A really popular houserule I've seen bouncing around the internet lately is making any ability with a range of melee/reach/5-feet and the manipulate action not provoke. It keeps ranged manipulate actions vulnerable while making it harder to punish melee people. Seems good.
It's not like manipulate can really be a balancing factor anyways, AoOs are too inconsistent and can either ruin your character or be meaningless depending on the campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A really popular houserule I've seen bouncing around the internet lately is making any ability with a range of melee/reach/5-feet and the manipulate action not provoke. It keeps ranged manipulate actions vulnerable while making it harder to punish melee people. Seems good.
It's not like manipulate can really be a balancing factor anyways, AoOs are too inconsistent and can either ruin your character or be meaningless depending on the campaign.
I've thought that offensive touch spells shouldn't provoke since before the game released. They basically didn't in PF1 because of the wacky "hold the charge" workarounds, and making it provoke in PF2 just buries a character concept that is already not as effective as the standard stuff to do.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big difference I see between the Magus and the playtest Kineticist is that Spellstrike is only part of the Magus kit (even if a standout part) while everything the Kineticist could do would provoke an AoO.
Thus a Magus could still contribute to an encounter while avoiding AoOs (even if their damage was lowered), while the Kineticist couldn't do anything (including gather power or their basic attack).
A magus going up against a creature with an AoO has to adjust their strategy, whereas a kineticist was simply shut down. The two are comparable, but not equivalent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big difference I see between the Magus and the playtest Kineticist is that Spellstrike is only part of the Magus kit (even if a standout part) while everything the Kineticist could do would provoke an AoO.
Thus a Magus could still contribute to an encounter while avoiding AoOs (even if their damage was lowered), while the Kineticist couldn't do anything (including gather power or their basic attack).
If you start with a Magus, and you take away "spellstrike", "all other spellcasting" and "everything that triggers off of spellcasting", you really don't have a lot left.
Admittedly, you *can* still cast spells and make spellstrikes if you limit yourself to spells that do not have material, somatic, or focus components. It's still losing quite a lot.
Currently I'm no more so against AoO risk of melee manipulation attacks because this also creates a lot of tactical opportunities to make the encounters more interesting to such classes. After I noticed that Elemental Wrath can be used to not trigger AoO in Magus.
The usage of reach weapons or feats and class abilities like Twisting Tree could give more interesting tactical limited solutions than just remove the AoO completely.
Instead of just remove the AoO risk completely maybe just add more concentration only attack spells to circunvent the limitation but not completelly may be mora interesting than just ignore completelly it.
In general I don't against the idea that AoO can be a disadvantage to magus just like ghosts are resistant to physical attacks and are more difficult to martials. The only problem now is that many subclasses can be barely useless when a magus face an AoO opponent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big difference I see between the Magus and the playtest Kineticist is that Spellstrike is only part of the Magus kit (even if a standout part) while everything the Kineticist could do would provoke an AoO.
Thus a Magus could still contribute to an encounter while avoiding AoOs (even if their damage was lowered), while the Kineticist couldn't do anything (including gather power or their basic attack).
Don't really get this. A magus who doesn't want to get AoO'd can only really make regular strikes on a weak martial chassis with no combat enhancers. A playtest kineticist who doesn't want to get AoO'd is in the exact same boat.
Except the Kineticist's entire kit functions at range too, which means trying not to get close to the provoking enemy is valid tactical option (and not true for most magi).
The usage of reach weapons or feats and class abilities like Twisting Tree could give more interesting tactical limited solutions than just remove the AoO completely.
Is "interesting tactical solution" really what we're calling 'getting a flickmace is always the right option' now?
It sounds nice on paper but "interesting tactical solutions" is mostly a fantasy and not really how PF2 works.
The issue with magus was not something that came up in playtesting because spell strike was so different. When casting the spell and striking with the spell didn’t have to happen as one activity, you could do the whole cast and then hold your charge.
Play testers didn’t get to comment on how the combine spell strike worked in play until the full class was released. Everyone was so overjoyed with the power upgrade of having only one roll with spell strike that the AoO issue didn’t immediately make itself known.
I super duper respect all the developers at Paizo and Logan, the Pnoll will always have my heart. But I think it is at best a relative truth that the issue of AoO rarely come up in play, and at higher level, in Paizo APs, it has tended to come up more often than not.
I don’t think it actually needs errata though. I think an 8th levelish feat that deals with the problem, as well as maybe a closer look at monster design and the frequency of AoO as a reaction and having conversations between adventure designers and developer leads about distribution of monsters with the ability can probably deal with the issue for the magus just fine with innate changing spellstriking, which probably is about as close to an overturned single target striking ability as exists in PF2.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go another direction: write some more attack spells without somatic components. Ideally at least two different cantrips, so there's something to choose from. Right now each cantrip has some gimmick that it's good at:
* Telekinetic Projectile has high damage and type flexibility
* Ray of Frost has really long range
* Product Flame can take advantage of flanking with melee spell attacks, and the crit effect works well against low AC enemies like oozes.
... and so on.
Being safe to use in melee would be a reasonable gimmick as well.
That way, if a magus has to fight AoO opponents, they're not handicapped, but it's not their favorite situation either. Which is about right: it fits flavor that magi don't like anti-caster enemies. But it restricting your choice of cantrips a bit would be enough punishment.
I'd go for something like these:
* Unnerving Touch: touch range, 1d4+stat mental damage and frightened 1, verbal components only. Crit for double damage and frightened 2.
* Acute Scream: 30ft range, 1d4+stat sonic damage, verbal only, crit for double damage and deafened 1 minute.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the Kineticist taking a ton of AoO was that the motions that the Kineticist makes to control the elements are like the motions that martial artists do in katas. Since this involves "paying close attention to your body is as to control it" it didn't really make sense for you to also leave yourself open to attacks while doing this.
I can, however, believe something like "casting a spell" takes your attention away from what is happening right next to you.
Remember, the Magus is not just supposed to spellstrike to do damage. Using your spell slots to buff and not spamming spellstrike with cantrips should be a viable way to play the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humblegamer, what levels have you played through, and what APs? Even newer APs like outlaws of Alkenstar start throwing AoOs at you as early as 5th level. Some even at range!
I am ok with it being a situation that happens occasionally, but sometimes it is 3 or 4 encounters in a row of high accuracy mooks with AoO. I have see this in Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, and Outlaws of Alkenstar. And it is pretty brutal on casters in close quarters. An option you buy your way into like a feat would let players who want to spell strike often to do that with a cost. I think if it was just attack cantrips then that kinda devalues Attacks of Opportunity too much for players too as every caster will have one.
Don't really get this. A magus who doesn't want to get AoO'd can only really make regular strikes on a weak martial chassis with no combat enhancers. A playtest kineticist who doesn't want to get AoO'd is in the exact same boat.The big difference I see between the Magus and the playtest Kineticist is that Spellstrike is only part of the Magus kit (even if a standout part) while everything the Kineticist could do would provoke an AoO.
Thus a Magus could still contribute to an encounter while avoiding AoOs (even if their damage was lowered), while the Kineticist couldn't do anything (including gather power or their basic attack).
A magus has a whole class feature for a damage boost and other combat benefits.
Here is the thing. Even if not everyone has it, you are still badly impaired in the fight. If your party is focusing on one enemy, and you go fight another, you just made the fight way harder. Focusing down an enemy is always the way to go.We are playing EC and AoA ( we also played one scenario I forgot the name).
Are you saying in those other APs you mentioned there are several encounters where every single enemy in a given encounter has AoO?
I have to say it's kinda weird in terms of balance.
Spoiler: Focusing on a single enemy is not always the way to go, and can in fact cause anti-synergy with your allies' abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I follow. By all means prep for a boss fight. Be smart about it.
I fail to see what that has to do with a Magus' disproportionate issues with AoO's.
I think it's pretty telling that you have mentioned a bunch of ways (and some I just think are bad, such as power attack) to circumvent AoOs, yet the question remains:
Is it a needed weakness ? Is it there to balance the Magus overall "power budget" ?
I don't think it is. As many others have pointed out by now: if it's there for balance it's odd that it's so swingy in its effect. Sometimes it doesn't matter at all, at other times it more or less disables your entire class feature. Not only does it prevent your spellstrike, you also lose your spell. That's just insult to injury.
How about changing the premise of the discussion a bit: Why have it be a thing to begin with ?
I've read many suggestions as to how one can soft counter it (and frankly 'play a Magus that doesn't use spellstrike' makes no sense to me) but not alot of reasons to justify the mechanic being there.Could it be possible that it was
A:An oversight as the manipulate part is tied to casting a spell and not actually spellstrike itself.
B:
Bad design. Now I realize that saying the game designers might have missed the mark is widely unpopular, but I don't think it's such a sin to simply call it that. Bad design.
when I read Logan’s thinking on this topic for the kineticist, it seems to me like he feels Attacks of Opportunity are relatively rare and that they are an intentional foil/hindrance for all classes that cast spells. I think casters of any stripe are not supposed to have a way around AoO, and that is an intentional design choice.
I disagree that in practice that they are all that rare, or at least, very many iconic difficult monsters have them: a lot of dragons, high level fiends, any typical soldier characters that are very likely to serve as guards for the boss. That is why I think a feat based solution could work. Maybe something like a meta magic feat that lets you start casting the spell, including any somatic actions, and then grants you stride that can be taken before or after making the strike and a +2 to any attacks of opportunity you provoke from any of these actions (casting a spell or moving).
Actually a Kineticist has a fully functional ranged attack roll with the same to hit, so if anything they are less effected by AoO than Magus, they just have to move back and use their range attack.
I don't really buy that a class with marital weapon proficiency and martial TEML progression who is generally expected to be holding a perfectly usable weapon in hand during combat is somehow more affected by AoOs than the playtest Kineticist was. Plus they have verbal-only spells/abilities (limited) which will still function in melee without provoking (i.e. True Strike, Dimensional Assault)
And if you want to bring in ranged abilities - Magus has cantrips & spell slots which can allow for ranged combat with the added benefit of potentially targeting saves as well (Magi I've seen in play personally have kept a backup save-targeting cantrip in addition to their spellstrike cantrips). Not to mention scrolls/wands of buff/utility spells, etc.
By comparison, a Kineticist in our playtest had just used an overflow ability before the enemy (dragon) decided they were now worth attention and flew over. Simple weapon proficiency, slightly delayed TEML progression at various levels, and an expectation to use blasts meant they didn't have a weapon in hand. Considering just about everything the Kineticist does requires Gather Element (which provokes) - they had zero class abilities left. The one feat kineticists had for melee was both extremely badly worded (my group couldn't agree how it even functioned), and would still have been useless since it required Gather Element.
Overall, comparing the two seems like apples to oranges because the Magus still has options vs AoO while the playtest Kineticist had nothing left.
... maybe a closer look at monster design and the frequency of AoO as a reaction and having conversations between adventure designers and developer leads about distribution of monsters with the ability ...
This I can agree with 100%. Part of what really impressed me in 2e was how much the play experience improved when AoO wasn't a default assumption. Combat suddenly became much more mobile and AoOs actually triggered more often because of it. (Compared to 1E where no one dared moved after getting into melee range.) Also would love to see more reaction with different triggers, especially against critical failures on melee attacks (like Swashbucker).
While I haven't played many adventure paths - it sounds like an issue with the campaign/monster design if enemies with AoOs are overrepresented in some of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if you want to bring in ranged abilities
Trying to establish some equivalency between the kineticist's entire package of abilities and a magus casting ray of frost seems a litle bit misleading.
By comparison, a Kineticist in our playtest had just used an overflow ability before the enemy (dragon) decided they were now worth attention and flew over.
It's kinda lame, no disagreement and the change is good, but there's also a material difference between someone with an AOO positioning themselves to harass a ranged character (something a wizard or archer would also be punished by), and a melee character provoking just by using their normal combat routine.
Actually it's probably worse for the archer or wizard, because they probably don't have fully upgraded handwraps like the kineticist does (wait wasn't that your argument against the Magus in the first place? weird).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the logic applies to both Kinet and Magus as far as AoO. A melee kinet wants to be in melee, that is why you play it. Having a significant number of enemies shut that down pretty hard just is not fun and absolutely not necessary for balance.
A Melee Magus wants to be in melee too, etc etc.
Once again, I don't see how it is comparable or worth saying a Magus is "shut down" in melee when they are still holding a martial weapon with a full martial chassis.
While plenty seem to disparage the Magus ability to make basic weapon attacks - when compared to a melee blast this attack is comparable at worst, and actually superior at some levels due to TEML advancement.
In order for a melee Magus to be comparable to a playtest melee Kineticist - their basic weapon attack would have to provoke, Spellstrike would have to remove their ability to make weapon attacks in addition to provoking, and the action spent to refresh spellstrike/be able to make basic attacks again would also have to provoke. They would also need to lose all focus abilities that function in melee, lose the option to choose any verbal-only spells, and require a feat to attack in melee without provoking (without addressing the other issues).
I think a fallacy a lot of people fall into (not necessarily you, just in general) is thinking casters always have all these spells prepared. Your options are pretty limited.
If your biggest weakness is AoOs, you have selectable options which help compensate that weakness, and you still refuse to select options which do so, that is 100% on you when an AoO appears.
Something as basic as True Strike not only works vs. AoO enemies, it also is a major boost when you can Spellstrike to boost your hit/crit chance on the damage spike. Part of why some of the first theorycraft Magus builds on the forums were all about how to get as many extra castings of True Strike as possible.
I'd also say an issue that people fall into in these threads is assuming the Magus is expected to Spellstrike every turn and every situation. Considering the action costs alone - the class clearly isn't designed to do that (just like the playtest kineticist wasn't designed around using overflow abilities every round, which is the Kineticist feature that more closely resembles Spellstrike rather than their blasts).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially for spell casters, there shouldn’t be options for just “cast spells and don’t provoke,” but that doesn’t mean that some build-into options for making it less painful is out of the question. We already have this for many classes, but MCing just for a kinda weak mitigating option is asking a lot. A feat that was part mobility and part steady casting at level 4 feels about right.
I think some players have a “never risk provoking AoOs” which is coming from an understandable mentality, but can limit options and hurt other party members. Especially against a boss, sometimes having the right character provoke in the round can set up opportunities for others to move into flanking, cast better spells, let characters get healing in or utilize other skills. Also, plenty of champions love forcing an enemy into attacking someone else and setting their own reaction.
I don’t think the situation needs be: do nothing, or errata magi not to provoke.
I also don't see the issue with Magus. I played one for awhile. And well Spellstrike was rarely my go to move. It felt more like an option I had instead of my main thing. My focus spell from my hybrid study often felt like as good an option. Force fang was also nice to use for guaranteed damage, or calling on my familiar to use one of its abilities. Or buffing myself or an ally.
Spellstrike being the only option, makes sense to me if you like see the mechanics as like a rotation from an mmo or something. Now I used spellstrike plenty of times and it is iconic to the class, but it is not the only way to be useful.
I think I agree with Unicore, a feat would be a nice balance. Not mandatory but for those who want it, it would be a neat thing to pick up.
While mechanically I don't think that AoO is so bad as many complains. Thematically I agree that's a non-sense. For a class focused in mixing spells on it's Strikes the minimum expected is that it's able to circumvent the AoO in some way.
Maybe at last the Inexorable Iron deserves to have a way to ignore AoO while in Arcane Cascade and Laughing Shadow the ability to ignore it vs flat-footed opponents.
Yet I don't fell that AoO trigger for Spellstrike is a bigger problem than a general martial fighting a creature with physical resistance or a rogue fighting a precision immune creature and still better than a general spellcaster facing a AoO opponent in melee range.
Having some new accessible concentration only attack cantrips maybe turn into an interesting midway alternative too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While mechanically I don't think that AoO is so bad as many complains. Thematically I agree that's a non-sense. For a class focused in mixing spells on it's Strikes the minimum expected is that it's able to circumvent the AoO in some way.
Depends on the game. If you are talking about a typical published adventure AoO might not be that common. Magus is playable as it is. But I can imagine games where your opponents where mostly soldiers, and perhaps half of your total opponents have AoO by default.
While mechanically I don't think that AoO is so bad as many complains. Thematically I agree that's a non-sense. For a class focused in mixing spells on it's Strikes the minimum expected is that it's able to circumvent the AoO in some way.Depends on the game. If you are talking about a typical published adventure AoO might not be that common. Magus is playable as it is. But I can imagine games where your opponents where mostly soldiers, and perhaps half of your total opponents have AoO by default.
And "half of your total opponents" means all of the opponents in half of the encounters in Trail of the Hunted, the 1st module of Ironfang Invasion. When I converted it to PF2 rules, the Hobgoblin Recruits became the PF2 Hobgoblin Soldiers, who have attack of opportunity, and the Ironfang Heavy Troopers were Hobgoblin Soldiers upgraded to 2nd level and given heavy armor. Half the encounters were against the hobgoblin Ironfang Legion.
That is the period when the high-Dexterity ranger in the party relied on two melee weapons and Twin Takedown to protect the other archer and the spellcasters from attacks of opportunity. The ranger became mostly an archer after the party gained two other melee characters to keep enemies further away from those who provoke.
I still wont forget that my literal first session had a player die instantly because they were trying to activate panache. Sure higher level mitigates the damage side, but Magus and Kineticist still have to deal with losing their entire turn or more because of it.
There are some panache actions with the manipulate trait that will trigger AoO. Many won't. I do find it stupid that Create a Diversion does. Or the Battle Dancers performance might. As a GM I would definitely be making those trigger free.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial humanoids are built like fighters and usually have AoO. Martial humanoids tend to be far more common than their quantity in the bestiary would imply if you're playing anything other than a dungeon crawl.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another thread about Magus and AoOs. Though with a new title.
What makes you people think the Magus does not already have benefits that counterbalance it ?
Not to mention the quote in the OP specifically states that Kineticist does not cast spells and thus should not suffer from AoOs.
Which is an argument that just cannot apply to Magus since those do cast spells.