You should see the chaos that happens when one member of the party starts using winter bolt.
Because of the AoE effect?
You should see the chaos that happens when one member of the party starts using winter bolt.
Don't get me wrong, I can see the hilarious outcomes of it in melee (especially if your GM is willing to have enemies start asking if you're also willing to tank that damage yourself). It's probably better on a team with 2x reach... or starlit span.
I do feel it looks overtuned in this situation even considering the downsides, especially if your GM will play the enemy reaction to it fairly straight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean Winter Bolt on Aloof Magus can spellstrike and immediately jump away pretty far for example, which is kind of funny.
But yeah it would be unreasonable to balance all focus spells around magus being able to get access to them, they are to be balanced for their original class, not for Magus.
It'd make more sense to adjust stuff within magus regarding its very strong synergy with attack focus spells (like creating similar slotted spells, what about that?).
So either banning focus spells outright (the simplest more "sucky" solution)
Or making more features accross subclasses work with stuff other than cantrip/focus spells, but it then makes them way more limited and should be more powerful to compensate, but will it ever be as good as using your spell slots/staff charges for buff and control and a focus spell to nova ? I don't know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With War of Immortal out I see it highlighting some of those issues again.
I don't think any mythic destiny or mythic feat particularly mixes with Magus (Summoner and Kineticist apparently too)
I gave a look at two specifically, Eternal Legend and Wildspell and well it's a bit frustrating.
Not that the book is bad, it's very good. And I know planning every/several destinies' feats to fit in with every classes would be a mythical undertaking (lol).
Wildspell has several cool options, but since spellshapes don't work some aren't usable. It's still a very good choice however, some of the stuff especially the ability to recharge spell slots in endgame is super darn cool.
Legend is also very nice to extend the martial aspect, while it will never interract with the Magus' main features in itself, having more options for strikes is always welcomed. I wish the level 10 Mythic Strike feat gave the choice of either doing the described attack with bonus damage, or to empower your next Strike/attack action to be at mythic proficiency instead, so more classes could use it with attacks that are specific to them.
Thankfully we got one very flavorful Mythic Spell attack with Banishing Touch, very DBZ flick vibe and that's epic as all hells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw something circulating...
What if for Expanded Spellstrike, as an additional feat, the Magus could spend Focus Points to drop a save one step worse for the target?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw something circulating...
What if for Expanded Spellstrike, as an additional feat, the Magus could spend Focus Points to drop a save one step worse for the target?
This would be one of the single most broken abilities in the game. You are forcing successes at minimum, which is often better than what a full caster can achieve with the same spell, and you're getting spellstrike action compression on it. Should a magus really be the class that can most consistently deliver slows and so on?
Also consider the knock-on effect if full casters can take it via archetyping.
Hmmm... I see you are trying to balance it via a Focus point expenditure, plus a feat tax, requiring resource (feat) expenditure. But in any case, bumping the result by one tier is still basically a +10 which is super major bonus.
It would be easier to imagine bumping the DC of the check by say +1 on your DC if your attack was a Success, and a +2, for a crit, (with that being boosted to +3 if you had Master in Arcana)
This would be one of the single most broken abilities in the game.I saw something circulating...
What if for Expanded Spellstrike, as an additional feat, the Magus could spend Focus Points to drop a save one step worse for the target?
It even makes the new ancestral memories look weak - it can only modify by 3.
You need to consider often the Magus is attacking with Sure Strike/True Strike. Hint it can be a lot. It negates a lot of the penalty of having to land the hit before the save. Then balance it with the action economy.
|
I saw something circulating...
What if for Expanded Spellstrike, as an additional feat, the Magus could spend Focus Points to drop a save one step worse for the target?
This would be one of the single most broken abilities in the game. You are forcing successes at minimum, which is often better than what a full caster can achieve with the same spell, and you're getting spellstrike action compression on it. Should a magus really be the class that can most consistently deliver slows and so on?
Also consider the knock-on effect if full casters can take it via archetyping.
Not that I'm encouraging this idea... but I could easily see it being at minimum a 12th level feat, which would at least prevent access via Archetyping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to guess, it's that most eligible spells for a regular Spellstrike don't require a save. If you hit with your weapon, the spell is discharged automatically and it deals damage to the target.
With Expanded Spellstrike, even if you hit with your weapon, there's a chance that the spell has no effect. I know it's the same as casting a spell and having the targets succeed, but when your main class feature is about "discharging a spell from a weapon", you kinda expect it to work with every spell out there.
By using Focus Points, unless the Magus frequently uses them, you'd be given another reason to spend them.
If not possible, then I'd love for that Spellstrike spell's DC to be increased / harder to resist based on something else, such as item bonuses, proficiencies and whatnot.
I mean, a spell "spellstruck" by a Magus should be more difficult to tank than that same spell simply cast by them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose theoretically you could have working like the starfinder primary target where on a successful hit it downgrades a success to fail but that would be incredibly powerful.
My main issue is that Spellstriking with a regular eligible spell (with a normal spell attack roll), such as Ignition, will get you extra damage if you hit.
Spellstriking with a non-eligible spell using Expanded Spellstrike (with a save DC), such as Fireball, may NOT get you extra damage, EVEN if you hit, because the target gets to save anyway, even with an awful AC.
In short, it's far safer to use Ignition instead of Fireball, especially since the later require both a spell slot AND heightening.
Expanded Spellstrike looks cool, but it doesn't work as well as people would hope. Like I said, give me something that entirely remove a spell's DC from Spellstrike, be #/day, 2 focus points/step, 1 extra action, I don't care...
If I stab someone with my spear, imbued with Fireball, that spear's target blows up, no way around it, logically.
...And expanded spellstrike might give you damage even if you miss with the strike. Possibly to many more targets. There is a sensible tradeoff here, even if I don't think expanded spellstrike is good on most magi because of MAD considerations and rushing psychic archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh... oh... not sure here...
It says that "If your Strike critically fails, the spell is lost with no effect.", but doesn't mention anything with a normal failure...
You mean to tell me that simply missing/failing a Strike activates the spell anyway?
Huh... oh... not sure here...
It says that "If your Strike critically fails, the spell is lost with no effect.", but doesn't mention anything with a normal failure...
You mean to tell me that simply missing/failing a Strike activates the spell anyway?
Yes. That's a large part of the point of expansive spellstrike.
The Expanded Spellstrike spell still goes off even on a miss. It would likely be unplayably bad if a simple miss made the spell totally fail.
The Expanded Spellstrike spell still goes off even on a miss. It would likely be unplayably bad if a simple miss made the spell totally fail.
Like I said, I double-checked the rules and nowhere it's written that the spell goes off on a regular failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty clear that it does. The first bullet point in Expansive Spellstrike is:
If your Strike critically fails, the spell is lost with no effect.
If it was lost on a regular failure, it would say that. The fact that the feat specifies that the spell is lost with no effect on a *critical* failure and not a failure, means that the spell still goes off on a failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is that... I see no reason to use Ignition over Fireball when Spellstriking.
I can simply CAST Fireball and see if targets can dodge or not, instead of having to Strike a target and THEN see if targets can dodge or not. Please note that for Fireball, I expend a spell slot and must heighten it to keep it relevant, unlike Ignition.
Unless the Spellstrike's primary target gets a bunch of penalties trying to resist the spell, might as well say "don't bother with spells with saves when using Expanded Spellstrike" in the first place.
I mean, you get 3 actions for the cost of 2. That is a very big deal. You will need to spend that 3rd action later to recharge, but you can just use a focus spells to recharge for "free". Regardless, at worst it is getting a bunch of actions early in the fight when they are most useful at the cost of some latter when they are less powerful.My issue is that... I see no reason to use Ignition over Fireball when Spellstriking.
I can simply CAST Fireball and see if targets can dodge or not, instead of having to Strike a target and THEN see if targets can dodge or not. Please note that for Fireball, I expend a spell slot and must heighten it to keep it relevant, unlike Ignition.
Unless the Spellstrike's primary target gets a bunch of penalties trying to resist the spell, might as well say "don't bother with spells with saves when using Expanded Spellstrike" in the first place.
The big difference is that Spellstriking with an eligible spell has you roll ONCE for BOTH a Strike and a Spell. I roll for a Strike, the spell is discharged.
Spellstriking with a non-eligible spell involves TWO rolls: my Strike and the target's save.
Give me this instead:
CRITICAL SUCCESS: The Strike is a critical hit and the target gets NO SAVE for the spell.
SUCCESS: The Strike is a hit and the target gets a save for the spell.
FAILURE: The Strike doesn't hit and the target gets a save for the spell.
CRITICAL FAILURE: The Strike doesn't hit and the spell fizzles out.
I mean, that's exactly how it works currently except for the crit success. It's also still two rolls for the large majority of cases.
Then this should be added.
I'd rather Strike OR Cast a Spell than Spellstriking if 50% of it can always fail...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expansive Spellstrike is a misleading name.
It's actually 2e's Spell Combat: you compress action to cast a save spell and attack for 2 action instead of 3. If you crit fail, the spell is lost, if you fail the attack, the spell goes off. Then you use a 3rd action sometime later to recharge spellstrike.
The action cost is the same in the end, just made flexible with downpayments lol.
Taking Expansive Spellstrikes doesn't mean to use all of your save spells like fireball, breathe fire, slow, arctic rift etc with it. If during a round you do not need to move: just strike and cast the spells as 3 actions and keep Spellstrike ready for when you'll need it.
Now, i'd would actually like if it had the additional benefit of inflicting a save penalty on a hit or critical hit with the strike, as a way for Magus to catch up with the DC of full casters (if only on their primary target). But if not... I'd be down to rename the feat Spell Combat or Spell Fencing or whatever and let you use *any* spell with it and have the spell target any valid target for it. You're not Spellstriking the spell, you use an altered version of this ability to compress your action economy, but have to recharge spellstrike afterward anyway.
You could Spell Combat: Strike, Haste, Move. Or Strike, Buff/Heal/whatever, strike/move, recall knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Misleading name"... That's a "misleading rule" O_o
This is NOT Spellstrike 2.0 but a different set of actions altogether.
What you described is essentially what those elven Blade Singers could do back in D&D :O
"Misleading name"... That's a "misleading rule" O_o
This is NOT Spellstrike 2.0 but a different set of actions altogether.
What you described is essentially what those elven Blade Singers could do back in D&D :O
Well that's the same thing. Either the name isn't fitting or the rule/ability doesn't fit the name lol.
Easiest way is just make spellstrike a damage ability. You do X damage when spellstriking at a given level. If you burn a spell slot, it increases it to y damage, if you use a focus point… etc etc etc.
Yeah no I'd like Spellstrike to be more than just 5e Divine/Eldritch Smite please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least right now, you're free to do something else if it entertains you. Several viable spellstrike options (e.g. Briny Bolt for slotted spells, Fire Ray for focus spells) have effects that aren't just immediate damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way to fix it is to add more spells to choose from then.
A lot of Focus Spells like Fire Ray and Winter Bolt would be incredible as ranked spells for magus. We need more of that kind.
The issue is that Magus is considered by most to be the only caster who cares about attack spells and that's not worth adding more of those if only one class can make use of them (which is BS but that's the sentiment I see around).
Removing all flavor from the feature is not a solution, this'll just make the issue of "every magus is also a psychic" even worse.
Plus one of the appeal/idea of the magus is also to be able to exploit vulnerabilities very easily with an array of elemental spellstrikes and then cascade, so their strikes can proc it. (though it'd be nice if they had more variety of strikes within the class to lean onto this aspect)
So yeah, the difference is: more choices is better than no choice. Even if we do aggree the amount of choice is pretty limited right now.
There is like 20 attack spells (cantrips included) that Magus has access to on the Arcane List. And almost all are rank 4 or lower with only Disintegrate at rank 6 and Polar Ray at 8th.
So yes there's an issue of variety of choices for that aspect.
I think both desires are valid: we could do with more attack spells, not fewer, but the Magus could also be made to be less reliant on attack spells. The fact that Paizo seem to be generally moving away from attack spells is obviously not great for the Magus, but also not that amazing for spell diversity either, and I think there's lots more to explore in that space (though in my opinion sure strike makes this more difficult, and should have been reworked).
How about this for the Magus, though: not only do you get Expansive Spellstrike from the get-go, rather than have an enemy make a separate save, you compare your attack roll to their save DC (this still counts as two attacks for your MAP), treat your degree of success as the enemy's degree of failure (hit means they fail, critical hit means they critically fail), but do nothing on a miss. This would not only allow a Magus to make just one roll each time, but would allow them to bypass their own low spell accuracy on save spells as well as attack spells, opening up a far broader range of spells they could Spellstrike with as a baseline. This shouldn't exclude the possibility of more attack spells, but it would allow the Magus to thrive even without them.
Essentially treating Spellstrike like Channel Smite.
The issue is that it could easily be way too powerful with some spells.
It's fine with Channel Smite because it's limited to two spells (Harm/Heal) that are just damage.
Imagine on spells like Slow. It's much easier to stack up bonuses to hit/penalties to AC than it is to saves.
For example:
Level 10 Magus. +5 (modifier) +2 (weapon) +4 (expert) +10 (level)= +21 to hit baseline.
Ennemy is off-guard(+2 to hit), you are under Heroism (+2), and have been successfully frightened 2 (+2). You have a total of +27 to hit.
The situational bonuses are essentially a +6.
A level 11 creature can have up to 33 AC. That's inflicting Slowed 1 for a minute on a 6. Slowed 2 for a minute on a 16.
This becomes much, much harder to balance save spells around because you'd have to consider "okay but is it balanced if a magus replaces the save by a weapon attack roll" which either results in save spells being nerfed going forward. Or untouched and Magus becomes truly too powerful.
There is a middleground to be found I'm sure. I personnaly would like that a successful hit inflicts a status or circumstance penalty to the save (-2 ont a hit, -3 on a crit maybe?).
Or like with disintegrate, a critical hit reduces the result of the save.
I also think allowing non-AoE save spells in basic spellstrike would be nice too (stuff like Thunderstrike, Frostbite etc). And have Expansive Spellstrike (aka Spell Combat 2e) include AoE or even buff spells to cast on yourself while attacking.
Now, between something like that and just more Attack spells with interresting effects (please do just give us Fire Ray and Winter Bolt as ranked spells, those are very good designs) we'd eat very good already.
Still would be down to redistribute some of the class' "power budget" so to speak so it can do more than just Spellstrike, or give more action economy tool (Recycle Cascade, please, I swear I'm sure it's a good idea believe me)
The key difference between what is being proposed and Channel Smite is that Channel Smite is a 1:1 on your attack's degree of success versus your opponent's degree of failure, meaning you can reliably deal harm or heal's damage to a creature with extremely high Fortitude so long as you hit them with a Strike. You are correct that this works fine with those spells because they just deal damage with a basic save, and this would be less fine with control spells.
However, what is being proposed is slightly different: rather than that direct 1:1, you still use the enemy's save DC and compare your roll before determining the result. This means that if that enemy has extremely high Fortitude, your slow spell would still be less likely to succeed via Spellstrike, even if you hit. It also means that even if your enemy is off-guard, clumsy, and so on, unless they also have their relevant save debuffed, those debuffs wouldn't matter, because it would be your roll that's being compared. It's true that it's easier to buff an attack modifier than a spell DC, but because your spell would do nothing on a miss, you'd still be less likely to lay down your spell. A spellcaster would only have to worry about the relevant save, whereas you'd still have to worry about two separate defenses.
For instance, let's take that same level 10 Magus and an Adlet, a fairly standard level 10 creature with 30 AC and a +20 to Fort saves (save DC of 30): with a +21 base attack modifier, you get a regular hit 50% of the time, and crit 10% of the time, but you also do nothing 40% of the time. Compared to a 10th-level full caster casting slow with a save DC of 29, the monster gets a crit success 10% of the time, a regular success 50% of the time, a regular failure 35% of the time, and a crit failure 5% of the time: you get a higher chance to impose harsher effects, but you're still far less reliable overall. If you throw heroism into the mix, you get a regular hit 50% of the time and a crit 20% of the time, so your effects are still more intense but less accurate overall.
True this might work.
Essentially building in something similar to the Shadow Signet ring in some way.
It's just a bit weird to make a weapon strike targetting a save DC though. Like narratively how do you explain it ? It also means that an ennemy wouldn't be able to use a shield or other similar bonuses to protect themselves. It is a bit awkward in that regard I feel.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think allowing non-AoE save spells in basic spellstrike would be nice too (stuff like Thunderstrike, Frostbite etc). And have Expansive Spellstrike (aka Spell Combat 2e) include AoE or even buff spells to cast on yourself while attacking..
I like this idea. It broadens the list of possible options without opening the floodgates. I'm sure there's a handful of spells that might be problematic, but as a "quick fix" this is pretty elegant.
It's just a bit weird to make a weapon strike targetting a save DC though. Like narratively how do you explain it ? It also means that an ennemy wouldn't be able to use a shield or other similar bonuses to protect themselves. It is a bit awkward in that regard I feel.
Narratively, you first have to successfully hit with your Strike to deliver the spell infused in it (so an enemy with a shield raised would be able to mitigate the Spellstrike by making the attack miss), but after the hit, the spell basically affects you as if you were saving against it, it's just that the accuracy of the Strike is what would determine how well it goes against your defenses. It's not just that you learn spells and Strikes independently, your technique with your weapons, the precision or brute force you develop as part of your martial training, would directly affect your ability to bypass or overpower an opponent's magical defenses.
It's just a bit weird to make a weapon strike targetting a save DC though. Like narratively how do you explain it ? It also means that an ennemy wouldn't be able to use a shield or other similar bonuses to protect themselves. It is a bit awkward in that regard I feel.Narratively, you first have to successfully hit with your Strike to deliver the spell infused in it (so an enemy with a shield raised would be able to mitigate the Spellstrike by making the attack miss), but after the hit, the spell basically affects you as if you were saving against it, it's just that the accuracy of the Strike is what would determine how well it goes against your defenses. It's not just that you learn spells and Strikes independently, your technique with your weapons, the precision or brute force you develop as part of your martial training, would directly affect your ability to bypass or overpower an opponent's magical defenses.
But then why would off-guard, or circumstance bonuses to AC like shields etc not be of any use to defend against it or make it more likely ?
The shadow signet, for example, explains it as your attack spell warping through the Netherworld/shadowplane and popping out inside/right in front of the ennemy, targetting their ability to reflexively avoid it or if their body can resist it so you target Reflex of Fortitude DC.
I don't see spellstrike having the ability to make your weapon intangible being written in.
Could be a special spellstrike feat though, this could work.
It's just a bit weird to make a weapon strike targetting a save DC though. Like narratively how do you explain it ? It also means that an ennemy wouldn't be able to use a shield or other similar bonuses to protect themselves. It is a bit awkward in that regard I feel.Narratively, you first have to successfully hit with your Strike to deliver the spell infused in it (so an enemy with a shield raised would be able to mitigate the Spellstrike by making the attack miss), but after the hit, the spell basically affects you as if you were saving against it, it's just that the accuracy of the Strike is what would determine how well it goes against your defenses. It's not just that you learn spells and Strikes independently, your technique with your weapons, the precision or brute force you develop as part of your martial training, would directly affect your ability to bypass or overpower an opponent's magical defenses.
IMO, a Reflex save should be downright impossible on a successful strike, even more so on a Critical Success.
Also, NOTHING makes it harder to resist a spell, be eligible or not. The Magus cannot apply their weapon proficiency bonus on that Save DC last time I've checked, or the target getting a penalty.
Finally, the Remaster didn't do the Magus any favor. For instance, while nothing prevents you from using Ray of Frost, Frostbite became a targeted DC spell.
Yeah JiCi, the penalty thing is a suggestion I'm making so using save spells is still a valid option for magus.
But then why would off-guard, or circumstance bonuses to AC like shields etc not be of any use to defend against it or make it more likely ?
Because those have nothing to do with your own precision or technique, those are all circumstances exposing or protecting your target from the attack. The actual technique itself would be represented by your roll here.
Also, NOTHING makes it harder to resist a spell, be eligible or not. The Magus cannot apply their weapon proficiency bonus on that Save DC last time I've checked, or the target getting a penalty.
The quote you pulled discusses a suggestion to change the mechanics of Spellstrike, not an existing aspect of the Magus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I would like spellstrike to be usable with save spells in a way that links save outcomes to the attack roll, I don't think it's acceptable as long as sure strike is in the game.
Honestly, sure strike is a huge limitation on system design right now. I half wish it were deleted, and every single spell that targets AC got an errata that let you add an action to it to get a +2 or so to the attack roll. It's so strong that it's loadbearing for at least one entire subclass (past early levels, I'm not sure there's any good L1 spell choices for Staff Nexus /besides/ sure strike) and contributes a ton of "invisible" power to magus and casting archetypes.
As much as I would like spellstrike to be usable with save spells in a way that links save outcomes to the attack roll, I don't think it's acceptable as long as sure strike is in the game.
Honestly, sure strike is a huge limitation on system design right now. I half wish it were deleted, and every single spell that targets AC got an errata that let you add an action to it to get a +2 or so to the attack roll. It's so strong that it's loadbearing for at least one entire subclass (past early levels, I'm not sure there's any good L1 spell choices for Staff Nexus /besides/ sure strike) and contributes a ton of "invisible" power to magus and casting archetypes.
I do very much agree with the criticism, sure strike makes any larger-than-Strike attack overly strong and is likely a reason why attack spells were made less common. Rather than remove the spell, though, I feel it could've been reworked in one of several ways: the simplest change could be to remove the fortune effect that lets you take the highest of two attack rolls, so it'd be a more situational spell about bypassing an opponent's concealment and other circumstances. The alternative would be to make the spell take two actions and have you make a Strike as part of it with all of the benefits, which would basically have it work like a martial feat and avoid interaction with more complex attacks altogether.
Maybe Sure Strike could be like the Devise a Stratagem action instead. Even works with the name lol. Roll a d20, this is the result of your next attack action this turn. Straight up.
It may step a bit on Investigator's turf but Investigators can do it infinitely, as a free action, and use intelligence instead of a physical modifier for it.
Maybe but that's kind of what the cantrips are for.
The point of the limited slots of the magus is to put a limit on their nova ability daily. If it's that easy to get a renewable one it defeats the original design, which at this point the class has to be redone from the beginning.
I'd rather have more options within normal spells so that focus ones aren't so appealing
Disintegrate would cause major problems if spellstrike worked like Channel Smite. It would be utterly insane.