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

[beowulf99]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

No, the Magus' weakness isn't "being in melee". It is having it's Spellstrike be disrupt-able by an uncommon ability on at best, ⁓30% of opponents at high levels.

And I say uncommon because that is what a 30% saturation makes it. Uncommon. As in out of the ordinary or unusual. Across all of my character experience I have been struck by an AoO a decent number of times, and the result has been a critical a bare handful of times. I have only ever seen AoO disrupt a spell maybe once, and that was a friendly AoO if I am recalling it correctly.

While Gm'ing I have probably inflicted more AoO's than I've taken as a character, and I don't recall ever disrupting a spell. I have seen more spells stopped by Golem Anti-Magic than I have seen AoO stop them.

It's just not that common a problem in my experience.

Edit: And I would call 8 hp/level classes the Middle range for health, not low. Low would be 6. High would be 10, with 12 being the outlier for Barbarian.

Magus is not fragile. They just aren't the beefiest health pool. They are literally tied with 9 other classes for middle of the pack.

[Golurkcanfly]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

No, the Magus' weakness isn't "being in melee". It is having it's Spellstrike be disrupt-able by an uncommon ability on at best, ⁓30% of opponents at high levels.

And I say uncommon because that is what a 30% saturation makes it. Uncommon. As in out of the ordinary or unusual. Across all of my character experience I have been struck by an AoO a decent number of times, and the result has been a critical a bare handful of times. I have only ever seen AoO disrupt a spell maybe once, and that was a friendly AoO if I am recalling it correctly.

While Gm'ing I have probably inflicted more AoO's than I've taken as a character, and I don't recall ever disrupting a spell. I have seen more spells stopped by Golem Anti-Magic than I have seen AoO stop them.

It's just not that common a problem in my experience.

Edit: And I would call 8 hp/level classes the Middle range for health, not low. Low would be 6. High would be 10, with 12 being the outlier for Barbarian.

Magus is not fragile. They just aren't the beefiest health pool. They are literally tied with 9 other classes for middle of the pack.

30% of cases is not "Uncommon."

That is something that will show up throughout an adventuring day with very high likelihood, since you have more than one encounter per day.

8 HP is low for a melee striker. This is on top of them being MAD, so they can't afford to invest as much into CON as other melee classes.

Being hit for doing the feature your entire class is based around, especially when it already has other weaknesses, is a major disservice to the class.

Not to mention that even with Spellstrike, not even taking into account the fact you need to recharge it, the Magus does less damage than a Fighter's basic two-action attack routine.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor, and they don't have much versatility other than using one of their very few spells. (Also when you hit that AoO or get grabbed or tripped it makes it hard to use spells, any 2 action activity is very vulnerable to disruption, particularly one that triggers reactions)

This is less of an issue early, but disruption in all forms becomes annoyingly common later.

For example, a fighter really only needs 1 action to get most of their damage off. Rangers/Monks can get an even bigger percent off in one hit because of their great flurries (twin takedown, flurry of blows)

Fighters have a lot of other meta strikes they can do too, lunge for instance is often underrated but adding 5 feet of reach to a regular attack is awesome.

[RexAliquid]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor.

In which case their role shifts from damaging striker to more of a support or spellcasting role. Damage is not the only measure of combat effectiveness. That versatility is built right into the class.

[Golurkcanfly]

RexAliquid wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor.

In which case their role shifts from damaging striker to more of a support or spellcasting role. Damage is not the only measure of combat effectiveness. That versatility is built right into the class.

Support with less spells than an archetyped caster, with significantly worse casting DCs (less proficiency and lower casting stat).

They become worse versions of other characters.

While already having a tenuous grip on any other niche.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

RexAliquid wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor.

In which case their role shifts from damaging striker to more of a support or spellcasting role. Damage is not the only measure of combat effectiveness. That versatility is built right into the class.

Nobody plays magus to be a supporting spell caster. For one thing, they aren't good at it, they have very few spell slots and low DC. And frankly they probably won't have the spells memorized to do it.

[Sagiam]

People on here know that triggering an AoO doesn't prevent the damage from going through unless they crit right? Dead targets can't AoO anymore.

It could be worse. It could be precision damage.

[Golurkcanfly]

Sagiam wrote:

People on here know that triggering an AoO doesn't prevent the damage from going through unless they crit right? Dead targets can't AoO anymore.

It could be worse. It could be precision damage.

And we've already discussed why blanket precision immunity for entire categories of monsters isn't a fulfilling design.

And why taking an AoO can be worse (since it can outright kill you).

And why this whataboutism doesn't accomplish anything.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Sagiam wrote:

People on here know that triggering an AoO doesn't prevent the damage from going through unless they crit right? Dead targets can't AoO anymore.

It could be worse. It could be precision damage.

Well, it also prevents it if the AoO kills you, hah. Dead players can't spellstrike lol!

But yeah, I also think the precision immunity thing is annoying. Least it is rarer (6% of enemies or so)

[Temperans]

Imagine keep bringing up how 6% of creatures counter one specific damage type. To dismiss concerns that ~30% of all creatures can and probably will AoO the Magus.

When the Magus also has to deal with damage immunity, damage resistance, and the fact that horrendous action economy.

[Golurkcanfly]

Temperans wrote:

Imagine keep bringing up how 6% of creatures counter one specific damage type. To dismiss concerns that ~30% of all creatures can and probably will AoO the Magus.

When the Magus also has to deal with damage immunity, damage resistance, and the fact that horrendous action economy.

To be fair, the precision immunity is incredibly annoying and one of the blanket immunities Paizo didn't cut down enough, considering it's the most common damage booster for martials and many of the immune creature types would still have logical weak points that precision damage could hit. It's also just really boring as a "counter mechanism" when there are more organic methods that already exist, such as a creature which is hard to flank as a Rogue because it's highly mobile, or encounters with lots of mooks to lessen the effect of Ranger's Hunt Prey.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

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.

Do I think the magus would be too strong?

Probably not. I mean, that's the thing--70% of the time, a magus who doesn't provoke is exactly as powerful as a magus who does.

I just think it engenders a certain amount of tactical passivity. Like, the early posts talked about spellstrike being part of a magus's rotation. You spellstrike, you recharge, rinse and repeat. But if all you're doing as a magus is walking up and hitting the enemy in melee for high damage every round, you're just playing a fighter with extra steps and more ribbons.

I like that the current magus has some limitations, because it encourages you to play to it's strengths (spellcasting)--just like the rogue has to think about positioning.

To put it another way, to me, personally, a magus who kicks on mirror image to avoid AoO is just so much cooler than one who never provokes at all.

But, obviously, other people feel differently. I wouldn't be upset if they decided to make some changes to the class. I just hope that if they do, it remains limited in some ways--making a cantrip or cantrips that don't provoke for spellstrike, or giving maguses a bonus to AC against AoOs provoked by spellcasting.

[Temperans]

Annoying =/= kills you if you even try to use precision damage. And 6% is not nearly as common 30% for you to encounter someone that is precision immune compared to having an AoO.

[Golurkcanfly]

Temperans wrote:

Annoying =/= kills you if you even try to use precision damage. And 6% is not nearly as common 30% for you to encounter someone that is precision immune compared to having an AoO.

I mean, I'm in favor of both being gone.

I think both the Magus provoking AoO using Spellstrike and blanket Precision Immunity for entire varieties of creatures are uninteresting design that just makes the game worse for players who want to do the cool thing their class is built around.

[Temperans]

Benchak the Nightstalker 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.

Do I think the magus would be too strong?

Probably not. I mean, that's the thing--70% of the time, a magus who doesn't provoke is exactly as powerful as a magus who does.

I just think it engenders a certain amount of tactical passivity. Like, the early posts talked about spellstrike being part of a magus's rotation. You spellstrike, you recharge, rinse and repeat. But if all you're doing as a magus is walking up and hitting the enemy in melee for high damage every round, you're just playing a fighter with extra steps and more ribbons.

I like that the current magus has some limitations, because it encourages you to play to it's strengths (spellcasting)--just like the rogue has to think about positioning.

To put it another way, to me, personally, a magus who kicks on mirror image to avoid AoO is just so much cooler than one who never provokes at all.

But, obviously, other people feel differently. I wouldn't be upset if they decided to make some changes to the class. I just hope that if they do, it remains limited in some ways--making a cantrip or cantrips that don't provoke for spellstrike, or giving maguses a bonus to AC against AoOs provoked by spellcasting.

You see the reason it's a "rotation" is because of how action starved the Magus is. They have to rotate otherwise they would literally be stuck in place unable to do anything.

Also I would agree with you that Magic is a strength of Magus IF they had more spell slots. But as it currently is... it hardly matters. If you prepare 4 damage spells you can keep up in damage 4x a day. If you prepare 6 defense spells, your damage is meaningless. And no I don't think archetyping solves it. It looking to me like a feat tax.

It doesn't seem like tactics and more like needless penalty for barely any benefit.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Magus has "the rotation" not because players are boring, or stuck in a rut, etc, but because spellstrike (even with cantrips) is the only way their damage competes with other martials.

And when people say "oh, just use mirror image" Ok, so you probably get hit in the face finding out it has AoO. Back off, cast mirror image, then re-engage. This whole time the fighter/ranger/monk/rogue whatever has been pounding away. End of the fight, you were far less effective than they were and used a limited resource.

Or, you ignore spellstrike (maybe having been hit, maybe not) and just swing away. Magus is bad at swinging. End of the fight, you were far less effective than the others.

Bearing in mind Magus is also in a squishy package.

That is not counterplay, that is just a common ability reducing your combat effectiveness drastically.

[Malk_Content]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

I apologize for this being a page late.

How is this not saying "just play another character" like the response to any option the Magus might have to deal with AoO inconvenience. Ooh a barbarian can get fly, yes if you pick the right totem. Which is no different than highlighting a hybrid study that deals nicely with AoO. Or having to pick certain feats etc.

[Golurkcanfly]

Malk_Content wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

I apologize for this being a page late.

How is this not saying "just play another character" like the response to any option the Magus might have to deal with AoO inconvenience. Ooh a barbarian can get fly, yes if you pick the right totem. Which is no different than highlighting a hybrid study that deals nicely with AoO. Or having to pick certain feats etc.

Because all Barbarians can access multiple ways to deal with the issue (and the melee Magus faces the same issue, using it's very precious amount of slots to work around that + all of its other unique issues).

In addition, any extra actions a Barbarian might need to use to activate a magic item or something hurts it far less since it doesn't have to keep up a rotation just to hit damage benchmarks.

[Malk_Content]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

I apologize for this being a page late.

How is this not saying "just play another character" like the response to any option the Magus might have to deal with AoO inconvenience. Ooh a barbarian can get fly, yes if you pick the right totem. Which is no different than highlighting a hybrid study that deals nicely with AoO. Or having to pick certain feats etc.

Because all Barbarians can access multiple ways to deal with the issue (and the melee Magus faces the same issue, using it's very precious amount of slots to work around that + all of its other unique issues).

In addition, any extra actions a Barbarian might need to use to activate a magic item or something hurts it far less since it doesn't have to keep up a rotation just to hit damage benchmarks.

But they still have to make those character choices right. You only get 10 class feats, saying spend 2 of them to deal with hard to reach enemies is saying "play your characters class 20% differently."

Most of the Magus suggestions (carry a scroll of enlarge for example) can be done by most/any Magus. Yeah it hurts their "optimal rotation" but if it didn't then whats the point of enemy abilities at all.

[Golurkcanfly]

Malk_Content wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

I apologize for this being a page late.

How is this not saying "just play another character" like the response to any option the Magus might have to deal with AoO inconvenience. Ooh a barbarian can get fly, yes if you pick the right totem. Which is no different than highlighting a hybrid study that deals nicely with AoO. Or having to pick certain feats etc.

Because all Barbarians can access multiple ways to deal with the issue (and the melee Magus faces the same issue, using it's very precious amount of slots to work around that + all of its other unique issues).

In addition, any extra actions a Barbarian might need to use to activate a magic item or something hurts it far less since it doesn't have to keep up a rotation just to hit damage benchmarks.

But they still have to make those character choices right. You only get 10 class feats, saying spend 2 of them to deal with hard to reach enemies is saying "play your characters class 20% differently."

Most of the Magus suggestions (carry a scroll of enlarge for example) can be done by most/any Magus. Yeah it hurts their "optimal rotation" but if it didn't then whats the point of enemy abilities at all.

"Optimal Rotation" being "able to actually function as a martial". It's not like this class is actually better than other martials at hitting stuff even on the turns it *can* Spellstrike.

Plus many of those don't actually help in the long term? And hurt the action economy even more?

A 2H Barbarian activating Boots of Flight spends two actions and can fly for the rest of the fight.

A 2H Magus activating a scroll needs to stow his weapon, draw the scroll, cast the scroll, and then redraw the weapon, and the scroll only mitigates AoOs.

That's 3 actions plus however many actions it took to activate the scroll, and then the Magus still needs flight to deal with flying enemies in a reasonable way.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

A 2H Magus activating a scroll needs to stow his weapon, draw the scroll, cast the scroll, and then redraw the weapon, and the scroll only mitigates AoOs.

The 2H magus gets enlarge as a studious spell, so they don't need to use a scroll.

And aside from putting them out of AoO reach, enlarge is also, you know, a genuinely helpful buff. It's extra reach (on a class that can also make AoOs), and gives a status bonus to damage.

[Golurkcanfly]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

A 2H Magus activating a scroll needs to stow his weapon, draw the scroll, cast the scroll, and then redraw the weapon, and the scroll only mitigates AoOs.

The 2H magus gets enlarge as a studious spell, so they don't need to use a scroll.

And aside from putting them out of AoO reach, enlarge is also, you know, a genuinely helpful buff. It's extra reach (on a class that can also make AoOs), and gives a status bonus to damage.

And it really only helps that subclass, doesn't help against the bigger AoO monsters (monsters get bigger on average as level goes up), and they have only 2 studious spell slots.

While tanking the action economy of the class that needs it most.

That already pays for Spellstrike in other ways.

[Golurkcanfly]

There's just no genuine balance argument for it, it works against the flavor of the class, it is a disservice to the fantasy it is trying to fulfill, Spellstrike already has other balance mechanisms, the class itself has even more balance mechanisms, and since it gets increasingly worse at higher levels (where monsters gain increasingly better ways to screw with action economies), it causes the gameplay experience of the class to worsen at higher levels.

There has been very little argument in favor of keeping it as-is, just whataboutism and "but you can work around it."

The topic is not *how* to work around it, but *why* it shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

And it really only helps that subclass, doesn't help against the bigger AoO monsters (monsters get bigger on average as level goes up), and they have only 2 studious spell slots.

And the other hybrid studies have hands free for scrolls, and/or easy access to staves, and/or their own studious spells to deal with the situation.

Is a round where the magus buffs themselves a wasted round? Are they not contributing to the combat by doing so? I kind of feel like that's the crux of the disagreement here.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

There's just no genuine balance argument for it, it works against the flavor of the class, it is a disservice to the fantasy it is trying to fulfill, Spellstrike already has other balance mechanisms, the class itself has even more balance mechanisms, and since it gets increasingly worse at higher levels (where monsters gain increasingly better ways to screw with action economies), it causes the gameplay experience of the class to worsen at higher levels.

There has been very little argument in favor of keeping it as-is, just whataboutism and "but you can work around it."

The topic is not *how* to work around it, but *why* it shouldn't be there in the first place.

I personally disagree with a lot of what you're saying here. Spellstrike provoking doesn't work against the flavor of the class for me, and it doesn't disservice the fantasy of the magus in my eyes.

I am open to the possibility that it makes the experience of the class worse at higher levels--I haven't played a magus at high levels yet, so I can't share my perspective. Is that your actual experience playing the class so far?

As to the "you can work around it" comments, for my part, those are mostly in response to the people saying "the only way to deal with AoO is to build around it/play starlit span."

If folks are going to argue that spellstrike shouldn't provoke because stock-standard magus can't get around AoO, I think it's fair to point out that that isn't true.

[Deriven Firelion]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

No, the Magus' weakness isn't "being in melee". It is having it's Spellstrike be disrupt-able by an uncommon ability on at best, ⁓30% of opponents at high levels.

And I say uncommon because that is what a 30% saturation makes it. Uncommon. As in out of the ordinary or unusual. Across all of my character experience I have been struck by an AoO a decent number of times, and the result has been a critical a bare handful of times. I have only ever seen AoO disrupt a spell maybe once, and that was a friendly AoO if I am recalling it correctly.

While Gm'ing I have probably inflicted more AoO's than I've taken as a character, and I don't recall ever disrupting a spell. I have seen more spells stopped by Golem Anti-Magic than I have seen AoO stop them.

It's just not that common a problem in my experience.

Edit: And I would call 8 hp/level classes the Middle range for health, not low. Low would be 6. High would be 10, with 12 being the outlier for Barbarian.

Magus is not fragile. They just aren't the beefiest health pool. They are literally tied with 9 other classes for middle of the pack.

30% is not an uncommon ability.

[Temperans]

Ah yes spend even more money than you already do to stop the thing that shits down your main class ability.

Remind me, what class requires the player to spend twice as much gold as everyone else just to get back to standard damage?

[Deriven Firelion]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor, and they don't have much versatility other than using one of their very few spells. (Also when you hit that AoO or get grabbed or tripped it makes it hard to use spells, any 2 action activity is very vulnerable to disruption, particularly one that triggers reactions)

This is less of an issue early, but disruption in all forms becomes annoyingly common later.

For example, a fighter really only needs 1 action to get most of their damage off. Rangers/Monks can get an even bigger percent off in one hit because of their great flurries (twin takedown, flurry of blows)

Fighters have a lot of other meta strikes they can do too, lunge for instance is often underrated but adding 5 feet of reach to a regular attack is awesome.

Are you sure they aren't doing much damage? You can haste yourself. You can enlarge yourself. They get Master proficiency and a full striking weapon along with Arcane Stance. And they can use their third action to shield without having a hand free since shield is only verbal.

I can see a non-Spell striking Magus falling somewhere in the damage chain below fighters, barbarians, and rogues, about the same level with swashbucklers with panache, and above champions and monks. Given their versatility and spike damage, that seems about where they should be given the PF2 paradigm.

[Golurkcanfly]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor, and they don't have much versatility other than using one of their very few spells. (Also when you hit that AoO or get grabbed or tripped it makes it hard to use spells, any 2 action activity is very vulnerable to disruption, particularly one that triggers reactions)

This is less of an issue early, but disruption in all forms becomes annoyingly common later.

For example, a fighter really only needs 1 action to get most of their damage off. Rangers/Monks can get an even bigger percent off in one hit because of their great flurries (twin takedown, flurry of blows)

Fighters have a lot of other meta strikes they can do too, lunge for instance is often underrated but adding 5 feet of reach to a regular attack is awesome.

Are you sure they aren't doing much damage? You can haste yourself. You can enlarge yourself. They get Master proficiency and a full striking weapon along with Arcane Stance. And they can use their third action to shield without having a hand free since shield is only verbal.

I can see a non-Spell striking Magus falling somewhere in the damage chain below fighters, barbarians, and rogues, about the same level with swashbucklers with panache, and above champions and monks. Given their versatility and spike damage, that seems about where they should be given the PF2 paradigm.

Actual charting shows that the most damaging Magus (2H) on its Spellstriking turns deals less damage than a benchmark 2H Fighter and most other martials. This is on the turns it can use it's burst damage. When you take into account a melee Magus will most likely only be doing it every other round (due to needing to move into position), it falls quite short.

And Fighters and such can get just as many ways to buff themselves up with lower opportunity cost (since their action economy is less fragile), and do so more frequently thanks to archetyping. And that's just the class on its own. Other martials get far more marginal benefit when buffed with items or by other party members.

Arcane Cascade is the most pathetic "always on" damage booster in the game. It's a footnote compared to everything else.

It really is being punished simply for "catching up" every other turn.

[Deriven Firelion]

RexAliquid wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor.

In which case their role shifts from damaging striker to more of a support or spellcasting role. Damage is not the only measure of combat effectiveness. That versatility is built right into the class.

Magus is a martial who deals damage by channeling spells through their weapon. They are not a support caster.

[Deriven Firelion]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

I think part of the issue, a big part, is that Magus doesn't do much damage at all if they AREN'T spellstriking. Even if only using cantrips it is a huge part of their damage. So if you disrupt them at all, (AoO one of the most common ones as it prevents them from spellstriking if they don't want to die) their combat effectiveness drops through the floor, and they don't have much versatility other than using one of their very few spells. (Also when you hit that AoO or get grabbed or tripped it makes it hard to use spells, any 2 action activity is very vulnerable to disruption, particularly one that triggers reactions)

This is less of an issue early, but disruption in all forms becomes annoyingly common later.

For example, a fighter really only needs 1 action to get most of their damage off. Rangers/Monks can get an even bigger percent off in one hit because of their great flurries (twin takedown, flurry of blows)

Fighters have a lot of other meta strikes they can do too, lunge for instance is often underrated but adding 5 feet of reach to a regular attack is awesome.

Are you sure they aren't doing much damage? You can haste yourself. You can enlarge yourself. They get Master proficiency and a full striking weapon along with Arcane Stance. And they can use their third action to shield without having a hand free since shield is only verbal.

I can see a non-Spell striking Magus falling somewhere in the damage chain below fighters, barbarians, and rogues, about the same level with swashbucklers with panache, and above champions and monks. Given their versatility and spike damage, that seems about where they should be given the PF2 paradigm.

Actual charting shows that the most damaging Magus (2H) on its Spellstriking turns deals less damage than a benchmark 2H Fighter and most other martials. This is on the turns it can use it's burst damage. When you take into account a melee Magus will most likely only be doing it...

You should not being doing as much damage as a 2H fighter, barbarian, or rogue given the ability to spellcast up to 9th level spells.

You should be doing about Swashbuckler with Panache doing a finisher when spellstriking and about swashbuckler non-finisher damage when not.

I find it hard to believe that a magus can't outdamage a monk and champion using a similar damage die.

PF2 is built around certain ideas of damage. Fighter is the damage king doing one thing really, really well. Barbarian and rogue are on the next damage tier because they also have fairly simple abilities that can't be altered a huge amount.

Magus can alter his damage types and defenses substantially with spellcasting. I think he should fall below those three classes with some encounters where he exceeds them, especially if able to Alpha strike.

My main concern is that when he alpha strikes, he's getting disrupted too often, especially blowing off one of his precious high level spell slots. If your main class schtick is alpha striking with a high level spell and that gets disrupted fairly often against boss monsters then that will not be very fun.

[beowulf99]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

30% of cases is not "Uncommon."

That is something that will show up throughout an adventuring day with very high likelihood, since you have more than one encounter per day.

8 HP is low for a melee striker. This is on top of them being MAD, so they can't afford to invest as much into CON as other melee classes.

Being hit for doing the feature your entire class is based around, especially when it already has other weaknesses, is a major disservice to the class.

Not to mention that even with Spellstrike, not even taking into account the fact you need to recharge it, the Magus does less damage than a Fighter's basic two-action attack routine.

1. I definitely consider ⁓30% uncommon. Happens often enough to not be rare, but not often enough to be the expected outcome. Is there another term that is better suited?

2. Tell that to Rogues, Warpriests, Investigators, Inventors, and Oracles, all of which have melee striker builds. Also, arguing that something being in the pure middle of a range as being "low for [whatever purpose]" is a bad argument. They aren't purely optimized to take a hit, that I'll agree with. But they aren't the worst suited for it, which is what saying they have "low hp" insinuates.

3. You keep saying that a Magus does Less damage than a fighters average two action attack routine. Okay, prove it.

The Magus gets Arcane Cascade, which more than makes up for the Fighters bump via Greater Weapon Specialization. At level 15+ the Fighter is dealing +8 damage from that feature. The Magus on the other hand is getting +6... and +3 from Cascade. For pure damage, they can also use Draw the Lightning to get an extra d12 that a fighter won't be able to nab without buying into spellcasting, and even then probably fewer castings than a Magus is capable of.

Build a Fighter and a Magus at the same level, kit them out similarly and compare their actual damage numbers. The only thing that a Fighter has on the Magus is their classic +2 to hit comparatively. And that does make an impact, it just doesn't make the Magus' non-spellstrike damage "Terrible". Without Spellstrike they lose access to dealing MUCH MORE damage than a fighter while using a high slot spell, but they don't lose access to dealing about as much damage, slightly less accurately.

Spellstrike is a feature that you want to be using, but it is not one that you MUST use to "keep up" with damage. When using a high slot spell it makes you outperform many classes in damage, and when using a cantrip it gives you general parity, with the benefit that you are getting 2 successful attacks with one successful attack roll. Assuming you hit of course.

[Deriven Firelion]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

30% of cases is not "Uncommon."

That is something that will show up throughout an adventuring day with very high likelihood, since you have more than one encounter per day.

8 HP is low for a melee striker. This is on top of them being MAD, so they can't afford to invest as much into CON as other melee classes.

Being hit for doing the feature your entire class is based around, especially when it already has other weaknesses, is a major disservice to the class.

Not to mention that even with Spellstrike, not even taking into account the fact you need to recharge it, the Magus does less damage than a Fighter's basic two-action attack routine.

1. I definitely consider ⁓30% uncommon. Happens often enough to not be rare, but not often enough to be the expected outcome. Is there another term that is better suited?

2. Tell that to Rogues, Warpriests, Investigators, Inventors, and Oracles, all of which have melee striker builds. Also, arguing that something being in the pure middle of a range as being "low for [whatever purpose]" is a bad argument. They aren't purely optimized to take a hit, that I'll agree with. But they aren't the worst suited for it, which is what saying they have "low hp" insinuates.

3. You keep saying that a Magus does Less damage than a fighters average two action attack routine. Okay, prove it.

The Magus gets Arcane Cascade, which more than makes up for the Fighters bump via Greater Weapon Specialization. At level 15+ the Fighter is dealing +8 damage from that feature. The Magus on the other hand is getting +6... and +3 from Cascade. For pure damage, they can also use Draw the Lightning to get an extra d12 that a fighter won't be able to nab without buying into spellcasting, and even then probably fewer castings than a Magus is capable of.

Build a Fighter and a Magus at the same level, kit them out similarly and compare their actual damage numbers. The only thing that a Fighter has on the Magus is their classic +2 to hit...

The fighter accuracy bonus is a huge damage booster. No one deals single target damage like a fighter.

I thought it wouldn't play out this way myself given factors like the barbarian immense damage bonus when raging or the rogue sneak attack. But after recording damage during combats, that fighter accuracy bonus is just a huge bonus to damage. More critical hits, more hits, and more consistent damage over the course of battles. Accuracy in PF2 the best way to boost damage other than massive AoE attacks against weak saves.

[Golurkcanfly]

Damage Comparison Chart

These are just baseline numbers. The 2H Fighter is only using stats and a swinging stick, no feats. Can fully invest in a spellcasting Archetype for greater casting utility/buff quantity and can keep up this routine without disruption, all while being tougher.

Other martials are there for comparison.

Meanwhile, the 2H Magus (d12 weapon, cantrip spellstrike) doesn't get more damage during its good turns, is punished for using its class-defining feature, and is assumed to be in Arcane Cascade (which itself takes both an action to activate and requires you to have cast a spell beforehand). It can go above this bit 4 times per day, can generally only cantrip Spellstrike every other turn, and since this is full investment into both offensive stats, is left significantly squishier. Of course, DEX Magi, 1-handed Magi, Staff Magi, etc. are in a worse spot.

It just doesn't need AoO to be there when there are frankly more interesting ways to make the Magus change up tactics already in the game.

When people pick a class, they do so because they want to do that class's thing. Provoking AoO is just an unnecessary hurdle when it's perfectly fine when AoO isn't present.

[beowulf99]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The fighter accuracy bonus is a huge damage booster. No one deals single target damage like a fighter.

I thought it wouldn't play out this way myself given factors like the barbarian immense damage bonus when raging or the rogue sneak attack. But after recording damage during combats, that fighter accuracy bonus is just a huge bonus to damage. More critical hits, more hits, and more consistent damage over the course of battles. Accuracy in PF2 the best way to boost damage other than massive AoE attacks against weak saves.

Oh, I won't dispute that. Accuracy is an amazing damage booster, since not hitting zeroes out your damage faster than anything else. But that is the fighters Niche. If the Magus performed equally within that niche, then the fighter would no longer have a niche, and the Magus would just be a better fighter.

What I am disputing is the idea that a Magus without Spellstrike deals "Terrible" damage. They do not. To quote a developer response from a different game when talking about one faction having blanket immunity to another factions primary schtick, "Don't your swords still work?"

Just because a class may be incentivized to play sub-optimally does not mean that that sub-optimal is terrible. It is still viable.

And AoO does not force you to play sub-optimally at all. You can still Spellstrike a foe with AoO, even if they have their reaction still. The chances of them actually disrupting your spell aren't great, and the Magus does in fact have a health pool where others insinuate there is a single hit point, and they have options to help them survive those hits.

[beowulf99]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Damage Comparison Chart

These are just baseline numbers. The 2H Fighter is only using stats and a swinging stick, no feats. Can fully invest in a spellcasting Archetype for greater casting utility/buff quantity and can keep up this routine without disruption, all while being tougher.

Other martials are there for comparison.

Meanwhile, the 2H Magus (d12 weapon, cantrip spellstrike) doesn't get more damage during its good turns, is punished for using its class-defining feature, and is assumed to be in Arcane Cascade (which itself takes both an action to activate and requires you to have cast a spell beforehand). It can go above this bit 4 times per day, can generally only cantrip Spellstrike every other turn, and since this is full investment into both offensive stats, is left significantly squishier. Of course, DEX Magi, 1-handed Magi, Staff Magi, etc. are in a worse spot.

It just doesn't need AoO to be there when there are frankly more interesting ways to make the Magus change up tactics already in the game.

That chart feels like it is out of a collection of more charts, probably with more data, but this is the cherry, so I'll pick at it.

The damage spread between every option presented is about 20. We are not told what Cantrip the Magus is spellstriking with, and are deprived of the actual "best case scenario" where the Magus spellstrikes with a top slotted spell.

Accounting for accuracy, the Two Hand Magus w/cascade doing 2 strikes deals about 10 damage less on average than a fighter (Greatswod, 2 strikes specifically). That seems pretty fair, given that accuracy is the Fighters schtick.

But what this chart doesn't do is show that the Magus does "terrible damage". It actually shows that it deals reasonable damage even in it's worst case scenarios.

Being the "best" in a limited chart doesn't make every other option "not worth taking."

[Golurkcanfly]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Damage Comparison Chart

These are just baseline numbers. The 2H Fighter is only using stats and a swinging stick, no feats. Can fully invest in a spellcasting Archetype for greater casting utility/buff quantity and can keep up this routine without disruption, all while being tougher.

Other martials are there for comparison.

Meanwhile, the 2H Magus (d12 weapon, cantrip spellstrike) doesn't get more damage during its good turns, is punished for using its class-defining feature, and is assumed to be in Arcane Cascade (which itself takes both an action to activate and requires you to have cast a spell beforehand). It can go above this bit 4 times per day, can generally only cantrip Spellstrike every other turn, and since this is full investment into both offensive stats, is left significantly squishier. Of course, DEX Magi, 1-handed Magi, Staff Magi, etc. are in a worse spot.

It just doesn't need AoO to be there when there are frankly more interesting ways to make the Magus change up tactics already in the game.

That chart feels like it is out of a collection of more charts, probably with more data, but this is the cherry, so I'll pick at it.

The damage spread between every option presented is about 20. We are not told what Cantrip the Magus is spellstriking with, and are deprived of the actual "best case scenario" where the Magus spellstrikes with a top slotted spell.

Accounting for accuracy, the Two Hand Magus w/cascade doing 2 strikes deals about 10 damage less on average than a fighter (Greatswod, 2 strikes specifically). That seems pretty fair, given that accuracy is the Fighters schtick.

But what this chart doesn't do is show that the Magus does "terrible damage". It actually shows that it deals reasonable damage even in it's worst case scenarios.

Being the "best" in a limited chart doesn't make every other option "not worth taking."

This is on the good turns.

The ones that Provoke AoO. And at high levels, are very prone to getting disrupted as creatures gain more ways to mess with action economy.

After setup with Arcane Cascade.

While being much squishier (8HP + can't invest as much in defensive stats) for a class whose primary role is a melee combatant. For a handful of spells it can't use anywhere near as effectively as a "proper spellcaster".

Yes, it can go above 4 times per day at the cost of all other utility.

But AoO? Completely unnecessary. Punishing the class for getting into the position it wants to be in to use the feature that the class exists to support is wack. It would be like if the Gunslinger's special reloads allowed 30% of high level creatures to smack it for using them. It's just not necessary when the class is already balanced without getting smacked.

[beowulf99]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Snip

I still don't see a good reason to argue that Spellstrike's provocation makes the Magus Worse than competing martials. It is the price they pay for having ready access to spells with no outside investment. And with outside investment, they have a pretty reasonable number of slots/castings of spells to stick in the front line.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here Golurk. Maybe in a few months when I have more combats as a magus under my belt, I'll revisit this thread and decide if I need to change my tune. But currently, I don't feel like Spellstrike provoking is even an issue worth discussing. My biggest issue with Magus is purely Action Economy, and it is definitely not the only class with action economy issues.

[Golurkcanfly]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Snip

I still don't see a good reason to argue that Spellstrike's provocation makes the Magus Worse than competing martials. It is the price they pay for having ready access to spells with no outside investment. And with outside investment, they have a pretty reasonable number of slots/castings of spells to stick in the front line.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here Golurk. Maybe in a few months when I have more combats as a magus under my belt, I'll revisit this thread and decide if I need to change my tune. But currently, I don't feel like Spellstrike provoking is even an issue worth discussing. My biggest issue with Magus is purely Action Economy, and it is definitely not the only class with action economy issues.

Ready access to 4 (+2 with studious Spellstrike) spells. Which they need to use for keeping up with damage.

That they already pay for with lower damage and worse defenses, alongside a worse action economy.

Attacks of Opportunity are not the biggest issue, but they are certainly the most annoyingly pointless issue and the easiest one to fix.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

This is on the good turns.

The ones that Provoke AoO. And at high levels, are very prone to getting disrupted as creatures gain more ways to mess with action economy.

beowulf99 wrote:

Accounting for accuracy, the Two Hand Magus w/cascade doing 2 strikes deals about 10 damage less on average than a fighter (Greatswod, 2 strikes specifically). That seems pretty fair, given that accuracy is the Fighters schtick.

Bolded for emphasis. 10 less damage per turn, when not using spellstrike at all, seems pretty reasonable to me when you consider the options and versatility spellcasting opens up.

I'd also like to see how Swashbucklers, Champions, and Monks compare. Are maguses middle of the pack, like Deriven suggested?

[Golurkcanfly]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

This is on the good turns.

The ones that Provoke AoO. And at high levels, are very prone to getting disrupted as creatures gain more ways to mess with action economy.

beowulf99 wrote:

Accounting for accuracy, the Two Hand Magus w/cascade doing 2 strikes deals about 10 damage less on average than a fighter (Greatswod, 2 strikes specifically). That seems pretty fair, given that accuracy is the Fighters schtick.

Bolded for emphasis. 10 less damage per turn, when not using spellstrike at all, seems pretty reasonable to me when you consider the options and versatility spellcasting opens up.

I'd also like to see how Swashbucklers, Champions, and Monks compare. Are maguses middle of the pack, like Deriven suggested?

The "Options and Versatility" of Spellstrike is primarily being able to run into resistances die to split damage.

Champions and Monks have much stronger other utilities. Champions are absolutely insane when it comes to controlling the battlefield, while Monks not only are incredibly flexible due to an actually strong action economy, but have excellent lockdown potential as well.

Swashbuckler is another class that has issues, such as the inconsistency of Panache.

Most importantly, however, it doesn't get smacked in the face for doing it's thing, which just feels bad.

[beowulf99]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

This is on the good turns.

The ones that Provoke AoO. And at high levels, are very prone to getting disrupted as creatures gain more ways to mess with action economy.

beowulf99 wrote:

Accounting for accuracy, the Two Hand Magus w/cascade doing 2 strikes deals about 10 damage less on average than a fighter (Greatswod, 2 strikes specifically). That seems pretty fair, given that accuracy is the Fighters schtick.

Bolded for emphasis. 10 less damage per turn, when not using spellstrike at all, seems pretty reasonable to me when you consider the options and versatility spellcasting opens up.

I'd also like to see how Swashbucklers, Champions, and Monks compare. Are maguses middle of the pack, like Deriven suggested?

The "Options and Versatility" of Spellstrike is primarily being able to run into resistances die to split damage.

Champions and Monks have much stronger other utilities. Champions are absolutely insane when it comes to controlling the battlefield, while Monks not only are incredibly flexible due to an actually strong action economy, but have excellent lockdown potential as well.

Swashbuckler is another class that has issues, such as the inconsistency of Panache.

Most importantly, however, it doesn't get smacked in the face for doing it's thing, which just feels bad.

Unless that thing is tumble through, which does not bypass AoO, though can't be disrupted unless the specific reaction disrupts movement.

Champions have stronger utility than ready access to Arcane Spells? Do tell. Monk turns in my experience tend to be just as formulaic as any Magus. Their utility tends to boil down to moving faster. Something a Magus can do with spells.

It's almost like the Magus has a lot of versatility because they can cast spells, though that versatility is limited in the number of times they can be used. By spell slots.

Almost like that is a balancing consideration when looking at the two classes. idk. I'm just a dude on the internet, but it feels pretty good to me.

[gesalt]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Snip

I still don't see a good reason to argue that Spellstrike's provocation makes the Magus Worse than competing martials. It is the price they pay for having ready access to spells with no outside investment. And with outside investment, they have a pretty reasonable number of slots/castings of spells to stick in the front line.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here Golurk. Maybe in a few months when I have more combats as a magus under my belt, I'll revisit this thread and decide if I need to change my tune. But currently, I don't feel like Spellstrike provoking is even an issue worth discussing. My biggest issue with Magus is purely Action Economy, and it is definitely not the only class with action economy issues.

It's not the provoking that makes magus worse than other martials. That's already accomplished by everything else about the magus. The provoking is just one last slap in the face and is just unnecessary.

[Golurkcanfly]

beowulf99 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

This is on the good turns.

The ones that Provoke AoO. And at high levels, are very prone to getting disrupted as creatures gain more ways to mess with action economy.

beowulf99 wrote:

Accounting for accuracy, the Two Hand Magus w/cascade doing 2 strikes deals about 10 damage less on average than a fighter (Greatswod, 2 strikes specifically). That seems pretty fair, given that accuracy is the Fighters schtick.

Bolded for emphasis. 10 less damage per turn, when not using spellstrike at all, seems pretty reasonable to me when you consider the options and versatility spellcasting opens up.

I'd also like to see how Swashbucklers, Champions, and Monks compare. Are maguses middle of the pack, like Deriven suggested?

The "Options and Versatility" of Spellstrike is primarily being able to run into resistances die to split damage.

Champions and Monks have much stronger other utilities. Champions are absolutely insane when it comes to controlling the battlefield, while Monks not only are incredibly flexible due to an actually strong action economy, but have excellent lockdown potential as well.

Swashbuckler is another class that has issues, such as the inconsistency of Panache.

Most importantly, however, it doesn't get smacked in the face for doing it's thing, which just feels bad.

Unless that thing is tumble through, which does not bypass AoO, though can't be disrupted unless the specific reaction disrupts movement.

Champions have stronger utility than ready access to Arcane Spells? Do tell. Monk turns in my experience tend to be just as formulaic as any Magus. Their utility tends to boil down to moving faster. Something a Magus can do with spells.

It's almost like the Magus has a lot of versatility because they can cast spells, though that versatility is limited in the number of times they can be used. By spell slots.

Almost like that is a...

You do understand that the Champion's utility features and actually good feats make it an incredibly strong presence in any party that's always on? The spells on the Magus are overrated given what it trades for them.

[VictorFafnir]

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...

I mean, I have wrote it before but I don't know if I got ignored.

It is not always about geting disturbed, although enemies with AoO will be mostly bosses that can distrub your spell on 20-30% chance. Its about letting enemy hit you for free while doing your class feature, you don't see ranger getting hit in the face for using hunter's mark, and besides even it it is not 40%, 20% is still a lot since those are with AoO, we don't count the other ones that give you a headache with messing your action economy or making you unable to use spellstrike or wasting your actions for getting up after foe tripped you
Catching the bad end of the stick for doing what your entire class and 50% of your feats are build around is kinda bad.

Second. Arcane cascade dmg is pitfull in terms of dmg and action economy of magus, sure fighter might not get that +1 to dmg, but they get crits and not missing, other classes get flurry of blows or hunter's mark, Even with this at best you will be a bit behind in dmg than a mediocre/avarage striker (while risking getting hit in the face if enemy have AoO) and without it you are worse fighter, allowing your cantrips to be used as part of melee strike is not a buff since cantrips are worse than just striking for every other class, in span of 2 turns while recharging magus will be behind every other martial, even their spell slots spellstrike aren't that great.

Third, draw the lightning requires your fight to last at least 6-7 rounds and you spellstriking every turn to match the dmg output of let's say shocking grasp, while it last 10 turns, It is not optimal, true strike is true strike.. it is better option that most of your spells but it is bounded to 1st lvl spellslot so anyone with arcane spellcasting archetype and 2 feats will get as much use of it as magus.

[VictorFafnir]

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.

Options? Yes.

Dmg ? you will be severly behind

[beowulf99]

gesalt wrote:

It's not the provoking that makes magus worse than other martials. That's already accomplished by everything else about the magus. The provoking is just one last slap in the face and is just unnecessary.

Neat opinion. Well in line with your forum handle, the "salt" part especially. If you don't like Magus, then maybe don't dwell too much on it. I like the Magus, it feels good to me, and I haven't seen any proof of it being worse than other martials. Provide a talking point and proof, and we can talk about it.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

You do understand that the Champion's utility features and actually good feats make it an incredibly strong presence in any party that's always on? The spells on the Magus are overrated given what it trades for them.

Oh I'm not saying that the Champion doesn't have any support or utility features. I'm just saying that they aren't nearly as broad or flexible as the Magus has access to. They have the benefit of "always on" effects for sure. But the Magus can address specific problems that a Champion can't. If that wasn't the case, then everyone could just do everything all the time, and classes wouldn't matter.

The Magus ties a bit of the Wizard's Utility into a platform that let's them get up close and personal with a foe and deal reasonable damage. That is their niche, and they fill it well in my opinion.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The "Options and Versatility" of Spellstrike is primarily being able to run into resistances die to split damage.

Champions and Monks have much stronger other utilities. Champions are absolutely insane when it comes to controlling the battlefield, while Monks not only are incredibly flexible due to an actually strong action economy, but have excellent lockdown potential as well.

Swashbuckler is another class that has issues, such as the inconsistency of Panache.

Most importantly, however, it doesn't get smacked in the face for doing it's thing, which just feels bad.

I said the options and versatility of spellcasting, not spellstrike.

I think you're really undervaluing access to the arcane spell list here by treating it as just another source of hp damage.

[Temperans]

Access to the arcane spell list is literally meaningless when you can only prep 4 spells.

Schrodinger's Caster never works out in game. Schrodinger's Magus is even worse than those casters are.

[Golurkcanfly]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The "Options and Versatility" of Spellstrike is primarily being able to run into resistances die to split damage.

Champions and Monks have much stronger other utilities. Champions are absolutely insane when it comes to controlling the battlefield, while Monks not only are incredibly flexible due to an actually strong action economy, but have excellent lockdown potential as well.

Swashbuckler is another class that has issues, such as the inconsistency of Panache.

Most importantly, however, it doesn't get smacked in the face for doing it's thing, which just feels bad.

I said the options and versatility of spellcasting, not spellstrike.

I think you're really undervaluing access to the arcane spell list here by treating it as just another source of hp damage.

The versatility of 4 whole spells per day with delayed Proficiency scaling and a worse Intelligence, on a chassis that would much prefer many lower level spells instead.

4 spells you can actually choose per day is not a lot. Sure, if you're Schrodinger's Magus, but any spell that isn't useful that day is 1/4th of your casting.