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

[Aristophanes]

First of all, let me say that I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm not particularly interested in playing a Magus. But I have read the entire thread, and I have a question for those who think spellstrike should provoke: Do you believe if it didn't, that the Magus would be too strong? Or are you afraid it might set a bad precedent regarding spell casting and AsoO?

I guess I just haven't yet seen a convincing argument in favor of keeping provoking.

[HumbleGamer]

Aristophanes wrote:

First of all, let me say that I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm not particularly interested in playing a Magus. But I have read the entire thread, and I have a question for those who think spellstrike should provoke: Do you believe if it didn't, that the Magus would be too strong? Or are you afraid it might set a bad precedent regarding spell casting and AsoO?

I guess I just haven't yet seen a convincing argument in favor of keeping provoking.

To me it's about 2e mechanics.

- Spellstrikes provokes because of the cast a spell secondary activity
- Eldritch shot provokes because of either interact and cast a spell activity
- Touch spell provokes because of casting spell activity
- etc

If they were to remove it from the spellstrike, then it something they'd have to remove from all these activities ( I am not against a total revision of some spellcasting activities, but the I am against just allowing the magus to benefit from a specific treatment ).

Currently, a magus is no different from an eldritch trickster using produce flame while flanking ( or benefitting from gang up ) his enemies.

Actually, the only difference is that the magus would use STR/DEX regardless the fact he's using spellstrike or not, while an eldritch trickster would have to increase either his spellcasting stat ( as main stat ) as well as STR or DEX ( to deliver physical blows ).

Apart from that, couldn't find a single encounter with an overwhelming numbers of enemies with AoO in either AoA / EC ( lvl 1-12 ), but I am looking forward to see how impactful is the AoO at higher levels ( since those who complaint about it are right about the fact that there's an increase of enemies at those levels ).

[littlebattler]

I see no reason why spellstrike cannot be a special case where casting as part of it does not provoke. It's fine for class specific mechanics to be a bit special, after all if they're not allowed to be then why not just play a classless system?

[Golurkcanfly]

HumbleGamer wrote:

If they were to remove it from the spellstrike, then it something they'd have to remove from all these activities ( I am not against a total revision of some spellcasting activities, but the I am against just allowing the magus to benefit from a specific treatment ).

Currently, a magus is no different from an eldritch trickster using produce flame while flanking ( or benefitting from gang up ) his enemies.

Given that the crux of the Magus (Spellstrike) is built entirely on casting spells while in melee to use as a melee attack while the Eldritch Trickster is built upon simply having spells to support traditional Rogue gameplay, then yes, it is wildly different.

And yes, other abilities intended to be used as melee attacks also should not provoke, such as touch spell attacks and the Inventor's Distracting Explosion. However, this whataboutism is not bringing anything new to the discussion.

[HumbleGamer]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

If they were to remove it from the spellstrike, then it something they'd have to remove from all these activities ( I am not against a total revision of some spellcasting activities, but the I am against just allowing the magus to benefit from a specific treatment ).

Currently, a magus is no different from an eldritch trickster using produce flame while flanking ( or benefitting from gang up ) his enemies.

Given that the crux of the Magus (Spellstrike) is built entirely on casting spells while in melee to use as a melee attack while the Eldritch Trickster is built upon simply having spells to support traditional Rogue gameplay, then yes, it is wildly different.

And yes, other abilities intended to be used as melee attacks also should not provoke, such as touch spell attacks and the Inventor's Distracting Explosion. However, this whataboutism is not bringing anything new to the discussion.

It's definitely not.

Not only their chance to hit is worse because they have to increase as their main one the spellcasting one, but also comes at a huge feat and skill expense ( legendary skill + lvl 12 and lvl 18 class feat ).

And kicks in 1 level late ( 12 rather than 11 and 18 rather than 17 ).

lvl 1-4 rogue would be 1 behind all other martials ( because 16 dex and 18 int, for exampel ). lvl 10-14 would be 1 behind again, and by lvl 17-19 would be 1 behind again because of the apex item. By lvl 20 would be 2 points behind.

Not being able to aknowledge that a magus is in a better spot than an eldritch trickster is kinda bad, eh...

[Golurkcanfly]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

If they were to remove it from the spellstrike, then it something they'd have to remove from all these activities ( I am not against a total revision of some spellcasting activities, but the I am against just allowing the magus to benefit from a specific treatment ).

Currently, a magus is no different from an eldritch trickster using produce flame while flanking ( or benefitting from gang up ) his enemies.

Given that the crux of the Magus (Spellstrike) is built entirely on casting spells while in melee to use as a melee attack while the Eldritch Trickster is built upon simply having spells to support traditional Rogue gameplay, then yes, it is wildly different.

And yes, other abilities intended to be used as melee attacks also should not provoke, such as touch spell attacks and the Inventor's Distracting Explosion. However, this whataboutism is not bringing anything new to the discussion.

It's definitely not.

Not only their chance to hit is worse because they have to increase as their main one the spellcasting one, but also comes at a huge feat and skill expense ( legendary skill + lvl 12 and lvl 18 class feat ).

And kicks in 1 level late ( 12 rather than 11 and 18 rather than 17 ).

lvl 1-4 rogue would be 1 behind all other martials ( because 16 dex and 18 int, for exampel ). lvl 10-14 would be 1 behind again, and by lvl 17-19 would be 1 behind again because of the apex item. By lvl 20 would be 2 points behind.

Not being able to aknowledge that a magus is in a better spot than an eldritch trickster is kinda bad, eh...

I'm not sure you read the response.

The crux of the Magus (Spellstriking) revolves around casting spells in melee to make melee attacks.

The crux of the Eldritch Trickster is that it is a Rogue who gets spellcasting to support being a better Rogue. It is not built around casting spells in melee to make melee attacks. It is built around doing normal Rogue things, but with spellcasting utility support.

These are two entirely different ideas. The latter can be punished for doing something, but it isn't what the purpose of the option is for. The former is inherently punished for doing the single mechanic the entire class is built around. If Spellstrike did not exist, there would be no need for the Magus to exist whatsoever. It is the single feature that defines the class compared to multiclass options.

[HumbleGamer]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

If they were to remove it from the spellstrike, then it something they'd have to remove from all these activities ( I am not against a total revision of some spellcasting activities, but the I am against just allowing the magus to benefit from a specific treatment ).

Currently, a magus is no different from an eldritch trickster using produce flame while flanking ( or benefitting from gang up ) his enemies.

Given that the crux of the Magus (Spellstrike) is built entirely on casting spells while in melee to use as a melee attack while the Eldritch Trickster is built upon simply having spells to support traditional Rogue gameplay, then yes, it is wildly different.

And yes, other abilities intended to be used as melee attacks also should not provoke, such as touch spell attacks and the Inventor's Distracting Explosion. However, this whataboutism is not bringing anything new to the discussion.

It's definitely not.

Not only their chance to hit is worse because they have to increase as their main one the spellcasting one, but also comes at a huge feat and skill expense ( legendary skill + lvl 12 and lvl 18 class feat ).

And kicks in 1 level late ( 12 rather than 11 and 18 rather than 17 ).

lvl 1-4 rogue would be 1 behind all other martials ( because 16 dex and 18 int, for exampel ). lvl 10-14 would be 1 behind again, and by lvl 17-19 would be 1 behind again because of the apex item. By lvl 20 would be 2 points behind.

Not being able to aknowledge that a magus is in a better spot than an eldritch trickster is kinda bad, eh...

I'm not sure you read the response.

The crux of the Magus (Spellstriking) revolves around casting spells in melee to make melee attacks.

The crux of the Eldritch Trickster is that it is a Rogue who gets spellcasting to support being a better Rogue. It is not built around casting spells in melee to make melee attacks. It is built around doing normal Rogue things, but with...

I did read it, but you somehow decided to extrapolate the "spellcaster dedication" from the rogue class itsef, while it has a whole racket based on it.

That's quite the issue.
Pretending the eldritch trickster racket is something meant to "enhance" the "basic rogue?", while it's something meant to provide a total different approach.

The eldritch trickster is no different from a magus, just because it's not an "option" like you said, but a racket based on the spellcasting which synergize with the sneak attack feature.

So I am not sure what your point, making a comparison with the magus, may be:

The rogue has the "option" not to choose the eldritch trickster racket?
Or maybe, to also relying on his underwhelming melee/ranged proficiency?

[Golurkcanfly]

The Eldritch Trickster isn't about using spellcasting to make melee attacks.

It is about grabbing a smattering of spells for free to supplement your Roguish abilities. It grabs you a dedication feat. That is all.

It is not based upon any sort of core feature that involves you casting spells while actively engaged in melee combat. It certainly can access a feat to add Sneak Attack damage to your spells, but it is neither the central crux of the Eldritch Trickster nor actually requires you to be in melee to activate it. While being in melee can certainly help make a target flat-footed, you are not bound to melee by character creation.

Meanwhile, the core feature of the Magus, the entire reason the class exists in the first place is directly and immutably punished by this monster ability that becomes increasingly common at higher levels. The punishment adds nothing, exacerbates existing weaknesses of the class (action economy and squishiness), and actively works against the fantasy the entire class is trying to sell.

[HumbleGamer]

Man, the eldritch trickster goes with the spellcaster stat as his main one.

He positionates himself in order to deliver a cantrip + sneak attack.

Because so he will:

- be using spellcasting not "for free supplement" but as his main attack option.

- Resulting 1 point behind all other martials when it comes to deal physical damage. Assuming his secondary stat would be 16 DEX or STR since level one .

I don't really understand why you are still claiming an eldritch trickster would simply use his spells for "supplement" rather than "main purpose".

Are you expecting an eldritch trickster to start with 18 DEX?

[Golurkcanfly]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Man, the eldritch trickster goes with the spellcaster stat as his main one.

He positionates himself in order to deliver a cantrip + sneak attack.

Because so he will:

- be using spellcasting not "for free supplement" but as his main attack option.

- Resulting 1 point behind all other martials when it comes to deal physical damage. Assuming his secondary stat would be 16 DEX or STR since level one .

I don't really understand why you are still claiming an eldritch trickster would simply use his spells for "supplement" rather than "main purpose".

Are you expecting an eldritch trickster to start with 18 DEX?

You are aware the Eldritch Trickster has DEX or the spellcasting stat as the Key Ability Score, right?

You are aware that even without the spellcasting, of which Eldritch Trickster only provides cantrips, is on top of being just as good of a Rogue as everyone else, right?

You are aware that the Eldritch Trickster, even with investment into spellcasting stats, was never meant to be a spell attacker, right? They get Archetype proficiency scaling.

You are aware that it is no different than any other martial simply taking a multiclass dedication, right?

[CaffeinatedNinja]

I think perhaps this discussion has run it’s course. Let’s not get the thread locked arguing please.

I think we have established that eldritch trickster has an issue or two, but that doesn’t weight on the magus discussion.

A lot of discussions seem to get sidelined that way.

[HumbleGamer]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think perhaps this discussion has run it’s course. Let’s not get the thread locked arguing please.

I think we have established that eldritch trickster has an issue or two, but that doesn’t weight on the magus discussion.

A lot of discussions seem to get sidelined that way.

Actually, it was part of my response to Aristophanes who claimed

Quote:

I guess I just haven't yet seen a convincing argument in favor of keeping provoking.

I mean, to answer that, I had to specify that I am not against revising the whole rules about triggering AoO, but that sticking with the spellstrike rather than facing the "cast a spell" as a whole it's imo not the best approach we can get.

Back to the spellstrike, does anyone have already finished some of paizo AP ( 4/5/6 book )?

To better explain myself, while it's true that on the bestiary there are more enemies with AoO at higher levels, it's not granted that the encounters on paizo AP would give tons of them ( or even only combatants with AoO in a single encounter ).

This to consider the eventuality that a DM, regardless the level, a DM has to make balanced encounters.

[Pixel Popper]

HumbleGamer wrote:

It's since the beginning of the page you are addressing the eldritch trickster as a a character which has the possibility to choose to drop his spellcasting stat, while it's meant to deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature.

Uh... Eldritch Trickster gives earlier access to Magical Trickster. That is all. It does not get the Magical Trickster ability to "deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature" as part of the Racket (not like Thief getting Dex to damage or Scoundrel getting an improvement to feint). It only gets a free spellcaster multiclass dedication feat.

Eldritch Tricksters still must spend a class feat to "deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature," but they get access to it earlier. Therefore, it a stretch to assign intent that the Eldritch Trickster is "meant to deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature.

[HumbleGamer]

Pixel Popper wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

It's since the beginning of the page you are addressing the eldritch trickster as a a character which has the possibility to choose to drop his spellcasting stat, while it's meant to deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature.

Uh... Eldritch Trickster gives earlier access to Magical Trickster. That is all. It does not get the Magical Trickster ability to "deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature" as part of the Racket (not like Thief getting Dex to damage or Scoundrel getting an improvement to feint). It only gets a free spellcaster multiclass dedication feat.

Eldritch Tricksters still must spend a class feat to "deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature," but they get access to it earlier. Therefore, it a stretch to assign intent that the Eldritch Trickster is "meant to deliver spells which benefit from the sneak attack feature.

It gives also the possibility to invest in the main spellcasting stat, resulting in +1 hit with spells ( and -1 hit with melee strikes ).

It would be like playing the alchemist in terms of melee/ranged proficiency, or a halfway between a fighter taking the wizard dedication ( in terms of spellcasting DC ) and a bounding spellcaster.

Pretty neat difference in this 2e even with +1 ( or -1 ), leaving apart the eldritch trickster is somebody who's going to deliver spells which also trigger sneak attack ( couldn't find, until now, anybody willingfully taking that racket and increasing DEX, or simply don't using it as main attack ).

[Temperans]

Getting casting defensively for all spells would be great and I 100% support it. But I do not believe Paizo would ever do it without requiring a feat tax. It is considerably easier for Paizo to errata Spellstrike to give it that ability. Just like they did with a large portion of Alchemist to fix it.

Also yeah Eldritch Trickster Rogue is not really mean to be "the best at dealing damage with magic". Their whole stick is being incredibly flexible having plenty of mundane and magical options. The feat that let's them add Sneak Attack with spell attacks just brings the magical part closer to the martial part. It does not require melee, does not ask for melee, and it does not require that you spend extra actions to use that feat.

A Magus' Spellstrike by default requires melee. 80%-90% of the feats are based on you spellstriking in melee. It requires an extra action just to "reload" the ability. So yeah it matters a lot if Magus Spellstrike can provoke. Just like it matters a lot of Champion reactions can provoke and be interrupted. Just like it matters a lot if Monk Flurry can be interrupted.

Do notice that Magus is the only class where doing your main thing that everything you do is based off of as intended can get you attacked for free.

[Deriven Firelion]

gesalt wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Oh well, so your solution for an eldritch trickster is

"The eldritch trickster can go DEX rather than INT/WIS/CHAR. It's different!"

You should have said it before!
I was the bad one who played it not in the proper way.

Here's the solution to you all eldritch trickster:

Don't play it properly and go DEX.
After all, it's nothing else but some cantrips in addition to your stabbing the enemies with a knife.

The solution to eldritch trickster is to use half a brain and realize that if full casters with proper proficiency scaling can't land spell attacks without true strike you have no business attempting it as a mere dedication caster. Recognize it as the trap option that it is and avoid it.

Too true. One of my players tried to build an eldritch trickster. Worked ok when everyone was trained. They hit 7th level and moved up to expert, he asked to change to Thief shortly after. The Eldritch Trickster is an increasingly bad option as you gain levels due to the way PF2 MC casters work.

Maybe with a Shadow Signet ring it would have been slightly better. But it was a terrible option using MC casting attack rolls to hit.

The only advantage was being able to sneak attack at range, which wasn't offset by the lower attack roll as you leveled up.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Back to the spellstrike, does anyone have already finished some of paizo AP ( 4/5/6 book )?

I believe I covered this in the original post, but here are some numbers.

Age of AshesBook 4 - 29% of enemies of AoO

Book 5 - 23 % of enemies

Book 6 - 38%!

ExC (This one has less, fewer trained foes)

Book 4 - 19%

Book 5 - 19.5%

Book 6 15% (That is deceptive though, because a LOT of the big bad enemies have it. that and over 20% of the enemies have a stupify melee range aura that is going to mess with magus too hah)

My GM warned me book 2 of FotRP has a TON of AoO too.

[Golurkcanfly]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Back to the spellstrike, does anyone have already finished some of paizo AP ( 4/5/6 book )?

I believe I covered this in the original post, but here are some numbers.

Age of AshesBook 4 - 29% of enemies of AoO

Book 5 - 23 % of enemies

Book 6 - 38%!

ExC (This one has less, fewer trained foes)

Book 4 - 19%

Book 5 - 19.5%

Book 6 15% (That is deceptive though, because a LOT of the big bad enemies have it. that and over 20% of the enemies have a stupify melee range aura that is going to mess with magus too hah)

And this is on top of all the ways high level enemies have to disrupt the melee Magus's rather delicate action economy. It ain't great.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Back to the spellstrike, does anyone have already finished some of paizo AP ( 4/5/6 book )?

I believe I covered this in the original post, but here are some numbers.

Age of AshesBook 4 - 29% of enemies of AoO

Book 5 - 23 % of enemies

Book 6 - 38%!

ExC (This one has less, fewer trained foes)

Book 4 - 19%

Book 5 - 19.5%

Book 6 15% (That is deceptive though, because a LOT of the big bad enemies have it. that and over 20% of the enemies have a stupify melee range aura that is going to mess with magus too hah)

And this is on top of all the ways high level enemies have to disrupt the melee Magus's rather delicate action economy. It ain't great.

Ughm, yeah. So many grabs/throws/trips/other reactions in melee range.

You name it. Problem is magus is doing miserable damage without spellstrike once you exhaust the focus abilities (like round 2) so you NEED spellstrike to do decent damage. If Magus's damage game when he wasn't spellstriking was better it might be less of an issue.

[beowulf99]

Aristophanes wrote:

First of all, let me say that I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm not particularly interested in playing a Magus. But I have read the entire thread, and I have a question for those who think spellstrike should provoke: Do you believe if it didn't, that the Magus would be too strong? Or are you afraid it might set a bad precedent regarding spell casting and AsoO?

I guess I just haven't yet seen a convincing argument in favor of keeping provoking.

Partially I do think it would elevate Magus a bit too high honestly. I suppose there is a case to be made that the melee spellcaster should have some defense against AoO, that I won't dispute. And I don't think that Steady Spellcasting is a good enough option. But I don't think that it should be baked into the class by default. To me, Spellstrike is plenty strong enough.

I just don't see the big deal about AoO's. At the highest rates given as evidence in the thread, not even 40% of enemies in a given AP have it. In my experience, if there is a foe who has a decent shot at getting that crit on their AoO, it's probably a high level single threat boss, or at least there won't be that many other enemies about. And if that is the case, their attention will be spread between the Magus and the rest of the Party. It is hardly ever a 1v1 affair. Sometimes the Magus will catch the bad end of the stick. But if that's the case, the rest of the party will be free to do what they are doing.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

You name it. Problem is magus is doing miserable damage without spellstrike once you exhaust the focus abilities (like round 2) so you NEED spellstrike to do decent damage. If Magus's damage game when he wasn't spellstriking was better it might be less of an issue.

Miserable Damage? A Magus is still a martial, and can still swing their weapon. Arcane Cascade is an extra 1-3 damage that an equivalent fighter can't get. They have easy access to self buffs like Draw the Lightning and True Strike.

I have no complaints about a Magus dealing damage without spellstrike honestly. Spellstrike just gives them a bit more oomph while dodging MAP.

[aobst128]

Is this discussion about wether or not spellstrike does provoke or wether or not it should provoke?

[beowulf99]

aobst128 wrote:

Is this discussion about wether or not spellstrike does provoke or wether or not it should provoke?

Whether or not it should as far as I know, since it does provoke as long as the spell you are casting has a manipulate action involved.

[HumbleGamer]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Back to the spellstrike, does anyone have already finished some of paizo AP ( 4/5/6 book )?

I believe I covered this in the original post, but here are some numbers.

Age of AshesBook 4 - 29% of enemies of AoO

Book 5 - 23 % of enemies

Book 6 - 38%!

ExC (This one has less, fewer trained foes)

Book 4 - 19%

Book 5 - 19.5%

Book 6 15% (That is deceptive though, because a LOT of the big bad enemies have it. that and over 20% of the enemies have a stupify melee range aura that is going to mess with magus too hah)

My GM warned me book 2 of FotRP has a TON of AoO too.

I meant "how many enemies per encounter have AoO".

Resulting in "Is a magus able to deal with enemies without AoO during the majority of combats?".

I am more interesting in how are specific encounter balanced around AoO rather than the percentages ( 20% could mean 1 enemy out of 5 during a single encounter, while 25% 1 out of4 during a single one. Which would be no harm for the magus. But it could also mean an encounter with 4 enemies with AoO and then 3 encounter without a single enemy with AoO).

[aobst128]

I think spellstrike is fine as is, although I wouldn't be surprised or angry if they change it to not provoke. You're probably fine for most of the time. Just sucks when you're fighting a boss with aoo

[Golurkcanfly]

beowulf99 wrote:

Aristophanes wrote:

First of all, let me say that I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm not particularly interested in playing a Magus. But I have read the entire thread, and I have a question for those who think spellstrike should provoke: Do you believe if it didn't, that the Magus would be too strong? Or are you afraid it might set a bad precedent regarding spell casting and AsoO?

I guess I just haven't yet seen a convincing argument in favor of keeping provoking.

Partially I do think it would elevate Magus a bit too high honestly. I suppose there is a case to be made that the melee spellcaster should have some defense against AoO, that I won't dispute. And I don't think that Steady Spellcasting is a good enough option. But I don't think that it should be baked into the class by default. To me, Spellstrike is plenty strong enough.

I just don't see the big deal about AoO's. At the highest rates given as evidence in the thread, not even 40% of enemies in a given AP have it. In my experience, if there is a foe who has a decent shot at getting that crit on their AoO, it's probably a high level single threat boss, or at least there won't be that many other enemies about. And if that is the case, their attention will be spread between the Magus and the rest of the Party. It is hardly ever a 1v1 affair. Sometimes the Magus will catch the bad end of the stick. But if that's the case, the rest of the party will be free to do what they are doing.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

You name it. Problem is magus is doing miserable damage without spellstrike once you exhaust the focus abilities (like round 2) so you NEED spellstrike to do decent damage. If Magus's damage game when he wasn't spellstriking was better it might be less of an issue.

Miserable Damage? A Magus is still a martial, and can still swing their weapon. Arcane Cascade is an extra 1-3 damage that an equivalent fighter can't get. They have easy access to self buffs like Draw the Lightning and True Strike.

I have no complaints...

A martial with no damage booster is behind literally every other martial.

That 1-3 damage is made up by greater weapon specialization alone.

Not to mention the greater accuracy, feats that contribute much more to DPR, and a whole host of other bits that the Fighter doesn't get smacked for using.

On top of other benefits from the chassis.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I am more interesting in how are specific encounter balanced around AoO rather than the percentages ( 20% could mean 1 enemy out of 5 during a single encounter, while 25% 1 out of4 during a single one. Which would be no harm for the magus. But it could also mean an encounter with 4 enemies with AoO and then 3 encounter without a single enemy with AoO).

Don't quote me on exact numbers here, but from what I recall it was usually 1 big monster (sometimes accompanied by others, usually the big one that has it though) or groups were half to all the group had AoO.

Just from the way Paizo tends to group a bunch of the same enemies together in a fight. I know some of the fights were all AoO creatures, sigh.

[aobst128]

You'll still have a decent amount of options even when you're not spellstriking. A good buff spell will go a long way to help your damage output against aoo creatures.

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

You'll still have a decent amount of options even when you're not spellstriking. A good buff spell will go a long way to help your damage output against aoo creatures.

It gets 6 spells per day (2 of which are from a tiny list), and a bit of multiclassing from the Fighter gets more spells while having higher damage output than a fully feat'd out Magus. It's not enough to make up for their non-spellstrike damage, especially when the class already needs to spend an action to recharge the Spellstrike and has other issues.

Especially when higher level slots aren't that great for buffs and you want quantity over quality when this issue is at it's worst.

Provoking AoO is just not necessary. It's just a kick in the teeth on top of other, more interesting weaknesses the Magus has.

Plus, even with Spellstrike under optimal conditions it's not ahead by any means.

[beowulf99]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

A martial with no damage booster is behind literally every other martial.

That 1-3 damage is made up by greater weapon specialization alone.

Not to mention the greater accuracy, feats that contribute much more to DPR, and a whole host of other bits that the Fighter doesn't get smacked for using.

On top of other benefits from the chassis.

The Magus gets greater weapon specialization at 15, just the like the Fighter does, and they get +3 from Cascade at that point.

The Magus has access to a whole host of spells that can also contribute to dpr.

The only thing a Fighter has on a Magus damage wise is weapon training, the same thing they have on all the other martial classes.

The Magus then has Spellstrike to bump their damage and bypass MAP, and access to spells. Especially support spells.

I personally feel like it is a wash.

[Deriven Firelion]

I still think it comes down to whether or not a core class feature the Magus is built around becomes a serious issue disrupting player enjoyment of the class. If Magus end up fighting a bunch of AoO capable enemies that make their class feature nearly unusable in the most important boss fights, then it will require a change.

Using spellstrike in melee is the core class feature the Magus class is built around. If using it is painful, then the Magus will suck.

[Golurkcanfly]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

A martial with no damage booster is behind literally every other martial.

That 1-3 damage is made up by greater weapon specialization alone.

Not to mention the greater accuracy, feats that contribute much more to DPR, and a whole host of other bits that the Fighter doesn't get smacked for using.

On top of other benefits from the chassis.

The Magus gets greater weapon specialization at 15, just the like the Fighter does, and they get +3 from Cascade at that point.

The Magus has access to a whole host of spells that can also contribute to dpr.

The only thing a Fighter has on a Magus damage wise is weapon training, the same thing they have on all the other martial classes.

The Magus then has Spellstrike to bump their damage and bypass MAP, and access to spells. Especially support spells.

I personally feel like it is a wash.

1) The way specialization improves with proficiency provides the Fighter with an equivalent damage boost

2) The spells it has to improve DPR are both very limited and much weaker than a proper caster due to a spell DC that is at least 2 lower, and often more due to INT not being the KAS.

3) Fighter gets a lot more than weapon training, with numerous quality feats for damage boosting (Magus doesn't get anything nearly as good as Double Slice at low levels, for example) that improve the DPR. This is on top of +2 to hit being an incredible damage boost, that even when you already hit on a 10 or lower, is still really good because it improves critical chance.

4) Again, the Magus only keeps up with Spellstrike, which they can already only reliably do every other round (except for the ranged one which doesn't have to worry about AoO anyways).

[GM OfAnything]

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

[Golurkcanfly]

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

When the adaptation is "be a crappy version of something else," it's rather poor design. Does the gameplay experience actually improve for the Magus for them to not be able to use their primary feature without being smacked in the face on top of the other, more understandable limiters?

Arcane Cascade is an absolutely pitiful damage booster, even when targeting weaknesses, as not only are weaknesses much less common, but the majority are so concentrated into a handful of types (Cold Iron, Good, and Fire) that any martial can cover the grand majority of weaknesses just with the (already really good) weapon runes, and the Magus can't even get the former two types with Arcane Cascade. Of the types it can get, Fire and Cold also cover 87% creatures with relevant weaknesses.

[aobst128]

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

Agreed. I think it's a little overstated here how crippling it is. Reach weapons are always an option plus enlarge for inexorable iron. The subclass that has the most trouble, laughing shadow has decent reason to make standard attacks with flanking. Of course, you're always better when you're spellstriking, but strategizing around it doesn't make you a lame duck.

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

Agreed. I think it's a little overstated here how crippling it is. Reach weapons are always an option plus enlarge for inexorable iron. The subclass that has the most trouble, laughing shadow has decent reason to make standard attacks with flanking. Of course, you're always better when you're spellstriking, but strategizing around it doesn't make you a lame duck.

When the best solutions are "play a different character," there's clearly an issue.

[RexAliquid]

The playtest version of Spellstrike did have more flexibility against AoO. That is something the released version lacks, and the magus has to be prepared for.

[Delmont91]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I still think it comes down to whether or not a core class feature the Magus is built around becomes a serious issue disrupting player enjoyment of the class. If Magus end up fighting a bunch of AoO capable enemies that make their class feature nearly unusable in the most important boss fights, then it will require a change.

Using spellstrike in melee is the core class feature the Magus class is built around. If using it is painful, then the Magus will suck.

And that's why we removed it triggering AoO and haven't looked back. Doesn't break anything and let's the magus use the core feature of the class.

[gesalt]

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

This is the same thing I sometimes see people think about the swashbuckler, but as we know by now if you aren't hitting a finisher every turn your party would have been better off with a proper martial.

[Malk_Content]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

Agreed. I think it's a little overstated here how crippling it is. Reach weapons are always an option plus enlarge for inexorable iron. The subclass that has the most trouble, laughing shadow has decent reason to make standard attacks with flanking. Of course, you're always better when you're spellstriking, but strategizing around it doesn't make you a lame duck.

When the best solutions are "play a different character," there's clearly an issue.

There have been loads of solutions that don't involve playing a different character. Nothing that seems to be take this tactical hiccup into consideration seems to be good enough. It's no different than any other character, have a plan for the thing that can disrupt you most.

Your barbarian should pack some javelins or take feats that let them access difficult to reach enemies. Martials should look up a backup weapon for a different damage type in case its needed, or consider a shifting rune. Casters should consider having spells of different saves and maybe not have everything with incap traits and so on.

[Golurkcanfly]

Malk_Content wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

Agreed. I think it's a little overstated here how crippling it is. Reach weapons are always an option plus enlarge for inexorable iron. The subclass that has the most trouble, laughing shadow has decent reason to make standard attacks with flanking. Of course, you're always better when you're spellstriking, but strategizing around it doesn't make you a lame duck.

When the best solutions are "play a different character," there's clearly an issue.

There have been loads of solutions that don't involve playing a different character. Nothing that seems to be take this tactical hiccup into consideration seems to be good enough. It's no different than any other character, have a plan for the thing that can disrupt you most.

Your barbarian should pack some javelins or take feats that let them access difficult to reach enemies. Martials should look up a backup weapon for a different damage type in case its needed, or consider a shifting rune. Casters should consider having spells of different saves and maybe not have everything with incap traits and so on.

Yet the Barbarian is given many ways to work around it's weaknesses, with abilities to close the gap more easily, use ranged attacks, outright fly, etc.

While the Magus gets 4 spells per day (and the higher level ones fall off since the buff spells primarily fill the lower slots), already has other weaknesses, and it's workaround mid-gameplay is to simply be a worse version of other characters rather than engaging in their unique abilities in a different way.

[HumbleGamer]

What do you think about Draw the Lightning when it comes down to fights with many enemies with AoO?

Being able to benefit from the basic magus damage +X from cascade + 1 d12 ( or 2 extra d12 if lvl 15+ ) on each turn first strike could help increasing the magus average damage with basic strikes, when not in a position to properly use spellstrike.

[beowulf99]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

Agreed. I think it's a little overstated here how crippling it is. Reach weapons are always an option plus enlarge for inexorable iron. The subclass that has the most trouble, laughing shadow has decent reason to make standard attacks with flanking. Of course, you're always better when you're spellstriking, but strategizing around it doesn't make you a lame duck.

When the best solutions are "play a different character," there's clearly an issue.

There have been loads of solutions that don't involve playing a different character. Nothing that seems to be take this tactical hiccup into consideration seems to be good enough. It's no different than any other character, have a plan for the thing that can disrupt you most.

Your barbarian should pack some javelins or take feats that let them access difficult to reach enemies. Martials should look up a backup weapon for a different damage type in case its needed, or consider a shifting rune. Casters should consider having spells of different saves and maybe not have everything with incap traits and so on.

Yet the Barbarian is given many ways to work around it's weaknesses, with abilities to close the gap more easily, use ranged attacks, outright fly, etc.

While the Magus gets 4 spells per day (and the higher level ones fall off since the buff spells primarily fill the lower slots), already has other weaknesses, and it's workaround mid-gameplay is to simply be a worse version of other characters rather than engaging in their unique abilities in a different way.

At the levels where apparently there is an issue, the Magus will have more than 4 spell slots per day. +2 from Studious Spells, with the option to get up to three more from items, Endless Grimoire and Ring of Wizardry to be precise. And that doesn't include any scrolls they may want to use for Striker's Scroll or just as a source of buff's. Or any wands or Stave spells for that matter. And that is still not counting any spell slots they may get from Archetypes or Innate spells from Ancestry feats or items, which are build dependent.

There are plenty of ways that the Magus can work around their limited prepared slots. Plenty of options for picking up various defensive or utility spells. For a level 16+ character, the range where there is allegedly an issue, a set of gloves of storing and a scroll or wand of a defensive spell are basically a negligible purchase.

Every character will have an Achilles heel. Caster's tend to suffer in close. Melee characters tend to suffer at range. Ranged characters tend to suffer in melee. Etc...

This just happens to be that weakness for the Magus. And it's not even that hard to deal with in my opinion.

[Golurkcanfly]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

GM OfAnything wrote:

Spellstrike is a fun activity that you want to do a lot, but Arcane Cascade is the “always-on” class feature of the Magus. I’m okay with AoO forcing the magus to adapt to the combat.

Agreed. I think it's a little overstated here how crippling it is. Reach weapons are always an option plus enlarge for inexorable iron. The subclass that has the most trouble, laughing shadow has decent reason to make standard attacks with flanking. Of course, you're always better when you're spellstriking, but strategizing around it doesn't make you a lame duck.

When the best solutions are "play a different character," there's clearly an issue.

There have been loads of solutions that don't involve playing a different character. Nothing that seems to be take this tactical hiccup into consideration seems to be good enough. It's no different than any other character, have a plan for the thing that can disrupt you most.

Your barbarian should pack some javelins or take feats that let them access difficult to reach enemies. Martials should look up a backup weapon for a different damage type in case its needed, or consider a shifting rune. Casters should consider having spells of different saves and maybe not have everything with incap traits and so on.

Yet the Barbarian is given many ways to work around it's weaknesses, with abilities to close the gap more easily, use ranged attacks, outright fly, etc.

While the Magus gets 4 spells per day (and the higher level ones fall off since the buff spells primarily fill the lower slots), already has other weaknesses, and it's workaround mid-gameplay is to simply be a worse version of other characters rather than engaging in their unique abilities in a different way.

At the levels where apparently there is an issue, the Magus will have more than 4 spell slots per day. +2 from Studious Spells, with the option to...

So the Achilles Heel for the melee class is...

Being in melee.

You understand how silly that is?

Again, this is on top of other weaknesses such as the delicate action economy, low HP, the issues every other melee character tends to face, etc.