I know people will say bounded is not supposed to be as good as regular casting,
At least you are already aware of that. It is basically the same for bounded spellcasting vs regular spellcasting too. Bounded spellcasting is always strictly worse.
but this is via archetype, it has to be at least worth the feats. It is a lvl 6, 12 and 18 feat vs lvl 4, 12 and 18 for regular. It is always worse. For the feat cost, it should offer equivalent, if different value, or at least close. But less spells AND slower spell progression is a double wammy.
Yes, if you are a martial class wanting to dip into spellcasting, a regular spellcasting class archetype will generally do better. Fighter with Druid archetype to create a PF1 Ranger. Things like that.
It is only if there are other things in the class feats that the archetype provides that a bounded spellcasting archetype starts to become valuable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards have more spells than witches, but their archetype casting is the same for instance.
Well, technically a Wizard and a Witch have the same number of spell slots. Wizards can get an additional limited-use spell slot from their choice of School. For Wizards that don't choose a school they can only re-cast one of their spells of each level from their bonded item.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eoran, don't be so pedantic. It is just going to cause arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bounded spellcasting is always strictly worse.
The difference between the two is that bounded spellcasting as a class feature is tied to a class that trades those benefits for something else like better weapon proficiency and more class features.
The archetype costs the same as normal archetype spellcasting (with a more expensive basic spellcasting feature so even then not really) for overal worse returns.
In order for your analogy to make sense, bounded spellcasting feats should provide other benefits too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have some old charts that include Eldritch Archer as well as the Multiclass options.
Archetype Spellcasting Progressions
It's interesting to compare Magus MC and Eldritch Archer spellcasting since their signature abilities, Spellstrike and Eldritch Shot, are so similar and because neither has a "Breadth" feat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also notice that while both are using four feats to maximize the number of spells and proficiency, Eldritch Shot is included in the Dedication while Spellstrike would cost a fifth feat.
I think it's the lack of a Breadth feat that hurts the most, since if one's going to invest that much into MCD casting, Breadth has major dividends.
1st feat
Regular 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Bounded 2nd, 3rd
Strictly worse by one 1st level spell
2nd feat
Regular (1st-3rd) + 4th, 5th, 6th
Bounded (2nd, 3rd) + 3rd to 2 4th + 1 5th to 2 5th + 6th
Traded 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th level spell for a 5th, likely unpopular
3rd feat
Regular (1st-6th) + 7th then 8th
Bounded (2 5th, 1 6th) + 6th then only 2 6th + 2 7th
Traded 1st-5th & 8th for extra 6th + 7th, likely unpopular unless specifically targeting specific spells, i.e. Heroism at 6th
4th feat
Regular 1st-6th! Yes, it develops late, but it's only a level 8 feat.
Bounded NONE!
So yeah, I can't see taking these feats except to be able to activate specific spells on a staff and already taking the MCD for a different reason.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is clear if you want spellcasting the way to go is taking a full casting archetype.
Summoner (Eidolin) and Magus (Spellstrike) archetypes should be taken for the other features. The bounded spellcasting feats are just there if you want a little spellcasting without taking another archetype.
In general I think it is pretty balanced overall. The feats are still quite tempting to take if you already took one of the dedications.
I could see myself taking Magus Archetype>Spellstriker>Basic Magus Spellcasting.
I think it is good to think of what would happen if bounded spellcasting was equal to other caster archetypes. Then Summoner/Magus would most likely easily outclass all caster archetypes, especially for martials.
With the way the game currently is there are real pros and cons to taking Wizards vs Magus archetype on a martial character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is clear if you want spellcasting the way to go is taking a full casting archetype.
Summoner (Eidolin) and Magus (Spellstrike) archetypes should be taken for the other features. The bounded spellcasting feats are just there if you want a little spellcasting without taking another archetype.
In general I think it is pretty balanced overall. The feats are still quite tempting to take if you already took one of the dedications.
I could see myself taking Magus Archetype>Spellstriker>Basic Magus Spellcasting.
I think it is good to think of what would happen if bounded spellcasting was equal to other caster archetypes. Then Summoner/Magus would most likely easily outclass all caster archetypes, especially for martials.
With the way the game currently is there are real pros and cons to taking Wizards vs Magus archetype on a martial character.
I've been making a lot of Magus and Magus-like builds this past week, and the only attraction for the MCD casting is to gain access to True Strike, not to the next two feats. Eldritch Archer's casting has more appeal, though yes, Cylar, I agree that w/ regular casting progress wavecasting MCDs would be too attractive compared to others. Plus there's that awkwardness of how different wavecasting distributes its slots compared to the MCD spellcasting chain.
Wavecasting MCD spell progression is just too good for two feats, yet not good enough for three, though as noted, if you're already invested in the MCD, it's a cheap step.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, this might be better moved over to homebrew section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is clear if you want spellcasting the way to go is taking a full casting archetype.
Summoner (Eidolin) and Magus (Spellstrike) archetypes should be taken for the other features. The bounded spellcasting feats are just there if you want a little spellcasting without taking another archetype.
In general I think it is pretty balanced overall. The feats are still quite tempting to take if you already took one of the dedications.
I could see myself taking Magus Archetype>Spellstriker>Basic Magus Spellcasting.
I think it is good to think of what would happen if bounded spellcasting was equal to other caster archetypes. Then Summoner/Magus would most likely easily outclass all caster archetypes, especially for martials.
With the way the game currently is there are real pros and cons to taking Wizards vs Magus archetype on a martial character.
I agree. Magus is really nice for a melee investigator, for example. You can pick up some Int-based combat cantrips (5 if you take Cantrip Expansion and Familiar) and also get some good combat feats.
I've been toying with some reach builds lately. Spellstrike, Thunderous Strike, and Attack of Opportunity all look good for an Elven Branched Spear build, for example.
Picking up a few spell slots is just gravy.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, this might be better moved over to homebrew section.
I mean, homebrew solutions are nice, but sketchy, underpowered featline is still a problem for general discussion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, this might be better moved over to homebrew section.I mean, homebrew solutions are nice, but sketchy, underpowered featline is still a problem for general discussion.
The problem that I am noticing is that we have people trying to do both in the same thread. Some discussing whether the current rules are or are not reasonable, and others proposing various tweaks and changes. The two groups are starting to argue with each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's the lack of a Breadth feat that hurts the most, since if one's going to invest that much into MCD casting, Breadth has major dividends.
1st feat
Regular 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Bounded 2nd, 3rd
Strictly worse by one 1st level spell2nd feat
Regular (1st-3rd) + 4th, 5th, 6th
Bounded (2nd, 3rd) + 3rd to 2 4th + 1 5th to 2 5th + 6th
Traded 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th level spell for a 5th, likely unpopular3rd feat
Regular (1st-6th) + 7th then 8th
Bounded (2 5th, 1 6th) + 6th then only 2 6th + 2 7th
Traded 1st-5th & 8th for extra 6th + 7th, likely unpopular unless specifically targeting specific spells, i.e. Heroism at 6th4th feat
Regular 1st-6th! Yes, it develops late, but it's only a level 8 feat.
Bounded NONE!So yeah, I can't see taking these feats except to be able to activate specific spells on a staff and already taking the MCD for a different reason.
In my opinion, you have to include the level 2 Dedication feat for regular spellcasting archetypes for the comparison to be fair. Because you don't take Magus/Summoner Dedication for the casting feats but if you're not a caster the only thing you get from Wizard/Cleric/etc (but Bard) Dedication is spell casting. If you add this feat, it becomes way more balanced.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... there's a basic consensus among the players that having one set of feats be strictly worse than another set of feats is poor, and should be avoided. I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think it changes anything. Given some of the other other imbalances we're seeing between class feats, between racial feats, and so forth I think that the devs have just decided that having stuff like that happen from time to time is acceptable losses. I'm not sure there's much left to be had here, in the part of the discussion that doesn't belong in the homebrew section.
That said... I think it's worth pausing for a moment, and really savoring the degree to which this is the RPG version of #FirstWorldProblems. Like, does anyone remember back when over half of the feats basically weren't worth taking under any circumstances?, and a fair chunk more were only worth taking because they unlocked other feats? Now, PF2 isn't ideal for this, but the fact that there's enough balance that we can even begin to have and discuss this complaint in a coherent way is something of a luxury.
Not to say that it wouldn't be good to fix it. It would! Just that it's nice, every once in a while, to pause and appreciate what you have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, you have to include the level 2 Dedication feat for regular spellcasting archetypes for the comparison to be fair. Because you don't take Magus/Summoner Dedication for the casting feats but if you're not a caster the only thing you get from Wizard/Cleric/etc (but Bard) Dedication is spell casting. If you add this feat, it becomes way more balanced.
Not necessarily. Bard's best abilities are available through dedication feats and are good on most non-melee characters. Also available are witch's basic lesson, oracle's revelation spells and druid's wild shape for those early game builds.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, you have to include the level 2 Dedication feat for regular spellcasting archetypes for the comparison to be fair. Because you don't take Magus/Summoner Dedication for the casting feats but if you're not a caster the only thing you get from Wizard/Cleric/etc (but Bard) Dedication is spell casting. If you add this feat, it becomes way more balanced.Not necessarily. Bard's best abilities are available through dedication feats and are good on most non-melee characters. Also available are witch's basic lesson, oracle's revelation spells and druid's wild shape for those early game builds.
I agree on the Bard (it's also the best caster Dedication in the game, who could expect that) but I disagree on the others. Focus spells are hard to get, because if you need the high level one you often need to take a useless tax feat to get them. And if your focus spells ask for a save then you need to take the spellcasting feats to increase your proficiency. So it's super limited.
On the other hand, Spellstrike and Eidolon are super easy to get. 2 and 1 feats, not much need to improve them above that (just a level 12 feat for the Eidolon). They are super strong and impactful abilities. So, in my opinion, the current situation is quite balanced, as the Magus/Summoner spellcasting feats are weaker but also less expensive and are one of the easiest way to get out of your Dedication to take another one.
If the Summoner/Magus spellcasting feats were on par with the regular spellcasting feats, there would be no point in taking a regular spellcasting feat as the Summoner/Magus Dedication would give you so much more.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, Spellstrike and Eidolon are super easy to get. 2 and 1 feats, not much need to improve them above that (just a level 12 feat for the Eidolon). They are super strong and impactful abilities. So, in my opinion, the current situation is quite balanced, as the Magus/Summoner spellcasting feats are weaker but also less expensive and are one of the easiest way to get out of your Dedication to take another one.I think this is the crux of my issue. Magus spellcasting fears are not less expensive, they are more expensive. Taking breadth out of the equation, a magus regular caster archetype spends lvl 4, 12 and 18 feats. Magus/summoner has a level 6, 12, 18. For much worse casting.
If magus/summoner casting was in fact cheaper, like just a 6 and 14 or whatever, then it would be fine. Less investment less return, fair. But right now the casting feats are more investment for less return which is the issue.
I disagree on that. Regular casting is level 2, 4, 12 and 18. Magus/Summoner is 6, 12, 18. One less feat because you haven't taken the Dedication for spellcasting.
Comparing the feats in white room doesn't account for the fact that the Magus/Summoner feats are bonus feats when the other caster spellcasting feats (baring Bard mostly) are the reason why you take the Dedication.I really think the Magus/Summoner feats are fine the way they are. They have to be worse than regular spellcasting feats for the Dedications to be balanced.
I think this is the crux of my issue. Magus spellcasting fears are not less expensive, they are more expensive. Taking breadth out of the equation, a magus regular caster archetype spends lvl 4, 12 and 18 feats. Magus/summoner has a level 6, 12, 18. For much worse casting.
If magus/summoner casting was in fact cheaper, like just a 6 and 14 or whatever, then it would be fine. Less investment less return, fair. But right now the casting feats are more investment for less return which is the issue.
Well, for Witch archetype specifically, I would recommend 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and maybe either 14 or 16 too. You are going to want at least one Hex, maybe two of them.
I'm not sure how you are planning on getting the entire bounded archetype spellcasting from 2 feats though. Are you combining two of them together? One feat for both basic and expert, or expert and master? Either option seems too powerful for one feat.
I'm also thinking that your claim of 'more investment for less return' is a bit of hyperbole. For spellcasting only, the difference is that one has the basic spellcasting feat at level 4 and the other has basic spellcasting at level 6. Both require the dedication at level 2, and have expert spellcasting at level 12 and expert spellcasting at level 18. That looks like essentially the same investment. Especially if you are wanting anything besides spellcasting from the archetype - such as Hexes or Spellstrike, both of which would take the other of the 2/4 level feat slot.
So: equivalent investment for fewer spell slots. That would be a more accurate description.
As for less return, having fewer spell slots available is a noticeable drop in power, but it can be offset by scrolls, wands, and staves. Also, in either case, the spellcasting archetype spell slots always lag behind a full spellcasting class's spell slots, so the spells are generally used for utility and buffs rather than damage.
For Magus specifically, a multiclass Magus is often going to be using Spellstrike with cantrips. Even if it got full archetype spellcasting the lagging spell slots wouldn't be much better than an at-level cantrip. Spellstriking with scrolls is probably a better option since you can only Spellstrike once per battle anyway and it is possible to rule that you can use scrolls above your level to cast from spell slots. But to be fully clear, getting Striker's Scroll will take quite a few archetype feats: Dedication, Basic Martial Magic, Spellstriker, Basic Magus Spellcasting, and Advanced Martial Magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You take other casters for other things too.
Besides Bard?
Witch is strictly worse than Familiar Master if you want a Familiar. Sorcerer level 1 focus spells are weak and if you want the strong ones you need to invest 3 feats for one focus spell. Druid is nice for Wild Shape but it doesn't stay useful after level 10. Etc...I don't see much use for the spellcasting archetypes on a martial beside the spellcasting feats.
On the other hand, Magus gives you Spellstrike for a level 4 feat which is completely awesome for every martial (besides Barbarian) and Summoner gives you the Eidolon immediately without any need to add extra feats unlike ACs.
Witch is strictly worse than Familiar Master if you want a Familiar.
Yes. Witch archetype is for the Hexes if not for the spellcasting.
Druid is nice for Wild Shape but it doesn't stay useful after level 10.
Curious on this. I have considered getting Druid archetype specifically for Wild Shape once I have paid off Alchemist archetype. But that won't happen until level 10, so I won't be getting Wild Shape until level 12. Why would Animal Form as a focus spell not be useful any more at that level?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*snip*
For Magus specifically, a multiclass Magus is often going to be using Spellstrike with cantrips. Even if it got full archetype spellcasting the lagging spell slots wouldn't be much better than an at-level cantrip. Spellstriking with scrolls is probably a better option since you can only Spellstrike once per battle anyway and it is possible to rule that you can use scrolls above your level to cast from spell slots. But to be fully clear, getting Striker's Scroll will take quite a few archetype feats: Dedication, Basic Martial Magic, Spellstriker, Basic Magus Spellcasting, and Advanced Martial Magic.
This. Just like regular magus, if you are a martial MC Magus you're really only using Spellstrike with cantrips. I would expect 2 Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Basic Martial Magic (cantrip expansion). Now you're done. No need for spellcasting slots. I'd rather Hybrid Study spell than Basic Bounded Spellcasting. Maybe grab it just so you can have Truestrike. Maybe.
If you want a couple of lower level spells, you'd be better off going with a full caster dedication instead. 2 Magus Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Hybrid Study Spell, 8 Wizard Ded, 10 Basic Wizard spellcasting. Now you have 4 cantrips, a focus spell, and a level 1, 2, and 3 spell slots.
Witch is strictly worse than Familiar Master if you want a Familiar.Yes. Witch archetype is for the Hexes if not for the spellcasting.
Druid is nice for Wild Shape but it doesn't stay useful after level 10.Curious on this. I have considered getting Druid archetype specifically for Wild Shape once I have paid off Alchemist archetype. But that won't happen until level 10, so I won't be getting Wild Shape until level 12. Why would Animal Form as a focus spell not be useful any more at that level?
Animal form stops scaling at spell level 5. Battleform spells are worthless outside of a max level slot so you don't want animal form after that point.
If I'm remembering right, the idea is to cheese wild shape on a fist fighter to get the nice built in +2 status bonus to go with your better proficiency and at level 10, retrain the druid dedication and wild shape into monk and stance and grab flurry of blows or retrain your weapon group and wild shape to spells
Witch is strictly worse than Familiar Master if you want a Familiar.Yes. Witch archetype is for the Hexes if not for the spellcasting.
Druid is nice for Wild Shape but it doesn't stay useful after level 10.Curious on this. I have considered getting Druid archetype specifically for Wild Shape once I have paid off Alchemist archetype. But that won't happen until level 10, so I won't be getting Wild Shape until level 12. Why would Animal Form as a focus spell not be useful any more at that level?
Wild Shape is only heightened up to level 5. After that, you need to take extra Druid feats for it to continue to be effective, and even with the feats you have very few levels where you'll be competitive. So, I'll be you, I'll reconsider my choice of taking Wild Shape at level 12 as at that level, there's not much use of it.
*snip*
For Magus specifically, a multiclass Magus is often going to be using Spellstrike with cantrips. Even if it got full archetype spellcasting the lagging spell slots wouldn't be much better than an at-level cantrip. Spellstriking with scrolls is probably a better option since you can only Spellstrike once per battle anyway and it is possible to rule that you can use scrolls above your level to cast from spell slots. But to be fully clear, getting Striker's Scroll will take quite a few archetype feats: Dedication, Basic Martial Magic, Spellstriker, Basic Magus Spellcasting, and Advanced Martial Magic.
This. Just like regular magus, if you are a martial MC Magus you're really only using Spellstrike with cantrips. I would expect 2 Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Basic Martial Magic (cantrip expansion). Now you're done. No need for spellcasting slots. I'd rather Hybrid Study spell than Basic Bounded Spellcasting. Maybe grab it just so you can have Truestrike. Maybe.
If you want a couple of lower level spells, you'd be better off going with a full caster dedication instead. 2 Magus Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Hybrid Study Spell, 8 Wizard Ded, 10 Basic Wizard spellcasting. Now you have 4 cantrips, a focus spell, and a level 1, 2, and 3 spell slots.
I find 2 Magus Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Basic Spellcasting to be super strong. Spellstrike is especially strong with True Strike, on a Fighter with a low dice weapon it's really a massive damage multiplier (+50% damage on a d8 Fighter compared to 3 Strikes, and the damage bonus increases with the level of the enemy getting as high as double damage on a level +3 monster). And because it's 3 feats you can take another Dedication without any other Magus feat.
Wild Shape is only heightened up to level 5. After that, you need to take extra Druid feats for it to continue to be effective, and even with the feats you have very few levels where you'll be competitive. So, I'll be you, I'll reconsider my choice of taking Wild Shape at level 12 as at that level, there's not much use of it.
Hmm... The AC bonus is still increased with character level. And the attack bonus is a minimum. When my own unarmed attack bonus is higher I would still use that. The damage is fixed and unchanging which is unfortunate but not a critical problem.
But I will have a lot of time between now and level 10 to decide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find 2 Magus Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Basic Spellcasting to be super strong. Spellstrike is especially strong with True Strike, on a Fighter with a low dice weapon it's really a massive damage multiplier (+50% damage on a d8 Fighter compared to 3 Strikes, and the damage bonus increases with the level of the enemy getting as high as double damage on a level +3 monster). And because it's 3 feats you can take another Dedication without any other Magus feat.This. Just like regular magus, if you are a martial MC Magus you're really only using Spellstrike with cantrips. I would expect 2 Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Basic Martial Magic (cantrip expansion). Now you're done. No need for spellcasting slots. I'd rather Hybrid Study spell than Basic Bounded Spellcasting. Maybe grab it just so you can have Truestrike. Maybe.
If you want a couple of lower level spells, you'd be better off going with a full caster dedication instead. 2 Magus Dedication, 4 Spellstrike, 6 Hybrid Study Spell, 8 Wizard Ded, 10 Basic Wizard spellcasting. Now you have 4 cantrips, a focus spell, and a level 1, 2, and 3 spell slots.
I agree Truestrike is great, but I'm saying that you're better off taking Wizard dedication to get it instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... The AC bonus is still increased with character level. And the attack bonus is a minimum. When my own unarmed attack bonus is higher I would still use that. The damage is fixed and unchanging which is unfortunate but not a critical problem.But I will have a lot of time between now and level 10 to decide.
The AC doesn't include proficiency or magic items as you level, so it will just keep getting farther and farther behind. Also the damage is a big deal as every time the rest of the group gets better striking runes, you fall behind, as well as weapon specialization. So forms don't scale well offensively or defensively without being heightened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only complaint with the archetypes is the summoner one not providing extra health for d6/d8 classes. Makes it a little scarier of a proposition for casters. The spellcasting seems fine to me. Like others said I don't consider spell slots to be the draw of the archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree Truestrike is great, but I'm saying that you're better off taking Wizard dedication to get it instead.
No, True Strike is useless on a martial. True Strike + Strike deals less damage than Strike + Strike. I'm speaking of True Strike + Spellstrike, that deals between 30% and 50% more damage output than a 3xStrike round. Which means that if you manage to use it once in a combat you'll deal roughly 15% extra damage during the fight, so it's equivalent to a blanket +1 to all your attacks for this fight. It's strong, really strong, but hard to use and luckily limited to once per fight. I actually think it's the highest damage dealing 3-action routine at level 6 for a martial (I fail to see a competition before moves like Whirlwind Attack or Impossible Flurry).
Unlike Eldritch Archer that doesn't increase your damage output at all unless you start siphoning Hero Points every time you miss an Eldritch Shot, unlike True Strike which will net you a negligeable increase in damage output for a martial.
Magus Dedication is really strong on a martial, and the Magus spellcasting feats are weak compared one to one to other casters feat but when you consider what the Dedication gives you they become way more appealing. For me, it's perfectly balanced as is, you have the choice between increasing greatly your spellcasting ability with regular spellcasting feats or to get a very strong Dedication for a martial but with more limited spellcasting ability.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think the Magus/Summoner feats are fine the way they are. They have to be worse than regular spellcasting feats for the Dedications to be balanced.
Someone who takes Magus dedication and all the bounded spellcasting feats ends up spending higher level feats for similar or worse casting (and no access to 8th level slots) than someone who took a different dedication.
That's not balanced. It's obviously not balanced. There's no secondary advantage that maybe if you squint at is intended to make up for the disparity. It's just straigh up worse, pretty self-evidently.
Honestly that there's even a debate here feels bizarre because it's so clearly straight forward that the feats do not compare very well.