| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see a magus that doesn't have 9th level spells. At least for me the class fantasy doesn't involved calling down meteors, raising walls of stone and throwing people into extra dimensional mazes. I want the magus to be a magical warrior. The spells and spell-like abilities accent the *warrior* aspect. I suggested this earlier but I want to reiterate because I think this can open up the power budget: I would like to see some clever way to get around the problem that spell damage dice only goes up when you heighten spells but high level spells are kind of effects the magus getting access to conflicts with the class fantasy. One solution I think is wave casting slots that heighten to 10 but you can only prepare spells up to rank 6. Not unlike divine font if you think about it. You get 4-6 slots that are heightened to 10 but you can only learn and prepare spells up to a certain rank. This solution is more future proof and allows new spells to be used. Another less future proof, but more strict option is spellstriking only works with cantrips, but you have regular slots with studious spell-like limitations. I like this solution less. There was also people suggesting they he focus spell centric and ditch wave casting. I'm more okay with this now than during the playtest, but I would want them to keep cantrips at least
I think arcane cascade shouldn't turn on subclass abilities, but I think that it could maybe stay as one of a few stances that allows you to exploit elemental vulnerabilities
Lastly, playing Elden Ring and fighting the Bell Bearing Hunter makes me want a magus that can magically swing their sword where it flies out telekinetically with each slash, and returning to hand at the end of the slash. Effectively giving any weapon reach if it doesn't have it already. I would especially like this psychic magus to use int as KAS and for attack rolls, but not damage rolls... But I can see this posing some issues
I'll also reiterate, bring back spellcombat. This would help so damn much. Let us cast a spell and strike for two actions, and choose the order
| 3 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
Not really. I analyze classes with an accurate view of what they are.
The magus is not at all underpowered. It is one of the more substantial damage dealers in the game.
The magus uses attack spells and cantrips better than any class in the game and thus has a very distinct niche.
What people are confusing for a locked in playstyle is playing as intended. Having to spellstrike every round is not a problem but a feature. Complaining you have to spellstrike every round and it feels locked in is like complaining a caster has to use spells. The magus class is entirely built around spellstrike.
The versatility of spellstrike comes from using different spells along with a strike.
The magus also has a variety of useful feats for recharging the spellstrike while doing some useful damage or activity. If only the wizard had such options for casting spells as the magus like combining a strike and a spell in a two action attack with quality focus spells for recharging it as a third action.
Is the magus perfect? Nope.
1. Arcane Cascade is an afterthought. I have never seen a single magus benefit from it to the point where they really felt like they had to use it or even wanted to over spellstriking. Arcane Cascade feels like a total waste of space on the magus. Most of the time people would rather use the action even to activate it to recharge spellstrike to set up the for next one.
2. I think they need some kind of Sudden Charge type of Spellstrike feat for closing to combat that is more general.
That being said, I've never seen a magus player underperform playing the class unless they just roll badly. Their crits can be absolutely nuts. Their regular hits are very good. They synergize well with group buffs. They can use different types of attacks to provoke weaknesses that many martials cannot. They have high quality feats.
I think the class is an upper tier class that feels very powerful to play. It's why you don't see thread after thread of Magus players complaining on the forum.
Those that play magus feel good playing them. They have lots of bright moments and do incredible damage.
"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.
You have in fact completely misunderstood, as has already been pointed out to you at length via quotes where I explicitly state I do not consider Reactive Strike to be something that the Magus needs to be changed around. I have already told you this in a prior exchange, so there really was no excuse for this "misunderstanding".
Now you're just lying.
Am I? Is your proposed turn not pre-programmed, then? Because your subsequent response does not relate to this matter at all; you're visibly trying to deflect from the fact that you are in fact assuming that this turn will go exactly as intended every combat and will be the optimal play, i.e. pre-programming your turn. Similarly, this pre-programmed turn itself deflects from the fact that Arcane Cascade, by even your own admission, is a costly stance that a melee Magus is unlikely to activate on their first turn. "Just perform this exact sequence of actions every encounter" is not how Pathfinder works, and that this would constitute your only defense of an overly expensive feature comes across as neither solid nor particularly honest either.
I contradicted nothing.
You claim Arcane Cascade is easy to turn on yet immediately state it is uniquely difficult as a stance in that it requires a preceding activity to activate. That is an obvious self-contradiction, so you are in fact lying here once more. The fact that you have set no standard here for what counts as easy or hard, and instead deliberately attempted to make yourself the sole judge of what counts as such, makes your point incapable of convincing anyone else but yourself.
More generally, the problem with your exceedingly combative line of argumentation here, both against me and others on this thread, is that you've made yourself the sole judge, jury, and executioner here of what does and doesn't count as difficult, problematic, or anti-fun on the Magus, irrespective of facts or other people's experiences. I'm sure it must feel very authoritative, but it also severely limits your arguments' ability to be convincing. In this particular case, a stance requiring at least 2, usually 3 actions to activate is generally regarded as difficult, and objectively more difficult to activate than other stances, which is why it is so frequently complained about. Attempting to deny this doesn't make you look convincing, it just makes you look out of touch. Because of how intensely you're defending the Magus here against any and all criticism (I can't think of a single meaningful criticism of the class you've put forth or accepted), your arguments come off as far too opinionated to appeal to anyone else. Do you honestly believe you've changed anyone's opinion of the Magus here? Do you believe you will?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lastly, playing Elden Ring and fighting the Bell Bearing Hunter makes me want a magus that can magically swing their sword where it flies out telekinetically with each slash, and returning to hand at the end of the slash. Effectively giving any weapon reach if it doesn't have it already. I would especially like this psychic magus to use int as KAS and for attack rolls, but not damage rolls... But I can see this posing some issues
That just sounds like the Psychics Dancing Blade cantrip with some added visual descriptions.
It's never got an errata, so it still technically benefits from Weapon Potency runes as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don’t tank your casting stat, you can just cast any spell or cantrip in round 1 and then turn on arcane cascade. That was often how the magus I GM’d for did it. You can even cast spells from scrolls.
The idea that the magus is 2 to 4 points behind on spell proficiency is misleading. At level 1 you can easily be 1 point behind. At level 5 you are even. At 7 you are 2 points behind for two levels before going even for one, than going -1 again. It generally fluctuates enough to be closer to 1 to 2 points behind for the vast majority of play. That is not bad enough to write off the magus as a spell caster. A first round fireball or ice storm followed by arcane cascade is a decent first round, probably better than moving twice, even if you combine that with a strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much agree with both the criticism and much of the suggestion here: the fact that Spellstrike can work with slot and focus spells I think creates such a strong incentive to focus exclusively on attack spells that the Magus often ends up feeling much more restrictive than they could be. That a select few players actively ignore those incentives, which are baked into the Magus's feats and class features, or choose to eat into their other stats just to boost their spellcasting attribute for spellcasting outside of Spellstrike does not invalidate this larger trend, as reflected in that Reddit post. It's also the reason why many Maguses tend to also be multiclass Psychics, much like how many Fighters often used to be adopted by gnomes just so that they could access the gnome flickmace prior to its nerf.
The idea of restricting Spellstrike to cantrips I think would go a long way towards allowing the rest of the Magus's spells to shine independently of Spellstrike, and ideally have more room to diversify. I don't know if the Magus specifically needs class-exclusive cantrips, but I do think there's a lot more room for more utility-oriented offensive cantrips, as right now most combat cantrips are just variations of pure damage. Even just damage cantrips that applied some utility on a critical hit would incentivize the Magus to go for something other than gouging claw each time. Although I'd like Spellstrike's recharge to be removed outright with this sort of change, having any kind of two-action spell cast outside of Spellstrike recharge the ability would both lessen the class's action tax and potentially create a fun flow where the class would be incentivized even more to Spellstrike on one turn, and Cast a Spell on the other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don’t tank your casting stat, you can just cast any spell or cantrip in round 1 and then turn on arcane cascade. That was often how the magus I GM’d for did it. You can even cast spells from scrolls.
The idea that the magus is 2 to 4 points behind on spell proficiency is misleading. At level 1 you can easily be 1 point behind. At level 5 you are even. At 7 you are 2 points behind for two levels before going even for one, than going -1 again. It generally fluctuates enough to be closer to 1 to 2 points behind for the vast majority of play.
This is true. To put numbers to this (This assuming that each character is optimising the timing of each boost and trying to drive their KAS as high as possible):
Levels 1-4: Magus is at -1 compared to Full Casters.
Levels 5-6: Magus is at par compared to Full Casters.
Levels 7-8: Magus is at -2 compared to Full Casters.
Level 9: Magus is at par compared to Full Casters.
Levels 10-14: Magus is at -1 compared to Full Casters.
Levels 15-16: Magus is at -2 compared to Full Casters.
Levels 17-18: Magus is at -1 compared to Full Casters (This is due to the advent of apex items, without Apex items they are at par. Apex items are assumed going forward.)
Level 19: Magus is at -3 compared to Full Casters.
Level 20: Magus is at -4 compared to Full Casters.
So the progression of the Magus' Spell DC/Spell Attack is actually a pretty strange one.
It spends:
- 11 levels at -1
- 4 levels at -2
- 3 levels at par
- 1 level at -3
- 1 level at -4
To put this into perspective, the Magus is at Par with any Master-tier martial from 1-20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is, in the former you presented a set of homebrew changes you suggested to fix problems that you saw happening at your table during the playtest. In the latter you presented rules changes you wanted Paizo to make because you have a certain way you want to play the Magus and you want Paizo to make the Magus more like that. You don't like fixed rotations. You don't like the subclasses and want class variance to be based on a more freeform system of class feats. You want to remove AC.
I still don't think this is a meaningful distinction, because it is once again founded upon a false dichotomy: in both cases, my criticisms are founded on play experience. In both cases, my suggestions are based on things that happened at my table. In the case of this thread, I took care to separate my suggestions and personal wants from criticisms based on observations. This therefore still really comes across as you trying very hard to find reasons to justify invalidating the stuff I've said that you don't like, when your selection criteria remain completely arbitrary. If you were to perhaps try formulating original opinions of your own instead of trying so hard to invalidate mine (literally all but one of your posts on this thread focus on arguing with me), it would perhaps come across as less personally motivated and more likely to contribute to this discussion.
That's not at all clear to me. Commenters do say there are things they want changed about the class. Reading their responses to you, do I think "a lot of dissatisfaction and anxiety" is accurate? Nope. I think that's hyperbole. What I'm reading is more like: 'its a good class, with some small things needing fixes.'
You can "read" it however you like, the fact remains that this thread was established to discuss criticisms of the Magus, and the people who came to comment on the Magus have all criticized the class with the exception of one genuinely hyperbolic commenter. What I am driving at here is that even the people who have outwardly and ardently defended the Magus have often slipped up and admitted that the class does have at least one notable problem, even gone as far as to imply that solving some of the problems being discussed would only uncover larger and deeper problems with the class. To be clear, I am also not claiming these people secretly dislike the class, and I personally very much enjoy the Magus despite my criticisms. The point is simply that once you get down to it, everyone has at least one or two issues with the Magus, so there is room for improvement, and if we built up on our agreement instead of tearing each other down at the slightest disagreement, we'd probably get somewhere.
I am not missing your point, I'm just disagreeing with it. I consider (e.g.) standing back and firing an arrow each round to be a different playstyle than raising shield and moving into position for melee striking, even when both PCs are using a 2a spellstrike every round or every alternate round to do their damage. Thus, to me, the Magus subclasses support different playstyles. But I understand that to you, both relying on a 2a spellstrike as their core attack 'thing' makes them feel too similar. You would prefer that more freeform feat-based range of playstyle which include one or more non-spellstrike-focused Magus concepts. I get that. I just don't agree with the position that the current Magus supports 'only one playstyle.'
Your first mistake here is assuming that Raise a Shield + Striding + Striking is something a Magus would typically favor over Striding and Spellstriking. I would also say it's been pretty well-established that Starlit Span is the odd one out among the subclasses, and stands out for reasons most agree aren't positive, and as I and others have pointed out, the other four subclasses specifically have the problem of not getting to showcase their differences, not just because of the restriction of Arcane Cascade but because those differences are often not all that substantial. You yourself took note of this when trying to invalidate my criticism of the Magus's subclasses, so you can't plead to honest ignorance here when it is evident you are pretending that criticism doesn't exist here for the sake of this particular point. As noted already, I am not the only one to make this criticism either, and I even provided a quote supporting this in my previous response to you.
At the start of your response, you tried to claim my criticisms of the Magus were invalid because they were based on personal preference. I think it is worth applying this same scrutiny to your own posts here: you cite no play experience, and it is clear you're not drawing from any first- or even second-hand experience here, which makes what little opinion you've expressed on the Magus entirely subjective: you don't think the Magus should change, just because that's how you feel. What then makes your opinion more valid than mine or anyone else's? If we look at your posting habits on this thread, what quickly emerges is that you appear far less interested in talking about the Magus than you do in arguing with me: with the exception of one post where you shoot down one of Witch of Miracles's suggestions, literally all of your posts have focused on trying to invalidate what I've had to say about the class, which is not too dissimilar from prior instances where you've similarly followed me around threads just to argue with me, to the total exclusion of other users and the subject matter. Do you not find it a little strange to focus on this one user in a discussion that revolves around a much broader topic? I'd be genuinely curious to know your opinions on the Magus, independently of my own, and in general would be interested in seeing you engage more with the topic at hand and not just my posts.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that the magus is 2 to 4 points behind on spell proficiency is misleading. At level 1 you can easily be 1 point behind. At level 5 you are even. At 7 you are 2 points behind for two levels before going even for one, than going -1 again. It generally fluctuates enough to be closer to 1 to 2 points behind for the vast majority of play. That is not bad enough to write off the magus as a spell caster. A first round fireball or ice storm followed by arcane cascade is a decent first round, probably better than moving twice, even if you combine that with a strike.
I'd say this analysis is misleading in its own way. As you said, this assumes you don't tank your casting stat. However, INT beyond 14 is of low value to magus unless it takes expansive spellstrike, since most spells it casts will be saveless or delivered via spellstrike. INT just buffs a playstyle your class features don't support terribly well (slowed casting proficiency + being a wavecaster with limited slots + ways to bypass spell attack proficiency = avoiding INT is better more often than not). You're unlikely to boost INT past the minimum for psychic dedication when STR, CON, DEX, and WIS are on the table and support your martial playstyle better.
So yes, you can be only a bit behind. But the opportunity cost of the investment relative to the benefit means you will be more than a bit behind in most builds.
I'd say this analysis is misleading in its own way. As you said, this assumes you don't tank your casting stat. However, INT beyond 14 is of low value to magus unless it takes expansive spellstrike, since most spells it casts will be saveless or delivered via spellstrike. INT just buffs a playstyle your class features don't support terribly well (slowed casting proficiency + being a wavecaster with limited slots + ways to bypass spell attack proficiency = avoiding INT is better more often than not). You're unlikely to boost INT past the minimum for psychic dedication when STR, CON, DEX, and WIS are on the table and support your martial playstyle better.
So yes, you can be only a bit behind. But the opportunity cost of the investment relative to the benefit means you will be more than a bit behind in most builds.
I'll yes-and this and point out that as a 8 HP/level class that fights in melee by default, sacrificing defense on the Magus is fairly costly, so not everyone is going to want to do that for the comparatively lesser benefit of a better spellcasting modifier. Starlit Span is once again the odd one out here, because they don't need to care about Strength and can worry much less about defense.
Generally, the Magus is built in several ways to discourage the player from relying on their spellcasting attribute, because Spellstrike has you make a weapon attack for your attack spell, and the class has quite a bit of feat and feature support for using spell slots to Spellstrike, but far less for using those same spells to do something else. Even when you do boost your Int as much as possible, you still end up being behind a full caster, so casting offensive spells outside of Spellstrike is generally not going to be as effective.
On some level, I find it a bit strange that the Magus, essentially a hybrid between a Fighter and a Wizard, isn't terribly encouraged in PF2e to boost their Intelligence, and there's a bit of ludonarrative dissonance there, but on a functional level this could actually be quite useful: if the Magus weren't so incentivized to use spell slots for Spellstriking, or were even outright prevented from doing so, then having a weak spellcasting modifier means that the best use for those spell slots would be for spells that don't revolve around a spell attack roll or save DC, i.e. utility spells. There are certainly plenty of those in the arcane spell list, and if more Magi prepared those kinds of spells more often (besides the two they get from studious spells), the class would likely feel much more well-rounded and still get to deal lots of burst damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lastly, playing Elden Ring and fighting the Bell Bearing Hunter makes me want a magus that can magically swing their sword where it flies out telekinetically with each slash, and returning to hand at the end of the slash. Effectively giving any weapon reach if it doesn't have it already. I would especially like this psychic magus to use int as KAS and for attack rolls, but not damage rolls... But I can see this posing some issues
That just sounds like the Psychics Dancing Blade cantrip with some added visual descriptions.
It's never got an errata, so it still technically benefits from Weapon Potency runes as well.
I was thinking that they would just add reach to their weapons, probably limited to one-handed weapons. Not a spell or anything, and I think to match the "I'm using psychic powers/magic to swing my sword" they'd use int as their KAS and get to use it for all attack rolls, and perhaps even for combat maneuvers. Maybe the adding reach needs to use a focus point or something, but the difference is that this is a martial
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking that they would just add reach to their weapons, probably limited to one-handed weapons. Not a spell or anything, and I think to match the "I'm using psychic powers/magic to swing my sword" they'd use int as their KAS and get to use it for all attack rolls, and perhaps even for combat maneuvers. Maybe the adding reach needs to use a focus point or something, but the difference is that this is a martial
There's a Magus feat that sort of does something similar in Lunging Spellstrike. I'm not a fan of how the feat requires you to burn a spell slot for it, and it'd be nice to have some single-action, cost-free version of this effect that'd do exactly as you said, and let the Magus telekinetically propel their weapon during a Strike to give it the reach or even the thrown trait temporarily. In general, I think there's a lot of untapped potential for the Magus to blend magic into Strikes and even skill actions through feats, not just Spellstrikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What people are confusing for a locked in playstyle is playing as intended. Having to spellstrike every round is not a problem but a feature. Complaining you have to spellstrike every round and it feels locked in is like complaining a caster has to use spells. The magus class is entirely built around spellstrike.
I sincerely do not know where this assumption is coming from. At least for me it's obvious the class is designed to NOT spellstrike every round, and this is actually one of the good things about the design. The recharge mechanic exists to make it so you spellstrike every other round
The problem is the magus is an action heavy slot machine that is largely only good at one thing, which is filling the encounter progress bar(damage). By your own admission they are singularly focused on damage, and this mechanic which amounts to highly variable random occurrences of big burst damage is a terrible place to put your power budget when consistency is king in this game. It's even worse when this ability to burst like this gets worse the more difficult an encounter
Yes but everybody's one or two is different lol.
It's not though lol. Just looking at the quotes I provided to you in a prior response, there's a ton of overlap over action economy, constraints, Arcane Cascade, and so on. Not everyone ascribes to all of these criticisms, but there's certainly lots of common criticisms to be derived here. It may perhaps look different, though in my opinion mainly because a lot of the people in this thread have, as I've said, preferred to tear one another down over these disagreements rather than find common ground, as is sadly common on these forums.
That's why "here's my homebrew fixes to the problems I encountered" generally gets positive reception while "Paizo change the class to function this way" gets pushback.
But this too isn't true; my homebrew's response on Reddit was controversial at best, and in both cases the suggestions fall under "here's my homebrew fixes to the problems I've encountered". In general, I've found it extremely common for people to accuse homebrew they personally disliked of trying to force game changes down others' throats, despite the inherent stupidity in believing homebrewers have the power to change how players play at their own table even if by some miracle their homebrew were to make it into the official rules, so no points for originality here either. It's okay to just admit that you liked one set of suggestions and not the other.
I think the AC damage bonus could be made bigger by a point or two. I disagree with the notion of getting rid of it. This would be a rules change, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I think more conflux spells per subclass could be an easy and impactful improvement. This is not a rules change, so I'm hoping we can easily look forward to changes like this. (Same with more feats.)
I think I've mentioned both of changes in earlier posts.
You haven't, at least not on this thread, but that's okay! It's refreshing to see you express your own opinions in your own words, and I look forward to seeing much more of that. Incidentally, I too would very much support more conflux spells, so hey, more agreement!
I didn't enter this discussion until 2 days after you started it. I feel like I'm posting on a lot more different threads than just the ones you start. But I'll go back and check, and ease back on your threads if that's not the case.
I don't think any of what you've just said detracts from the fact that you've done next to nothing on this thread except try to argue with me, and me specifically. When I made that thread about damage property runes, your approach was much the same. Even now, you still haven't really tried to engage with the topic at hand other than through me. I won't lie, it's a touch creepy, but that you at least got to talk a bit more about your thoughts on the Magus, independently of my own, is progress still. I look forward to seeing you engage with other posters on this thread, who also have interesting things to say, or simply speak your piece independently of anyone else's opinions.
As for focusing on your comments on this thread, well, you are the OP! You submitted several ideas for people to give feedback on. So I gave you my feedback on your ideas. Feedback on your ideas is what you sought by creating the original post, right?
No, that's not quite right. I certainly wrote the original post, but I am by no means the only one giving opinions on the Magus. In the two days it took you to formulate a response, several other people also had interesting things to say about the class, so if your intent was to give feedback, there were and still are plenty of people you could give feedback to. As the thread OP itself makes clear, the central topic of conversation is the Magus, not me or my opinions, and what criticisms I gave merely served as a conversation-starter, as is the case for many OPs that discuss some aspect of the game's design. A quick look at your posts shows you also don't appear to engage with other threads or their OPs in the same way, so you trying to rationalize your attitude in this manner is a little... well, odd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking that they would just add reach to their weapons, probably limited to one-handed weapons. Not a spell or anything, and I think to match the "I'm using psychic powers/magic to swing my sword" they'd use int as their KAS and get to use it for all attack rolls, and perhaps even for combat maneuvers. Maybe the adding reach needs to use a focus point or something, but the difference is that this is a martialThere's a Magus feat that sort of does something similar in Lunging Spellstrike. I'm not a fan of how the feat requires you to burn a spell slot for it, and it'd be nice to have some single-action, cost-free version of this effect that'd do exactly as you said, and let the Magus telekinetically propel their weapon during a Strike to give it the reach or even the thrown trait temporarily. In general, I think there's a lot of untapped potential for the Magus to blend magic into Strikes and even skill actions through feats, not just Spellstrikes.
Idea for this hypothetical subclass/archetype would be called "Knight Enchanter" and the idea is you enchanted your weapon with sigils that grant it extraordinary magical capabilities and the ability to use your magical prowess to enhance your martial prowess. the one thing I'm worried about is KAS int magus that uses it on all attack rolls will have spell DCs that match wizards in some levels. Not all, but some of them
For starters, I love the flavor of any kind of mage knight with a focus on runes, sigils, and enchanted weapons and armor. The Magus would absolutely fit that, for sure. Different risks may arise depending on implementation, but I think an Int KAS may not actually be too big a buff, or even a buff at all: your spell modifier would be higher, but your weapon attacks would be worse and you'd be much more MAD without something else to help. On top of this, you'd still have far fewer spell slots than a regular caster, and a worse spellcasting proficiency track, so there'd still be several guard rails in place to prevent a Int KAS Magus from overshadowing casters (or martials, for that matter).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player who chose the Magus as their first class, I can confidently say that I saw some slight issues with it. The action economy was in fact slightly cumbersome for me.
If I wanted to fit in any of the neat actions like Recall Knowledge, shove, trip etc. I had to sacrifice either my Spellstrike itself or my movement, and that did feel kind of crummy.
These days? As a more experienced player, I definitely see the Magus as a great class that desperately needs some way to use their intelligence and vary their turns.
I think not casting spells that require saves or attack rolls is fine, but to be honest it does hurt my idea of the class fantasy that the spellblade who studied both the blade and the spell tome effectively only needs to be slightly more intelligent than average. And that’s only if they become psychically attuned at a higher level.
I do also find their class turns repetitive but I don’t know maybe I just haven’t played one enough to find a good turn rotation outside Spellstrike, step/recharge, repeat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For starters, I love the flavor of any kind of mage knight with a focus on runes, sigils, and enchanted weapons and armor. The Magus would absolutely fit that, for sure. Different risks may arise depending on implementation, but I think an Int KAS may not actually be too big a buff, or even a buff at all: your spell modifier would be higher, but your weapon attacks would be worse and you'd be much more MAD without something else to help. On top of this, you'd still have far fewer spell slots than a regular caster, and a worse spellcasting proficiency track, so there'd still be several guard rails in place to prevent a Int KAS Magus from overshadowing casters (or martials, for that matter).
Well to be clear, I meant they get intelligence as a key ability score and all attacks use intelligence to hit instead of strength or dex, but they don't get intelligence to damage, crucially. I think the abilities of spellstrike, and presumably a buffed/better arcane cascade would take up that roll and make them, hopefully, less mad. I do think this would have to come with some kind of debuff to the ability to cast spells in some way but I think this should happen regardless to open up the power budget some which dovetails into what I wanna reply to unicore with...
If you don’t tank your casting stat, you can just cast any spell or cantrip in round 1 and then turn on arcane cascade. That was often how the magus I GM’d for did it. You can even cast spells from scrolls.
The idea that the magus is 2 to 4 points behind on spell proficiency is misleading. At level 1 you can easily be 1 point behind. At level 5 you are even. At 7 you are 2 points behind for two levels before going even for one, than going -1 again. It generally fluctuates enough to be closer to 1 to 2 points behind for the vast majority of play. That is not bad enough to write off the magus as a spell caster. A first round fireball or ice storm followed by arcane cascade is a decent first round, probably better than moving twice, even if you combine that with a strike.
This is actually an example of what I earlier used meteor as a spell to criticize. I would agree that sometimes playing discount wizard is the best option, but fireballs and icestorm are a lesser version of the problem I have which is that this conflicts with the class fantasy I have in my head of the magus being a martial who is magical, and not a wizard who can hit things with a sword
If Arcane Cascade has to stay, I think a nice solution could also be to make it so AC, rather than a stance, is an action that recharges spellstrike + something else based on hybrid study.
For example, inexorable iron, rather than have a pool of temp HP that recharges every round while on AC, would instead recharge spellstrike and give you temp HP equal to your level. Laughing shadow, rather than extra damage and extra movement speed, would recharge spellstrike and allow you to stride 1/2 movement without provoking AoO (imagine a really mobile magus that pounces against a different enemy every turn). Sparkling targe would recharge spellstrike + raise shield, aplying its bonuses against saves for spells.
This feels like something Paizo would do, since action compression seems to be the overall direction with PF2e now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Arcane Cascade has to stay, I think a nice solution could also be to make it so AC, rather than a stance, is an action that recharges spellstrike + something else based on hybrid study.
For example, inexorable iron, rather than have a pool of temp HP that recharges every round while on AC, would instead recharge spellstrike and give you temp HP equal to your level. Laughing shadow, rather than extra damage and extra movement speed, would recharge spellstrike and allow you to stride 1/2 movement without provoking AoO (imagine a really mobile magus that pounces against a different enemy every turn). Sparkling targe would recharge spellstrike + raise shield, aplying its bonuses against saves for spells.
This feels like something Paizo would do, since action compression seems to be the overall direction with PF2e now.
Truly, I believe the subclass abilities should just be always on and not be dependent on arcane cascade or spellstrike, and this wouldn't even make any of them OP. I just think arcane cascade isn't quite up to snuff. I like the idea in concept. I like that the magical warrior adds magic to their weapon in the form of elemental damage even outside of spellstriking. I think it should just be a stance you can enter without needing a spell to be cast that defaults to force damage, but when you cast a spell with a damage type it switches to that damage type until you cast another spell of a different damage type
Truly, I believe the subclass abilities should just be always on and not be dependent on arcane cascade or spellstrike, and this wouldn't even make any of them OP.
Oh for sure. I would vastly prefer to AC to be gone and each subclass benefit to become totally passive, but in the case AC is deal breaker for Paizo, I think this is a nice alternative solution to that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hybrid benefits are barely worth using that tie to Arcane Cascade.
Save spells are most useful against mooks. You should not dump your casting stat, but you don't need to max it either. You should max your main attack rolls stat. Magus is a spell attack roll class. That's their thing: using spell attack spells better than anyone else because they combine with the item bonus from their weapon and benefit from being combined with a strike.
AOE spells used on mooks at higher level work well enough. So if you're fighting groups, magis adding a nice big AOE blast works well.
Against bosses you spellstrike hammer.
Magus has a very easy, effective playstyle just like PF1. If you want to archetype into psychic for Imaginary Weapon, go for it. If you don't, gouging claw or telekinetic projectile are great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magus has a very easy, effective playstyle just like PF1. If you want to archetype into psychic for Imaginary Weapon, go for it. If you don't, gouging claw or telekinetic projectile are great.
I like Needle Darts to trigger special material weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magus has a very easy, effective playstyle just like PF1. If you want to archetype into psychic for Imaginary Weapon, go for it. If you don't, gouging claw or telekinetic projectile are great.I like Needle Darts to trigger special material weaknesses.
That one is good too. When I was playing my magus, that spell wasn't out. Definitely a new good one further allowing the magus to trigger weaknesses with a strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at all the comments made so far, it seems there are quite a few common points that have emerged:
So overall, while not everyone ascribes to all of the above at once, I think there's actually quite a large consensus even on this thread over several of the Magus's aspects. The main point of contention seems to be not so much whether or not people believe those aspects of the Magus exist, but whether or not they are truly a criticism to be made of the Magus so much as a a neutral or even a positive aspect. Perhaps it was my mistake to ascribe value judgments to these observations each time, but in the end I do think we can all agree that the Magus is structured a certain way right now, and whether or not those elements are a good thing are up to the individual. I still believe this can sit comfortably with the fact that there is a larger consensus that these things are actual problems with the Magus and not positive features, and that it would be worthwhile to explore ways to change the class in relation to that, but that does not invalidate the opinions and experience of people who like the Magus the way the class is implemented now.
This leaves room for Spellstrike cantrips which do less damage, but with actual interesting effects...
I'm curious: would those cantrips specifically need to be exclusive to the Magus and Spellstrike? What would happen if there were simply more attack cantrips that applied a degree of crowd control or a debuff on a success or crit success? Overall I very much agree with you: currently offensive cantrips are mostly just about applying some kind of damage, so when the biggest difference is which type of damage gets dealt and how much of it, gouging claw typically wins by dint of dealing more damage than anything else and working around certain resistances and rare immunities. If we had more cantrips that dealt less damage and applied crowd control or a debuff, it'd allow the Magus to diversify a lot more, and could potentially also benefit casters who'd have solid options for cantrips that'd still be somewhat useful later in the game, when cantrip damage starts to fall off. Perhaps it is this better scaling that makes offensive utility cantrips so risky to allow on casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I'm in favor of a bespoke spellstrike cantrip. If Gouging Claw is our baseline high damage cantrip use that as a model, and if we want Magi to _really_ hit vulnerabilities, let them change the damage type (from a limited list) by e.g. using AC or something.
That... is a very useful and easy to implement idea.
Just have one tiny Magus class feature at L1 to invent their own basic attack cantrip. Give them the option of a list of dmg types (no force), the d4 and range scaling of Needle Darts, or the d6 scaling + melee range of Gouging Claw.
Even without the bleed/metals riders of the spells, just choosing their own dmg type and not taking a cantrip slot would go a long way toward helping the Magus feel more like a "custom cannon" of the player's own making (rather than the feeling of being stuck w/ an off the shelf cannon that you may not personally jive with).
If I were writing that feature, I'd put a selection of cantrip riders with the "if you are in Arc Cas" condition.
(and the ability to re-make their custom cantrip each level up)
.
And because I can't resist, I'd also make that cantrip double as the "extra Conflux Spell" that would help smooth the class. Something like:
"If you spend a focus point while casting this catrip, the cast time is reduced to 1 action, the heighten changes from +1 into +2, and it functions as a conflux spell."
(that heighten nerf is a bit jank, but leaves it more potent than a "half damage" nerf. Also don't want to make Force Fang completely obsolete.)
Since you have cantrip on top of strike damage couldn't you go Dex/Con/Int/Wis? Likely be better off then most Dex martials and have lots of good options with spells.
Just because a lot of people hyper fixate on spell strike every round doesn't mean you should neglect your ability to be effective with slots, scrolls or wands. Building a character that's only ever good at one thing seems more like a player problem not a class problem.
While part of the design for Magus was generally spell striking every other round, now that we have easy access to 3 focus points per fight there's not much reason to do so. Most fights last roughly 4 rounds, so not much point not using those focus points.
Spell strike is what your good at, but you still have other tools.
Any class that has the ability to specialize in two action activities will have issues for some people feeling locked in or boring. Magus has it worse with needing a third action at some point but it also comes with solutions to that very problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since you have cantrip on top of strike damage couldn't you go Dex/Con/Int/Wis? Likely be better off then most Dex martials and have lots of good options with spells.
Let's explore this option:
So out of these subclasses, one build accommodates your proposal really well, about three can sort of do okay without any Strength at all if you're okay with dealing a lot less damage, and one build doesn't work with this at all. The question is: how good are your "options with spells" here? Presumably you're going for attack and save spells here, otherwise there'd be no reason to boost Int, and boosting Int at every turn still puts you a fair bit behind casters in accuracy. It's certainly good to do differently, but when your other party caster also has AoE, more spell slots to use it with, and a higher spell DC, how much of a benefit is being added here?
Just because a lot of people hyper fixate on spell strike every round doesn't mean you should neglect your ability to be effective with slots, scrolls or wands. Building a character that's only ever good at one thing seems more like a player problem not a class problem.
So, one of the underlying narratives that's been getting pushed on this thread is that the problem of preparing attack spells wherever possible is purely the player's fault. This I think is fairly condescending, but also misleading, because the Magus does in fact very much incentivize the player to prepare attack spells into their spell slots:
This is beyond the baseline benefit of having access to an ability that lets you expend a spell slot to deal massive damage with built-in action and MAP compression, multiplying the impact of slot-based attack spells when you Spellstrike with then. So while we can certainly encourage players to diversify, pretending that the Magus doesn't actively work to incentivize the player to commit their limited resources towards Spellstriking, from spell slots to magic items, is not an accurate reflection of the class's design either.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in other words players have choices to make with trade offs and various feat options exist that might encourage certain choices?
That just makes the Magus sound even more well designed than I initially gave Paizo credit for.
So in other words players have choices to make with trade offs and various feat options exist that might encourage certain choices?
That just makes the Magus sound even more well designed than I initially gave Paizo credit for.
This is a funny way to read "the Magus's design actively encourages the player to put all of their eggs in one basket, and completely sacrificing Strength in favor of Intelligence is a net detriment on all but one of their subclasses," but go off, I guess.
People like spellstriking, though. This isn't Oracle, you're not taking an unpopular class well below the power curve and juicing it up in the process of ditching it's identity (I say this as a person who likes old Oracle and hates new Oracle). Magus is popular, and spellstrike is very much at the ceiling of action economy and power. You can't make it any more action efficient (that means no free action Arcane Cascade, please) and there will be a lot of backlash if Spellstrike gets reduced in power like all the cantrip suggestions would do.
Paizo could probably reshuffle some things to make some people happier with the Magus, but that'll make a lot more people unhappy. That seems like a very poor decision. Of course, as an Oracle lover, I've already lost one class to the call of 'giving the same options as other casters', so I'm not very keen on the Magus getting ripped apart just to match some theoretical level of martial variation.
I can understand the defensiveness, but I also feel it's misplaced here. The point isn't to cut out Spellstrike from the Magus at all, the point is that the Magus's current design pushes them to use their limited resources towards Spellstriking as well, which takes what could be a more well-rounded class and has them often become a one-trick pony in practice. The Magus is well-liked, but also heavily criticized, which is why once again, literally over two thousand people came to point and laugh (gently) at the Magus and their flaws on that Reddit thread. That's certainly more than the handful of hyper-vocal defenders of the class on this thread, and given how that thread is among the most popular on the subreddit, it's safe to say that it's not a fluke from some ultra-critical sub-faction of the internet in opposition to some silent majority of Magus defenders (the opposition here certainly isn't silent). We can stick our heads in the sand here and claim that any attempt whatsoever to change the Magus would be just like the Oracle remaster (a feeble excuse that appears to be getting traction among people who just personally don't like a certain change), but the fact of the matter is that there's plenty of criticism to be made of the Magus, which people make in and out of these forums, so there's room for improvement even if people disagree on the specifics.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a funny way to read "the Magus's design actively encourages the player to put all of their eggs in one basket, and completely sacrificing Strength in favor of Intelligence is a net detriment on all but one of their subclasses," but go off, I guess.So in other words players have choices to make with trade offs and various feat options exist that might encourage certain choices?
That just makes the Magus sound even more well designed than I initially gave Paizo credit for.
Well, more that what we've seen is that builds that focus on one trick co-exist alongside builds that encourage different choices in spell selection, which is a wonderful and intriguing thing and allows both types of players an opportunity to explore the class in different ways... which frankly is something a lot of classes fail to do.
I think you're being too quick to go on the defensive. Build and play variety is ostensibly something you want, isn't it? So why the hostility to other people discussing the ways they play and build Magi beyond what your conception of the class is? There's a lot of genuinely interesting discussion of playability and mechanics that I think is getting lost in your desire to simply be correct.
I think your defensiveness is misplaced here. Build and play variety is ostensibly something you want, isn't it? Other players showing the different ways they build and play their Magi compared to your vision of the class ought to be a good thing, so why the negativity and hostility?
So in other words you also want the Magus to have more build and play variety and would welcome adjustments to the class that would allow more players to showcase their own unique builds?
That just makes the ample criticism of the Magus sound even more warranted than I initially gave it credit for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your defensiveness is misplaced here. Build and play variety is ostensibly something you want, isn't it? Other players showing the different ways they build and play their Magi compared to your vision of the class ought to be a good thing, so why the negativity and hostility?So in other words you also want the Magus to have more build and play variety and would welcome adjustments to the class that would allow more players to showcase their own unique builds?
That just makes the ample criticism of the Magus sound even more warranted than I initially gave it credit for.
I think there's obviously room to improve the magus, but some of the suggestions I've seen (like limiting what you can use spellstrike with) would reduce those options rather than expand them.
Right now we've seen players demonstrate several unique and powerful ways to play the Magus and discuss the various intricacies in bringing all of its moving pieces to life, both of which are wonderful things to see. I would not like to see the class "improved" like the Oracle was and lose some of that texture and variety.
The sheer amount of aggressive disagreement over the 'correct' way to play the Magus speaks a lot to the design of the class being more robust than it initially appears to be on these surface level examinations.
I think there's obviously room to improve the magus, but some of the suggestions I've seen (like limiting what you can use spellstrike with) would reduce those options rather than expand them.
Right now we've seen players demonstrate several unique and powerful ways to play the Magus and discuss the various intricacies in bringing all of its moving pieces to life, both of which are wonderful things to see. I would not like to see the class "improved" like the Oracle was and lose some of that texture and variety.
I think this is one of those opportunities to seek common ground rather than division, because I think it should be pretty clear that nobody here intends to limit the Magus, regardless of the perceived impact of what they're suggesting. We're all on the same side here, and I don't think most people on this thread are proposing to pull an Oracle by removing Spellstrike or the like. It is definitely valid to be wary of change around a game element one likes, though there is also I think a meaningful difference between healthy skepticism and throwing out what's become the flavor-of-the-month boogeyman at the slightest mention of change, which I think has unfortunately happened far too often on this thread.
I'd be curious to know which specific proposals got you feeling like they'd limit the Magus, though I think that even when limitations are proposed, they too could serve to give the Magus more valid options if done right. You said it yourself that the Magus's action starvation and melee positioning requirements are what force the class to have varied turns, and I think something similar could be said for implementing changes that would discourage a Magus from preparing nothing but attack spells, as is so often the case.
Let's take, for instance, the basic suggestion made by a few people to limit Spellstrike to cantrips: by itself, this is a massive limitation, but a Magus that can't use their spell slots to Spellstrike and has a weak casting modifier is also a Magus that is more likely to dip into the larger breadth of arcane spells for utility, rather than just stick to attack spells (and the occasional save spell) as happens so often. I personally suggested to expand Spellstrike with this so that it works with save cantrips by default, converting its degrees of success into degrees of failure for the save (with perhaps still no effect on a miss) rather than requiring a separate save. This alone would massively expand the basic range of cantrips useful to the Magus, giving them more options to choose from.
But let's go further: it's valid to state that it'd be a great loss if a Magus could never pair up a Spellstrike with a slot spell, given just how many spells could be really fun to pair with a Strike. This is why I suggested an additional change: at higher levels, let's say level 7 where you'd normally get studious spells, let the Magus prepare a few spells from their spellbook a couple ranks lower than their spell slots, which they could use to Spellstrike. This would allow a Magus to Spellstrike with slot spells, with the downranking encouraging a Magus to diversify with debuff and crowd control spells and not simply more damage, though preparing damage spells would still allow you to exceed cantrip damage. Once again, a Magus would have more valid options than now, particularly with the stronger integration of save spells.
And finally, let's go into a bit more detail and state that it'd be still be better if the Magus could Spellstrike with top-rank slots, because lots of Magus players love to gamble for a big burst of damage in one go and are ready to spend a big spell slot for it. Once more, I suggested another change to this effect: at 19th level, instead of Double Spellstrike, you could instead have a single, 10th-rank spell slot that you could use only for Spellstriking. Not only would this let you prepare any spell you'd currently use to Spellstrike, it'd let you prepare spells you can't currently use, like cataclysm for a crisp 18d10 extra damage. Again, this would offer more choice, not less, especially because this feature wouldn't require you to commit your main spell slots towards anything in particular.
So, to be clear: all of this intends to increase the Magus's valid options, not reduce them. A Magus with these features would be able to choose freely from both attack and save cantrips, prepare utility spells into their main slots much more readily, as well as the attack and save spells some players favor for casting on their own, make better use of save spells in general when Spellstriking with them, and ultimately have the pick of literally any spell that can currently be blended into a Spellstrike and more. One could certainly pick at the details, argue that certain bits of the proposal might be too strong or too weak (I'd like to remove Spellstrike's recharge as a baseline for fewer action taxes, for instance, and increase the action cost of Spellstriking with a slot spell by one in exchange perhaps for letting the downranked spells be usable more than once per day, perhaps once per encounter each or even at-will), and that's okay, but I think it takes a very specific mentality to look at all this and still decide that the person proposing it specifically wants to give the class fewer options.
The sheer amount of aggressive disagreement over the 'correct' way to play the Magus speaks a lot to the design of the class being more robust than it initially appears to be on these surface level examinations.
I think it's dangerous to conflate tone or intensity with substance, as that just favors people who say whatever suits their opinion as loudly and assertively as they can, as I think has been the case with several people on this thread, rather than the people who give thought to what's being said. Having combed through this thread once again, I'd also say that there isn't actually all that much disagreement. Here are the builds I've seen explicitly mentioned so far:
To me, this doesn't actually look all that varied. Others have listed play experience with multiple Magi, and it is often those people who decry the Magus's action economy the most, with one even wanting the option of a Spellstrike-less Magus. Action economy, repetitiveness, and limited choices are all criticisms that have been echoed on this thread even by people who didn't agree with all of those criticisms at once. Thus, I maintain that there is greater value in looking for common ground than dismissing all criticism of the class in its entirety just because we don't have 100% consensus on everything, like some kind of hive mind.
I'm not sticking my head in the sand, if you've actually read my full comments you'll see I advocate for a wider variety of conflux spells and two action activities involving recharge or Arcane Cascade to incentivize 'off turns' rather than trying to crank recharge with the most boring method possible.
Right, and this I think highlights a double standard that's prevalent on this thread, and on these forums in general: when it comes to your pet issues, you'll readily get on your little soapbox and expound your manifesto, but the moment someone else makes a criticism that you disagree with, suddenly the thing being discussed has no issues (save for the ones you find), and anyone who thinks otherwise is objectively wrong and should just shut up and go away. Only very few people seem to be aware of how destructive this parochial attitude is, and how it causes people to actively not listen to each other and shoot each other down when they could instead be working towards a common understanding. For what it's worth, I fully agree with the suggestions you make of more conflux spells and two-action activities, and I would've much preferred if we'd spent more time discussing those and perhaps even brainstorming examples for fun, rather than arguing over whether or not the other criticisms made of the Magus are valid or even exist (they do).
To be clear, I'm not asking you to agree with me or anyone else here, just to try to understand why so many people could be making the same criticisms of this class over and over again. If that Reddit post were just any anime meme (and there are many of those on the subreddit), it would not have gotten the traction it did, and you know this. In fact, if the jokes made in the post hadn't resonated with a critical mass of redditors, it would've been buried in downvotes extremely quickly. The fact that it became literally the second-most popular post of the year indicates that its substance, and not just its style, resonated significantly with the community. Just looking at the comments shows this, with dozens upon dozens of highly-upvoted comments where people criticize different aspects of the Magus and commiserate over their play experience with that class. At some point, you have to admit that several aspects of the Magus get a lot of flak from the community, even the class's fans, and even this thread in isolation demonstrates this. Perhaps the suggestions being made here aren't what would benefit the Magus the most (including your own), but I don't think that takes away from the fact that there is in fact a pretty solid consensus of what constitutes the class's pain points, and it's not just the issues you take with it.
I built a Starlit Span magus that uses the boy to land spells at range. A bow provides even more reach than the Reach Spellshape feat. You can land slow at 80 to 100 feet single target. You can make a ton of slow scrolls.
I picked up a casting archetype to expand my spell options, maxed my cast stat, invested in Expansive Spellstrike, and focus heavily on save cantrips and spells with the magus.
Pretty effective build focused more on casting save spells using consumables to augment the number of spells.
If think about the magus feats and abilities, you can build some very fun builds with that class.
I built a Starlit Span magus that uses the boy to land spells at range. A bow provides even more reach than the Reach Spellshape feat. You can land slow at 80 to 100 feet single target. You can make a ton of slow scrolls.
Not to criticize your build or anything, but wasn't your Starlit Span Magus all about landing AoE just three days ago, rather than slow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I built a Starlit Span magus that uses the boy to land spells at range. A bow provides even more reach than the Reach Spellshape feat. You can land slow at 80 to 100 feet single target. You can make a ton of slow scrolls.Not to criticize your build or anything, but wasn't your Starlit Span Magus all about landing AoE just three days ago, rather than slow?
I try different builds with different characters. I made a second Starlit Span magus that was more save based.
The first starlit span magus I ran was a magus with rogue archetype focused on disappearing and invisibility to flat foot the target. Then hammer with the bow.
This second starlit span magus built more up as a caster using save spells and cantrips. His bow was more of a way to extend save spells like slow or dominate or some other short range save spell I could use with the bow.
Both occasionally hit with AOE.
I have another two-handed weapon spellswipe melee magus too. I made him a Duskwalker and bought him that feat that can use a reaction to swing before dropping because melee magus getting smacked by Reactive Strikes can be pretty dangerous at times. The two-handed weapon magus focused on Spellswipe with Imaginary Weapon.
I've built a few magus in different ways to see how well they work with other strategies. Spellstrike is fairly versatile with different spells and archetypes.
That's why I see the magus as fairly versatile. If you have a concept built around spellstrike, you can build it with the magus.
Out of curiosity: how much play do these builds see? Are these characters in campaigns of yours, or just theorycrafts you've built and/or briefly tried out?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity: how much play do these builds see? Are these characters in campaigns of yours, or just theorycrafts you've built and/or briefly tried out?
The rogue archetype starlit span magus hit level 20. Their best crit was 300 plus damage. This was my first magus. It showed me the magus class is pretty insane and well built. Simple, but very powerful.
The second starlit span magus using the bow as a means to extend the range of spells is at level 10.
The spellswipe melee magus is at level 11. Spellswipe is hard to set up. Be nice if they made the swipe feats without needing the adjacent target and two targets within reach. The adjacent targets made swipe hard to use and make spellswipe even harder to use given it is 3 actions. But the base spellstrike and hit still works very effectively, but you have to be careful for reactive strike.
I've seen a laughing shadow magus played to level 7 and a monk archetype fist magus played to level 16. I thought the monk magus wouldn't work very well, but surprisingly it did. The player didn't spellstrike every round, but occasionally spellstriking after using maneuvers and strikes worked very well to amp the damage as needed. Flurry of Maneuvers action economy worked well with recharging spellstrike while moving and attacking.