Offensive Cantrip Balancing (Cantrip vs. Cantrip / Cantrip vs. Weapons) in Remaster


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Magic Fang got much better with the refocus change. If you have an attack roll focus spell and magic fang, you are basically covered for most fights damage-wise.

For example:

Magus that need arcane cascade to work (like Inexorable Iron)
Turn 1: Jump spell from a scroll, Arcane Cascade, Strike
Turn 2: True Strike, Spellstrike with focus spell
Turn 3: Strike, Magic Fang, Strike/Stride away
Turn 4: True Strike/Stride in, Spellstrike with Focus Spell

Starlit

Turn 1: True Strike, Spellstrike with focus spell
Turn 2: Magic Fang, Arcane cascade/Strike/Stride, Strike
Turn 3: True Strike, Spellstrike with Focus Spell

You can keep doing these as long as you have True Strikes to spare, and you can get a lot of them between Staves, Scrolls and slots. Being able to use Magic Fang without tanking your long term damage potential makes action economy way, way better for the class too. You can also mix Gouging Claw for the first spellstrike if you think the combat will be a lengthy one so persistent ticks and you get 1 more Conflux spell for a quick spellstrike recharge to finish the combat.


Roquepo, I'm confused about the strategy of casting Magic Fang. It uses up two actions to cast, and I don't see any benefit for a weapon-using magus. It seems like waste of valuable actions unless you are using an unarmed strike build. Even then it seems like you'd be better off casting it the first round rather than in round 3 or 2.

Also it's only on the Primal list so it would require multiclassing to get it, and you'd only get a very limited number of spell slots to cast it.

Is there some sort of special synergy that it has with Spellstrike or Arcane Cascade that makes it useful?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they mean force fang?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I think they mean force fang?

Yeah, got both of them switched up cause I have a terrible memory for names and stuff.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So the design intent for magi seems to be that you don't force the same rotation (spellstrike) every turn. It would be cool though if there were more feats that made strong sense to use on "off" turns though. Something like a two-action activity involving a strike, something else useful, and recharging spellstrike.


Why would you use Spellstrike with MAP? The way I play is one big spellstrike per round. Recharge using some action. That's the magus. Second strike is a waste of time. Just target a wounded target or the main enemy, destroy them. That's the magus. Simple, straightforward playstyle.


roquepo wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I think they mean force fang?
Yeah, got both of them switched up cause I have a terrible memory for names and stuff.

Ah, I should have realized that you meant force fang. My brain is a bit foggy today.


I used a longbow with Archer Archetype.

Starlit

Turn 1: Point Blank Stance, Spellstrike
Turn 2: Runic Weapon, Spellstrike
Turn 3: Force Fang, Spellstrike

This all depends on what we're fighting and if I need to sit on focus spells for later in the fight. Against mooks I'm not wasting focus spells to clear them unless I know it's the last guy or something like.

I took Scroll Striker too. I make a bunch of True Strike scrolls during downtime, so I affix them during downtime. So one true strike a fight is good for me.

Magus is a very well designed class with high value feats. Did not realize it was this good as I didn't play one during the playtest. Once I played a magus, I was impressed by the focused and efficient design of the Magus.

I see why after it released even with the AoO during spellstrike concerns, you don't really see threads complaining about the magus. It does the job very well in PF2 and is a top tier class. It feels much like the old magus. Spellstrike for good damage, then crit hit something and experience the ecstasy of destruction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How were you able to cast a two action spell, reload your spellstrike and spellstrike again in 3 actions?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm assuming runic weapon is a typo and it's meant to be runic impression, which is a conflux spell.


MEATSHED wrote:
I'm assuming runic weapon is a typo and it's meant to be runic impression, which is a conflux spell.

Which reminds me that we still don't have an answer as to how using runic impression to add the returning rune is supposed to work since the spell ends when the weapon leaves your hand.


Gisher wrote:
MEATSHED wrote:
I'm assuming runic weapon is a typo and it's meant to be runic impression, which is a conflux spell.
Which reminds me that we still don't have an answer as to how using runic impression to add the returning rune is supposed to work since the spell ends when the weapon leaves your hand.

I mean how it's meant to work is obvious (namely you can still throw it if it has returning), it's just paizo messed up the wording or forgot they added returning as an option while they added that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MEATSHED wrote:
Gisher wrote:
MEATSHED wrote:
I'm assuming runic weapon is a typo and it's meant to be runic impression, which is a conflux spell.
Which reminds me that we still don't have an answer as to how using runic impression to add the returning rune is supposed to work since the spell ends when the weapon leaves your hand.
I mean how it's meant to work is obvious (namely you can still throw it if it has returning), it's just paizo messed up the wording or forgot they added returning as an option while they added that.

Is that obvious?

Or they did intend the restriction against it leaving your hand to always apply and then accidentally added returning to the list.

Either returning works because they didn't intend for the restriction to apply to that property, or returning isn't supposed to be on the list because they really did mean for that restriction to be absolute.

Those are very different cases, and I'd like to know which is correct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangorin wrote:
How were you able to cast a two action spell, reload your spellstrike and spellstrike again in 3 actions?

Yeah. Runic Impression is what I meant.

Runic Weapon is the new Remaster Magic Weapon isn't it.

Dark Archive

Here is a 3 round comparison between a few key options:

High AC
Moderate AC

Starlight span is able to pull of more DPR because it can spell strike more often. You can see by round 3 the wheels fall off the turn rotation wheels for melee magi where they have to 'move' to reposition at the start of combat and subsequently in turn 3 to change enemies (a pretty reasonable situation).

An interesting result is force fang and no amped imaginary weapons is getting a similar result to spending all focus points on amping imaginary weapon for the ranged magus. However, you can see from the top DPR option where one amped imaginary weapon is done with a true strike that even if you don't have the action to spare for a true strike, that spending a hero point will similarly dramatically up DPR, which won't be possible to replicate with a non-amped imaginary weapon.

The results generally reinforce that the thing a magus can do to put out the best DPR is to spell strike every turn and avoid these filler turns where you have to use a conflux spell that impacts MAP with a strike because the -5MAP impact on spell strike (or conversely recharging with a MAP-10 strike at the end of a turn) result in lower DPR. Force fang is in a sort of fun spot by not impacting MAP and at time it is better than spending the focus point on amping imaginary weapon but only where a fortune effect can't be used to ensure a hit (i.e., hero point) or as AC goes higher and higher (e.g., for the boss/extreme AC creatures just getting force fang damage is more assured then missing with your big wallop).

Note: This analysis is separate from what I think is interesting to play. Recharge + Spell Strike bow turret is not something I consider fun. I played a warpriest molthuni arsenal chaplain in PF1e and turret of doom build isn't very rewarding. I almost think that is itself a negative feedback loop that will drive players away from it organically after a few sessions. Now, a inexorable iron spell swipe player casting haste so it can drop an amped imaginary weapon spell swipe will likely feel more rewarding when you finally get to implode two adjacent mooks with your amp (but of course will be running at a lower DPR for its entire career than the starlight span equivalent turret).

Options Tested:

Starlight Span 1 (no movement required)
- R1: True Strike + Amped IW
- R2: Recharge + Amped IW,
- R3: Recharge + Amped IW

Starlight Span 2 (1 move required)
- R1: Move + Amped IW
- R2: Recharge + Amped IW,
- R3: Recharge + Amped IW

Starlight Span 3 (1 move required)
- R1: Move + IW
- R2: Force Fang + IW,
- R3: Force Fang + IW

Inexorable Iron 1 (2 moves required)
- R1: Move + Amped IW
- R2: Thunderous Strike + Amped IW
- R3: Move + Recharge + Strike

Inexorable Iron 2 (2 moves required)
- R1: Move + Amped IW
- R2: Force Fang + Amped IW
- R3: Move + Recharge + Strike

Inexorable Iron 3 (2 moves required)
- R1: Move + IW
- R2: Force Fang + Amped IW
- R3: Move + Force Fang + Strike


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Tangorin wrote:
How were you able to cast a two action spell, reload your spellstrike and spellstrike again in 3 actions?

Yeah. Runic Impression is what I meant.

Runic Weapon is the new Remaster Magic Weapon isn't it.

I've been having similar problems with the remaster terminology. I think it will take a while for all of us to adjust. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Folks wanting to do a deep dive on the magus and spell strike vs conflux might want to start a new thread. It is unlikely that people who want to participate in that conversation will know it is happening here. The damage of a spell strike with a focus spell feels pretty far removed from a conversation about cantrips.


Red Griffyn wrote:

Inexorable Iron 1 (2 moves required)

- R1: Move + Amped IW
- R2: Thunderous Strike + Amped IW
- R3: Move + Recharge + Strike

Inexorable Iron 2 (2 moves required)
- R1: Move + Amped IW
- R2: Force Fang + Amped IW
- R3: Move + Recharge + Strike

Inexorable Iron 3 (2 moves required)
- R1: Move + IW
- R2: Force Fang + Amped IW
- R3: Move + Force Fang + Strike

Why are you considering that you considering that you need to move after 2 SpellStrikes? I agree that melee Magus need to use action to move (unless you are playing with Laughing Shadow Magus and can use Dimensional Assault to move and recharge what isn't the case) but after you reach the frontline you rarely will need to move again. Usually the monsters and melee opponents also keeps into your reach once that you are a strong opponent that they need to kill soon as possible due the dangerous of your Strikes and because most of the also have 2-3 actions abilities that press their action economy to not move frequently too. I rarely see a Magus needing to move with such frequently that you are defending.

My other criticism of this analysis is that the Thunderous Strike doesn't worth to be used before the SpellStrike. I know the idea is to not get MAP-10 but this won't worth instead use the fact that your Thunderous Strike will probably do some save damage hitting or not. This will improve your graph more than you think.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Starlight Span 3 (1 move required)

- R1: Move + IW
- R2: Force Fang + IW,
- R3: Force Fang + IW

Why are you moving a Starlight Span with a bow and why are you using Force Fang with normal Imaginary Weapon when you can use the new Gouging Claw that does 1d6 + 2 persistent bleed damage per rank (doubling both on crit). Try to use this Gouging Claw instead, this will add a good amount of damage to the Graph.I made a print of how you can do it.

Unicore wrote:
Folks wanting to do a deep dive on the magus and spell strike vs conflux might want to start a new thread. It is unlikely that people who want to participate in that conversation will know it is happening here. The damage of a spell strike with a focus spell feels pretty far removed from a conversation about cantrips.

Ha, sorry, I ended up going too far into the digression.

Dark Archive

YuriP wrote:
Post

We can start a new thread if you want. Unfortunately I have to clear my web browser cache for another reason which nukes the github saved runs I have input.

Just to quickly answer you. I'm considering a standard combat situation where a melee person has to move to get into melee, kills their enemy in round 2, and has to move again to another enemy. The intent is to show just how tied to action economy the melee folks are. 1 action in the wrong place drives their DPR off the cliff vs. the starlight span turret that is more likely to get away without moving. I would disagree that the magus is okay to move once per combat and never again. Monsters move past the front line in PF2e all the time, but your experience may depend on how your GM plays. The magus isn't very 'sticky' and after watching their friend explode I'd think most creatures wouldn't want to stand next to a magus?

The natural progression of the combat cycles in the 3 round basis indicates that you need to recharge on action 1 in a turn, not on your last action. That is a clear white room vs real room issue if you only put it at the end of a turn. If that was true then you either started in melee combat (unlikely) or lost a round moving around/setting up such that you have a recharged spell strike at the top of the round. Really the intent is to keep spell striking for as many rounds as possible so you decrease the enemy action economy by removing enemies. Its better to damage earlier than later in a combat so wasting a round 1 for set-up is worse IMO. I think it would be clearly better to save the focus point than cast thunderous strike with a MAP-10 weapon strike and a super mediocre save spell and instead amp another imaginary weapon.

Fair comment on gouging claw vs. imaginary weapon. I just assumed IA was better since I forgot gouging claw had persistent and wasn't just 1D6. Maybe I can repeat with it. I don't think it will change the outcomes significantly, but will improve the melee outcomes depending on how long you assume persistent damage goes (I usually assume 2 rounds).

As for the bow user moving. Its just to show how even that 1 action (while not dropping the 1 spell strike per turn capability) drops its DPR considerably because that spare action for true strike really increases DPR on an amped imaginary weapon. The inclusion of a force fang recharge with non-amped IA was just to experiment and see if it is comparable (turns out they are, which is a cool outcome). You essentially trade reliable magic missile damage for DPR tied to your 'to hit'. So for high AC enemies force fang is better (on starlight span). For low ACs amped IA is better (for starlight span).

51 to 69 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Offensive Cantrip Balancing (Cantrip vs. Cantrip / Cantrip vs. Weapons) in Remaster All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.