Magus is Awesome - Please Make Spellstrike Not Trigget Attacks of Opportunity

[The Raven Black]

Pixel Popper wrote:

Remember when it required an Interact action, and thus provoked AoO, to switch your grip for +1 AC from a weapon with the Parry trait?

Yeah. That made no sense either so they errata'd it...

I have no problem with errata should it ever come. For the time being I will go with RAW.

Did we actually have a Magus losing his spell due to AoO or are we only theorycrafting here ?

[The-Magic-Sword]

Its really not a problem, anyone who suggests ranged spellstrike is better for this reason is vastly overestimating the importance of AoO. Not only do most monsters not even have it, but even when they do:

1. You can just eat the AoO, a lot of those creatures are likely to make you take it anyway as a result of their reach being greater than yours. This is an even easier decision if you have a champion or someone else who can soften the blow with you.

2. Your friends can bait the AOO for you if you aren't the best candidate to take it, I do this a lot either to protect squishier party members, or to try and proc Mask of Terror or something.

2.5. Because other players do things that trigger AoOs, in actual play there will be many instances where the creature's reaction has already been used by the time you spellstrike, even in the first round.

3. You could technically choose to not spell strike and fight normally/use spells normally, since its so few monsters its not a meaningful overall nerf.

Ultimately, its just not that important of a thing, and its kind of nice that some mechanics have interplay with Attack of Opportunity, and that Spellstrike is a decision sometimes.

[graystone]

The Raven Black wrote:

Pixel Popper wrote:

Remember when it required an Interact action, and thus provoked AoO, to switch your grip for +1 AC from a weapon with the Parry trait?

Yeah. That made no sense either so they errata'd it...

I have no problem with errata should it ever come. For the time being I will go with RAW.

Did we actually have a Magus losing his spell due to AoO or are we only theorycrafting here ?

I don't know if "we" have, but I have. Who expects an ooze to have an AoO. Same with a Giant Scorpion. :P

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Its really not a problem, anyone who suggests ranged spellstrike is better for this reason is vastly overestimating the importance of AoO.

Avoiding AoO is just the icing on the cake. Being able to place an area spell anywhere [and in any orientation] within 100' with Expansive Spellstrike and a Taw Launcher.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Ultimately, its just not that important of a thing, and its kind of nice that some mechanics have interplay with Attack of Opportunity, and that Spellstrike is a decision sometimes.

I agree. We should make rage damage, precision edge, and fighter +2 trigger it as well, so they can play around it.

(I am just kidding, since it is hard to tell on the internet hah, but that is kind of what it feels like.)

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Squiggit wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

"I can't use my main schtick 100% of the time" is a poor outlook of a game and is bad game design for a system that set itself out to create encounters that don't promote doing the same activities in repeated succession and expecting the same outcomes.

This whole thing is based upon the supposition that changing your tactics in this case creates some new, interesting gameplay opportunities... but in these examples they really don't.

The rogue who can't sneak attack because Paizo designed a bad monster isn't doing anything new or exciting. They're the same character just arbitrarily worse. Same thing with the Magus who can't spellstrike.

You're not pulling out your super-unique and innovative anti-plant/anti-aoo toolkit. You're doing the same thing you always do but now you're bad at it and probably hoping your GM didn't put too many fights like this in the game because there's really no redeeming quality here.

Next will you tell me how fun Wizards and Sorcerers are in dead magic zones too?

They can, if the player actually bothered to prepare for those kinds of things. As I stated previously, it's a poor outlook to expect your primary feature to function 100% of the time without hiccups or caveats where it might not work, especially when those mechanics come with inherent baggage. It's a "too good to be true" fallacy. It's the reason why Full Attacks and God Wizards and so on in PF1 were done away with, because they are not flexible playstyles or prone to counterplay, where combat is won when the Initiative die is rolled.

"Oh no, I can't do anything this combat with my primary class feature, I might as well just pull out my phone and surf social media all night because the GM is being badwrongfun for throwing adversaries at me that I can't reasonably affect with my primary feature!" is basically what you're suggesting happens all the time when these kinds of things come to light.

I will if I know that I am weak in those areas. In fact, having come across several encounters with those same exact situations, I have found useful and helpful things to do that don't revolve around me casting spells. It was neat and useful and gave much more flavor and depth to the character. You should try it sometime, considering this edition actually rewards tactics and teamwork compared to just being some solo one man army in PF1.

Fun fact, I also have use despite being in an anti-magic field. Have fun figuring out how that is, because any other player would have rather quit and cry "badwrongfun" than treat it as a reasonable challenge to overcome.

[gesalt]

Now that I look at the other martials, this is definitely intentional.

Per turn action tax?
Swash regain panache
Gunslinger reload
Investigator stratagem
Magus recharge

Damage equilizer is punished?
Swash can fail to regain panache and so must lose more actions to try again. (precision for the double fail)
Slinger's non reload weapons are weak so it can't effectively leverage its +2 attack
Investigator usually needs 2 actions to attack once (also precision lol)
Barb rage increases incoming damage
Magus spellstrike can increase incoming damage and can risk losing actions on interrupt

At least one balancing point here is that magus has to keep spending actions compared to the one and done barbarian. And then it trades being sturdy and not risking total interrupt for 4-6 spells a day and only having issues with a (large) subset of enemies.

But, as always, fighter's just off to the side laughing at everyone else for having to try so hard only to be worse.

Edit: Personally I hate all the martials in this edition not named fighter, champion or monk. Meaning the classes that just function and function well without any nonsense.

[Deriven Firelion]

I think I'm going to have AoOs disappear when casting as part of magus advancement maybe with their weapon proficiency or spellcasting proficiency. Start with cantrips, then regular spells at high level used as part of a spellstrike.

[Golurkcanfly]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Its really not a problem, anyone who suggests ranged spellstrike is better for this reason is vastly overestimating the importance of AoO. Not only do most monsters not even have it, but even when they do:

1. You can just eat the AoO, a lot of those creatures are likely to make you take it anyway as a result of their reach being greater than yours. This is an even easier decision if you have a champion or someone else who can soften the blow with you.

2. Your friends can bait the AOO for you if you aren't the best candidate to take it, I do this a lot either to protect squishier party members, or to try and proc Mask of Terror or something.

2.5. Because other players do things that trigger AoOs, in actual play there will be many instances where the creature's reaction has already been used by the time you spellstrike, even in the first round.

3. You could technically choose to not spell strike and fight normally/use spells normally, since its so few monsters its not a meaningful overall nerf.

Ultimately, its just not that important of a thing, and its kind of nice that some mechanics have interplay with Attack of Opportunity, and that Spellstrike is a decision sometimes.

The choice is between being a worse version of other characters or using the feature that defines your class (which already has its own costs and balancing mechanisms)

Spellstrike is already a decision because:

- It requires recharging, which requires it's own routine

- You have to pick and choose when to go in already because you're significantly squishier than other melee combatants since you're both MAD and have less HP from your class

Then on top of that, ranged is already inherently better because it works against the other weaknesses that already exist (better action economy and assumes less risk inherently)

There does not need to be additional risk when it comes to using the defining feature of the class, especially when even at it's best, it's outclassed both in practically every way by a Fighter with a spellcasting archetype, who deals more damage without resources, doesn't need to juggle a funky action economy, has more spells per day for buffs, is more durable, and doesn't provoke AoO for performing it's expected damage abilities.

Spellstrike provoking AoO is an unnecessary element that neither encourages more tactical play (since your options without Spellstrike are ineffectual without the other abilities other classes get) nor services balance in any way. It is detrimental to both the weaker versions of the chassis as well as falls completely flat when it comes to actually fulfilling the fantasy of a warrior who skillfully blends magic and swordplay in a fluid motion.

[NerdyMedic]

Greystone wrote:

Or, here is a crazy idea, why should you have to jump through all those hoop to just use your main ability when both the fighter or Champion work fine without such hoops.

I'd say that having to follow a cause that restricted your behavior, with an anathema, would qualify as a hoop. A fighter doesn't have hoops to jump through, per se, but they have the responsibility to make themselves the target, rather than the poor wizard.

Greystone wrote:

*slow claps* Yes, we ARE talking about how spellstrike provokes AoO after all.

Spellstrike has always provoked Attacks of opportunity, even in 1st edition. But let's change the rules for this class because there might be a chance of getting getting hit when attacking with spellstrike.

Greystone wrote:

No, as I showed it is difficult to tell who does or doesn't have an AoO without metagaming: that ooze might have it or that animal, or dragon, or demon or undead, or... And with NO real guidelines for Recall Knowledge, there is no guarantee that rolling it will let you know it has an AoO so it leads you to times when there is NO real chance for planning: you have a hard time avoiding an AoO you don't know about. Well, unless you never enter melee and use your main feature. :P

There is inherent risk in any activity that involves weapons, spells, and monsters. If you are unwilling to take a small risk, for the payout of connecting with Spellstrike, maybe you are too risk averse to play a Magus. I don't know about you, but I enjoy the game much more when there is some risk involved.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

NerdyMedic wrote:

Greystone wrote:

*slow claps* Yes, we ARE talking about how spellstrike provokes AoO after all.

Spellstrike has always provoked Attacks of opportunity, even in 1st edition. But let's change the rules for this class because there might be a chance of getting getting hit when attacking with spellstrike.

First, because something did or didn't do something in 1st edition has nothing to do with balance in second edition.

Second, as others far more knowledgable than I have pointed out in this thread, by lvl 5 Magus is never going to get hit with an AoO in first edition given how defensive casting works.

[graystone]

NerdyMedic wrote:

I'd say that having to follow a cause that restricted your behavior, with an anathema, would qualify as a hoop.

Which barbarian has an anathema that restricts them in melee? Barbarian is all about the rage-melee.

NerdyMedic wrote:

A fighter doesn't have hoops to jump through, per se, but they have the responsibility to make themselves the target, rather than the poor wizard.

They don't have any such responsibility not to mention you might not even have a wizard: your worth and responsibility shouldn't be based on having another class around.

NerdyMedic wrote:

Spellstrike has always provoked Attacks of opportunity, even in 1st edition. But let's change the rules for this class because there might be a chance of getting getting hit when attacking with spellstrike.

Not really as #1 this isn't PF1 and #2 PF1 had ways to avoid it through class abilities, fighting defensively and a simple Step: as such, we aren't talking about the same defaults: one game there are built in ways to avoid AoO and the other doesn't so there are different impacts for provoking one.

NerdyMedic wrote:

There is inherent risk in any activity that involves weapons, spells, and monsters.

Sure... This one is disproportionate though: What other class risks #1 a free attack, #2 losing at minimum 1/4th your spell slots and #3 negating your Strike?

NerdyMedic wrote:

If you are unwilling to take a small risk, for the payout of connecting with Spellstrike, maybe you are too risk averse to play a Magus. I don't know about you, but I enjoy the game much more when there is some risk involved.

You and I have different ideas of small: again taking a hit, auto missing with my Strike and losing 1/4th my slots isn't a minor thing. It's not risk aversion but not liking taking random damage that I'm unlikely to be able to intuit or plan for beforehand. For me, the first time I know a creature has an AoO is when someone gets hit with one: Recall Knowledge is a mess and give almost no guidance past "useful" and I've never roll it and found out a creature had AoO. So I'm fine with danger, but that doesn't mean I don't check for traps: it's just that AoO are traps I can't detect.

[Dansome]

Your wish is granted in my games. I think it's pretty lame.

[The Raven Black]

graystone wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Pixel Popper wrote:

Remember when it required an Interact action, and thus provoked AoO, to switch your grip for +1 AC from a weapon with the Parry trait?

Yeah. That made no sense either so they errata'd it...

I have no problem with errata should it ever come. For the time being I will go with RAW.

Did we actually have a Magus losing his spell due to AoO or are we only theorycrafting here ?

I don't know if "we" have, but I have. Who expects an ooze to have an AoO. Same with a Giant Scorpion. :P

Ooch. Yes, that stings.

Which leads me to think that the problem here is about unexpected AoO opponents.

And there is a possibility that they crit your Magus who then loses one of their 4 daily spells, which definitely hurts in addition to the crit damage.

Note though that the surprise AoO could have happened to any character that moved within their Reach or cast there too.

You were unlucky that your Magus was the first to trigger the AoO. If it had been another PC, your Magus could have done their usual Spellstrike without any problem.

And I guess that on following rounds, that is what happened.

I see this however as an additional risk that comes with the additional abilities a Magus has over a Martial. Or even better over a Martial MC Caster thanks to Spellstrike.

They did not change the risk to make it specific to Spellstrike but used the preexisting frame for casting in melee. Which is best IMO.

I feel a Magus has more possibilities to lessen the risk of Crit AoO than a Martial MC Caster. I might be wrong there though.

If it is indeed overtuned, I think we will see an item later on that will mitigate this in interesting ways, like the Shadow Signet for spell attacks or the Extending rune for Animal Barbarians.

What we will not see IMO, based on such previous examples, is the AoO rule errataed from existence. I believe the devs see it as a structural element of the rules and will not erase it, but rather add some small nice element that improves life quality for melee Magus.

[The Raven Black]

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

[Deriven Firelion]

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

[graystone]

The Raven Black wrote:

Which leads me to think that the problem here is about unexpected AoO opponents.

That's a big part of it: looks alone aren't a good indicator and Recall is a crap shoot. If there was a way to be informed about an AoO beforehand, I'd feel a lot better about it.

The Raven Black wrote:

And there is a possibility that they crit your Magus who then loses one of their 4 daily spells, which definitely hurts in addition to the crit damage.

Well when I lost a spell to the scorpion it was 1 of 3. To add insult to injury, it poisoned me too.

The Raven Black wrote:

Note though that the surprise AoO could have happened to any character that moved within their Reach or cast there too.

Its not so much that they get the attack: if that was all, you're right any melee has to deal with that. It's the chance of both losing the spell and negating the Strike. It just seems needlessly mean.

The Raven Black wrote:

You were unlucky that your Magus was the first to trigger the AoO. If it had been another PC, your Magus could have done their usual Spellstrike without any problem.

Actually both myself and the barbarian had reach weapons: the only reason I triggered this time was the spellstrike.

The Raven Black wrote:

I see this however as an additional risk that comes with the additional abilities a Magus has over a Martial. Or even better over a Martial MC Caster thanks to Spellstrike.

I can't say I agree as, IMO, the additional risk doesn't seem commensurate to the reward. For instance, a fighter could Lunge with a reach weapon then electric arc, avoiding a 10' reach from a foe and out damage the magus quite easily that's using a similar weapon with a

The Raven Black wrote:

They did not change the risk to make it specific to Spellstrike but used the preexisting frame for casting in melee. Which is best IMO.

But with it, you can lose the strike too. In effect, it's like an AoO can stun you for a round and make you lose a spell which seems disproportionate as a caster could strike and cast a touch spell and that doesn't mean an AoO vs the spell could stop their strike.

The Raven Black wrote:

I feel a Magus has more possibilities to lessen the risk of Crit AoO than a Martial MC Caster. I might be wrong there though.

It seems the opposite to me: the MC Caster just ends up with a lot more spells so they can afford to blow some to avoid it while the magus is sinking 1/4th or 1/6th to do so.

The Raven Black wrote:

What we will not see IMO, based on such previous examples, is the AoO rule errataed from existence. I believe the devs see it as a structural element of the rules and will not erase it, but rather add some small nice element that improves life quality for melee Magus.

I just feel that the possibility of losing a spell when you have so little of them is pretty onerous. You get a Boss monster with an AoO and you can be pretty much out of luck the entire fight for spellstrike especially if it doesn't fall for the 'champion triggers the AoO' and waits to smack caster. It can be pretty non-fun.

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

I sidestep the issue by going ranged. If I where to rule on it, I'd at least allow a flat check to avoid losing all your actions and a spell on a crit [like Steady Spellcasting but with a better chance]: the free crit strike is bad enough IMO. Heck, I wouldn't even mind if it was a feat/ability, like PF1 Combat Casting [roll a skill concentration checks], or a feat/ability to expend Arcane Cascade to avoid it.

PS: I found Steady Spellcasting kind of lame. I took it and it never prevented anything. :(

[The Raven Black]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

[The Raven Black]

I would rule (which is allowed by the RAW BTW) that the disruption only affects the Casting a spell action part of the Spellstrike activity, so that you still get to Strike.

[Dansome]

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

Because Spellstrike is the issue.

[Deriven Firelion]

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

Because Spellstrike requires you to be in melee or within reach for creatures with reach. I don't want to force every magus into ranged combat because they are tired of being critically hit and disrupted in combat.

That's not fun. A magus whose schtick is to enter combat and spellstrike with their weapon should be able to do so without the risk of getting hammered by an extra full bonus attack along with having to suffer a full bonus attack from normal creature abilities.

Casters are ranged and purposely avoid melee combat for just this reason.

Classes should be fun to play, not punished for using their main class ability in the common way it is supposed to be used.

[GM OfAnything]

A feat like the rogue's mobility that gives the benefit that spellstriking with cantrips doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity might be welcome.

[Malfinn Eurilios]

“Metamagic: You typically can’t use metamagic with Spellstrike because metamagic requires the next action you take to be Cast a Spell, and Spellstrike is a combined activity that doesn’t qualify.”

So I’m not using the cast a spell action then how does Spellstrike tigger from manipulate?

[Golurkcanfly]

Malfinn Eurilios wrote:

“Metamagic: You typically can’t use metamagic with Spellstrike because metamagic requires the next action you take to be Cast a Spell, and Spellstrike is a combined activity that doesn’t qualify.”

So I’m not using the cast a spell action then how does Spellstrike tigger from manipulate?

Because Activities contain all their subordinate actions/activities.

Spellstrike contains Cast a Spell, which in turn contains the component actions. Somatic components have the manipulate trait, and all qualifying spells for Spellstrike without major hoop-jumping have the Somatic component.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Malfinn Eurilios wrote:

“Metamagic: You typically can’t use metamagic with Spellstrike because metamagic requires the next action you take to be Cast a Spell, and Spellstrike is a combined activity that doesn’t qualify.”

So I’m not using the cast a spell action then how does Spellstrike tigger from manipulate?

Because Activities contain all their subordinate actions/activities.

Spellstrike contains Cast a Spell, which in turn contains the component actions. Somatic components have the manipulate trait, and all qualifying spells for Spellstrike without major hoop-jumping have the Somatic component.

This is correct. One of the devs even stated that as written it does trigger AoO.

[Malfinn Eurilios]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Malfinn Eurilios wrote:

“Metamagic: You typically can’t use metamagic with Spellstrike because metamagic requires the next action you take to be Cast a Spell, and Spellstrike is a combined activity that doesn’t qualify.”

So I’m not using the cast a spell action then how does Spellstrike tigger from manipulate?

Because Activities contain all their subordinate actions/activities.

Spellstrike contains Cast a Spell, which in turn contains the component actions. Somatic components have the manipulate trait, and all qualifying spells for Spellstrike without major hoop-jumping have the Somatic component.

This is correct. One of the devs even stated that as written it does trigger AoO.

In what context? An off the cuff remark? Is it written officially? Do you have links. Because the RAW above conflicts with that.

If I can’t benefit from cast a spell activity why am I getting only the negative applications?

[Temperans]

The metamagic section of Spellstrike is basically saying, "You cannot use Spellstrike with Metamagic, because the action you are actually doing is "Spellstrike"". Spellstrike just let's you do "cast a spell" as part of its rules.

Order of operations before any feats or weirdness would be: 1 action Metamagic -> 2 action Spellstrike {Free cast a spell (provokes) -> Free strike}. If the free "cast a spell" is interrupted, Spellstrike is cancelled.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Since part of this discussion is whether a spellstrike should trigger AoO, here is a quick chart I did. It compares a magus cantrip spellstrike vs a fighter swinging a greatsword twice.

It doesn't include persistent (not sure how to get that to work) which depending how you value that (I don't value it super highly as magus doesn't crit much and it only triggers end of next turn, which it may be dead after a spellstrike crit and a full round hah) it may bump the magus spellstrike to be roughly equal.

https://imgur.com/a/yibpspK

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Hmm, I actually have a better idea how to fix the spellstrike Issue a bit, as well as make arcane cascade more useful, and keep an MC fighter from just stealing it.

How about make it part of arcane cascade? "When in arcane cascade, your spellstrikes do not have the manipulate trait?"

(I also think it should give +1 to hit with spellstrike to make it at least outpace fighter, but that is another discussion)

[Temperans]

Arcane Cascade triggers after you cast a spell. AoO triggers as you cast a spell.

That is not even counting the mind boggling wording of Arcane Cascade. Where you immediately lose it as soon as you do anything outside cast a spell. Remember the fact that some GMs decided to house rule a fix does not mean that the ability actually works by RAW.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Temperans wrote:

Arcane Cascade triggers after you cast a spell. AoO triggers as you cast a spell.

That is not even counting the mind boggling wording of Arcane Cascade. Where you immediately lose it as soon as you do anything outside cast a spell. Remember the fact that some GMs decided to house rule a fix does not mean that the ability actually works by RAW.

True. Although I don't know of any GM that enforces that strict raw interpretation (even in society) since it is clearly unintended as it makes the ability literally nonfunctional.

[The Raven Black]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

Because Spellstrike requires you to be in melee or within reach for creatures with reach. I don't want to force every magus into ranged combat because they are tired of being critically hit and disrupted in combat.

That's not fun. A magus whose schtick is to enter combat and spellstrike with their weapon should be able to do so without the risk of getting hammered by an extra full bonus attack along with having to suffer a full bonus attack from normal creature abilities.

Casters are ranged and purposely avoid melee combat for just this reason.

Classes should be fun to play, not punished for using their main class ability in the common way it is supposed to be used.

You get the same result from getting rid of the Manipulate trigger and it allows a greater variety of actions and builds that would work without triggering AoO.

Why restrict the allowance specifically to Spellstrike ? What makes it so special vs other Manipulate actions that provoke AoO ?

[Golurkcanfly]

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

Because Spellstrike requires you to be in melee or within reach for creatures with reach. I don't want to force every magus into ranged combat because they are tired of being critically hit and disrupted in combat.

That's not fun. A magus whose schtick is to enter combat and spellstrike with their weapon should be able to do so without the risk of getting hammered by an extra full bonus attack along with having to suffer a full bonus attack from normal creature abilities.

Casters are ranged and purposely avoid melee combat for just this reason.

Classes should be fun to play, not punished for using their main class ability in the common way it is supposed to be used.

You get the same result from getting rid of the Manipulate trigger and it allows a greater variety of actions and builds that would work without triggering AoO.

Why restrict the allowance specifically to Spellstrike ? What makes it so special vs other Manipulate actions that provoke AoO ?

Because Spellstrike is explicitly an ability involving a melee attack, and is the core of an entire class. In addition, a change to Spellstrike would both be simple and provide no other complications compared to reworking AoO entirely.

Meanwhile other manipulate actions are not actions you're intended to do when you're engaged such as reloading, drawing an item, drinking a potion, etc.

[The Raven Black]

And yes, I want to understand why Spellstrike specifically deserves a free get out of jail card when other similar actions do not.

And, apart from the losing your Strike too, which can be dealt with with a lighter change than Does not provoke AoO, I am not yet convinced.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

Because Spellstrike requires you to be in melee or within reach for creatures with reach. I don't want to force every magus into ranged combat because they are tired of being critically hit and disrupted in combat.

That's not fun. A magus whose schtick is to enter combat and spellstrike with their weapon should be able to do so without the risk of getting hammered by an extra full bonus attack along with having to suffer a full bonus attack from normal creature abilities.

Casters are ranged and purposely avoid melee combat for just this reason.

Classes should be fun to play, not punished for using their main class ability in the common way it is supposed to be used.

You get the same result from getting rid of the Manipulate trigger and it allows a greater variety of actions and builds that would work without triggering AoO.

Why restrict the allowance specifically to Spellstrike ? What makes it so special vs other Manipulate actions that provoke AoO ?

Its a matter of the fantasy.

Magus had the fantasy of doing magic in melee and not get hit doing so unless they mess up. Which PF2 effectively threw away by making it so they cannot avoid AoO at all unless they go ranged.

But few to no classes had/have the fantasy of manipulating things without provoking. Maybe some type of skill based chatacter, but not really anyone else.

Ex: If climbing was a manipulate action, creature with a climb speed should not get AoO just because they are climbing. But because they moved.

[HumbleGamer]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And yes, I want to understand why Spellstrike specifically deserves a free get out of jail card when other similar actions do not.

And, apart from the losing your Strike too, which can be dealt with with a lighter change than Does not provoke AoO, I am not yet convinced.

At this point, it seems that your lack of understanding is willful ignorance.

The difference between an ability whose entire premise revolves around being in melee combat being punished for being in melee combat and other abilities who are not built around the premise of melee combat is clear. Hitting someone with a magically charged sword is not at all similar to the majority of manipulate actions which would logically lower your guard, such as drinking a potion, picking up a dropped item, repairing an object, reloading a crossbow, etc.

It is not a "get out of jail free" card to have an ability actually follow its premise, especially when, as previously established, it is not a necessary balance mechanism against the feature.

To me it's the opposite.

A skill is given with pro and cons.

And you are asking for it to be different because "you" decided it has to be used with no drawbacks because enemies can have a specific reaction, or becasue "it doesn't make sense" for the class not being able to always use it.

I mean, what are we even talking about?

[Golurkcanfly]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And yes, I want to understand why Spellstrike specifically deserves a free get out of jail card when other similar actions do not.

And, apart from the losing your Strike too, which can be dealt with with a lighter change than Does not provoke AoO, I am not yet convinced.

At this point, it seems that your lack of understanding is willful ignorance.

The difference between an ability whose entire premise revolves around being in melee combat being punished for being in melee combat and other abilities who are not built around the premise of melee combat is clear. Hitting someone with a magically charged sword is not at all similar to the majority of manipulate actions which would logically lower your guard, such as drinking a potion, picking up a dropped item, repairing an object, reloading a crossbow, etc.

It is not a "get out of jail free" card to have an ability actually follow its premise, especially when, as previously established, it is not a necessary balance mechanism against the feature.

To me it's the opposite.

A skill is given with pro and cons.

And you are asking for it to be different because "you" decided it has to be used with no drawbacks because enemies can have a specific reaction, or becasue "it doesn't make sense" for the class not being able to always use it.

I mean, what are we even talking about?

That needlessly punishing a class for using it's primary feature against 30% of high level enemies is poor design and should change.

Thematically, it makes no sense for your melee combatant to provoke AoOs during their attacks AoOs are there to strike during openings, while this specialized combatant shouldn't be dropping their guard in the same way that a Fighter isn't dropping their guard when doing Power Attack.

Balance wise, it makes no sense, as the class already has multiple other balance mechanisms (action economy, recharging Spellstrike, low health total, etc.) and the strengths are not even on par with a Fighter with a Multiclass (who is more damaging, more durable, and has much more utility since they get more spells per day).

Design wise, it's poor to have the entire reason the class exists (Spellstrike) have such a glaring punishment when used in it's only possible context (as a melee attack).

In active gameplay decision-making, it does not encourage more diverse tactics other than "pretend to be a worse version of other characters" which is incredibly problematic when AoO enemies are quite common. This is unnecessary when there are already far more organic ways to encourage characters to change tactics (flying enemies, ranged enemies, resistances, etc.), rather than batting them in the face for using the tool the entire fantasy is built around.

In character building, it's actively detrimental to build variety as it heavily incentivizes Magus players to choose the Ranged Spellstrike subclass, which is already at an advantage due to a much better action economy.

The reasons to keep it as-is are insignificant compared to the reasons to change it.

[Saedar]

You keep talking about it being poor design like that's a claim you can even make without knowing what the design intent was. If you don't like the mechanic, that's fine. If you find it unsatisfying, that's fine. It isn't poor design unless it is failing its intent.

There are clearly a group of people here who think that the "punishment" isn't as bad as others. Again: that's fine.

Just understand that attacking the design without any design context is, at best, pointless or, at worst, might be personally upsetting to whoever designed the rules in question. They play PF2, too. There's some chance that maybe they see what you're posting.

[Temperans]

Just because it was intended does not stop it from being a bad design.

There are two sky scrapers that were "intended to have a concave shape". Those two buildings succeeded in having that shape. Guess what? Those two buildings great heat lasers 2 times a year hot enough to melt plastic.

Intention does not justify design. It only explains it.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Saedar wrote:

Just understand that attacking the design without any design context is, at best, pointless or, at worst, might be personally upsetting to whoever designed the rules in question. They play PF2, too. There's some chance that maybe they see what you're posting.

I don't think anyone here is attacking the designer or their design. And honestly that argument means we would never discuss a class for fear of offending someone.

The Magus designer did a ton right, I'm sure a lot better than any of us could. But now that we have had more time to play it issues have popped up. No matter how good a design, people using it always find ways to improve it or things that aren't working as they should. Feedback, and adjustments are part of design too, and good designers look for that. I mean that is why we had a playtest, which resulted in a much improved Magus.

We offer more feedback in that spirit, to fine-tune it even more.

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

Because Spellstrike requires you to be in melee or within reach for creatures with reach. I don't want to force every magus into ranged combat because they are tired of being critically hit and disrupted in combat.

That's not fun. A magus whose schtick is to enter combat and spellstrike with their weapon should be able to do so without the risk of getting hammered by an extra full bonus attack along with having to suffer a full bonus attack from normal creature abilities.

Casters are ranged and purposely avoid melee combat for just this reason.

Classes should be fun to play, not punished for using their main class ability in the common way it is supposed to be used.

You get the same result from getting rid of the Manipulate trigger and it allows a greater variety of actions and builds that would work without triggering AoO.

Why restrict the allowance specifically to Spellstrike ? What makes it so special vs other Manipulate actions that provoke AoO ?

Its a matter of the fantasy.

Magus had the fantasy of doing magic in melee and not get hit doing so unless they mess up. Which PF2 effectively threw away by making it so they cannot avoid AoO at all unless they go ranged.

But few to no classes had/have the fantasy of manipulating things without provoking. Maybe some type of skill based chatacter, but not really anyone else.

Ex: If climbing was a manipulate action, creature with a climb speed should not get AoO just because they are climbing. But because they moved.

I am note sure about the fantasy you mention. I feel you mean what the Magus could do in PF1, but TBH it does not feel like an adequate reference to me. So many PF1 references, especially Casters, have been taken down a peg or two in PF2 with good reason IMO. But maybe PF1 reference is not what you mean.

And, if you just erase AoO for Spellstrike, when does the Magus actually stand a chance to "get hit if they mess up" ?

I see a close example with the Monk who is all about moving and striking. I think some people would feel that the Monk should not trigger AoO when moving. But Monk does not have such a no-AoO ability. What they get though is a focus spell through a feat that gives them a better chance to not being hit with an AoO when they move (Ki Rush).

So, considering how rare Spellstrike being disrupted actually is, and adjudicating that only the spell is disrupted while the Strike still takes effect, I do not feel Magus has a stronger case than Monk at being immune to AoO when using their main tactic.

[The Raven Black]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And yes, I want to understand why Spellstrike specifically deserves a free get out of jail card when other similar actions do not.

And, apart from the losing your Strike too, which can be dealt with with a lighter change than Does not provoke AoO, I am not yet convinced.

At this point, it seems that your lack of understanding is willful ignorance.

The difference between an ability whose entire premise revolves around being in melee combat being punished for being in melee combat and other abilities who are not built around the premise of melee combat is clear. Hitting someone with a magically charged sword is not at all similar to the majority of manipulate actions which would not necessarily lower your guard, such as drinking a potion, picking up a dropped item, repairing an object, reloading a crossbow, etc.

It is not a "get out of jail free" card to have an ability actually follow its premise, especially when, as previously established, it is not a necessary balance mechanism against the feature.

Not agreeing with you is not necessarily "willful ignorance". It just might be seeing things differently.

[Golurkcanfly]

Saedar wrote:

You keep talking about it being poor design like that's a claim you can even make without knowing what the design intent was. If you don't like the mechanic, that's fine. If you find it unsatisfying, that's fine. It isn't poor design unless it is failing its intent.

There are clearly a group of people here who think that the "punishment" isn't as bad as others. Again: that's fine.

Just understand that attacking the design without any design context is, at best, pointless or, at worst, might be personally upsetting to whoever designed the rules in question. They play PF2, too. There's some chance that maybe they see what you're posting.

The designers now there are issues with the system. A single aspect of a single class having a rather glaring issue with it's defining feature that arises from rules interactions because the feature is a matryoshka doll of activities, which can be harder to notice during design, and then calling it out as an issue citing various reasons why it's problematic and doesn't need to be there shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.

We all know the system isn't perfect, and that's why there are calls to improve it. The designers are busy, and they can't dedicate the amount of time a group of people focusing on one aspect of one single feature can. Things slip through all the time, such as DEX vs STR Animal Companion balance, melee Investigator being horribly outclassed by ranged Investigator (action economy, damage, fragile chassis, etc.), Alchemist still having Quick Bomber as a feat instead of a feature despite being practically mandatory, etc.

And sometimes, even if something is going with the design intent, the intent is ill-fitting.

[Temperans]

Exactly CaffeinatedNinja. Any good designer will listen to feedback and try to improve their designs. It's an important part of iteration, and it's often what allows designers to fix sometimes catastrophic problems. Imagine if space engineers refused to revise designs because "they intended the rocket to do something that was clearly inefricient".

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Monk also gets a feat that gives +4 AC against AoO against moving. It actually makes them super sturdy against it (and monks are tougher than Magus) So it actually makes them really good for baiting out an AoO.

[The Raven Black]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Saedar wrote:

Just understand that attacking the design without any design context is, at best, pointless or, at worst, might be personally upsetting to whoever designed the rules in question. They play PF2, too. There's some chance that maybe they see what you're posting.

I don't think anyone here is attacking the designer or their design. And honestly that argument means we would never discuss a class for fear of offending someone.

The Magus designer did a ton right, I'm sure a lot better than any of us could. But now that we have had more time to play it issues have popped up. No matter how good a design, people using it always find ways to improve it or things that aren't working as they should. Feedback, and adjustments are part of design too, and good designers look for that. I mean that is why we had a playtest, which resulted in a much improved Magus.

We offer more feedback in that spirit, to fine-tune it even more.

That is great as long as people do not grow too attached to their chosen solution of "no AoO". Devs are interested in flaws people detect in the design. But, after that, they use their far higher system mastery to design the best solution possible which is not necessarily, and even not usually, the solution proposed by posters.

[Golurkcanfly]

The Raven Black wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Question to those who do not like Spellstrike triggering AoOs : do you completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger for AoOs or only for Spellstrike ?

And if the latter, why not completely eliminate the Manipulate trigger ?

Only spellstrike.

Why not the Manipulate trigger itself ?

Because Spellstrike requires you to be in melee or within reach for creatures with reach. I don't want to force every magus into ranged combat because they are tired of being critically hit and disrupted in combat.

That's not fun. A magus whose schtick is to enter combat and spellstrike with their weapon should be able to do so without the risk of getting hammered by an extra full bonus attack along with having to suffer a full bonus attack from normal creature abilities.

Casters are ranged and purposely avoid melee combat for just this reason.

Classes should be fun to play, not punished for using their main class ability in the common way it is supposed to be used.

You get the same result from getting rid of the Manipulate trigger and it allows a greater variety of actions and builds that would work without triggering AoO.

Why restrict the allowance specifically to Spellstrike ? What makes it so special vs other Manipulate actions that provoke AoO ?

Its a matter of the fantasy.

Magus had the fantasy of doing magic in melee and not get hit doing so unless they mess up. Which PF2 effectively threw away by making it so they cannot avoid AoO at all unless they go ranged.

But few to no classes had/have the fantasy of manipulating things without provoking. Maybe some type of skill based chatacter, but not really anyone else.

Ex: If climbing was a manipulate action, creature with a climb speed should not get AoO just because they are climbing. But because they moved.

I am note sure about the fantasy you...

About the Monk comment, the Monk *has ways* to avoid AoO that aren't character-defining, is less punished by AoO's (more health, some of the best AC in the game), and the mobility features help it work around AoOs as a tool rather than running face-first into them. The monk isn't suddenly barred from Stepping, while the Magus doesn't have ways to avoid AoOs with the feature that justifies the class's existence (Spellstrike) that aren't character-defining, such as retraining to one specific subclass.

[Golurkcanfly]

The Raven Black wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Saedar wrote:

Just understand that attacking the design without any design context is, at best, pointless or, at worst, might be personally upsetting to whoever designed the rules in question. They play PF2, too. There's some chance that maybe they see what you're posting.

I don't think anyone here is attacking the designer or their design. And honestly that argument means we would never discuss a class for fear of offending someone.

The Magus designer did a ton right, I'm sure a lot better than any of us could. But now that we have had more time to play it issues have popped up. No matter how good a design, people using it always find ways to improve it or things that aren't working as they should. Feedback, and adjustments are part of design too, and good designers look for that. I mean that is why we had a playtest, which resulted in a much improved Magus.

We offer more feedback in that spirit, to fine-tune it even more.

That is great as long as people do not grow too attached to their chosen solution of "no AoO". Devs are interested in flaws people detect in the design. But, after that, they use their far higher system mastery to design the best solution possible which is not necessarily, and even not usually, the solution proposed by posters.

The solutions proposed are mostly "play a different character," however.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

...

The fantasy I am talking about is both PF1 and every single melee Gish ever. PF2 is the first system where a Gish has to worry about getting smacked in the face because they were being a Gish.

If you don't want Magus to have a guaranteed chance to succeed give them a concentration check to avoid AoO. Just like a Monk and Swashbuckler has to make an Acrobatics check to avoid AoO. Would that be fine by you?

Also as stated, spellstrike is an activity. If one part gets disrupted, the whole thing gets disrupted. Its not a matter of "adjudicating" as if it were an weird rule interaction, but of what the actual rules say.

Also the Monk's main ability is not their mobility. It's their ability to Flurry giving them a huge action economy benefit. It just so happens that their increased speed makes then much better at abusing it than other classes to abuse the 3 action economy. Something that the Magus has no access to with their 3 action spellstrike (let's be honest its 2 actions now 1 action later).

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Temperans wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

...

The fantasy I am talking about is both PF1 and every single melee Gish ever. PF2 is the first system where a Gish has to worry about getting smacked in the face because they were being a Gish.

If you don't want Magus to have a guaranteed chance to succeed give them a concentration check to avoid AoO. Just like a Monk and Swashbuckler has to make an Acrobatics check to avoid AoO. Would that be fine by you?

Also as stated, spellstrike is an activity. If one part gets disrupted, the whole thing gets disrupted. Its not a matter of "adjudicating" as if it were an weird rule interaction, but of what the actual rules say.

Also the Monk's main ability is not their mobility. It's their ability to Flurry giving them a huge action economy benefit. It just so happens that their increased speed makes then much better at abusing it than other classes to abuse the 3 action economy. Something that the Magus has no access to with their 3 action spellstrike (let's be honest its 2 actions now 1 action later).

Plus, Magus is in a weird place. It needs to do a 2 action attack to get any damage out, and is a d8 class (Also super MAD so not much hp) This very often leaves them standing toe to toe to an enemy (move and spellstrike eats up 3 actions) Other d8 melee classes can "get in and get out" so to speak, rogue slides in stabs, leaves, monk does the same with flurry.

Eating an AoO on TOP of that, that may disrupt that entire attack Magus depends on for damage, just trying to do its less than impressive damage, is extremely harsh.

And yes, it has some spells to potentially mitigate that. But only 4 a day, and it needs those offensively too.

Frankly I think Magus needs to be a d10, it is kind of outclassed by summoner as a Gish (summoner does more damage) but that is a different discussion. I suspect spellstrike got balanced around the potential for a true strike shocking grasp sigh.