| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad to see more and more people coming around on scrolls. They are really a very cheap way to do a lot of casting. In non-free-archetype games, they can be significantly better than dropping precious feats for MC spell slots. The biggest draw back of scrolls is that they don’t work well with 2 handed builds. The starlit’s ability to rely on a 1+ handed weapon is a surprisingly big deal.
I've never been down on scrolls.
They are cost prohibitive when they are not cheap. Low level scrolls when you get higher level are great for a lot of spells like see invis, true strike, and the like.
You don't want to be making max level scrolls with your money. Once your higher level, making a bunch of lower level scrolls with crafting is pretty awesome and very cost friendly.
The cost structure of PF2 makes crafting highly beneficial making valuable lower level consumables.
I've never been down on scrolls.
They are cost prohibitive when they are not cheap. Low level scrolls when you get higher level are great for a lot of spells like see invis, true strike, and the like.
You don't want to be making max level scrolls with your money. Once your higher level, making a bunch of lower level scrolls with crafting is pretty awesome and very cost friendly.
The cost structure of PF2 makes crafting highly beneficial making valuable lower level consumables.
Is it really that much better than using the time to earn income and using the income to buy the stuff? I hadn't been under the impression that it was, but I could very well be missing something.
I know you don't put much stock in the white room graphs, but this is a quick mockup of a full de/buff stack (scaling as numbers improve ofc) against a +4 opponent. Even assumes the barb has true strike on their first attack from some nameless fortune effect or true target. Helps put it in perspective a bit though.
Am I missing the link to the graph?
I know you don't put much stock in the white room graphs, but this is a quick mockup of a full de/buff stack (scaling as numbers improve ofc) against a +4 opponent. Even assumes the barb has true strike on their first attack from some nameless fortune effect or true target. Helps put it in perspective a bit though.Am I missing the link to the graph?
Link's on the "this".
Is it really that much better than using the time to earn income and using the income to buy the stuff? I hadn't been under the impression that it was, but I could very well be missing something.I've never been down on scrolls.
They are cost prohibitive when they are not cheap. Low level scrolls when you get higher level are great for a lot of spells like see invis, true strike, and the like.
You don't want to be making max level scrolls with your money. Once your higher level, making a bunch of lower level scrolls with crafting is pretty awesome and very cost friendly.
The cost structure of PF2 makes crafting highly beneficial making valuable lower level consumables.
It depends on your GM. But if you're in a city or place where you can earn income according to your level, then no, probably about the same.
If you're anywhere else, than being able to calculate reduced gold costs for crafting based on your level rather than the item level that you are creating makes crafting lower level consumables fast, cost friendly, and efficient.
The advantage of crafting is very DM dependent. If you're in an area where you can spend your downtime earning income equal to your level, then you can do that. That is of course if you feel your character would roleplay that way.
Contrary to popular belief, I'm very into role-playing and construction of character and personality for my characters. There is a part of me that won't much allow my snobby, high intelligence crafting character to work for others to take full advantage of the system. So I'd rather spend my downtime crafting items for my own use. Sometimes it may not be as effective as earn income, but it makes me feel better as in my character feels more appropriate from a RP perspective.
Link's on the "this".I know you don't put much stock in the white room graphs, but this is a quick mockup of a full de/buff stack (scaling as numbers improve ofc) against a +4 opponent. Even assumes the barb has true strike on their first attack from some nameless fortune effect or true target. Helps put it in perspective a bit though.Am I missing the link to the graph?
I see it when I reply. It is not active for me for some reason.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do you, but personally, I'm allergic to the industrial-grade type of cheese that is Imaginary Weapon poaching let alone doing so and forcing it into a SlS crit fishing build.
I am RARELY the "no fun allowed" type of GM but if a player tried building this for a game I would quite simply shoot the idea down. IM poaching is the PF2 version of dipping Vivisectionist in PF1.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really that much better than using the time to earn income and using the income to buy the stuff? I hadn't been under the impression that it was, but I could very well be missing something.
There's a definite advantage to crafting items specifically of lower level than your own.
If you use skills to Earn Income, you make a skill check based on the DC for the task level, and then earn money appropriately. So a level 6 task is DC 22 and earns money appropriate to a level 6 task.
For crafting to make items it's a bit different. First there is some setup which is detailed in the crafting rules. But the important part is when you spend extra time to work on the items. The DC to craft the items is based on the level of the items. But the amount of value you generate per day of work is based on YOUR level. So if a level 6 character is making a level 1 item, the DC is only 15 while you produce value at the level 6 rate.
So compared to Earn Income, you could be realizing the same value, but at a much lower DC. Which makes it more likely that you get critical successes which improve the value per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been down on scrolls.
You should try, one day. The power gain on classes with few spell slots, Witch for example, is sizable.
I've never been down on scrolls.You should try, one day. The power gain on classes with few spell slots, Witch for example, is sizable.
You gotta remember Super Bidi, in my particular group we operate with a high level of efficiency. I'm told this is unusual and I imagine it is since we played together for 30 plus years. So our group efficiency rarely requires use of spells beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the task.
I might find them more valuable if I played with a group of unknowns or where I was trying to keep going without support. I'm in a group where we all coordinate and support each other. I've never much found it necessary to have extra top level slots.
It may be why I don't consider the wizard's ability to blend for more top level slots valuable.
We're the kind of group that almost does things automatically. Scout ahead. Locate monster. Draw monster into hallway or disadvantageous terrain. Form up with tanks in front. Support martials with healing and debuffing. Minimum necessary use of magic. Focus fire targets to eliminate numbers on the battlefield. Divide and control battlefield as needed. Flank. We do things without even thinking much about it coordinating as we go.
My days of playing with uncoordinated, new groups are behind me. So I imagine I'll not have a need for high level scroll consumables unless we make something real hard or they make them more affordable where I wouldn't prefer a permanent magic item.
That's definitely a "my group" thing and likely high level scrolls may be more valuable to other players without the luxury of a tight group like this.
You do you, but personally, I'm allergic to the industrial-grade type of cheese that is Imaginary Weapon poaching let alone doing so and forcing it into a SlS crit fishing build.
I am RARELY the "no fun allowed" type of GM but if a player tried building this for a game I would quite simply shoot the idea down. IM poaching is the PF2 version of dipping Vivisectionist in PF1.
One of the other players doesn't like the cheese. I wanted to test this out. I DM a lot too. I want to see how something works before I mess with it. So far this is looking outside the power curve.
I wouldn't consider it so bad if it weren't archery. There is a danger in melee to using Spellstrike.
Starlit Span is clearly the best archer in the game by a mile. When an option is so far ahead of any other option using the same combat style, I view that as a problem.
I know you don't put much stock in the white room graphs, but this is a quick mockup of a full de/buff stack (scaling as numbers improve ofc) against a +4 opponent. Even assumes the barb has true strike on their first attack from some nameless fortune effect or true target. Helps put it in perspective a bit though.
The spellstrike is still ahead even with a d6 weapon and the barbarian going all out with a true target equivalent on the first attack. That is nasty.
Spellstrike is still the amazing ability it was in PF1. Magus was a power class in PF1. Still a power class in PF2.
In a way, I'm glad it maintained its relative position in the tier hierarchy across editions.
Did anyone do this for a d12 inexorable iron spellstriker?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s not group cohesion that makes high level scrolls unnecessary, it is the ability to withdraw and rest easily. There are a number of APs that will throw 8 plus encounters on you upon occasion, with no chance to rest. Those are one of the situations where high level scrolls come up big.
Another is in having the utility to do things the party can’t yet. These usually only come in the form of direct loot though, so many players don’t experience it often, but there are opportunities to use scrolls like levitate , dispel magic, or revealing light at late level 1 or 2 to really break challenges. The same is true of flight by level 3 or 4, an early teleport/dimension door. It’s niche, but I enjoy getting some of those scrolls early, rather than buy weapons or armor, in the hopes of doing something splashy. You can even try to learn the spells early (often difficult) without jeopardizing your scroll. It can be a decent thing to spend a hero point on late in a session if there are no threats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s not group cohesion that makes high level scrolls unnecessary, it is the ability to withdraw and rest easily. There are a number of APs that will throw 8 plus encounters on you upon occasion, with no chance to rest. Those are one of the situations where high level scrolls come up big.
Another is in having the utility to do things the party can’t yet. These usually only come in the form of direct loot though, so many players don’t experience it often, but there are opportunities to use scrolls like levitate , dispel magic, or revealing light at late level 1 or 2 to really break challenges. The same is true of flight by level 3 or 4, an early teleport/dimension door. It’s niche, but I enjoy getting some of those scrolls early, rather than buy weapons or armor, in the hopes of doing something splashy. You can even try to learn the spells early (often difficult) without jeopardizing your scroll. It can be a decent thing to spend a hero point on late in a session if there are no threats.
I've found group cohesion helps immensely for continuous play. It allows you to focus the damage where you want it and focus the firepower where you want it. It's more important to eliminate targets from the battlefield to reduce action advantages as fast as possible by eliminating targets using actions. You do this a whole lot faster with a coordinated group.
Well built, highly efficient martials don't need a lot of help in battle. So a spell or two is all you need to quickly dispatch things.
I find strong coordination between the martials and casters as well as system knowledge of the most effective spells to use in a given situation act as force multipliers that the reduce the reliance on consumables and other limited resources including focus points and spells, so they can saved for particularly difficult encounters.
On a lot of the caster debate threads, we discuss casters and martials almost like they exist exclusively. But in actual play casters and martials operate cooperatively and form a very powerful combat unit. One thing never mentioned is control martials exist now. They are extremely powerful using things like trip with wolf drag and knockdown, throws, whirlwind strikes with mauls, shoves, and high movement or debuffs like Debilitating Shot a rogue Debilitations. These can all be brutally effective against enemies with far fewer abilities and far less coordination setting up both casters and damage martials.
So this idea casters solve stuff absent martials and martials do stuff absent casters is not how the actual game is played. Together they are better than apart and when working in coordination, absolutely able to crush a lot of encounters with minimal resources expended per encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You gotta remember Super Bidi, in my particular group we operate with a high level of efficiency. I'm told this is unusual
maybe it is unusual but not really for people in this forum
You gotta remember Super Bidi, in my particular group we operate with a high level of efficiency. I'm told this is unusualmaybe it is unusual but not really for people in this forum
Then why I am constantly told this then? And criticized for it? Like nearly every thread constantly reminded my group is some kind of outlier because we don't have that much trouble with the game and have to take extra measures to challenge the group.
You gotta remember Super Bidi, in my particular group we operate with a high level of efficiency.
Group optimization doesn't make character optimization useless.
But it's true there's a big difference between our experience: You play mostly at mid to high level when I play mostly at low to mid level. Scrolls are more impactful at low level when you have far less options than they are at high level. Also they are very class dependent. Classes like Wizard or Sorcerer who have lots of spell slots get less from Scrolls and classes who rely on Focus Spells also. But for classes who have neither lots of spell slots nor strong Focus Spells, Scrolls bring a significant increase of their efficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why I am constantly told this then? And criticized for it? Like nearly every thread constantly reminded my group is some kind of outlier because we don't have that much trouble with the game and have to take extra measures to challenge the group.
I'd stop worry about some random dudes on the internet. I appreciate that your share your experiences and thoughts. Just don't expect that everyone is going to agree with your conclusions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really just don't like how easy and safe starlit span is while melee magus feel extraordinarily clunky and hard to keep safe
The Lesser Death could have disrupted it. I did get lucky on that one.
It's the sheer damage that surprised me. It was obviously a super lucky hit. A nat 20 is what I needed for a crit and to not have its reaction used on me. But the damage with the nat 20 was pretty nutty.
I haven't seen another class replicate this. The highest crits I had seen before this were Eldritch Archer which uses a similar mechanic and a giant instinct barbarian or a power attack fighter. They did not reach that level. I've seen stronger aggregate damage crits from an AOE caster in total damage, but not for a single target.
It's definitely the top ranged damage dealer in the game, and probably one of the best overall damage dealers in the game as well, but it's relatively easy for the GM to give such a character hell if they wanted, given that Spellstrike is an easy thing to force triggers on, and unless the Magus is Hasted, they don't really have the action economy to move around and Spellstrike at the same time. Relatively common in the higher levels (13+), not so much in the 1-10 level range.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really just don't like how easy and safe starlit span is while melee magus feel extraordinarily clunky and hard to keep safe
It's why some people argued that Starlit Span should be in Arcane Cascade to be able to utilize Spellstrike at all, and honestly, all the melee Magi should be able to ignore AoOs from Spellstrike while Arcane Cascade is active; yes, it's forced action economy, but melee is already incentivized to use Arcane Cascade for bonus damage, and Starlit Span basically has no reason to ever utilize Arcane Cascade (unless they Switch-hit, which isn't really a smart way to build Starlit Span IMO).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm finally giving this combination a shot. It seems insanely overpowered. It is far superior to any other archer option in the game with few weaknesses. It seems to match even fighters for damage if not exceeds what they can do.
Today I just hit a Lesser Death for 193 points of damage with an amped imaginary weapon with a natural 20. Sure, it was a natural 20. But even so, it was an absolutely insane critical hit. I was able to do this while the Lesser Death had already used its reaction.
Starlit Span is one of the few classes I've seen that seems a real peg or two above the PF2 power scale. If there is a Tier 1, they are Tier 1+.
Did any of you do anything to rein this option in without banning it? Or do you think PF2 designers will nerf this option at some point?
It's hard to say if they will nerf it, since the only real reason this even happened was because you didn't have to deal with the repercussions of the reaction; guaranteed, if the Lesser Death used its reaction on your attack (I don't know what else it would have used its reaction on, maybe a heal), it would have been disrupted, and you would have done absolutely nothing on your turn. Going from 193 to 0 is an extremely feelsbad moment.
Magus is an extremely feast/famine class, probably even moreso than a Swashbuckler. If you don't have to worry about being disrupted via reactions, it's extremely potent, even if built suboptimally. If the constant threat of AoOs (especially against boss-type enemies) is present, they're almost better off just making basic strikes, which cuts out the lion's share of their damage, and if you're Starlit Span, making basic strikes will still trigger most reactions.
Needless to say, you got lucky, and the allies took away the #1 thing that would have nullified your entire character for that turn. I wouldn't call that being overpowered at all, since that could have very easily turned into a
I have a lvl 13 half-elf rogue thief eldritch archer multitalented psychic player that goes more than this. He does the same damage + sneak attack dmg vs targets that are unable so see him or that is off-guard due other players trip/grab.
Its probably the most massive single attack and single target ranged damage that I already saw in the game. Yet its still a all or nothing. If he hits it usually does a tremendous ammount of dmg but many times he fails (even using hero points) and basically does nothing in a round.These speelstrike like build are very strong but also are a big bet that sometimes doesn't work.
Anyway this player nevem passed a sensation that he was breaking the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really just don't like how easy and safe starlit span is while melee magus feel extraordinarily clunky and hard to keep safeIt's why some people argued that Starlit Span should be in Arcane Cascade to be able to utilize Spellstrike at all, and honestly, all the melee Magi should be able to ignore AoOs from Spellstrike while Arcane Cascade is active; yes, it's forced action economy, but melee is already incentivized to use Arcane Cascade for bonus damage, and Starlit Span basically has no reason to ever utilize Arcane Cascade (unless they Switch-hit, which isn't really a smart way to build Starlit Span IMO).
Isn't "you can avoid AoOs in the like 15% of fights where those happen" also part of the appeal of the Inexorable Iron and Twisting Tree Magi, who have access to reach weapons?
It's really just the Sparkling Targe and Laughing Shadow studies that have this problem. Tes, you'll eventually fight things with more than 10 feet of reach, but the Inexorable Iron Magus gets Enlarge as a studious spell, and the Twisting Tree gets Lunging Spellstrike.
What I don't like is that arcane cascade is clunky to find opportunities to get into. The requirement that you cast a spell has lead to things such as casting magic weapon, then entering arcane cascade ending my turn. You need to be in arcane cascade for your subclass features to be on, and before when it often matches your weapon's damage type it felt very not magical. Now we have gouging claw still as the best option aside from what you get from archetypes, which also feels less cool and magical compared to using ignition and the like. I really just wanted arcane cascade to not require using a spell but is force damage by default but copies the damage type of your last spell cast. Mean while starlit span gets to be at range, never has to use arcane cascade and the lower damage from being at range is not that big of a deal when you're spellstriking every round you aren't forced to move, and even then iirc of you archetype into getting a mount you can get free movement, dromaeosaur has 50ft afaik, kind of gross!
I really just don't like how easy and safe starlit span is while melee magus feel extraordinarily clunky and hard to keep safeIt's why some people argued that Starlit Span should be in Arcane Cascade to be able to utilize Spellstrike at all, and honestly, all the melee Magi should be able to ignore AoOs from Spellstrike while Arcane Cascade is active; yes, it's forced action economy, but melee is already incentivized to use Arcane Cascade for bonus damage, and Starlit Span basically has no reason to ever utilize Arcane Cascade (unless they Switch-hit, which isn't really a smart way to build Starlit Span IMO).Isn't "you can avoid AoOs in the like 15% of fights where those happen" also part of the appeal of the Inexorable Iron and Twisting Tree Magi, who have access to reach weapons?
It's really just the Sparkling Targe and Laughing Shadow studies that have this problem. Tes, you'll eventually fight things with more than 10 feet of reach, but the Inexorable Iron Magus gets Enlarge as a studious spell, and the Twisting Tree gets Lunging Spellstrike.
Not really; just because you can attack at reach doesn't mean you won't trigger AoOs in those situations, as the most common enemy reach is the same as them. And some of those enemies have added reach as well, meaning good luck trying to outrange them.
Lunging Spellstrike doesn't help provide flank for your allies, and Enlarge paints a target on your back when the main draw of Magus is to not be the target, so I'm not sure how either of these is supposed to be acceptable compromises for "your main class feature gets you killed/makes you useless in the most deadly of fights."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely the top ranged damage dealer in the game, and probably one of the best overall damage dealers in the game as well, but it's relatively easy for the GM to give such a character hell if they wanted, given that Spellstrike is an easy thing to force triggers on, and unless the Magus is Hasted, they don't really have the action economy to move around and Spellstrike at the same time. Relatively common in the higher levels (13+), not so much in the 1-10 level range.The Lesser Death could have disrupted it. I did get lucky on that one.
It's the sheer damage that surprised me. It was obviously a super lucky hit. A nat 20 is what I needed for a crit and to not have its reaction used on me. But the damage with the nat 20 was pretty nutty.
I haven't seen another class replicate this. The highest crits I had seen before this were Eldritch Archer which uses a similar mechanic and a giant instinct barbarian or a power attack fighter. They did not reach that level. I've seen stronger aggregate damage crits from an AOE caster in total damage, but not for a single target.
DM did try this, but then the other party members punish them if they chase the Starlit Span Archer. And Haste is pretty easy to come by.
The magus has a lot of tools to recharge while doing something with Conflux Spells.
It's a very well designed class. I did not realize how well designed it was until I played it. You don't have to spellstrike every round to do regular martial damage, then when you spellstrike you really amp it up.
I heard about the complaints about AoOs for the melee magus. Starlit Span bypasses that most of the time. Even those AoO threads I don't see too much. I can see why. Magus is a very simple, well-designed class that adequately transferred the class fantasy of the magus in PF1 to PF2. They even managed to do it in a way that left it at the top of the damage tier.
I guess that is job well done overall. I may do something about it, but maybe just leave a few fun power combinations in the game as long as someone isn't playing one every adventure. My players tend to get bored of the same concept, so I shouldn't have to worry.
I mean, the thing about "is the Starlit Span Magus just better" is kind of a question of "how hard does the opposition work to get up in the Magus's grill" a place the Starlit Span Magus is the least comfortable among all the Magi.
Like I've been in several games with a Magus character, and even if they were oppening themselves up to AoOs, the number of AoOs I actually saw (because the enemy had that ability) was like 3.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the thing about "is the Starlit Span Magus just better" is kind of a question of "how hard does the opposition work to get up in the Magus's grill" a place the Starlit Span Magus is the least comfortable among all the Magi.
Not really. If you get directly in the starlit span magus' face they're not in a particularly different place than a normal magus.
But while other Magi have to worry significantly about their own positioning, particularly if you ever want to take advantage of things like true strike, that's just significantly less of a concern for the starlit span magus.
The simply fact that 'how hard are you going to work to get in the magus' face' is even a question helps illustrate why Starlit Span is so powerful, because it forces the enemy to be the one worrying about positioning instead of you.
Truthfully, I guess my thing about Imaginary Weapon is that it's merely the strongest of many strong options. If you were to prevent magus from using focus spells from Psychic somehow, they'd end up doing elemental sorcerer or something for Elemental Toss, or Cleric for one of several d6 doctrine spells, etc, and still be doing massive damage. Really, it's just that it turns out stapling spells to a regular attack results in a metric ton of damage packed into that single roll, and there's a lot of ways to try and make that hit.
I mean that's sort of true, but only partially.
Like in the OP's example, dropping from d8s to d6s is 28 damage. That's not a catastrophic loss, but it's something like 15% less damage which isn't really inconsequential either. Elemental Toss is even worse since it scales at half the rate.
If you want to take a step further, you can look at unarchetyped Magus which can only pull off numbers like that four times per day, instead of several times per encounter. The rest of the time they're spellstriking with cantrips, which adds something like half the damage amped IW does.
While a lot of it is just what the magus does, there's clearly a gradient here too.
|
|
My PFS Starlit Span Magus is only level 3, so she has not reached the ineffable levels of OP awesomeness mentioned here.
I built her as a weakness specialist, with Cantrips covering as many damage types and traits as possible. MC Cleric really helped there.
I have not rebuilt her with Remaster yet.
My current conclusion, based on both playing her and reading this thread, is that the Starlit Span Magus might be the PF2 character the closest to the PF1 design philosophy.
My Starlit Span Magus would feel very boring if not for her RK/hitting weaknesses focus.
I could rebuild her with pure maximised DPR in mind with Imaginary Weapon. Which is made even more reliable with the Remastered change to focus points recovery.
But she would be even more boring to play in combat.
I feel it is rather rare in PF2 to have to choose between combat prowess and diversity in tactics.
But here, such is the case. And it all depends on how you build your PC. Because there is a one true build for the Starlit Span Magus to be head and shoulders over other builds as far as DPR is concerned.
But it is extremely boring.
One thing that I think would help is putting into rules for recharging spellstrike that you can't spellstrikes and recharge spellstrike in the same round. It's already insane damage every other round, and if they allow arcane cascade without needing to cast a spell first like I mentioned, it starts to get a little better. Spell combat as a two action activity that lets you cast a two action spell and strike leaving you with an extra action would also make the class feel less clunky. Lastly spellstrike could be limited to spells granted by the magus class, which isn't the best solution as I think MCD wizard or something similar is perfectly fine, imaginary weapon is not
|
|
One thing that I think would help is putting into rules for recharging spellstrike that you can't spellstrikes and recharge spellstrike in the same round. It's already insane damage every other round, and if they allow arcane cascade without needing to cast a spell first like I mentioned, it starts to get a little better. Spell combat as a two action activity that lets you cast a two action spell and strike leaving you with an extra action would also make the class feel less clunky. Lastly spellstrike could be limited to spells granted by the magus class, which isn't the best solution as I think MCD wizard or something similar is perfectly fine, imaginary weapon is not
On that last point, disallowing Focus spells for Spellstrike might do the trick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I think would help is putting into rules for recharging spellstrike that you can't spellstrikes and recharge spellstrike in the same round. It's already insane damage every other round, and if they allow arcane cascade without needing to cast a spell first like I mentioned, it starts to get a little better. Spell combat as a two action activity that lets you cast a two action spell and strike leaving you with an extra action would also make the class feel less clunky. Lastly spellstrike could be limited to spells granted by the magus class, which isn't the best solution as I think MCD wizard or something similar is perfectly fine, imaginary weapon is notOn that last point, disallowing Focus spells for Spellstrike might do the trick.
I personally think the magus should allow it's own focus spells, but I suppose none fit the bill at present? If they never design any magus focus spell good for spell striking, then sure
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of wonder if a remastered Imaginary weapon would even target AC. It is, in theory, a weapon attack, so it would make sense for it to be AC targeting, but it would be much better for the psychic if it targeted reflex, or even will. It really feels like there was a push in the player core one to move away from spell attack roll spells. We will see in the player core 2 if the elemental sorcerer keeps elemental toss as an AC targeting spell or not. That might be a clearer indication of where focus spells are headed.
I also don't know that that damage heights of the IW Starlit span magus is that big of a problem really. The more I play PF2, the more single target damage spikes feel like an overrated metric to focus on for character builds. I know "dead is the best condition" but doing too much damage can be a pretty big waste of resources in PF2, especially when there are multiple enemies around, and I have seen multiple characters in the same party capable of damaging multiple enemies, result in much more effective combat management. Overkilling one enemy and leaving another alive generally works out worse for a party than killing 2 enemies.
I am not saying the Imaginary Weapon Magus isn't excellent, but it runs into action economy issues if you are trying to true strike a lot with your non-magus focus spells that haste can't solve.
I also don't know that that damage heights of the IW Starlit span magus is that big of a problem really. The more I play PF2, the more single target damage spikes feel like an overrated metric to focus on for character builds. I know "dead is the best condition" but doing too much damage can be a pretty big waste of resources in PF2, especially when there are multiple enemies around, and I have seen multiple characters in the same party capable of damaging multiple enemies, result in much more effective combat management. Overkilling one enemy and leaving another alive generally works out worse for a party than killing 2 enemies.
You say that like our Magus friend here doesn't also have the ability to prepare Fireball or Chain Lightning.
Flurry rangers are very, very good at dealing with hordes
... The class that has to spend an action per monster to turn on their damage mechanic? Good against hordes? They really aren't.
I kind of wonder if a remastered Imaginary weapon would even target AC. It is, in theory, a weapon attack, so it would make sense for it to be AC targeting, but it would be much better for the psychic if it targeted reflex, or even will. It really feels like there was a push in the player core one to move away from spell attack roll spells. We will see in the player core 2 if the elemental sorcerer keeps elemental toss as an AC targeting spell or not. That might be a clearer indication of where focus spells are headed.
I wouldn't read too much into what the remaster does with its spells, apart from the cantrip changes. The reason why those where changed was that the Core classes have a lot more to gain from save spells than attack ones. The Psychic is at least somewhat capable of taking advantage of them without the usual sure strike spam and a lot of their spells make a lot of sense as attacks. There is also the fact occult list apparently doesn't feel great about Reflex saves (there are a grand total of 15 out of 541 occult spells that target Reflex).
Flurry rangers are very, very good at dealing with hordes... The class that has to spend an action per monster to turn on their damage mechanic? Good against hordes? They really aren't.
Yeah, the Ranger in general is one of the last of the actually good martials that I would pit against a group. That'd be hell on the player and not particularly effective.
On the other hand, it doesn't actually break anything because the damage is still lower than a well-built rogue or barbarian, so it's probably not a real issue.
Not really. A well-built Starlit Span Magus has no issue dealing melee Rogue/Fighter/Barbarian level of damage, it actually outdamages them if well played. The Magus can also deal with hordes, something that no other martial can handle but the Inventor. And of course, the Magus has the asset of range. And if your GM is nice with Aid, the Starlit Span Magus is the one getting the most out of it.
On the other hand, it doesn't have reactions. But it hardly compensates all the Magus' assets.That's why some people consider it overpowered. It is certainly the highest martial damage dealer in the game in the proper hands.
On the other hand, it doesn't have reactions. But it hardly compensates all the Magus' assets.
This is why I love recommending gunslinger after psychic. Shadow siphon is a nice reaction and all, but throwing out +3 fake outs with a gauntlet bow every round from 13-20 is just gravy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, how many Magi are getting 2 or 3 IW off in one combat?
Sure you can true strike your first one, and maybe you have a hero point for the second? It still feels like it will be like maybe a one and a half per encounter combat trick? By the second or third round. It feels like there is a good chance that spending 3 actions on one attack will not be necessary.
People like it and are having fun with it. That is nice. It does its thing well. It just is so action intensive it doesn’t feel like it needs to be dealt with as a problem. It’s action routine also can get pretty boring and repetitive if you don’t mix it up with other spells and stuff.
I personally think the magus should allow it's own focus spells, but I suppose none fit the bill at present
It is such an obvious part of the build for a caster with limited slots. They might as well put something in class besides cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, how many Magi are getting 2 or 3 IW off in one combat?
Sure you can true strike your first one, and maybe you have a hero point for the second? It still feels like it will be like maybe a one and a half per encounter combat trick? By the second or third round. It feels like there is a good chance that spending 3 actions on one attack will not be necessary.
People like it and are having fun with it. That is nice. It does its thing well. It just is so action intensive it doesn’t feel like it needs to be dealt with as a problem. It’s action routine also can get pretty boring and repetitive if you don’t mix it up with other spells and stuff.
?? It's not any more action intensive than any other form of spellstriking, which is generally one of the primary features of the Magus, particularly Starlit Span which is somewhat limited when it comes to other parts of the magus toolkit. "Maybe you get bored of spellstriking" doesn't really feel like an argument for anything either. Like, yeah, spellstrike is a kind of limiting mechanic but if you feel that negatively about it maybe Magus isn't the class for you, it has nothing to do with how powerful or not their mechanics are though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and Starlit Span basically has no reason to ever utilize Arcane Cascade (unless they Switch-hit, which isn't really a smart way to build Starlit Span IMO).
I've had the opposite experience. I took a monk dedication, attack of opportunity at level 6 and flurry at 10.
It's true: magi are martials. You can just cast some buffs, trigger arcane cascade, and just punch people in melee. It isn't always the best plan, sometimes standing still and doing the turret thing is optimal. But there were also a lot of times when it was valuable to mix it up in melee, such as:
- flank with the fighter
- prevent the fighter from getting completely mobbed by all enemies
- prevent enemies from getting to the true back row casters behind me
- harass enemy casters
When talking about how wonderful it is to stand still and turret, I think we risk talking a bit much about optimal situations. Where we ignore inconvenient things such as:
- You're leaving the front row duties to other characters, and they might need help. PF2 is set up so that you need more than one front row character. Monsters simply hit too hard by design, for a single character to tank alone.
- The fight might move around a corner, and you need to move to catch up after all. Battlefields with a lot of obstructions, or battles that move from room to room, undo your action economy advantage.
- If you're not careful, you might end up being less prepared for when an enemy with AoO does manage to get close to you.
These aren't total showstoppers but they do leave a gap between theoretical and practical efficiency.
Other magi have conflux spells to recharge their spell strike. So even if they are only spell striking every other round, they are getting a lot out of their other actions too. If you’ve built towards imaginary weapon, you are probably using regular actions to recharge your spell strike. Spending 3 actions to make one roll can hurt when you miss, but the routine doesn’t really allow for true strike after round 1.
I am not saying it is terrible, in fact, I’ve repeatedly said it is good, and players seem to be having fun with it. It just doesn’t seem too good, nor is its thing as automatic as “Imaginary weapon+spell strike 3 times and win” every encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it really surprising that Paizo have let Imaginary Weapon stand as is. They have been very good at keeping other attack spells within a tight cap of damage. Fire Ray, Withering Grasp, Stone Lance, Hydraulic Push or Shocking Grasp and all the others all go up at 2d6 per spell rank or less. The only other exceptions being Polar Ray - which has a low base, Disintergrate which is hit and a save, and Moonlight Ray if it triggers the extra damage for Fiend/Undead.