you are getting 30% to 60% of the monsters with AoO.
I haven’t updated this spreadsheet since FotRP came out, it takes a long time to run and some parts (speed, a few errors) I have to fix up manually afterwards, so 2288 is a little under the current monsters in the game (missing Malevolence, FotRP 1-3 and SoT 1, along with any PFS scenarios that have come out).
Should still be a pretty good indicator of the overall frequency of precision immunity and AoO (note: this is things specifically named AoO, not any other feature that is like AoO and can still significantly disrupt a magus’ turn like twisting tail or lurking death).
Can I just say thanks for your work on the spreadsheet. It's something I find really useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Found another typo in Meld Into Eidolon (highlighted below):
Your physical form can combine with that of your eidolon, granting benefits but limiting your capabilities. You Manifest your Eidolon, but instead of summoning it into an adjacent open space, you become it.
...No seriously what actual benefits does this feat grant? You lose one action per turn and the ability to cast spells, and in exchange you gain...?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Found another typo in Meld Into Eidolon (highlighted below):
Your physical form can combine with that of your eidolon, granting benefits but limiting your capabilities. You Manifest your Eidolon, but instead of summoning it into an adjacent open space, you become it....No seriously what actual benefits does this feat grant? You lose one action per turn and the ability to cast spells, and in exchange you gain...?
Half the number of targets, plus whatever movement speed or vision the edilon has?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Found another typo in Meld Into Eidolon (highlighted below):
Your physical form can combine with that of your eidolon, granting benefits but limiting your capabilities. You Manifest your Eidolon, but instead of summoning it into an adjacent open space, you become it....No seriously what actual benefits does this feat grant? You lose one action per turn and the ability to cast spells, and in exchange you gain...?
Your Eidolon's AC, their vision and Speed, and not being separately targeted by spells or other effects, and not having to roll twice and take the worse results for AoE spells.
You're essentially becoming the Eidolon, acting as a singular creature. If you don't like that and want to use tandum actions or Cast a Spell, this feat is obviously of no benefit to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 110: For the horizon thunder sphere, it is unclear what kind of actions the 3 actions on the second round are. Material, somatic and verbal? Concentrate? None of the above?
One could also interpret the second round as including another spell attack roll even though I don't think that is the intent. I say this because "empower the spell even further" isn't clearly defined and the next sentence mentions, "after attacking the target." Is this referring to the attack in the previous round? Or does it mean for you to attack the target again?
The spell can be cast over two rounds. If you do this, you don't make the attack roll on the first round, you spend the 3 actions casting on that round, 3 actions casting on the second round, and then resolve effects. As you are constantly casting, you have the potential to take two rounds' worth of AoO, or other cast triggered reactions, if you're not in a safe place.
Also, "the ball of lightning explodes, dealing 2d6 electricity damage to all other creatures in a 10-foot emanation around the target." All creature other than who? It would seem to mean the target, which would kind of suck because the spell would be more likely to be more detrimental to allies. Maybe it's referring to you, the caster? Or maybe it's not the most precise wording and it just means everyone including the source of the emanation, as emanations usually function.
The wording on this one is a little odd until you consider that a two round cast has the effects of the lesser actions casts, so primary target takes 3D6 or half on a miss, and the other targets in range of the emanation take 2D6 with a basic Reflex save.
Finally, the spell also mentions doing damage to creature that "Grab" you, but in the heightened entry, the damage is dealt to creature that "Grapple" you. Both are capitalized, which would normally denote two similar but specific actions, where the intent seems to be any act that grabs you by hand.
I may be missing something, let me know if I am, thanks.
This could do with a unification of language, certainly
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A think the same spell being cast over two rounds would remain one instance of casting a spell. Yes, it took longer than normal, but was ultimately one activity.
That's not to say I'm not extremely wary of AoOs for Magi! I think looking at the % of creatures in the Bestiary that have it is misleading vs. the % of creatures encountered, i.e. Trolls, Giants, elite troops, and so forth.
A Magus will need to build around that so they can remain effective in such combats which can be done w/ spell selection, yet that battery has only limited supply. In a giant-themed or Hobgoblin-themed campaign I'd avoid a melee Magus, no doubt.
The magus is surprising good with just having arcane cascade active. They rival the alchemist for the ability to hit enemies with exactly the right kind of damage to trigger weaknesses and they have a number of abilities that allow them to potentially trigger multiple weaknesses at the same time. The 2 hander and the staff magus have good options for extending their reach pretty massively. It is really only the one-handed melee magus that is particularly vulnerable to Attacks of Opportunity, and one of those builds is shield focused enough that you might want to draw the attack of Opportunity on yourself anyway. Laughing shadow is really the only magus build that is in big trouble against enemies with attack of opportunity because they lost their ability to cast the spell and then move before attacking.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting a chuckle from the spell, Summoner's Visage (page 135). As written, your eidolon changes appearance to look identical to you, but it can use no gear (other than any Eidolon-tagged gear it already had).
So it's completely naked and can't don any clothing, because it can't use gear without the eidolon trait.
While this would be appropriate for some gaming groups, I'm a bit concerned on how this could derail a game session...
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons are actually only prohibited from using any magical gear. They can wear normal clothes just fine.I'm getting a chuckle from the spell, Summoner's Visage (page 135). As written, your eidolon changes appearance to look identical to you, but it can use no gear (other than any Eidolon-tagged gear it already had).
So it's completely naked and can't don any clothing, because it can't use gear without the eidolon trait.
While this would be appropriate for some gaming groups, I'm a bit concerned on how this could derail a game session...
What?! You mean my Eidelon, Manhattan, has been lying to me this whole time?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane Fists crit spec should specify you use your Spell DC rather than your class DC (as magus does not have a class DC) - really should just errata the CRB on this at this point.
The spell "Compel True Name" (Spell 4) appears to be just straight up worse than "Reveal True Name" (Skill Feat 1). Compel True Name only does stuff if they F or CF, and actually has penalties (for you) if they S or CS, whereas Reveal True Name does stuff no matter what check result you get (with the CF only potentially being bad, but it does say on both F and CF that they are likely to flee).