Archetype Bounded Spellcasting Needs Improving

[chapter6]

For starters if spellcasting is more important than having an eidolon or spellstriking why take the archetype? Bounded casting is different and behind regular spellcasting so why wouldn't the archetype be the same? You don't take wizard mcd for the wizard feats.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

chapter6 wrote:

For starters if spellcasting is more important than having an eidolon or spellstriking why take the archetype? Bounded casting is different and behind regular spellcasting so why wouldn't the archetype be the same? You don't take wizard mcd for the wizard feats.

As we have discussed, the issue is not exactly that it is worse. It is worse and more expensive in feats, even compared to Eldritch Archer, It has the same feat and skill costs as being in a caster archetype (bit higher actually a lvl 6 instead of a lvl 4 for basic) for objectively worse casting.

That is the issue.

If it were (for example) just two feats, lvl 6 and 14, ok then. It is worse but cheaper, fair! I actually had a thought that this might have been the intent at one point in development given magus casting jumps two full spell levels at lvl 14, but I digress.

Or if the spellcasting feats gave something else “You can also recharge spellstrike using a magus focus spell once a day”
or whatever.

But bad casting for a higher price makes no sense.

[chapter6]

Casting mcd's give worse casting than the class so why wouldn't bounded spellcaster give worse casting than the class. If they made bounded spellcasting in line with regular casting dedications the archetype would be better than the class. It would give you far more spells with the limit of spellstriking once a combat

[CaffeinatedNinja]

chapter6 wrote:

Casting mcd's give worse casting than the class so why wouldn't bounded spellcaster give worse casting than the class. If they made bounded spellcasting in line with regular casting dedications the archetype would be better than the class. It would give you far more spells with the limit of spellstriking once a combat

Once again, not what I am arguing. No one (literally) is arguing it should be as many spells as a regular caster. But if you are going to give way less, it should be a lower feat cost for it, not a higher one.

[chapter6]

Not really again the reason it's worse is because you're getting access to class features. The spells are incidental and not the main point of the mcd.

[Squiggit]

chapter6 wrote:

The spells are incidental and not the main point of the mcd.

Spells are all you get from the Spellcasting feats though. So... no, not really.

Maybe if they gave some secondary, martial benefit in exchange for the worse spell progression like the actual class you'd have a point.

But right now we're talking about spending the same number of feats for less. That's not 'incidental.'

[gesalt]

Squiggit wrote:

chapter6 wrote:

The spells are incidental and not the main point of the mcd.

Spells are all you get from the Spellcasting feats though. So... no, not really.

Maybe if they gave some secondary, martial benefit in exchange for the worse spell progression like the actual class you'd have a point.

But right now we're talking about spending the same number of feats for less. That's not 'incidental.'

He's right in that the spell feats aren't why you're in the archetype though. They're there so that after you get the shiny feature you wanted you can start gaining spells without escaping the archetype first and starting over with a real casting archetype. Getting bounded spells at 6 and 12 is easier on builds than getting out at 6 and getting a new dedication at 8, spells at 10 and breadth and expert casting at 12 and 14.

[Arcaian]

Feats should have a roughly set value, even if its not perfect - I understand the logic that one shouldn't be able to get spellstrike and full-caster archetype casting from the same dedication, but then change the feat costs of the bounded casting archetype feats. There are definitely already examples of feats at the same/higher levels that are just worse versions of the other feat, but that's something we should avoid, imo. I wouldn't go so far as to say the power difference here makes the bounded spell casting feats traps or anything, but it's not good to have them cost the same/more and give worse value. Give them worse value and a cheaper cost, or gives them the same cost and a minor martial benefit or something along those lines if you don't want archetype'd bounded casters to have similar casting power :)

[SuperBidi]

If you look at the big picture, you have:

Magus Dedication, Spellstriker, 3 spellcasting feat or
Wizard Dedication, 3 spellcasting feat, breadth.

2 builds with exactly the same number of feats at the same level. And both builds are perfectly valid and on par. If you improve the Magus spellcasting feats or reduce their cost, then the first build becomes better or cheaper than the second: The balance is lost. So these feats are worse for balance reasons.

But obviously, if you don't look at the big picture and just look at the feats one by one, you miss the point.

[HumbleGamer]

I think they are fine.

It's true they are different, but given the fact eidolon and spell strike are gated respectively between summoner and magus archetype, even if you may consider their spell casting not worth it, you have to deal with it. There are no alternatives.

Also, starting from lvl 14 they are quite an alternative.

1 lvl 5 spell and 2x lvl 4

Vs

1 spell from lvl 1 to 5

Is quite a good alternative.

Given how bad is a normal spellcasting archetype, I am fine with renouncing to useless low level spells for one more high level.

From lvl 1 to lvl 14 is a long road, I know this, but even so those archetypes are going to be chosen no matter what.

Some players would like to get spell strike or eidolon, and will be forced to also pick a less effective spell casting progression.

So paizo did this well ( because, as for anything else, its a matter of choices and renounces ), and players have to sacrifice something to get the perks they want.

The moment the player wonders and complains a lot about a choice ( I'd like to get spell strike, but I'd also like the wizard archetype spell progression) it's clearly a win.

[Temperans]

SuperBidi wrote:

If you look at the big picture, you have:

Magus Dedication, Spellstriker, 3 spellcasting feat or
Wizard Dedication, 3 spellcasting feat, breadth.

2 builds with exactly the same number of feats at the same level. And both builds are perfectly valid and on par. If you improve the Magus spellcasting feats or reduce their cost, then the first build becomes better or cheaper than the second: The balance is lost. So these feats are worse for balance reasons.

But obviously, if you don't look at the big picture and just look at the feats one by one, you miss the point.

3 feats for 2 7th level spell slots and 2 6th level spell slots.

Vs

3 feats for 1 spell slot of every level up to 8th.

Idk about you but 8 spell slots is a lot more than 4. If you consider the fact that Spellstrike is only 1/minute and effectively meaningless if all you can use is cantrips it becomes even worse. Breath at least gives you 6 extra spells slots.

[SuperBidi]

Temperans wrote:

If you consider the fact that Spellstrike is only 1/minute and effectively meaningless if all you can use is cantrips it becomes even worse.

If I have a melee martial with 14 Int, I take the Magus Dedication + Spellstrike + spellcasting feats over the Wizard Dedication + spellcasting feats + breadth without hesitation.

Which proves that they are well balanced, as you would take the other one instead.

As a side note, Spellstrike is massive, the 1/minute limitation is hardly a limitation and I will definitely never Spellstrike with anything but cantrips outside of extreme situations. You have the right to disregard Spellstrike, but the damage output with a reroll is so high that you can't say it's bad.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think they are fine.

It's true they are different, but given the fact eidolon and spell strike are gated respectively between summoner and magus archetype, even if you may consider their spell casting not worth it, you have to deal with it. There are no alternatives.

Also, starting from lvl 14 they are quite an alternative.

1 lvl 5 spell and 2x lvl 4

Vs

1 spell from lvl 1 to 5

Is quite a good alternative.

I think you are cherry picking a little there. Lvl 14 has a huge jump compared to 13 and is arguably the best level for a bounded caster. It is objectively worse the rest of the time.

HumbleGamer wrote:

The moment the player wonders and complains a lot about a choice ( I'd like to get spell strike, but I'd also like the wizard archetype spell progression) it's clearly a win.

Well, first it is much worse than eldritch archer not just wizard. Second, I think we are fine with worse casting than a wizard if we paid a lower feat price for it, instead of a higher one.

[HumbleGamer]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think they are fine.

It's true they are different, but given the fact eidolon and spell strike are gated respectively between summoner and magus archetype, even if you may consider their spell casting not worth it, you have to deal with it. There are no alternatives.

Also, starting from lvl 14 they are quite an alternative.

1 lvl 5 spell and 2x lvl 4

Vs

1 spell from lvl 1 to 5

Is quite a good alternative.

I think you are cherry picking a little there. Lvl 14 has a huge jump compared to 13 and is arguably the best level for a bounded caster. It is objectively worse the rest of the time.

I said it's an alternative, not that it would be the best choice for every player. Also, consider that having an eidolon or being able to spellstrike is part of the deal.

If we were to just consider the spellcasting progression, I could agree with you, but there's more linked to it.

[Kyrone]

Temperans wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

If you look at the big picture, you have:

Magus Dedication, Spellstriker, 3 spellcasting feat or
Wizard Dedication, 3 spellcasting feat, breadth.

2 builds with exactly the same number of feats at the same level. And both builds are perfectly valid and on par. If you improve the Magus spellcasting feats or reduce their cost, then the first build becomes better or cheaper than the second: The balance is lost. So these feats are worse for balance reasons.

But obviously, if you don't look at the big picture and just look at the feats one by one, you miss the point.

3 feats for 2 7th level spell slots and 2 6th level spell slots.

Vs

3 feats for 1 spell slot of every level up to 8th.

Idk about you but 8 spell slots is a lot more than 4. If you consider the fact that Spellstrike is only 1/minute and effectively meaningless if all you can use is cantrips it becomes even worse. Breath at least gives you 6 extra spells slots.

Quality of the slots matter though, yes it have 8, but most of them are lower lvl than the bounded ones.

[chapter6]

To be honest you can take the Magus mcd and be out of it without taking any spellcasting. The dedication, spellstrike and basic martial magic to grab a feat. I really think people who underestimate the power of spellstrike even with a cantrip especially with a fighter or ranger.

[Unicore]

Squiggit wrote:

chapter6 wrote:

The spells are incidental and not the main point of the mcd.

Spells are all you get from the Spellcasting feats though. So... no, not really.

Maybe if they gave some secondary, martial benefit in exchange for the worse spell progression like the actual class you'd have a point.

But right now we're talking about spending the same number of feats for less. That's not 'incidental.'

Gaining some spell slots is the point of the feat, but it is not the point of Multi Class archetype. A Fighter MC Magus could take the dedication, spell strike and one class feat, and then take wizard MC, the three spell casting feats and breath and have both spell strike and quiet a few spell slots, but it would take up most of their build and cost 1 additional feat (which is 2 more cantrips anyway so hardly a bad choice).

Incidentally, striker's scroll is probably the better feat for the fighter MC Magus than any spell casting as it will allow you to use spells that actually can compete with your cantrips and you can have enough of them to make every spell strike you do come from a decent spell slot spell.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Unicore wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

chapter6 wrote:

The spells are incidental and not the main point of the mcd.

Spells are all you get from the Spellcasting feats though. So... no, not really.

Maybe if they gave some secondary, martial benefit in exchange for the worse spell progression like the actual class you'd have a point.

But right now we're talking about spending the same number of feats for less. That's not 'incidental.'

Gaining some spell slots is the point of the feat, but it is not the point of Multi Class archetype. A Fighter MC Magus could take the dedication, spell strike and one class feat, and then take wizard MC, the three spell casting feats and breath and have both spell strike and quiet a few spell slots, but it would take up most of their build and cost 1 additional feat (which is 2 more cantrips anyway so hardly a bad choice).

Incidentally, striker's scroll is probably the better feat for the fighter MC Magus than any spell casting as it will allow you to use spells that actually can compete with your cantrips and you can have enough of them to make every spell strike you do come from a decent spell slot spell.

I don't think feats should exist that are so bad you want to take a different archetype just to get the exact same thing but better and cheaper.

[Unicore]

I think that feat power balance is not singular to the feat, but tied up in what you have to do to gain access to the feat. Ignoring the path that gets you the feat to compare it to another doesn’t look at the organic development of a character. A fighter doesn’t MC into Magus to get access to spell slot spells. They would pick a different archetype to begin with if the vision of the character was fighter who casts as many spells as possible.

But a fighter who already has spell strike might need to think about what there next goal is, and wether MORE spell slots is valuable to them (especially lower level slots that won’t interact well with their spell strike, or not, and if so, then getting those extra spells has two options: maximum spell slots, by adding another archetype, or using the resource available to you to have less spell slots over all, but with a shift towards higher level spell slots rather than lower level ones. It is largely the same dilemma the magus themselves face in their own class so it feels rather fitting.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Unicore wrote:

I think that feat power balance is not singular to the feat, but tied up in what you have to do to gain access to the feat. Ignoring the path that gets you the feat to compare it to another doesn’t look at the organic development of a character. A fighter doesn’t MC into Magus to get access to spell slot spells. They would pick a different archetype to begin with if the vision of the character was fighter who casts as many spells as possible.

But a fighter who already has spell strike might need to think about what there next goal is, and wether MORE spell slots is valuable to them (especially lower level slots that won’t interact well with their spell strike, or not, and if so, then getting those extra spells has two options: maximum spell slots, by adding another archetype, or using the resource available to you to have less spell slots over all, but with a shift towards higher level spell slots rather than lower level ones. It is largely the same dilemma the magus themselves face in their own class so it feels rather fitting.

Oh, I grant you that the archetype as a whole should be considered. But magus doesn't offer THAT much. Spellstrike is nice, but it is once a fight. The focus spells are decent but don't recharge spellstrike, so not talking lay on hands level of power here.

The big kicker is the archetype gives worse casting than Eldritch Archer, what gives? Less spells AND lower level spells most of the time, which is odd as magus gets max spell progression until you hit lvl 10 spells.

I mean, there are a lot of ways they could have adjusted it. Extra benefits for getting casting feats. Get rid of the legendary arcana requirement for spells like Eldritch archer. Make it two feats not 3.

But instead, what is there is just bad and expensive. That isn't a good combination.

Also, unrelated but weird. Why does the archetype give trained in simple weapons that never scales? Presumably that for wizards that take it, but if they want to use a weapon they have to stop at mid levels when it doesn't hit expert? Odd.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Another option would have been to add some hybrid study spell slots when you get the casting or something to that effect.

[breithauptclan]

Are there any other archetypes that give the Expert Spellcasting and Master Spellcasting benefits without needing the skill boosts? If not, then I think that it is Eldritch Archer that is the odd one out that needs fixed.

Also, Eldritch archer gives those feats at 8, 12, and 18. Magus gives them at 6, 12, and 18. So I am not sure where you are coming up with the idea that Eldritch Archer gives more spells at higher spell level and at lower feat cost. More spell slots, yes - but the extras are lower level spells.

Even with Breadth feats (which Eldritch Archer doesn't have), the extra spell slots are for all levels except your highest two. So with just the three spellcasting feats, Magus archetype gets two 6th and two 7th level spell slots. Wizard archetype would only get one of each of those two levels and would have to spend a fourth feat to get two slots of the lower spell levels.

That looks a lot like Magus gets more higher level spell slots with fewer feats to me.

[Squiggit]

Unicore wrote:

They would pick a different archetype to begin with if the vision of the character was fighter who casts as many spells as possible.

I mean, isn't that just saying the feats suck but in a more roundabout way?

"Nobody would take the archetype for these feats" is not a good thing.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

breithauptclan wrote:

Are there any other archetypes that give the Expert Spellcasting and Master Spellcasting benefits without needing the skill boosts? If not, then I think that it is Eldritch Archer that is the odd one out that needs fixed.

Also, Eldritch archer gives those feats at 8, 12, and 18. Magus gives them at 6, 12, and 18. So I am not sure where you are coming up with the idea that Eldritch Archer gives more spells at higher spell level and at lower feat cost. More spell slots, yes - but the extras are lower level spells.

Even with Breadth feats (which Eldritch Archer doesn't have), the extra spell slots are for all levels except your highest two. So with just the three spellcasting feats, Magus archetype gets two 6th and two 7th level spell slots. Wizard archetype would only get one of each of those two levels and would have to spend a fourth feat to get two slots of the lower spell levels.

That looks a lot like Magus gets more higher level spell slots with fewer feats to me.

You are talking about lvl 20?

At lvl 20 a Magus MC has 2 6th and 2 7th. A wizard MC has an 8th (full spell level higher) 7th, and 1 from 1-6. If they have breadth, they have 2 from 1-6.

At many levels the magus casting is strictly inferior in every way. It is never a stronger option. It in no way gets more higher level spell slots with fewer feats. There are posts above which have it charted out if you want to compare.

[breithauptclan]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

You are talking about lvl 20?

At lvl 20 a Magus MC has 2 6th and 2 7th. A wizard MC has an 8th (full spell level higher) 7th, and 1 from 1-6. If they have breadth, they have 2 from 2-6.

At many levels the magus casting is strictly inferior in every way. It is never a stronger option. It in no way gets more higher level spell slots with fewer feats. There are posts above which have it charted out if you want to compare.

Again, Breadth costs an additional feat. And it sounds like we can both cherry pick levels where the balance swings to favor one over the other. Sounds like reasonable balance to me.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

breithauptclan wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

You are talking about lvl 20?

At lvl 20 a Magus MC has 2 6th and 2 7th. A wizard MC has an 8th (full spell level higher) 7th, and 1 from 1-6. If they have breadth, they have 2 from 2-6.

At many levels the magus casting is strictly inferior in every way. It is never a stronger option. It in no way gets more higher level spell slots with fewer feats. There are posts above which have it charted out if you want to compare.

Again, Breadth costs an additional feat. And it sounds like we can both cherry pick levels where the balance swings to favor one over the other. Sounds like reasonable balance to me.

No, I don't think so.

Lets go level by level, starting at 6, not counting breadth.

6/7 - Same
8/9 - Caster gets a lvl 3, Magus Doesn't
10/11 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't
12/13 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't, Magus has an extra 3, but Caster gets a 4
14/15 Caster gets a 1-3, Magus gets an extra 4, both have a 5.
16/17 Caster gets 1-4, Magus gets an extra 5, both have a 6.
18/19, Casster gets 1-4, Magus gets and extra 5/6 but has no 7th.
20, Casster gets 1-5, Magus gets an extra 6/7 but has no 8th.

So, early on strictly inferior. Closer at 14/15, if you consider a lvl 4 being worth a 1-3. Same trend as it goes on.

Magus never gets spells sooner, usually later. And breadth does exist and is cheap.

After lvl 6/7, 14 is probably the closest to being even, if you consider a 4 worth a 1-3 (debatable but the argument is legit) It falls back behind after that.

[breithauptclan]

I look at this:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Lets go level by level, starting at 6, not counting breadth.

6/7 - Same
8/9 - Caster gets a lvl 3, Magus Doesn't
10/11 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't
12/13 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't, Magus has an extra 3, but Caster gets a 4
14/15 Caster gets a 1-3, Magus gets an extra 4, both have a 5.
16/17 Caster gets 1-4, Magus gets an extra 5, both have a 6.
18/19, Casster gets 1-4, Magus gets and extra 5/6 but has no 7th.
20, Casster gets 1-5, Magus gets an extra 6/7 but has no 8th.

and notice that yes, the full caster archetype gets the lower level spell slots. But for the upper level spell slots they trade back and forth on who has more of those upper level slots.

6/7: same
8/9: caster ahead
10/11: same
12/13: nearly same
14/15: Magus ahead
16/17: Magus ahead
18/19: Magus has more, caster has higher
20: Magus has more, caster has higher

And that is a lot closer of a race than the spell slot comparison of the base classes that these archetypes are based on.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

breithauptclan wrote:

I look at this:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Lets go level by level, starting at 6, not counting breadth.

6/7 - Same
8/9 - Caster gets a lvl 3, Magus Doesn't
10/11 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't
12/13 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't, Magus has an extra 3, but Caster gets a 4
14/15 Caster gets a 1-3, Magus gets an extra 4, both have a 5.
16/17 Caster gets 1-4, Magus gets an extra 5, both have a 6.
18/19, Casster gets 1-4, Magus gets and extra 5/6 but has no 7th.
20, Casster gets 1-5, Magus gets an extra 6/7 but has no 8th.

and notice that yes, the full caster archetype gets the lower level spell slots. But for the upper level spell slots they trade back and forth on who has more of those upper level slots.

6/7: same
8/9: caster ahead
10/11: same
12/13: nearly same
14/15: Magus ahead
16/17: Magus ahead
18/19: Magus has more, caster has higher
20: Magus has more, caster has higher

And that is a lot closer of a race than the spell slot comparison of the base classes that these archetypes are based on.

12/13 Casters have a higher spell slot, I wouldn't say it is close.

But lets not bicker over the exact details, we have charts for that. The question isn't how the base classes compare but how the archetypes do. Magus loses this exchange for a higher price. Now, they could have engineered it so it was closer, but they didn't.

For instance if Magus had a 1-2-1 pattern, still only 4 spells, but if they kept up the same levels as MC wizard would get an extra -1 in exchange for low level spells etc etc. But that is getting into homebrew territory.

[breithauptclan]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

But lets not bicker over the exact details, we have charts for that. The question isn't how the base classes compare but how the archetypes do. Magus loses this exchange for a higher price.

To make sure I am following - the higher price is getting Basic spellcasting at level 6 instead of level 4, yes? Any other higher cost that I am forgetting about?

[CaffeinatedNinja]

breithauptclan wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

But lets not bicker over the exact details, we have charts for that. The question isn't how the base classes compare but how the archetypes do. Magus loses this exchange for a higher price.

To make sure I am following - the higher price is getting Basic spellcasting at level 6 instead of level 4, yes? Any other higher cost that I am forgetting about?

Yeah, pretty much. Not a LOT higher but it is.

[chapter6]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

I look at this:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Lets go level by level, starting at 6, not counting breadth.

6/7 - Same
8/9 - Caster gets a lvl 3, Magus Doesn't
10/11 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't
12/13 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't, Magus has an extra 3, but Caster gets a 4
14/15 Caster gets a 1-3, Magus gets an extra 4, both have a 5.
16/17 Caster gets 1-4, Magus gets an extra 5, both have a 6.
18/19, Casster gets 1-4, Magus gets and extra 5/6 but has no 7th.
20, Casster gets 1-5, Magus gets an extra 6/7 but has no 8th.

and notice that yes, the full caster archetype gets the lower level spell slots. But for the upper level spell slots they trade back and forth on who has more of those upper level slots.

6/7: same
8/9: caster ahead
10/11: same
12/13: nearly same
14/15: Magus ahead
16/17: Magus ahead
18/19: Magus has more, caster has higher
20: Magus has more, caster has higher

And that is a lot closer of a race than the spell slot comparison of the base classes that these archetypes are based on.

12/13 Casters have a higher spell slot, I wouldn't say it is close.

But lets not bicker over the exact details, we have charts for that. The question isn't how the base classes compare but how the archetypes do. Magus loses this exchange for a higher price. Now, they could have engineered it so it was closer, but they didn't.

For instance if Magus had a 1-2-1 pattern, still only 4 spells, but if they kept up the same levels as MC wizard would get an extra -1 in exchange for low level spells etc etc. But that is getting into homebrew territory.

But giving them 1-2-1 spell progression doesn't work. It gives spells at 3 levels plus cantrips. An actual Magus doesn't have access to 3 spell levels at once until they get studious spell

[Temperans]

chapter6 wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

I look at this:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Lets go level by level, starting at 6, not counting breadth.

6/7 - Same
8/9 - Caster gets a lvl 3, Magus Doesn't
10/11 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't
12/13 - Caster has a lvl 1 magus doesn't, Magus has an extra 3, but Caster gets a 4
14/15 Caster gets a 1-3, Magus gets an extra 4, both have a 5.
16/17 Caster gets 1-4, Magus gets an extra 5, both have a 6.
18/19, Casster gets 1-4, Magus gets and extra 5/6 but has no 7th.
20, Casster gets 1-5, Magus gets an extra 6/7 but has no 8th.

and notice that yes, the full caster archetype gets the lower level spell slots. But for the upper level spell slots they trade back and forth on who has more of those upper level slots.

6/7: same
8/9: caster ahead
10/11: same
12/13: nearly same
14/15: Magus ahead
16/17: Magus ahead
18/19: Magus has more, caster has higher
20: Magus has more, caster has higher

And that is a lot closer of a race than the spell slot comparison of the base classes that these archetypes are based on.

12/13 Casters have a higher spell slot, I wouldn't say it is close.

But lets not bicker over the exact details, we have charts for that. The question isn't how the base classes compare but how the archetypes do. Magus loses this exchange for a higher price. Now, they could have engineered it so it was closer, but they didn't.

For instance if Magus had a 1-2-1 pattern, still only 4 spells, but if they kept up the same levels as MC wizard would get an extra -1 in exchange for low level spells etc etc. But that is getting into homebrew territory.

But giving them 1-2-1 spell progression doesn't work. It gives spells at 3 levels plus cantrips. An actual Magus doesn't have access to 3 spell levels at once until they get studious spell

...that just makes it more obvious that the archetype is worse for a higher cost.

Specially when someone suggests that Magus taking Scroll Spellstrike is better than actually taking the spellcasting feats.

[breithauptclan]

Temperans wrote:

chapter6 wrote:

But giving them 1-2-1 spell progression doesn't work. It gives spells at 3 levels plus cantrips. An actual Magus doesn't have access to 3 spell levels at once until they get studious spell

...that just makes it more obvious that the archetype is worse for a higher cost.

The archetype is supposed to be better than the base class it comes from?

[CaffeinatedNinja]

breithauptclan wrote:

Temperans wrote:

chapter6 wrote:

But giving them 1-2-1 spell progression doesn't work. It gives spells at 3 levels plus cantrips. An actual Magus doesn't have access to 3 spell levels at once until they get studious spell

...that just makes it more obvious that the archetype is worse for a higher cost.

The archetype is supposed to be better than the base class it comes from?

?

You can always prepare a lower level slot in a higher one, spreading the levels lower is strictly a negative, it has no benefit.

For example, a lvl 14 magus has 2 lvl 7 and 2 lvl 6 spells. If an archetype magus has 1 lvl 5, 2 lvl 4 and a lvl 3, that would be way way worse.

[breithauptclan]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Temperans wrote:

chapter6 wrote:

But giving them 1-2-1 spell progression doesn't work. It gives spells at 3 levels plus cantrips. An actual Magus doesn't have access to 3 spell levels at once until they get studious spell

...that just makes it more obvious that the archetype is worse for a higher cost.

The archetype is supposed to be better than the base class it comes from?

?

You can always prepare a lower level slot in a higher one, spreading the levels lower is strictly a negative, it has no benefit.

Hmm... Maybe I am not understanding Temperans then.

But to be honest, I haven't understood most of this thread. Is bounded spellcasting archetype worse than regular spellcasting archetype? Well, pretty much yes. That is essentially the purpose. It is supposed to lose the lower level spells and be slightly less on the upper level spells - mirroring the spell progression differences between bounded spellcasting base classes and full spellcasting base classes.

So ... design goals achieved?

And I am not sure what could be improved on the spellcasting progression alone that wouldn't cause the entire archetype as a whole to become unbalanced. Getting the basic spellcasting feat at level 6 isn't much of a burden for Magus specifically since getting it at level 4 would compete with Spellstrike itself. Summoner archetype is a different matter - but I don't think that archetype is terrible because of failings of the bounded archetype spellcasting progression.

But my concern is that if the spellcasting progression of Magus archetype was improved, then why would the Wizard archetype even need to exist? What is its niche?

And if instead you are pushing to improve something else in Magus archetype, why start by picking on the spellcasting progression?

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

So ... design goals achieved?

"We intentionally made these feats suck" is a pretty lousy design goal, if it was one.

Quote:

And if instead you are pushing to improve something else in Magus archetype, why start by picking on the spellcasting progression?

I mean, because that's the part of the archetype that's blatantly out of balance. Honestly kind of having trouble wrapping my head around this question. OP believes a certain set of feats is underpowered, so is asking for improvements to them.

What else would you expect?

[CaffeinatedNinja]

breithauptclan wrote:

But to be honest, I haven't understood most of this thread. Is bounded spellcasting archetype worse than regular spellcasting archetype? Well, pretty much yes. That is essentially the purpose. It is supposed to lose the lower level spells and be slightly less on the upper level spells - mirroring the spell progression differences between bounded spellcasting base classes and full spellcasting base classes.

So ... design goals achieved?

And I am not sure what could be improved on the spellcasting progression alone that wouldn't cause the entire archetype as a whole to become unbalanced. Getting the basic spellcasting feat at level 6 isn't much of a burden for Magus specifically since getting it at level 4 would compete with Spellstrike itself. Summoner archetype is a different matter - but I don't think that archetype is terrible because of failings of the bounded archetype spellcasting progression.

But my concern is that if the spellcasting progression of Magus archetype was improved, then why would the Wizard archetype even need to exist? What is its niche?

And if instead you are pushing to improve something else in Magus archetype, why start by picking on the spellcasting progression?

Well, you can look at other stuff too, but you still have to make the casting feats worth it.

Easiest way is reduce the cost. Like I mentioned before make it a lvl 6 and 14 feat for full bounded casting, you get less but you pay less, which seems consistent with 2e philosophy. So if you want more casting, invest in wizard etc. Eldritch Archer does this in a different way by not offering a breadth feat.

Another way is add something else on that fits with magus. Maybe they give you standby spell slots too like Magus gets? Expert spellcasting at lvl 12 gives you the lvl 2 studious spell slots. They increase to lvl 3 with master spellcasting (should never reach lvl 4 like magus though)

Plenty of ways value could be added. Having the spellcasting feats be worse for the same cost isn’t a good way to do it though.

[SuperBidi]

If I understand well, a better balance would have been 2 feats for the spellcasting archetypes and 2 feats for Spellstrike (with the first feat limiting it to once per day for example). That way, there would still be 5 feats needed to get both spellcasting and Spellstrike but each part would have been more balanced.
It's true that it could have been made that way.

[breithauptclan]

Squiggit wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

So ... design goals achieved?

"We intentionally made these feats suck" is a pretty lousy design goal, if it was one.

Quote:

And if instead you are pushing to improve something else in Magus archetype, why start by picking on the spellcasting progression?

I mean, because that's the part of the archetype that's blatantly out of balance. Honestly kind of having trouble wrapping my head around this question. OP believes a certain set of feats is underpowered, so is asking for improvements to them.

What else would you expect?

I'm expecting that the entire point of the bounded spellcasting is for classes and archetypes where the spellcasting is only part of the benefits of the class or archetype. So looking only at the spellcasting feats is obviously going to compare badly.

Magus archetype for example gives the opportunity to get spellstrike. For a martial character base class that is huge. That means that the archetype gives a good amount of high level spell slots where damage spells can be put, and the ability to land those spells using the martial weapon proficiency instead of their sub-par spellcasting stats. That seems like more than enough compensation for the lowered spellcasting benefits.

Summoner is a bit of a problem because the Eidolon is a non-starter for combat purposes. But like I mentioned earlier, that isn't a failing of the bounded spellcasting archetype progression.

So if there is a problem with the archetype balance as a whole, then pushing for better benefits in the rest of the archetype makes sense to me. Pushing for improving the spellcasting progression to make it nearly identical to the regular spellcasting archetype progression doesn't.

So this:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Another way is add something else on that fits with magus. Maybe they give you standby spell slots too like Magus gets? Expert spellcasting at lvl 12 gives you the lvl 2 studious spell slots. They increase to lvl 3 with master spellcasting (should never reach lvl 4 like magus though)

kinda makes sense. Though I would rather the additional benefits be something other than more spellcasting. The archetype is meant to have lower spellcasting than a full caster archetype.

------

I'm not a fan of the lowered feat count to get the full spellcasting progression. I would think that it is going to overload the power of those feats. But maybe if you actually wrote up the progression that you have in mind for the two feats in the homebrew section it would make more sense to me.

[whew]

breithauptclan wrote:

But my concern is that if the spellcasting progression of Magus archetype was improved, then why would the Wizard archetype even need to exist? What is its niche?

MC Spellstrike and Dimensional Assault only work in melee. MC Wizard's niche is characters who aren't melee martials. Also, the wizard refocus is less silly.

[AnimatedPaper]

breithauptclan wrote:

I'm expecting that the entire point of the bounded spellcasting is for classes and archetypes where the spellcasting is only part of the benefits of the class or archetype. So looking only at the spellcasting feats is obviously going to compare badly.

I strongly disagree with this theory of balancing, in part because archetype feats have to stand on their own. That's the point of doing them as archetype feats in the first place.

Having said that, I think I mostly agree with the rest of your point, that the bonded spellcasting benefits are a lot closer to balanced than they might seem. I might houserule some tweaks, like maybe the bonded spellcasting benefits gain spell slots at the same levels as normal caster benefits, maybe bumping things so that it goes to 8th at 20th level (making the trade-off 2 slots in your top levels versus 1 slot in each level, yet still short of what the full class can do), but as a whole I'm pretty satisfied with how it is laid out.

I can even see the logic in how they arrived at this progression. Normal casters go to 10, MC casters go to 8th. Bonded casters tap out at 9th, so MC Bonded stop at 7th. Most critically, breadth does not apply to 8th or 7th level of the MC caster, while bonded MC casters DO get that second 7th level slot. Whether that slot is worth the all the trade offs is, of course, open to opinion (partly why I'm tempted to let it run to 8th, but then would bonded MC casting be strictly better?), but I'm not nearly as convinced that the bonded benefits are as "strictly worse" as I remember them being.

[gesalt]

If I'm remembering my math right, any spellstrike using a spell slot 3 levels below your cantrip is functionally equivalent to just using your scaling cantrips.

That gives us weird progression:
6-8 do more damage with top slot spell
9 cantrip
10 spell
11-13 cantrip
14 spell
15 cantrip
16 spell
17-19 cantrip
20 spell

At the end of the day though, you shouldn't be wasting your slots on damage anyway.

[breithauptclan]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

I'm expecting that the entire point of the bounded spellcasting is for classes and archetypes where the spellcasting is only part of the benefits of the class or archetype. So looking only at the spellcasting feats is obviously going to compare badly.

I strongly disagree with this theory of balancing, in part because archetype feats have to stand on their own. That's the point of doing them as archetype feats in the first place.

By 'stand on their own' I am thinking of characters built without the Free Archetype rules. Where class feats for taking archetype feats are limited and each one is important. Yes?

If a character is only going to spend four feats on an archetype and decides to spend them on Magus dedication and the three spellcasting feats - why didn't they take Wizard dedication instead?

If the entire point of the archetype choice is for the spellcasting, pick a full spellcasting archetype. If the entire point of the archetype choice is not in the spellcasting, that is the design space where bounded archetype spellcasting exists.

This is also why I worry about overloading the bounded spellcasting feats by reducing the feat count down to only two. If a character is only going to spend two feats on the archetype, then they may get more power out of Magus dedication and Basic Magus Spellcasting than they would from Wizard dedication and Basic Wizard Spellcasting. And I'm certain that they would get more spellcasting power out of three feats - dedication, basic, advanced to get the full bounded archetype progression - than a dedication, Basic spellcasting, Expert spellcasting that a Wizard archetype provides.

[AnimatedPaper]

breithauptclan wrote:

This is also why I worry about overloading the bounded spellcasting feats by reducing the feat count down to only two. If a character is only going to spend two feats on the archetype, then they may get more power out of Magus dedication and Basic Magus Spellcasting than they would from Wizard dedication and Basic Wizard Spellcasting. And I'm certain that they would get more spellcasting power out of three feats - dedication, basic, advanced to get the full bounded archetype progression - than a dedication, Basic spellcasting, Expert spellcasting that a Wizard archetype provides.

Right, I agree with that part. My objection was only to your point, and perhaps I misunderstood you, that having strictly worse spellcasting feats was no big deal because the overall archetype was strong enough. I don't agree with that, but I also disagree with the assessment that bonded spellcasting MC feats ARE strictly worse. I feel that the MC bonded caster benefits compare favorably, or nearly so, with the MC spellcaster benefits.

[breithauptclan]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

perhaps I misunderstood you

Yeah. While I am pretty good at interpreting, remembering, and quoting rules - I am actually rather bad at putting my own thoughts into words that other people understand the way that I intended.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

having strictly worse spellcasting feats was no big deal because the overall archetype was strong enough. I don't agree with that, but I also disagree with the assessment that bonded spellcasting MC feats ARE strictly worse. I feel that the MC bonded caster benefits compare favorably, or nearly so, with the MC spellcaster benefits.

Well, bounded spellcasting archetype is strictly worse than full spellcasting archetype because it loses the lower level spells. But it is reasonably equivalent on just the high level spells.

And I do agree with CaffeinatedNinja that there should be some compensation for that somewhere. I don't think that the compensation should be 'more spellcasting' because that will put the bounded spellcasting progression in direct competition with the regular spellcasting progression - they will be fighting for the same design space.

[AnimatedPaper]

Fair enough!

As I said, I'm tempted to let bonded casting run up to 8th, which would actually let the two MC progressions synergize well. The bonded casting would give 2 slots that the full casting has no way to access, while full casting would have double the overall spells; almost triple if you pick up breadth.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Fair enough!

As I said, I'm tempted to let bonded casting run up to 8th, which would actually let the two MC progressions synergize well. The bonded casting would give 2 slots that the full casting has no way to access, while full casting would have double the overall spells; almost triple if you pick up breadth.

Hmm, I can live with never getting an 8th level spell, although it is lvl 20 and that is kind of the who cares level hah. But bonded spellcasting has normal progression until then so the spells really should match up in levels before that.

I would probably have basic spellcasting exactly the same, 3 slots max, particularly as it is a 6th instead of a 4th, already a penalty there.

Expert Casting I would have it the same as regular archetype casting but you lose. your 1st level spell at 12. But start gaining studious slots (only good for a few spells, can't spellstrike with them.

Something like this maybe.
https://imgur.com/a/sQJZFdn

[AnimatedPaper]

I'll be honest, that seems like a downgrade. The primary benefit to bounded MC is getting an addition slot in your 2nd level, and eventually in your top level (though only at levels 12,13 and 18-20).

...I just realized there might be an editing error to the basic spellcasting. Apologies if I missed someone mentioning this already, but I think it is supposed to upgrade the 1st level slot at level 8, and upgrade the 2nd level slot at level 10. Otherwise the expert bounded spellcasting is out of sync with the lower feat. If I'm right, it would make the slot loss acceptable as you get to 4th faster (although levels 8 and 9 still get it in the shorts), and then with expert you start to get the additional slot in your second best level.

It would also line what levels you get what spells back up until 18th, when instead of getting a new spell level you gain the second higher level slot.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

I'll be honest, that seems like a downgrade. The primary benefit to bounded MC is getting an addition slot in your 2nd level, and eventually in your top level (though only at levels 12,13 and 18-20).

...I just realized there might be an editing error to the basic spellcasting. Apologies if I missed someone mentioning this already, but I think it is supposed to upgrade the 1st level slot at level 8, and upgrade the 2nd level slot at level 10. Otherwise the expert bounded spellcasting is out of sync with the lower feat. If I'm right, it would make the slot loss acceptable as you get to 4th faster (although levels 8 and 9 still get it in the shorts), and then with expert you start to get the additional slot in your second best level.

It would also line what levels you get what spells back up until 18th, when instead of getting a new spell level you gain the second higher level slot.

Yeah, 1-13 it is strictly worse than regular casting.

14/15 is absolutely the best level. Trading an extra 4 for a 1-3 (not a good trade in my mind but the best we have seen so far)
Lvl 16/17 it is an extra 5th for a 1-4 (worse...)
Lvl 18/19 is kind of weird. You lose a 1-4 and 7 for a 5/6.
Lvl 20 is the same but you lose an 8th for a 7th so worse.

It is kind of all over the place, which is why my adjustments smoothed it out.