|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Needing multiple dedication feats to get what they should had gotten by default is not good thou.2/3 can roughly be achieved with a dedication as is.How much casting should they have gotten in terms of proficiency, max level and frequency? What of their other class features should be given up to achieve this?I was rooting for 2/3 casting like pathfinder
Full spellcasting dedication (up to master + the breadth feat) nets 14 spell slots. That plus your 4 slots from wave casting gives you a total of 18 slots by 20th. "Standard" full casters get 27 slots (ignoring the 10th level slots). 18/27 = 2/3. There's your 2/3 casting I guess.
Not saying you're wrong in your opinion but if the hybrid/martial-caster classes started off with 2/3 the slots of a typical full caster and then still had the option of taking a spellcasting dedication might push them to be too strong.
I dunno....Just an analysis I figured I'd throw out there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Legendary casters aren't able to do well in combat against boss monsters, Master casting won't do the job well. So not sure how good casting will be for those high level slots. I figure high level slots will be for buffing or healing, not for save spells. Maybe attack roll spells with True Strike.
I expect the bread and butter spell strike to be cantrips.
I think wave casting will be used for support or defense purposes.
It might be nice to tack on a multiclass to either class. They both look ripe for multiclass casting.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Needing multiple dedication feats to get what they should had gotten by default is not good thou.2/3 can roughly be achieved with a dedication as is.How much casting should they have gotten in terms of proficiency, max level and frequency? What of their other class features should be given up to achieve this?I was rooting for 2/3 casting like pathfinder
In my opinion, one should not transfer PF1 expectations onto PF2. Especially for non-core classes.
I'm puzzled by wave casting. I find it interesting and I think some people will really like it. But I'm not sure I will. But that's fine, not all classes are for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Needing multiple dedication feats to get what they should had gotten by default is not good thou.2/3 can roughly be achieved with a dedication as is.How much casting should they have gotten in terms of proficiency, max level and frequency? What of their other class features should be given up to achieve this?I was rooting for 2/3 casting like pathfinderFull spellcasting dedication (up to master + the breadth feat) nets 14 spell slots. That plus your 4 slots from wave casting gives you a total of 18 slots by 20th. "Standard" full casters get 27 slots (ignoring the 10th level slots). 18/27 = 2/3. There's your 2/3 casting I guess.
Not saying you're wrong in your opinion but if the hybrid/martial-caster classes started off with 2/3 the slots of a typical full caster and then still had the option of taking a spellcasting dedication might push them to be too strong.
I dunno....Just an analysis I figured I'd throw out there.
Those normal casters are just as able to gain more spell slots as a wave caster is.
A Wizard with witch dedication ends up with more slots than a magus with wizard dedication after all.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Needing multiple dedication feats to get what they should had gotten by default is not good thou.2/3 can roughly be achieved with a dedication as is.How much casting should they have gotten in terms of proficiency, max level and frequency? What of their other class features should be given up to achieve this?I was rooting for 2/3 casting like pathfinderFull spellcasting dedication (up to master + the breadth feat) nets 14 spell slots. That plus your 4 slots from wave casting gives you a total of 18 slots by 20th. "Standard" full casters get 27 slots (ignoring the 10th level slots). 18/27 = 2/3. There's your 2/3 casting I guess.
Not saying you're wrong in your opinion but if the hybrid/martial-caster classes started off with 2/3 the slots of a typical full caster and then still had the option of taking a spellcasting dedication might push them to be too strong.
I dunno....Just an analysis I figured I'd throw out there.
Those normal casters are just as able to gain more spell slots as a wave caster is.
A Wizard with witch dedication ends up with more slots than a magus with wizard dedication after all.
True, but full casters typically, if at all, have no way of getting master proficiency in weapons or armor either.
I don't fully know the deeper details of how Paizo has decided to balance proficiencies but I get the general idea and I get the impression they are confident in bound casting as a balanced way to implement martial-caster classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish Magi and Summoners had a wider breadth of Focus spells that do the supporting things. I don't have my book yet (c'mon sept 1st, get here already!) but my friend has the PDF and has let me read some of it the last time we hung out. A Magus' utility draws from their subclass, which is limiting in that you can't grab other F.Spells. Duelist style gets the "gotta go fast" utility while the zweihander gets the forcefield generation. in 1E vanilla Magi got to do both by level 5-6, which is mainly what I see wrong with the situation. The silo-d off a lot of the utility the Magus Arcanum gave you access to from 1E, which I don't mind too too much, but that seems to be the actual root of what seems to be the utilitarian starvation of the Magus class. At least in my eye, as I have made/played a 1E Magus, a 2E playtest one, and will a full one when I get the hands on my book
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I adore the new bounded spellcasting mechanic, and hope we see more of it in future classes. I think the more limited selection of slotted spells makes spell slots feel more special and powerful as a part of a character's toolkit as opposed to a full caster's plethora of them, and I like that it means partial casters don't need to get slower and less impressive access to new spells. As a means of casting I really enjoy it. I hope a bounded caster class comes out that refocuses automatically like sorcerer, as I think it's a bigger balance concern for the bounded caster to operate without focus spells than for the full caster or multiclass caster, and I hope we get bounded casters with a single list for occult/primal/divine instead of pick-a-list bounded casters.
As far as Magus and Summoner go, I'm interested in inexorable iron magus and fey summoner but can't really have an informed opinion on the classes until they drop. From a look, seems like magus throws a spell on a weapon and summoner summons a thing to fight for them. Those are the only things from 1e I really needed to get carried over. I'd like to see summoning get a boost, either through lower level incarnate spells or some buff to make summoned creatures more accurate, and I'm a bit sad the latter feature doesn't appear to be in Secrets of Magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i feel like Magus is totally fine since they can spellstrike with cantrips and have some decent focus spells and the hybrid study feature gives them a little extra utility. I used to hate bounded casting but I think for Magus it works really well
Summoner im not sure of...upon first reading it seems like once you run out of spell slots the summoner half of the summoner becomes a lot less exciting to play, Boost Eidolon helps with that and all but Its not very exciting casting boost eidolon and then giving your eidolon the rest of your actions. It may be one of those things that doesn't feel as bad as it looks on paper but I feel like Summoner could have also used a feature similar to hybrid studies to help them have more spells that arent just cantrips to use during their adventuring day, either that or more focus spells. There are some class feats like Master Summoner that do help a little but its one extra spell slot so I don't know if it really makes the difference
Either way I like it but my issue is less with bounded casting as a concept and more that I think Summoner maybe could have used something like hybrid studies since at least Magus gets that and they also can spellstrike with cantrips as well
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner im not sure of...upon first reading it seems like once you run out of spell slots the summoner half of the summoner becomes a lot less exciting to play
I'm finding it quite hard to build a summoner I'm excited to play. Especially at lowish levels.
If I go all in on the Eidolon ( planning on using the summoners actions primarily to boost the Eidolon) I seem to end up with a character that is just inferior to a straight martial when the martial has some spell support. The Eidolon gets some flexibility and I do get the 4 spells a day but I'm just not sure that compensates for being worse at the bread and butter things of standing in melee, doing damage and taking hits. 4 spells a day will go awfully fast.
If I instead focus more on the summoner then I seem to end up with a significantly weaker caster in exchange for an Eidolon that is only sometimes a little bit stronger than an Animal Companion (and sometimes weaker in some significant ways).
That sort of leaves gimmick characters like a huge reach tripping plant Eidolon. That is an excellent tripper but still probably inferior to a trip focussed martial (although I think the area they control is unparalleled).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner im not sure of...upon first reading it seems like once you run out of spell slots the summoner half of the summoner becomes a lot less exciting to play, Boost Eidolon helps with that and all but Its not very exciting casting boost eidolon and then giving your eidolon the rest of your actions.
This has been my observation as well.
I don't think that's necessarily an issue of wave casting though and more the way the Summoner is put together.
They get a lot of number modifiers but not a lot of new things to actually do, which means you spend a lot of the game casting cantrips and making vanilla strikes.
I would have liked to see the Summoner itself get Master in weapons (to make them feel a bit more capable on their own and to make Tandem Strike actually a viable build path) and maybe the balance of summoner feats tipped a little further toward active and less toward passive support.
One of the most important things PF2 did for martials was give them access to combat activities that alter how you engage with combat and the Summoner, despite playing a lot like a martial, basically doesn't get any of that, outside a few eidolon specific abilities like dragon's breath or beast's charge.
From the math I've done, Electric Arc/Strike/Strike is actually reasonably decent offensively, but it's also going to be pretty much the entirety of your combat routine from level 1 to level 20.
I think a summoner with 5 sorc feats for casting is a great gish, so beefing up your summoners turns over your eidelon is never too far away. Otherwise, you could just load up on eidelon feats and enjoy a unique martial with occasional magic support. I'm ok with summoner and magus being just ok because you can build them into what you wanna focus. Stock outta the gate they're just a bit of both. Thats what they should be.
I think bounded spell casting is great for the Magus. It makes perfect sense for a spell caster that focuses on using offensive/attack magic. I feel like a lot of the other 6th level casters from PF1 were more focused on casting lower level buff spells. I believe that the summoner can still spam lower level scrolls and wands for lots of buffing options as well, but is also a character that feels like it requires a lot of money for equipment.
I think bounded spell casting is great for the Magus. It makes perfect sense for a spell caster that focuses on using offensive/attack magic. I feel like a lot of the other 6th level casters from PF1 were more focused on casting lower level buff spells. I believe that the summoner can still spam lower level scrolls and wands for lots of buffing options as well, but is also a character that feels like it requires a lot of money for equipment.
I mean you probably don't want to be casting offensive magic too often with the magus anyway given their bad DCs with AoE spells and the waste of dumping a slot on something cantrips can do instead of lasting buffs or battlefield control.
That said, true strike shocking grasp (current best candidate 1-3,5+) is a pretty big alpha strike and you can just toss a whole bunch of dice at a boss which always feels good.
I think bounded spell casting is great for the Magus. It makes perfect sense for a spell caster that focuses on using offensive/attack magic. I feel like a lot of the other 6th level casters from PF1 were more focused on casting lower level buff spells. I believe that the summoner can still spam lower level scrolls and wands for lots of buffing options as well, but is also a character that feels like it requires a lot of money for equipment.I mean you probably don't want to be casting offensive magic too often with the magus anyway given their bad DCs with AoE spells and the waste of dumping a slot on something cantrips can do instead of lasting buffs or battlefield control.
That said, true strike shocking grasp (current best candidate 1-3,5+) is a pretty big alpha strike and you can just toss a whole bunch of dice at a boss which always feels good.
They use their weapon attack to land spell attack roll spells. Let someone else in the party cast the buffing spells. The Magus is a striker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am looking forward to what a gunslinger sniper with the Magus MC and spell strike can do with true strike and a ridiculous chance of criting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am looking forward to what a gunslinger sniper with the Magus MC and spell strike can do with true strike and a ridiculous chance of criting.
Don't work as you don't have access to Starlit Span as MC for ranged spellstrike.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am looking forward to what a gunslinger sniper with the Magus MC and spell strike can do with true strike and a ridiculous chance of criting.Don't work as you don't have access to Starlit Span as MC for ranged spellstrike.
Yeah, you'll have to go the other way with whatever gunslinger MC looks like.
Yeah, you'll have to go the other way with whatever gunslinger MC looks like.I am looking forward to what a gunslinger sniper with the Magus MC and spell strike can do with true strike and a ridiculous chance of criting.Don't work as you don't have access to Starlit Span as MC for ranged spellstrike.
Unless the "spell shot" Way gives Magus MC with the caveat that you treat it as if you had the Starlit Span subclass, similar to the Rogue's Eldritch Trickster giving a free MC with specific limits/tags/effects.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite the complaints, I'm pretty sure this is the best setup we'll ever get for a gish and I definitely prefer it to warpriest.
Despite the complaints, I'm pretty sure this is the best setup we'll ever get for a gish and I definitely prefer it to warpriest.
This. I may quibble on it being 4 instead of 6 but that's splitting hairs. The concept itself seems like the best compromise of getting high impact magic on a martial chassis.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly an interesting choice, and one that would honestly be really neat as purely new content. But it's really hard to say how well it fits converted PF1 content, especially since wavecasting means that PF2 gishing sits in a significantly different design space than PF1 gishing did.
PF1 gishes were mainly focused on intelligent usage of lower-level spells, typically support spells or ones that line up with a central gimmick. They were behind the curve (even if they sometimes had a few Lv.7-9 spells squashed into Lv.5-6; looking at you, Summoner), yes, but their casting complemented their core functionality rather than being a central part of it. Basically, they weren't about the power, they were about tying martial prowess to the reined-in utility and flexibility of low-level casting. PF2, thanks to its bounded accuracy on rails, does not support this type of design; this is most evident in the things HumbleGamer mentioned, Incapacitation effects and damage spells. Some support options would still be fine even if they're underleveled, but others are right out; and either way, 2/3 casting would never be even remotely capable of putting out the raw numbers of a full caster, which is extremely problematic with how tight PF2's math is.
PF2 gishes, on the other hand, have shaped up to take the other end of the magic "stick", so to speak. Since they can't have both the flexibility and the power of full casters, they throw the flexibility away and keep the power instead. Wave casting excels for this design: Your spells are always on the curve, and won't fall behind the way 2/3 casting would. But in exchange, you have a strict limitation on how both the number of spells you can cast per day, and the number of tools you can fit in your kit. This means that your damage will be on par, and your Incapacitation effects will work just fine, but you'll never be able to pop a darting duplicate if you need to eat an AoO, or toss a handful of glitterdust so you can spellstrike that Predator. Your spells will be your novas now, rather than the bag of tricks that make you so tricky to deal with in a fight. And while this is not a bad thing, it does mean that you'll have a significantly different playstyle than a PF1 gish would.
I'm still not sure myself which system I like better. I'm leaning towards 2/3 casting, though a large part of that is very likely that wavecasting is a square peg, but Magus & Summoner have round holes. I think I'll have to reserve a full decision until we get entirely new content that was explicitly designed around wavecasting, rather than content that uses wavecasting as a replacement for 2/3 casting.
[Also note that my opinion here is based in large part on armchair analysis, as I haven't really had a good chance to truly see wavecasting in action yet. I think it would feel PF1-gishier with 6 spells rather than 4, maybe two each for your top three spell levels, though I'm not sure how big of a difference that would actually make in the long term.]
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lower level spells aren't too hard to get with an MC. I think bounded casting is nice, top level spell slots means damage spells are an option, which I like in a gish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's true, but I'm trying to compare the partial casting systems directly, with as little outside mechanics (like archetypes) as possible. The gist of it is that 2/3 casting focuses on flexibility and eschews power, while wavecasting is the other way around, which is probably why these two PF1 2/3 casters feel really weird to some people when PF2 gives them wavecasting instead.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly an interesting choice, and one that would honestly be really neat as purely new content. But it's really hard to say how well it fits converted PF1 content, especially since wavecasting means that PF2 gishing sits in a significantly different design space than PF1 gishing did.
In my opinion, it's the closest conversion of PF1 Magus casting you can have (I won't speak for Summoner as I never played one).
Cantrips are your Shocking Grasps. You have a lot of them, actually, an infinite quantity, which is nice.Wave casting covers the few high level spells you were sometimes casting.
Buffs have been completely removed from PF2. And anyway, they were not very interesting per se.
And for utility, you can get a few scrolls as PF2 low level scroll cost is negligeable.
So, from my point of view, you can exactly play your PF1 Magus to the exception of all the crazy amount of buffs you were getting and that are no more a thing.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's true, but I'm trying to compare the partial casting systems directly, with as little outside mechanics (like archetypes) as possible. The gist of it is that 2/3 casting focuses on flexibility and eschews power, while wavecasting is the other way around, which is probably why these two PF1 2/3 casters feel really weird to some people when PF2 gives them wavecasting instead.
That is a false equivalence though, because actually, archetype spellcasting is a very important part of why bounded spellcasting is the shape it is, and in no way an "outside mechanic".
Before SoM the complaint about gish characters (built using archetypes) was that yeah, your fighter w/ wizard archetype could cast a pretty decent amount of buffs, and lower level spells, but they could really use blasting spells, i.e. they were about tying martial prowess to the reined-in utility and flexibility of low-level casting.
The caster archetypes are not some unrelated subsystem, they're the first draft of gish characters for PF2, with enormous flexibility to let you mix and match themes (look how many people want divine, occult, spontaneous magi already).
The archetypes are a brilliant solution, but they do have holes. Enter the design solution of bounded casting, which gives up the opposite half of spellcasting compared to the archetypes, and which extremely neatly pairs with them.
So saying that PF2 gishes are only the bounded casters, is completely missing the incredibly robust, core rulebook gish supported by the game.
We don't have only high level slots, compared to PF1s only low level slots, we have both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are an optional component you can use, vagrant-poet, not a piece of core functionality explicitly built into classes (with the exception of Eldritch Trickster, which is to my knowledge currently the only place where an archetype functions as a built-in core class feature). It is entirely possible to build a character that uses a grand total of zero archetypes, and I haven't seen anything that either builds archetypes directly into wavecasting or mandates that wavecasters explicitly require casting archetypes to work, therefore these customisation tools which are not a requirement and are not built into wavecasting or full casting as core mechanics are, in fact, outside of their core mechanics.
If you can provide evidence that wavecasting automatically gives you a casting archetype, and that wavecasting is inexorably tied to casting archetypes by built-in game mechanics, then I will accede. But otherwise, archetypes are, in fact, entirely outside of a comparison of 2/3 casting vs. wavecasting, on the grounds that they're a way to add gishiness on, and not a form of inbuilt gishiness.
-----
If anything, archetypes exist somewhere between 2/3 casting and wavecasting: Wavecasting keeps power but discards utility, and 2/3 casting keeps utility but discards power, but caster archetypes discard half of each. You don't have nearly as many options as a 2/3 caster would, but you can still choose options near the upper echelon. And you don't have as many high-level slots as wavecasting, but the low-level utility compensates. It is a viable choice for adding gishiness, but it's still an add-on and not a core mechanic used to build gishiness directly into a class, which is the role that 2/3 casting and wavecasting were both designed to fill.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can provide evidence that wavecasting automatically gives you a casting archetype, and that wavecasting is inexorably tied to casting archetypes by built-in game mechanics, then I will accede.
That's a pretty silly demand.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are an optional component you can use, vagrant-poet, not a piece of core functionality explicitly built into classes
Archetypes are a series of feats that you an get.
Class feats are a series of feats that you can get.
If archetypes are an optional component you can use, so are your class feats.
These are not uncommon, or difficult to access choices.
You are requiring that only class features count, but that's a line you're drawing in the sand, then insisting the line is the only line that matters.
You can: have no magic, have some cantrips, have archetype level casting with low level spell slots, have bounded casting with just high level spell slots, have bounded casting & archetype casting to be more or less 2/3s of a full caster, or be full caster, and hell, be a sorcerer or school wizard and have ~4 spells per spell level.
To define PF1 worked like this and PF2 works like this, and completely ignore a fair number of those available options doesn't make your argument more robust, it makes it shadowboxing with yourself.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems unreasonable to dismiss the potential impact of archetypes, since archetypes were fully established before they even started designing the magus.
The PF1 magus used a lot of spells that did (level x die size) damage. In PF2 those spells are refurbished as (spell level x die size) damage, so what a PF1 would do with having mostly low level slots, a PF2 magus would do with having mostly high level slots. Which is.. wave casting and cantrips.
The question then is how important or strong are the class feats for the summoner and magus? Can they afford to give away 5 class feats, most of which are low level, to pick up a caster archetype?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If archetypes are an optional component you can use, so are your class feats.
Well, yes, of course they are. Or more accurately, any individual class feat is optional, and so can’t be held as a core build assumption that every player of a particular class will take. Moreover, I feel Omega’s point about them not being fully integrated to class features, with class features built to make effective use of them the way magi use cantrips, is relevant.
Further, multi class archetypes allow you pick up 2 spells per level. What if instead you got 4 or 5 spells, but were limited to only getting 4th or lower? It would be a different dynamic at least, and one hard to get currently without picking up multiple MC archetypes or relying on a staff.
I think if cantrips had more utility uses, and it sounds like SoM has a couple along those lines, this would be better covered. That you’re able to integrate a staff into your magi abilities will also serve this need, I think. I’m certainly willing to play the release version to see if this feels like enough, so please don’t take my comments as criticism. I’m hopeful that a wide number of low slots (via a staff) AND a sprinkling of top slots were added, so player could choose either or both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question then is how important or strong are the class feats for the summoner and magus? Can they afford to give away 5 class feats, most of which are low level, to pick up a caster archetype?
The magus can conceivably throw away 2, 4, 8 and 10 though staff magus can't lose 4. The summoner I'd say really hates losing any of their feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... speaking as someone who does not much like daily slot-based casting, I admit that wave casting is potentially interesting, in a way that 2/3rds casting really woudln't be. It's potentially tolerable.
- A warpriest+ who had Wave Casting and harm/heal font could be interesting. Like, you actually do have a decent number of spell slots... it's just that they're all cure/harm spells.
- Magus sounds like exactly what it's supposed to be, so that's cool. You have a standard level of blade and blaze just using your cantrips, focus spells, and class features, and then you can burn your slots and go nova a limited amount every day.
- The summoner also sounds pretty interesting, as long as they can give the eidolon combat side enough tactical heft. If anything, I'd want a class archetype that would let me sell back the wave spells for more cantrips and better focus spell access, but 4/day is tolerable, especially when they're each strong enough that it's a clear case of "you pull these out when the situation warrants it". Also, that kind of a class archetype might be better suited by waiting until there were more/better focus spells and cantrips to trade *for*.
If wave casting isn't enough for you, if you crave those extra spell slots, then... stick with a full caster? That's clearly the thing that your heart wants, so let yourself play that. I mean, the whole point of hybrids is that you get a bit from column A and a bit from column B.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s unavoidable, but I think it’s a mistake to compare the PF1 version of a class to the PF2 counterpart. It’s clear and I think the designers themselves have said, that the goal with these classes is not to recreate the PF1 versions in PF2. The magus at its core was a gish and they’ve delivered that fantasy in PF2 form. It doesn’t matter what it played like in PF1 because it would never play that way in PF2 and they never intended it to (see Swashbuckler, Witch, Oracle, etc). I know that’s disappointing and upsetting to some, but it appears to be the reality of the situation.
The magus at its core was a gish and they’ve delivered that fantasy in PF2 form.Its a solid attempt. I'm hesitant to say 'delivered'. (SoM shipping joke here) That's more debatable.
Hahaha, I'm with you and hoping it arrives here soon. What I meant by deliver is that there is now a gish class in PF2. Whether it's powerful/good enough is certainly up for debate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It brings back the 5 minute adventuring day in the biggest way possible. 2 fights, even at high levels, and your spells are done, time to go to sleep.
Also wildly incompatible with the lore. All of a sudden, these magi/summoners who could cast a three dozen spells a day can cast exactly four. It's even more egregious than the break for full casters and martial was. PF2 Golarion is at this point an entirely different universe from PF1, and the same stories fundamentally cannot happen in the two due to the mechanical differences. This was promised by the devs and broken in many ways, but most egregiously here.