Bounded Spellcasting thoughts?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Ehhhh, you can Spellstrike with cantrips all day long and literally never run out.

I'm talking about leveled spells, not cantrips. If a caster is down to cantrips only they're stopping for the day.

A magus who had half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day, in addition to a bunch of weaker versions and utility spells is not recognizable in the new paradigm. This is an example of how the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
Ehhhh, you can Spellstrike with cantrips all day long and literally never run out.

I think people are underestimating how big of a deal this is for longevity. Especially at low levels. A level 1 PF1 magus is probably going to have two whole spell slots to last an entire adventuring day and after that you're stuck with arcane mark shenanigans which were pretty lame (assuming the GM let you do that, a lot of people didn't from my experience).

PF2 Magus can, straight from level 1, literally spellstrike every round of every combat for any number of encounters in a day with actual damage dealing spells, range permitting of course (but that was an even bigger issue for the PF1 magus).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

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.

Clearly, the magi/summoners who were casting a bunch of spells were taking spellcaster archetypes rather than spendign their feats elsewhere. Lore's doing fine.

It's only 5 minute adventuring day if you insist on burning your big spells every fight. That's true for full casters as well. It's just that the full casters have "high-level casting" plus "low-level casting" and the wave casters have "high-level casting" plus "moderate martial". If you say that encounters invariably require burning your high-level slots, an two per fight, then the full casters are running out pretty quick too.


Squiggit wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Ehhhh, you can Spellstrike with cantrips all day long and literally never run out.

I think people are underestimating how big of a deal this is for longevity. Especially at low levels. A level 1 PF1 magus is probably going to have two whole spell slots to last an entire adventuring day and after that you're stuck with arcane mark shenanigans which were pretty lame (assuming the GM let you do that, a lot of people didn't from my experience).

PF2 Magus can, straight from level 1, literally spellstrike every round of every combat for any number of encounters in a day with actual damage dealing spells, range permitting of course (but that was an even bigger issue for the PF1 magus).

This is something I encourage players to try on their own.

Instead of having wave casting + cantrips, just get 3 spell slots from lvl 1 to lvl 9, with the same wizard progression ( No cantrips. Otherwise those persons would be deliberately trolling ).

Then good luck managing your spells during a normal AP day ( from 5 to 7 daily encounts, each long from 4 to 6 rounds ).


nephandys wrote:
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.

There are three things needed to deliver a "fantasy":

1) What the character does.
2) How the character does it.
3) How everything is described.

The Magus delivers on "character who uses sword and magic". Fails to deliver on "character who does great despite lack of 'formal magic training'". Fails on the "diverse role" as stated in the playtest, because you are stuck to only 4 spells: As well as the "tome full of spells" because again, you are stuck with 4.

They do succeed at the description thou.


Squiggit wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Ehhhh, you can Spellstrike with cantrips all day long and literally never run out.

I think people are underestimating how big of a deal this is for longevity. Especially at low levels. A level 1 PF1 magus is probably going to have two whole spell slots to last an entire adventuring day and after that you're stuck with arcane mark shenanigans which were pretty lame (assuming the GM let you do that, a lot of people didn't from my experience).

PF2 Magus can, straight from level 1, literally spellstrike every round of every combat for any number of encounters in a day with actual damage dealing spells, range permitting of course (but that was an even bigger issue for the PF1 magus).

They can also do this while targeting basically every weakness by level 2 if they so choose, rather than being stuck with a single damaging spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Ehhhh, you can Spellstrike with cantrips all day long and literally never run out.

I think people are underestimating how big of a deal this is for longevity. Especially at low levels. A level 1 PF1 magus is probably going to have two whole spell slots to last an entire adventuring day and after that you're stuck with arcane mark shenanigans which were pretty lame (assuming the GM let you do that, a lot of people didn't from my experience).

PF2 Magus can, straight from level 1, literally spellstrike every round of every combat for any number of encounters in a day with actual damage dealing spells, range permitting of course (but that was an even bigger issue for the PF1 magus).

This is a bit irrelevant. PF1 Magus didn't get Spellstrike until lv3, as the big draw was Spell Combat.

Regardless the number of spells grew in quantity over the levels. While PF2 just stays at 4, a few more highly restricted, isn't much in the grand scheme of things. Which does affect play style a great amount.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

I'm talking about leveled spells, not cantrips. If a caster is down to cantrips only they're stopping for the day.

A magus who had half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day, in addition to a bunch of weaker versions and utility spells is not recognizable in the new paradigm. This is an example of how the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist.

THIS. Although I personally preferred multi touch spells, instead of shocking grasp.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Temperans wrote:

There are three things needed to deliver a "fantasy":

1) What the character does.
2) How the character does it.
3) How everything is described.

The Magus delivers on "character who uses sword and magic". Fails to deliver on "character who does great despite lack of 'formal magic training'". Fails on the "diverse role" as stated in the playtest, because you are stuck to only 4 spells: As well as the "tome full of spells" because again, you are stuck with 4.

They do succeed at the description thou.

There aren't 3 things needed to deliver the fantasy of a gish. All that's needed is a class that has a combination of marshal and spellcasting capabilities. Since the magus is 'a character who uses sword and magic' they have delivered on that fantasy. Criteria 2 and 3 are things you've pulled from PF1 or other games and could be representative of a gish but are not core to the concept/definition.

Temperans wrote:

This is a bit irrelevant. PF1 Magus didn't get Spellstrike until lv3, as the big draw was Spell Combat.

Regardless the number of spells grew in quantity over the levels. While PF2 just stays at 4, a few more highly restricted, isn't much in the grand scheme of things. Which does affect play style a great amount.

If it was irrelevant there wouldn't be repeated comparisons in this thread between the PF1 and PF2 versions of the class. Reference spellstrike, spell combat, whatever you want my suggestion was there's no point in comparing PF1 to PF2 magus because their intent was never to deliver the PF1 magus in the PF2 system. That was never going to happen.

That doesn't mean you have to like the PF2 magus. It doesn't mean the PF2 magus is good. However, the fact that it doesn't compare to the PF1 magus doesn't factor into that because this is not PF1 and was never meant to be.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Will this discussion fall to trolling? Is there really a need to answer someone who says that "the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist" because the magus doesn't have "half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day"?

I'd prefer to go back to the original discussion, even if most of it has already been answered.


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

Will this discussion fall to trolling? Is there really a need to answer someone who says that "the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist" because the magus doesn't have "half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day"?

I'd prefer to go back to the original discussion, even if most of it has already been answered.

Yeah, a super specific mechanical construct within a prior edition of the class is SO FAR from being a "story" that the argument isn't worth considering.

Even I, who is a bit bummed by wave casting, recognize that the vast majority of the *actual* Magus "stories" can be told simply with a Wizard dip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think if you're saying "if I can only use cantrips for doing damage, I'm not very useful to the party" you're sort of missing the point of scaling cantrips in PF2.

When the book comes out I'd like to see "spellstriking with only cantrips" compared to various martial damage progressions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Will this discussion fall to trolling? Is there really a need to answer someone who says that "the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist" because the magus doesn't have "half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day"?

I'd prefer to go back to the original discussion, even if most of it has already been answered.

Yeah, a super specific mechanical construct within a prior edition of the class is SO FAR from being a "story" that the argument isn't worth considering.

Even I, who is a bit bummed by wave casting, recognize that the vast majority of the *actual* Magus "stories" can be told simply with a Wizard dip.

I mean it's a detour from this topic but magic is certainly less reality defining than in 1st edition. Thematically from an action movie standpoint magus had moved from having a lot of fire and particle effect glittering over their swords to being more like a regular fighter with an outlaw star Castergun that they pull out for the occasional dramatic moment considerably less magical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think if you're saying "if I can only use cantrips for doing damage, I'm not very useful to the party" you're sort of missing the point of scaling cantrips in PF2.

When the book comes out I'd like to see "spellstriking with only cantrips" compared to various martial damage progressions.

I've only seen some theorycraft so far, but magus looks competitive only if they never need to move (or has haste) and can recharge every turn. The moment they lose a spellstrike turn you're better off with other martials. I'm sure someone will draw up a proper chart for it soon enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Will this discussion fall to trolling? Is there really a need to answer someone who says that "the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist" because the magus doesn't have "half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day"?

I'd prefer to go back to the original discussion, even if most of it has already been answered.

Yeah, a super specific mechanical construct within a prior edition of the class is SO FAR from being a "story" that the argument isn't worth considering.

Even I, who is a bit bummed by wave casting, recognize that the vast majority of the *actual* Magus "stories" can be told simply with a Wizard dip.

I mean it's a detour from this topic but magic is certainly less reality defining than in 1st edition. Thematically from an action movie standpoint magus had moved from having a lot of fire and particle effect glittering over their swords to being more like a regular fighter with an outlaw star Castergun that they pull out for the occasional dramatic moment considerably less magical.

Exactly this.

And mechanics are the basis of any good story. The number and effects of abilities a character can throw around is integral to their story.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Will this discussion fall to trolling? Is there really a need to answer someone who says that "the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist" because the magus doesn't have "half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day"?

I'd prefer to go back to the original discussion, even if most of it has already been answered.

Yeah, a super specific mechanical construct within a prior edition of the class is SO FAR from being a "story" that the argument isn't worth considering.

Even I, who is a bit bummed by wave casting, recognize that the vast majority of the *actual* Magus "stories" can be told simply with a Wizard dip.

I mean it's a detour from this topic but magic is certainly less reality defining than in 1st edition. Thematically from an action movie standpoint magus had moved from having a lot of fire and particle effect glittering over their swords to being more like a regular fighter with an outlaw star Castergun that they pull out for the occasional dramatic moment considerably less magical.

Exactly this.

And mechanics are the basis of any good story. The number and effects of abilities a character can throw around is integral to their story.

And here's me thinking that narrative and character were the basis of any good story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Will this discussion fall to trolling? Is there really a need to answer someone who says that "the same stories cannot be told and the same characters cannot exist" because the magus doesn't have "half a dozen intensified empowered maximized dazing shocking grasps a day"?

I'd prefer to go back to the original discussion, even if most of it has already been answered.

Yeah, a super specific mechanical construct within a prior edition of the class is SO FAR from being a "story" that the argument isn't worth considering.

Even I, who is a bit bummed by wave casting, recognize that the vast majority of the *actual* Magus "stories" can be told simply with a Wizard dip.

I mean it's a detour from this topic but magic is certainly less reality defining than in 1st edition. Thematically from an action movie standpoint magus had moved from having a lot of fire and particle effect glittering over their swords to being more like a regular fighter with an outlaw star Castergun that they pull out for the occasional dramatic moment considerably less magical.

Exactly this.

And mechanics are the basis of any good story. The number and effects of abilities a character can throw around is integral to their story.

And here's me thinking that narrative and character were the basis of any good story.

I'd rate them second. For example, if healing potions are a thing and a character dies to suit the narrative while their best friend is sitting right next to them with a potion that could heal them, that's a problem, and it ruins the entire story even if it's otherwise very well told.

Getting back to the original topic though, wave casting feels far, far too limiting. Summoners are martial with less tricks, and magi are either archery turrets or get ruined by action economy.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

Exactly this.

And mechanics are the basis of any good story. The number and effects of abilities a character can throw around is integral to their story.

Fundamentally, though, that ship sailed long ago.

- No one is piling up an enormous stack of buff spells anymore
- Only the most powerful of heroes has any way to fly of indefinite duration
- Minion builds in general are far less effective.
- Martial characters continue to be meaningful and improtant contributors even when warring agaisnt gods (or whatever else your'e doing at lvl 20).
- Any of the classes/power-sources you might have brought over from 3.x are just *gone*.
- The incapacitation rules alone have a pretty profound effect on spellcasters and what they can and cannot do from a practical standpoint.
- The fact that cantrips and focus spells exist as a thing. The fact that *refocusing* exists as a thing. Suddenly, adventurers have started taking ten-minute breaks after every fight. Why?
- The whole runes thing for magic weapons and armor is dramatically different than it used to be.
- Shields shatter far more often in combat now, and anyone who's serious abotu using a shield is also constantly repairing the shield they have.
- ...and so on.

Yes. It's true. They made a decision to not support all of the same abilities mechanically. That's true. They made that decision from the beginning and haven't flinched, and it's a better game for it. The fact that the Magus techniques of this generation tend to focus on cantrips, focus spells, and a small number of powerful spell, rather than focusing on a moderate-to-large number of intermediate spells... isn't even really one of the *big* changes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

Archetypes may be able to fill a similar role if you squeeze them in, but they function as a way of tacking gishiness onto martials, and not as a means of building gishiness directly into a class as a core feature. If they were intended to fill the same design space, then the Magus would have been designed to build a casting archetype in automatically, and give you its spellcasting benefit feats automatically; needless to say, this is not the case.

Or in other words, archetypes are a viable means of turning a non-gish class into a gish, yes, but they are outside the bounds of a comparison of features specifically built into actual gish classes to enable gishiness, on the grounds that they are not features specifically built into actual gish classes to enable gishiness. Shocking, I'm sure. ;P

Squiggit wrote:
Omega Metroid wrote:
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.

Yes, yes it is. And it's even sillier that so many people seem to think that archetypes are core class features and exist in the same design space as core class features, forcing me to make it.

vagrant-poet wrote:
Omega Metroid wrote:
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.

Yes, and you don't need to spend class feats to get wavecasting either, right? I am comparing casting mechanics that are built directly into classes, and archetypes (which are sets of class & skill feats outside of your actual class, which you have the option of choosing, but are not required to choose) are, as you are hopefully aware, not built into classes (with, to my knowledge the sole exception of the Eldritch Trickster).

vagrant-poet wrote:
If archetypes are an optional component you can use, so are your class feats.

Except, class feats are actually built into your class, as a core feature. Again, archetypes are not. Fighters gain a class feat at Lv.1 and every even level, for example; they don't have the option of choosing whether they want to gain a feat slot at even levels, they just get them.

Unless you are comparing to individual class feats themselves and not to the "class feats" core feature that allows you to choose individual feats, in which case you are correct. Aggressive Block is exactly as optional as, say, Wizard Dedication: Both are options which you are allowed to place in a Lv.2 or higher class feat slot, if you desire to do so. Neither is a core feature directly granted by your class; you don't get either one automatically, and neither is intended to be one of the Fighter's primary, most defining mechanics. And that is why they're not part of my comparison, because it is explicitly a comparison of mechanics which are core features directly granted by your class, which you do get automatically, and which are intended to be one of your primary, most defining mechanics.

vagrant-poet wrote:
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.

Why, yes. When comparing casting systems directly built into classes as core features, I do draw a line to bar optional subsystems which are not casting systems directly built into classes as core features, because an orange should never be entered in a "best apple" contest. That's how comparisons work, I'm... honestly not sure why I need to explain this.

I will put this in the simplest terms possible: I am comparing a core feature which is directly built into specific classes in PF1, with a core feature which is directly built into specific classes in PF2. I am comparing these two features because the one in PF2 appears to be meant as a replacement for the one in PF1, in the role of "a core feature which is directly built into specific classes". I am not comparing to optional systems which can be tacked onto any class you want, as those are not meant to be core features built directly into specific classes. I really don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Ascalaphus wrote:
It seems unreasonable to dismiss the potential impact of archetypes, since archetypes were fully established before they even started designing the magus.

Actually, it's unreasonable to think that archetypes fit in a comparison of a core class feature from PF1 and its replacement in PF2, yet a lot of people seem to think exactly that. I don't know how many times I need to say this, but archetypes are, in fact, not core features built into classes. Archetypes are, in fact, not a mechanic used by Paizo to build spellcasting into classes which are designed to be gishes. Archetypes are, in fact, not designed with specific intent of being the primary means of casting for classes which were built from the ground up to be partial casters. And yet, most people here seem to think exactly that, for some bizarre reason.

---------------

sherlock1701 wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
And here's me thinking that narrative and character were the basis of any good story.
I'd rate them second. For example, if healing potions are a thing and a character dies to suit the narrative while their best friend is sitting right next to them with a potion that could heal them, that's a problem, and it ruins the entire story even if it's otherwise very well told.

Ah, yes, the infamous "give Aerith a Phoenix Down" problem.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Yes. It's true. They made a decision to not support all of the same abilities mechanically. That's true. They made that decision from the beginning and haven't flinched, and it's a better game for it.

Its certainly a different game for it.

Wayfinders

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Omega Metroid wrote:

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

These things probably shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. The wealth of options provided by class feats (including archetypes) is a built-in feature of every class in PF2, while in PF1 your class features were far more defining on their own. Comparing the basic chassis is almost always going to favour the PF1 equivalent, because the basic chassis was a lot more of what you did as a character. Fighters being the obvious exception.

I don't think that the reason that people are mentioning the archetype feats is because they fail to understand you. Rather, it may be because the games have different assumptions, and because those assumptions require a different perspective on what a class is and what its core features provide to you. The full package of the Magus Class in PF1 is simply not equivalent to the featless chassis of the Magus Class in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nitro~Nina wrote:
Omega Metroid wrote:

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

These things probably shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. The wealth of options provided by class feats (including archetypes) is a built-in feature of every class in PF2, while in PF1 your class features were far more defining on their own. Comparing the basic chassis is almost always going to favour the PF1 equivalent, because the basic chassis was a lot more of what you did as a character. Fighters being the obvious exception.

I don't think that the reason that people are mentioning the archetype feats is because they fail to understand you. Rather, it may be because the games have different assumptions, and because those assumptions require a different perspective on what a class is and what its core features provide to you. The full package of the Magus Class in PF1 is simply not equivalent to the featless chassis of the Magus Class in PF2.

It's more a fact that what is being compared is PF2 classes by themselves without feats. Because "of course feats will change things". Just like you wouldn't ever think that to make an actual Wizard you would need to multiclass Sorcerer.

You should not need to multiclass Wizard to make an actual Magus.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:
Omega Metroid wrote:

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

These things probably shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. The wealth of options provided by class feats (including archetypes) is a built-in feature of every class in PF2, while in PF1 your class features were far more defining on their own. Comparing the basic chassis is almost always going to favour the PF1 equivalent, because the basic chassis was a lot more of what you did as a character. Fighters being the obvious exception.

I don't think that the reason that people are mentioning the archetype feats is because they fail to understand you. Rather, it may be because the games have different assumptions, and because those assumptions require a different perspective on what a class is and what its core features provide to you. The full package of the Magus Class in PF1 is simply not equivalent to the featless chassis of the Magus Class in PF2.

It's more a fact that what is being compared is PF2 classes by themselves without feats. Because "of course feats will change things". Just like you wouldn't ever think that to make an actual Wizard you would need to multiclass Sorcerer.

You should not need to multiclass Wizard to make an actual Magus.

You don't. Refusal to divorce oneself from comparing 1e to 2e is what leads to that impression. If it doesn't fit your mold of what the class should be that's a you issue. Magus are a gish that ends up with master proficiency in every combat skill, weapons,armor, and spellcasting.


Riddlyn wrote:
You don't. Refusal to divorce oneself from comparing 1e to 2e is what leads to that impression. If it doesn't fit your mold of what the class should be that's a you...

...

Seriously that is your response? Talk about gatekeeping.

Yep it's not like my arguments are based entirely on what the "Magus" is supposed to be. Nope clearly the "Magus" is not a:

Gish class that is able to merge their mastery of combat and low level spells to create a unique blend of fighting that maximizes their actions. Mixing in utility, defenses, maneuvers, and magic for an honestly unique class.

But no you are fine with: "Magus" is a gish that is all about going dealing good damage 4 times a day and then falling back on cantrips. With no real utility, and being hamstrung by a forced action economy to try keeping up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

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.

That's not how I play PF2. I use my cantrips a lot to conserve on leveled spells when they are needed. In PF1 attack cantrips were useless other than to acid splash a troll to stop regeneration. In PF2 cantrips are a very useful attack spell to mix in to your attack routine. With a cantrip and a bow or ranged weapon, I can do quite good damage round to round mixing in a bigger spell here and there when needed. PF2 was built with the idea you would use cantrips often.

That means the magus was built to use cantrips as its primary spell strike spell.

Wayfinders

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:
Omega Metroid wrote:

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

These things probably shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. The wealth of options provided by class feats (including archetypes) is a built-in feature of every class in PF2, while in PF1 your class features were far more defining on their own. Comparing the basic chassis is almost always going to favour the PF1 equivalent, because the basic chassis was a lot more of what you did as a character. Fighters being the obvious exception.

I don't think that the reason that people are mentioning the archetype feats is because they fail to understand you. Rather, it may be because the games have different assumptions, and because those assumptions require a different perspective on what a class is and what its core features provide to you. The full package of the Magus Class in PF1 is simply not equivalent to the featless chassis of the Magus Class in PF2.

It's more a fact that what is being compared is PF2 classes by themselves without feats. Because "of course feats will change things". Just like you wouldn't ever think that to make an actual Wizard you would need to multiclass Sorcerer.

You should not need to multiclass Wizard to make an actual Magus.

You don't. You have the option to multiclass Wizard if you want to play a low-casting Magus with a variety of levelled options like you might expect from PF1, but that's not the base assumption of what a Magus is in PF2. The option is there as part of the class, and can be considered when it comes to determining which concepts the PF2 Magus allows you to represent, but being able to cast scaling elemental cantrips through your magicked-up sword is pretty much the core of the theme of the class on its own.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You can make an interesting Magus from what I have read so far with a lot of different concepts.

You can incorporate a lot of weaknesses into cantrips. If you get Adapted Cantrip, you can work in a positive energy or a alignment damage cantrip into your list to strike with very early on.

Not sure how the mechanics change the story. Class mechanics are only a small part of their story. PF2 allows a lot of customization for the visual aspect of storytelling.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:


It's more a fact that what is being compared is PF2 classes by themselves without feats. Because "of course feats will change things". Just like you wouldn't ever think that to make an actual Wizard you would need to multiclass Sorcerer.

But feats are an indelible part of the equation. To ignore those is to ignore a fundamental part of the system.

It's like saying PF1 Wizards suck because you don't want to include spells in your assessment.

Quote:
You should not need to multiclass Wizard to make an actual Magus.

You don't, but if your complaint is a lack of spells... there's an option. Regardles of whether or not some people want to arbitrarily say it doesn't ocunt.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This debate taught me to never base your character on exact quantifiable mechanics as such traits will inevitably be swept away on an edition change...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

The change to spell strike makes magus with cantrips really powerful. Just telekinetic projectile will pretty quickly outpace sneak attack and not require actions to set it up. Using high level spells to do damage, getting the benefit of item bonuses, and having access to truestrike through multiple paths is going to significantly better than a full caster can manage damage wise. Bounded spell casting works out really well for the magus.

It is only really the summoner that I’m not really sure about. I guess cantrip +2 pet attacks comes out comparably damage wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

The change to spell strike makes magus with cantrips really powerful. Just telekinetic projectile will pretty quickly outpace sneak attack and not require actions to set it up. Using high level spells to do damage, getting the benefit of item bonuses, and having access to truestrike through multiple paths is going to significantly better than a full caster can manage damage wise. Bounded spell casting works out really well for the magus.

It is only really the summoner that I’m not really sure about. I guess cantrip +2 pet attacks comes out comparably damage wise.

But still ten percent worse than a fighter with eldritch shot


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
siegfriedliner wrote:
Unicore wrote:

The change to spell strike makes magus with cantrips really powerful. Just telekinetic projectile will pretty quickly outpace sneak attack and not require actions to set it up. Using high level spells to do damage, getting the benefit of item bonuses, and having access to truestrike through multiple paths is going to significantly better than a full caster can manage damage wise. Bounded spell casting works out really well for the magus.

It is only really the summoner that I’m not really sure about. I guess cantrip +2 pet attacks comes out comparably damage wise.

But still ten percent worse than a fighter with eldritch shot

So we are bringing archetypes and feats back into picture? Not to mention that fighter is spending 3 actions, while the magus is probably getting a second attack in with their stance activated, possibly one that recharges your spell strike.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Nitro~Nina wrote:
Omega Metroid wrote:

I... don't know why so many people find it so hard to understand that I'm comparing two core features built directly into classes that are explicitly intended to be partial casters as their primary means of casting, and that archetypes (a set of generic class & skill feats which you have the option of choosing, which are not directly built into classes (apart from Elritch Trickster Rogue), and which are not meant to be the primary means of casting for classes (entire classes, not individual characters) which were explicitly designed to be partial casters) do not fit that description.

These things probably shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. The wealth of options provided by class feats (including archetypes) is a built-in feature of every class in PF2, while in PF1 your class features were far more defining on their own. Comparing the basic chassis is almost always going to favour the PF1 equivalent, because the basic chassis was a lot more of what you did as a character. Fighters being the obvious exception.

I don't think that the reason that people are mentioning the archetype feats is because they fail to understand you. Rather, it may be because the games have different assumptions, and because those assumptions require a different perspective on what a class is and what its core features provide to you. The full package of the Magus Class in PF1 is simply not equivalent to the featless chassis of the Magus Class in PF2.

Agreed ,the really cool thing about how wave casting intersects with archetype spellcasting, is that you can flavor your gish to taste-- Magus has the minimum it needs, which is the high end spell slots other martials can't get and the other mechanics that combine magic with hitting things (Arcane Cascade and Conflux Spells) so if you want more magic, I don't think its unreasonable to assert that its more a matter of taste and therefore can be happily shunted off to archetypes, while I think such archetypes are a strong option (probably intentionally so) for the Magus, I don't think they're essential for the class to do well.


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

I Like wave-casting I do sort of wish it was 6 slots (2 of the top 3, or maybe 3 of the top 2?) But I think it works, especially for the Magus. The Summoner also can build to essentially having more spells as well via the evolution feats which I think works well. Tbh Its not so much the amount of spell slots, but the amount of spells known for the summoner I wish we got more then 5.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's why I think staves are really interesting for wave casters. Pick a staff not because it has only one spell you like and plan to spam; aim to pick a staff with three or four options you want to have.


Ascalaphus wrote:
That's why I think staves are really interesting for wave casters. Pick a staff not because it has only one spell you like and plan to spam; aim to pick a staff with three or four options you want to have.

Does the book spell out what is an "appropriate level" for staves? IE, can wave casters actually use spells from staves that are of a level they can no longer cast?

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
That's why I think staves are really interesting for wave casters. Pick a staff not because it has only one spell you like and plan to spam; aim to pick a staff with three or four options you want to have.
Does the book spell out what is an "appropriate level" for staves? IE, can wave casters actually use spells from staves that are of a level they can no longer cast?

"able to cast spells of the appropriate level"

It seems quite clear to me that, unless there is a specific rule to trump this general one, you have to be able to cast the spell. But maybe Heightening is the RAW way to go around this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
That's why I think staves are really interesting for wave casters. Pick a staff not because it has only one spell you like and plan to spam; aim to pick a staff with three or four options you want to have.
Does the book spell out what is an "appropriate level" for staves? IE, can wave casters actually use spells from staves that are of a level they can no longer cast?

"able to cast spells of the appropriate level"

It seems quite clear to me that, unless there is a specific rule to trump this general one, you have to be able to cast the spell. But maybe Heightening is the RAW way to go around this.

It's from the CRB, so I think it wasn't something meant to deal with wave spellcasters.

The only thing left is spontaneous spellcasters, who are unable to cast the proper spell of a specific level if they don't take it as a signature spell or at a specific level.

For example, a sorcerer might have the circle of protection as a lvl 3 spell, and not able to cast the appropriate spell from a staff which contains the lvl 4 circle of protection spell.

Since we are talking about two classes that only have their high level spell slots, seems normal that if they know a spell they are able to cast it at the highest level they can, and because so the lower versions too ( lvl 4 circle of protection using a lvl 9 slot, for example).

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

"Appropriate" is not a defined game term, and "of exactly this level" and "or this level or higher" both seem to be perfectly valid candidates for how to interpret it.

I would argue that the way the rules in SoM are presented, particularly the staff magus and the personal staff rules, imply strongly that the book was written with the understanding that a magus can make reliable, regular use of staves throughout most of their career (excepting only the very early levels).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
The only thing left is spontaneous spellcasters, who are unable to cast the proper spell of a specific level if they don't take it as a signature spell or at a specific level.

in the playtest, the summoner specifically noted that all their spells were signature spells. Is that still the case?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
The only thing left is spontaneous spellcasters, who are unable to cast the proper spell of a specific level if they don't take it as a signature spell or at a specific level.
in the playtest, the summoner specifically noted that all their spells were signature spells. Is that still the case?

Yes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

The wording of the Magus Arcane spellcasting feature makes it clear that you may only have spell slots of your two highest spell levels, but you can cast spells up to the highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots. You never lose the ability to cast lower level spells, you just don't have spell slots for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

The summoner is in a similar, but slightly more confusing boat. You absolutely can gain spells to your repertoire of lower level than you have slots for. You don't get slots to cast them though so you have to make them a signature spell to be able to cast from slots. However, if you were a divine summoner and you picked up spells from your deity, for example, then you would be able to cast those spells from a staff even if you didn't have lower level spell slots of the same level as the spell.

It looks like their fix of the staff issue for both classes was to specify that as you gain levels, the highest level of spells you can cast goes up, and separately, you gain and lose spell slots.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping the staff issue will get cleared up with an FAQ on the CRB, since that's where the problem lives. It just happens to pop up again with wave casting, but that's not the first time. I recall a rules discussion about whether a L5 wizard with cleric multiclass capable of L1 divine spells would be able to use a L3 divine spell from a staff due to a creative interpretation of "able to cast spells of the appropriate level".

My belief is that the new casters are intended to be able to use staves normally, not in a hamstrung way.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with Unicore.

Having read the Magus and player one session with Twisting Tree, I don’t think a Casting Archetype is ‘mandatory’.

I think adding a caster archetype is just an option. The class also has other ways to get more slots.

- It has Striker’s scroll at level 4, which lets the Magus use a scroll to spellstrike with its spell as if it were a talisman;

- Fused staff at level 8 to meld their weapon with a magical staff (and cast the spells from the staff in its weapon form as part of spellstrike)

- Unless I’m wrong, there’s nothing keeping Magi from using rings of wizardry and wands

That is to say that the class hardly feels like it is supposed to get every spell slot possible. It has several good feats that could work as well as an archetype.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I was incredibly skeptical of the changes to spell strike from the playtest to new class, and I am still not sure I fully understand how Expansive spellstrike, the feat that lets magi cast saving throw spells, works.

It says that creatures use their normal defenses, such as saving throws. At first I thought that meant that you had to combine an attack roll and then they make a saving throw, turning all saving throw spells into worse versions of disintegrate. However, after reading it a couple more times, I am starting to think that you roll your attack roll, but compare the attack to their saving throw as the defense for the roll. If that is the case, it is a good feat and all my skepticism about the class go away. The wording is kinda strange though so I am hoping that gets talked about more /explained with FAQ or in live streams.

If the feat does keep saving throw spells with only one roll to succeed, and gets to use the weapon attack roll for that roll, then Magi can really make powerful use of their spell slots in ways that other full casters can only dream of, and those 4 slots that they get with top level spells are going to be novas every single time.

If the feat means that you make an attack roll, and then they make a saving throw, with no additional benefit from doing well on the attack roll, then the feat is dead in the water. Casting fireball out of your sword is cool, but if the spell doesn't go off if you critically miss, and all you get from combining it with a spell strike is the opportunity to also do weapon damage to 1 target of the spell, the feat is essentially a trap. Especially when used with single target saving throw spells.

In which case the Magus is really only ever going to want to put 4 attack roll spells into their spell slots and pretty much never use lower level spell slots for spell striking anyway, as cantrips pretty well keep up with what lower level spell slot spell attack roll spells can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Expansive Spellstrike is pretty simple.

The Strike part is as normal, you hit you Strike.

The Spell part is slightly different. The spell goes off so long as you don't Crit Fail your Strike. So long as that doesn't happen the spell goes off as normal (they roll saves.) Otherwise the only difference is on how you generate AoEs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I'm hoping the staff issue will get cleared up with an FAQ on the CRB, since that's where the problem lives.

I was hoping that the new book would have made a specific notation as the question came up in the playtest.

Ascalaphus wrote:
My belief is that the new casters are intended to be able to use staves normally, not in a hamstrung way.

I would hope so but I had 2 DM's during the playtest that read "able to cast spells of the appropriate level" to mean 'has spell slots of that level' and it's hard to argue that that read of "appropriate" was wrong.

Unicore wrote:
It looks like their fix of the staff issue for both classes was to specify that as you gain levels, the highest level of spells you can cast goes up, and separately, you gain and lose spell slots.

I'll have to look at the exact wording on wednesday to see it it looks well enough worded to prevent issues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The expansive spellstrike is mainly action economy cheat, as it let you strike and cast a spell together with 2 actions and then you recharge it with your focus spells.

And also enable a style that some people find cool or interesting, like striking someone and then a Lightning bolt goes out and hit the main target and also the enemy behind it.

It does have some fun interactions with Strikers Scroll feat and the Fuse Staff as Magus can put lower lvl but useful spells on them to spellstrike with it, like having a grease scroll on the weapon and then spell striking to damage the creature and at the same time creating a grease puddle to trip it and the enemy adjacent to it or an earth staff with shockwaves.

It's just a fun feat to enable a new way of combining martial and spellcasting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It is a little weird given how much people were confused about staves during the playtest that they didn't outline the intention more explicitly. Paizo hasn't hesitated to use reminder text before and this might have been a good place.

Expansive Spellstrike I think is tripping some people up because it's not really spellstrike. Other than the clause about losing your spell on a crit fail, your strike and the spell don't depend on each other or interact.

It's more like PF1 Spell Combat, where you just get to attack and cast a spell at the same time.

I do find it odd that AoE spells basically work normally, but multitarget spells don't. I'm not sure what abuse they're trying to prevent by letting Lightning Bolt work normally but heightened fear gets its target cap reduced.

101 to 150 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Bounded Spellcasting thoughts? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.