|
What do yall peeps think about an eldritch trickter rogue that goes into magus dedication?
I think that, officially speaking, they don't exist since the bounded spellcasting benefits/feats are not the same as the spellcasting benefits/feats.
If you want to houserule that bounded spellcasting classes qualify though, I think it's probably fine to do, I've not seen any convincing arguments that it would be unbalanced so far at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think picking a more normal Racket (thief for dex to damage or mastermind for INT key attribute both look good) and just paying for the Magus Dedication at level 2 would be more mechanically effective.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It works, probably, depending on (as Themetricsystem says) whether your GM views "bounded spellcasting benefits" as good enough for the racket. You'll still be unable to Spellstrike until level 4, but it does let you pick up Magical Trickster a couple levels early, so you can toss in some sneak attack dice on your Produce Flames and such.
It's definitely a very expensive archetype in terms of the class feats you're spending, but it can be pretty handy just for access to the Laughing Shadow's Dimensional Assault. If you're playing with Free Archetype, of course, go nuts.
One thing that's a bit funny is that, because an Eldritch Trickster Rogue can pick Intelligence for their key ability stat (and a Magus can't), a Rogue who goes all in on Intelligence and advances their arcane spell proficiency whenever possible will be tied or even ahead of a Magus's spell attack modifier/DCs for most of levels 1-20. The Magus would only be ahead in levels 9-11 and 17.
What do yall peeps think about an eldritch trickter rogue that goes into magus dedication?
It works fine, Magus has a basic, expert and master spellcasting feat so it's compatible with Eldritch Trickster. As of efficiency, Magus is definitely a strong Dedication, so it should be fine once you get access to Spellstriker.
|
|
Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes are not the same as Spellcasting Archetypes.
ET specifically notes that the MCA requires that the Rogue "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat..." which Magus and Summoner do not have, instead have a different feature/benefit that works differently, is available at a later level, and is named differently.
It doesn't work unless the MCA specifically has Feats that provide benefits defined by the rules dictated at the second URL I linked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes are not the same as Spellcasting Archetypes.
They are named differently (and ET specifically notes that the MCA requires that the Rogue "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat..." which Magus and Summoner do not have, instead have a different feature/benefit that works differently, is available at a later level, and is named differently.
It doesn't work unless the MCA specifically has Feats that provide benefits defined by the rules dictated at the second URL I linked.
Magus has Basic, Expert and Master Magus Spellcasting feats. ET states that "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat.". There are no capital B, E, M, S and F, so these are not the Basic, Expert and Master Spellcasting Feats but any basic, expert and master spellcasting feat. As such, from a very strict RAW reading, it works fine.
As a side note, I don't see the point of forbidding it. Magus and Summoner Dedication don't seem to be overpowered.
|
As far as I can tell, it is legal.
"Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat.
Magus dedication has "Basic Magus Spellcasting", "Expert Magus Spellcasting", and "Master Magus Spellcasting". That seems to fulfill the requirement.
My feat selection was going to be:
1 Magus dedication
2 Magical Trickster
4 spellstrike
6 conflux
8 shadow dancer
10 ?
Thoughts?
|
|
Wrong. Despite the Feat naming convention those feats are explicitly NOT the same thing, if you'd follow the links I provided you would notice the following line...
Bounded spellcasting archetypes always have a basic bounded spellcasting feat, an expert bounded spellcasting feat, and a master bounded spellcasting feat.
Each of those Feats that you mention that you argue does qualify does not actually define what the benefits are or how they work, instead, it points to the "global" rules for Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes which is FAR more specific and includes all of the wording and rules that clarify what is going on.
Right here this is the nail in the coffin, the Magus and Summoner absolutely are not intended to be considered to have Basic, Expert, and Master Spellcasting Feats, instead they have Basic Bounded, Expert Bounded, and Master Bounded Feats as strictly defined and printed in the "global" rules that setup how this functions.
This does not work and it is not intended to work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wrong. Despite the Feat naming convention those feats are explicitly NOT the same thing, if you'd follow the links I provided you would notice the following line...
Bounded spellcasting archetypes always have a basic bounded spellcasting feat, an expert bounded spellcasting feat, and a master bounded spellcasting feat.Right here this is the nail in the coffin, the Magus and Summoner absolutely are not intended to be considered to have Basic, Expert, and Master Spellcasting Feats, instead they have Basic Bounded, Expert Bounded, and Master Bounded.
This does not work and it is not intended to work.
But there's no need to have Basic, Expert and Master Spellcasting Feats, but basic, expert and master spellcasting feats.
So it works.|
|
Leo, my concern would be that, outside of levels 1 and 2, you're not actually getting any Rogue feats. You can definitely do this, of course! But you'll be missing out on some really good stuff like Opportune Backstab, and you'll still only have 2 cantrips each day to work with as you start going down a completely different archetype.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrong. Despite the Feat naming convention those feats are explicitly NOT the same thing, if you'd follow the links I provided you would notice the following line...
Bounded spellcasting archetypes always have a basic bounded spellcasting feat, an expert bounded spellcasting feat, and a master bounded spellcasting feat.Each of those Feats that you mention that you argue does qualify does not actually define what the benefits are or how they work, instead, it points to the "global" rules for Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes which is FAR more specific and includes all of the wording and rules that clarify what is going on.
Right here this is the nail in the coffin, the Magus and Summoner absolutely are not intended to be considered to have Basic, Expert, and Master Spellcasting Feats, instead they have Basic Bounded, Expert Bounded, and Master Bounded Feats as strictly defined and printed in the "global" rules that setup how this functions.
This does not work and it is not intended to work.
While I understand the difference that you are pointing out, it says "Basic Magus Spellcasting Feat 6". The racket calls out the name of the feats, not "basic spellcasting benefit" or anything like that.
I think this time you are "wrong".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leo, my concern would be that, outside of levels 1 and 2, you're not actually getting any Rogue feats. You can definitely do this, of course! But you'll be missing out on some really good stuff like Opportune Backstab, and you'll still only have 2 cantrips each day to work with as you start going down a completely different archetype.
I was considering that, but if I focus on stealth I'd probably play it as a more mobile build. If I go for hit and run tactics, opportune backstab is going to proc less often.
I was considering taking Shadow Magic for shadow jump. In theory I could shadow jump and attack or even shadow jump and then dimensional assault.
It, by no means is a hyper power build, but could be a highly mobile, fun build.
|
|
Definitely! It's something I have had living in my head rent-free for a while. Being able to teleport yourself into a flank and attack as a single action? *chef's kiss*
One thing to bear in mind, though, is that casting a spell will make you Observed before you actually make the attack, so you'll need some way to make the enemy flat-footed beyond just Hiding and Sneaking. Dance of Darkness can help a lot with that, since not even darkvision or True Seeing can see through it (greater darkvision means you have no problem at all), but you'll have to wait a while.
What do yall peeps think about an eldritch trickter rogue that goes into magus dedication?I think that, officially speaking, they don't exist since the bounded spellcasting benefits/feats are not the same as the spellcasting benefits/feats.
If you want to houserule that bounded spellcasting classes qualify though, I think it's probably fine to do, I've not seen any convincing arguments that it would be unbalanced so far at least.
100% agree.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do yall peeps think about an eldritch trickter rogue that goes into magus dedication?I think that, officially speaking, they don't exist since the bounded spellcasting benefits/feats are not the same as the spellcasting benefits/feats.
If you want to houserule that bounded spellcasting classes qualify though, I think it's probably fine to do, I've not seen any convincing arguments that it would be unbalanced so far at least.
100% agree.
100% disagree for me.
Eldritch trickster asks for a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat. Magus archetype offers Basic Magus Spellcasting, Expert Magus Spellcasting and Master Magus Spellcasting. I have a hard time seeing how those feats do not meet the requirements. It never mentions the benefits in the requirements and that's where bounded/non-bounded comes in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I agree with Graystone and the rest. The uncapitalized basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat meets the same context for both bounded and non-bounded versions. They uncapitalization put them as general "family" of feats not for specific capitalized feats.
Also I don't see any unbalance, overpower, exploit or another motivo to not allow such thing too. IMO in general Magus archetype is just little mee in this build (unless you are taking then for some specific magus feat).
I'd avoid it in PFS, if only to save table time, but I'd also avoid it personally because as mentioned, a Rogue-Thief w/ Magus Dedication at 2nd is simply better.
It's comparing Dex to damage + Magus MCD at 2nd
(+ possible Magical Trickster at 4th)
vs.
Magus MCD at 1st + Magical Trickster at 2nd + Rogue feat at 4th.
IMO there is no Rogue feat as valuable as Dex to damage or the stats that it frees up from not needing Str (which in turn would make one's damage from Cantrips higher w/ some Int).
As for playstyle, I wouldn't rely on hiding to get opponents flat-footed, not with casting. You'll either need somebody to set it up, or go out and flank. Of course this is coming from the POV that magic is secondary to weapons (otherwise this would need a much longer conversation!). Short version is weapons will have a better attack bonus.
And I'd lean toward an Ancestry that could pick up more Cantrips, most likely Half-Elf if only to grab an MCD at 9th for 2 more.
|
|
I'd like a FAQ for this since clearly there are some differing interpretations.
My reasoning is simply grounded in the fact that the various MCA (Class) Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats all are printed with simple summary text that refer you to the universal rules for this type of Feat and within those rules the Feats are described in detail regarding what they do and present a very specifically worded section for each of those benefits, namely, they're called Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats and it dictates how it works and THAT is the ONLY place in the rules where the wording that ET has matches 1-for-1. It is the specific naming convention for how those types of MCA Feats that allow the line to be traced from one dot to the other and literally nothing else.
The Magus and Summoner MCAs each have their own Feats that provide SIMILAR benefits but just like the full-caster MCA Feats none of these match words for word the prerequisites that ET is seeking, and upon following the breadcrumbs from the vague description that is included on the feat it tells you, just like the Sorc/Wiz/etc, to seek out the full rules listed later on in that chapter and when you arrive there you do NOT find the "Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feat" wording anywhere at all, instead, the benefits are printed as being Basic/Expert/Master Bounded Spellcasting Feats. Furthermore, the rules in both sections exclusively refer to all of these benefits that are added by way of the MCA Feats in question by the printed verbiage provided on those pages and on those pages alone.
I do see where you are all coming from but I can't help but feel like you are stopping short of actually looking for the actual specific written text from the abilities down to the foundations and in the process eschewing any look at the actual specific rules that govern them as you're satisfied that the Basic/Expert/Master (X Class) Spellcasting is sufficently close to identical to "Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feat" which is... just not correct, instead the only way those Feats CAN be interpreted as qualifying for the ET is by actually going to the specific rules that define in granular detail that those Feats granted by the various Full Spellcaster MCAs to see that, "oh hey yeah, the name for each of the Feats for the various Classes doesn't match the wording of ET but those rules then explicitly define those feats as being precisely what ET is looking for, namely, the "Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feat" and it's all just right there in plain text, that's why the ET can choose those Classes MCAs. The Magus and Summoner MCAs are also formatted in the same way and direct you to read the rules for the Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes that define how it works and these specifically define those Feats as being "Basic/Expert/Master Bounded Spellcasting Feats" which is... again, NOT the wording that ET is looking for, there is a whole other word inserted there.
This all said, I don't have any personal skin in the game here and could honestly care less if an ET Rogue at a table that I'm running wants to choose Magus or Summoner and asks me to make an exception, but that is what it would be, an exception that overrules the actual printed RAW.
PS: Let me apologize for being short, brusk, or potentially rude to anyone in the course of this discussion. I hadn't meant to be dismissive or disrespectful in any way but after going back through things I think I may have at the very least brushed up against the line in the sand and been less that curteous when trying to explain what I found and my position on the matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thought on it is that Eldritch Trickster was printed long before Bounded Spellcasting classes or archetypes were. So the ambiguity of if the bounded spellcasting archetype feats match what Eldritch Trickster is looking for is too fine of a hair to split.
Yeah, it would be nice if there was an update to Eldritch Trickster requirements that explicitly allows Magus and Summoner dedications. But I am not seeing any problem with allowing it. It feels like they should be allowed.
|
|
Respectfully, I'd ask you to read my last post again because I spelled it out as clearly as possible with direct quotes from all of the rules that are involved. I wish to be as kind and patient as possible about this but let me just restate things, those arguing against my position are NOT using RAW, and in fact, the only way to come to the conclusion that these two Classes MCAs could work is to either unintentionally or stubbornly refuse to actually read the printed rules which govern how all of this works, what those Feats actually are, and how they're defined.
To summarise again though: The only wording that exists anywhere in the rules that label anything in a fashion that is compatible with the ET restrictions are those rules found for the Spellcasting Archetypes where it clarifies that the Feats (all of which fail to meet the wording requirement on their own as they are not named appropriately) the Full Caster Classes have ARE in fact the "Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats." These Classes have a PERFECT 1-to-1 wording parity that matches what ET is looking for and requires.
The Bounded Spellcaster Classes have their own separate rules that lack the specific wording that defines their MCAs and subsequent Feats from qualifying for ET due to the fact that those (X Class) Basic Spellcasting Feats are "Basic/Expert/Master Bounded Spellcasting Feats." These rules even go out of their way to explicitly state that those various Feats ARE "Basic/Expert/Master Bounded Spellcasting Feats" multiple times EXACTLY like how the former Full Caster Classes MCAs define those Feats granted through the Archetype the rules and wording that states that those Feats ARE the "Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats" that the Racket states is required. The Magus/Summoner version of those kinds of Feats has wording that is incompatible with ET unless you conveniently just decide that it doesn't matter what those are mechanically classified as. In other words, the only way to come to the conclusion that this works is to selectively ignore the very same formatting and full description of those Feats and give up reading halfway through.
ET is NOT looking for Feats named "(Class X) Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting" at all, they are looking for Feats that are mechanically defined as being exactly what the Spellcasting Archetypes say they are, that is what enables you to choose those Classes. The wording is distinct and different for the two SoM Classes and nowhere in the Bounded Spellcasting Archetypes is the specific wording that ET is looking for at all... that is, unless you choose to ignore every instance of the word "Bounded" in the rules that define what the (Magus and Summoner) Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats are and do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, I'd ask you to read my last post again because I spelled it out as clearly as possible with direct quotes from all of the rules that are involved. I wish to be as kind and patient as possible about this but let me just restate things, those arguing against my position are NOT using RAW,
I am aware. I'm not directly disagreeing with your citation of the rules. Nor am I claiming that my opposition to it is a strict interpretation of the rules as they are currently printed.
What I am pointing out is that those rules were written at a time when the Magus, Summoner, and Bounded Spellcasting feats didn't exist, and that giving the Rogue Racket a smidgen of leeway wouldn't be an inappropriate thing to do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I understand the point you are making. And, it makes sense and is a reasonable interpretation. However, despite the lack 1-to-1 language, I still do not see it as compelling enough to conclude that it is exclusionary to the bounded spellcasting archetypes.
To me, the wording is intended to exclude non-spellcasting multiclass archetypes, which it does.
Thought: A possible loophole would be an ancient elf ET. They can't stack effects, but you could just choose the AE to be primary, causing the ET to essentially fizzle, which is fine because ET's bonus effect with Magical Trickster would still work.
Looking at Archives of Nethys here:
Eldritch Trickster: "Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat."
Spellcasting Archetypes: Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats exist
BOUNDED Spellcasting Archetypes: Basic/Expert/Master BOUNDED Spellcasting Feats exist.
By the letter, "Basic Bounded Spellcasting" is not "Basic Spellcasting". Indeed, per Nethys, Basic Bounded Spellcasting is usually level 6, while Basic Spellcasting is usually level 4.
Prior to seeing that level 6 detail, I was about to cite how the Arcanist-style archetype for prepared casters, Flexible Spellcaster, and how it says things can be adapted at need, if it makes sense. But now, I'm in the "No, can't eldritch trickster into Bounded Casters" camp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the letter, "Basic Bounded Spellcasting" is not "Basic Spellcasting".
It doesn't have to be as eldritch trickster doesn't ask about the spellcasting itself but the Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats: Magus has those as does as does summoner.
By the letter, "Basic Bounded Spellcasting" is not "Basic Spellcasting". Indeed, per Nethys, Basic Bounded Spellcasting is usually level 6, while Basic Spellcasting is usually level 4.
I don't understand why 6th level or what the actual benefits of the feats are matters as the feat only asks for Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting Feats: there aren't any feats that are called Basic/Expert/Master BOUNDED Spellcasting Feats. There are as many feats called bounded as there are ones called prepared spellcasting and spontaneous spellcasting and that number is 0 for all of them.
|
|
It really could be read either way "by the letter". Inside the description of bounded spellcasting benefits, it refers to x "bounded spellcasting feat". However the actual feats in the archetype do not have the "bounded" part in there. It just says x "magus spellcasting". As the feat itself is called X "magus spellcasting", by the letter it qualifies.
I would also point out that, even in the bounded spellcasting archetype benefits, it still refers to the names of the specific feats without the bounded word.
These feats share their name with the archetype. For instance, the magus's master spellcasting feat is called Master Magus Spellcasting.
Now, I can definitely understand an argument for RAI that it doesn't work. But, I think that the RAW argument of "The feat is literally named X magus spellcasting. That is what ET requires, and that is what the feats say." is the stronger of the two.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This feels like a lot of energy and effort being spent just to stop a mediocre rogue racket from picking up Magus archetype.
I don't really get it.
Its just a rules disagreement. I don't think that wording of the rules support it.
Its not a is it reasonable or balanced discussion, as any Rogue can take Magical Trickster and archetype into Magus. Which kicks off the rules argument about potential double stacking sneak attack damage with Spellstrike.
Eldritch Trickster is a poor Rogue Racket because it doesn't give you anything other than what you can get out of a class feat. Its only point is if you are really short on feats. Which I always am as a Rogue, just not often for this feat. All the other Rogue Rackets give you something better that you can't otherwise get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Trickster is a poor Rogue Racket because it doesn't give you anything other than what you can get out of a class feat.
I think the benefit is taking Magical Trickster at 2nd level as much as the bonus feat: if you're not sure how high you're going to get with a character, getting your sneak attack on spells 2 levels earlier can be significant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Trickster is a poor Rogue Racket because it doesn't give you anything other than what you can get out of a class feat.I think the benefit is taking Magical Trickster at 2nd level as much as the bonus feat: if you're not sure how high you're going to get with a character, getting your sneak attack on spells 2 levels earlier can be significant.
Also freeing your lvl4 Class feat.