Hi, I was pondering a defender type Magus and of course I thought of that spell.
At first I considered using a staff, and then take Fused Staff and Expansive Spellstrike and I realized some things:
1- Warding Aggression doesn't have the Attack trait, despite making you do a Strike.
2- It does target a creature and implies attacking it, so it would qualify has "a harmful spell".
3- It doesn't require any save or other defenses.
The question becomes: Is Warding Aggression Compatible with (Expansive) Spellstrike ?
If yes:
-Do you end up attacking twice ? At full attack bonus ? That would be kind of strong, especially with a staff to have multiple casts of it thorough the day.
-Do you Strike only once, and just benefit from the Action economy of not turning the weapon into a staff then back into a weapon ?
If no:
-Well, it just doesn't work and you need to swap the weapon to a staff and strike with the staff as part of the spell. Or use Striker's Scroll with 2 handed weapons.
Attacking twice with no map on a full attack bonus seems ok since you are expending a spell slot.
The alternative would be using a 3d6+4 cantrip ( telekinetic Projectile ), assuming a lvl 5 magus which may deal from 2d4 to 2d12 +4
Kalaam wrote: Hi, I was pondering a defender type Magus and of course I thought of that spell.
At first I considered using a staff, and then take Fused Staff and Expansive Spellstrike and I realized some things:
1- Warding Aggression doesn't have the Attack trait, despite making you do a Strike.
2- It does target a creature and implies attacking it, so it would qualify has "a harmful spell".
3- It doesn't require any save or other defenses.
The question becomes: Is Warding Aggression Compatible with (Expansive) Spellstrike ?
If yes:
-Do you end up attacking twice ? At full attack bonus ? That would be kind of strong, especially with a staff to have multiple casts of it thorough the day.
-Do you Strike only once, and just benefit from the Action economy of not turning the weapon into a staff then back into a weapon ?
If no:
-Well, it just doesn't work and you need to swap the weapon to a staff and strike with the staff as part of the spell. Or use Striker's Scroll with 2 handed weapons.
I would allow it to work with Expansive Spellstrike personally as the effect is harmful but note the rules on Subordinate Actions:
- Subordinate Actions: An action might allow you to use a simpler action (usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469) in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action.
It would suffer MAP as the Strike is still a Strike.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
For MAP:
It doesn't have the Attack trait for the same reasons Power attack doesn't have the Attack trait:
the trait already exists within the Strike. If the spell had the attack trait, then it would actually progress MAP by 2, once for casting the spell, and once for making the Strike.
As for how it would work with expansive:
"technically" it won't, since Warding aggrssion doesn't actually have a "target" line. Although i personally think that this is an oversight since you clearly target a foe.
If your GM does allow you though:
So you do the spellstrike (advancing MAP twice) and then resolve the spell (advancing MAP). But Since you do not advance the MAP from spellstrike until AFTER the spellstrike (which does include the spell) is fully resolved, you actually will have something like 0/0/-10 MAP progression.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Warding agression is missing the "target" text in any part of the spell so it would not work with expansive spellstrike, blink charge however works and the question on how MAP works on it remains.
shroudb wrote:
As for how it would work with expansive:
"technically" it won't, since Warding aggrssion doesn't actually have a "target" line. Although i personally think that this is an oversight since you clearly target a foe.
It's not missing, it's basically the same principle as Ki Strike, it's buffing a Strike.
Spellstrike does say that the MAP doesn't increases until the Spellstrike is completed though, but yeah making it a strike and a -5 strike makes sense, if either hit, the spell would apply. I guess ?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kyrone wrote: Warding agression is missing the "target" text in any part of the spell so it would not work with expansive spellstrike, blink charge however works and the question on how MAP works on it remains. i pointed above that while it does indeed lack the traget line, it does mention that you have to target a specific foe for the spell to even work, soi think that's oversight.
But similar to what i said above, for blink charge, spellstrike says that it advances MAP by 2 but only AFTER the spellstrike is fully resolved, which happens after the spell within it is resolved.
So it shouldn't advance MAP until after the strikes are done, and then immediately advance it by "3 steps" (but 2 is the limit so /shrug)
Kalaam wrote: if either hit, the spell would apply. I guess ? No. You HAVE to hit with the 2nd attack in order for the spell to hit, since in the case of Expanisve strike the target benefits from his natural defences, in this case, his AC for every purpose of the spell.
Kyrone wrote:
It's not missing, it's basically the same principle as Ki Strike, it's buffing a Strike.
It's nothing like Ki strike:
You don't buff your strike. You HAVE to declare a Foe, and if that Foe dies, the spell ends. It clearly has a target foe and you cant do "warding strike" and then decide what to hit, unlike Ki strike where you can use it and do whatever you want afterwards.
p.s. that said, i wouldn't argue against a GM seeing it as you, seeing as RAW, the spell does lack a target line.
Yeah until further clarification it clearly is GM dependent and all interpretations are pretty valid.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kalaam wrote: Yeah until further clarification it clearly is GM dependent and all interpretations are pretty valid. Technically it doesn't work, no attack trait. And (as I previously discussed in a thread about blink charge) allowing 2 strikes at 0 MAP makes the spell rediculously, insanely good at higher levels particularly with 2 handed weapons. You would have a low level spell slot out damaging near top level spells.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I first thought it would not work because of the missing Target line. But it is IMO a harmful spell that can target a creature, so I think it fulfills the conditions of Expansive Spellstrike.
You end up attacking twice during the Spellstrike but that is the effect of the spell. And there is no reason the wording of Spellstrike on MAP would not apply.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote: I first thought it would not work because of the missing Target line. But it is IMO a harmful spell that can target a creature, so I think it fulfills the conditions of Expansive Spellstrike.
You end up attacking twice during the Spellstrike but that is the effect of the spell. And there is no reason the wording of Spellstrike on MAP would not apply.
The spell actually doesn't target a creature. It has no target line. It just allows you to make a special strike. I suspect that was quite intentional, to prevent it from being used with spellstrike.
And nowhere in spellstrike does it suggest that making ANOTHER melee strike wouldn't suffer from MAP, it just says that the one strike you make is a double MAP attack that doesn't suffere double map until after the strike.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's funny how we get two absolutely opposite take on the question back to back.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You make the Strike as part of the spell, and thus while still within the Spellstrike. Only after the Spellstrike (which includes the spell) is completed do you apply the MAP to further attacks.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: You make the Strike as part of the spell, and thus while still within the Spellstrike. Only after the Spellstrike (which includes the spell) is completed do you apply the MAP to further attacks. I think the same.
Strike + Spell combinded.
Then apply -10 map.
To think that a player has to consider subordinate actions or spell without the specific tag but that involve a strike in orde... Pretty sure it wasn't what they meant to do with spellstrike.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I mean, if we are going by RAW, it doesn't work. It doesn't target an enemy (no target line) and doesn't have an area effect. Simple as that.
And then you have to figure out, is this "too good to be true?" particularly when you are dealing with ambiguous areas (strikes as part of spells that are not really covered by the rules.)
For example, at lvl 12, a second strike (assuming no MAP) with a 1d12 weapon does 3d12+8+2d6+2 (Potency, arcane cascade, etc)
That is 36.5 damage. A lvl 5 shocking grasp does just a tiny bit more, 39, and is your -1 max level spell there. So a lvl 3 spell, is doing within a point or two of your -1 max level spell, and has all the benefits of warding aggression?
Same problem blink charge has, except it is lvl 5. These spells get REALLY REALLY good if you give them 0 MAP, and scale insanely well. To the point where I would probably fill any lower (and maybe upper spell slots) with nothing but them at higher levels.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Are they that different from a telekinetic projectile of the same level?
considering also that a telekinetic projectile doesn't expend a spell slot.
And what about comparing it to, i don't know, a polar ray?
HumbleGamer wrote: Are they that different from a telekinetic projectile of the same level?
considering also that a telekinetic projectile doesn't expend a spell slot.
And what about comparing it to, i don't know, a polar ray?
i mean... yes?
at level 12, your Telekinetic will average around 25 damage, which is around 2/3rd of the strike damage.
and polar ray, at 17, will be doing on average 45 damage+drain 2
At level 17, you should be around 3d12+3d6+15 or around 45 damage +2AC as well.
Drain 2 is obviously strongr than +2 AC, but on the other hand we are literally comparing a level 3 spell and a level 8 spell.
at lvl 17 Telekinetic Projectile will do 9d6+5, which is 37, without expending any slot.
Consuming a slot to get 45 damage ( which is forced and not always true, since you assuming a character exploiting 3x damage rune ).
These are also calculations assuming a 1d12 weapon, which is the extreme in terms of damage.
Even removing 1 alemental rune and lowering the weapon damage die by 1 would result into 7 less damage, making things equal.
I fail to see any harm unless minmaxing characters ( and even if , we are talking about 8 damage difference and a spell slot, compared to a a cantrip ).
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote: at lvl 17 Telekinetic Projectile will do 9d6+5, which is 37, without expending any slot.
Consuming a slot to get 45 damage ( which is forced and not always true, since you assuming a character exploiting 3x damage rune ).
These are also calculations assuming a 1d12 weapon, which is the extreme in terms of damage.
Even removing 1 alemental rune and lowering the weapon damage die by 1 would result into 7 less damage, making things equal.
I fail to see any harm unless minmaxing characters ( and even if , we are talking about 8 damage difference and a spell slot, compared to a a cantrip ).
Because it is that and +2ac which is insane and scales nicely the whole game. And using a big weapon with damage runes isn’t exactly min maxing.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: at lvl 17 Telekinetic Projectile will do 9d6+5, which is 37, without expending any slot.
Consuming a slot to get 45 damage ( which is forced and not always true, since you assuming a character exploiting 3x damage rune ).
These are also calculations assuming a 1d12 weapon, which is the extreme in terms of damage.
Even removing 1 alemental rune and lowering the weapon damage die by 1 would result into 7 less damage, making things equal.
I fail to see any harm unless minmaxing characters ( and even if , we are talking about 8 damage difference and a spell slot, compared to a a cantrip ).
Because it is that and +2ac which is insane and scales nicely the whole game. And using a big weapon with damage runes isn’t exactly min maxing. Ok, but using it would result in one less lvl 9 spell you can use.
The more you level up, the more the spell you have to sacrifice to get it.
Ok your magus gets a +2 ac against a specific foe.
Mine did, even assuming a simple shocking grasp, 10d12.
I'd rather call is "situational", but still fail seeing why it should be that nerfed.
ps: if the +2 ac is what bothers you, I have some good news. Everybody with trick magic item could put a warding aggression spell on his weapon, given a spellstoring rune ( which the more you proceed, the more easy to get will be ).
HumbleGamer wrote: at lvl 17 Telekinetic Projectile will do 9d6+5, which is 37, without expending any slot.
Consuming a slot to get 45 damage ( which is forced and not always true, since you assuming a character exploiting 3x damage rune ).
These are also calculations assuming a 1d12 weapon, which is the extreme in terms of damage.
Even removing 1 alemental rune and lowering the weapon damage die by 1 would result into 7 less damage, making things equal.
I fail to see any harm unless minmaxing characters ( and even if , we are talking about 8 damage difference and a spell slot, compared to a a cantrip ).
you forgot the +2 to AC for 1round -1 minute depending your rolls, which is quite a sizable buff actually.
Now, i'm not saying that it's gigabroken, as you can see above my stance is that maybe it is usable (in my games, cause RAW it is not), i simply havent made my mind about it.
As far as Blink Strike goes for example, i'm fine with it (same damage but 1 move action instead of +2 AC) but that's also a 5th level spell and not a 3rd level, and 1 extra move action is lower impact than a +2ac for up to the whole fight.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't want, It wasn't what I meant with the examples, to underestimate the +2 status ac ( after all, warding aggression is my favorite spell ).
I was just considering that the magus has just 4 spells per day ( unless dedications ), and that he wouldn't be able to spam it against different enemies.
Expending one charge for the boss fight doesn't seem a big deal, considering he will be renouncing to some extra damage.
While it's true that the higher your ac, the less the damage you take, it's also true that the sooner the enemy goes down, the better for the party.
HumbleGamer wrote: Ok, but using it would result in one less lvl 9 spell you can use.
The more you level up, the more the spell you have to sacrifice to get it.
Can't you spellstrike off of staves?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote: I don't want, It wasn't what I meant with the examples, to underestimate the +2 status ac ( after all, warding aggression is my favorite spell ).
I was just considering that the magus has just 4 spells per day ( unless dedications ), and that he wouldn't be able to spam it against different enemies.
Expending one charge for the boss fight doesn't seem a big deal, considering he will be renouncing to some extra damage.
While it's true that the higher your ac, the less the damage you take, it's also true that the sooner the enemy goes down, the better for the party.
Magus can also pic up extra spells from endless grimoire, multiclass, arcane ring. 3rd level spells will be pretty plentiful lategame.
Also scrolls as you lvl up they become cheaper and cheaper
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Ok, but using it would result in one less lvl 9 spell you can use.
The more you level up, the more the spell you have to sacrifice to get it.
Can't you spellstrike off of staves? Yes, if you have a lvl 8 feat. But Warding Aggression would have to be on a personal stave, and I don't think it has any traits that let you use it on one of those.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: I don't want, It wasn't what I meant with the examples, to underestimate the +2 status ac ( after all, warding aggression is my favorite spell ).
I was just considering that the magus has just 4 spells per day ( unless dedications ), and that he wouldn't be able to spam it against different enemies.
Expending one charge for the boss fight doesn't seem a big deal, considering he will be renouncing to some extra damage.
While it's true that the higher your ac, the less the damage you take, it's also true that the sooner the enemy goes down, the better for the party.
Magus can also pic up extra spells from endless grimoire, multiclass, arcane ring. 3rd level spells will be pretty plentiful lategame. Grimore is costy, dedications are ok since you expend a tons of feats, and as for ring of wizardry it gives "additional slots".
if you don't have any to begin with, I am not sure you'll be able to get additional ( or else a character with just a dedication would be able to throw lvl 3 and 4 spells just by getting a ring of wizardry ). Quite sure it doesn't work that way.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
After reading it, this is what I think:
1. The attack granted with the initial strike sets the bonus for the duration of the spell.
2. The strike granted by the spell is MAPless and is the inherent damage of the spell and meant to set the level of defenses the spell will grant for the duration.
3. Once the defensive level is set when initially cast and that first strike made, you must keep attacking that same target or the spell ends.
Where things get fuzzy is the spell doesn't actually target a creature as in doesn't have a Targets section on the spell.
It seems that this spell is set up so that anyone that uses it is Spellstriking because a strike is an inherent part of the spell.
I imagine the lack of a Target section on the spell will be up to the DM to interpret. I could see ruling that a strike is already an inherent part of the spell, it has no targets section on the spell, and thus you cast it and strike like a Spellstrike anyway, so it would not work with Spellstrike.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TBH I would rule it as being usable with Spellstrike, with the caveat that, if it appears unbalanced, then it was likely not supposed to work with it. And reversion of the ruling, but based on real game results.
Which you cannot get if you disallow it from the start.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Grimore is costy, dedications are ok since you expend a tons of feats, and as for ring of wizardry it gives "additional slots".
if you don't have any to begin with, I am not sure you'll be able to get additional ( or else a character with just a dedication would be able to throw lvl 3 and 4 spells just by getting a ring of wizardry ). Quite sure it doesn't work that way.
I mean, we are talking a Magus right? They don't need anything extra to use a ring of wizardry. By the time this starts becoming a real issue, 12ish, those items start getting cheap. So even if you don't take a wizard dedication (which lots do) you can have 3 lvl 3 slots easily late game for cheap as a Magus. And lvl 3 slots competing favorably with lvl 5/6/7/8 spellstrike slots is just way too good.
RAW this spell can't be used, that is actually clear. When you look at how it scales, it is clear why.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote: TBH I would rule it as being usable with Spellstrike, with the caveat that, if it appears unbalanced, then it was likely not supposed to work with it. And reversion of the ruling, but based on real game results.
Which you cannot get if you disallow it from the start.
I mean, you can look at the math on it? This isn't a complex situation where whiteroom math doesn't work. We ran some numbers previously, it is doing the same damage as spells many levels higher and giving +2 AC.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
Grimore is costy, dedications are ok since you expend a tons of feats, and as for ring of wizardry it gives "additional slots".
if you don't have any to begin with, I am not sure you'll be able to get additional ( or else a character with just a dedication would be able to throw lvl 3 and 4 spells just by getting a ring of wizardry ). Quite sure it doesn't work that way.
I mean, we are talking a Magus right? They don't need anything extra to use a ring of wizardry. By the time this starts becoming a real issue, 12ish, those items start getting cheap. So even if you don't take a wizard dedication (which lots do) you can have 3 lvl 3 slots easily late game for cheap as a Magus. And lvl 3 slots competing favorably with lvl 5/6/7/8 spellstrike slots is just way too good.
You misundertood me.
I am not saying that a magus would need a wizard dedication to use the ring of wizardry.
I am saying that a class which doesn't have lvl 1/2/3/4 spell slots ( depends the ring you want to use ) wouldn't be able to receive extra slots, since it doesn't have spell slots of that level to begin with.
Allowing any character with zero slots of that level ( magus too ) to benefit from ring of wizardry would mean that any character with a spellbook and the wizard dedication would be able to cast 2 haste and 1 freedom of movement per day.
Magus wouldn't be any different.
HumbleGamer wrote: CaffeinatedNinja wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
Grimore is costy, dedications are ok since you expend a tons of feats, and as for ring of wizardry it gives "additional slots".
if you don't have any to begin with, I am not sure you'll be able to get additional ( or else a character with just a dedication would be able to throw lvl 3 and 4 spells just by getting a ring of wizardry ). Quite sure it doesn't work that way.
I mean, we are talking a Magus right? They don't need anything extra to use a ring of wizardry. By the time this starts becoming a real issue, 12ish, those items start getting cheap. So even if you don't take a wizard dedication (which lots do) you can have 3 lvl 3 slots easily late game for cheap as a Magus. And lvl 3 slots competing favorably with lvl 5/6/7/8 spellstrike slots is just way too good.
You misundertood me.
I am not saying that a magus would need a wizard dedication to use the ring of wizardry.
I am saying that a class which doesn't have lvl 1/2/3/4 spell slots ( depends the ring you want to use ) wouldn't be able to receive extra slots, since it doesn't have spell slots of that level to begin with.
Allowing any character with zero slots of that level ( magus too ) to benefit from ring of wizardry would mean that any character with a spellbook and the wizard dedication would be able to cast 2 haste and 1 freedom of movement per day.
Magus wouldn't be any different. This was already discussed before, Rings work as intended on Magus and give them slots.
Kalaam wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: CaffeinatedNinja wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
Grimore is costy, dedications are ok since you expend a tons of feats, and as for ring of wizardry it gives "additional slots".
if you don't have any to begin with, I am not sure you'll be able to get additional ( or else a character with just a dedication would be able to throw lvl 3 and 4 spells just by getting a ring of wizardry ). Quite sure it doesn't work that way.
I mean, we are talking a Magus right? They don't need anything extra to use a ring of wizardry. By the time this starts becoming a real issue, 12ish, those items start getting cheap. So even if you don't take a wizard dedication (which lots do) you can have 3 lvl 3 slots easily late game for cheap as a Magus. And lvl 3 slots competing favorably with lvl 5/6/7/8 spellstrike slots is just way too good.
You misundertood me.
I am not saying that a magus would need a wizard dedication to use the ring of wizardry.
I am saying that a class which doesn't have lvl 1/2/3/4 spell slots ( depends the ring you want to use ) wouldn't be able to receive extra slots, since it doesn't have spell slots of that level to begin with.
Allowing any character with zero slots of that level ( magus too ) to benefit from ring of wizardry would mean that any character with a spellbook and the wizard dedication would be able to cast 2 haste and 1 freedom of movement per day.
Magus wouldn't be any different. This was already discussed before, Rings work as intended on Magus and give them slots. I remember taking part into a similar discussion, but not a clear answer.
If magus are allowed to use them, so would character with just the wizard dedication? If not, what would be the difference?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: Kalaam wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: CaffeinatedNinja wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
Grimore is costy, dedications are ok since you expend a tons of feats, and as for ring of wizardry it gives "additional slots".
if you don't have any to begin with, I am not sure you'll be able to get additional ( or else a character with just a dedication would be able to throw lvl 3 and 4 spells just by getting a ring of wizardry ). Quite sure it doesn't work that way.
I mean, we are talking a Magus right? They don't need anything extra to use a ring of wizardry. By the time this starts becoming a real issue, 12ish, those items start getting cheap. So even if you don't take a wizard dedication (which lots do) you can have 3 lvl 3 slots easily late game for cheap as a Magus. And lvl 3 slots competing favorably with lvl 5/6/7/8 spellstrike slots is just way too good.
You misundertood me.
I am not saying that a magus would need a wizard dedication to use the ring of wizardry.
I am saying that a class which doesn't have lvl 1/2/3/4 spell slots ( depends the ring you want to use ) wouldn't be able to receive extra slots, since it doesn't have spell slots of that level to begin with.
Allowing any character with zero slots of that level ( magus too ) to benefit from ring of wizardry would mean that any character with a spellbook and the wizard dedication would be able to cast 2 haste and 1 freedom of movement per day.
Magus wouldn't be any different. This was already discussed before, Rings work as intended on Magus and give them slots. I remember taking part into a similar discussion, but not a clear answer.
If magus are allowed to use them, so would character with just the wizard dedication? If not, what would be the difference? Difference is that the magus can cast spells of higher level than that and could cast those slots before.
There was confirmation on streams before, even got reported on reddit etc. Look up stuff about "What we know about the Magus" etc.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote: Sanityfaerie wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Ok, but using it would result in one less lvl 9 spell you can use.
The more you level up, the more the spell you have to sacrifice to get it.
Can't you spellstrike off of staves? Yes, if you have a lvl 8 feat. But Warding Aggression would have to be on a personal stave, and I don't think it has any traits that let you use it on one of those. Any Magus can spellstrike with a staff. The only requirement for spellstrike is that you are able to cast the spell. Casting from sources other than spell slots works just fine.
There are some feats that make this easier. Merging a staff to a more suitable weapon. Combining a scroll to your weapon so that it is more easily accessible. Things like that. But using a scroll or staff or wand that lets you use the Cast a Spell activity all works with spellstrike out of the box. You just have to have enough hands to hold everything.
Did they ever figure out the whole reaction/AOOs when spellstriking? Do you get an AoO on a magus using spellstrike?
Deriven Firelion wrote: Did they ever figure out the whole reaction/AOOs when spellstriking? Do you get an AoO on a magus using spellstrike? Yes you do. But playing through Age of Extinction so far I haven't really found that to be much of an issue yet
Riddlyn wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: Did they ever figure out the whole reaction/AOOs when spellstriking? Do you get an AoO on a magus using spellstrike? Yes you do. But playing through Age of Extinction so far I haven't really found that to be much of an issue yet Ok. So that is the same as PF1, but we don't have the concentration skill to offset it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Deriven Firelion wrote: Riddlyn wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: Did they ever figure out the whole reaction/AOOs when spellstriking? Do you get an AoO on a magus using spellstrike? Yes you do. But playing through Age of Extinction so far I haven't really found that to be much of an issue yet Ok. So that is the same as PF1, but we don't have the concentration skill to offset it. You mean a skill to retain the spell in the case that you get AoO'd and they get a critical? Yes magus can take steady spell casting to roll and not have the spell interrupted. It's a feat now and magus can get it a 4th.
Deriven Firelion wrote: Riddlyn wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: Did they ever figure out the whole reaction/AOOs when spellstriking? Do you get an AoO on a magus using spellstrike? Yes you do. But playing through Age of Extinction so far I haven't really found that to be much of an issue yet Ok. So that is the same as PF1, but we don't have the concentration skill to offset it. True, but you don't have to make any skill check at all either. AoO only disrupts the spell on a critical hit. So AC instead of concentration skill.
Also, the spellstrike action itself doesn't have any of the traits that provoke AoO, so probably only the spell is disrupted and the strike part of spellstrike still happens.
breithauptclan wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: Riddlyn wrote: Deriven Firelion wrote: Did they ever figure out the whole reaction/AOOs when spellstriking? Do you get an AoO on a magus using spellstrike? Yes you do. But playing through Age of Extinction so far I haven't really found that to be much of an issue yet Ok. So that is the same as PF1, but we don't have the concentration skill to offset it. True, but you don't have to make any skill check at all either. AoO only disrupts the spell on a critical hit. So AC instead of concentration skill.
Also, the spellstrike action itself doesn't have any of the traits that provoke AoO, so probably only the spell is disrupted and the strike part of spellstrike still happens. Yep. It's hard to disrupt a spell now. So no big deal other than the damage.
Kalaam wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Kalaam wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: CaffeinatedNinja wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
Grimore is costy, dedications are ok since you expend a tons of feats, and as for ring of wizardry it gives "additional slots".
if you don't have any to begin with, I am not sure you'll be able to get additional ( or else a character with just a dedication would be able to throw lvl 3 and 4 spells just by getting a ring of wizardry ). Quite sure it doesn't work that way.
I mean, we are talking a Magus right? They don't need anything extra to use a ring of wizardry. By the time this starts becoming a real issue, 12ish, those items start getting cheap. So even if you don't take a wizard dedication (which lots do) you can have 3 lvl 3 slots easily late game for cheap as a Magus. And lvl 3 slots competing favorably with lvl 5/6/7/8 spellstrike slots is just way too good.
You misundertood me.
I am not saying that a magus would need a wizard dedication to use the ring of wizardry.
I am saying that a class which doesn't have lvl 1/2/3/4 spell slots ( depends the ring you want to use ) wouldn't be able to receive extra slots, since it doesn't have spell slots of that level to begin with.
Allowing any character with zero slots of that level ( magus too ) to benefit from ring of wizardry would mean that any character with a spellbook and the wizard dedication would be able to cast 2 haste and 1 freedom of movement per day.
Magus wouldn't be any different. This was already discussed before, Rings work as intended on Magus and give them slots. I remember taking part into a similar discussion, but not a clear answer.
If magus are allowed to use them, so would character with just the wizard dedication? If not, what would be the difference? Difference is that the magus can cast spells of higher level than that and could cast those slots before.
There was confirmation on streams before, even got reported on reddit etc. Look up stuff... Thanks.
Just to be sure, given the reason an arcane summoner would then be able to do the same ( he'd have to deal with his 5 known spells though), wouldn't he?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yes he would, as long as you're an arcane caster rings of wizardry work for you.
A ring gives you 2 slots of X level and 1 of X-1 level (outside of the very first ring). So it's just 3 extra slots of whatever the ring's level.
Kalaam wrote: Yes he would, as long as you're an arcane caster rings of wizardry work for you.
A ring gives you 2 slots of X level and 1 of X-1 level (outside of the very first ring). So it's just 3 extra slots of whatever the ring's level.
That is nice to know. I really want to make a dragon summoner. It looks cool in my mind eye. I would have made an elemental summoner first, but they're holding that back for some later book because that's one of the most popular summoner types.
That's awesome!
Thank you very much.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Think of it like this.
The magus/summoner losing the lower level spells is like a wizard having expanded all of their level 2 and 3 spell slots. They don't have slots left, so does it means they can't use a Staff of Fire ?
CaffeinatedNinja wrote: The Raven Black wrote: TBH I would rule it as being usable with Spellstrike, with the caveat that, if it appears unbalanced, then it was likely not supposed to work with it. And reversion of the ruling, but based on real game results.
Which you cannot get if you disallow it from the start.
I mean, you can look at the math on it? This isn't a complex situation where whiteroom math doesn't work. We ran some numbers previously, it is doing the same damage as spells many levels higher and giving +2 AC. Honestly, this perplexes me a bit. the damage is just... two actions for two attacks, delayed MAP, but if you miss on the first attack you don't get to swing for the second. That's not terrible, but you can get similar effects out of martial class feats. Heck - skip the spell slot question, and keep it to the Magus. How does it do against Gouging Claw? That one you don't have to roll for the second time, and looking at it at max level, 10d6+stat for a lvl 10 gouging claw is giving you a 35+stat avg damage. 4d12+3d6+stat+6 for a major striking greataxe with greater weapon specialization and all property runes dedicated to additional damage gives you 42.5+stat... but again, Gouging Claw doesn't have to make that second attack roll. It just comes along for the ride. So, going absolute max on weapon damage, you're getting about a fifth again as much damage as gouging claw, in exchange for having to roll to hit. That... just doesn't seem all that impressive?
Am I missing something? I feel like I must be missing something.
...and sure, you have the +2 AC versus one target as long as you keep attacking them, and that's nice, but it's costing you a level 3 spell slot, and that target can always decide that they want to hit someone else instead.
What's the big deal, here?
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Am I missing something? I feel like I must be missing something.
...and sure, you have the +2 AC versus one target as long as you keep attacking them, and that's nice, but it's costing you a level 3 spell slot, and that target can always decide that they want to hit someone else instead.
What's the big deal, here?
Well, the issue is you have to CRIT fail the swing to not get your spell to go off. So probably a 1/20 chance as a martial.
Swinging twice at 0 MAP vs getting it as part of the initial hit isn't really a drawback, it actually smoothes out your damage (less spiky) as one of the other is likely to hit. Average damage would be the same.
So in your comparison, Gouging claw is doing 10d6 + stats, so 35+4 maybe. 39 lets say. Your maxed out weapon is doing 4d12 (26) + 3d6 (9.5) + Stat (6) + specialization (6) + Arcane cascade (3) = 50.5, +2AC . For a 3rd level slot that is basically free at that level.
To get that damage out of shocking grasp, you need about a 7th level spell. And you aren't getting +2ac. So Warding aggression, at lvl, 3, is doing 7th level spell damage, not even counting the +2 ac which is the real benefit of the spell.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote: Well, the issue is you have to CRIT fail the swing to not get your spell to go off. So probably a 1/20 chance as a martial.
Swinging twice at 0 MAP vs getting it as part of the initial hit isn't really a drawback, it actually smoothes out your damage (less spiky) as one of the other is likely to hit. Average damage would be the same.
So in your comparison, Gouging claw is doing 10d6 + stats, so 35+4 maybe. 39 lets say. Your maxed out weapon is doing 4d12 (26) + 3d6 (9.5) + Stat (6) + specialization (6) + Arcane cascade (3) = 50.5, +2AC . For a 3rd level slot that is basically free at that level.
To get that damage out of shocking grasp, you need about a 7th level spell. And you aren't getting +2ac. So Warding aggression, at lvl, 3, is doing 7th level spell damage, not even counting the +2 ac which is the real benefit of the spell.
Ah. I'd been reading it as "If you miss, the spell doesnt' go off, but you don't lose it. If you critfail, you lose it with no effect." That does make more sense.
That having been said... so, first, I can tell that you're not an old crusty like myself, because avg for 3d6 is 10.5, and if you'd ever had to optimize around rolling for your statline, you'd _know_ that, deep in your bones. Still, that's not exactly undermining your argument. I think that assuming Arcane Cascade on this one might be a bit much, because that thing falls apart *fast*. As far as I can tell, it falls apart when you so much as *move*. That _might_ be getting an errata at some point, but it could also be intentional. Still, even with errata, requires a bit of setup.
...and then we'll want to think about what manner of weapon you're using. If you want anything other than a non-staff two-hander, you're dealing with a damage die of d8, and your cascade-buffed 51.5 is dropping to a 43.5... or 40.5 if you don't have the cascade running at that particular moment.
The +2 AC also isn't an overall thing. It's +2 AC against a single target. So sure, if you're fighting a single enemy it can be pretty nice, but if you're up against a squad, then it's just not that big a deal... and the Magus just doesn't have a huge amount of stickiness.
I'm also not entirely convinced by your assertion that it's basically free. There's a limit to the number of spell slots you can walk into battle with for this one. People are talking about pulling them out of a staff, at which point you're effectively paying 1/3rd of a ninth-level spell for them... which is not free. Scrolls are relatively cheap, sure, and you can use Striker's Scroll to wrap one around your weapon, but that's once per fight, takes a feat, and requires 10 minutes of prep time. You could pull three of them out of a ring, and the ring in question is pretty affordable... but it's still an invested item. None of that is really "free".
|
