Tbh this is more a topic of "Investigator archetype is too good"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh this is more a topic of "Investigator archetype is too good"
No, the point is that attack rolls are too buffable to let the power of save spells that were never designed for it, get power boosted via the use of attack rolls.
Martial Strikes, and their chances to hit/whiff are a completely different area of design from save spells and those defenses.
That is why the OG Magus knows to never mix the two, and why it's kinda a waste of breath to ask for the ability to do so.
Again, going the other direction, giving up your ability to buff the attack roll by turning it into a save, that happens a fair bit. Like with the Shadow Signet. That's "balance safe."
In a system that has DaS and will keep adding new fortune effect attack enhancers, to suggest the opposite is to suggest the players should be able to cast spells after they know an opponent will fail or even crit fail.
The concept of save spells is rather incompatible with the powers available to attack rolls.
No, dude, I aggree that tying the result of save spells directly to the attack roll is problematic.
But that point has been said over and over for 2 pages, can we just move on from it ?
A simple penalty to the save (maybe only reflex) on a hit or crit is enough to make those more reliable without being busted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, yes please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally consider DaS significantly worse than sure strike for magus, even considering its action economy. The difference between spellstrike and nonspellstrike turns is high enough that it is still better to roll with advantage than it is to roll once in advance and get stuck with it.
To illustrate, consider the case where you DaS, get a bad roll, and instead cast a raw attack spell. You are effectively rolling twice, but you only get the full benefit of a spellstrike if you hit with the first die. And worse, you don't get the benefit of using weapon accuracy to hit with the attack spell on the second roll. It is going to come out significantly behind sure strike.
Most magus builds also just... don't really care if they waste spells on spellstrike because they're using focus spells. They come back. You're not using a permanent resource. The benefit of DaS on resource consumption is overblown.
That's another issue in itself Witch, that several focus spells are so good that they circumvent the original design of the class.
Again, a lot of class features incenticize using spell slots for spellstrike. So either those will need to be rewritten so focus spells work with them, or something else.
While I do like focus spells and all, I do think it became a problem with how much the community seems to default to having every magus be a psychic. (or a champion/Cleric/oracle).
For two feats this invalidates the relevancy of several magus class feats that are supposed to help manage your ressources (like Standby Spell, which is 2 levels later than when you can get Imaginary Weapon).
This makes the already somewhat lackluster magus feat even more irrelevant and it's valid to be annoyed at that and want those to be reworked and made better/more interresting.
Which may or may not require reworking some of the class core features to not make magus too strong (since apparently a lot of people think that if magus can do anything other than spellstrike without spending a bunch of feat multiclassing it'd be OP)
A Magus has as much utility potential as any PC who invests in an archetype to gain arcane spellcasting
Thank you for confirming that the Magus is about as much of a versatile utility powerhouse as a Fighter archetyping into Wizard. Given that the latter is not exactly lauded as a paragon of versatility, perhaps we can finally stop pretending that this somehow works differently for the Magus, a class whose spellcasting versatility also has to compete with a class feature that encourages the use of spellcasting resources to deal purely more damage.
As for DaS, Witch of Miracles lays it out well, and like many aspects of the Magus and the game in general, the class’s synergy with that mechanic is massively overblown. In general, there’s been a lot of hyperbole going on about the Magus’s versatility, their synergy with certain mechanics, and other supposed benefits that have translated to zero results in practice, which in my opinion ought to be an invitation for people to look past their biases and ask themselves honestly what has caused the Magus to be generally played and seen as a narrowly-focused class.
A Magus has as much utility potential as any PC who invests in an archetype to gain arcane spellcastingThank you for confirming that the Magus is about as much of a versatile utility powerhouse as a Fighter archetyping into Wizard. Given that the latter is not exactly lauded as a paragon of versatility, perhaps we can finally stop pretending that this somehow works differently for the Magus, a class whose spellcasting versatility also has to compete with a class feature that encourages the use of spellcasting resources to deal purely more damage.
As for DaS, Witch of Miracles lays it out well, and like many aspects of the Magus and the game in general, the class’s synergy with that mechanic is massively overblown. In general, there’s been a lot of hyperbole going on about the Magus’s versatility, their synergy with certain mechanics, and other supposed benefits that have translated to zero results in practice, which in my opinion ought to be an invitation for people to look past their biases and ask themselves honestly what has caused the Magus to be generally played and seen as a narrowly-focused class.
You cut out the rest of the quote out that doesnt say what you just said it does.
You missed this whole part.A Magus has as much utility potential as any PC who invests in an archetype to gain arcane spellcasting. Scrolls, wands, staves, etc. Even if you never touch a Magus slot during an adventuring day, there really is a whole lot of utility to gaining a spell list and spell book.
One neat perk is that Magus has top R slots on par w/ normal casters, meaning that their ability to "come back tomorrow with the right spell" is equal in utility power to a Witch, while being higher than an arcane archetype.
Overall, it is close enough to "wrong" to say that a wave caster does not have the potential to focus on the utility of their nature as a prepared spellcaster. Yes, a Magus offers less slots compared to a non-wave caster, but the point is that the system has so many ways to gather extra slots/castings, that the actual in-practice difference is being over-stated to the point of being misleading. Even if there were 0 class feats to help with utility, this would still be true.
What other people haven been trying to explain to you, is that there are Magus feats that someone who seeks utility will find genuinely worth considering. Options like familiar, Analysis, etc. Even options that appear S-Strike focused actually enable a cleaver player to increase their utility, as w/ Striker Scroll or Standby Spell. Because your S-Strike "needs" can be helped/met via those S-Strike restricted abilities, that frees up your normal wave slots for more utility choices.
That really should not be difficult to understand.
You'd think that Magus was outright banned from a Marvelous Mount wand or carrying a scroll of Cozy Cabin w/ how the discussion's been going.
Yet any utility-seeking Magus can just pick Standby Spell, and then load their wave slots full of utility while still always having their max-cannon at the ready. It's the perfect feat for PCs that like the idea of prepping niche spells, but don't want the commitment and potential damage-kneecapping that usually carries.
Again, going the other direction, giving up your ability to buff the attack roll by turning it into a save, that happens a fair bit. Like with the Shadow Signet. That's "balance safe."This is an aside, but I think you may be misunderstanding the Shadow Signet? You still make attack rolls with it, just against a different defense DC. Sure strike and attack buffs still work with it (just no off-guard).
Oh.
Yeah, I should have slowed down when reading that. You do still get a buffable attack roll, which is really bizarre.
The correct RaW version makes it seem like Shadow Signet is kinda as "mandatory" as it gets for any PC that wants to use an attack spell.
Just the ability to pick the lower saves is already a crazy potent difference.
But the notion that you select the lower defense, while also retaining all the benefits from attack rolls, like +_ status to hit, Sure Strike, etc, is just... kinda dumb?
To be honest, it may be that it's the absurd rules of the Shadow Signet that prevent authors from writing more attack spells, lol.
SSignet is completely b#&*%&$ insane IMO. No cool down, no action cost, no restrictions nor requirements whatsoever; just take the benefits of attack spells and apply them to the lower numbers of 1 of 2 saves at your discretion. Don't forget you also steal a +2 just from roller's advantage.
Meaning that if you know a foe's save is 0 lower than the AC, using SSignet means that your attack spell is at a pseudo 2 + [to-hit buffs] better chance to land than if you used a save spell. Before fortune effects.
Well, I might just retire the Electric Arc completely thanks to Live Wire being an attack spell.
Shadow Signet only costs gp and an investment slot. Lol. Well, all my Alchemists now have a new must-buy that's going to boot another item to make room.
Yeah, it's a decent item if you have those kinds of spells.
Shadow Signet is good but given that there is so few attack spells it just helps casters get even on accuracy compared to martials when they make use of recall knowledge for the ennemie's weakest save.
Definitely useful, that's essentially the potency rune for attack spells for normal casters
You cut out the rest of the quote out that doesnt say what you just said it does.
You missed this whole part.
I didn't miss it, the rest of the text does not meaningfully alter the opening statement or the message it conveys. Some of the stuff is also straight-up nonsense, like claiming the Magus's ability to prepare ahead of time is "equal in utility power to a Witch", a full caster with far more spell slots even of the same ranks as the Magus.
Although the Magus has access to higher-rank slots, they also have fewer spell slots than a Fighter committing to a Wizard archetype, while also having a class feature that actively incentivizes them to use their spell slots for more damage rather than utility. It is therefore unsurprising that the class is known for being narrowly-focused, more so even than martials archetyping into a caster specifically for utility. A key difference both you and Trip H. have deliberately omitted (and given your track record on this thread, this omission is deliberate) is that the lower ranks of archetype spells and a lack of means to make up for a sub-par spellcasting modifier force the average martial to use those slots for utility, rather than blasting. The Magus, by contrast, can Spellstrike with those slots, and often does. It takes an extreme amount of mental gymnastics to refuse to acknowledge how this pushes the Magus to specialize their spells towards damage in a way not even a martial archetyping into a caster would want to or be able to do. I would therefore go as far as to say that a Magus is even less liable to provide utility than a martial archetyped into a caster, and just because they can output a measure of utility via spell slots, magic items, and so on does not mean they do or even want to, and it's certainly not what their class pushes them to do right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus has access to spell utility via spellslots and spellcasting items at a better progression with a lower investment than archetyped martials. A high level magus, for example, can use Ferrous Form much earlier than a Fighter archetyped into wizard. Same for Fly.
It's up to you how much you value that, and these are two of the most favorable examples I could give. Still, I do believe it's a notable perk of the class.
And to be VERY clear: getting 2 top rank slots, 2 next to top rank slots, and your studious slots is still better than what 4 feats (dedication+3 spellcasting feats) and forcing a bad skill for your build to legendary would give you as another martial. You aren't required to put anything into INT to get these slots, either, which is a massive benefit.
And the silly synergy with Psychic archetype only amplifies that perk. Yes, you now will take 14 INT instead of 10. (Only the same as the other martial!) But at the end of the day, Magus gets more damage out of archetyping than almost anyone else—getting amped Imaginary Weapon is probably the biggest damage improvement I can think of from a build choice in the whole game. That archetyping choice then opens up magus's innate spellslots to be used solely for utility effects that other martials cannot access at that level. Getting to have prepared casting with top rank utility on a martial—even with only two slots—is wildly strong. The archetype kind of does double duty in this regard.
Magus with no archetyping does have this -option-, at a substantially greater tradeoff. And it can be a tradeoff worth taking in some conditions, particularly if you have standby spell. Fly can be worth more damage than a spellstrike sometimes, etc. And frankly, Magus's damage when using cantrip spellstrike actually isn't that bad, especially when using live wire and then using force fang to recharge against a level+2 or more enemy. (At least until the probable live wire errata, anyways... though gouging claw is still pretty good, about on par with unamped IW once you factor in the bleed.) It'll be worse in most situations, yeah. Overall, unarchetyped magi are slightly below other martials, iirc. But you also have easy ways to proc weakness via cantrip selection and cascade and can attempt to massively burst enemies when you think it's appropriate. That is likely fair for a martial class that can choose to dedicate top rank slots to utility instead of damage when needed—and can thus play a bit of on-level caster—in a game with PF2E's niche protection.
Really, the more I think about it, the more base magus sounds fairly balanced—by PF2E design logic, anyways, which is admittedly the same logic that gives us PF2E wizard. Its power level seems appropriate for the breadth of options it has built into its chassis. If anything, magus becomes wildly out of line when psychic archetype is thrown into the mix, as it crushes most of the class's built-in tradeoffs to dust.
Which is why I suggested nixing focus spells compatibility altogether lol
Magus has access to spell utility via spellslots and spellcasting items at a better progression with a lower investment than archetyped martials. A high level magus, for example, can use Ferrous Form much earlier than a Fighter archetyped into wizard. Same for Fly.
The fact that they do not need to spend feats to gain spell slots compared to a full martial archetyping into a caster is obvious, but does not prevent the fact that their spell slots are limited, and what limited spell slots they have are a) compatible with Spellstrike, and b) incentivized to be used for Spellstriking, as evidenced by the double spellstrike feature. As already mentioned, whereas a Fighter multiclassing into Wizard can cheaply use their 1st-rank slot to cast a spell like lock, a Magus would have to spend a much higher-rank slot, which in the case of a spell like lock can in fact be an inconvenience on top of a far greater expense. So, once again: just because the Magus can prepare utility spells does not mean they do in practice, which is why they are known for being quite narrowly-focused despite technically having access to almost the full breadth of arcane spells.
And to be VERY clear: getting 2 top rank slots, 2 next to top rank slots, and your studious slots is still better than what 4 feats (dedication+3 spellcasting feats) and forcing a bad skill for your build to legendary would give you as another martial.
Those 4 feats grant you 8 spell slots, more than the totality of slots the Magus gets, and an extra feat gives you 6 more. Utility, particularly out-of-combat utility, is not a measure of sheer firepower, and as the arcane list should easily show with low-rank spells like lock, jump, or knock, having more spell slots to cast those spells is significantly more valuable for overall utility and versatility than having two of your slots be of one rank higher.
You aren't required to put anything into INT to get these slots, either, which is a massive benefit.
But you are to get the Psychic archetype, which the Magus will readily do despite already depending on four other attributes with a melee subclass, and several martials can readily commit these boosts anyway due to relying on a smaller number of attributes. This is in fact a far more significant commitment on a Magus than it is on a Fighter, a Rogue, or even a Monk, let alone an Alchemist, an Inventor, or an Investigator.
Overall, unarchetyped magi are slightly below other martials, iirc. But you also have easy ways to proc weakness via cantrip selection and cascade and can attempt to massively burst enemies when you think it's appropriate. That is likely fair for a martial class that can choose to dedicate top rank slots to utility instead of damage when needed—and can thus play a bit of on-level caster—in a game with PF2E's niche protection.
I'm not certain where this is coming from, as I don't think anyone here has been arguing that the Magus is underpowered in recent discussion. That's not the problem, so much that the Magus's kit explicitly pushes them to commit their spell slots towards damage, rather than utility. If your 19th-level Magus uses their spell slots to cast utility spells like fly, they will be halving their spell output per slot compared to using those slots for Spellstriking. This is the case even with Standby Spell, and then you have feats like Lunging Spellstrike or Meteoric Spellstrike that outright require you to expend a spell slot. Meanwhile, no Magus feat or feature explicitly tries to have you use your bounded casting for utility. Thus, the criticism and common perception of the Magus being narrowly-focused on damage does not come from nowhere, this is in fact a part of the class's intended design, and something that is worth challenging.
Looking at it, if the goal were to make a utility Magus that isn't focused on Spellstrike, I honestly think the best way to do that is as a Wizard with Magus dedication. Full spellcasting, and one spellstrike per combat. Gives you lots of room for non-damaging spells.
Uhhh....
The main benefit of Magus is the chassis of a martial, with the HP and Strike accuracy...
I don't think the Wiz chassis provides quite enough utility to make up for fight/swinging at that level of comparative disadvantage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All depends on what you want. The complaints were not enough spell slots.
Those spell slots come at a cost. This should give you enough spell slots to be a utility caster, and buff yourself for fighting.
Would you end up using all those extra spell slots buffing yourself so that it's a wash or a net loss? Only way to find out is to try it.
(The optimal way to go this route would be with a Warpriest Cleric, if you're ok with the Divine list.)
Could make a battle harbinger with magus dedication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this isn't really the question here.
At least this isn't the vision i'm defending.
I'm not saying "magus should have more spell slots to be versatile".
Just that it needs more flexibility in its routine and more actions in its kit other than just spellstrike.
And also clarify accross the board what spells are eligible for different class/subclass features and feats. Even if that means nixing focus spell compatibility. Or adjusting what spells work with spellstrike and how.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least this isn't the vision i'm defending.
I'm not saying "magus should have more spell slots to be versatile".
Just that it needs more flexibility in its routine and more actions in its kit other than just spellstrike.
This is also what I personally endorse as well. I'm very much of the opinion that the Magus is fine power-wise, and rather than buff them, I would want to divert their power away from putting all of their eggs in one basket and towards at least slightly more versatility. It's not that Spellstrike wouldn't be central to the class's playstyle, either, as I still think it would and should be the case, it just doesn't need to be this all-consuming feature that pushes the Magus to commit what few spell slots they have, even focus spells and magic items via feats, towards doing the exact same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this isn't really the question here.
At least this isn't the vision i'm defending.
I'm not saying "magus should have more spell slots to be versatile".
Just that it needs more flexibility in its routine and more actions in its kit other than just spellstrike.And also clarify accross the board what spells are eligible for different class/subclass features and feats. Even if that means nixing focus spell compatibility. Or adjusting what spells work with spellstrike and how.
I completely agree in spirit.
The "catch" that keeps coming up is that because S-Strike is such a good action, you end up with an "all roads lead to S-Strike" situation / flowchart.
That's not a bad thing, but it can give the appearance or feel of being overly restrictive or inflexible, in a way that is disproportionate w/ the reality of the class.
While it can feel overly-tempting to keep inflating the power of S-Strike via feats with "false choices" due to cost-benefit, that is ultimately a player opinion. To some extent there are (common) personal psychology issues with fixating on damage numbers over everything else.
A Magus really can just leave S-Strike at it's base version and it will be good enough to be an "every fight" action even when competing vs archetype actions. The "need" to get things like Imaginary Weapon is very overblown. It is completely valid to pick things that you know will result in less final damage. Even without napkin math attempting to turn other non-dmg effects into pseduo-damage.
.
While it seems reductive to say "just take a Dedication," that kiiiinda is what I'm saying. Pf2 spends a lot of effort, and I mean a lot of effort, on the Archetype system. It's not a normal ttrpg where you are expected to be perfectly satisfied with a mono-build. The expectation for players to use the Archetyping system is waaay higher than multiclassing is for pf2's closest competitors.
This is why you've been told that "Magus is the Spellstrike class." Because it's already packed full of stuff that is Magus-specific, as in there's no room for other stuff. That really does mean that there is somewhat of an *expectation* for those Magi who want another combat core besides S-Strike to get that via archetyping.
I honestly think the Magus is one of / the best, dangerously so, classes if you more or less abandon upgrades to S-Strike an instead archetype to your heart's desire.
S-Strike starts charged, and only requires a single cantrip slot to be a *great* combat action. Because S-Strike is a not a normal martial power-attack and needs recharging, that means that Magus works better with archetyped power-attack style feats.
Having the martial accuracy and not being tied to an "every turn" p-attack like Double Slice (and not being overly-restricted in your weapon choice!) opens up a huuuge number of options, from Spirit Warrior to Bastion or even Mauler.
And if you want a more magical / utility focus, Magus is also arguably the very best at that due to being such a damage cannon out of the box, so it can afford the less-combat focused archetypes like Archeologist or Eldritch Researcher.
Having that martial to-hit as a fallback (and cantrips), and action-saving focus spells is just the perfect paring for so many archetypes. The every other turn style "big one", that is more or less exclusive to Magus, pairs with all sorts of archetypes that are rather incomplete on their own due to once p day abilities or other *s that make the archetype unusable as a primary combat routine. (like Monk's now 1d4 cooldown)
.
I do think there is room for a potential Magus class archetype that *downgrades* the S-Strike in some way to increase the flexibility of their core combat routine.
I do not really think the class itself can/will get any significant change in that direction.
The class is going to get more Hybrid Studies over time, so if I thought making noise could possibly create change, I'd focus on asking for more study-agnostic low L conflux spell feats.
That's the core design nodule that has room for creativity while being in the right place to maximally help improve the class' feel.
.
And to be blunt, I've not really heard any genuinely interesting / properly weird suggestions in this thread. Conflux spells can be anything that interacts w/ your S-Strike recharge. You can largely break existing paradigms/patterns w/ these suggestions, so long as the reader understands the justification.
On the spot creation for a more flexible Magus:
Kinetic Siphon ______ 1 Action _____ Focus 1
Cast: 1A verbal
Target: 1 weapon
Range: self
Duration: 1 minuteWith a quick shout of arcane magics, you weave a reactive dynamo around your weapon. You recharge your Spellstrike.
The first time each turn you Sustain this spell, you recharge your Spellstrike. You may instead redirect these intercepted energies to enter Arcane Cascade instead of recharging Spellstrike.The first time each turn you succeed an attack roll using the target weapon, this spell is sustained. This excludes Spellstrike.
While this spell is active, you cannot recharge Spellstrike by the normal 1 Action concentrate.
After this spell is sustained 2 times, the spell ends.
Special: If cast upon a shield or equipment associated with the Shield cantrip, the dynamo will also sustain the spell if that Shield Block reaction is used to prevent any damage.
Heightened: (+2) The spell can be sustained one additional time before expiring.
A conflux spell like that can offer a small amount of increased risk (disabling vanilla recharge), a lesser up-front impact vs normal conflux options (you don't perform the usual ___ + strike); all done in order to justify later rewarding the Magus for doing what it wants to do anyways. Hit stuff with a magic weapon.
If this seems too good, try to remember that it's locked behind a class feat, and IMO class feats are *supposed* to genuinely change / enhance your main combat routine. (though it can also be true that this homebrew spell needs adjustment!)
Anyways, that's just my 2 cents expressed in my now usual daily morning BigPost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I aggree that S-Strike would still be the core feature you work toward, I don't have the intention to change that.
Just to give some more options as you work to it, in your off turns or when it's not worth going for one at the time.
The issue with archetypes (especially martial ones) is that they synergize very little at best with the magus' kit. Some stuff can be of use for action compression (skirmish strike, sudden charge) but i just find it odd for the Magus not to have some its own unique take on some of those actions or just some unique ones to its particular situation.
If there is one class that could have some magical strikes built into its feat selection its the magus. Why would Eldritch Archer have a bunch of those available as an archetype and not Magus as a full class ? You see what I mean ?
This would also make the magus archetype more than "get 2 cantrips, spellstrike and Dimensional Assault" maybe.
I do think your expectations are a bit out of line with what is normal for pf2 classes.
Classes like Alchemist don't even have decent Reactions anywhere within its feat list. No flourish options, no weapon-related feats, no Quick Draw, Running Reload, etc. Not even Enhanced Familiar (which Magus does get for whatever reason).
It is completely normal for classes to be outright "incomplete" with the possibilities present in the wider pf2 system as a whole.
.
I do know that this sounds like I'm accusing you of being a whiner-baby or whatever, but there really is not much else to say.
*Most* classes do not have the options to fill all the system-limiting power mechanics. (Reaction, flourish, stance, etc)
While I do hope that all classes will eventually at least get an evergreen Reaction option, as that amount of missing power is just absurd / bad design IMO, it is at least a very good sign that classes are getting additional feats over time.
Alchemist does have quick bombing, quick alchemy etc.
Magus misses part of his "martial" kit is what I'm saying. Outside of spellstrike there is little ways in which its martial kit and his magical kit interract.
That's where stuff skill actions recharging spellstrike could play a part.
And yeah most classes don't have flourish, reactions, free actions, spells.
Some do. I don't see why the magus can't have a few as part of its kit really.
Like would it be so bad if Devastating Spellstrike was its own strike action instead of a spellstrike variant ?
The class (like a lot of others honestly) would just benefit from getting some new options in its feat selection since release, 'cause outside of two subclasses (which are neat) it hasn't gotten any while the core and advanced guide ones got a bunch.
The "catch" that keeps coming up is that because S-Strike is such a good action, you end up with an "all roads lead to S-Strike" situation / flowchart.
That's not a bad thing, but it can give the appearance or feel of being overly restrictive or inflexible, in a way that is disproportionate w/ the reality of the class.
While it can feel overly-tempting to keep inflating the power of S-Strike via feats with "false choices" due to cost-benefit, that is ultimately a player opinion. To some extent there are (common) personal psychology issues with fixating on damage numbers over everything else.
I'd say it's the opposite: in practice, the class does get played as this overly-focused damage-dealer, because that's the playstyle the class is expressly made to cater to, and all this talk about their versatility (or, rather, their potential for versatility) mostly happens on paper, on internet forums, from people who may or may not have ever even seen a Magus at their table. Several of the people who play the class outright stated even here that their class was focused on being a "big Spellstrike hammer" or around a very repetitive rotation, and not necessarily as a criticism either.
I think it's also worth noting that on top of existing evidence, we also have a lot of history to draw from when it comes to the power of incentives and min-maxing: specifically, PF1e is a game with massive min-maxing potential, and surprise surprise, it's a game full of min-maxed builds that often have an extremely narrow focus, sometimes to the point of being genuine one-trick ponies. In theory, you don't have to optimize every detail of your character to have an enjoyable experience, but because you can very easily put all of your eggs in one basket, and this is something players have a natural tendency to do in any game (and not just tabletop RPGs), it is rarer for people to avoid min-maxing in that game than it is for people to engage in it. Although PF2e's Magus does not reach that same level of min-maxing, it does have a whole bunch of features and character options that do push them to min-max, so it is unsurprising that we do see a lot of min-maxing around the Magus, and a lot of resulting complaints that the Magus isn't very adaptable. You could try to tell each and every Magus player to change their mentality and do less of the thing the class incentivizes them to do, but I don't think that's a very feasible or effective idea in practice, which is why Paizo has generally prevented classes from over-specializing in 2e's design otherwise, to great success.
Note that classes *having* these system-limited powers is what makes them "incompatible" with other archetypes. And is used as a balancing tool.
A Monk already uses flourish, stance, and a p-Strike via Flurry of Blows. This is why it is hard for Monk to find archetypes for its combat core.
Your complaints about not having these actions as feat options are valid, but this also should further incentive archetyping.
It is because the Magus has so much power via a unique an not system-limited ability that makes them so good at archetyping.
S-Strike is not a flourish, so all the other flourish options are compatible, etc.
While stance is already offered by Arc Cascade, that's usually the last of the system-limited powers that players pursue. (And it helps keep Magus power down without actually nerfing any numbers).
I'm really trying not to be dismissive of this feedback, but I don't think people really understand what others are trying to say when we emphasize that "Magus is built around Spellstrike".
That's not normal.
Most classes are build around a mode or trait or condition/mechanic. Barbarian is built around Rage (many actions), Rogue around off-guard, and Magus is built around a specific and singular 2A action.
This really is an expectation / "what you signed up for" issue. Magus is always going to feel "more restrictive" compared to other martials.
.
Even when Monk is somewhat close-ish with it's Flurry of Blows as a core action, comparing the 2 classes shows how extreme this is in the Magus. Monk's core action is 1A (which is huge in the 3A system), has no recharge mechanic, *and* it is clear to all how much more the Monk cares about its stance than Magus does.
.
There are many, many players who understand this mechanical difference of design and lean into this "big hammer" focus because that's the unique thing Magus offers, and there are other players who picked Magus more for flavor/fantasy and do not like the reality of how different Magus is from a mechanical PoV.
While I would/will advocate for things like flexibility-enabling conflux options and other feats, I will not advocate for the core mechanical identity of Magus to be eroded.
The reality of its mechanics may not match every player's fantasy, but that is always going to be true. I'm happy that the system has that "I have spent every feat building this giant cannon" class.
While I would like for there to be a less restrictive hybrid martial-caster not built around a 2A action, I honesty do think that a Magus w/ only 1 or 2 class feats is still a *very* good chassis to leave S-Strike at base and go nuts archetyping with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, few archetypes really play well with the kit.
Outside of caster ones for focus spells or spell slots, and bastion/sentinel for sparkling targe, a lot of archetypes just don't mesh well at all.
To me its an issue in itself that you "have to" look at archetype to play differently rather than have different styles supported within the class options.
Like why are you playing a magus if so few things outside of just being able to spellstrike several times a fight are of interrest of you in the class ?
If the archetype let you recharge spellstrike with an action, Magus itself would essentially not be played then. You'd rather pick fighter with magus and psychic archetype and be done with it, there would be nothing in its higher level features that'd be interresting enough.
Outside of subclass (which, again, are very variable in term of potency and exclusive feats) most of your feats won't change much how you play or what you can do, or how you engage with the action economy.
There is a few (Capture Magic, Magus Analysis) but really most of them are about adding another effect to your S-Strike.
Which, on paper, I get as the way to add utility to your martial side.
But a lot of those effects are pretty negligeable for some subclasses (again, Devastating Spellstrike vs Lunging Spellstrike or Distracting Spellstrike) or just hard to use with the action economy since you need to have spellstrike ready for them and be in a situation where you can use them.
I guess I should write up my whole proposition in full and post it soon.
Because to me Magus is more than JUST spellstrike, it's a unique blend of martial and caster who can mix it in ways multiclassing cannot. In 1e it was spellcombat AND spellstrike, in 2e we only have 1 side of that coin and I think that's a bit of the issue. Magus doesn't play the action economy the way it used to, it is instead restrained by it.
Note that classes *having* these system-limited powers is what makes them "incompatible" with other archetypes. And is used as a balancing tool.
I don't think it's terribly interesting, even from a balance perspective, for the Magus to be incompatible with most archetypes, and now mythic destinies as well. I also don't think that degree of incompatibility was actually intended, so much as a natural consequence of Spellstrike and a class design that focuses so much on it.
This really is an expectation / "what you signed up for" issue. Magus is always going to feel "more restrictive" compared to other martials.
I think this hits a rather simple logical fallacy that commonly crops up in these sorts of discussion, particularly with defenders of the status quo, which is the is/ought fallacy. Because the Magus is overly focused on one mechanic, you assume that they ought to be, despite the examples you bring up of many other classes with a defining mechanic that are far less restricted in their build and action choices. What you're missing here is that critics of the class are aware of these restrictions, that's in fact the very first thing that gets called out, it's just that we would like things to be different.
Just to pick a different example that should hopefully hit home: the Alchemist, as you well know, has a terrible action economy, several feat taxes, and at least one really weak subclass, even after the remaster. Now tell me: if I told you that just because the Alchemist is all of those things, the class ought to be all of those things forever, and so as part of their intended design, how would you feel about that? Would that strike you as a valid or constructive argument?
The thing is, few archetypes really play well with the kit.
Outside of caster ones for focus spells or spell slots, and bastion/sentinel for sparkling targe, a lot of archetypes just don't mesh well at all.
[...]
It really sounds like you've not explored much beyond Magus, because dude, that's just not true at all.
Magus being a full martial wave caster hybrid enables them to take all the Strike-altering archetypes incompatible with all non-martial classes, while still working with caster archetypes.
Magus being a class w/ KAS options bwtn STR & DEX (and can dump INT) is another huge perk that other classes do not have, and this may arguably be the most important one for archetyping.
I cannot tell you how painful it is to crowbar an off-stat requirement like CHA into an Alchemist build, for example.
Magus can have an open hand without issue, which, again, it not true for other classes. Even Alchemist has a 2-H feature in Double Brew, and seriously hurts their action economy if they leave it unused to hold something.
Magus doesn't even require a weapon a la Thaum, I actually forgot that they don't need that L1 feat to S-Strike with unarmed attacks.
Outside of already having a stance, Magus is absurdly compatible with archetyping, and you saying otherwise kinda hurts your credibility in this discussion.
Again, the core chassis alone, completely ignoring Spellstrike, is already a one of a kind hybrid in the pf2 system. Summoner doesn't get to play with archetyping like Magus does due to not Striking themself and other eidolon restrictions.
Yes, you should not pick Magus if you don't care about spellcasting, and could pick Rogue, etc. That's a no s@!$ observation not worth discussing. The desire for at least some spellcasting is presumed by the choice of said hybrid class.
Then do tell me what they are compatible with then, educate me.
Like sure, duelist, mauler etc you can use on turns where you won't spellstrike.
But again not exactly my point.
Why do I HAVE to take archetypes to have any action other than spellstrike at my disposal ?
Barbarians don't have Rage and then just normal strikes.
Swashbuckler don't ONLY have finisher variants.
Wizard don't have only metamagic spells, they have magic abilities that DO NOT require the use of spells even !
I think this hits a rather simple logical fallacy that commonly crops up in these sorts of discussion, particularly with defenders of the status quo, which is the is/ought fallacy. Because the Magus is overly focused on one mechanic, you assume that they ought to be, despite the examples you bring up of many other classes with a defining mechanic that are far less restricted in their build and action choices. What you're missing here is that critics of the class are aware of these restrictions, that's in fact the very first thing that gets called out, it's just that we would like things to be different.
The reason so many people will respond so bluntly to suggestions of change to a class' core like this is because that fundamentally changes their existing PCs with or without their consent, and potentially deletes unique mechanics from the entire system.
It's not a fallacy to say "Hey, I think that would ruin the class, it's dumb to suggest that."
Because guess what? Anyone suggesting changes to Magus is saying that Magus "should" be different.
This worry about "should" or "ought" claims is a stupid distraction and meaningless distinction.
.
.
Alchemist is a great example.
Old Alch used to be a unique prep-planner class built around splitting your resources between prep and spontaneous uses. You had your daily reagents, and could prep items at 2/3x quantity via daily guesswork, or rely upon Quick Alchemy to turn the reagents into items at 1:1 spontaneously. You chose this prep VS spontaneous allocation every day.
All of the Alchemist class was built around that. Even if daily items #s could get high, there was always the hard limit of daily resources. You couldn't really make it through the day with just Quick Alchemy, which made every reagent used for spontaneous Q-Alch a big spend.
New Alch fundamentally failed to understand the incentives and dynamics that existed within the Old Alch, and the freely recharging VVs has created some really s$$$ incentives that make New Alch unfun to play. Things like always prebuffing, re-reading your list 3 times to find any possible +1 to a non-combat roll because it's just going to recharge, etc. Even the item list itself was not designed around the 10 min free recharge. Is the GM going to make the Alch keep rolling the condition/disease counteract until they land the needed nat 20, or will the GM handwaive that the New Alch will always remove them if they have an hr to spend on it?
So much of the table play / feel is a mess, precisely because a core mechanic of Alchemist was altered via the VV mechanic.
The seemingly small changes to Alchemist have resulted in a substantially different class, and the entire framing of is/ought is a red herring.
IMO, the goal of any errata, remaster, etc to a class should be to not fundamentally make it into a different class with the same name. This is done by knowing what the mechanic core is, and not crossing that line.
Some players will genuinely find New Alchemist more fun than Old Alchemist. That's great.
Old Alchemist represented a unique prepared/spontaneous resource spender, and that unique class is extinct, completely gone from the pf2 system.
I do not think it was "okay" for Paizo to delete Old Alch in the way that they did.
Nor do I think it would be okay to remake Magus in a similar manner to what Paizo did to Alch.
The "best of both worlds" hypothetical would have been for Paizo to release a class archetype for Old Alch players when it made the "dumbed down" New Alch.
And this "hypothetical" is the crux of why calls to change the Magus will struggle to gain serious traction.
.
Because there is no reason your/anyone's specific Magus fantasy / desire could not instead exist as a new class, or as a Magus-specific class archetype.
It is bizarrely egotistical to suggest changes "should" happen to an existing class that would affect all the PCs out from under Magus players.
The reason so many people will respond so bluntly to suggestions of change to a class' core like this is because that fundamentally changes their existing PCs with or without their consent, and potentially deletes unique mechanics from the entire system.
It's not a fallacy to say "Hey, I think that would ruin the class, it's dumb to suggest that."
Great, then we should ignore all of the feedback you have ever given of the Alchemist, dismiss the homebrew you have spent hours on as "dumb" because it would change existing players' builds, and dismiss you as a "whiner-baby", as you put it, just because you want to change some part of the game that, somehow, at least one other person in the world plays. Simple!
Trip, please don't resort to insult you are better than that.
Please do tell me what archetypes interract so well with magus other than the ones I mentionned. I'm genuinely curious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this got brought up: I do believe the class is pretty much an imaginary weapon spellstrike slot machine at optimization cap, and wants to spam spellstrike. However, the magus players I've had have both leaned into the actual slotted casting more than I would've done myself, and have not typically felt bad about it. They haven't even archetyped into anything particularly strong for the class, either.
On reflection: I do also think that with the amount of overkill magus is prone to, and the existence of cantrip options on par with unamped IW, Psychic archetype is probably being overvalued compared to cleric archetype for Fire Ray (or winter bolt if you're into it). Getting your second focus point faster is good, but being able to take your archetype with +2 WIS instead of +2 INT is extremely valuable as well, and there's no harm in getting your third focus point with force fang instead.
It just strikes me that cleric may often be the more "pragmatic" build choice and it gives you moderately better saves and initiative.
===
Also, Trip, I strongly disagree that the system was designed with the intent of players using archetypes to patch holes in their class abilities. I have a suspicion the design was more like "pick up shield block if you don't have a reaction." Class feats are often so abhorrently balanced against archetyping options that it's difficult to believe it'd be intentional. Like, why should cantrip expansion even exist when most casting archetypes give two cantrips and skill training on top and access to interesting and desirable feats?
I think cleric might be harder to justify rpwise compared to psychic and other kinds of spontaneous casters (though you could get the focus spells from oracle instead).
IW is 100% overvalued but does have the benefit of being one of the very few spells easily compatible with Spell Swip, which is always neat to see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trip, please don't resort to insult you are better than that.
Please do tell me what archetypes interract so well with magus other than the ones I mentionned. I'm genuinely curious.
I already have.
I'm trying to put more value to my time, and it certainly does not need to be spent building out a list of names just so it can nitpicked, and said nitpick will invariably be waived as some kind of "victory."
If you actually care about learning what works well w/ Magus and what does not, then just reread my earlier post.
You just said "strike altering archetypes" without elaborating. I fail to see it.
But if you don't want to bother explaining, fine.
I'll wait until you calm down then.
Also, Trip, I strongly disagree that the system was designed with the intent of players using archetypes to patch holes in their class abilities. I have a suspicion the design was more like "pick up shield block if you don't have a reaction." Class feats are often so abhorrently balanced against archetyping options that it's difficult to believe it'd be intentional. Like, why should cantrip expansion even exist when most casting archetypes give two cantrips and skill training on top and access to interesting and desirable feats?
I disagree,
In the more normal / standard ttrpg that offers multi-classing, you are selecting a 2ndary base class to fuse into yours.
In pf2, most(?) archeytpes only exist as archetypes and must be selected by a PC with an existing class.
Basically, if you work backward, you could say that because archetypes must be taken by class-bearing PCs, PCs are therefore "expected" to take archetypes to a degree not at all normal to ttrpgs. And if it's normal to archetype, then it only makes sense to fill what you see as gaps in your class, such as finding a good stance or flourish.
.
Instead of grabbing Shield Block via the general feat, IMO the system was built so that a player of a no/bad-Reaction class will look not just at S-Block, but at options like Bastion.
The way that the system-limited mechanics like stance work interacts with this a great deal. I don't think it's "abhorrent balance" that a Thaum has no stance to work with, as the direct opposite PoV simply results in saying that Thaum can make great use of stance-archetypes like Marshal.
System-limited mechanics are an entire layer of apples-to-oranges design goodness that I really think is kinda brilliant, specifically because of how it creates huge nuance with archeytping. It encourages players to archetype in order to grab a good flourish, a good stance, etc. It both helps PC-power from going too high while poking players to explore their possibilities *because* of these system-limiter mechanics.
A Magus may genuinely find a Monk stance more appealing than Arc Cascade, and that's a totally valid determination. It just gives the devs more balancing levers to play with so that some things are trades with cost instead of all acquisitions being pure positive power gains.
(though again, I think all classes should have evergreen Reactions without the need for archetyping. Reactions are a core action that makes too big a power gap between players that do & don't archetype in many cases)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if you're being dishonest on purpose or not, but I'd like to make sure this is immortalized a bit for others to see.
You just said "strike altering archetypes" without elaborating. I fail to see it.
But if you don't want to bother explaining, fine.I'll wait until you calm down then.
Magus being a full martial wave caster hybrid enables them to take all the Strike-altering archetypes incompatible with all non-martial classes, while still working with caster archetypes.
Magus being a class w/ KAS options bwtn STR & DEX (and can dump INT) is another huge perk that other classes do not have, and this may arguably be the most important one for archetyping.
I cannot tell you how painful it is to crowbar an off-stat requirement like CHA into an Alchemist build, for example.
Magus can have an open hand without issue, which, again, it not true for other classes. Even Alchemist has a 2-H feature in Double Brew, and seriously hurts their action economy if they leave it unused to hold something.
Magus doesn't even require a weapon a la Thaum, I actually forgot that they don't need that L1 feat to S-Strike with unarmed attacks.
Outside of already having a stance, Magus is absurdly compatible with archetyping, and you saying otherwise kinda hurts your credibility in this discussion.
[...]
That's the basics of why Magus is so flexible. It already has all the damage a PC needs, it can easily invest any +2 stat requirement, works with all weapons or no weapons, has top R spellcasting, has full martial to-hit, etc.
The only incompatibility Magus has is due to it coming with a stance of its own.
That means that any acquired stance will create an either-or trade with the 0 feat Arcane Cascade.
Most other classes have waaaay more snags / issues / complications trying to archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but this doesn't address my complaint at all.
This doesn't really synergize with its features. It's just "yeah it has some spells baked in, so you can archetype into something else to play it like a fighter with 4 spells a day"
That's not what I'm talking about.
I think cleric might be harder to justify rpwise compared to psychic and other kinds of spontaneous casters (though you could get the focus spells from oracle instead).
Why? You'll have to enlighten me, but a Cleric archetype sounds totally reasonable on thematic grounds, particularly for a deity of magic like Nethys. I don't see why that would be any less justifiable on roleplaying grounds than a Magus who develops psychic powers.
Oh I see.
Yeah it can get new unnarmed strikes, just like a fighter can and use power attack with their unarmed attacks.
Or a ranger can apply a bunch of precision damage with a gorilla stance punch.
Spellstrike doesn't work with all strikes tho, it works with all (melee) WEAPONS ! But if you get a fighting style that isn't getting unarmed stuff well it won't change much.
In the playtest though this would have been right, you could actually spellstrike with flurry of blow for example.
Use the right words please, this was misleading as hell
Also Teridax, I just mean that to add into a campaign midway for example it is a bit harder to add in that the character is now ordained as a cleric than it is to awaken psychic powers suddenly is all. There is totally ways of making a coherent background behind a magus who is also a cleric. But it'll be more restrictive since you have to make the god you choose work into your roleplay with the anathemas and all. (which is part the cleric's appeal rp wise)
Also tbh if you think none of this is worth talking about...tf you're still here Trip? I won't believe you're there just to annoy people or to pretend to be better than them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, this is incredibly whiner-baby.
Okay, so putting aside the obvious fact that this is incredibly rude and needlessly antagonistic behavior that has no place in this discussion, it's also in my opinion quite hypocritical: nobody is whining harder than you are right now, Trip, because you've decided to make this thread about yourself too, and complain about how misunderstood you are by all of the people who don't share your opinions, unfounded and downright nonsensical as they are (such as claiming that the Magus isn't MAD). You are also the person most known for complaining endlessly about a class, specifically the Alchemist, and even went as far as to write a Google doc full of homebrew that, to my understanding, you're still trying to push even now as the One True Way of designing the class. That you would exercise so little empathy towards others when you have been in the exact same position is to fail at a skill that is learned as early as age three. So perhaps let's cool it a little, and try to understand the other's perspective a little better here. If nothing else, you do owe it to Kalaam to give the specifics that they're asking for, as refusing to do so when expressing opinions with such certainty is a touch sketchy.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit that I think you're overselling this, Trip. Magus has some straightforward *incompatibilities* with most archetypes because its regular routine is so action-intensive. E.G., if magus barely is using its own stance, why would it use an archetype stance? The ideal action rotation is inflexible (due to being a melee priced into repeatedly doing 2a+1a). If I could get courageous anthem with lingering comp for a 1 feat pickup on melee magus, I don't even know if I'd want to take it—I'd really want someone else to cover the status bonus because I need to recharge spellstrike or move. You start bleeding spellstrikes if you spend actions on things other than spellstrike and recharge. If literally no one else in the party could or would provide the status bonus, I'd grudgingly pick it up—and probably be using arcane cascade and conflux spells a lot more to try to compensate. This would admittedly be a more engaging and interesting rotation, but it would be significantly less effective than SPELLSTRIKE GO BRR. Magus would much rather be buffed than perform buffs.
There's a reason, beyond the damage increase, that the archetypes people take with magus are usually things that upgrade spellstrike. There's just not a ton of room in the rotation for anything else without bleeding damage. A magus will underperform if it's not spellstriking consistently. It is your primary damage source. It's not a "cry me a river" thing if doing other stuff is notably worse.
This becomes especially true of a magus without an archetype that gives them a good focus spell; cantrip spellstriking is significantly below slotted spellstriking and is also noticeably below the bar set by other martials when you account for the recharge cost, and you will run out of slotted spellstrikes pretty fast.
I do suspect that (as discussed hundreds of posts ago) paizo likely intended magus to have an on-turn/off-turn rotation, with a spellstrike turn typically followed by a less rigid recharge turn. That way of playing magus is more flexible, does less damage, is less starved for slotted spells to spellstrike with, and has more room for archetyping. But that's ultimately not how magus turned out in practice. You want to have as many on-turns in a row as you can muster, and that does not play well with most archetypes.
tl;dr: There isn't some "embarrassment of riches" problem, because a melee magus isn't really hitting its damage benchmark if it starts using actions on things unrelated to spellstriking.
Exactly.
Which is why, after the playtest feedback I was expecting it to get some actions or strikes etc that can be used on recharge turns to setup up for the next spellstrike.
Like an action that can inflict a save penalty against saves for a turn (which would also support other casters in the group), or anything really.
But in the end it feels like too many feats just upgrade spellstrike and not enough give you other stuff to do on your off-turns. You can have spell parry, using some buffs with conflux spells (hasted assault, runic impression, cascade countermeasures etc) which usually double as a recharge so either you move and strike if need be, or you could do those and spellstrike right away again. It *works* but it feels more rigid than intended.