| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys talk about D&D 5E...
The Magus should be the Eldritch Knight, especially with the removal of any OGL material.
Like I said, casting in melee is a death sentence for any spellcaster, but it shouldn't be for the Magus.
The Magus should juggle spells and strikes no problem.
JiCi, how often do you think attacks of opportunity occur ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus should be the Eldritch Knight, especially with the removal of any OGL material...
...The Magus should juggle spells and strikes no problem.
Sounds like you disagree with Paizo's whole Magus class design philosophy here. The class simply wasn't designed as "I strike and I cast." It was designed as "I combine magic and martialry into a single big strike."
Frankly I don't see that changing in any remastered Magus. Remastered classes are basically small tweaks only. So if what you want is a wholesale revamp or an entire second core feature added, you're probably better off looking at PF Infinite options, because no matter how long a thread we produce in the forums, that sort of big change is highly, highly unlikely.
That "single big strike" is hampered by... "the spell effect may not work at all" instead of "here's a spell that discharges if I successfully strike you".
See it like this: if a gunslinger puts their pistol right on an opponent's chest and presses the trigger, the opponent takes the blast at point-blank range without any chance of dodging.
Spellstriking should behave like this, regardless of the spell, Reflex save bonuses be damned.
JiCi, how often do you think attacks of opportunity occur ?
Enough to NOT cast in melee...
Either you DM only picks monsters and ennemies with reactions, or you vastly over estimate how often those happen.
Also, a reaction will usually only distrupt the spell if they critically hit you.
I may be wrong, since this is a figure pulled from my memory of other conversations on the subject. But I think only about 15% of bestiary monsters have Reactive Strike.
I may be wrong, since this is a figure pulled from my memory of other conversations on the subject. But I think only about 15% of bestiary monsters have Reactive Strike.
And if I remember right, a majority is in higher levels too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That "single big strike" is hampered by... "the spell effect may not work at all" instead of "here's a spell that discharges if I successfully strike you".
See it like this: if a gunslinger puts their pistol right on an opponent's chest and presses the trigger, the opponent takes the blast at point-blank range without any chance of dodging.
Spellstriking should behave like this, regardless of the spell, Reflex save bonuses be damned.
Your point-blank shot example still would use AC within the game logic, as would a spellstrike with an attack spell only be using AC within the game logic. Now should save-based spells go by the same logic? IIRC I think Paizo went this direction in the playtest for the Magus and the feedback they got was one reason they changed it (please correct me if I'm wrong here, that playtest feels like ages ago). As it happens, maybe there is some internally consistent logic here for why expansive spellstrike doesn't follow that logic?
Consider, one thing that isn't often talked about regarding Expansive Spellstrike is that the harmful, non-attack, spell in question still activates even if the original strike misses; though it is lost with no effect if the original strike critically misses. So perhaps the save-dependent spell isn't so much imbued with the strike as it is riding on the proverbial coattails of the strike?
Even if my suggestion isn't how the internal logic goes, there's room for interpretation, as with all fiction, that the subject can still resist the spell that made contact with them, in the case of fortitude and will saves, or roll with the blow, for want of a better term in the case of reflex saves. Wouldn't you try to shield your face if fire or acid splashed up from your torso?
Consider, one thing that isn't often talked about regarding Expansive Spellstrike is that the harmful, non-attack, spell in question still activates even if the original strike misses; though it is lost with no effect if the original strike critically misses. So perhaps the save-dependent spell isn't so much imbued with the strike as it is riding on the proverbial coattails of the strike?
Hence why I call it Spell Combat 2e lol (affectionately)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I GM for a player that almost always plays a Magus of some kind in my games, and he always has a blast and the character contributes a lot to all arenas of play. So, no, I don't think they need some power boost as they are already a fun and effective class - but some of the suggestions in this thread to smooth out some small wrinkles could be cool.
That's really all the class needs, ironing out and all that.
And maybe some buffs to specific subclass features that are a bit underpowered compared to others. (I'd be down to have Thunderous Strike and feat and give to Inexorable iron a conflux spell that turns their weapon giant for the strike, adding 5, 10, 15ft to its reach as you get higher ranks. As a way to get around the range issues you sometime have. Plus it's funny to have a big ass weapon that hits 20ft away lol)
You guys talk about D&D 5E...
The Magus should be the Eldritch Knight, especially with the removal of any OGL material.
Like I said, casting in melee is a death sentence for any spellcaster, but it shouldn't be for the Magus.
The Magus should juggle spells and strikes no problem.
TBH, the whole appeal of the magus going back to PF1 is that it's not the eldritch knight. The eldritch knight is a fighter who also sometimes cast spells, but there's very little connectivity to the kit, and war magic is a tragic spellstrike analog.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That "single big strike" is hampered by... "the spell effect may not work at all" instead of "here's a spell that discharges if I successfully strike you".
See it like this: if a gunslinger puts their pistol right on an opponent's chest and presses the trigger, the opponent takes the blast at point-blank range without any chance of dodging.
Spellstriking should behave like this, regardless of the spell, Reflex save bonuses be damned.
Your point-blank shot example still would use AC within the game logic, as would a spellstrike with an attack spell only be using AC within the game logic. Now should save-based spells go by the same logic? IIRC I think Paizo went this direction in the playtest for the Magus and the feedback they got was one reason they changed it (please correct me if I'm wrong here, that playtest feels like ages ago). As it happens, maybe there is some internally consistent logic here for why expansive spellstrike doesn't follow that logic?
Consider, one thing that isn't often talked about regarding Expansive Spellstrike is that the harmful, non-attack, spell in question still activates even if the original strike misses; though it is lost with no effect if the original strike critically misses. So perhaps the save-dependent spell isn't so much imbued with the strike as it is riding on the proverbial coattails of the strike?
Even if my suggestion isn't how the internal logic goes, there's room for interpretation, as with all fiction, that the subject can still resist the spell that made contact with them, in the case of fortitude and will saves, or roll with the blow, for want of a better term in the case of reflex saves. Wouldn't you try to shield your face if fire or acid splashed up from your torso?
Because if you're adding an attack roll to essentially a save spell, there's should be something better about it.
Let's say, you're Casting Frostbite. The target gets a save.
Now let's say, you're spellstriking with Frostbite. You must hit the target's AC... and that target still gets a save.
There's nothing beneficial of spellstriking with a save spell. That's why I kept asking for a save penalty or a save increase based on the Magus's weapon proficiency bonus or that on a critically successful strike, the traget gets NO save at all IF it's a Reflex save.
That remaining 3rd action will likely be used for recharging your Spellstrike, activating Arcane Cascade or get the heck out of the opponent's reach.
Before adding Sure Strike and Slow, I don't expect any party to carry/prepare 10 of these each.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are multiple benefits:
-You are doing spell+strike in two actions instead of three, and can hopefully recharge with some kind of action-compressing ability like magus's analysis or a conflux spell. The action economy on this is better than just casting the spell and then striking.
-You get access to interesting targeting options if you are Starlit Span or have a reach weapon
-You are able to deal fairly serious AoE while performing a single-target strike
-Your spellstrike can still do something if you miss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are multiple benefits:
-You are doing spell+strike in two actions instead of three, and can hopefully recharge with some kind of action-compressing ability like magus's analysis or a conflux spell. The action economy on this is better than just casting the spell and then striking.
-You get access to interesting targeting options if you are Starlit Span or have a reach weapon
-You are able to deal fairly serious AoE while performing a single-target strike
-Your spellstrike can still do something if you miss
I'll ask again: why use a save spell instead of an attack spell for Spellstrike?
I use Ray of Frost, it automatically hits with my strike.
I use Frostbite, it can do less damage than expected and/or miss, even if I critically hit with my strike.
Oh, and I don't need an extra feat to use Frostbite with Spellstrike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only change that'd be nice to have on that is just a penalty to the primary target's save on a hit/crit and that's about it really.
Or allow to use any spells so you can also buff yourself and attack, or place a wall and attack etc etc
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are multiple benefits:
-You are doing spell+strike in two actions instead of three, and can hopefully recharge with some kind of action-compressing ability like magus's analysis or a conflux spell. The action economy on this is better than just casting the spell and then striking.
-You get access to interesting targeting options if you are Starlit Span or have a reach weapon
-You are able to deal fairly serious AoE while performing a single-target strike
-Your spellstrike can still do something if you miss
I'll ask again: why use a save spell instead of an attack spell for Spellstrike?
I use Ray of Frost, it automatically hits with my strike.
I use Frostbite, it can do less damage than expected and/or miss, even if I critically hit with my strike.Oh, and I don't need an extra feat to use Frostbite with Spellstrike.
Because it does something other than single target damage - it is objectively a worse choice to use it for a spell that just does single target damage. It opens up your options - it allows you to debuff an enemy at the same time as Striking them, or it allows you to do multitarget-damage at the same time as Striking one target. It's a very powerful option as-is, and I don't see any way within the vague confines of the magus class to turn a crit on your attack roll into a crit fail on an enemy's save without it getting very imbalanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstriking with something like cone of cold has the potential to catch a huge amount of enemies in the AoE. Your save progression/INT does decrease the expected damage of this somewhat compared to a full caster, but it's still pretty good to hit 3+ enemies with one spell. 10d6 against 3 enemies with a basic reflex save compares favorably to one amped IW in raw damage, particularly if you're starlit span and decided to invest in INT.
Spellstriking with something like cone of cold has the potential to catch a huge amount of enemies in the AoE. Your save progression/INT does decrease the expected damage of this somewhat compared to a full caster, but it's still pretty good to hit 3+ enemies with one spell. 10d6 against 3 enemies with a basic reflex save compares favorably to one amped IW in raw damage, particularly if you're starlit span and decided to invest in INT.
*hits the target with Howling Blizzard using an arrow*
*the target takes damage from the arrow**the target critically saves and takes no cold damage from the spell*
*the other targets take damage from the spell, which sprouts from the arrow lodged in the primary target*
Yeah, sure... logic... even by D&D / Pathfinder standards...
That's like jumping on a grenade, let it blow up and seeing everyone around you being hurt except you, who was directly on TOP of that grenade...
We're not talking about everyone being faster than Nappa in Dragonball Z, who could, no joke, dodge an explosion the millisecond it goes off. It was a kamikaze move by Chiaotzu, for fans.
That's what I want to remove/revise from Spellstrike. A reflex-based spell should result into an automatic failure for the primary target if I successfully strike them.
You want to add a roll? Fine, the target could roll a reflex save... but ONLY to check if it's not a critical failure. If that same target has an ability to treat success one step in their favor, sure it can apply here.
But for the love of Nethys, if you combining a Spell and a Strike, you should "take the better outcome".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell is not required to literally sprout from the single atom at the tip of the arrow at the time of impact. It hits the whole square. If you target one tiny creature with burning hands spellstrike in a square containing four tiny creatures, all of them must save.
It feels like you've been making increasingly odd nitpicks in service of a desire for expansive spellstrike to work in a way that would objectively and provably be out of line with other damage options. You have to acknowledge at some point that you need to make an abstraction to turn something into a game mechanic, and that abstraction will fail to perfectly click with logic—especially if you care about game balance.
The spell is not required to literally sprout from the single atom at the tip of the arrow at the time of impact. It hits the whole square. If you target one tiny creature with burning hands spellstrike in a square containing four tiny creatures, all of them must save.
It feels like you've been making increasingly odd nitpicks in service of a desire for expansive spellstrike to work in a way that would objectively and provably be out of line with other damage options. You have to acknowledge at some point that you need to make an abstraction to turn something into a game mechanic, and that abstraction will fail to perfectly click with logic—especially if you care about game balance.
This particular poster also wants Fighters to just be objectively better than they currently are, to the point there would be like no reason to play any other martial.
The ennemy is hit by the arrow but manages to remove it and avoid the blast of cold that goes past them.
There, narratively explained.
Also if you go for "you crit hit and they crit save" narrative: your shot went through, dealing big damage but sadly the spell came off from the top of the arrow, missing them."
Listen, it'd be nice to have a benefit to hitting the target with the spell, but making it a 1 to 1 could cause too many issues. A penalty or a degree of success reduction could work.
But for now the magus doesn't work like that, you're welcome to make suggestions, to explain your reasoning and all.
But we get it, it's fine, you're being annoying right now. Take a step back and go drink some water, you won't get anything done just kicking and screaming.
You guys will probably change your tune once your Spellstrike fails several times in a row due to some lucky rolls form the target...
All I'm asking is for the Spellstrike's primary target to have a harder time resisting spells and you are all like "No! It would break the game!". When the class feature's main gimmick doesn't 100% work, there's a problem.
Instead of bashing me like crazy, how about you simply prove to me HOW broken would it be if Spellstrike allowed you to add your Weapon Proficiency bonus to a save DC.
Like I keep saying, if I'm combining both a Spell and a Strike, it should be stronger than either action if used separately.
The trade-offs are that I'm in melee most of the time (when most spellcasters often remain out of reach), must spend an action to recharge Spellstrike, must spend an action to activate Arcane Cascade, and the spell is expended whether it hits or not. That's plenty of weaknesses to warrant a higher DC.
Geez it's like how some archetypes allow you to use poison and make them more dangerous and harder to resist. Spellstrike should be no different from that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
JiCi if you instead went straight to the point and suggested "use your weapon prof as spell DC for the primary target" or "add weapon potency rune bonus to the DC of the primary target/as a penalty" or stuff like that it would have been much simpler.
Several people, me included, suggested things like a circumstance penalty to the save on a successful hit.
But you're not listening.
JiCi if you instead went straight to the point and suggested "use your weapon prof as spell DC for the primary target" or "add weapon potency rune bonus to the DC of the primary target/as a penalty" or stuff like that it would have been much simpler.
Several people, me included, suggested things like a circumstance penalty to the save on a successful hit.
But you're not listening.
Because your -2 penalty is a joke...
Make it -2 for Trained, -4 for Expert, -6 for Master, -8 for Legendary and -10 for Mythic and THEN it's gonna be better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because your -2 penalty is a joke...
Make it -2 for Trained, -4 for Expert, -6 for Master, -8 for Legendary and -10 for Mythic and THEN it's gonna be better.
I think this is where it would help to apply a bit of math in order to set a clearer picture:
As a class with a physical key attribute and an Int spellcasting ability, the Magus can max out their Int mod at +5 at level 20 (not counting the increase from an apex item, which a Magus is unlikely to take for Intelligence). This is a relative -2 compared to the +7 mod of your typical spellcaster. Additionally, the Magus's spellcasting proficiency goes up to master at 17th level, itself a -2 compared to the legendary spellcasting proficiency full casters get at 19th level, for a total of a relative -4. Thus, within this framework, if a Magus can give themselves a relative +4 to their spell DC, they would be on par with a full caster. Anything above that would cause them to exceed this threshold, so on those grounds I would much prefer not to exceed a -4 penalty.
On top of this, though, we have to consider relative differences not just at 20th level, but at earlier levels too: at 1st level, a Magus wanting to opt into better spellcasting is likely to go for a +2 Int mod, so compared to a regular spellcaster they only start off at a relative -2 to their spell DC. A -2 penalty to the target's save would therefore equalize you with a full caster to begin with, so we probably wouldn't want to exceed that just yet. In fact, with just this penalty you can even exceed a full caster's accuracy at 5th level (where you can boost your Int to +3 while the full caster's key attribute mod stays at a +4), which is probably fine for the 2 levels at which that lasts. At 7th level, you do fall behind by 1 (with the bonus), at 9th level you get ahead once more by 1, equalize at 10th level, fall behind by 2 at 15th level, equalize at 17th level, and fall behind by 2 at 19th level, where you then stay that way.
A -2 penalty on the opponent therefore eliminates quite a bit of the gap, equalizing you with casters for 11 of the game's levels, and even lets you pull ahead of a few casters for three levels, so I'd say that's a pretty good baseline to have. A -3 or -4 penalty on a crit would allow you to at worst match and often exceed casters, which is fine when you roll that well, so I'd say that all else held equal, that would be enough to let a Magus use save spells with full caster-grade or full caster-adjacent accuracy.
Thanks Teridax.
There we have a comprehensible, clear explanation of a possible change that would be balanced (at least arguably balanced in my opinion).
So please daddy paizo: give us targetted saves on base spellstrike and AoEs/anything else on Expansive Strike/Spell Combat pretty please?
I'm a little curious if we might be able to have more spells that might have a choice to cast them as either a Save spell or an Attack Spell. That would help the Magus, giving them more target spells, but also gives more choices for invoking individual potentially memorized spells.
There could probably be numerous spells that could have an attack option to the spell, switching the target to a single target and adding the attack trait and making it switch to going against AC.
There might also be legitimate options for spells being made which might have an Attack trait option which might allow for an attack roll, but might offer the option to target against the creatures Reflex/Fortitude/Will DC instead of against their AC. (or allow targeting whichever is lower) These would be great for Magus, but would have some use for other spellcasters as well. It might also be interesting to see some spells with Agile trait.
The issue is it's not the same balancing you go through between and attack and save spell, even for a single target.
Save spells might have stronger effects, because the assumption is that more often than not powerful ennemies (aka not Level -3 mooks) will succeed and suffer half damage or partial effects (like the effect for 1 round instead of 1 minute)
On an attack spell, which usually are only damage (but not always) it's all or nothing but with a higher damage per target. At least that's my experience.
There is one spell I can think of that kind of does that double duty thing and it's Horizon Thunder Sphere where spending an additional action makes a failed attack function like a successful save (half damage).
But the cost is an extra action for hightened reliability, which would make it uncompatible with spellstrike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Teridax.
There we have a comprehensible, clear explanation of a possible change that would be balanced (at least arguably balanced in my opinion).
So please daddy paizo: give us targetted saves on base spellstrike and AoEs/anything else on Expansive Strike/Spell Combat pretty please?
IMO, it isn't balanced, because you're doing a strike at the same time for more burst to that target than a primary caster while still doing AoE. One of the whole points of doing AoE is a target is likely to fail their save so you can focus them down afterwards; but somehow, the magus is getting to do both steps of this process at once. That is not okay.
In the big picture, a Magus casting cone of cold with spellstrike should never be better at it than a sorcerer. But now we've got to imagine frickin' Starlit Span shooting cones off from 100ft away with better targeting options than the Sorc while starting with +3 INT. That is absolutely not balanced at all, and even a melee magus with a reach weapon still has a lot of targeting options a caster doesn't while further having a lot of survivability a caster doesn't when they cast such a spell. Yes, magus has fewer spells a day, but I think we're crossing lines we shouldn't cross here.
I'd also be worried about the balance of a magus that gets to pick up an AoE focus spell in this situation, especially (again) Starlit Span.
I agree, the problem with any mechanic interacting with Starlit Span is generally Starlit Span itself. Delivering melee-range spells from a distance is already an issue, but being able to do so every round, rather than every two rounds, causes the subclass to vastly outdamage competitors despite also providing more safety and depending on fewer attributes. While I don't endorse piling AoE on top of single-target damage on top of accuracy improvements on top of action cost deferment, I think dropping either the AoE (for a more accurate, single-target Expansive Spellstrike) or the accuracy improvement (for Kalaam's proposed Spell Combat) could be just fine, and any abusive interaction with Starlit Span should be addressed by fixing Starlit Span.
Thanks Teridax.
There we have a comprehensible, clear explanation of a possible change that would be balanced (at least arguably balanced in my opinion).
So please daddy paizo: give us targetted saves on base spellstrike and AoEs/anything else on Expansive Strike/Spell Combat pretty please?
IMO, it isn't balanced, because you're doing a strike at the same time for more burst to that target than a primary caster while still doing AoE. One of the whole points of doing AoE is a target is likely to fail their save so you can focus them down afterwards; but somehow, the magus is getting to do both steps of this process at once. That is not okay.
In the big picture, a Magus casting cone of cold with spellstrike should never be better at it than a sorcerer. But now we've got to imagine frickin' Starlit Span shooting cones off from 100ft away with better targeting options than the Sorc while starting with +3 INT. That is absolutely not balanced at all, and even a melee magus with a reach weapon still has a lot of targeting options a caster doesn't while further having a lot of survivability a caster doesn't when they cast such a spell. Yes, magus has fewer spells a day, but I think we're crossing lines we shouldn't cross here.
I'd also be worried about the balance of a magus that gets to pick up an AoE focus spell in this situation, especially (again) Starlit Span.
To be fair, only the primary target suffers a penalty, everything elses rolls against a DC lower than a primary caster by 2 to 4 points, and the primary rolls with a DC more or less equal.
The Magus also has way less spell slots so they can't do it has often, and it takes them actions and all to reset.Though as you point out: focus spells are the wrench tossed into it there, because it circumvent the whole thing that balances Magus: limited spellslots.
This is my exact argument: you cannot change magus is any substantial way because Focus Spells are just too good on it.
I think something that is being missed with tying the saves of the spell part of Spellstrike is that this change would impact *players* as well.
Would you, as a *player* be happy with the DM saying something like this:
"Ok, the enemy magus makes a Spellstrike with his halberd. He rolled a 20, so you're crit. It's greater striking, with no other runes for 3d10+whatever damage, doubled, and he was using Distintegrate. He crit you, so you have auto-crit fail (or down two on whatever you roll, one from the proposed changes, and one from the spell), so take 24d10 more untyped damage."
As Deriven has said more than once in this thread, Magus might be the best-balanced class in the game. It's great the way it is; it does not need changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tying the result directly is a no go, we already discussed that. A penalty would be fair.
And no, Magus isn't the best balanced class or else we wouldn't have this argument lol.
As I said just above: the class design is warped by Focus Spells getting around the whole way the class is meant to be balanced and invalidates a lot of class feats and features. That's an issue.
A fighter doesn't need to multiclass into, I dunno, barbarian to suddenly ignore one of its weaknesses for example.
Think about it, if you just take 1 feat (psychic dedic and go to grab psychic's ignition) you now have a d12 repeatable damage spell, dealing the same damage as Shocking Grasp.
And if you'd rather get Imaginary Weapon, that's 3 feats, or 4 to get both of those. An investment sure, but that's just better than a lot of what magus has access too (without taking into account free archetype)
This massively frees up what its spells slots can be used for, rather than it being a trade between bursts of damage and versatility.
It's quite litteraly too good.
The action economy also has issues by being too monotone quite often, and arcane cascade having issue slotting into it justifiably. (Only one who doesn't care is Starlit Span because no need to move sooooo just spellstrike as 3 action activity every round)
That's what is being discussed, in part: what can be changed to make it work better.
And one of the issue is: whenever you change something, some people will argue against it because damage is fine. Or it's already OP. Or "what are you complaining about, you have the highest damage with focus spells !"
It's not about making magus OP, it's about making it work in more fun ways.
Would you, as a *player* be happy with the DM saying something like this:
"Ok, the enemy magus makes a Spellstrike with his halberd. He rolled a 20, so you're crit. It's greater striking, with no other runes for 3d10+whatever damage, doubled, and he was using Distintegrate. He crit you, so you have auto-crit fail (or down two on whatever you roll, one from the proposed changes, and one from the spell), so take 24d10 more untyped damage."
As Deriven has said more than once in this thread, Magus might be the best-balanced class in the game. It's great the way it is; it does not need changes.
As was also said in response to Deriven when they said that exact same thing, most of the suggestions that did propose this would not work like that on disintegrate to begin with, and from what I'm seeing only one person is advocating for that kind of power.
However, in even more direct response to this: the argument of "would you like this PC-based mechanic done to your PC" is not as solid as it looks, because PCs and NPCs don't play by the same design rules to begin with. For instance, enemies typically die without going through recovery checks, but that doesn't mean we have to take recovery checks away from PCs either. Never mind that the party Magus can already literally one-shot a boss at low levels with a lucky crit, the fact that they can crit for massive damage is okay even if it wouldn't be as okay on a NPC (though NPCs can certainly do this too). Of all the arguments to use against a design feature, "this would feel bad if it applied to the PCs", isn't very good.
As Deriven has said more than once in this thread, Magus might be the best-balanced class in the game. It's great the way it is; it does not need changes.
Really...?
Without Expansive Spellstrike, there are only 8 cantrips and 15 ranked spells, in the entire remastered Arcane Spell List, can be used, since these have the Attack trait. In Legacy, there are additional 2 cantrips and 4 ranked spells that can be used.Oh, and that's without adding all the restrictions, such as "no more than 2-action casting", "single target only" and "no metamagic".
So excuse me if I keep asking for Expansive Spellstrike to be a little more appealing when it comes to a wider spell list without even MORE restrictions.
So I'd been thinking about how the class interacts with focus spells, and they're almost at a good point mechanically considering you have to decide wether to spend 1 of 3 points on your conflux spells to recharge, or just using them to blast. I think if you applied more pressure to use conflux spells, it could help mitigate the focus on focus spells.
What if you had to use a conflux spell to recharge your spell strike while you have focus points in your pool, only getting to use the single action recharge once you're empty?
This would slow down the use of focus spells just a little bit, and would be easy enough to add onto the class without major disruption.
Of course all of the conflux spells could use a balance pass, as has been mentioned already.I was also looking at making it so when rolling initiative, you could choose wether your start the fight already in arcane cascade or have your spell strike charged, which would give you options right off the bat for how you'll tackle a fight.
But at the same time this would nerf all magi who don't use focus spells for spellstrike as well.
It's extremely frustrating that we have to consider balancing a class around stuff that isn't even from it
Between those 10 cantrips you can target almost every weakness in the game. And in expansive and you catch the few you missed. So no it's not a lot but how many more do you need? Honestly is it just for flavor sake?
I'd expect most damaging cantrips to be usable via Spellstrike without Expansive Spellstrike, not just 8 out of 48.
And you are way overstating both getting hit by reactive strike and spellstrike failing. As to your whole wait until you've missed several times in a row argument, that applies to any and every class in the game. It is not unique to the Magus. And as for the reactive strike stopping you from spellstriking or somehow being overly punishing is patently false. Creatures with reactive strike make up less than 20% of the bestiary and most of those are higher levels. And yes I've played several Magi across different campaigns with different GMs, some homebrew campaigns and some AP's and I took a grand total of 1 reactive strike and it wasn't a crit so my spellstrike still went off.
Because due to me stepping into melee, rolling for a Strike and expending a spell slot, I'd expect something decent than just "1 less action required".
I think you will probably get that 'wider spell list'. One place where Paizo is not shy about adding capability is in adding more spells in each relevant supplement. That also poses little to no game balance issue (so long as the spells themselves are not OP) and doesn't require any change to how the class feats and features function. I expect Rival Academies will have a bunch of stuff for Arcane casters in particular.
Sure, of course they can... or they could screw us like Rage of the Elements and making less Attack spells.
Seriously, give me a metamagic that slaps the Attack trait on any harmful spell (replacing saves and targets in some cases) AND the ability to use a metamagic spell on Spellstrike. I'd take a "3-action" Spellstrike if it means I can use more spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"1 fewer action required" is so strong it carries the entire summoner chassis. You are wildly underselling how good that is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm comming back to this thread since its been a hot minute since I last engaged here (300 or so comments ago to be precise) and I want to echo the sentiment that the magus is class probably one of the better made classes in the system, though it has some rough edges that need polish.
I played (2) inexorable iron, laughing shadow, and sparkling targe magi and the only real problem I have with the class is arcane cascade. I don't know why it bothers giving you a (fairly meaningless) boost to damage when the class is already the definitive nova single-hit striker of the system, not to mention that I also find horrible that every subclass that isn't starlit span needs to be in arcane cascade to benefit from it. The class has already the action tax of needing to recharge spellstrike built-in and thats more than enough and line with the rest of martials in the system that usually require a 1A set up to benefit from their features.
Thinking about a more interesting option than "remove it" (though I would certainly remove it for simplicity) I think it would be welcomed if arcane cascade did something else than give you a lackluster damage boost. That or boost arcane cascade so it becomes a meaningful option for those that would want to play a more eldritch knight-y gish that doesn't rely on spellstriking as much. Something like a 1A stance that gives you a (hopefully higher) boost to damage as long as you don't have spellstrike, but that you can't dismiss as a free action to recharge spellstrike (you already spent the action to enter the stance, after all).