Archetype Bounded Spellcasting Needs Improving

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Unicore wrote:

There are a lot of rogues, rangers and investigators who would disagree about recalling knowledge requiring a 20.

The feat I was referring to is a lvl 6 magus feat called Knowledge is Power. As I said, it only gives benefits on a Critical Success, not a normal success.

Recall DCs on stuff you care about are pretty high. Crit successes are rare. I grant you an investigator taking magus might crit more than a Magus would hah, but still not getting it till lvl 12

Unicore wrote:

The spell casting progression of bounded classes is deliberately inflated too high for proficiencies generally, because of the extremely limited pool of spells they have to cast. Limiting the archetype to expert is far more limiting of what kinds of characters can be built with the archetypes than limiting spell slots because it makes the cantrips useless, other than once per encounter for the Magus.

You don't get master until lvl 18 anyways. If you are a martial that took magus you REALLY shouldn't be using cantrips at 18. They don't scale that well.

Unicore wrote:

Dueling parry is only available to fighters and swashbucklers. I get that you are assuming that a +2 AC is going to be better 95% of the time than a +1 AND a +1 to saving throws vs spells, but that is campaign dependent at best and a circumstance bonus to saving throws is pretty awesome to be able to give to yourself when you are up against someone whom makes you use it. For classes that don't have access to dueling parry, like a rogue or an investigator, it is another example of a useful feat that casting...

Actually no, I think I can safely say that +1 AC is more valuable than a +1 circumstance bonus to spell saves that only target you. I get hit about 100x more often than targetted by a spell specifically targetting me. As Aobst128 pointed out it doesn't work against area spells either.

Unicore wrote:

You only need 1 feat out of all of these to complete your Magus archetype and move on to a full casting archetype for higher levels. You don't need to like 5 or 6 magus feats, you only need to like 1 or 2.

See, this is exactly my point. You are talking about taking another archetype to get casting because magus casting is so bad. Why not just make it useful? Magus doesn't have to offer casting as good as a full caster MC, it shouldn't. But it should offer casting that is worth the feats it takes to get it.

[chapter6]

What was said was you aren't taking a bounded spellcasting archetype because you're looking at the spellcasting. If I want to cast more spells I'd be a wizard not a magus. Same with the archetype yes it has spellcasting but if that's the reason you're taking it vs access to spellstrike and magus class feats then you are and will be disappointed. The feats are balanced for what they are. Oh I get that people want them to be more but it's an archetype and is always going to be less.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

chapter6 wrote:

What was said was you aren't taking a bounded spellcasting archetype because you're looking at the spellcasting. If I want to cast more spells I'd be a wizard not a magus. Same with the archetype yes it has spellcasting but if that's the reason you're taking it vs access to spellstrike and magus class feats then you are and will be disappointed. The feats are balanced for what they are. Oh I get that people want them to be more but it's an archetype and is always going to be less.

Yes, but it is less that the archetype has less spellcasting but that the costs for what you get are too high.

Eldritch archer doesn't have breadth. That is fine, you get your basic casting.

Runescarred doesn't go to master and you can't swap spells. Fine, compensated by lower level casting feats.

Etc etc. But bounded casting kept the same 3 feats (one of them is actually lvl 6 instead of lvl 4) same legendary skill requirement, and made the casting awful.

That isn't putting less in an archetype, it is just massively overpriced and bad feats. That is the issue, less that the archetypes as a whole have too little casting but the price you pay for what you get is way too high. 3 feats, 6,12,18. For 3 spells, AND worse progression. You only get 4 at 20 hah.

And this is a problem that will be an issue with every single bounded caster archetype.

[chapter6]

Again you see it as bad because you don't feel the feat cost is justified but the other parts make it so. The feats you are trying to compare shouldn't be. Regular casting and bounded casting are not the same and trying to compare the archetypes the way you are is unfair. You give up better spell access for access to class abilities.

[Squiggit]

chapter6 wrote:

and trying to compare the archetypes the way you are is unfair.

This is such a weird take to me. They're comparing taking one set of four feats with another set of four feats and looking at their relative value, because the feats are generally aimed at accomplishing the same goal.

How is that unfair? It's a perfectly reasonable comparison of the value of similar investments toward a similar purpose.

... If anything is unfair or silly here, it's this whole notion of feat balance not mattering because you could maybe take a completely different feat instead.

[The Raven Black]

Which four feats ?

Wizard dedication vs Magus dedication at 2.

Basic Wizard spellcasting vs Spellstriker at 4.

Basic Magus spellcasting at 6.

Expert Wizard spellcasting vs Magus at 12.

Master Wizard spellcasting vs Magus at 18.

That is 4 feats to Wizard MC vs 5 to Magus MC.

Or did they not want Spellstriker ? Then why take Magus MC ?

If what they want is only the spellcasting feats, they should go Wizard MC. And that is exactly as it should be.

[Temperans]

There is no way that bounded casting is worth 3 feats when it gives less than regular casting and has the same requirements.

Doesn't matter if it's the Magus, the "Summoner", or another bounded caster that Paizo creates the feats and entire rule set is a waste of space if "you are suppose to ignore those feats". That is the problem you can justify Magus "because you only want spellstrike" but that does not justify the bounded spellcasting archetype rules for all other bounded casters.

Just think about that. You go into an archetype about mixing martial and casting, and instead of taking the casting feats that should synergize with this archetype you have to leave the archetype and take another just to make it worth it. Which btw it is not worth it.

3 MC Magus feats so you can grab Spellstrike and leave, then 4 Wizard feats so you can get spells. That is 7 feats to do what should only take 4: Dedication, Spellstrike, 2 feats for bounded casting.

[The Raven Black]

The Magus MC spellcasting feats do synergize pretty well with the archetype. And you really do not need to go Wizard MC unless you want to be brimming with spell slots.

The wave casters' key class features (Spellstrike and eidolon) work well enough with wave casting.

The bounded spellcasting, which replicates wave casting, works well enough with the same key class features provided by the archetype.

There is no real need to go outside the dedication.

[GM OfAnything]

Squiggit wrote:

chapter6 wrote:

and trying to compare the archetypes the way you are is unfair.

This is such a weird take to me. They're comparing taking one set of four feats with another set of four feats and looking at their relative value, because the feats are generally aimed at accomplishing the same goal.

How is that unfair? It's a perfectly reasonable comparison of the value of similar investments toward a similar purpose.

... If anything is unfair or silly here, it's this whole notion of feat balance not mattering because you could maybe take a completely different feat instead.

It’s definitely cherry picking to ignore the entire value proposition of one feat group when comparing them against the whole value proposition of the other group.

[Unicore]

There are many archetypes that give access to casting only one spell a day, often with limits to how high it can heighten, and often without any kind of proficiency boost. Do all of these feats need to be equal to basic spell casting as well?

The feats offered in an archetype are tied to the archetype and what it allows you to do, not to all the other archetypes and what similar feats might offer. Why do rangers only get a feat which offers an AoO against their hunted prey, while other martials get the full fighter ability? Because the class of ranger is designed about picking 1 enemy and hunting them. Their feats are supposed to support that idea.

A MC magus or summoner inherently get access to spell casting that is pretty limited, but at least grows in level comparable to their base classes. Just like a ranger might be better off picking up AoO from an archetype instead of through their own class feats, a MC magus has options for picking up spell casting within their own archetype if MCing into wizard doesn't fit their build, but the double MC into wizard will provide the most spells if casting lots of spells is a part of the character vision. This pretty clearly seems like the intended vision of what was printed in the book.

[Arcaian]

My issue with the argument that "it's good for the Bounded Spellcasting casting feats to be less effective for their level because the rest of the archetype is highly effective" is just that it's very easy not to take those feats and get the highly effective feats on their own anyway. Going into magus to get cantrips, spellstrike, and low-level magus feat/one of the focus spells before using the rest of your class feats elsewhere will still get you most of the power increase being discussed here, without any need for touching the spellcasting feats. That isn't to say that the spellcasting feats should be as good as for Wizard - just that it's strange you're paying the same cost (or slightly higher, really) for them. It makes sense thematically for a multiclassed magus to have less spellcasting power than a multiclassed wizard, but why does the magus pay more for the worse outcomes, when they can safely take all the good feats and leave the class without touching spellcasting? Making the bounded spellcasting cheaper, or have a non-spell effect that ties into the rest of the archetype (something like a 1/day recharge your spellstrike included in the final spellcasting feat) to incentivise it seems a more interesting choice than just leaving them as more-costly and less-effective feats to me.

[whew]

If you take any two spellcasting archetypes, then OF COURSE you can end up with more spells than if you just took either one by itself. Since spellstrike keeps low-proficiency cantrips usable at high levels, magus archetype is especially good for characters with two spellcasting archetpes.

[Temperans]

Summoner archetype, which is also bounded casting on the other hand doesn't get any better with more spellcasting archetypes. Which is why the whole "oh but you just want spellstrike" is incredibly misleading.

The archetype should work by itself. It should not be relying on you taking other archetypes to make the casting make sense.

[The Raven Black]

Arcaian wrote:

My issue with the argument that "it's good for the Bounded Spellcasting casting feats to be less effective for their level because the rest of the archetype is highly effective" is just that it's very easy not to take those feats and get the highly effective feats on their own anyway. Going into magus to get cantrips, spellstrike, and low-level magus feat/one of the focus spells before using the rest of your class feats elsewhere will still get you most of the power increase being discussed here, without any need for touching the spellcasting feats. That isn't to say that the spellcasting feats should be as good as for Wizard - just that it's strange you're paying the same cost (or slightly higher, really) for them. It makes sense thematically for a multiclassed magus to have less spellcasting power than a multiclassed wizard, but why does the magus pay more for the worse outcomes, when they can safely take all the good feats and leave the class without touching spellcasting? Making the bounded spellcasting cheaper, or have a non-spell effect that ties into the rest of the archetype (something like a 1/day recharge your spellstrike included in the final spellcasting feat) to incentivise it seems a more interesting choice than just leaving them as more-costly and less-effective feats to me.

It gives choices. Does the character need to cast from spell slots or not ?

Are the bounded slots enough or do they need to add another caster dedication to get them ?

Answers to these questions depend completely on the character build. Which is a very good thing IMO. There is no perfect choice that would make all others useless.

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

Summoner archetype, which is also bounded casting on the other hand doesn't get any better with more spellcasting archetypes. Which is why the whole "oh but you just want spellstrike" is incredibly misleading.

The archetype should work by itself. It should not be relying on you taking other archetypes to make the casting make sense.

The Summoner's eidolon works fine with wave casting.

Why would the Summoner MC's eidolon not work fine with bounded spellcasting and absolutely require getting another caster MC ?

If you choose the Summoner MC, it is because their eidolon brings value to the table. Not for the bounded spellcasting on its own. It is exactly the same as Spellstriker for the Magus MC.

And it will be the same for future bounded spellcasting dedications : if you take them it will be first for the specific desirable ability they provide rather than for the bounded spellcasting.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Interestingly, I compared bounded spellcasting to the breadth feat.

It doesn't map EXACTLY, but it is pretty close, in that bounded spellcasting is basically regular spellcasting but with negative breadth. You lose spells roughly equivalent to what you get if you add breadth.

So basically bounded spellcasting is worth 2 feats not three.

To the above arguments saying how the archetypes offer other stuff, sure. But it isn't necessarily superior to what caster archetypes offer (bard song, domain spells, etc etc)

This isn't really an argument about overall archetypes, as much as people keep shifting it that way. It is an issue about 3 specific feats, the bounded casting feats, and why they offer the equivalent value of 2 feats.

To put another way, magus and summoner have bounded casting instead of regular casting, but as a result it consumes a smaller portion of their power budget, they get other stuff in exchange (martial skill, spellstrike, eidolon etc)

If you are buying a version of that (casting feats) and it is worse than regular casting, the price should be less too.

[The Raven Black]

I agree to disagree.

[Amaya/Polaris]

Sometimes it feels like y'all live in a different universe. But, oh well. Far from the worst thing to have irreconcilable differences of opinion over.

I think I'll institute the simplest of my ideas in the 'ol houserules. Just pretty up the progression a little and add a Lv 10 breadth feat for people who want a bit more highish level slot- and cantrip-power. (Who knows if or when we can get that tested, though. ^.^; )

In the official realm, perhaps future bounded spelllcasting archetypes without "killer features" on the side will have extra benefits to the spellcasting feats. Who knows!

[AnimatedPaper]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

I think I'll institute the simplest of my ideas in the 'ol houserules. Just pretty up the progression a little and add a Lv 10 breadth feat for people who want a bit more highish level slot- and cantrip-power. (Who knows if or when we can get that tested, though. ^.^; )

Just out of curiosity, what slots would this feat add? Just like 1 each in 1-6?

[aobst128]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

I think I'll institute the simplest of my ideas in the 'ol houserules. Just pretty up the progression a little and add a Lv 10 breadth feat for people who want a bit more highish level slot- and cantrip-power. (Who knows if or when we can get that tested, though. ^.^; )

Just out of curiosity, what slots would this feat add? Just like 1 each in 1-6?

It could mimic studious spells. Some extra slots for specific spells.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

aobst128 wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

I think I'll institute the simplest of my ideas in the 'ol houserules. Just pretty up the progression a little and add a Lv 10 breadth feat for people who want a bit more highish level slot- and cantrip-power. (Who knows if or when we can get that tested, though. ^.^; )

Just out of curiosity, what slots would this feat add? Just like 1 each in 1-6?

It could mimic studious spells. Some extra slots for specific spells.

I wouldn't make it a feat, I would make it part of the spellcasting.

Maybe expert spellcasting gives you 2 lvl 2 studious spells, bumps to lvl 3 with master.

[Amaya/Polaris]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

I think I'll institute the simplest of my ideas in the 'ol houserules. Just pretty up the progression a little and add a Lv 10 breadth feat for people who want a bit more highish level slot- and cantrip-power. (Who knows if or when we can get that tested, though. ^.^; )

Just out of curiosity, what slots would this feat add? Just like 1 each in 1-6?

The Breadth feat would be pretty much exactly as I outlined in my post on the last page, one extra lower-level slot and an extra two cantrips as well. I don't think generic emulation rules should reference class-specific features like studious slots — it's not like the Wizard, Sorcerer or Cleric archetypes offer any such things in their spellcasting benefits.

The troublesome part is deciding where to put it, since it definitely can't be Lv 8 (even without the cantrip, being an extra Lv 2 slot for a few levels is just better than being an extra Lv 1 slot), and Lv 10 is possible but dicey, since it emphasizes the strength of this version of bounded archetype spellcasting fairly early on. At the same time, I'd rather avoid feats being flatly better or worse than one another for the same cost, since that's the whole motivation for working out this alternate progression, so I don't want Expert to not give an extra slot at all. (I do believe in evaluating things as a whole package rather than in a vacuum, but as archetypes are modular additions to a character, I also believe like feats should offer roughly like benefits, which is why I won't have the basic feat give a Lv 4 slot or anything like that — the original archetype casting has that same dip at Lv 10.)

Basic would give 1, 1/2, 2/3 at Lvs 4/6/8, Expert would change that to 3/3/4, 4/4/5 and 5/5/6 at Lvs 12/14/16, and Master would finish off with 6/6/7 and 7/7/8 at Lvs 18/20. In comparison to archetype spellcasting *without* breadth, I think this is rouuughly balanced with it — probably weaker on the whole, feeling on par or slightly stronger at Lv 12, but one extra highish-level slot is a benefit normal archetypes can't get and I don't want to be too radical with pure untested buffs to things (though my reference point for what's radical and what isn't may be skewed).

The version of Breadth I cooked up for this version is different from the Breadth for normal archetypes (and should probably have a different name but I don't feel like coming up with one for such a niche work), in that it offers a static, powerful benefit rather than a slightly weak one which scales to offer a lot of value. Given that, I think Lv 16 might actually be appropriate. At that level it's two cantrips and an extra 5th Lv slot which becomes 6th/7th Lv at Lv 18/20 if Master benefits are taken. Which isn't a *ton* on its own, but 5/5/5/6, 6/6/6/7, and 7/7/7/8 compound to be fairly gnarly.

Even if it's still "weak" in an absolute sense (and I'm not saying it is, I'm basically reserving judgement for now), I think it's an attractive enough alternate package, and certainly a big buff to the default style. I liked the idea of also getting feats and think that works as an addition for the vanilla bounded archetype progression with multiclasses, but it gets messy with any other archetypes which mention these benefits in the future.

7/7/7/8 ends up vaguely sort of close to an actual bounded caster's 8/8/9/9, moreso than
*checks notes*
1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5/5/6/6/7/8 compared to 1/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/3/4/4/4/5/5/5/6/6/6/7/7/7/8/8/8/9/9/9/10.
Which might be why vanilla bounded spellcasting is the way it is. But actual bounded casters also have martial power to consider and strong, unique features with which to synergize well with it, beyond the reach of the archetype (which does pay a bit of a premium for that extra slot). So I think it's okay, at least as a base for preliminary testing. If you think it could be a problem, simply not offering the breadth feat would probably keep things sufficiently far away in my book.

So yeah, that's what I'll put in my table's offerings. To recap, something like:

Quote:

Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes

• Basic benefits are at Lv 4 by default. Basic now offers 1st, 1st/2nd, 2nd/3rd Lv slots at Lv 4/6/8, for a total of 2/3. Accordingly, Expert changes this to 3/3/4, 4/4/5, 5/5/6 slots at Lv 12/14/16, and Master changes this to 6/6/7 and 7/7/8 at Lv 18/20.
• Magus and Summoner archetypes also have a corresponding Breadth feat at Lv 16, which requires the Basic feat. It grants two extra cantrips and an extra slot of the lower level (if Expert was taken, a total of 5/5/5/6 at Lv 16, scaling with the feats chosen).

And to close, I'm glad this thread wasn't moved to Homebrew and Houserules, since that's pretty much where discussions go to die. Couldn't have had the same delightful arguments without it! (Not to mention the possibility that future bounded spellcasting archetypes will change how they're presented/what they're bundled with, if Paizo comes to agree that the benefits are undertuned on their own.) And though it's slightly unrelated, I vaguely agree with a Know Direction point I heard recentlyish that it would be cool if the combination of Pathfinder Infinite and Mark Seifter heading a 3rd-party thing nudges the general PF2E audience to warm up to homebrew and 3PP more, and adopt the better ones in a more widespread fashion.

[AnimatedPaper]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes

• Basic benefits are at Lv 4 by default. Basic now offers 1st, 1st/2nd, 2nd/3rd Lv slots at Lv 4/6/8, for a total of 2/3. Accordingly, Expert changes this to 3/3/4, 4/4/5, 5/5/6 slots at Lv 12/14/16, and Master changes this to 6/6/7 and 7/7/8 at Lv 18/20.
• Magus and Summoner archetypes also have a corresponding Breadth feat at Lv 16, which requires the Basic feat. It grants two extra cantrips and an extra slot of the lower level (if Expert was taken, a total of 5/5/5/6 at Lv 16, scaling with the feats chosen).

I think my main issue with this is that it is not the same pattern as bound casting on the class itself, and these MC feats are supposed to ape the class they are multiclassing into. Comes close, close enough that I’m not prepared to reject it out of hand.

There are similar reasons why I dislike CN’s proposals, and said to him to just give the normal spellcasting benefits to his table if slots are what he ultimately wants and see value in. I don’t think any iteration of bound Mac casting that at all resembles actual bound casting is going to look strong enough, as the lack of overall number of slots is a design intent, one that he disagrees with fundamentally when it comes to feat-added spells.

I bring this up as a comparison to your proposal, which at least does mostly maintain the progression in an interesting way. I might make adjustments; perhaps just bake your proposal into the current 3 feats as they’re ultimately not a lot stronger than the 3 as they are; certainly not enough to justify such a high level 4th feat (I’m fully aware yours was an off the cuff suggestion so please don’t take this comment to heart).

Hopefully these feats do get revisited. I do think it’d be worth another pass to adjust the power level so that the feats make sense in a vacuum. If there was a theoretical archetype that offered both the normal and bound spellcasting benefits, I want it so players hesitate between the two paths, not for one to clearly be better for all users of the archetype. I would think the designers would want that hesitation as well.

[Unicore]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Hopefully these feats do get revisited. I do think it’d be worth another pass to adjust the power level so that the feats make sense in a vacuum. If there was a theoretical archetype that offered both the normal and bound spellcasting benefits, I want it so players hesitate between the two paths, not for one to clearly be better for all users of the archetype. I would think the designers would want that hesitation as well.

I am perfectly fine with stepping back and saying that I think we just have a difference of perspective on the bound casting archetype feats, but I am curious what makes you feel that the developers intended for all spell casting archetype feats to be balanced in a vacuum?

We see lots of examples of class feats and archetype feats that do not offer something that is even close to equal to something another class can get as a feat at that level, which seems tied up in class balance. Look at archetypes like Magic Warrior's feat Nameless Anonymity, which is a 6th level feat which grants only one spell per day. It seems to me that there were thematic choices made in archetype feat design tied to what the archetype overall is supposed to give you.

[AnimatedPaper]

Unicore wrote:

We see lots of examples of class feats and archetype feats that do not offer something that is even close to equal to something another class can get as a feat at that level, which seems tied up in class balance. Look at archetypes like Magic Warrior's feat Nameless Anonymity, which is a 6th level feat which grants only one spell per day.

Hardly an apples to apples comparison. Nameless warrior gives a single, designated spell of the highest level you can cast, scaling as you level, working much like an innate spell. Yes, a scaling slot like that is approximately worth a feat all by itself, as would a single focus spell. There are innumerable class and ancestry feats that have that firmly set by now. As is 2 cantrips (though that costs a low level feat) with a class feat or a single cantrip with an ancestry feat.

Do you have a different example?

[Unicore]

I think that you have answered my question, You feel like archetype feats which grant single spells as an innate ability of the archetype cannot be compared with the basic spell casting feats, which you feel like are in a vacuum of their own. I think to satisfy your concerns I would have to find an example specifically within MC archetypes and probably basic spell casting feats, which I obviously cannot, since there are only two strands of those kinds of feats.

I just think it is fair to include all level 6 archetype feats into the balance equation since they all rely on you having picked up a dedication first and then spending your level 6 class feat in making assumptions about what the developers consider as a realm of fair balance.

[AnimatedPaper]

Well, if you’re going to tell me what I will and won’t accept, I guess I don’t need to say anything else. Go ahead and argue with yourself if you want, but please leave me out of it next time.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

We see lots of examples of class feats and archetype feats that do not offer something that is even close to equal to something another class can get as a feat at that level, which seems tied up in class balance. Look at archetypes like Magic Warrior's feat Nameless Anonymity, which is a 6th level feat which grants only one spell per day. It seems to me that there were thematic choices made in archetype feat design tied to what the archetype overall is supposed to give you.

Well, I would be cautious about comparing too deeply to archetypes outside of the core books. There are a lot of feats there that range from the useless to the overpowered.

That being said, one spell that scales to max level isn't horrible (although not the best spell here I admit)

For instance at lvl 18, that gives you a lvl 9 spell for a 6th level feat.

Magus, after spending 3 feats and getting legendary in a mostly useless skill, has 2 lvl 6 and 2 lvl 5 spells. Given that spell blending suggests 1 lvl 9 spell is better than 2 lvl 7 ones, the relative power level of that 1 spell vs 4 is pretty close. For one feat vs 3

[The Raven Black]

I wouldn't call RK for Elemental, Constructs, Beast, Dragon mostly useless.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

The Raven Black wrote:

I wouldn't call RK for Elemental, Constructs, Beast, Dragon mostly useless.

Not to go off topic, but I would. In practice RK is not useful a lot of the time, and to be decent (not good) at about 1/4 of RK monster checks for monsters isn't a great use of a skill up.

Compared to the other things a martial can do, like acrobatics for kip up, athletics for all that stuff, intimidation, stealth, etc etc.

[Squiggit]

Unicore wrote:

We see lots of examples of class feats and archetype feats that do not offer something that is even close to equal to something another class can get as a feat at that level

Isn't that just justifying bad feats by pointing out that other bad feats also exist?

That's, again, not a good thing.

[whew]

If magus archetype is bad because it doesn't get enough spells, then magic warrior is even worse. Further, unlike the magic warrior, the magus can choose any (arcane) spells they like, and pick different spells every day.

The magus also gets Master Spellcasting Proficiency from spending those 3 feats.

Finally, if arcana is nearly useless, then the magic warrior dedication's expert-in-arcana-and-mwangi-lore surely isn't as good as getting 2 cantrips which can be used with spellstrike.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

whew wrote:

If magus archetype is bad because it doesn't get enough spells, then magic warrior is even worse. Further, unlike the magic warrior, the magus can choose any (arcane) spells they like, and pick different spells every day.

The magus also gets Master Spellcasting Proficiency from spending those 3 feats.

Finally, if arcana is nearly useless, then the magic warrior dedication's expert-in-arcana-and-mwangi-lore surely isn't as good as getting 2 cantrips which can be used with spellstrike.

Magic warrior is, to put it nicely, not a very good archetype. But it is a LO line archetype and a lot of those are more flavorful than good.

Also, the discussion is less how much casting a magus gets than the fact that it pays a very heavy price in feats and skills for poor casting.

[Unicore]

Squiggit wrote:

Unicore wrote:

We see lots of examples of class feats and archetype feats that do not offer something that is even close to equal to something another class can get as a feat at that level

Isn't that just justifying bad feats by pointing out that other bad feats also exist?

That's, again, not a good thing.

The point is, feats are voluntary. If you don't like the options of a specific archetype, don't pick that archetype. If you don't like specific feats within an archetype for your character, don't take those feats.

Heck, just the first spell casting feat for the Magus is enough to get you access to wands and staves and scrolls and spell casting items. Retraining into it at level 10 for your 6th level feat buys you 2 second level spells and a third level spell for one feat on top of all that access. Functionally that is purely better than the wizard basic spell casting feat, since that would only get you 1 first level, 1 second level and one third level spell instead of 2 seconds and a 3rd. If neither character ever took another spell casting feat, bounded spell casting is better than basic spell casting. One v One in a vacuum, bounded spell casting comes out on top.

[AnimatedPaper]

Unicore wrote:

Retraining into it at level 10 for your 6th level feat buys you 2 second level spells and a third level spell for one feat on top of all that access. Functionally that is purely better than the wizard basic spell casting feat, since that would only get you 1 first level, 1 second level and one third level spell instead of 2 seconds and a 3rd. If neither character ever took another spell casting feat, bounded spell casting is better than basic spell casting. One v One in a vacuum, bounded spell casting comes out on top.

1 2nd level and 1 3rd, or 2/3. If it was 2/2/3, I’d fully agree that it came out ahead, which would be fair for a 6th level feat vs 4th.

As it is, 2/3 vs 1/2/3 just seems like a mistake and i think it should end at 3/4. That’s still more powerful than 1/2/3 imo, and I assume yours as well given other stuff you’ve said, but again 4th vs 6th level feat.

[Unicore]

I see, my bad, you get the 2 spells at the lower level with Expert casting.

I agree that it is worse than basic spell casting, but it still gives you the more important thing for the magus which is access to the wands and scrolls right?

[AnimatedPaper]

You get that from the initial dedication, but for the purpose of this discussion (where the feats are being judged both on their own and as part of a whole), yes.

Unicore wrote:

I see, my bad, you get the 2 spells at the lower level with Expert casting.

And that’s the other weird thing that makes me suspect a mistake. Because the expert feat initially gives you an extra slot at your *highest* level for 2/3/3. It converts to 4/4/5 and then 5/5/6 at level 14/16.

So if the basic ended at 3/4, and the expert added the same 3 slot for 3/3/4, it would all be in line. Ninja and others would still be unsatisfied, of course, but I would be much more convinced that it was a deliberate choice (and am so convinced for expert/master). I might not fully agree with the choice to trade a 6th and a 7th slot for your 1-5 slots, but I do think the relative power was judged and found more or less balanced by the designers.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

You get that from the initial dedication, but for the purpose of this discussion (where the feats are being judged both on their own and as part of a whole), yes.

Unicore wrote:

I see, my bad, you get the 2 spells at the lower level with Expert casting.

And that’s the other weird thing that makes me suspect a mistake. Because the expert feat initially gives you an extra slot at your *highest* level for 2/3/3. It converts to 4/4/5 and then 5/5/6 at level 14/16.

So if the basic ended at 3/4, and the expert added the same 3 slot for 3/3/4, it would all be in line. Ninja and others would still be unsatisfied, of course, but I would be much more convinced that it was a deliberate choice (and am so convinced for expert/master). I might not fully agree with the choice to trade a 6th and a 7th slot for your 1-5 slots, but I do think the relative power was judged and found more or less balanced by the designers.

You have a point. I suspect it isn't an error though, but maybe?

I was just reading through Guns and Gears. Beast Gunner gets better casting (basic casting) than Bounced Caster MC. And it doesn't need you to legendary a skill.

It just seems so weird.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Necroing a bit now that the new book has been released.

I stand by my position that this needs fixing to make these archetypes better.

I mean, if the concern is you don't want to give a fighter magus higher level spells to spellstrike with, well it doesn't matter now! One dip in psychic and you have a spellstrike that outscales shocking grasp (amped produce flame)

And that archetype gives full casting, just now breadth.

At a bare minimum, you should get the same level progression as regular casting archetypes. Less spells and lower levels is a double hit, too much.

[HumbleGamer]

I am quite sure you can't amp + spellstrike.

Plus, assuming it'd possible, wouldn't be already the same, or better, as getting cleric dedication to cast from the fire domain ( 2d6/lvl ) using the same focus point?

[YuriP]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I am quite sure you can't amp + spellstrike.

No you can amp + spellstrike, the restriction of spellstike is:

Quote:

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

But spellstrike and amp aren't metamagic they just prevent metamagic to be used with them. So they can be combined without problem.

That said the main advantage is that you need just the dedication to receive the psychic cantrip and the amp and the fact that's uses a focus point. But the usage of a focus point isn't so good for a magus due it isn't a conflux spell and the additional damage psychic produce flame cantrip is basically a fire damage telekinetic projectile.

Furthermore, the psychic is an occult spellcaster. The other abilities coming from the archetype don't mesh very well with the Magus in terms of mechanical advantage (unlike the wizard archetype which enhances the magus's spellbook and allows the magus spells to be used by the archetype's spell slots normally)

An archetype that probably comes out better, despite consuming a lot more talents is the eldritch archer with fighter + psychic multiclass (can be caught via multitalented).

HumbleGamer wrote:

Plus, assuming it'd possible, wouldn't be already the same, or better, as getting cleric dedication to cast from the fire domain ( 2d6/lvl ) using the same focus point?

I agree for a magus fire domain is way better. Yet isn't a conflux spell.

Backing to main question. I agree with CaffeinatedNinja. In general view the Magus/Summoner archetypes are very subpar.

[Martialmasters]

What is bounded casting

This isn't 5e

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Yeah, it works, it isn't a metamagic.

But my point was more that now we have psychic, which offers a TON from the basic dedication and such, and much better casting.

Why is bounded casting MC so bad? Less spells, and lower scaling spells, slightly higher feat cost.

I would really like to see it reworked a little. Have it give no more than 4 spells so you don't have more than the base class sure, but at least let it keep the same level scaling. Maybe have it be 1-1-2 (One max level spell, one -1, 2 -2 spells) the whole way with the same level scaling. The base classes get the same spell scaling after all.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Martialmasters wrote:

What is bounded casting

This isn't 5e

It is the casting type that Magus and Summoner use. They lose their lower level spell slot as they gain higher level ones, so generally they always have 4 total spells, 2 top level, 2 top level -1.

[Martialmasters]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

What is bounded casting

This isn't 5e

It is the casting type that Magus and Summoner use. They lose their lower level spell slot as they gain higher level ones, so generally they always have 4 total spells, 2 top level, 2 top level -1.

Thank you!

[YuriP]

Interestingly, the term Bounded Spellcasting only appears in the part that explains SoM's multiclass talents. Hence this term ends up being used only when referring to the Magus/Summoner Archetypes, since the classes themselves we usually call them as Wavecasters. kkkkk

[Xethik]

YuriP wrote:

Interestingly, the term Bounded Spellcasting only appears in the part that explains SoM's multiclass talents. Hence this term ends up being used only when referring to the Magus/Summoner Archetypes, since the classes themselves we usually call them as Wavecasters. kkkkk

Wavecasting was something the community used as a label during the playtest but over time the official descriptor of the spellcasting style (from, as you mention, the basic bounded spellcasting rules) bounded has been more common in my experience.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

I was always partial to Wavecasting myself. Quite poetic.