Not sure when we'll be able to do that in this...1) At low levels (say 1 to 5), spellstriking is useless.
The best use of your low level slot(s) until you get a striking weapon is to cast magic weapon - and doubly so for an Iron Magus since you're using a weapon with a big dice. That means your guisarme will do 2d10+str (hopefully +4) and no amount of spellstriking will outdamage that. So even with a -5 penalty, it's better to attack twice and not spellstrike until level 5 or so.
That situation applies to a lot of casters. Until people get a striking rune the best first level spell may well be Magic Weapon.
At level one you should cast magic weapon, and then be spell striking with cantrips. But some times the extra actions to recharge are not worth it. The cantrip damage goes up enough at level 3. Yes it is a problem.
Sometimes I think the best magus the multiclass magus.
Hi Blue_frog! Thanks for taking the time to share your experience!
My pleasure ;)
But at L4 I guess the expectation is that you get a striking rune so Magic Weapon doesn't do anything any more.
Very true, but two attacks still outpace spell striking at that time. With the cantrip damage bump of level 5, it starts to become useful - which is a damn long time to wait before using our main schtick ^^
Don't quite understand this one, could you elaborate please?
Hand of the Apprentice is a focus spell that you can take with a 1st level wizard feat: https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=530
It's usually a bad spell for wizards because they don't use heavy weapons and don't bother to put runes on it but hey, you do !
At level 4 with your guisarme and a striking rune, you'll do 2d10+3 extra damage when spell striking.
At level 6 with an elemental rune, that's 2d10+4+1d6.
It loses steam quickly, though, which is why I suggested taking a focus spell from another dedication.
Also, in a pinch, it's a 500 feet-range spell that costs one action.
Not quite understanding here. What advantage does Tree Magus get with True Strike?
Tree magus is the only class in the whole game who can enchant a magic staff.
So for the measly cost of 230 gp (less if you play with crafting rules and specific staves), you can buy a divination staff and get your level/2 free spell strikes while attacking with your staff.
Every other class in the game has to wield a staff in one hand to use it and a weapon in the other one, which prevents them from using a 2handed weapon or a shield, or in the case of laughing shadow, prevents them from getting their damage bonus. Tree magus doesn't. He wields a d8 deadly d6 reach weapon and can true strike pretty much anytime he wants.
Pretty sure Striking twice with Magic Weapon is only a gain compared to spellstriking in levels 1 and 2.
Level 1 cantrip spellstrike with MW vs 2 strikes with MW (50% chance of hitting on first attack, 5% of critting)
(2d8+4+1d6+2+1)*0'5+(2d8+4+1d6+2+1)*2*0'05= 11'7 average damage (spellstrike)
(2d8+4+1)*0'5+(2d8+4+1)*0'25+(2d8+4+1)*2*0'1= 13'3 average damage (2 strikes)
Added average damage of an extra d6 on spellstrike (level 3 spellstrike, basically)
1d6*0'5+1d6*2*0'05 = 2'1 average damage
Upgrading it to a d10 weapon would skew it like 0'35 or so in favor of the 2 strikes, not enough to beat the level 3 spellstrike (You need a d12 weapon for 2 striking to be better at level 3 and d12 weapons suck in comparison to d10 reach weapons). Also consider this assumes that the magus applies their key stat completely to damage (not always the case) and has arcane cascade, which favors 2 strikes a lot.
That said, this is a very simplistic analysis and conditions will vary on different precision values. By my personal experience, at level 3 spellstrike will tend to be better than 2 striking the higher the AC and viceversa.
Btw, I don't see this as a fault in Magus' design, this problem has been around for ages and it is 100% Magic Weapon's fault, martial effectiveness at levels 1-3 depends on how well they utilise the buff.
Pretty sure Striking twice with Magic Weapon is only a gain compared to spellstriking in levels 1 and 2.
I found the simulator I was talking about: https://bahalbach.github.io/PF2Calculator/
Using the d10 bardiche from OP, it seems the breaking point is level 5 as I was saying.
But if we don't use this website and just calculate with 50% chance of hitting first attack, 5% of critting like you said (and that means an AC 16 at level 1, an AC 22 at level 5, pretty respectable opponents):
Level 1 2 strikes: 50% (2d10+4+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+1) + 25% (2d10+4+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+1) = 15,2
Level 1 Spellstrike: 50% (2d10+4+1d6+2+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+1d6+2+1) = 12,9.
Level 3 Spellstrike = 50% (2d10+4+2d6+2+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+2d6+2+1) = 15
So it seems SS is beaten up to level 5.
Also, let's not forget that:
- Two strikes is more flexible: if your first one kills someone, you can change your round. Same if you realize the AC is way too high and you want to switch to electric arc.
- Two strikes lets you move, use a skill or whatever while someone spellstriking will have to recharge at some point.
- Two strikes divides your luck. I'm an unlucky bastard and two rolls are more satisfying than a single one for me ^^
- Two strikes lets you hit different targets.
On the other hand, spellstrike is good when you use it with a focus spell (like fire ray or firebolt from psychic) which can be as early as level 3 for psychic, 4 for cleric.
I forgot to consider MW on my mental maths, so yes, as you said, a 0'7 damage swing in favor of 2 strikes with d10 weapons relative to d8 weapons, making them slighly better on that accuracy point than SS.
That said, at levels 3 or 4, depending on when you get your striking rune (even earlier if an actual spellcaster is using MW on you), you can use True Strike on SS for a massive spike in damage or just spellstrike with a spell or focus spell as you said. Also, if you don't have time to use your stance (which it is not a rare occurrence, like needing to cast and move out of something in your first turn), spellstriking with a d10 weapon is better by level 3.
Also, d10 is the highest weapon die I see a magus using, only Iron and 2 handed Laughing Shadow will be able to use those, so i think calling spellstrike "useless" until level 5 is a bit of an stretch, specially when the difference between the best case scenario for 2 strikes vs the baseline equivalent of spellstrike are 0'2 average damage apart after the very first 2 levels. Have you ever used or has someone ever used on one of your monsters at level 3 an Acid Arrow spellstrike when combat starts? That thing is scary.
For your very last points:
-Nothing to disagree on that, striking twice will always be more flexible.
-If you can't fit that recharge action for whatever reason, you can just not recharge and treat spellstrike as a "1 per fight" thing. Works really well in movement heavy combats early on. Also, some conflux spells (mostly thinking of Laughing Shadow, Tree and Magic Fang conflux spells, Iron's and Starlit's are whatever and Targe's is there to fix the awkwardness of being a magus that needs an extra action compared to the others to do their thing) let you set up True strike + Spellstrike turns while having decent inbetween turns with 2 strikes and movement or spellcasting (or even both), that magus benefits massively of snatching focus spells from other classes does not mean that its focus spells are useless. They are just niche.
-I don't think game feel and luck are a relevant topic when discussing damage optimisation (it is a good discussion to be had, I just think it is irrelevant for this matter in specific).
-Spreading the damage is rarely a good tactic if you can avoid it. If it is not dead, you want to keep damaging it until it is.
-Spreading the damage is rarely a good tactic if you can avoid it. If it is not dead, you want to keep damaging it until it is.
...which is why his comment about "if the first kills someone" rather than a more general claim of the value of spreading damage around.
-Spreading the damage is rarely a good tactic if you can avoid it. If it is not dead, you want to keep damaging it until it is....which is why his comment about "if the first kills someone" rather than a more general claim of the value of spreading damage around.
And that's why I completely agreed that 2 strikes are way more flexible. He already covers that on the first point, no point of spreading damage besides that or having your strikes apply conditions. If he mentions the "if it kills" argument on one point and talks about spreading damage in other I think it is safe to assume that he is talking about those 2 as separate things.
|
Pretty sure Striking twice with Magic Weapon is only a gain compared to spellstriking in levels 1 and 2.I found the simulator I was talking about: https://bahalbach.github.io/PF2Calculator/
Using the d10 bardiche from OP, it seems the breaking point is level 5 as I was saying.
But if we don't use this website and just calculate with 50% chance of hitting first attack, 5% of critting like you said (and that means an AC 16 at level 1, an AC 22 at level 5, pretty respectable opponents):
Level 1 2 strikes: 50% (2d10+4+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+1) + 25% (2d10+4+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+1) = 15,2
Level 1 Spellstrike: 50% (2d10+4+1d6+2+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+1d6+2+1) = 12,9.
Level 3 Spellstrike = 50% (2d10+4+2d6+2+1) + 5% 2x(2d10+4+2d6+2+1) = 15
So it seems SS is beaten up to level 5.
Also, let's not forget that:
- Two strikes is more flexible: if your first one kills someone, you can change your round. Same if you realize the AC is way too high and you want to switch to electric arc.
- Two strikes lets you move, use a skill or whatever while someone spellstriking will have to recharge at some point.
- Two strikes divides your luck. I'm an unlucky bastard and two rolls are more satisfying than a single one for me ^^
- Two strikes lets you hit different targets.On the other hand, spellstrike is good when you use it with a focus spell (like fire ray or firebolt from psychic) which can be as early as level 3 for psychic, 4 for cleric.
Are we putting in different values here? Putting in a basic d10 spellstrike with gouging claw and comparing it to a basic 2-strike d10 routine shows that the spellstrike is always ahead - though not by very much at low levels, the 2-strike routine is ~96% of the damage of the spellstrike in that figure at level 1. Changing the AC of the enemy, or the level of the enemy, wasn't enough to make the 2-strike routine more damage. Changing to a d12 weapon still kept it at ~98% of the damage of the spellstrike at level 1.
That's using the standard Apex progression for the attack and damage score, plus standard damage rune progression. No crit spec was applied, but given this discussion is for levels 1-4, that doesn't seem too relevant. How are you getting the spellstrike damage being lower?
Is that graph vs high AC values for equal level monsters? If that's the case, 2 strikes should definitely be ahead early on after magic weapon is applied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don’t actually need charts to tell you what to do in play. In fact, there are so many tactical and situational modifiers to every encounter, that making assumptions about the “best default action plan” can lead you into acting rashly, rather than “solving” the encounter like a puzzle. These charts, for example can’t tell you how frequently you will encounter creatures with resistances or weaknesses that will destroy the math in them. Thus recalling knowledge is always going to look like a waste of an action in the white room, but in play, some creatures might flee, or completely change their battle plan if one character can hit their weakness.
Giving up on any of your built in class features without trying them out and trying to understand what situations they can help you in is a good way to over specialize into situations where your character can do nothing in an encounter. This is a very, very common cause of player frustration in PF2, because you can’t win the game with your character build, which is different than in many similar games. Making sure you are in a good position to take advantage of things like flat footed, circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and action economy debuffing of the enemy often come down to terrain, encounter design and full party build. Each party member trying only to do their own thing is almost always suboptimal (even if each character is optimized) than a party working together.
Like only one person in the party needs to be good at recalling knowledge, and hopefully that can be a character that has a spare action often (like a full caster), but being good at identifying all creatures can be a major resource sink, while spreading those skills around can let characters actually be good at them AND another thing, so these are good conversations to have.
By level 7, being only trained in a recall knowledge skill can lead to as much false information as useful, so just covering a lot of bases early doesn’t necessarily hold up into the mid and late game.
Are we putting in different values here? Putting in a basic d10 spellstrike with gouging claw and comparing it to a basic 2-strike d10 routine shows that the spellstrike is always ahead - though not by very much at low levels, the 2-strike routine is ~96% of the damage of the spellstrike in that figure at level 1. Changing the AC of the enemy, or the level of the enemy, wasn't enough to make the 2-strike routine more damage. Changing to a d12 weapon still kept it at ~98% of...
Because you have to account for Magic Weapon :D
Because you have to account for Magic Weapon :D
Presumably, then, on those fights where you don't have the slot for Magic Weapon, spellstrike goes back to being useful again, yes? After all, a level 1 magus only has one shot of the good stuff per day, and it only lasts for a minute.
...and of course that's not counting those magii who, for whatever reason, are wielding a d8 or d6 weapon. Also, ranged magii won't have the same stat to damage bonus, which will bring their numbers down that much further (and make spellstrike correspondingly more valuable)
Because you have to account for Magic Weapon :DPresumably, then, on those fights where you don't have the slot for Magic Weapon, spellstrike goes back to being useful again, yes? After all, a level 1 magus only has one shot of the good stuff per day, and it only lasts for a minute.
...and of course that's not counting those magii who, for whatever reason, are wielding a d8 or d6 weapon. Also, ranged magii won't have the same stat to damage bonus, which will bring their numbers down that much further (and make spellstrike correspondingly more valuable)
Yep, Starlit magus should avoid striking regularly as much as possible regardless of level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magus action economy gives you an interesting puzzle every combat, and the right action is different every time. It's part of what makes the class design so good and rewarding to play well. You have to figure out how to solve each combat puzzle, not just apply your preset optimal combat routine.
The Conflux spells are an important part of that puzzle, what makes them awesome is the melee ones tend to provide 2-3 actions, and since Magi are desperate for extra actions they can help solve the action economy puzzle.
Laughing Shadow: Dimensional Assault: Moves, strikes and recharges spell strike.
Sparkling Targe: Shielding Strike: Raises shield, strikes and recharges spell strike.
Twisting Tree: Spinning Staff: Make 2 strikes and recharges spellstrike
Inexorable Iron: Thunderous Strike: Strikes and cone AoE and recharge spell strike (This one seems week to me)
---
Some combats you're going to have arcane cascade up for the bonus damage, other combats your you're going to be casting cantrips, other times you get crit a couple times and spend most of the combat recovering.
I did a pbp with my level 2 twisting staff magus and here's a round by round account of their 3 combats.
Combat 1 vs Fire Elementals
R1: Stride, spellstrike with Ray of Frost to trigger weakness
R2: Shield, Stride, Strike
Combat Over.
Combat 2 vs Shadow Striges
R1: Spellstrike Produce Flame (goblin like fire and was upset about having to use cold last combat), Arcane Cascade
R2: Stride, Spinning Staff, Shield
R3: Stride, Spellstrike
Combat Over.
Combat 3 vs Agents
R1: Stride, Produce Flame(At range)
Counterattack did not go well for me
R2: Stride, Shield, Arcane Cascade
KOed but healed. (Didn't shield block because would not have stopped KO)
R3: Stand, recover staff, shield.
R4: Spellstrike(Produce Flame), Stride
Combat Over.
After playing one for a while, I found Dimensional Assault to be less powerful than some of the posts in here imply. It's nice, but it's a very small amount of movement (especially if you're ignoring LS's cascade as people suggest)... and if you're using it to reposition, the strike can be a bit of a liability, since at the start of a round it increments MAP (and makes using spellstrike a lot riskier) and at the end of a round it's not likely to hit.
It's still essentially like two and a half actions for one, but I found myself in a lot of scenarios where the movement either wasn't enough to help or the MAP became problematic.
It's definitely not a bad ability, but the number of times it felt like the best use of my actions and focus points was surprisingly small.
Btw, I don't see this as a fault in Magus' design, this problem has been around for ages and it is 100% Magic Weapon's fault, martial effectiveness at levels 1-3 depends on how well they utilise the buff.
The best solution is to make Magic Weapon a level 2 spell
Btw, I don't see this as a fault in Magus' design, this problem has been around for ages and it is 100% Magic Weapon's fault, martial effectiveness at levels 1-3 depends on how well they utilise the buff.The best solution is to make Magic Weapon a level 2 spell
Better to ban/ignore it instead of house ruling that.
It is the reason I don't enjoy level 1 to 3 play that much, tbh. You either use it and feel like a buff bot or ignore it and feel like you are gimping yourself.
Btw, I don't see this as a fault in Magus' design, this problem has been around for ages and it is 100% Magic Weapon's fault, martial effectiveness at levels 1-3 depends on how well they utilise the buff.The best solution is to make Magic Weapon a level 2 spellBetter to ban/ignore it instead of house ruling that.
How is banning it not a house rule?
How is banning it not a house rule?Btw, I don't see this as a fault in Magus' design, this problem has been around for ages and it is 100% Magic Weapon's fault, martial effectiveness at levels 1-3 depends on how well they utilise the buff.The best solution is to make Magic Weapon a level 2 spellBetter to ban/ignore it instead of house ruling that.
Instead of house ruling it like that*
English
Btw, I don't see this as a fault in Magus' design, this problem has been around for ages and it is 100% Magic Weapon's fault, martial effectiveness at levels 1-3 depends on how well they utilise the buff.The best solution is to make Magic Weapon a level 2 spell
Then it goes from being a good buff to being kinda terrible unless you fall behind on treasure
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we putting in different values here? Putting in a basic d10 spellstrike with gouging claw and comparing it to a basic 2-strike d10 routine shows that the spellstrike is always ahead - though not by very much at low levels, the 2-strike routine is ~96% of the damage of the spellstrike in that figure at level 1. Changing the AC of the enemy, or the level of the enemy, wasn't enough to make the 2-strike routine more damage. Changing to a d12 weapon still kept it at ~98% of...Because you have to account for Magic Weapon :D
Ah, I'd missed that you were relying on Magic Weapon. Given Magic Weapon has a 2-action cost and a 1 minute casting time, and you have very limited slots as a low level magus, how are you accounting for that when you say that it's always worse to Spellstrike than the strike twice for a level 1-4 magus? I wouldn't be comfortable in giving that advise to my players, I don't think - there'd be too many situations where they couldn't/didn't have Magic Weapon running.
In general, with Magic Weapon running striking twice being better does make sense though, doesn't it? You've taken just about the best buff in the game for weapons at level 1-3 and applied it to yourself, so making as many attacks with your weapon as possible makes sense.
Also, is it possible to have a magical staff in the form of a Bo Staff?
No, not by default, but Twisting Tree adds the reach, trip, and parry traits when wielding the weapon in two-hands, which is basically the same as a bo-staff.
They also bump the weapon up to d6 agile in one-hand mode... and in arcane cascade you can switch grips for free when striking.
It's honestly pretty fun.
Combat 1: Shield didn't get popped, was just taking the conversative path to not take extra damage. I needed to stride to get into range and spellstrike was down, seemed like the best use for the action at the time.
Combat 2: lost initiative and adjacent ally got attacked before I went. Spinning staff felt good, 2 attacks with a single action with the damage bonus from Arcane Cascade. Also enabled Spellstrike for the next round.
Combat 3: Just describing the enemies beating me up. Did lose the stance when KOed, correct
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This forum loves to discuss things, and many of its most frequent posters carried over from PF1 where one of the most common points to discuss was the relative value of different character build options. PF1 had huge gaps between optimized and unoptimized characters, and this type of discussion was actually pretty fruitful in highlighting what could amount to "trap options".
The power differences between optimized and unoptimized characters in PF2 is so much smaller that these discussions don't have nearly the same amount of practical weight. So when you see a discussion here saying one class is "woefully undertuned" or that some option has "no reason to exist" because of something else existing... you can rest assured that those dire consequences will not appear in play.
In actual play, I have seen an incredibly sub-optimally played laughing shadow magus carry their weight, steal the spotlight, and have fun. The proof is in the pudding.
Even the class that is most widely regarded as being at the bottom of the heap mechanically (the alchemist) can and will be fun at the table if that's what you like to play.
So I looked around this forum a bit more and discovered a few things.
First off, it turns out there's an entire sub-forum dedicated to requesting and providing Advice. So I guess this thread should probably have gone there instead of General Discussion. Sorry folks, rookie error on my part. If someone with sufficient access wanted to relocate this thread I would totally understand....
Second, I was a little dismayed to discover and read this thread.
That seems to paint melee magi in a pretty unflattering light. I don't pretend to understand half of what that thread discusses, but the general gist of it seems to be that melee magi are a lot harder to play and even if played well still end up being sub optimal, fragile and easily shut down compared to "proper martials", and most relegate them to somewhere around C or D tier.
I don't mind complexity in a class (in fact I'm seeking it), and I don't mind having to do my homework to learn how to play it well, and I don't need to be out shining the rest of the party or anything, but if the character I'm playing is just not good at what it's supposed to do, that's hard to enjoy playing it.....
Can anyone help me understand if this is a widely held & accepted view?
Am I just setting myself up for frustration and a poor play experience in selecting this class? Is it just not well designed & balanced?
Or have I completely misunderstood?
I wouldn't mind much the comparison between magus and other martials. Magus at baseline it is in the ok zone. The difference between that and the best of the best is not that much really, specially considering each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.
That said, I would mind the in-class comparisons. Starlit is way, way better than its melee counterparts, so you end up having something that fills almost the exact same niche as your melee magus but better. There are ways to alleviate the difference, but it will always be there and it does not feel particularly good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind much the comparison between magus and other martials. Magus at baseline it is in the ok zone. The difference between that and the best of the best is not that much really, specially considering each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.
That said, I would mind the in-class comparisons. Starlit is way, way better than its melee counterparts, so you end up having something that fills almost the exact same niche as your melee magus but better. There are ways to alleviate the difference, but it will always be there and it does not feel particularly good.
Considering that Starlit Psychic is in contention for best ranged character in the system, you actually are comparing against the best of the best.
Considering that Starlit Psychic is in contention for best ranged character in the system, you actually are comparing against the best of the best.I wouldn't mind much the comparison between magus and other martials. Magus at baseline it is in the ok zone. The difference between that and the best of the best is not that much really, specially considering each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.
That said, I would mind the in-class comparisons. Starlit is way, way better than its melee counterparts, so you end up having something that fills almost the exact same niche as your melee magus but better. There are ways to alleviate the difference, but it will always be there and it does not feel particularly good.
The difference is that their niche is almost the same with them being the same class and all, so not making direct comparisons is way harder.
I can confidently say that a LS magus brings things to the table that a polearm Fighter doesn't, regardless of which one is generally considered as a "better" option. Harder to say that comparing LS and Starlit.
So I looked around this forum a bit more and discovered a few things.
First off, it turns out there's an entire sub-forum dedicated to requesting and providing Advice. So I guess this thread should probably have gone there instead of General Discussion. Sorry folks, rookie error on my part. If someone with sufficient access wanted to relocate this thread I would totally understand....
Second, I was a little dismayed to discover and read this thread.
That seems to paint melee magi in a pretty unflattering light. I don't pretend to understand half of what that thread discusses, but the general gist of it seems to be that melee magi are a lot harder to play and even if played well still end up being sub optimal, fragile and easily shut down compared to "proper martials", and most relegate them to somewhere around C or D tier.
I don't mind complexity in a class (in fact I'm seeking it), and I don't mind having to do my homework to learn how to play it well, and I don't need to be out shining the rest of the party or anything, but if the character I'm playing is just not good at what it's supposed to do, that's hard to enjoy playing it.....
Can anyone help me understand if this is a widely held & accepted view?
Am I just setting myself up for frustration and a poor play experience in selecting this class? Is it just not well designed & balanced?
Or have I completely misunderstood?
The Melee magus in the game I run rebuilt their character to be a fighter with the sorcerer archetype because they grew tired of getting hit with AoO. But they brought this character into the campaign at level 9 after everyone else had been playing from level 1. They rebuilt their character at level 11 and are more happy now, because they really only wanted to cast buff spells on themselves and then melee.
Also, they had been casting their daily spells often as AoE blast spells and forgetting to use spell strike at all until level 10, when the party just happened to stumble into a den of demon worshiping Salamander Brutes who had reach weapons and an AoE. They were lower level than the party, so there were lots of them, and they all had AoO, it was not a good situation to start trying to use Spell Strike in. Higher level enemies do tend to have reach and tend to start getting attacks of opportunity. It is a reality that you will eventually need to plan around, but it won't come up a lot until you are level 7+, so there is time to figure out spells, feats, items, and tactics that will help with that if you play the character up from level 1.
Ranged combat has a number of advantages and disadvantages over melee combat in PF2. By level 10 or 11, you will still be facing the same AoO issues that a melee magus does from the kinds of enemies that have the ability. They are going to try to get right up in your face as quickly as possible and now even your normal attacks are going to provoke.
The bigger advantage that they have is that, in the white room, they never spend actions moving. But cover adds up to serious reductions in DPR overtime and smart enemies will take advantage of that too, so it is not any kind of universal truth that ranged combat is better than melee combat.
The real trick of PF2 is that you want a character that has good ranged attack options when that is the smart thing to do, and you want a character that isn't going to collapse into a puddle if staying at range isn't possible. This doesn't mean that the best character is a switch hitter, but, to beat the evil undead horse into the boneyard, it means that any kind of overspecialization will eventually lead to an encounter (or several) that are going to be frustrating and difficult.
The fact self buffing melee magus was lost to enable "big numbah Shocking Grasp" will always be one of the saddest tragedies.
Self-buff magus started cratering with the deprioritization fo buff spells in general, which was kind of necessary for the balance math to work out as tight as it did.
On the flip side... that playstyle doesn't have to be lost entirely. It just needs to be reforged a bit. we're not going to get heavy self-buffing on a magus, because the magus flavor space has been taken, but by the same token, the Self-Buffing Gish crunch space *hasn't*. So if you want that playstyle, the first step is to figure out how to make it a fun thing that can fit well into the PF2 system as its own thing. At minimum, it needs to answer a few questions:
- Why would a character with this class not just hand all of their buffs to the fighter next to them and then do what they could with their remaining martial skill while said fighter wrecks face?
- What new interesting stuff does this class offer that a fighter with a caster archetype would not?
- PF2 Classes in general, and gishes in particular, tend to have one or more interesting unique mechanics to play with. What are the interesting unique mechanics you see here?
Also, if you can
- What thematic role does this character fill? What kind of people wind up with this class, and how are they seen and treated by others? (it's going to need a unique thematic role of some sort, but you don't necessarily have to be the person to come up with it yourself.)
Though... it should probably be its own thread. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to join in discussing such a thing, if you were to start it.
If it is a tragedy, then why must it be one that endures?
My player found that being the self-buffing Gish to be the fighter with a MC works very well. They cast a low level buff on round 1, the bard casts a higher level one and inspires, and suddenly the character is a very effective Gish striker. Soulforger is another good archetype for this character concept.
The issue is that it doesn’t get off the ground for several levels. War priest is really the only class that does get it off the ground at level one, but it starts slipping around level 5 and it’s melee performance continues to fall out as it gets higher level.
The magus was never going to be able to fulfill this role from level 1 in PF2 though. Full casters barely get enough spells to cast spells every encounter at level 1 and regular cantrips don’t pick up the slack too well for buffing support.
PF2 has definitely prioritized spell strike as the defining feature of the magus, although you don’t need to use it every round to be effective in an encounter. People fought hard (against my wishes) to make spellstrike a one dice roll super activity, and the trade off for that was being innately limited to spell attack roll spells and not interacting well with savingthrow spells. The playtest magus was a really powerful and cool debuffer as well as a striker. Still not a self buffer, but more than just a striker. It was complicated to use effectively though and had such high peaks that the baseline had to be a little lower than average martial DPR to compensate. A lot of folks hated that.
The crit system of PF2 swings wildly both ways, for PCs and NPCs. Very many encounters hinge upon a round where a big critical hit/effect happens. Learning how to maximize those opportunities for your party and minimize them for your enemy is a big part of PF2 tactics. Learning when rolling the dice has a greater than 5% chance of critting in your favor and when it does not (as well as the consequences for it) are very important lessons in the game.
Pretty sure Magus scales better than most classes (including most Fighter builds) with numerical bonuses to hit, so self-buffing Magus is very much a thing if you have a divine or occult casting dedication. Between Heroism and the few defensive/utility spells you get access to in arcane you get to be very self-reliant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think digging into PF1 vs PF2 and class design theory is kind of off-topic and unnecessarily discouraging when trying to help a new player build a character.
Starlit magus is awesome and solves the class' movement problems but if you'd rather be a melee character it's fine.
I think digging into PF1 vs PF2 and class design theory is kind of off-topic and unnecessarily discouraging when trying to help a new player build a character.
Starlit magus is awesome and solves the class' movement problems but if you'd rather be a melee character it's fine.
I see it less like trying to discourage him (It was never my intention, at least), but rather telling this new player that some people have an issue with the "Starlit vs melee Magus" topic in specific and why.
I love Twisting Tree magus, I think it is one of the coolest gishes ever designed for a fantasy ttrpg, but I still get a little frustated sometimes when all the hoops I have to go through to make my character work in combat (hoops that make combats more interesting sometimes) get instantly overcome by going Starlit.