It's interesting how even those in the "change the Magus camp" seem to eventually admit that Starlit Span doesn't actually have those problems, and thus want to actively create a problem for it so that their proposed changes are now necessary.I have literally just explained how Starlit Span is extremely repetitive as a result of having no reason to do anything but Spellstrike + recharge. Pretending that I did not make this criticism is incredibly disingenuous, and claiming that I "eventually admitted that Starlit Span doesn't actually have those problems" is straight-up lying.
Like, the thing you seem to just be missing is that "samey rotation" is not a problem for people playing Starlit Span. It's a feature. The entire point of picking it is so you can Spellstrike the crap out of everything."I personally enjoy this thing, so everybody else's criticism is objectively invalid" is not exactly the best mentality to take into a feedback discussion. The entire point of Starlit Span is to be able to play a ranged Magus, not to spam Spellstrike; it is you and a tiny handful of others who co-opted this incidental aspect of the Magus that has been rightly criticized by many more, including those who have played the subclass, for encouraging no meaningful decision-making and being ultra-repetitive. That you would push back against criticism whose very existence you are simultaneously trying to deny highlights the defensiveness behind this stance.
You're literally proposing artificially breaking that by adding a limitation so you can "fix" it by adding other things to do while your limitation is in effect. The easier solution is to accept that it's not actually broken in the first place and that maybe the playstyle it offers just isn't for you."Let's just pretend this problem doesn't exist so I can keep enjoying my poorly-designed brain rot build" is perhaps the easier solution, but it is also the one that continues to get the...
When I played a Starlit Span Magus, I also AoE hammered things.
I found the Magus feats very useful.
I think Scroll Striker is a good feat. I built up a scroll inventory that I viewed like Hawkeye's different arrow types.
Force Fang
Expansive Spellstrike
Runic Impression
Scroll Striker
Standby Spell with a good AOE spell I upgraded as I leveled
Supreme Spellstrike
Then you can use the other feats for an archetype, usually psychic to get imaginary weapon though gouging claw is very good now too.
I found the play very efficient and powerful. I liked softening targets with a big AOE before shifting to the spellstrike hammer.
The simplest solution of not changing of who likes it now and people that wants more variation on action, it's mostly more conflux spell options, the class already have a few, but more specially lower level options would do wonders. Strikes imbued with energy, sword beams, teleports and so on.
And I find funny people talking about using spellslots for spellstrike, I find way more effective to use in stuff like Walls spells per example, you get them at the same level as a spellcaster, and something like wall of water change the flow of the battle like crazy. And while I don't use it, I would not like that people that enjoy it to loss that option by default, the playtest of the class years ago did show that this is something that most players want.
PF2 combats are short.
Simplest solution for players wanting something different is play a different class, pick up Magus archetype, spellstrike once a combat then do other things.
I am currently playing a fighter with magus archetype. I spellstrike once a combat and do other things. I try to set the spellstrike up for a key hit.
In an efficient party, fights won't last too long. So one spellstrike per combat should be fine if you want to do other stuff other than spellstrike.
Out of curiosity, refining what I said earlier: how would people feel about the ability to do a 1A melee Spellstrike at -5, with the additional caveat that you cannot cast non-conflux spells afterwards until you've recharged your spellstrike? Goals are as before—to make it easier to get a third action without substantially increasing the Magus's damage output for that turn.
Personal concerns/thoughts:
-Would it risk increasing their damage output too much over the fight, because of easier access to AC? Does the -5 MAP offset this enough?
-Might need to be a feat
-Might be more fun if entering AC also lets you cast again
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I personally enjoy this thing, so everybody else's criticism is objectively invalid" is not exactly the best mentality to take into a feedback discussion. The entire point of Starlit Span is to be able to play a ranged Magus, not to spam Spellstrike; it is you and a tiny handful of others who co-opted this incidental aspect of the Magus that has been rightly criticized by many more, including those who have played the subclass, for encouraging no meaningful decision-making and being ultra-repetitive. That you would push back against criticism whose very existence you are simultaneously trying to deny highlights the defensiveness behind this stance.
Pretty bold of you to make this criticism while also saying this:
"Let's just pretend this problem doesn't exist so I can keep enjoying my poorly-designed brain rot build" is perhaps the easier solution, but it is also the one that continues to get the Magus rightly called out for having a poorly-designed brain rot build, among many other problems.
You know what this sounds like? The Bad Wrong Fun Police.
You do know there's a difference between "pretend a problem doesn't exist" and "not think its actually a problem at all, right?"
PF1 Magus was always a class that specialized in doing a thing and doing it very well. PF2 Magus is similar. You consider that a problem, and right now you're universally declaring that its thus a problem and anyone who doesn't agree its a problem is pretending that its not.
Nope, sorry. It's just not a problem on Starlit Span: it's how the class its built to work. The solution to that is not "redesign the class to be the one I think it should be", it's "this class playstyle isn't for me, I'll go play something else and leave the people that like it alone."
I am proposing to remove several limits around Spellstrike by removing the recharge requirement and having it work much better with save spells by default. I get that you've chosen to make Starlit Spam your personal hill to die on here, but if we could perhaps not tunnel-vision so hard on that one poorly-designed subclass, we'd get to see that there are many more substantial benefits to be gained here, including to that playstyle where you'd get a broader range of spells to Spellstrike with and a third action to do different things on your Spellstrike turn.
You also proposed flat out adding a new limit to slow down Spellstrike, specifically so that people would be forced to do other things in between Spellstrike rounds. THAT is the part I object to, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten somehow.
I've got no problem with stuff like letting it work with other spells (tough I have questions about how it would work) or changing the recharge requirements so it's easier for melee. I have lots of objection to you deciding that since you don't like Starlit Span, you're going to break it at the same time to suit how you think the class should work.
That you can't tell the difference says a lot about the axe you have to grind here.
I would also argue that it is a fairly desperate reach to try to make this out like an Oracle situation, which I know is a pain point for you as well: the problem with that rework is that the class, which was heavily defined by its mysteries and curse, got both sidelined in favor of more generic power. What I am criticizing here, by contrast, is that several aspects of the Magus make it more generic than it ought to be due to a more restricted range of spells to choose from, and that Starlit Span's poor implementation makes the subclass extremely samey. If making Starlit Span into an actually well-designed subclass would be equivalent to the remastered Oracle to you, that speaks more to your preferences than anything else.
Not really: because fundamentally the Oracle remaster changed the class in a way that works better for people that didn't like it before at the expense of people that did like it.
As soon as your plan to fix Magus becomes "Starlit Span is too repetitive I think, so I'm going to force it to not be", you're going out of your way to break it for people that are quite content with the play style. You outed yourself when you called it a brain rot build: you clearly don't like it and are perfectly content to break it for people that do like it and already have characters that work that way.
And that is EXACTLY what happened with the remaster Oracle except it was Paizo doing the breaking.
Out of curiosity, refining what I said earlier: how would people feel about the ability to do a 1A melee Spellstrike at -5, with the additional caveat that you cannot cast non-conflux spells afterwards until you've recharged your spellstrike? Goals are as before—to make it easier to get a third action without substantially increasing the Magus's damage output for that turn.
Personal concerns/thoughts:
-Would it risk increasing their damage output too much over the fight, because of easier access to AC? Does the -5 MAP offset this enough?
-Might need to be a feat
-Might be more fun if entering AC also lets you cast again
You cut the action cost in half.
The spellstrike being done twice as fast is insane, no, a -5 MAP penalty is not enough to balance that.
Why are the normal 1A actions too poor for the prissy Magus to consider using?
Magus gets expert in weapons at L5, and has martial boosts via Arc Casc. Summoner is bound by Eidolon mechanics. Alchemist is stuck w/ simple weapons, lagging weapon prof, and no generic strike boosts at all.
This notion that Magus needs to be able to spellstrike in 1A is honestly outrageous. Magus needs to be satisfied with the countless other 1A options in the system, and be thankful they can Strike while still being a full list caster.
Like, the thing you seem to just be missing is that "samey rotation" is not a problem for people playing Starlit Span. It's a feature.I also would want to know why people are so adamantly against the magus having a simple rotation of actions. The magus isn't a weak class but it also isn't overpowered either, and the whole point of the magus in PF1e was to spellstrike every turn. People that play a magus want to spellstrike, and it just so happens that starlit span is the one magus subclass that allows you to do it without having to micro-manage your actions as much. The only hybrid studies I haven't played yet are the two new ones from the Tian Xia book (which honestly don't seem to appealing to me) and starlit span which I really would want to try at some point because I want to see how a magus that doesn't need to move / enter AC performs since the action economy is one of the things I like the least about the class.
I don't know either, but I wonder who they're playing with if they think other classes don't have repetitive tactics. My son's Fighter in Extinction Curse would use Scare to Death and Power Attack basically all the time, to the exclusion of basically everything else. Sounds pretty repetitive, but rolling 14d12 crits never gets old and Fighter is awfully good at making that happen (especially with the Bard using Inspire Courage every turn, which is also repetitive but something that nobody minds).
If you look closely at what folks are doing in combat (and as a GM, I do that a fair bit), you see patterns emerge pretty clearly. Lots of classes have a thing they want to do all the time. Starlit Span Magus is the worst offender, but it's not actually alone in that. Flurry Ranger comes to mind as another one. Melee Magus also would be doing that except that the nature of melee combat means that it can't as often. So maybe if this is a problem and the Starlit Span Magus is so dangerous, enemies should take note of that and charge them. Once you get something in their face or Grab them, they'll be forced to adjust tactics.
But yeah, if you let someone with a powerful ranged attack just stand still and shoot you without any threat, they're going to keep doing that. Why wouldn't they?
(It's also not like my Magus does NOTHING else. She's got Witch Dedication and has other things to do for when the situation actually requires them, it's just that if the situation is "take the enemies out", Spellstrike tends to be the best thing to do. Just like if you told my son's Fighter that, Power Attack is his go-to.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e isn't PF1e. PF1e is a game where it's perfectly normal to have a one-trick pony build that wins the game at character creation
I already know where this is going so I'll keep it brief. Having a simple rotation doesn't have anything to do and isn't nowhere near as similar as being a one trick pony. Despit what some people seem to think PF2e doesn't require Art of War levels of strategy and most classes are specialized to do one or two things in an efficient way. A TWF fighter likely uses Double Slice every round, a TWF ranger uses Twin Takedown, a ranged ranger uses Hunted Shot, etc. If you took some increases into Athletics you sometimes choose to not do your main thing to trip or grapple, or if you took increases into Medicine you instead heal that ally that is low on HP. The only real strategy PF2e has is to capitalize on your enemies' weaknesses once you know them through RK, choosing to trip rather than grapple because the foe has a low Reflex DC, but in a vacuum all classes, without exception, are fairly easy to play and have simple action rotations.
The only class that has a "complex" rotation are casters, and if the daily posts with everyone complaining about them doesn't tell as much, people don't like having to project themselves into the future to guess if an enemy is going to have a weak save to prepare spells that target it. This is also why people also complain about skill feats because most of them are situational, hence why people like Medicine skill feats because those are universally useful. People that optimally play the game don't prepare their whole build for "just in case" situations, they make characters that are more widely useful in multiple situations because the classes themselves already make you better in certain situations. A fighter isn't going to take both Double Slice and Power Attack "just in case" they want to two-hand a weapon at some point. If you took Double Slice you likely accomodated to the fact that you aren't going to have two free hands so the rest of your build likely goes in a certain, very specific direction. The magus doesn't even have the luxury of choosing their playstyle to this degree so their whole shtick revolves around spellstrike, so what people want to do is spellstrike. I'm not saying the class should only spellstrike, but the class in its current design doesn't really encourage much and the only reason why people don't do it every turn is because the game artificially restricts the class' actions with AC and recharges.
I'm not saying we should remove both, but we should remove at least one of those to make the class play more smoothly.
You cut the action cost in half.
The spellstrike being done twice as fast is insane, no, a -5 MAP penalty is not enough to balance that.
Why are the normal 1A actions too poor for the prissy Magus to consider using?
Magus gets expert in weapons at L5, and has martial boosts via Arc Casc. Summoner is bound by Eidolon mechanics. Alchemist is stuck w/ simple weapons, lagging weapon prof, and no generic strike boosts at all.
This notion that Magus needs to be able to spellstrike in 1A is honestly outrageous. Magus needs to be satisfied with the countless other 1A options in the system, and be thankful they can Strike while still being a full list caster.
Sure, it's strong. It's also extremely unreliable and nukes your ability to deal damage for the rest of the turn. You're typically only a bit over half as likely to hit at -5. Perhaps you would prefer -6 to make it more like half? And you have no viable strikes afterwards (you're at -10 MAP) and would only be able to cast a 1A spell at best. You're paying for efficiency now by making later actions less efficient. I should probably remove the ability to expansive spellstrike with it, though; that's a door that should be closed.
The issue for magus is simply that spellstrike is inflexible. Other classes typically have class actions or just better options to bridge their inflexibility. Magus does not. Other classes are also just... better than a melee magus. We are not talking about a contender for one of the best martial classes, here. Magus does do unique things, but it doesn't do them well enough to outstrip other martial options.
Also, I'll say this. Assuming you're right and this would bust the current class open... It's probably not popular to say, but I'd be happy to see the core chassis take hits to improve usability, particularly in its weapon options. Magus can take simple+a few bespoke choices for weapons, and either be reliant on subclasses or aechetyping for better proficiency if it frees up power budget.
You do realize that 2A spells are "inflexible" right?
Like, there's an entire feat to cast a lower than max R spell for 1A once per day.
To suggest that spellstrike should have the option for 1A is to ask for 3:1 action compression with the single activity most closely prevented from ever going below 2A. 2A spells really, really should not be 1A outside of exceptional circumstances.
It's insane to suggest that Magus, the class that already gets to be a martial at the same time, should be able to do that on the regular.
Seriously, take a step back and think things through here.
Magus action economy is the choice of the player. I think their action economy is fairly fluid with lots of quality options for modifying it. Their conflux spells recharging spellstrike make for a very fluid and effective play style.
You don't have to spellstrike every round. There is no need to modify the magus if they want to do other things. Just build to do those things and do them.
The only problems I've seen with the magus is the Reactive Strike activating from a melee spellstrike. This can be very painful and movement. If they had a conflux spell that allowed movement that wasn't hybrid specific, that would be nice.
Arcane Cascade could use some work. It's not enough bang for the buck and doesn't offer enough to build around. I tend to not even use it or think much about it when playing a magus, especially a Starlit Span magus where Arcane Cascade is a waste of an action.
What if while a Magus was in an Arcane Cascade, spellstrikes would not prompt reactive strikes? Or limit it so it stops reactive strikes from any opponents of your level or lower. (limiting you to having to worry primarily about boss creatures only)
I also like the potential of during an Arcane Cascade stance, if you cast a spell that does damage, you can have the cascade adopt the type of damage from the spell cast for the remainder of the cascade (or until adopting a later type).
As of yet, I haven't seen Reactive Strikes be a problem for magus's but I can understand the concern players might have with them. I don't have a problem with the idea of remedying the majority of those concerns for a key class feature such as SpellStrike. You could have the Arcane Cascade provide a +2 or even +4 AC bonus vs any Reaction strike a creature that gets to make a reactive strike against the magus during Arcane Cascade. (you could even make said action cause the Arcane Cascaded cause the arcane cascade damage to the individual attempting any reactive melee attack.)
Others indicated they didn't think Arcane Cascade was important enough, this gives extra use to it. The ability to -retrain- the extra damage being done by it after first instantiating it via latter spells increases its versatility. It does so without having to spend another extra action, but will typically require two actions in general (most damage dealing spells are two action) but those actions will provide their normal benefit, in addition to the granted side effect.
Actually, I have an interesting option for potentially an ability that could be bought as a feat, allowing the Magus to permit reactive strikes against their spellstrikes, but getting Arcane Cascade damage against the striker, but the however, the reactive strike will not interrupt the spellstrike, and the spell will have the effect determined by the higher of the Magus's attack, or the reactive melee attacks attack. Meaning that if the spellstrike misses, but the reactive strike hits, the Magus takes damage from the reactive strike, as usual, but the target takes the damage according to the quality of the reactive strikes hit. So if the reactive strike hits with a critical, the target takes damage according to a critical hit by the spell. If the target of the spellstrike was someone other than the maker of the reactive strike, the magus can choose to affect the target of the spellstrike, according to their attack roll, or target the reactive striker based on their attack roll, unless the spell would when not cast as a spellstrike would be able to target multiple targets, at which point they each take effect according to their respective rolls. Basically allowing yourself to provoke reactive strikes gives you a greater chance to nail someone with a Critical Hit with the Spell portion of their Spellstrike.
Actually, a feature inside Spellstrike simply saying Reactive Strikes against spellcasting do not interrupt the outcome of a spellstrike, might be enough to blunt some of the risk that being susceptible to reactive strikes presents to a Magus. This would be reasonable, especially if Arcane Cascade also potentially damages attackers who attack you with reactive strikes. An additional option, you might get Resistance to any Reactive Strike damage, equal to your current Arcane Cascade damage value, which might mitigate a little bit of damage if you do get hit.
Some times you have to Risk It for the Biscuit. I have to admit I've kind of enjoyed the fact that Reactive Strikes are as rare as they are, because that meant I as GM managed to get a strike in recently because the party's magus stepped forward towards a giant scorpion giving its stinger a strike. People are often careful even in situations where they don't need to, and in other circumstances they forget, or they risk it anyway and give a chance to actually use the reaction. In the old rules, people were just always locked down without movement unless they invested in specific abilities to allow them to move in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that 2A spells are "inflexible" right?
Like, there's an entire feat to cast a lower than max R spell for 1A once per day.
To suggest that spellstrike should have the option for 1A is to ask for 3:1 action compression with the single activity most closely prevented from ever going below 2A. 2A spells really, really should not be 1A outside of exceptional circumstances.
It's insane to suggest that Magus, the class that already gets to be a martial at the same time, should be able to do that on the regular.
Seriously, take a step back and think things through here.
I feel like by this logic, effects like flurry of blows (2 strikes for 1 action) or spellstrike shouldn't exist at all, let alone Bard songs (Dirge basically compresses a rank 3 fear cast into 1 action). It's genuinely okay for people to have nice things. Do you think everyone is going to start using spellstrike at -5 every turn? If you would still rather spellstrike with two actions when given the opportunity, it seems to me it's not particularly overpowered. Unless I'm missing something, you still would. What matters is average damage, not how many actions you compress. Doing a lot of poor actions at once isn't of much value; for example, striding three times and then doing a map -10 attack for 2a is 2:1 action compression, but doesn't strike me as particularly good for a character that can't do something good with their third action after, since you nuke your damage and 3 strides is usually overkill.
Magus action economy is the choice of the player. I think their action economy is fairly fluid with lots of quality options for modifying it. Their conflux spells recharging spellstrike make for a very fluid and effective play style.
You don't have to spellstrike every round. There is no need to modify the magus if they want to do other things. Just build to do those things and do them.
The only problems I've seen with the magus is the Reactive Strike activating from a melee spellstrike. This can be very painful and movement. If they had a conflux spell that allowed movement that wasn't hybrid specific, that would be nice.
Arcane Cascade could use some work. It's not enough bang for the buck and doesn't offer enough to build around. I tend to not even use it or think much about it when playing a magus, especially a Starlit Span magus where Arcane Cascade is a waste of an action.
What if while a Magus was in an Arcane Cascade, spellstrikes would not prompt reactive strikes? Or limit it so it stops reactive strikes from any opponents of your level or lower. (limiting you to having to worry primarily about boss creatures only)
I also like the potential of during an Arcane Cascade stance, if you cast a spell that does damage, you can have the cascade adopt the type of damage from the spell cast for the remainder of the cascade (or until adopting a later type).
As of yet, I haven't seen Reactive Strikes be a problem for magus's but I can understand the concern players might have with them. I don't have a problem with the idea of remedying the majority of those concerns for a key class feature such as SpellStrike. You could have the Arcane Cascade provide a +2 or even +4 AC bonus vs any Reaction strike a creature that gets to make a reactive strike against the magus during Arcane Cascade. (you could even make said action cause the Arcane Cascaded cause the arcane cascade damage to the individual attempting any reactive melee attack.)
Others indicated they...
I think at best Paizo could allow them maybe to not provoke AOOs with cantrips as an upgrade to Spellstrike down the line or as a feat.
It would be a hard sell to let them avoid reactive strikes for casting spells from slots with Spellstrike as that would screw regular casters who have to be careful about casting in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strike activities are usually divided in two categories, the normal amount of actions but ignore MAP for one of them (like Double Slice) and the other that reduces the number of actions by one (Like Flurry of Blows).
Spellstrike interesting enough, breaks that norm and do both in a way at the cost of having to recharge, if you just use an action to recharge it becomes something like a double slice, if uses a conflux spell you even go plus on the action economy.
An 1 action spellstrike, would need so many limitations that would not be fun to use (like being an unique action with Flourish trait plus the -5), or be absolutely broken, like allowing Expansive Spellstrike with it and now it have access to 1 actions Fireballs and other save spells, even if Magus have a lower DC it having access to all day Quickened spell would not feel good for the other Spellcasters).
And for reactive strike... putting manipulate trait on melee options is such a bad move, Thaumaturge have that problem as well and it sucks.
While I find easier to make arcane cascade a free action (currently I homebrew that), the suggestions of keeping the action but making it more useful with it recharging the spellstrike, or making that you don't provoke while on cascade, or even just be having the spellstrike charged you are on Cascade are all cool, I might implement one or another in the place of how I currently do.
I feel like by this logic, effects like flurry of blows (2 strikes for 1 action) or spellstrike shouldn't exist at all, let alone Bard songs (Dirge basically compresses a rank 3 fear cast into 1 action). It's genuinely okay for people to have nice things. Do you think everyone is going to start using spellstrike at -5 every turn? If you would still rather spellstrike with two actions when given the opportunity, it seems to me it's not particularly overpowered. Unless I'm missing something, you still would. What matters is average damage, not how many actions you compress. Doing a lot of poor actions at once isn't of much value; for example, striding three times and then doing a map -10 attack for 2a is 2:1 action compression, but doesn't strike me as particularly good for a character that can't do something good with their third action after, since you nuke your damage and 3 strides is usually overkill.You do realize that 2A spells are "inflexible" right?
Like, there's an entire feat to cast a lower than max R spell for 1A once per day.
To suggest that spellstrike should have the option for 1A is to ask for 3:1 action compression with the single activity most closely prevented from ever going below 2A. 2A spells really, really should not be 1A outside of exceptional circumstances.
It's insane to suggest that Magus, the class that already gets to be a martial at the same time, should be able to do that on the regular.
Seriously, take a step back and think things through here.
If "you can spellstrike for one action at -5 attack" was a feat, I bet almost every melee Magus would take it. It's INCREDIBLY good on any turn where you don't have 2 actions to spellstrike normally, which happens a lot in melee. It does so much more damage than a standard melee attack that it's worth paying the lower odds of landing it most of the time, especially if you've got support or debuffs helping tilt the numbers back towards you. Cutting your chance to hit by half to triple your damage is a good trade.
It's really not at all like Dirge, since using that is trading the opportunity cost of another composition unless you Harmonize and make that your entire turn, or you're a level 20 Maestro. It's quite a good composition, but you're doing it in place of Inspire Courage, not in place of "I didn't have the actions to Inspire Courage".
Spellstrike is already an action compressing action, so compressing it more is packing a ton of power into a single action. Flurry of Blows isn't really comparable at all.
Uh... maybe because I don't play in a vacuum and my team coordinates so that a tankier character pulls the reactive strikes before I spellstrike?
I think you're arguing against the wrong person here. Deriven is the one arguing that the Magus is contractually obligated to take a Reactive Strike to the face when Spellstriking; I'm the one arguing they shouldn't have to.
An opening turn can easily be: Cast Shield, enter Arcane Cascade, and Stride; or Blink Charge and enter Arcane Cascade.
This rather significantly misses the point that you are still pre-programming your turn here and expecting everything to go in such a way that this will always be the optimal play, when this is not how Pathfinder works in practice. If you can Stride and do all of this malarkey, you may as well Stride and Spellstrike, which would be the more impactful play. On some turns, you may not be able to do either, in which case you're SOL as you try to activate the stance with the highest action cost in the game.
The magus does not have a lot of feat support for single action attacks, meaning it won't have the combat role flexibility of a fighter. But that's okay, because not every class has to support every play style. What the Magus does, it does so well that it doesn't need an upgrade (IMO) to make it a valued class in the game.
But this isn't true either, because as you said, conflux spells are exactly the single-action Strike effects you say don't exist on the Magus. More of those would definitely help the Magus, and it would be even better if the class were not incentivized to multiclass into another class every time just to dump all of their Focus Points into even more Spellstrike damage. A class that's very good at just doing one kind of build and playing one kind of way each time I'd say is worth questioning when the class could easily be made to do a much greater variety of things using the same core feature, and only at the cost of the more extreme end of what they do well enough to not need to such an extent.
You know what this sounds like? The Bad Wrong Fun Police.
Do you even realize the level of entitlement that needs to go into seeing a thread that does not affect you, seeing that it puts forth an opinion you dislike, and still feeling personally targeted by it? This thread isn't about you, it never was. Yet you still came here and decided to make it about you, by acting like we shouldn't make any criticism of the Magus at all because you, Tridus, personally like a build that is heavily and rightfully criticized for being poorly-designed. I am doing nothing here but criticize a build that deserves criticism; whether you like it or not is irrelevant to me or this discussion. I am not telling you how to play your games, and you can continue enjoying your poorly-designed subclass however you like. Your personal enjoyment of this subclass, however, does not disallow me from criticizing it, and if you feel differently, that is not on me or anyone else who takes issue with Starlit Span's notoriously repetitive gameplay. It certainly does not entitle you to fabricate false claims just to try to make me the villain in this narrative you are so desperate to create.
PF1 Magus was always a class that specialized in doing a thing and doing it very well. PF2 Magus is similar. You consider that a problem, and right now you're universally declaring that its thus a problem and anyone who doesn't agree its a problem is pretending that its not.
As already pointed out, PF2e runs on fundamentally different design principles from PF1e. When I am pointing out that Starlit Span's design goes against the developers' stated intent for PF2e's gameplay as a whole, I can back up that statement, and am trying to put forth something that is useful to design discussion. You, by contrast, have decided that we shouldn't be having this discussion at all because you have personally decreed as such. If you do not like this discussion or find it worthy of having, nobody is forcing you to partake in it.
You also proposed flat out adding a new limit to slow down Spellstrike, specifically so that people would be forced to do other things in between Spellstrike rounds. THAT is the part I object to, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten somehow.
I've got no problem with stuff like letting it work with other spells (tough I have questions about how it would work) or changing the recharge requirements so it's easier for melee. I have lots of objection to you deciding that since you don't like Starlit Span, you're going to break it at the same time to suit how you think the class should work.
Yes, I am personally going to come to your house and break Starlit Span on your character sheet, just for you. Never mind that I'm simply posting a discussion thread on a forum that will likely have no real long-term impact on the game's design, much less affect play at your table, and proposing to improve the Magus's quality of life in various ways, including by letting Starlit Span actually have a worthwhile third action after Spellstriking; my aim here is purely to somehow find a way to force you to play differently.
Just in case it's not obvious, I'm being sarcastic here, and couldn't care less how you play at your table because, once again, this discussion isn't about you and doesn't revolve around your personal preferences. Less facetiously, I'm detecting a touch of fear here. Are you afraid that calling out the obvious and well-documented problems with your pet broken build will have Paizo change it in upcoming errata?
Not really: because fundamentally the Oracle remaster changed the class in a way that works better for people that didn't like it before at the expense of people that did like it.
"The Oracle was bad not because of commonly-identifiable factors, but purely because I thought it was bad, so if I dislike anything it must be exactly like the Oracle" isn't exactly the common line of argumentation, because most arguments made in criticism of the Oracle aren't quite as solipsistic. I stand by what I've said: the Oracle's remaster didn't work because it diluted the class's identity and defining features in favor of more generic power, the very opposite of what I'm suggesting here. Conflating the two makes little sense outside of an extremely contrived narrative aimed purely at dismissing criticism that targets a build you like.
I already know where this is going so I'll keep it brief. Having a simple rotation doesn't have anything to do and isn't nowhere near as similar as being a one trick pony. Despit what some people seem to think PF2e doesn't require Art of War levels of strategy and most classes are specialized to do one or two things in an efficient way.
A class does not need Art of War levels of strategic depth to have more variety in their actions than a Starlit Span Magus, and this false dichotomy fails to disguise the fact that whereas Starlit Span has a "simple rotation", i.e. the same 2 activities in a game that is not made for classes to have any "rotation" to speak of, every other class still has a much greater variety of things to do, including simpler martial classes like the Fighter. What is becoming apparent is that a lot of people here blindly defending the Magus appear to have this extremely pessimistic and reductive opinion of PF2e where there is apparently no variety or strategic choice to have at all, in order to justify a repetitive class with constrained options, and that you would try to claim that more choice is the reason why casters are criticized shows just how deeply lost in the sauce these arguments are. Casters aren't criticized for having choices, they're criticized for depending on daily resources and having their extreme versatility come at a cost of stricter balancing in several respects. Having interesting choices to make is not the enemy here, and I find it baffling that players would actively demand to have as little choice as possible in a game that bends over backwards to avoid this.
Out of curiosity, refining what I said earlier: how would people feel about the ability to do a 1A melee Spellstrike at -5, with the additional caveat that you cannot cast non-conflux spells afterwards until you've recharged your spellstrike? Goals are as before—to make it easier to get a third action without substantially increasing the Magus's damage output for that turn.
The issue I personally take with this is that I feel this makes the Magus flexible in a manner that I'd find detrimental to their variety of play overall: I think one of the fundamental limitations that makes the Magus interesting is that Spellstriking takes two actions, which means that as a melee combatant you'll struggle sometimes to make it happen. This I think is what causes the Magus to not be able to Spellstrike every turn, irrespective of the other action taxes they have right now. If the Magus could Spellstrike for a single action and then recharge on some other turn, that to me comes across as a two-action Spellstrike minus the recharge, but also with the flexibility of being able to Spellstrike for just one action on one turn and defer the action cost of the recharge to another. Thus, as much as I'd support removing the recharge entirely on a Spellstrike that were limited to weaker spells, i.e. cantrips (and no FP expenditure either to avoid amped imaginary weapon shenanigans), I'd still want to keep it as a two-action activity.
If AC has to stay it needs to have some kind of action compression since this is the direction Paizo is going for now it seems. AC recharging your spellstrike is the obvious one, though it would kinda clash with conflux spells
Actually, there's no clash. You cascade to enter your stance after spellstrike 1 at the beginning of the fight. Recharge with conflux after spellstrike 2. repeat until you are out of focus points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "you can spellstrike for one action at -5 attack" was a feat, I bet almost every melee Magus would take it. It's INCREDIBLY good on any turn where you don't have 2 actions to spellstrike normally, which happens a lot in melee. It does so much more damage than a standard melee attack that it's worth paying the lower odds of landing it most of the time, especially if you've got support or debuffs helping tilt the numbers back towards you. Cutting your chance to hit by half to triple your damage is a good trade.
The idea /is/ to alleviate the painpoint. The class does have lackluster feats right now, for the most part, so I don't see a feat tax being an issue. (If anything, a desirable feat early would make archetyping have more of a cost than it currently does.) If universally desirable feats are an issue, a lot of classes are already broken.
The rub about spellstrike is that spellstrike is rarely just two actions; the recharge means it's three, so there's no action compression unless you use a conflux spell for the recharge or you won't spellstrike again during the combat. The spellstrike is itself the same amount of actions as casting a spell, and recharge is the same amount of actions as a normal strike. So the benefits are using a strike for the spell attack roll, and thus getting higher proficiency, no MAP, and amazing burst; and being able to "pay" for the action to strike on a different turn, possibly after the end of combat. This leads to an issue: since conflux spells are awful compared to spellstriking with amped imaginary weapon, and conflux spells are awful to use on the same turn that you spellstrike, magi end up in a place where they're throwing away the class's actual action compression abilities (the conflux spells) to spellstrike harder.
Conflux spells are a large part of the design issue here, the more I think on it. They're /supposed/ to solve the issues we're discussing in this thread—they let you teleport and strike, use Shield and strike, do a fake flurry... or whatever Inexorable Iron is doing—and they ultimately just sit unused because the damage Doesn't Cut It compared to spamming spellstrike. My guess is the devs intended magus to pay the same sort of tax as gunslinger—they value high burst and make you pay for it—and simply didn't expect focus spells to be used to spellstrike harder.
At bottom, I understand the concern of spending 1+1 actions for high damage at a lower chance to hit. That's Great Weapon Master, old power attack at max level, and so on. But the restrictions are there to keep it in line.
It's really not at all like Dirge, since using that is trading the opportunity cost of another composition unless you Harmonize and make that your entire turn, or you're a level 20 Maestro. It's quite a good composition, but you're doing it in place of Inspire Courage, not in place of "I didn't have the actions to Inspire Courage".
I'm not really sure I buy this whole opportunity cost thing. A spellcaster using fear has the opportunity cost of using another spell on that turn, too. I understand the idea is "the spellcaster can use fear one turn, then slow the next," but hey, the bard does about the same thing in a single turn without expending two spellslots. Bard songs are just busted. Only being able to maintain one at a time doesn't change that.
But whatever the math, I would generally not offer a mechanic that encourages a player to do ~25% chance to hit attacks. It means that player is going to feel really bad most rounds, even if occasionally they hit really hard for one action. If some table's issue with the class is that they consider it to have very meh 1a attacks, then I think a better recommendation to that GM would be to homebrew improvements in arcane cascade, so that "just stay in the stance and swing" becomes an alternative way to play the class. To be clear I don't think this is necessary, but for tables who think some change is needed, that to me feels like a much smoother and positive-player-enjoyment change.
I understand this logic, and have the same concern to a degree. My main counterpoint (and the reason I felt comfortable with it) is that magus is already the slot machine class.
The issue I personally take with this is that I feel this makes the Magus flexible in a manner that I'd find detrimental to their variety of play overall: I think one of the fundamental limitations that makes the Magus interesting is that Spellstriking takes two actions, which means that as a melee combatant you'll struggle sometimes to make it happen. This I think is what causes the Magus to not be able to Spellstrike every turn, irrespective of the other action taxes they have right now. If the Magus could Spellstrike for a single action and then recharge on some other turn, that to me comes across as a two-action Spellstrike minus the recharge, but also with the flexibility of being able to Spellstrike for just one action on one turn and defer the action cost of the recharge to another. Thus, as much as I'd support removing the recharge entirely on a Spellstrike that were limited to weaker spells, i.e. cantrips (and no FP expenditure either to avoid amped imaginary weapon shenanigans), I'd still want to keep it as a two-action activity.
I do think it's fair to think the limitation is important for class playfeel.
I think you're doing your critics a great disservice. As far as I can tell, many critiques of your posts are coming from people who have played the multiple Maguses from 1-20. There's nothing "blind" about such people's feedback.
Indeed, specifically Starlit Span each time from the looks of it. By contrast, the more numerous critics of the Magus, myself included, have similarly played the class across a much larger variety of subclasses, which is why those of us criticizing the Magus can state with equal confidence that the larger class is not condemned to a two-action rotation, nor needs to be. The defense is indeed blind when it is entirely founded upon wilful ignorance of not just the class's broader mechanics, but the entire game it is being played in.
IMO you seem far more pessimistic about PF2e than many of the other posters - you begin long threads about how the classes need to be changed.
This just in, apparently making any sort of constructive criticism is being pessimistic. Clearly, the best way to engage with the game is to shut up, pretend it has no problems, and try to shame the people who do have the honesty to engage critically with it. Toxic positivity? Never heard of her.
But seriously, this is deeply revealing of your attitude towards criticism in a way you probably did not intend. You are correct, I do write a lot of critical threads -- your comment likely refers to the several feedback threads I wrote about Starfinder's playtest classes, where I went into extreme detail and gave a breakdown of each of their qualities and flaws after playtesting them for over a month. I also wrote that feedback in the feedback forms Paizo offered for that purpose -- because unlike you, Paizo explicitly welcomes this sort of feedback, and in fact expressly asks for it on several occasions. I don't do this because I hate the game or think it is broken beyond repair, I do this because I love this game, gladly dedicate a lot of my time to testing out its content, and give feedback with the intent to help improve it. That you would see this criticism as a negative shows you not only fundamentally misunderstand what criticism is about in this context, but appear to hold a lot of insecurity around this game you're spending a lot of time defending, mainly by going out of your way to put down the people making criticisms. I would urge you to reevaluate your perspective, as I genuinely don't believe it's healthy at all and is leading you to make a lot of noise on these forums.
Yes everyone agrees tactical choices are important for Pf2E combat. And from what I read, the folks who don't see eye to eye to you on it being too repetitive or constrained have said they like having to recharge such a big strike, or that they don't have a problem just not spellstriking in some rounds, or that really if you look at the way people play the other classes, players very often both build and play the same way each combat for other classes too. IOW they're not disagreeing with you to justify anything else, they're disagreeing with you that the class mechanic is much of a problem at all.
This is a complete fabrication that relies entirely on putting words in other people's mouths and using them as an accessory to your own agenda. Let me provide an actual quote from one of the people you're speaking for, just so we're clear on this:
Like, the thing you seem to just be missing is that "samey rotation" is not a problem for people playing Starlit Span. It's a feature. The entire point of picking it is so you can Spellstrike the crap out of everything.
So let's not pretend that the hyper-vocal defenders of the Magus (and, from the looks of it, specifically Starlit Span, the worst-designed subclass) are advocating for the tactical depth you speak of. Pressing the same two buttons every round is the explicitly stated goal here, and anything that would change that even slightly is a dealbreaker.
I really disagree with 'good at just one kind of build'. The subclasses support ranged, tank, 2h melee, light melee (and, uh, staff).
Yes, all of which inevitably boil down to just Spellstriking in the same way, with the same spells, with these differences frequently erased because Arcane Cascade is such a difficult stance to turn on that you easily find yourself without a subclass for long periods of time. This was, by the way, all mentioned already, so if you really did comb through people's posts to analyze their stances on the matter, you must have obtained this information as well (which you also could've just learned by actually playing a Magus).
Your Inexorable Iron Magus can stand back and launch a fireball just about as well as anyone.
Tell me you haven't played a Magus without telling me you haven't played a Magus. Let's go over the math, shall we?
You claim the Magus's spellcasting is "just 2 levels behind the casting proficiency of a full caster", which is technically correct... except spellcasting modifiers are not based purely on proficiency rank, and the Magus is also liable to not increase their spellcasting attribute, i.e. Intelligence, other than to get enough for a Psychic dedication. Their class's key attribute will obviously not boost their Int, so even if you do pick Starlit Span and boost your Int, you will still end up at a -2 to a -4 relative to the party casters. On most builds, particularly melee builds such as Inexorable Iron where you'll be increasing your Strength as well as your Dex/Con/Wis, this will be a -2 to a -7 difference. You certainly could launch a fireball, but you'd best get ready to deal with a lot of successes and crit successes against your weak save DC. By contrast, that spell slot could have been used to prepare an attack spell for your Spellstrike, which is why many players do in fact prepare nothing but attack spells, something the Magus's class features incentivize and a common point of criticism from several different people on this thread. If you perhaps took a fraction of the effort you're currently spending defending a class you have little apparent experience with against any and all criticism, and spent it on actually trying to understand where the criticism is coming from, we could be having a much more productive conversation here.
Thank you for this. As a reminder to all, it is worth bringing up again this meme and the ensuing discussion that occurred only a week ago on the main subreddit. Thousands of people, literal thousands, came together to celebrate a bit of humor that was not only funny, but made accurate and trenchant criticisms of the Magus, which were echoed in the comments by many players speaking from personal experience. That post is the second most highly-upvoted in that subreddit in the entire year. It is perhaps easy for some of us to retreat to this much smaller space, stick our head in the sand, and convince ourselves that the opinions of about three people are enough to form a consensus, but the fact of the matter is that there is a much larger body of evidence showing that the Magus has some gameplay issues that are well-enough known to the player community to generate those kinds of highly popular memes, and that many more players can describe in detail from firsthand experience. If we perhaps stopped pretending the class had no problems and instead made the effort to discuss those problems openly and honestly, as several people have already done on this thread, then we could be having a much more interesting and mutually supportive conversation. If you genuinely believe the Magus has no issues and do not wish to have a conversation that even implies those issues exist, that is okay too, this thread is simply not made for you.
And with that established, I'd like to spend a bit more time spitballing how the Magus could be improved. Witch of Miracles put themselves out there already by suggesting changes to Spellstrike, and whether one agrees or not with the implementation, they've made arguably one of the most productive and earnest attempts to contribute on this thread. Here's my take on what I'd like an updated Spellstrike to look like:
The general intent here being to free up the Magus's action economy and give the class much more variety to their actions. Your Spellstrikes wouldn't get to reach the same heights of raw damage, but you'd be significantly less action-taxed and would likely be preparing a far more diverse array of utility spells alongside more varied offensive cantrips. The above doesn't touch upon Arcane Cascade, which I also think ought to change, but that could be something for another post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite thing about that thread, post? What do reddit people call this things...? Anyways my favorite thing was a comment describing magus players as having a gambling addiction. Which they do
If you feel that I've shamed you, I apologize. That was never the intent. I do think however that people are sometimes disagreeing with you substantively based on their play experience, Listening and disagreeing /= refusal to listen, /= has an ulterior agenda, and also /= not understanding.
I'm a bit confused by this statement, as the fact that some people disagreed based on play experience was never in question. You also appear to be assuming that I'm accusing absolutely everyone here of having an ulterior agenda and refusing to listen to any and all criticism, both of which are false assumptions that seem patently intended to discredit me and my own valid criticism, which by the way is also founded on play experience. This goes both ways, and you would do well to take your own advice on this.
I don't read the Starfinder fora, so no, it's not that. I did read your self-published homebrew response to the starfinder playtest, and I thought it was well written, very matter of fact. IMO you do not write your posts here the way you wrote that.
What is the meaningful difference then, pray tell, other than the fact that you disagree with with one and don't care enough about the other to formulate an opposition? Because contrary to your protestations, you clearly do follow me around and look at my posts, as evidenced by your claims of an underlying pattern in your prior response.
Deriven: “I think their action economy is fairly fluid with lots of quality options for modifying it.”
Also Deriven:
The magus always had a repetitive play pattern. People playing the magus want to spellstrike and hit hard. They did this in PF1 and in now PF2.
I don't consider this a problem. I consider it a feature. Big crits was what the magus did in PF1 and that is what it does in PF2.
It is in fact this very admission that spurred my remark that those ardently defending the Magus inevitably end up admitting to the class's design problems. Deriven also goes on at length to undermine their own initial claim about the Magus's "fluid action economy":
The movement problem becomes less of an issue once you can haste easily. But an earlier spell could help them move like a magus Sudden Charge would be nice for the opening rounds.
In other words, contrary to their claim, the Magus's action economy isn't "smooth" unless you engage in Starlit Span's ultra-repetitive playstyle, and a melee Magus relies on haste to have an actual smooth turn. You've presumably read all of this already and could have drawn the same observation, but curiously only chose to quote that one initial claim.
Squiggit: “I think the action economy is what makes the Magus class work.”
Also Squiggit:
I didn't say the Magus wasn't busy. I said the business was what created the decision making process for the class. Starlit Span changes things by removing elements from consideration, making positioning much less important and therefore the gameplay more rote. If removing decision points makes the class more rote, doing the same for the melee magus is the opposite of making it less static and fixed.
And finally:
There's no sense pretending fighters or rangers or barbarians have these wildly varied and nuanced routines, because they don't.
This is the pessimistic view of the game I called out. Not only does Squiggit openly criticize the Magus at length, their entire defense of several of the issues I highlighted of the Magus is founded upon the fear that, should those issues be fixed, the entire class would become just as rote as their most problematic subclass. It is this perspective that I challenge. Once more, you've presumably read all of this, but chose to ignore the facts in favor of mining the first favorable quote you could find.
PossibleCabbage: “I honestly think that "spellstriking every turn is very hard (if you're not starlit span)" is the best thing about the Magus design.”
I don't even have to find another quote, given how the one you pulled itself flat-out admits Starlit Span is repetitive, but I'll do it anyway because it's fun:
The weird thing about the reactive strike issue is that while reactive strikes are not very common (something like 15% of the bestiary can do them) it's weird to have a class that's vastly more effective against 85% of the bestiary than the other 15%.
Like it's a feelsbad thing if you end up being significantly less effective just because of who you're fighting, though I admit this phenomenon is worst when it's "Kineticists against will-o'-wisps."
Interesting how the people you picked as shining defenders of the Magus all seem to have negative things to say about the class. Note the internal contradiction here between the two statements: if the Magus did in fact spend lots of turns not Spellstriking, the issue of Reactive Strikes wouldn't be so significant, given how they wouldn't be eating that many of them (and there are in fact means to mitigate this further by having tankier teammates trigger those or casters use spells like roaring applause). It's almost as if the implicit assumption here is that the Magus is forced to take Reactive Strikes as an essential part of their gameplay due to a rote and constrained playstyle.
Execquiel: “I feel not needing to recharge a spellstrike if you use cantrips would be a huge and unnecesary buff…I don't think having to recharge your spellstrike is a problem, the problem is that the magus has to recharge spellstrike AND spend an action with arcane cascade if they want to have features.”
Note how, once again, the people you are quoting as somehow opposing the criticism of the Magus being too repetitive or constrained are in fact making the exact criticisms you are denying. You very clearly tried and failed to put words in people's mouths, and your attempts to justify yourself merely demonstrate this. Let's keep digging though, because once again, countering lazy quote mining with a modicum of research is fun:
As someone that have played multiple magi, one of them up to 20th level, I agree the worst thing about the magus is arcane cascade. Its an otherwise useless action which only purpose is to enable your other features that aren't spellstrike. 1 to 3 (or 3 to 7 if you´re laughing shadow) are pretty much worthless when you add multiple damage dXs to your damage. I also disagree with the notion some people have "its action economy is what makes the magus balanced". If you saw what high level martials like fighters and barbarians can do you would easily notice they pump much better damage than a magus does with spellstrike, though unlike spellstrike those martials can do their shtick every turn and don't need reloads.
Looks an awful lot like playing a Magus leads to having a negative impression of their action economy and constraints.
The only hybrid studies I haven't played yet are the two new ones from the Tian Xia book (which honestly don't seem to appealing to me) and starlit span which I really would want to try at some point because I want to see how a magus that doesn't need to move / enter AC performs since the action economy is one of the things I like the least about the class.
Case in point, and emphasis highlighted for your convenience.
Tridus: “I wonder who they're playing with if they think other classes don't have repetitive tactics…If you look closely at what folks are doing in combat (and as a GM, I do that a fair bit), you see patterns emerge pretty clearly. Lots of classes have a thing they want to do all the time.”
... why did you even bother with this one? Not only does it reinforce the quote I furnished that Tridus believes the Magus to be repetitive and constrained, directly contradicting your claim, it also openly dismisses the notion of varied and tactical play in PF2e, disproving your fabricated claim that "everyone agrees tactical choices are important for PF2e combat". Tridus very much was not the person to pick to support this point. Which brings us to the conclusion you were trying to manufacture with all of this quote-mining:
Now look, lots of those folks (and others) agree with you on many of your points. You've gotten a lot of positive responses on the subject of making AC work smoother and melee Magus having a problem with reactive strikes. But not 100% agreement on all points. Chalking up the remaining disagreements to people having an "agenda" or simply not wanting to listen to change requests ignores what I think is a real, substantive, disagreement between players over whether the things you want changed, ought to be changed.
When you specifically quote-mine people who aren't saying what you want them to say, when you claim there is a consensus when there isn't, and when you put effort into doing all of this to paint a picture that is markedly different from the facts, that is not the product of accident, that is you trying to push an agenda. It is clear you do not care for what these people's opinions actually are or what they have to say, you just want to use incomplete fragments of what they've said in order to further your own narrative.
The reality of the matter is that even as these people defend their pet features of the Magus, all of them have either admitted to the class having problems or openly criticized it, specifically on the subject of their constrained options and repetitive actions. As noted, their defense often hinges not on an appreciation of the class's gameplay, but upon a dislike of Pathfinder 2e's own tactically-oriented gameplay and even the outright belief that such tactical gameplay doesn't exist in practice. It is clear that even the people defending the Magus hold a lot of dissatisfaction and anxiety around the class, and if we were to actually talk about it instead of trying to suspend discussion out of fear of change, we'd be having more interesting exchanges. I don't think you're exempt from this either, Easl, and it would be better if you too tried working with the critics instead of constantly trying to undermine and misrepresent them.
Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I personally think the play experience of archer, sword and board, and 2-H are different enough to not count as a single build type. Even if they all follow a pattern of strike/move/other each round. My opinion of Magus subclasses is the same: archer, sword and board, and 2H are all different enough to not count as the class having only one build type, even if each of those three follow a pattern of spellstrike/other then recharge/other.
Again, you are crucially missing the point that Spellstrike makes these playstyles converge, because when you Spellstrike, it is less about leveraging the unique qualities of your weapons, so much as just making a weapon attack and a spell attack at the same time. Actually listen to the people you're misquoting, and see how they too point out how the distinction the Magus's subclasses try to engineer often doesn't work out in practice, and has difficulty working out due to Arcane Cascade. It is apparent that you are not speaking from experience here, and I find it strange that you would not spend more time trying to listen to the people who are in fact speaking from experience. I certainly have, including the people who disagreed with my criticisms, and as it so happens we have a lot more in common in our opinion of the Magus than you've claimed.
If AC has to stay it needs to have some kind of action compression since this is the direction Paizo is going for now it seems. AC recharging your spellstrike is the obvious one, though it would kinda clash with conflux spells
Actually, there's no clash. You cascade to enter your stance after spellstrike 1 at the beginning of the fight. Recharge with conflux after spellstrike 2. repeat until you are out of focus points.
Even though I would prefer for AC to become a free action, I feel the most likely fix Paizo would do in this situation is something like what you are suggesting here. I would also probably change AC to not be a stance so you aren't shoehorned into using AC right after using spellstrike. That or make it so you can do a spellstrike on one turn and then AC on your first action on your following turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d be interested in seeing what would happen if Arcane Cascade just got nixed, and the Magus’s hybrid studies just got to function by default. I don’t think the core Magus is in great need of a stance, let alone one that piles more damage onto their Strikes (and Spellstrikes), and more importantly I don’t think the core class needs to be locked out of their subclass four out of five times until they spend most or all of their turn entering said stance. A Laughing Shadow, Sparkling Targe, or Twisting Tree Magus who got to immediately access their benefits I think would feel much less constrained and much more easily able to diverge from one another, and I don’t think would turn out too strong either. Similarly, an Inexorable Iron Magus who gained THP from casting spells while wielding a two-handed weapon, including from conflux spells and Spellstrike, I think would also play better overall while still retaining the feel of using their magic as protection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think something people don't often take into account is that starlit span has like, not feat support whatsoever. Since most of the subclasses are melee-based, there's really few feats an starlit span magus would want to take from their class. Some would see this as an advantage because that allows you to take archetype feat (or more archetype feats if you play with FA), but the most logical archetype to take with a magus, archer, also doesn't really work with the class that much unless you want to ignore spellstrike. Point-Blank Stance and Multishot Stance doesn't work because its a stance so it clashes with AC, all the two-action feats also don't work because they clash with spellstrike, and the few you can actually use like Assisting Shot or Quick Shot aren't really great for the magus either. In a sense the magus has a similar problem to the kineticist in that there aren't too many archetypes that truly work with you.
Case in point, and emphasis highlighted for your convenience.
This is exactly the reason why I didn't want to write a comment here because I was already expecting what was going to happen. You are taking the comments I wrote and bending their meaning to favor you when that's clearly not the intention. Yes, I'm arguing the action economy of the class is bad, but not because the class is repetitive but because the class has a ton of action taxes that restrict you from doing the thing you really want to do with the class.
I'll quote myself here, the same quote that Easl quoted earlier:
I don't think having to recharge your spellstrike is a problem, the problem is that the magus has to recharge spellstrike AND spend an action with arcane cascade if they want to have features
Any person that doesn't want to make an strawman wouldn't understand that I'm meaning that the class has a repetitive rotation, but rather that the class has action taxes. Yes, all classes have those, but the magus has two which is extra bad for a class that is meant to be in melee and use 2As to Strike.
I think I, and everyone here, has learned to not make comments on your posts because if someone disagrees with you it, for whatever reason, becomes a personal matter for you and start doing mental gymnastics to change the meaning of whatever someone is trying to tell you. Everyone has unpopular opinions, I know I certainly do, and that's exactly the reason why I never try to push them as "the intended way to play" and usually try to not bring them up because that's certainly isn't true and wouldn't really make sense to discuss something when my whole argument is "I don't care if its technically bad because it works for me". An example of this is that me and my friends are too lazy to use minis so for ease (and because people get together to play TTRPGs for fun) we usually do "theater of the mind" as people call it. The one time I brought this up in the subreddit I was not only downvoted to hell but also told I was playing the game wrong and that I should play X instead. No, I don't want to play X because our table like to play PF2e. The case is similar here because you clearly have onpopular opinions that work for you and your table but clearly don't work for the average table as seen here. Its fine to have your own opinions, but when its clearly not of the taste of people I don't think theres a need to push them as "intended way to play" when clearly nobody thinks that. Specially if you have to misinterpret something to make it fit in your favor.
Any person that doesn't want to make an strawman wouldn't understand that I'm meaning that the class has a repetitive rotation, but rather that the class has action taxes.
Funny, that’s also what I’m criticizing about the Magus, both independently of and in conjunction to their repetitive actions. You act like I’m trying to misrepresent you here, but the reality is that I’ve agreed with much of your criticisms of the Magus. I certainly agree with all of the criticism you’ve made in your latest post. The problem is that you, like many of the people who squabble and bicker constantly on these forums, appear to be so all-or-nothing on your stance that someone has to either agree with you completely or be the enemy. I take it that is why you would rather side with the person actively trying to claim that you take no issue with the class’s action taxes than the person who’s mostly agreed with you, with the caveat that the class is also infamously repetitive, a criticism echoed by several more people in this very thread. With just a slightly less black-and-white approach, you and many others would find that we all have much more that we agree upon than what we don’t, in this discussion and in others too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few other concepts (again, possibly to be taken as feats) that might be of value:
-Add a non-conflux focus spell that does the following: as a free action with the spellshape trait, the magus can deliver the melee touch spell following this spellshape using their martial proficiency instead of their spell attack proficiency. (Idea is to grant magus a better way to enter arcane cascade—something more attractive than a conflux spell that also doesn't require spellstrike recharge. Using focus points makes it compete for usage with amped imaginary weapon. There are situations where this is a clear damage buff, but it adds an option to the magus repertoire that isn't really being used now. Levers to balance this with would include increasing the FP cost if the option is too strong, or perhaps allowing the spell to not provoke if the option is too weak.)
-Make conflux spells cost 0+n focus points, where n is the amount of times a conflux spells has been used in this encounter; alternatively, just make the first use of a conflux spell in an encounter cost no FP. (Making one conflux spell free won't really buff magus outside of long encounters, but it will make it feel less like you're giving up something important to use a key class feature.)
... What if while a Magus was in an Arcane Cascade, spellstrikes would not prompt reactive strikes? Or limit it so it stops reactive strikes from any opponents of your level or lower...
What if a Magus in reach of a target with Reactive Strike Delays until his one of his teammates provokes the RS and then steps in to Spellstrike.
Magus doesn't need anything special to relieve them from the stress of Reactive Strikes when casting spells in melee.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any person that doesn't want to make an strawman wouldn't understand that I'm meaning that the class has a repetitive rotation, but rather that the class has action taxes.Funny, that’s also what I’m criticizing about the Magus, both independently of and in conjunction to their repetitive actions. You act like I’m trying to misrepresent you here, but the reality is that I’ve agreed with much of your criticisms of the Magus. I certainly agree with all of the criticism you’ve made in your latest post. The problem is that you, like many of the people who squabble and bicker constantly on these forums, appear to be so all-or-nothing on your stance that someone has to either agree with you completely or be the enemy. I take it that is why you would rather side with the person actively trying to claim that you take no issue with the class’s action taxes than the person who’s mostly agreed with you, with the caveat that the class is also infamously repetitive, a criticism echoed by several more people in this very thread. With just a slightly less black-and-white approach, you and many others would find that we all have much more that we agree upon than what we don’t, in this discussion and in others too.
Read that back again, in front of a mirror. Seriously. You're describing your own behavior in this thread so shockingly well that it's hard to believe its not a parody.
Lots of people actually agree with lots of what you have to say, but as soon as they contest any part of it, you respond by going scorched earth with a novella or two on them and then act like everyone is against you.
You are so hostile that you're sabotaging your own goal here, and you somehow think its because everyone else is hostile to you. It's beyond absurd.
Deriven is the one arguing that the Magus is contractually obligated to take a Reactive Strike to the face when Spellstriking; I'm the one arguing they shouldn't have to.
And I am refuting your argument with: "They don't." There are ways to work around it. For instance, they have the option to Delay until a teammate provokes and then spellstrike.
Reactive Strike is simply the risk every caster takes casting in Melee. It's the risk any ranged striker takes when they make ranged attacks in Melee. It's the risk Drifters and Vanguards, in particular, take when they Interact to reload in Melee.
It is not a unique risk to Magus and it is not a risk that Magus deserve any special consideration for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An opening turn can easily be: Cast Shield, enter Arcane Cascade, and Stride; or Blink Charge and enter Arcane Cascade.This rather significantly misses the point that you are still pre-programming your turn here...
I notice you selectively quote me and snip out the part where I proved you were, quite simply, wrong and, instead, you want to ramble about my sample opening turns.
That whole post, for reference:
... Arcane Cascade for instance requires you to spend two actions Spellstriking, then your remaining action to enter the stance, so if your opponent even just Steps out of reach, you can't pull this off...Arcane Cascade does not require Spellstrike.
Requirements You used your most recent action this turn to Cast a Spell OR make a Spellstrike...An opening turn can easily be: Cast Shield, enter Arcane Cascade, and Stride; or Blink Charge and enter Arcane Cascade.
You said, that Arcane Cascade requires two actions Spellstriking and you griped about action economy blah blah blah. I proved you wrong with citation. Arcane Cascade may be triggered with one-action spells. So your complaint about the limitations (re: "Arcane Cascade for instance requires you to spend two actions Spellstriking") is simply bunk.
Now, instead of acknowledging that, you want to roll on with strawman arguments while shifting the goal posts.
It is clear you are not engaging in good-faith discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This
The defense is indeed blind when it is entirely founded upon wilful ignorance of not just the class's broader mechanics, but the entire game it is being played in.from the same person that says
... Arcane Cascade for instance requires you to spend two actions Spellstriking, then your remaining action to enter the stance...and
... because Arcane Cascade is such a difficult stance to turn on...
Arcane Cascade is not hard to turn on; cast a spell, enter the stance. It can be done with one action spells.
Sure, it's the only stance that I can immediately think of that requires some preceding activity before it can be entered. But, frankly, it's less punishing in action economy than Rangers' Hunt Prey, Thaumaturges' Exploit Vulnerability, and Investigators' Devise a Stratagem (when it doesn't qualify for free-action use).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus doesn't need anything special to relieve them from the stress of Reactive Strikes when casting spells in melee.
Well, they would need a teammate willing and able to provoke AND have a DM that's willing to take the first chance to make a Reactive Strike [especially when it's someone that seems to have a good defense]. Not everyone is going to have that. For instance, you could walk into a PFS game with no one you know to form a team not built to work together. Asking a stranger to get attacked more so you don't can be a big ask.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks an awful lot like playing a Magus leads to having a negative impression of their action economy and constraints.
It only takes one person playing a Magus and not having a negative inpression of their action economy to refute this. One of my favorite characters was an Automoton Sparkling Targe, multi-classed Champion. The action economy management was a direct contributor to my enjoyment of the class. Sure it was more challenging to play than a Fighter or a Rogue, and that was the fun of it.
A negative impression of the action economy and constraints is not evidence of a problem with the class' mechanics. It is only evidence of an individual's personal preferences.
Magus doesn't need anything special to relieve them from the stress of Reactive Strikes when casting spells in melee.Well, they would need a teammate willing and able to provoke AND have a DM that's willing to take the first chance to make a Reactive Strike [especially when it's someone that seems to have a good defense]. Not everyone is going to have that. For instance, you could walk into a PFS game with no one you know to form a team not built to work together. Asking a stranger to get attacked more so you don't can be a big ask.
Sure. That's a fair observation, but it doesn't change the fact that a Magus that is concerned about provoking a Reactive Strike has options. One of them being to Delay until someone else provokes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Played a LS Magus in kingmaker. Use movement spell to get into combat, spell strike and teleport strike to refresh. Very aggressive and makes quick work of things.
AC could use a buff, either damage scaling with dice for non spellstrikes, or something worth while because it just doesn't fit in anywhere right now.
I didn't run into any RS, likely a big problem when it comes up. Being a melee spell caster with 8hp is rather rough.
There are other martial classes that are barely above Magus non spell strike so I don't see how those turns are bad for a Magus. You can always take an archetype to get more strikes, maneuvers or what ever to round yourself out more if that's what you want.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the magus class is in the "80% there" spot. It could definitely be improved in a remaster, but it's broadly okay.
Look at how they remastered the swashbuckler. The old swashbuckler struggled to get panache, and then had to decide to hoard it for precise strike bonus damage, or risk it on a finisher. New swashbuckler clearly wants to do a finisher every turn, and panache is easy to get. Trying to finish every turn is pretty similar to spellstriking, you know...
I think a remaster magus should have some tweaks to deal with a couple of papercuts, but doesn't need a dramatic overhaul. I like the hint given in the class that you should expect to not be spellstriking quite every round, but I think it could be better. The class should give you more attractive things to do when you're not spellstriking. For example, imagine all magi had a class ability like this:
[2 actions] Eldritch Strike
Make a Strike. If you hit and you have arcane cascade active, you can change all of the weapon damage to the damage type of your arcane cascade bonus damage. Regardless of whether you hit, recharge your spellstrike.
You can tweak the exact balance of it, but the point is:
* It's a wizard-warrior feeling ability that can come in handy against enemies with difficult resistances.
* It rewards you for leaning into arcane cascade (but doesn't actually require it)
* At two actions, you clearly can't do it in the same turn as a spellstrike, but it does set you up for one the next round. This messaging is important.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. That's a fair observation, but it doesn't change the fact that a Magus that is concerned about provoking a Reactive Strike has options. One of them being to Delay until someone else provokes.
Well, you keep pointing out that they can delay but that isn't a universal fix. It's great that it works for you in your group but for some, no one else does provoke [or the DM doesn't the the bait] so they need to come up with something else. If the magus "has options", it'd be nice to hear about other ones for those that can't delay and avoid provoking that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[2 actions] Eldritch Strike
Make a Strike. If you hit and you have arcane cascade active, you can change all of the weapon damage to the damage type of your arcane cascade bonus damage. Regardless of whether you hit, recharge your spellstrike.You can tweak the exact balance of it, but the point is:
* It's a wizard-warrior feeling ability that can come in handy against enemies with difficult resistances.
* It rewards you for leaning into arcane cascade (but doesn't actually require it)
* At two actions, you clearly can't do it in the same turn as a spellstrike, but it does set you up for one the next round. This messaging is important.
I do feel like it might be a bit of a weak option without extra damage on the strike, except against enemies with heavy resistances; it is similar to just attacking and recharging separately, but less flexible. I don't think you were looking to make something universally useful, though, just a situationally good option—and even without extra damage, I cannot help but like this ability. There is something simple and attractive about it. It's nice.
-Add a non-conflux focus spell that does the following: as a free action with the spellshape trait, the magus can deliver the melee touch spell following this spellshape using their martial proficiency instead of their spell attack proficiency. (Idea is to grant magus a better way to enter arcane cascade—something more attractive than a conflux spell that also doesn't require spellstrike recharge. Using focus points makes it compete for usage with amped imaginary weapon. There are situations where this is a clear damage buff, but it adds an option to the magus repertoire that isn't really being used now. Levers to balance this with would include increasing the FP cost if the option is too strong, or perhaps allowing the spell to not provoke if the option is too weak.)
I find that you could make this a conflux spell and it'd still probably be okay. My main issue with it is that the suggestion itself comes across more math-y than something also rooted in flavor, but anything that changes proficiencies for the sake of functionality is likely doomed to this anyway. More touch spells could certainly be nice, especially if it means more variety for the Magus.
-Make conflux spells cost 0+n focus points, where n is the amount of times a conflux spells has been used in this encounter; alternatively, just make the first use of a conflux spell in an encounter cost no FP. (Making one conflux spell free won't really buff magus outside of long encounters, but it will make it feel less like you're giving up something important to use a key class feature.)
I'm personally not too enthusiastic about making anything cost more than one Focus Point, but I do find the idea of the Magus getting a conflux-level action for free intriguing. In general, if there were more action compressors for getting the Magus to recharge their Spellstrike while doing something else (including just Striking and recharging as a feat), that could certainly make the class feel less action-taxed in a way that would vary their off-turns more.
Read that back again, in front of a mirror. Seriously. You're describing your own behavior in this thread so shockingly well that it's hard to believe its not a parody.
Lots of people actually agree with lots of what you have to say, but as soon as they contest any part of it, you respond by going scorched earth with a novella or two on them and then act like everyone is against you.
You are so hostile that you're sabotaging your own goal here, and you somehow think its because everyone else is hostile to you. It's beyond absurd.
What an interesting narrative! Let's see how it holds up to the facts:
It's interesting how even those in the "change the Magus camp" seem to eventually admit that Starlit Span doesn't actually have those problems, and thus want to actively create a problem for it so that their proposed changes are now necessary.
Like, the thing you seem to just be missing is that "samey rotation" is not a problem for people playing Starlit Span. It's a feature. The entire point of picking it is so you can Spellstrike the crap out of everything.
You're literally proposing artificially breaking that by adding a limitation so you can "fix" it by adding other things to do while your limitation is in effect. The easier solution is to accept that it's not actually broken in the first place and that maybe the playstyle it offers just isn't for you.
But don't turn this into another remaster Oracle by breaking the parts of the class that do work for people. Spellstrike is the central attraction here. Adding more limits around it is like looking at how people play Bards and deciding "using compositions is too repetitive, we're going to put a cooldown on those and then invent some new stuff to do when you can't do a composition."
Notice the distinctly more antagonistic tone you chose to adopt, the personal attacks and accusations. My subsequent response started not even by challenging your opinions of Starlit Span, which you formulated entirely as attempts to demolish my own, but by calling out how you straight-up lied in order to create a false narrative and villainize me, the very same tactic you are employing now. In other words: my behavior towards you was perfectly civil and respectful of disagreements in opinion until you initiated hostilities with character attacks and false accusations, and so specifically because you found burning the entire discussion down preferable to entertaining the mere idea that someone else could make a criticism of a game element that you disagreed with. Most of the people who upvoted your post here are guilty of the same, whether on this thread or on many others, so it is no surprise that these forums are known for their pointless squabbling and personal vendettas. You speak of looking in the mirror; I suggest you do the honors.
And I am refuting your argument with: "They don't." There are ways to work around it. For instance, they have the option to Delay until a teammate provokes and then spellstrike.
I'm sorry, what exactly are you refuting? Please, by all means, show the part of my thread or post that has me criticizing the Magus for eating Reactive Strikes, or me suggesting that they should have Spellstrike be made to not trigger those reactions. I can easily answer this for you: you won't find any, because that is not a criticism I endorse. I even explicitly had this to say:
That doesn't sound particularly varied to me, and if you're hitting a wall by Spellstriking an enemy with Reactive Strike, that sounds to me like the Magus's power output is very much Spellstrike or bust. I don't think that's entirely the case in practice, given their conflux spells, but you're not exactly selling the class here.
Response from me to Deriven on their claim that the Magus is compelled to take Reactive Strikes to the face. What makes your weirdly aggressive line of attack here so comical is that it is completely misguided. I get that writing this thread painted a target on my back, but you could have at least checked.
I notice you selectively quote me and snip out the part where I proved you were, quite simply, wrong and, instead, you want to ramble about my sample opening turns.
I love how your unsnipped post demonstrates exactly the pre-programmed turn that I criticized you for making, so you are in fact still wrong. Generally, when you complain about being quote-mined, you don't furnish a quote that proves that the other person quoted you correctly. I notice you are also guilty of the same quote snipping you are accusing me of. Here is the quote in question:
This rather significantly misses the point that you are still pre-programming your turn here and expecting everything to go in such a way that this will always be the optimal play, when this is not how Pathfinder works in practice. If you can Stride and do all of this malarkey, you may as well Stride and Spellstrike, which would be the more impactful play. On some turns, you may not be able to do either, in which case you're SOL as you try to activate the stance with the highest action cost in the game.
You are so desperate to try to prove me wrong that you ignore how you demonstrate exactly the kind of white-room, same-rotation malarkey I and others have called out on the Magus. Even your present quote vaguely acknowledges the bit I mentioned about how even just the two actions for Spellstriking are not something a Magus will be able to pull off all the time in melee, so you tell me how you managed to not relate that to your current argument.
Arcane Cascade is not hard to turn on; cast a spell, enter the stance. It can be done with one action spells.
Sure, it's the only stance that I can immediately think of that requires some preceding activity before it can be entered.
I like how you immediately contradict yourself, all while accusing me of shifting the goalposts and arguing in bad faith, a projection all the further evidenced by this:
Sure. That's a fair observation, but it doesn't change the fact that a Magus that is concerned about provoking a Reactive Strike has options. One of them being to Delay until someone else provokes.
Putting aside the utter weirdness of thinking it's fine to expect someone else in your party to constantly eat Reactive Strikes so you don't, the fact that you maintain your stance even as you acknowledge how ridiculous it is shows you're not exactly arguing from a place of reason:
t only takes one person playing a Magus and not having a negative inpression of their action economy to refute this. One of my favorite characters was an Automoton Sparkling Targe, multi-classed Champion. The action economy management was a direct contributor to my enjoyment of the class. Sure it was more challenging to play than a Fighter or a Rogue, and that was the fun of it.
People who are secure in their enjoyment of something generally do not go out of their way to attack the characters of people who have more critical critical opinions in a barrage of breathless and scattershot responses. Methinks the goblin doth protest too much, and I'd say your line of attack is best reserved for the people actually making the criticisms of the Magus you are railing against, or better yet, no-one at all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is some kind of fun parallel here where teridax is to the magus what Deriven, and a few others, are to the wizard, and Deriven is to the magus what Unicore and I are to the wizard. The irony is not lost on me here. I do however think the magus has more fundamental problems than the wizard does. Wizards still use the fundamentally good caster chassis, but a magus is a subpar martial on any turn he isn't spellstriking and is a clunky and cumbersome martial to play when he does spellstrike. Some core mechanics of the class need to be changed to alleviate this issue
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you keep pointing out that they can delay...Sure. That's a fair observation, but it doesn't change the fact that a Magus that is concerned about provoking a Reactive Strike has options. One of them being to Delay until someone else provokes.
'cause people keep trotting out, "but Reactive Strike." Delaying for someone else to provoke is about the (second) simples retort. Sure, it's not universal, but neither is Reactive Strike.
... but that isn't a universal fix. It's great that it works for you in your group but for some, no one else does provoke [or the DM doesn't the the bait] so they need to come up with something else. If the magus "has options", it'd be nice to hear about other ones for those that can't delay and avoid provoking that way.
Sure.
For more complicated solutions there's:
But, the simplest option (and, incidentally, quite universal) is: don't.
That's it. Don't.
If it is not feasible to Delay and wait for someone else to provoke and the Reactive Strike risk is too high for the Magus' tastes, then, simply, don't Spellstrike. It's that simple.
Step and cast a two-action spell. Strike, Strike, then Step or cast Shield. There is a plethora of actions available that do not provoke Reactive Strike.
And to preempt the, but it's their main thing and X% of the threats shouldn't shut it down argument, I offer you Precision Rangers, Rogues, Swashbucklers, and Investigators who have to contend with N% of threats that are immune to Precision damage. Also, Occult casters that have to contend with Y% of threats that are immune to Mental.
Magus is not unique in having the problem that some threats might just not be viable targets of their main schtick, and they certainly do not need any special consideration with that regard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see. You said:And I am refuting your argument with: "They don't." There are ways to work around it. For instance, they have the option to Delay until a teammate provokes and then spellstrike.I'm sorry, what exactly are you refuting? Please, by all means, show the part of my thread or post that has me criticizing the Magus for eating Reactive Strikes, or me suggesting that they should have Spellstrike be made to not trigger those reactions. I can easily answer this for you: you won't find any, because that is not a criticism I endorse. I even explicitly had this to say:
Deriven is the one arguing that the Magus is contractually obligated to take a Reactive Strike to the face when Spellstriking; I'm the one arguing they shouldn't have to.
"I'm the one arguing they shouldn't have to," you said. I infer that the dangling preposition implicitly refers to, "tak[ing] a Reactive Strike to the face when Spellstriking."
That sure seems like complaing that Spellstrike in Melee provokes. Which, in turn, would seem like an endorsement of the idea that Spellstrike should not provoke.
If I misunderstood that, I'll certainly concede that point.
I notice you selectively quote me and snip out the part where I proved you were, quite simply, wrong and, instead, you want to ramble about my sample opening turns.I love how your unsnipped post demonstrates exactly the pre-programmed turn that I criticized you for making...
Now you're just lying.
You made a claim that Arcane Cascade requires a two-action Spellstrike and uses your third action to enter. I proved that wrong with citation showing that Arcane Cascade may also be triggered by Casting a spell. You completely ignored that.
Then, I subsequently provided an example of entering Arcane Cascade with a one-action spell and an example with a two-action spell that, itself, includes movement (teleport up to 60 feet) and a Strike. You solely went on a tangent tearing down those examples as "pre-programming". In other words, you erected a Strawman and heroicly slayed it!
Here, you're just doubling down on the Strawman slaying. The salient point that I made, and you ignored, was that entering Arcane Cascade does not require a two-action Spellstrike and your third action to enter.
I like how you immediately contradict yourself...Arcane Cascade is not hard to turn on; cast a spell, enter the stance. It can be done with one action spells.
Sure, it's the only stance that I can immediately think of that requires some preceding activity before it can be entered.
I contradicted nothing. Being slightly more difficult to enter than, say, Tiger Stance is not the same as being "hard" as you claimed.
Just because something is more difficult than something else doesn't mean it is hard. You see: X can be simple. Y can be more difficult than X and still be easy.