Post Core classes are much stronger ranged than melee

[siegfriedliner]

AlastarOG wrote:

1: It has less damage increase for going melee relative to its total damage potential.

A level 7 Greatsword Magus (to represent the risk, you can build inexorable iron with glaive, or twisted tree but then there's much less risk) deals:

2d12+4(STR)+2 (weapon spec)+2(arcane cascade)+Gouging Claw(4d6+4)= 39 average damage on a spellstrike. Glaive magus would be at 37, Twisted tree at 35.

A starlit span deals:

2d8+1(STR)+2(weapon spec)+Gouging Claw (4d6+4)= 30.

While the damage difference isn't THAT wide, it is still substantial! I'd kill for an option for +9 average damage per power attack on a fighter or Barb, even if that meant I took an AoO. And averages are swingy, your higher rolls are much higher on 2d12 vs 2d8.

So I really don't see the ''the numbers don't support that melee magus deals more damage than their ranged counterpart'' angle.

You can say they have to move and trigger arcane cascade, yes, but starlit span also has to move to get out of volley limiter and avoid melee enemies. Not to mention melee magus get AoO triggers and flanking which gives them more damage potential. I'd say these balance out each other.

2: The melee magus is less mad because it can take one class feat at 11+ or one general feat at 1+ to invalidate its need for reflex. Or just cap out its dex at 12.

A starlit span needs: STR, DEX, CON, INT

A melee magus needs: STR, CON, INT and thus can spec out in another stat like wisdom for good initiative/will saves or charisma for intimidate if it wants to.

It comes down to actions economy usually you can't spellstrike every turn in Melee (so you will have turns where all you do is move, strike and recharge. Whereas a ranged magus is far more likely to be able to spellstrike every turn.

Also on the first turn where your spending an action to move in to Melee they can use true strike instead and do more damage. So the ranged magus does more consistent damage and alpha can strike better.

[Temperans]

+9 damage at the risk of taking +35 damage, and a risk of losing the spell out right. Magus do not get AoO by default and have to spend feats to get it. Flanking does help, but that is already calculated as part of every melee character and as such isn't really part of "what makes it stronger" when the class doesn't interact with it: Which is very much unlike rogue who almost requires it or something else to trigger sneak attack.

The stat array would make sense, except that the PF2 stat system guarantees you will get most of your stats high enough to work. With STR hardly being useful for a ranged character as only a handful of ranged weapons even use it. So that comparison is hardly relevant.

Finally, when talking about stronger, it is not just a matter of "more damage" but also: How complex and action efficient it is to do. Melee spellstrike is less action efficient unless you are using a 2-h weapon which already breaks the narrative of 1-h + magic, all because of how stepping works. It is more complex since it requires managing movement, AoO, spellstrike reset, turn order, etc. But what are the gains? Well as you stated, +9 damage which yeah at low level it is okay, but at high level when most monsters have AoO? Do you really think that taking a 60+ damage hit is worth getting that extra 9-18 damage when it leaves you right next to the enemy for them to just maul you?

[Onkonk]

Temperans wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Temperans wrote:

"Can deal a lot of damage" Yeah, 2 times a day, maybe 4. But no more than that.

Compared to fighter getting it all the time, or barbarian getting it every other minute.

IIRC the build in question used damage dealing focus spells from an archetype, so it ends up having a lot more uptime.

Though that kind of puts it in the same boat as the discussion on greatsword investigators too. Does some niche build that relies on specific options and eschews several normal assumptions about the class being really strong excuse or diminish the problem of more straight forward builds having significant issues?

IMO it feels like a design failing to have to do that, but some people clearly think otherwise.

If it requires a specific archetype than it's not the magus that is making it good, it's that archetype. By the same logic a fighter could take the same archetype and take only buffs to become much better than the magus. The fighter having better and more consistent damage, means that they can leave many more spells for out of combat.

You should probably look up the thing you are talking about before asserting things about it.

The combination of using true strike and focus spells with martial accuracy at range is unavailable for any other combination other than Magus.

[Temperans]

Onkonk wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Temperans wrote:

"Can deal a lot of damage" Yeah, 2 times a day, maybe 4. But no more than that.

Compared to fighter getting it all the time, or barbarian getting it every other minute.

IIRC the build in question used damage dealing focus spells from an archetype, so it ends up having a lot more uptime.

Though that kind of puts it in the same boat as the discussion on greatsword investigators too. Does some niche build that relies on specific options and eschews several normal assumptions about the class being really strong excuse or diminish the problem of more straight forward builds having significant issues?

IMO it feels like a design failing to have to do that, but some people clearly think otherwise.

If it requires a specific archetype than it's not the magus that is making it good, it's that archetype. By the same logic a fighter could take the same archetype and take only buffs to become much better than the magus. The fighter having better and more consistent damage, means that they can leave many more spells for out of combat.

You should probably look up the thing you are talking about before asserting things about it.

The combination of using true strike and focus spells with martial accuracy at range is unavailable for any other combination other than Magus.

I am sorry what? I am responding to Squiggit, that specifically says the reason it works is because of a specific archetype. In fact, the very idea of requiring True Strike to make it "worth it" just makes it sound even cheaper than what Squiggit was saying.

You are now using twice as many limited resources to get the same value that other classes get using unlimited resources. I do not understand how "but only they can use true strike and focus spells" helps your case when it is literally no different to any other character. Martial accuracy at range? That wasn't even a consideration in what Squiggit posted, in fact it implies that you provoke twice just to get a bit more damage than other classes which is not a good look.

[Onkonk]

You are saying that anyone could just take the archetype and get the same result which is just not true. True Strike is also not a limited resource at all since it only costs 4 gold.

A focus spell usually uses spell attack proficiency which is always lower than martial proficiency. A magus can use this feature called Spellstrike which lets them use their weapon proficieny for 2 actions. This is a unique skill they have.

[Errenor]

Onkonk wrote:

True Strike is also not a limited resource at all since it only costs 4 gold.

Do you have a free hand and actions to pull out new ones though?

[Onkonk]

Errenor wrote:

Onkonk wrote:

True Strike is also not a limited resource at all since it only costs 4 gold.

Do you have a free hand and actions to pull out new ones though?

For ranged build it is not very hard. You have a downturn anyways if you want to true strike multiple times so strike+ recharge + draw is not bad at all.

Staff of Divination is also a great source of true strikes with a javelin as your weapon.

Other ways to get stuff in your hands easily:

A familiar with independent + manual dexterity. Human can get it with Natural Ambition, other can get it with level 1 ancestry feats as well.

Gloves of Storing (uncommon).

Gourd Leshy heritage.

[AlastarOG]

1: on stat spread:

If you're gonna not take stenght then the damage discrepancy widens and widens with levels.

At level 18+ the difference isn't gonna be 9 damage it's going to be 18 damage per spellstrike if melee magus goes 24 strength vs 10 Str archer.

2: on positioning and action economy

It's a fallacy to say that the starlit span has always better action economy. It does in a white room or open field, but in most published content with tight corridors, doors, cover and sudden encounters where you don't want to be TOO far behind the party, the ranged magus will have to reposition frequently, either to stay away and not incite volley or to go somewhere to get Line of Sight and Line of Effect. Not as much as a melee magus I'll grant you, but still frequent enough to not be discounted.

On top of that, arcane cascade is pretty great, there's a ton of scenarios where attacking twice without spellstrike will give out more damage than 1 spellstrike, this is even more apparent when fighting ennemies that are weak to a damage type. Spellstriking is fun yes, but if you consider the wide damage margin melee magus enjoy over starlit span, attacking twice because you couldn't recharge is still pretty g%#+@$n decent. Not to mention you can recharge while attacking using most conflux spells. (starlit span too, but still).

3 on attacks of opportunity

You're assuming a lot with AoO

4.1: everyone has them, which is not the case, a lot of even higher level monsters have reactions that aren't AoO, but trigger when someone casts a spell in their vicinity, for exemple.

4.2: you are in reach of the monster: glaive and staff magus exist and are pretty good, if you're worried about it. Flickmace targe magus is also a thing.

4.3: the ennemy will hit you: boss ennemies might, but at higher levels a +4 ennemy is just a ripe target for reaction canceling spells. Suggest to your mage that instead of casting level 8 disintegrate as an opener he should say hideous laughter. Cancels reactions even on success, has a chance of causing lots of debuff, is level 2, doesn't have incapacitation.

On level or lower level ennemies have no guarantees to hit you.

4.4: you are out of reach of the monster with a bow: 15+ a lot of monsters have 25+ft reach and straight up control the entire room they're in and adjacent corridors, a bow won't save you.

4:getting AoO is a cost:

Yeah but what else you gonna get? Cascade countermeasures ? You just said we can't use archetypes to compare.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AlastarOG wrote:

1: A level 7 Greatsword Magus (to represent the risk, you can build inexorable iron with glaive, or twisted tree but then there's much less risk) deals:

2d12+4(STR)+2 (weapon spec)+2(arcane cascade)+Gouging Claw(4d6+4)= 39 average damage on a spellstrike. Glaive magus would be at 37, Twisted tree at 35.

A starlit span deals:

2d8+1(STR)+2(weapon spec)+Gouging Claw (4d6+4)= 30.

Well, not to quibble but I would do the numbers slightly differently.

Unless you spend the first round casting a cantrip and buffing or something, you aren’t in arcane cascade at the start of round 2 even. If you are, then ranged magus has already done a spellstrike and is doing another one. Also 2h weapon vs bow isn’t 100% fair since bow has a free hand, but anyways, let’s compare.

Spellstrike 2h - 2d12+5+2+4d6+4 = 38
Spellstrike shortbow(better than longbow for magus) 2d6+1+2+4d6+4 28
Magus is doing 74% of the damage of the 2h fighter at 60 feet away.

Now lets compare a fighter.
Fighter 2h strike - Spellstrike 2h - 2d12+5+3= 21
Fighter longbow strike - 2d8+1+3 = 13
Fighter does 62% of the damage at range (and that includes an action penalty to overcome volley)

So we have established fighter has a bigger penalty for going ranged.
But! Melee magus absolutely can not spellstrike every turn. Trust me on this. So it’s damage drops on off spellstrike turns.
Ranged magus can pretty much spellstrike constantly.

So as a practical matter, ranged magus gives up very very little damage in a fight, to be 60 feet away. Unlike fighter or ranger that give up a ton.

Add that to magus being rather squishy, and extremely vulnerable to disruption, which is far more common in melee, and you see why we say that the balance is shifted to range.

Or even look at it this way. Ranged magus lets you make a ranger spellstrike with a touch spell. It even outranges a wizard using reach. Tactically that is insanely valuable.

[AlastarOG]

I'm not saying its not tactical or that it does not have its advantages, im saying that it is in no way ''much stronger'' as the original title has said, and you give up a lot, namely damage, ease of use and obligated stat spread, in order to have that.

Also comparing everything on one's ability to spellstrike every turn is a fallacy. Yes its a powerful move, but laughing shadow move spellstriking, followed by conflux teleport strike, arcane cascade, strike is doing just as much damage, not only because they strike twice but also because they have two chances to hit, crit or miss (and with flanking their odds are better).

So far from the few play I've seen at my tables (and its one build because no one wants to play it) the starlit span magus feels like: ''well I've rolled a dice, it missed, and that's my turn!''

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AlastarOG wrote:

So far from the few play I've seen at my tables (and its one build because no one wants to play it) the starlit span magus feels like: ''well I've rolled a dice, it missed, and that's my turn!''

How fun it is is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. It also varies greatly on the player. Personally I enjoy mixing it up in melee, but I have one player in the game I run who loves being a “turret” and just standing there shooting.

And you haven’t addressed how other classes have far less ranged damage to compensate for being ranged and magus… doesn’t.

Even your example of laughing shadow, it can do that move once a fight. And ranged magus can do the same from 60 feet away. Massive advantage all else being equal. There is a reason guns replaced spears in real life, range is a massive advantage in any fight.

[AlastarOG]

I have addressed it in I think pretty convincing numbers.

You're choosing to represent it as a percentage because it looks better that way, but the fact remains that 6 to 18 increased damage per hit is a significant advantage over the lifespan of a character. It's the difference between a dead monster, which gives action economy advantage, and a live one. This is made even more apparent if you're targeting two ennemies that are very wounded, a starlit span magus might struggle to bring them down, an iron magus won't as much.

You, on the other hand, have failed to address the reaction problem starlit span has, namely that it has jack s#&! to do as a reaction, while melee builds have an abundance of reactions to pick from, in class.

There's also archetype options, such as cavalier, that can nullify the mobility problem (just like there's archetype options that nullify the spammable spell problem for starlit span)

I would call melee vs ranged magus equivalent through and through, each having its pros and it's cons. To call ranged vastly superior is misleading and I think dishonest.

It's better at delivering spellstrike round after round, period.

Spellstrike is good yes, but it's not what the entirety of the class is.

Just like inventor can, yes, trigger overdrive and exploit it easier at range. But doing so prevents you from using explode, megavolt, searing restoration and such adequately, and these are also signature abilities with massive returns, and they deliver better in melee.

As an inventor, I often find myself waiting for 2nd or 3rd round to overdrive, because there are other higher priority actions to take on the field rather than buffing myself.

[aobst128]

As far as magus vs magus goes, I'm actually more interested in 1 handed laughing shadow vs 2 handed laughing shadow. Unlike the rest of the hybrid studies conflux spells, dimensional assault doesn't have a wielding requirement and works with 2 handed weapons. The extra damage averages out to be about the same as 2 handed weapons against flatfooted targets. Only really missing out on spell parry and distracting spellstrike plus the standard benefits of having a free hand like maneuvers and high fives.

[The-Magic-Sword]

I feel like propulsive is a trap (not an actual one, but i mean from the 'most effectiveness possible' perspective) on Starlit Span, you only attack once per turn, generally, so the /2 strength only applies once per turn, I feel like most players would rather spend that on Wisdom and Con for their will defense and HP-- it might be nice at low level, but it falls off hard once you start getting property runes and striking dice.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I feel like propulsive is a trap (not an actual one, but i mean from the 'most effectiveness possible' perspective) on Starlit Span, you only attack once per turn, generally, so the /2 strength only applies once per turn, I feel like most players would rather spend that on Wisdom and Con for their will defense and HP-- it might be nice at low level, but it falls off hard once you start getting property runes and striking dice.

I agree. Given spellstrike the +1 damage isn’t really worth two str. Instead I would pump up int (which is giving 1 damage per point on cantrip spell strikes anyways which is most of what you are doing) and con/wis.

Plus longstrider makes the +5 speed from laughing shadow pointless hah.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AlastarOG wrote:

I have addressed it in I think pretty convincing numbers.

You're choosing to represent it as a percentage because it looks better that way, but the fact remains that 6 to 18 increased damage per hit is a significant advantage over the lifespan of a character. It's the difference between a dead monster, which gives action economy advantage, and a live one. This is made even more apparent if you're targeting two ennemies that are very wounded, a starlit span magus might struggle to bring them down, an iron magus won't as much.

Percentages matter because everything is relative. Getting 2 extra damage per hit at lvl 1 is awesome! Getting it at lvl 20 is meh.

AlastarOG wrote:

You, on the other hand, have failed to address the reaction problem starlit span has, namely that it has jack s%!% to do as a reaction, while melee builds have an abundance of reactions to pick from, in class.

Every melee class has those better reactions. They do give added benefit. My point has been more that relative to core classes the magus and investigator don’t lose much if any damage going into melee for raw damage. Do you consider ranger fighter or ranger underpowered compared to the melee versions? If not, where does that put magus and investigator?

AlastarOG wrote:

There's also archetype options, such as cavalier, that can nullify the mobility problem (just like there's archetype options that nullify the spammable spell problem for starlit span)

Cavalier is an interesting archetype for games that don’t go into tight quarters, but it would give a starlit span magus the same edge. And spammable spellstrikes isn’t a problem for starlit span, it is why they are so good.

I

AlastarOG wrote:

would call melee vs ranged magus equivalent through and through, each having its pros and it's cons. To call ranged vastly superior is misleading and I think dishonest.

Dishonest? I find that rather insulting to be truthful with you. We can disagree, but because I disagree with you that doesn’t mean I am arguing in bad faith, just as I have not accused you of the same. People can legitimately disagree while being truthful without insulting one another.

AlastarOG wrote:

It's better at delivering spellstrike round after round, period.

Spellstrike is good yes, but it's not what the entirety of the class is.

True. But it is a damage enhancer. Starlitspan can spam this enhancer easily, from safety. Melee can not.

AlastarOG wrote:

Just like inventor can, yes, trigger overdrive and exploit it easier at range. But doing so prevents you from using explode, megavolt, searing restoration and such adequately, and these are also signature abilities with massive returns, and they deliver better in melee.

As an inventor, I often find myself waiting for 2nd or 3rd round to overdrive, because there are other higher priority actions to take on the field rather than buffing myself.

I am not as familiar with inventor so I can’t argue in depth, but the general rule with any buff is that the longer you wait to use it in a fight the less value it has. Part of the problem with arcane cascade.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

aobst128 wrote:

As far as magus vs magus goes, I'm actually more interested in 1 handed laughing shadow vs 2 handed laughing shadow. Unlike the rest of the hybrid studies conflux spells, dimensional assault doesn't have a wielding requirement and works with 2 handed weapons. The extra damage averages out to be about the same as 2 handed weapons against flatfooted targets. Only really missing out on spell parry and distracting spellstrike plus the standard benefits of having a free hand like maneuvers and high fives.

I agree! I actually have been tinkering with a bastard sword using laughing shadow. Basically gives you the “flanking” damage all the time.

I don’t find the special spell strikes all that useful on magus. Largely because they all require you to be in arcane cascade, so most of the time it is maybe working on your third round if you spellstrike round one.

The devastating spellstrike for inexorable iron is really only good for right packed enemies if they are weak to your cascade, which doesn’t happen a whole lot.

Distracting is better I think, but magus had zero room for charisma.

[aobst128]

The special spellstrikes past 10th level are pretty good. Lunging spellstrike in particular, no need for cascade as well.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

aobst128 wrote:

The special spellstrikes past 10th level are pretty good. Lunging spellstrike in particular, no need for cascade as well.

Oh yeah, that one is absolutely a standout.

Meteoric is pretty good too since you can get some free damage out of it if you line up targets.

Dispelling is a bit situational. If fighting enemies that buff themselves it is great. Once again though (recurring theme) it is way easier to use as starlit span since it is 3 actions.

Overwhelming Spellstrike is pretty bad. If an enemy is resistant but not immune to your energy type you get a little more damage. But if you are striking with cantrips, better to just use a different element hah. And your main spellstrike spell is shocking grasp, almost nothing is resistant to lightning.

[YuriP]

To all those think that melee Magus having the risk of AoO is fair. Please remember that after lvl 16+ is about 30% of creature does AoO (u can see this in Attack of Oportunity tab). That is, you have 1/3 chance to be reduced to just strike or take distance and cast a spell worse than any martial or spellcaster and put the pressure to this player and party: "Oh! How fun! Now we have to compensated the our magus...again...".

[aobst128]

What would be cool and more likely than a fix to spellstrike provoking is a feat that gives a sizable circumstance bonus to ac against AoO from spells. Like the +4 sixth pillar stance gives. Then you'd be safer and be in a good position to trigger an attack intentionally.

[AlastarOG]

YuriP wrote:

To all those think that melee Magus having the risk of AoO is fair. Please remember that after lvl 16+ is about 30% of creature does AoO (u can see this in Attack of Oportunity tab). That is, you have 1/3 chance to be reduced to just strike or take distance and cast a spell worse than any martial or spellcaster and put the pressure to this player and party: "Oh! How fun! Now we have to compensated the our magus...again...".

As someone who almost always plays spellcasters I can tell you I will NEVER think that nullifying reactions is me compensating for the magus.

I nullify reactions for me and me alone! If the magus gets some mileage out of it, cool, but I m much squishier than they are!

Also enabling party members is everyone's job, there's no I in teamwork.

[roquepo]

aobst128 wrote:

The special spellstrikes past 10th level are pretty good. Lunging spellstrike in particular, no need for cascade as well.

Lunging Spellstrike turns you into a whole different character at level 10, it is bonkers (specially if you got extra spells from a casting dedication).

Dimensional Disappearance and Sustaining Steel also feel great to use.

[The-Magic-Sword]

YuriP wrote:

To all those think that melee Magus having the risk of AoO is fair. Please remember that after lvl 16+ is about 30% of creature does AoO (u can see this in Attack of Oportunity tab). That is, you have 1/3 chance to be reduced to just strike or take distance and cast a spell worse than any martial or spellcaster and put the pressure to this player and party: "Oh! How fun! Now we have to compensated the our magus...again...".

That whole part of your perspective on it seems unnecessarily vicious, My reaction would be "oh cool, it already used its reaction on the Magus, lets take advantage of all the positioning we can now do" especially since a lot of those enemies are large enough to have a reach where meandering up to them is already an AO.

Also if I saw a player say that, I'd de-- I mean, boot them from the table.

[PossibleCabbage]

I have seen lunging spellstrike in action and it has convinced me that when I get to play a Magus I am absolutely playing a twisting tree magus.

[Onkonk]

If you remove reactions from bosses that is often removing an entire MAP-0 attack from them (or more, the vrock comes to mind), that is incredibly valueable regardless if there is a magus there or not.

[AlastarOG]

Higher levels all those AoO monsters are actually a prime exemple of why you should keep hideous laughter/crushing despair/uncontrollable dance prepared/in your repertoire at all times.

On earlier topics: caffeinated ninja sorry for the dishonest appellation.

I'm actually working on a melee fighter vs ranged fighter graph and melee magus vs ranged magus graph so we can see opportunity cost.

[The Raven Black]

YuriP wrote:

To all those think that melee Magus having the risk of AoO is fair. Please remember that after lvl 16+ is about 30% of creature does AoO (u can see this in Attack of Oportunity tab). That is, you have 1/3 chance to be reduced to just strike or take distance and cast a spell worse than any martial or spellcaster and put the pressure to this player and party: "Oh! How fun! Now we have to compensated the our magus...again...".

You can also move, take the AoO and then Spellstrike.

Or just Spellstrike right away and bet that they will not crit on their AoO.

[AlastarOG]

Honestly AoO are just a function of melee, specially in those 16+ levels where most of those ennemies have at least 15ft. Reach.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

"AlastarOG” wrote:

On earlier topics: caffeinated ninja sorry for the dishonest appellation.

Accepted, all good!

The AoO thing is not the main factor in ranged beating melee but it is one of them. Not every group has a caster capable of killing AoO. And even those that do, they might want to do something else. The magus is not the person that wants to trigger it anyways, off tank at best.

It is just one more “why am I in melee range when I could be 60 feet away” thing though.

[SuperBidi]

If I may, a few things about the Magus discussion.

But first, Graphs, as they are my main tool of comparison.

- Blue: Greatsword Arcane Cascade Magus making 2 attacks.
- Orange: Starlit Span Magus Gouging Claw Spellstrike.
- Green: Bear Support Ability + Gravity Weapon Precision Ranger Hunted Shot.
- Purple: True Striked Fire Ray Starlit Span Spellstrike.
- Red: Hero Pointed Fire Ray Greatsword Spellstrike.

So, as you can see, no one cares about the Starlit Span ability to Spellstrike every round. Actually, no one cares about Spellstrike past the very first Spellstrike, because the Magus is an alpha striker. Its whole strength is a first round Focus Spell rerolled Spellstrike that does absolutely tremedous damage.
The strength of the Starlit Span Magus, and the reason I find it too strong, is its ability to maintain Spellstrike during 2 rounds (one with True Strike, one with a reroll) and also its comparison with other ranged attackers (that deal less damage than melee options).

Another issue with the Magus is that it's very hard to play. Not "my kid doesn't manage to play it" hard, but "my friends don't manage to play it" hard. As such, you get very different returns of experience about it. Truth is, well played it outdamages the Fighter (as Alastar pointed it out). It's really a massive damage dealer. On top of being a massive damage dealer, it does all its damage during round 1, very often ending a fight immediately (you have roughly 20% chances to make a critical hit during first round, and a critical hit is most of the time trivializing the fight).

It's also a character that needs a lot of support. It's fragile and attracts a lot of attention. You need a party around a Magus.

About the Starlit Span/melee Magus comparison, I think both of them are very strong. The Starlit Span is on the overpowered side of things (but once again in the hands of a good player), the melee Magus is also super strong but you now need an extremely good player (or more levels to get Cavalier Dedication) to make it shine as much as the Starlit Span one. So, maybe overpowered but most groups won't realize it.

[Saedar]

SuperBidi wrote:

If I may, a few things about the Magus discussion.

But first, Graphs, as they are my main tool of comparison.

...

Bless you and your graphs.

[Vodalian]

SuperBidi wrote:

...

Magus is okay, but let's compare it to another class everyone loves/hates. I also made a graph. Here: https://imgur.com/FWmCzqg

Now let's see.

- Green is double flick mace fighter using 2 actions for double slice and one reaction for opportunity attack each turn. Reliably put out almost as as much damage as the magus reroll alpha strike, often inflict prone condition due to frequent crits, only uses 2 actions + reaction. Better defenses than magus.

- Blue is Eldritch archer fighter using gouging claw eldritch shot. (I think fire ray would be even more damage but it would require more work in the app to calculate). Easily beats normal gouging claw magus for equal amount of actions except for first turn, where magus has 1 extra action for true strike. Better defenses than magus.

- Orange is Starlit Span Magus Gouging Claw Spellstrike, same as SuperBidi used.

As we can see, even in the most optimal of conditions, the low defense, opportinity attack eating magus doesn't really match up to the god of fighting. I'm not saying optimal magus is weak, what I'm really saying is that fighter should be nerfed.

[AlastarOG]

You should.compare it to triple shot fighter with only - 1 to MAP on all three shots.

It exploits the Crit advantage much better than eldritch archer.

[Lollerabe]

Vodalian wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

...

Magus is okay, but let's compare it to another class everyone loves/hates. I also made a graph. Here: https://imgur.com/FWmCzqg

Now let's see.

- Green is double flick mace fighter using 2 actions for double slice and one reaction for opportunity attack each turn. Reliably put out almost as as much damage as the magus reroll alpha strike, often inflict prone condition due to frequent crits, only uses 2 actions + reaction. Better defenses than magus.

- Blue is Eldritch archer fighter using gouging claw eldritch shot. (I think fire ray would be even more damage but it would require more work in the app to calculate). Easily beats normal gouging claw magus for equal amount of actions except for first turn, where magus has 1 extra action for true strike. Better defenses than magus.

- Orange is Starlit Span Magus Gouging Claw Spellstrike, same as SuperBidi used.

As we can see, even in the most optimal of conditions, the low defense, opportinity attack eating magus doesn't really match up to the god of fighting. I'm not saying optimal magus is weak, what I'm really saying is that fighter should be nerfed.

Heh, figures. Out of curiosity - where would you rank melee Magus compared to other melee martials ?

[Onkonk]

Vodalian wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

...

Magus is okay, but let's compare it to another class everyone loves/hates. I also made a graph. Here: https://imgur.com/FWmCzqg

Now let's see.

- Green is double flick mace fighter using 2 actions for double slice and one reaction for opportunity attack each turn. Reliably put out almost as as much damage as the magus reroll alpha strike, often inflict prone condition due to frequent crits, only uses 2 actions + reaction. Better defenses than magus.

- Blue is Eldritch archer fighter using gouging claw eldritch shot. (I think fire ray would be even more damage but it would require more work in the app to calculate). Easily beats normal gouging claw magus for equal amount of actions except for first turn, where magus has 1 extra action for true strike. Better defenses than magus.

- Orange is Starlit Span Magus Gouging Claw Spellstrike, same as SuperBidi used.

As we can see, even in the most optimal of conditions, the low defense, opportinity attack eating magus doesn't really match up to the god of fighting. I'm not saying optimal magus is weak, what I'm really saying is that fighter should be nerfed.

I don't think you're comparing quite the same thing. You're using the magus that puts no effort into improving their damage and is equal to the yellow bottom line in SuperBidi's graph. So the most optimal conditions you would use Fire Ray + True Strike.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Bidi, I appreciate your graph. I do think however you are conflating a specific archetype build (magus/cleric for a TS fire ray) that has a really strong opening shot to the entire class. The fight lasts longer than one round, and after early game, even a crit with that isn't going to instant kill any enemy that isn't a lvl -3 or something.

Sustained damage is quite different, and that magus build is an outlier, and one built for that alpha strike.

I would agree that compared to other ranged attackers "that deal less than mele options" which is kind of the whole point of this discussion, as magus has very little reason not to be ranged.

As others have pointed out, comparing sustained damage over a fight with a high damage melee build (optimized fighter, giant barbarian) magus gets left in the dust, and can't do big spellstrikes more than a coupletimes a day.

Back to my earlier point about ranged magus vs melee magus (and this applies more so to investigator and somewhat inventor) I have taken out two lines of your graph. 2 strikes from a greatsword (with cascade which honestly isn't a fair option as that comes online round 2 at the earliest) against basic spellstriking magus. Ranged guy is damn close to the big 2 hander even when that one has the damage boost going. Hence, range is good hah.

https://imgur.com/a/f8RK6sa

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Lollerabe wrote:

Heh, figures. Out of curiosity - where would you rank melee Magus compared to other melee martials ?

This wasn't addressed to me hah, and I have a whole tier list I stole amd mostly agree with, but I rank them like this

S - Champion
A - Fighter (Magus Ranged)
B - Ranger, Barbarian, Monk
C - Melee Magus, Swashbuckler
D/F - Melee Investigator

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AlastarOG wrote:

You should.compare it to triple shot fighter with only - 1 to MAP on all three shots.

It exploits the Crit advantage much better than eldritch archer.

I disagree, if only because damage applied to a single enemy is far more useful than damage applied to multiple.

[Vodalian]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Lollerabe wrote:

Heh, figures. Out of curiosity - where would you rank melee Magus compared to other melee martials ?

This wasn't addressed to me hah, and I have a whole tier list I stole amd mostly agree with, but I rank them like this

S - Champion
A - Fighter (Magus Ranged)
B - Ranger, Barbarian, Monk
C - Melee Magus, Swashbuckler
D/F - Melee Investigator

Mine (for optimized builds):

S+ - Melee fighter (use champion archetype if you want to play a stronger champion)

S - ranged fighter (Debilitating shot is broken)
[UPDATE] snare ranger might be broken, need to look into it.

A - ranged magus and gunslinger (These guys go up a rank if your party can buff/debuff for reliable crits). Rogue (good offence, good defence)

B - Champion (Only this low because champion archetype is OP and replicates the best features of the base class)

B minus - Tangled forest stance monk (with tower shield can lock down enemies and tank well)

C - ranger (Lots of work for worse-than-fighter offence and defence. Goes up to S once you get shared prey at 14)

C minus - barbarian (50% fighter, 50% unconscious), other monks (low damage, MAD, enemies can just ignore you).

D - Melee magus (MAD, Weak defences, bad action economy, sub-fighter-level offence), swashbuckler (Weak chassis, bad action economy, best feat 'one for all' can be poached using human ancestry multitalented at lvl 9, right when aid becomes strong)

E - Investigator (just sad), alchemist

? - Inventor (haven't looked into it)

[gesalt]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Bidi, I appreciate your graph. I do think however you are conflating a specific archetype build (magus/cleric for a TS fire ray) that has a really strong opening shot to the entire class. The fight lasts longer than one round, and after early game, even a crit with that isn't going to instant kill any enemy that isn't a lvl -3 or something.

Sustained damage is quite different, and that magus build is an outlier, and one built for that alpha strike.

I would agree that compared to other ranged attackers "that deal less than mele options" which is kind of the whole point of this discussion, as magus has very little reason not to be ranged.

As others have pointed out, comparing sustained damage over a fight with a high damage melee build (optimized fighter, giant barbarian) magus gets left in the dust, and can't do big spellstrikes more than a coupletimes a day.

Back to my earlier point about ranged magus vs melee magus (and this applies more so to investigator and somewhat inventor) I have taken out two lines of your graph. 2 strikes from a greatsword (with cascade which honestly isn't a fair option as that comes online round 2 at the earliest) against basic spellstriking magus. Ranged guy is damn close to the big 2 hander even when that one has the damage boost going. Hence, range is good hah.

https://imgur.com/a/f8RK6sa

Generally, I don't mind treating the optimal build as the entire class, be it fire ray true strike magus, dual repeating crossbow gunslinger, thief rogue, etc, etc. In this case though, I do think the value of an alpha strike is a little overrated.

Against a +3 or +4 boss raw damage on turn 1 just isn't good enough compared to sustained damage, prone control or a slowbot with a DC less likely to get critically saved against.

Against a swarm, the alpha strike is better as you more quickly eliminate a single enemy. But after that you still need to kill the rest where, again, sustained damage and higher crit rate throw the magus back behind the fighter and the lower spell DC makes them less likely to remove enemies from combat with something like calm emotions. Walls still work great though for dividing the field.

Ranged fire ray magus tends to sit with the rest of the non-fighter crb martials and the summoner with melee magus a step below them.

lollerabe wrote:

Heh, figures. Out of curiosity - where would you rank melee Magus compared to other melee martials ?

If you need to tier martials:

S: Fighter (all of the main 5-6 builds), Thief (less for raw combat and more for being A tier with SAD and superior skill progression)
A: Everything not above or below
B: melee magus, inventor, gunslinger (except dual repeating crossbows)
C: swashbuckler, ranged investigator
D: melee investigator
F: alchemist

[AlastarOG]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

You should.compare it to triple shot fighter with only - 1 to MAP on all three shots.

It exploits the Crit advantage much better than eldritch archer.

I disagree, if only because damage applied to a single enemy is far more useful than damage applied to multiple.

Triple shot has to be done against a single enemy. It's three shots at -4 MAP agaisnt a single target, so three chances to Crit and trigger deadly, all of that with the fighters increased proficiency. At level 16 you can get a stance that makes the MAP -1 on all three.

[graystone]

AlastarOG wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

You should.compare it to triple shot fighter with only - 1 to MAP on all three shots.

It exploits the Crit advantage much better than eldritch archer.

I disagree, if only because damage applied to a single enemy is far more useful than damage applied to multiple.

Triple shot has to be done against a single enemy. It's three shots at -4 MAP agaisnt a single target, so three chances to Crit and trigger deadly, all of that with the fighters increased proficiency. At level 16 you can get a stance that makes the MAP -1 on all three.

Multishot Stance is -2 not -1 when using triple shot. Also, since multishot stance is an action itself it means that you have a total of 4 action used, 1 on it and 3 on triple shot so it means it can't be used on the first round.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Vodalian wrote:

B - Champion (Only this low because champion archetype is OP and replicates the best features of the base class)

I wouldn't rate champ that low given it is still +2 AC at most levels, but I do agree that champ archetype is way too strong. Should probably be a once a fight reaction like spellstrike is once a fight for the archetype version.

Vodalian wrote:

C minus - barbarian (50% fighter, 50% unconscious)

That made me laugh out loud. Thank you

[CaffeinatedNinja]

AlastarOG wrote:

Triple shot has to be done against a single enemy.

Ah, didn't realize that. My bad

[SuperBidi]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Bidi, I appreciate your graph. I do think however you are conflating a specific archetype build (magus/cleric for a TS fire ray) that has a really strong opening shot to the entire class.

Do you consider that an Animal Barbarian with Monk Dedication for Flurry of Blows is a specific archetype build of the Animal Barbarian or the basic build for an Animal Barbarian?

Getting a strong Focus Spell is instrumental to the Magus. Cantrips Spellstrikes are weak after the first 6 levels, and using your hard-earned slots is crazy after the first levels. I actually don't understand why the Magus doesn't have access to a good spell attack roll Focus Spell (that would not recharge Spellstrike), it seems like an oversight considering how the class interacts with them.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

As others have pointed out, comparing sustained damage over a fight with a high damage melee build (optimized fighter, giant barbarian) magus gets left in the dust, and can't do big spellstrikes more than a coupletimes a day.

Sustained damage is not as valuable than alpha strike. Getting the first kill wins a fight, not dealing always the same quantity of damage. Outside of single opponents, the damage you'll deal after round 2 will have a low impact: if the outcome of the fight is not obvious yet, it would have been if you had higher alpha strike.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Back to my earlier point about ranged magus vs melee magus (and this applies more so to investigator and somewhat inventor) I have taken out two lines of your graph. 2 strikes from a greatsword (with cascade which honestly isn't a fair option as that comes online round 2 at the earliest) against basic spellstriking magus. Ranged guy is damn close to the big 2 hander even when that one has the damage boost going. Hence, range is good hah.

Arcane Cascade adds low damage anyway, I added it just because we were speaking about sustained damage.

Range is good (in general). As I've shown earlier, a Trident Barbarian deals 10% less damage than a Greatsword Barbarian. So to consider ranged as "much stronger than melee", I think there are other things to consider than strict damage comparison.

gesalt wrote:

Against a +3 or +4 boss raw damage on turn 1 just isn't good enough compared to sustained damage, prone control or a slowbot with a DC less likely to get critically saved against.

Well, I'll remove a level to the boss for a +2 or +3 boss. At low level, when they are at the strongest, a Spellstrike critical can actually put them down if you roll high. At higher level, it's no more the case but I've seen a level 16 Magus removing 50% of a boss hit point pool at round 1 and even if it didn't end the fight per se it removed much of the stress.

gesalt wrote:

Against a swarm, the alpha strike is better as you more quickly eliminate a single enemy. But after that you still need to kill the rest where, again, sustained damage and higher crit rate throw the magus back behind the fighter and the lower spell DC makes them less likely to remove enemies from combat with something like calm emotions. Walls still work great though for dividing the field.

Against a swarm, the Magus has spells.

And against a few enemies, killing one quickly is very strong and wins the fight.
It's true that the Magus won't one-hit kill an enemy with a critical, but there are at least 3 other members in the party. Removing 2/3rd of an enemy hit points is enough for another character to step in and finish the job.

[Squiggit]

SuperBidi wrote:

Do you consider that an Animal Barbarian with Monk Dedication for Flurry of Blows is a specific archetype build of the Animal Barbarian or the basic build for an Animal Barbarian?

I mean, any build that centers around one specific character option is, by definition, a specific niche build. Yes.

Which is probably why you're getting some degree of pushback here. Your builds are fine, but also instantly inapplicable to a significant number of people playing that class, which becomes problematic when someone tries to generalize the performance of one niche build to the class at large.

[roquepo]

graystone wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

You should.compare it to triple shot fighter with only - 1 to MAP on all three shots.

It exploits the Crit advantage much better than eldritch archer.

I disagree, if only because damage applied to a single enemy is far more useful than damage applied to multiple.

Triple shot has to be done against a single enemy. It's three shots at -4 MAP agaisnt a single target, so three chances to Crit and trigger deadly, all of that with the fighters increased proficiency. At level 16 you can get a stance that makes the MAP -1 on all three.

Multishot Stance is -2 not -1 when using triple shot. Also, since multishot stance is an action itself it means that you have a total of 4 action used, 1 on it and 3 on triple shot so it means it can't be used on the first round.

Not only that, but Ranger Dedication for Hunted Shot and Gravity Weapon go online way earlier and is more flexible (you can't move with that stance, while HS allows you to use Point Blank Shot turn 2 onwards).

Vodalian wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Lollerabe wrote:

Heh, figures. Out of curiosity - where would you rank melee Magus compared to other melee martials ?

This wasn't addressed to me hah, and I have a whole tier list I stole amd mostly agree with, but I rank them like this

S - Champion
A - Fighter (Magus Ranged)
B - Ranger, Barbarian, Monk
C - Melee Magus, Swashbuckler
D/F - Melee Investigator

Mine (for optimized builds):

S+ - Melee fighter (use champion archetype if you want to play a stronger champion)

S - ranged fighter (Debilitating shot is broken)
[UPDATE] snare ranger might be broken, need to look into it.

A - ranged magus and gunslinger (These guys go up a rank if your party can buff/debuff for reliable crits). Rogue (good offence, good defence)

B - Champion (Only this low because champion archetype is OP and replicates the best features of the base class)

B minus - Tangled forest stance monk (with tower shield can lock down enemies and tank well)

C - ranger (Lots of work for worse-than-fighter offence and defence. Goes up to S once you get shared prey at 14)

C minus - barbarian (50% fighter, 50% unconscious), other monks (low damage, MAD, enemies can just ignore you).

D - Melee magus (MAD, Weak defences, bad action economy, sub-fighter-level offence), swashbuckler (Weak chassis, bad action economy, best feat 'one for all' can be poached using human ancestry multitalented at lvl 9, right when aid becomes strong)

E - Investigator (just sad), alchemist

? - Inventor (haven't looked into it)

I somewhat agree with this, but lowering that much Champion because of Champion Dedication feels wrong, honestly. Mostly because most melee builds with it would go between half to a whole tier upwards.

To me it looks something like:

S: Dual-weapon and reach Fighters, Thief Rogue, Good Champions, Flurry/Precision Rangers past level 14

A: True Strike/Heroism Sniper (hard to pull off without FA) and dual weapon Gunslinger, most Rangers past level 8 (Warden's Boon), other Fighters, maneuver-centered Animal Barbarian, Starlit Magus, Tree magus with Sentinel past level 10

B: Dragon Barbarian, Outwit Ranger past level 10 (barely playable before that), Bo Staff/Jellyfish/Forest Monk, non thief Rogues

C: Most other Monks and Barbarians, Ranged Investigator (gets way better at 10 with Suspect of opportunity, maybe a B), One for All Swashbuckler (Fake Out really hurt this), other Gunslingers, evil Champions

D: other Swashbucklers and melee Investigator (again, maybe C at 10)

No idea about Inventor or Summoner. Alchemist is not a martial.

[YuriP]

Vodalian wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

...

Magus is okay, but let's compare it to another class everyone loves/hates. I also made a graph. Here: https://imgur.com/FWmCzqg

Now let's see.

- Green is double flick mace fighter using 2 actions for double slice and one reaction for opportunity attack each turn. Reliably put out almost as as much damage as the magus reroll alpha strike, often inflict prone condition due to frequent crits, only uses 2 actions + reaction. Better defenses than magus.

- Blue is Eldritch archer fighter using gouging claw eldritch shot. (I think fire ray would be even more damage but it would require more work in the app to calculate). Easily beats normal gouging claw magus for equal amount of actions except for first turn, where magus has 1 extra action for true strike. Better defenses than magus.

- Orange is Starlit Span Magus Gouging Claw Spellstrike, same as SuperBidi used.

As we can see, even in the most optimal of conditions, the low defense, opportinity attack eating magus doesn't really match up to the god of fighting. I'm not saying optimal magus is weak, what I'm really saying is that fighter should be nerfed.

Just remebering that compare a pure fighter with Magus/EA isn't "fair".

Magus and EA are way versatile in their damage types and use of magic to circumvent many situations where fighter can't. It's OK and expected that fighter be more DPS focused.

[aobst128]

Laughing shadow can also go for EA and switch hit with arcane fists. Not relevant but I like the idea. Gives more purpose to the dex melee magus.