Out of combat uses of casting items are more powerful than in-combat uses in most cases, unless you've prepped them with retrieval prisms and some foreknowledge. I'm weighting that much more heavily than the in-combat uses. You're 100% right that the in-combat uses are somewhat taxing, particularly for a melee magus with a shield or two-handed weapon. (Starlit Span gets a free pass here yet again because of access to 1+ hand weapons—another point of power for that subclass.)
Also not sure what WRT stands for, sorry.
"with regards to." No worries. There are new acronyms every few months, anymore.
So for example, in your proposition, a level 10 magus would have:
2 rank 5 slots
2 rank 4 slots.
2 rank 3 Spellstrike slot ? Wouldn't that be a bit low for damage spells ? Unless its spells where damage is secondary and the important bit is the other effects (telek manoeuver, or (let's dream) a spell version of Winter Bolt) wouldn't cantrips do as much/more damage ? Like between a 5th rank Ignition and a 3th rank Horizon Thunder sphere: Ignition does 6d6 and HTS does 7d6. Or am i misunderstanding you ?
Your intuition is correct, the intention is for those slots to be not so great for damage, because you'd already have cantrips for raw damage. At higher ranks, slot spells would become more attractive for damage, but I would like for utility spells to be equally or more desirable. This would allow a Magus to deal the peak of their damage on-tap for the most part, and then have room in their specially-allocated slots for spells more focused around crowd control and debuffing.
When even simple metamagics like Reach Spell take an action, the notion that SSignet is 0A with no cooldown or anything shows that Paizo considers converting your attack roll into a foe-side save is an outright nerf.
This is really not true, and Shadow Signet represents essentially a +2 to your spell attacks, more even depending on a creature's saves. Paizo added Shadow Signet not because its action is a nerf (this statement doesn't even make any sense), but because they wanted to implement a band-aid to the awkwardly-scaling spell attack accuracy of casters.
Player-made attack rolls are compatible with all sorts of fortune effects.
While I agree that this is the reason why using an attack roll against a save DC would be a problem (sure strike really is a broken spell in these sorts of situations), I don't think the problem is insurmountable either. If casting a slot spell with Spellstrike was a three-action activity, for instance, and used the attack roll-to-save-DC thing I mentioned, you wouldn't have room for sure strike. DaS, as mentioned before, does not influence the accuracy of this roll, even if it provides the significant benefit of anticipating how well your roll will do.
Magus does not have to make any build investment to access that kind of utility, in contrast, and still gets to drop slot machine dopamine damage.
I don't think this is correct, for the simple reason that spending gold on these items is a build decision -- the game doesn't throw infinite money at you, so while the Magus certainly gets significant benefits from caster items, particularly when it comes to casting cheap spell scrolls out of combat, that itself does not equate to the many more spell slots that allow full casters to do this for free on a daily basis. The Magus is also, in my opinion, gold-taxed more heavily than most martial classes, because at minimum you have to invest as much gold as a martial class on weapons and armor, and then have to spend more gold investing in caster items if you want to put your spellcasting aspects to use. The Summoner has a similar issue, where they will want both caster items and max-runed handwraps of mighty blows and Explorer's Clothing for their eidolon.
What exactly are martials doing that are more versatile than a magus?Feat-based Strikes, and synergy with Strike-boosting feats. Most martials have a fantastic ecosystem of feats that let them get more out of their Strikes, and because of this, it's very easy for these classes to archetype into one another and combine certain feats for even better synergy. Additionally, because these martial classes tend to have a really smooth action economy, they can afford to pick feats from other classes and insert them into their turns more often. Having a Strength or Dex key attribute is also a subtle advantage in versatility, because it makes it much easier to booth a fourth score for archetyping purposes.
With the Magus, by contrast, the core of their Striking and spellcasting revolves around Spellstriking. Because Spellstrike is its own thing, you can't really use feat-based Strikes as part of a Spellstrike, and because Spellstrike costs a lot of actions, it's difficult to slot in additional actions from other multiclass archetypes that will blend in smoothly (not impossible, but still difficult). As mentioned already, Spellstrike also works with only a narrow range of spells, and the Magus's feats and features push them even further into committing their spell slots towards attack spells, despite the existence of more synergistic combos that don't use spell slots (such as the overly strong Psychic archetype synergy). This is why the Magus, despite their access to arcane spells, is generally considered more of a burst damage-focused striker martial than a true hybrid, including by defenders of the class on this thread, and not a tremendously versatile class by default.
And this is why IMO it's a good thing you're not in a position of power to change any of this, because losing that amount of damage every...Im not convinced losing 2-4 damage is actually bad enough to make a wavecaster disastrous.
Especially not magus with spellstrike.
Actually there is a complication, because arcane cascade and laughing shadow flatfooted damage increases are tied to weapon spec scaling it would need still be there in a sense but it could look different. It would probably make more sense for it to stay but only when in arcane cascade as the damage type granted by that use of arcane cascade. I think we are more likely to see things shift around than see power increases to this class. But then again rogue didnt need more power and remaster made them stronger.
Actually there is a complication, because arcane cascade and laughing shadow flatfooted damage increases are tied to weapon spec scaling it would need still be there in a sense but it could look different. It would probably make more sense for it to stay but only when in arcane cascade as the damage type granted by that use of arcane cascade. I think we are more likely to see things shift around than see power increases to this class. But then again rogue didnt need more power and remaster made them stronger.
I mean, I don't think we're likely to see any of the larger-scale changes mentioned here, for the simple reason that Paizo didn't include the Magus in the scope of the remaster and doesn't seem super-interested in changing them aside from a few adjustments to fit the remaster mechanics a little better. If the Magus does get included in a remaster expansion and updated with bigger changes, the last thing I would expect is this sort of needless, straight-up nerf, much less a whole mess of adjustments needed to accommodate other class features this would mess up. It's not that it would be unprecedented to nerf a class with the remaster (this happened with the Wizard, albeit accidentally from the looks of it), but that there is strictly no evidence suggesting the Magus needs the kind of change you're advocating, much less would benefit from it in any capacity.
Out of combat uses of casting items are more powerful than in-combat uses in most cases, unless you've prepped them with retrieval prisms and some foreknowledge. I'm weighting that much more heavily than the in-combat uses. You're 100% right that the in-combat uses are somewhat taxing, particularly for a melee magus with a shield or two-handed weapon. (Starlit Span gets a free pass here yet again because of access to 1+ hand weapons—another point of power for that subclass.)
For out of combat, fair. Though as long as DCs aren't a huge factor, then it's only a single feat investment to get access to it, it isn't that much. Either a dedication or even just Trick Magic Item to be able to use any tradition if the character is trained in several of the relevant skills. It's convenient and useful for sure. But I am not sure if it justifies limiting the magus' martial side versatility in combat. If it had more tools to easily make use of those items in combat then yeah I could see that (like if fused staff and striker scrolls didn't limit their use to spellstrike only)
So for example, in your proposition, a level 10 magus would have:
2 rank 5 slots
2 rank 4 slots.
2 rank 3 Spellstrike slot ? Wouldn't that be a bit low for damage spells ? Unless its spells where damage is secondary and the important bit is the other effects (telek manoeuver, or (let's dream) a spell version of Winter Bolt) wouldn't cantrips do as much/more damage ? Like between a 5th rank Ignition and a 3th rank Horizon Thunder sphere: Ignition does 6d6 and HTS does 7d6. Or am i misunderstanding you ?Your intuition is correct, the intention is for those slots to be not so great for damage, because you'd already have cantrips for raw damage. At higher ranks, slot spells would become more attractive for damage, but I would like for utility spells to be equally or more desirable. This would allow a Magus to deal the peak of their damage on-tap for the most part, and then have room in their specially-allocated slots for spells more focused around crowd control and debuffing.
I don't really like this idea tbh. This makes spell attacks that aren't cantrips even less interresting to use unless they have very useful rider effects.
I feel like it also becomes more complicated to define which spells are compatible with spellstrike (depending on how its defined in your version) are both Slow and Darkness valid then ? Or only spells with a DC ?
I don't really like this idea tbh. This makes spell attacks that aren't cantrips even less interresting to use unless they have very useful rider effects.
I feel like it also becomes more complicated to define which spells are compatible with spellstrike (depending on how its defined in your version) are both Slow and Darkness valid then ? Or only spells with a DC ?
Remember that I am also proposing to make Spellstrike work with more than just attack spells (and cantrips) as a baseline, which would open up significantly more possibilities for which spells would work with a spellstrike. At minimum, you could make Expansive Spellstrike core to the class, so slow would be a valid spell to prepare into those slots. Again, the intent here is to encourage the Magus to stock up on spells that aren't just different flavors of damage -- there's enough room for that in cantrips, and even then, there's room there for a couple bits of utility too.
Yeah I got that, but even then I am not fond of the idea. Yeah you can use status spells fine, but the whole attack spell categorie becomes almost useless (and magus is kind of the class supposed to make those shine) and even offensive save spells aren't that good anymore. If hitting a spellstrike inflicts a penalty on the save, or lowers the success on a crit or something then maybe you could argue that you have a choice between a more likely to succeed spellstrike damage save and a 2 rank higher save spell that is more potent but less likely to work.
But it kind of changes the whole class' role into being a boss debuffer.
To me it's too restrictive and makes too many options harder to do or just not feasible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly are martials doing that are more versatile than a magus?Feat-based Strikes, and synergy with Strike-boosting feats. Most martials have a fantastic ecosystem of feats that let them get more out of their Strikes, and because of this, it's very easy for these classes to archetype into one another and combine certain feats for even better synergy. Additionally, because these martial classes tend to have a really smooth action economy, they can afford to pick feats from other classes and insert them into their turns more often. Having a Strength or Dex key attribute is also a subtle advantage in versatility, because it makes it much easier to booth a fourth score for archetyping purposes.
With the Magus, by contrast, the core of their Striking and spellcasting revolves around Spellstriking. Because Spellstrike is its own thing, you can't really use feat-based Strikes as part of a Spellstrike, and because Spellstrike costs a lot of actions, it's difficult to slot in additional actions from other multiclass archetypes that will blend in smoothly (not impossible, but still difficult). As mentioned already, Spellstrike also works with only a narrow range of spells, and the Magus's feats and features push them even further into committing their spell slots towards attack spells, despite the existence of more synergistic combos that don't use spell slots (such as the overly strong Psychic archetype synergy). This is why the Magus, despite their access to arcane spells, is generally considered more of a burst damage-focused striker martial than a true hybrid, including by defenders of the class on this thread, and not a tremendously versatile class by default.
And this is why IMO it's a good thing you're not in a position of power to change any of this, because losing that amount of damage every...Im not convinced losing 2-4 damage is actually bad enough to make a wavecaster disastrous.
Especially not magus with spellstrike.
You already have Strike boosting feats like Expansive Spellstrike and Spellswipe and such.
The magus designer rightfully went, "Spellstrike is already borderline too strong, so I'll leave it where it is."
It's unbelievable that someone is trying to ask for a class that is a top tier class to be even better. I'm waiting for some player to start asking for more for the bard or druid.
As Teridax said, Magus has no other offensive option than spellstrike with their martial side.
They can strike, spellstrike and use their subclass Conflux Spell to do a strike with bonus effects. That's it.YES, you do have access to spells like Blazing Dive, Warding Aggression etc that make use of striking with your weapon and have other effects and those are GREAT. I am not disputing that.
But those are limited ressources competing with, you guessed it: Spellstrike.I'm not saying magus should have as many action economy feats as fighter.
But it could have its own unique magic strikes/manoeuvers etc abilities that show a blend of magic and martial abilities, probably restricted to being in Arcane Cascade. Instead of everything being tied to spellstrike.
For example: Devastating Spellstrike is terrible. 5 splash damage on spellstrike is bad to be honest.
If it was its own ability, just a 1 or 2 action flourish strike that dealt something like: number of weapon dice+arcane cascade in splash damage that'd be a decent option that has both its uses and feel thematically appropriate.Or another idea: Riving Strike: 1 Action Flourish. On a hit the target gets a -1 status penalty to saves against spells until the end of your next turn, -2 on a crit. (Or whatever numbers for balance, could be -2 and -3)
Rend Defenses: 2 actions flourish. On a hit, reduces the targets energy resistances (or just the one of your cascade) by half your level, or your level. Until the end of your next turn.
See, just some options that you can play around with, support yourself and your team, setting up future turns etc.
As an aside, here's an example of something I find a bit of a shame not to see more of.
Dispelling Spellstrike: As part of a spellstrike you attempt to dispel one magical effect on the target, same usual rules, using your intelligence etc.Rogue's Dispelling Slice: Make a strike against an off-guard creature, on top of sneak attack damage you attempt to dispel an effect.
That works, it's fine...
If you want some other option, then archetype into mauler or dueler.
Then find out that you don't want to waste your time time tripping when you can slam someone for big damage with spellstrike.
If you're asking to be able to do maneuvers while spellstriking, then get that out of your head as that shouldn't even be an option as you will severely outshine a regular martial who has to specialize in a maneuver to do regular damage while using a maneuver for the same action cost as a spellstrike hammer blow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firelion you are missing my point. Please read my messages again.
You completely misinterpret both my intent and ideas.
What you are asking for is magus to become the most powerful class in the game stepping on everyone's tows. That should never happen.
Magus could use some remaster polish at best.
If you want to do anything other than spellstrike hammer, play a different class. Magus is built to spellstrike for huge damage with crits. It's one of the more versatile and powerful damage dealers in the game.
Giving it more versatility or power with something like Channel Smite type of spellstrike should never happen. Neither should combining maneuvers into Spellstrike.
Magus is borderline too powerful as it is, always stands out, and has a nice niche of being the best at cantrips and attack roll spells they combine for huge damage while mixing a handful of max level spells.
The feats are solid. I'm still not sure why people don't use spellstriker to boost their spellstrike spells daily and operate like a Hawkeye type of different spells for different uses situation.
I've played three magus now and every single one was a top damage hammer and one of the most powerful PCs in the group. They don't need more and shouldn't get more. Polish them up something and leave them as they are as they have a great niche and fulfill their class fantasy.
Kalaam earlier you said you wanted the magus to be able to support the party better.
Can’t they decide to use their spell slots for that purpose if they want support options?
Listen, Firelion, I did say I think the power of spellstrike (and some of its synergies) is an issue and would benefit from a rebalance to redistribute some of it on other aspect of the class.
I explained my points in details, carefully, several times, trying to be respectful. Meanwhile you attack people constantly.
Please try to read and understand what I'm proposing.
But well if you just persist putting whatever strawman you want onto my messages, you do you. I'll just ignore you from now on.
Blue, yes that's one option. But it's a very limited daily ressource that'd pigeonhole you to it with little to no flexibility otherwise.
The magical aspect of magus is fine, it's its martial options that are lacking and feel like the balance between the two isn't quite there.
Yeah I got that, but even then I am not fond of the idea. Yeah you can use status spells fine, but the whole attack spell categorie becomes almost useless (and magus is kind of the class supposed to make those shine) and even offensive save spells aren't that good anymore. If hitting a spellstrike inflicts a penalty on the save, or lowers the success on a crit or something then maybe you could argue that you have a choice between a more likely to succeed spellstrike damage save and a 2 rank higher save spell that is more potent but less likely to work.
But it kind of changes the whole class' role into being a boss debuffer.
To me it's too restrictive and makes too many options harder to do or just not feasible.
It is not the Magus's job to make attack spells look good, especially not when Paizo isn't keen on making more of them. The Magus being especially reliant on an extremely narrow subset of spells is not a benefit to the class, especially when they could be made to play better with literal hundreds more spells. Also, having an extremely small subset of slot spells you could Spellstrike with versus a far larger array of damage cantrips you could cast with better action compression would not make the Magus a buff debuffer any more than their current spell slots make them a utility powerhouse. Let's not lose our heads here over a handful of spells.
You already have Strike boosting feats like Expansive Spellstrike and Spellswipe and such.
The magus designer rightfully went, "Spellstrike is already borderline too strong, so I'll leave it where it is."
It's unbelievable that someone is trying to ask for a class that is a top tier class to be even better. I'm waiting for some player to start asking for more for the bard or druid.
It is unbelievable that you would act so consistently sure of yourself when all you have to show, time and again, is nothing but hyperbole and conjecture. Show me where the designer said they thought Spellstrike was too strong. Show me the statistics confirming the Magus is a "top tier class". When people criticize a game element with too much verve, they routinely get accused of hyperbole, but that same standard is applied nowhere near as frequently when people wax lyrical as they defend a game element and spout complete nonsense such as this. Let's challenge that hypocrisy a little here.
Also, you appear to have completely and deliberately missed the point, several times. Yes, the Magus has feats, just like literally every other class. That is not the point, and the very feats you mention are frequently seen as iffy due to their reliance on a weak spellcasting ability or being a three-action activity. Many of the Magus's feats are just "Spellstrike, but X", which does not add much flexibility to the class when the blocker is frequently that they do not get to make a Spellstrike on their turn, much less an ultra-costly Spellswipe. Because Spellstrike contains both the Strike and the spell within itself, there is little room to play with Strike-altering feats or spellshapes, and while that is fine for the purposes of Spellstrike, an already strong ability, that does limit the Magus's larger ability to integrate with other mechanics, which is also why they're not a particularly great beneficiary of mythic destinies.
If you want to do anything other than spellstrike hammer, play a different class.
This is coming from the same person who, just a few posts ago, was vaunting the Magus's versatility. Who are you trying to convince with this empty bluster: me, Kalaam, or yourself?
Kalaam earlier you said you wanted the magus to be able to support the party better.
Can’t they decide to use their spell slots for that purpose if they want support options?
They can, at the cost of not interacting with several of their feats and class features. Are you aware of the feats and class features I am referring to?
They can, at the cost of not interacting with several of their feats and class features. Are you aware of the feats and class features I am referring to?
Kalaam earlier you said you wanted the magus to be able to support the party better.
Can’t they decide to use their spell slots for that purpose if they want support options?
I admit I cannot read your mind. And im at a loss for guessing. They literally can choose any arcane spell a wizard can pick for their spell book and learn any new ones they come across. They can one day slot in support spells they know and the next offensive magic to spell strike with. Or mix it up. Or just slot in 4 chain lightings if thats what they want.
Arcane cascade can be done with any spell. Even if they choose all support magic they still can spellstrike with cantrips.Also feats are all opt in. If one of them doesnt work well with how you set up your magus why take it?
My best guess is what you are thinking of I probably won’t think of as a big deal.
I admit I cannot read your mind.
But that's the beauty of it: you don't have to. You, just like me, have full access to information about the Magus, which includes class features and feats that push the Magus to use their spell slots for Spellstriking, rather than for anything else. The power to educate yourself on the subject you are discussing is in your hands. So, once again, can you guess which class feats and features I am referring to? :)
I admit I cannot read your mind.But that's the beauty of it: you don't have to. You, just like me, have full access to information about the Magus, which includes class features and feats that push the Magus to use their spell slots for Spellstriking, rather than for anything else. The power to educate yourself on the subject you are discussing is in your hands. So, once again, can you guess which class feats and features I am referring to? :)
Lol. if there's nothing saying that says Magus cannot learn any spell from the arcane list and slot and cast the spells they want to from the their spell book then no. I cant, cause there isn't anything stopping it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to say, Spellstrike isn't that much stronger than other martials.
It's very good because in a single roll you can apply all of your damage, so it spikes very high and valley very low, where a Barbarian striking twice can hope to not miss both attacks.
I went and checked old comparisons I did during the playtest.
On average, between a Magus hitting a Shocking Grasp with a greatsword and a Giant Barbarian hitting two attacks, the magus will do (on average) 23 more damage. Though the barbarian has some advantages like, if both miss the initial attack but the barbarian hits their second, they'll deal 57 more damage than the Magus ahah.
Though, Magus then has to spend a 3rd action (or a focus spell of its own class) to recharge Spellstrike.
So for total action cost, assuming the unlikely scenario of the barbarian hitting three times, it'd come out dealing 25 more than the Magus. Of course this is unlikely as all hell.
Another more likely option, is a barbarian who got Vicious Swing and Furious focus to do two attacks with 3 actions. It then does... 6 less damage on average than a Magus with a greatsword spellstriking Shocking Grasp.
Could also try with fighter, but I dunno how to factor in the higher crit chance into average damage since it has better accuracy.
Did it with ranger, and while it is bellow for most levels, it shoots up FAR above at level 18 when they can make 6 strikes, assuming the unlikely full hit. 30 more than the greatsword magus lol
All that to say, with whiteroom math every martial can be overpowered in term of damage.
And those do not expend any ressources to be on par/above Magus using a slot btw.
So let's take a deep breath, calm down and get to the topic. Which is not "making magus as op as possible" but addressing the frustrations some have with some aspect of its design and how it could be tweaked to be more fun, not more powerful. (and again "power" isn't necesseraly damage anyway)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol. if there's nothing saying that says Magus cannot learn any spell from the arcane list and slot and cast the spells they want to from the their spell book then no. I cant, cause there isn't anything stopping it.
Right, I think that's all the evidence I need.
So, just to answer the question: besides Spellstrike itself obviously only working with some spells and not others, you have double spellstrike also significantly increasing the value of your spell slots only if you use them to Spellstrike, feats like Standby Spell and Versatile Spell pushing you further to Spellstrike with spell slots, Lunging Spellstrike and Meteoric Spellstrike only working with slot spells, and Striker's Scroll and Fused Staff pushing you even further to commit the larger breadth of your limited resources towards Spellstriking. By contrast, there is nothing in the Magus's kit that actively pushes them to use those resources to do something other than Spellstrike: they can prepare different spells, and in practice you'll want to when your damage is covered by imaginary weapon, but doing so means you don't benefit from several aspects of the Magus.
You will notice that there's quite a lot of this, so much so that anyone with even a passing familiarity of the Magus would be able to recall at least one element, particularly given how all of these have been discussed on this thread before at length. The fact that you were not only unaware of all this, but outright refused to educate yourself on the matter even after I asked you nicely multiple times, is revealing for all the wrong reasons: you clearly don't know what you're talking about here, but what's far worse is that you don't want to know what you're talking about. You actively refuse to not argue from ignorance, because ignorance in your argumentation appears to be a feature and not a bug. In a civil, constructive discussion, there is a basic requirement of due diligence in doing the bare minimum of research needed to have an educated discussion on the subject; this is something you do not even attempt, but also appear to view as an inconvenience. You even went as far as to pre-empt your own dismissal of the facts, while still ignorant of what the facts were. I don't think you realize how destructive this attitude is to constructive discussion, and how badly this prevents you from producing an educated opinion. It does, however, explain why so much of what you say has only ever a distant relation to the facts at best. I will bear this in mind in future discussion, as I don't think it's possible to truly have an intelligent conversation at all when this is the prevalent attitude.
Look, just ask Paizo to...
- Make recharging Spellstrike a Reaction.
- Make activating Arcane Cascade a Reaction.
- Make Expansive Spellstrike work like Channel Smite, but being limited to cantrips only, as an advanced feat to Expansive Spellstrike.
- Give a cantrip from the Occult, Primal or Divine list as part of the Hybrid Studies
All of these as feats for the Magus to pick if needed
Comparing the Barb to Magus like that doesn't quite add up. But adjusting the comparison to get closer to reality can provide more info.
Firstly, you are talking about Barb's best case of landing 3 attacks in a single turn, while the Magus only needs to land their first MAP 0 SStrike.
That accuracy difference matters a whole lot. As does the full 3A single turn commitment.
Secondly, I would ask the Magus players how often they really use the raw 1A recharge, as I don't think that is common or should be the assumed default. Many Conflux spells are "Strike once" affairs, which is damage you were not counting.
Thirdly, Barb is kinda the one martial that you cannot easily compare vs a Magus due to Rage. That is a specific mode that limits the Barb's options in exchange for more damage and Rage-specific actions. It's the only thing like it in the system, though battle form spells (that prevent spellcasting) might be the closest.
Basically, Barb Rage is a restrictive mode that *should* cause them to deal more damage than other martials. If the Barb is still doing less damage with Rage... that's a big yikes, and I hope all the other perks of that mode make up for it.
Overall, a 2A Magus offense vs Barb 2A offense being +23 to the Magus is actually a bigger gap than I thought it would be.
Magus *absolutely* comes out of that looking better than the Barb. With Conflux spells like Dimensional Assault saving a movement action while Striking *and* recharging... yeah. I suppose how much you value the Barb's HP (and easy Reach via Giant) keeps the comparison Apples V Oranges, but yikes.
Your attempt to say that Magus damage is not that great kinda backfired there, from my PoV.
.
I also would like to mention again that there are multiple angles with which you can dodge the Draw action.
For combat as an Arcane w/ lagging DC, you'll likely not want/need to cast via scroll super often in combat, but oops, Magus has full martial accuracy and there's at least Sure Strike. However much you like burning low R scrolls, you can access that much draw-dodging. 0 Feats will leave you with 1 0A Draw per investment slot via items like Retrieval Belt, but a single class feat is worth an item-passing familiar. Put a Belt + familiar together, and the first 5 turns can be filled w/ 0A scroll handoffs.
Still prevents Magus 2H weapons, but is a very potent option that you can't pretend doesn't exist.
.
Same goes for fortune effects, especially hero points. Because Magus and others exist in a system with such fortune access, including via archetypes like the Time one, Magus gets to benefit much more than normal Strike martials.
Not only does a 2A with one roll "double" the value of fortune effects, but SStrike is essentially a 3A power squished inside a single roll. It's really much closer to a 3x value for all fortune effects.
In my opinion, Magus is absolutely maxed out already on damage potential. While I'm happy to recommend QoL edits/additions, and addressing other usability concerns;
IMO claims like ~"Magus shouldn't be limited to a small subset of spells" come across as misleading / dishonest attempts to increase the class' already stacked power, especially when people are waving class v class damage comparisons as justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Standby Spell does quite the opposite imo. Instead of enticing you to Spellstrike with slots, it asks you to prepare anything else
The feat literally only allows you to choose a spell in your spellbook that you can use with Spellstrike. It is effectively about preparing an additional potential spell to Spellstrike with that will use up one of your slots, which does not preclude having other Spellstrike-ready spells in your other slots either, rather than opening you up to a greater variety of spells.
I'm also confused as to what you think Striker's scroll and Fused staff have to do with your slots, seems to me they're entirely unrelated.
As appears to be a running theme in this thread and across these discussion spaces in general, these great mysteries can be easily solved with just a bit of light reading:
So, just to answer the question: besides Spellstrike itself obviously only working with some spells and not others, you have double spellstrike also significantly increasing the value of your spell slots only if you use them to Spellstrike, feats like Standby Spell and Versatile Spell pushing you further to Spellstrike with spell slots, Lunging Spellstrike and Meteoric Spellstrike only working with slot spells, and Striker's Scroll and Fused Staff pushing you even further to commit the larger breadth of your limited resources towards Spellstriking.
Emphasis added for your convenience. Clearly, we are both aware that these feats do not directly relate to the Magus's spell slots, but they nonetheless serve to reinforce the fact that the Magus's feats incentivize the class to commit all of their limited resources towards Spellstriking, making for a class that doesn't have all that much to do innately when they're not Spellstriking. You could prepare and cast non-Spellstrike spells with your spell slots, as well as get scrolls that cover stuff you can't solve with a Spellstrike, but at best, that is not terribly well-supported by the Magus's feat options and core class features, and at worst it actively goes against the grain of those mechanics. Even without those incentives, players can easily tunnel-vision into Spellstrike to the exclusion of everything else (and that's fine), so it would be to the benefit of the class and of players wanting to do a few more different things if some of their features and build options instead encouraged diversification, rather than putting all of one's eggs in one basket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trip, I didn't say Magus' damage was actually lower than other martials. Just that the difference isn't that massive.
You forget in your rebuttal that in that example, the magus pays a cost with a spell slot.
And yes there is tools to recharge spellstrike more easily, but even the focus spells still take an action.
And yes, it is unlikely for a barbarian to successfully land 3 hits, that's why I added the "Vivious Swing (furious focus)+2nd attack" which is much more reliable.
And again I am not advocating to make spellstrike more powerful.
The only "upgrade" i'd give it is to make it work with spells that target one or several creatures and doesn't have an area of effect, with a save penalty to the target on a successful hit (-1 and -2 on a crit, or -2 and -3, whatever is balanced. Maybe have it only be to reflex saves)
Otherwise what I really want are more horizontal options. Stuff that expand options outside of spellstrike, give more tools to play with the action economy etc
And more ranked spells to choose from (which the ability to choose from targetted spells helps with already).
I even said, several times, that'd I'd be in favor of *nerfing* some of the strongest synergies by removing the focus spell compatibility with spellstrike.
What I'm demonstrating is that Magus, when commiting a ressource, isn't outputting like double the damage of other martials like some seem to believe.
I think tonight or tomorrow I'll make a full post detailing my suggestions, maybe have it be its own topic as well.
I must have slept on standby spell, it's pretty good and has no cost.
It's basically giving you a repertoire of 1 spell that you can change at will and share with your normal slots.
That's better than Versatile Spellstrike at level 18 I think.
I was thinking of the idea to have magus get 2 extra slots (either 1 from each top rank, or 2 of one of them) that are to prepare spellstrike spells specifically (as a compensation for removing focus spell compatibility) and give that freedom of spell selection.
But maybe having standby be a base feature would be nice lol
The original question that sparked this exchange was only aimed at spellslots, so I interpreted your bolded words in that context. With a more expansive view of 'limited resources' in mind, the point about Fused Staff and Striker's Scroll is taken, though I think it's a minor one as they don't prevent you from using staves and wands just fine like everyone else (which might just be more effective anyways in comparison to use with those feats).
The point both Kalaam and I have been making is that the Magus's kit in general pushes the class to commit more to Spellstrike than to diversifying in any other way. The paragraph I have posted, which I presume you have read for purposes other than just trying to quote-mine, serves to answer the argument Bluemagetim made of "why not just prepare utility spells". The point is that you can commit your build towards not Spellstriking, but the Magus's kit doesn't really support this terribly well. In practice, if you're going for an imaginary weapon build, you will in fact prepare utility into your spell slots, but in the process lock yourself out of several feats and not make any use at all of features like double spellstrike.
However, I will maintain that Standby Spell works directly against the argument. It is a lot more effective on a Magus that prepares whatever powerful non-Spellstrike spells than one who has all their slots filled with Spellstrike spells already, since that's when it actually gives them meaningfully different options in the moment. So it very nicely supports that style and encourages diversification in your spell prep.
Standby Spell gives different options regardless of which spells you prepare into your slots. It effectively lets you prepare an additional spell without giving you an additional spell slot, so if someone is preparing nothing but Spellstrike spells already, that is not going to make them change tack. If the feat let you prepare a spell that you specifically couldn't use with Spellstrike, it would achieve its purported function better under the Magus's current framework.
Lol. if there's nothing saying that says Magus cannot learn any spell from the arcane list and slot and cast the spells they want to from the their spell book then no. I cant, cause there isn't anything stopping it.Right, I think that's all the evidence I need.
So, just to answer the question: besides Spellstrike itself obviously only working with some spells and not others, you have double spellstrike also significantly increasing the value of your spell slots only if you use them to Spellstrike, feats like Standby Spell and Versatile Spell pushing you further to Spellstrike with spell slots, Lunging Spellstrike and Meteoric Spellstrike only working with slot spells, and Striker's Scroll and Fused Staff pushing you even further to commit the larger breadth of your limited resources towards Spellstriking. By contrast, there is nothing in the Magus's kit that actively pushes them to use those resources to do something other than Spellstrike: they can prepare different spells, and in practice you'll want to when your damage is covered by imaginary weapon, but doing so means you don't benefit from several aspects of the Magus.
You will notice that there's quite a lot of this, so much so that anyone with even a passing familiarity of the Magus would be able to recall at least one element, particularly given how all of these have been discussed on this thread before at length. The fact that you were not only unaware of all this, but outright refused to educate yourself on the matter even after I asked you nicely multiple times, is revealing for all the wrong reasons: you clearly don't know what you're talking about here, but what's far worse is that you don't want to know what you're talking about. You actively refuse to not argue from ignorance, because ignorance in your argumentation appears to be a feature and not a bug. In a civil, constructive discussion, there is a basic requirement of due diligence in doing the bare minimum of research...
This is why I found your comment funny.
Incentivized to do spellstrike? Thats not the same as restricted to spellstrike.So if you want to play the class where you only slot spells for spellstrike go ahead.
But anyone who wants to use some slots or all to use other spells can.
What other incentive does any caster need to cast wall of stone for example if they want that effect?
Its silly to imagine playing this game so rigidly that players dont use the full breadth of their abilities just because they wouldn't always be eking out every part of their class.
Incentivized to do spellstrike? Thats not the same as restricted to spellstrike.
So if you want to play the class where you only slot spells for spellstrike go ahead.
But anyone who wants to use some slots or all to use other spells can.
What other incentive does any caster need to cast wall of stone for example if they want that effect?
Its silly to imagine playing this game so rigidly that players dont use the full breadth of their abilities just because they wouldn't always be eking out every part of their class.
Even sillier is to willfully ignore how incentives work and how they shape playstyles, much as they have done for the Magus to an extent already demonstrated on this thread. As already mentioned, the lack of support for diversification plays a part in making the Magus a more rigid class than they need to be, and they could benefit from options that encourage and reward them to diversify. Just because you are not being literally forced to prepare nothing but Spellstrike spells does not mean you do not lose out on significant inbuilt benefits for doing so, much like how a Wizard can technically opt for nothing but touch spells, but is unlikely to ever do so.
The Magus could stand to gain from feats and even altered features that would at least support players trying to diversify. I don't believe this to be a particularly controversial statement, because more options are genuinely a good thing, and there is room for the Magus to have more feats, especially feats that encourage doing something a bit different. Let's face it, though: you're not here to have a constructive conversation, you're just here to argue, and have gleefully abdicated any and all responsibility to educate yourself or listen to anyone else, so all of this is more for the sake of any potential reader than for you, on whom this is entirely lost.
Yes, but some substitions make a more significant change, such that they represent greater diversity than others. If you're just swapping out one attack spell for another, chances are you aren't making great use out of that feat slot.
If an enemy is immune or resistant to damage from a spell you've prepared, it avoids having a dead spell slot for that encounter, so the benefit is still there. I agree with you that there is a benefit to versatility, but once again, that isn't necessarily what the spell encourages, because at the end of the day a Magus could still prepare nothing but Spellstrike spells, and isn't all that well-supported for casting what few slot spells they have for other purposes.
So is the benchmark whether we can make people change their playstyle now? I thought it was just about giving support to players regardless of what playstyle they choose.
This is a distinction without a difference. If the so-called diversification options you give to a player still have them do nothing but Spellstrike, there is room for options that actually have players do different things. Again, look back to the example I listed: if Standby Spell let them prepare that highly situational spell and cast it with any spell slot, it would allow them to have that spell on standby (as the feat name would suggest) without compromising their ability to Spellstrike with spell slots. It would therefore ensure the situation you are claiming this feat aims to bring about, rather than merely leave the possibility open. Again, the Magus already has spell slots, already can prepare more than just Spellstrike spells into those slots, and yet players still over-commit to Spellstrike with those slots, because that is expressly what their class features and feats encourage them to do. Standby Spell is no different in this regard.
Neither this variant nor the actual feat *force* the player not to Spellstrike. The variant forces them to have the option not to, but I don't know how that's valuable to a player who already wants that option and will thus take it voluntarily anyways (those are the players we are looking for support for, after all).
It is strange that you would move the goalposts in this way; I am not asking to literally force the player to not use their spell slots for Spellstriking via this optional feat, because that is quite literally impossible to achieve when picking that feat is itself optional. The variant I propose, however, specifically provides the benefit of preparing at least one non-Spellstrike spell. Whether or not the player chooses to cast that spell is up to them, but it is evident that picking this option would create a situation in which you are forced to have at least one non-Spellstrike spell prepared, as opposed to a situation in which you could very well just prepare five Spellstrike spells.
If I wanted to play a utility/support/control Magus, I'd prefer the original. Much better to be able to go from many specific options to a generic fallback than the other way around.
Your stated preference describes my suggestion more than what exists. My proposal lets you prepare a utility spell that you can cast with any spell slot (a generic fallback option that is easy to use), while still preparing specific Spellstrike spells into your slots if that is your intention. In fact, if you were to use those slots to prepare non-Spellstrike spells, my variant would provide even more utility by letting you have another utility spell on standby without having to commit it to a spell slot. The variant would accommodate players trying to diversify far better than a feat that itself forces the preparation of a Spellstrike spell.
lv 2: sudden bolt (4d12) more than heightened shockin grasp (3 d12)
Congratulations, you have just managed to demonstrate that sudden bolt, a notoriously overpowered AP-specific spell, is overpowered and shouldn't be allowed by the GM, not even on a non-Magus.
Lv 7: heavin earth (12 d10 + push and prone), on average more damage than a heightened disintegrate (14 d10 requiring a saving throw and without push and prone)
I see we are hitting an issue of basic math here, where apparently 14 is less than 12. You also do not appear aware of how critting on disintegrate's attack roll worsens the target's degree of success, making the spell already prone to abuse with sure strike.
or a heightened blood feast (16 d6 + some temporary hps)
Since when is blood feast, yet another AP-specific spell, a mainstay on the Magus? Again, you needn't look for these extremely specific cases when imaginary weapon is right there.
Lv 8: typical magus strike spell:
polar ray (10 d8 cold drained 2), your magus spellstrikes instead with boil blood (10d10 fire, drained 2, drained 3 if critical).
Indeed, boil blood was expressly made to be a superior polar ray, the latter of which is a notoriously weak spell. Even so, an amped imaginary weapon is still liable to be more effective, especially if the target's Fort saves are high.
All these are vertical damage increases, without even considering eventualities where in addition to the damage increase there is also an additional negative condition.
Incorrect, these are not vertical damage increases, because you failed to compare these to the most reliable and commonly-picked option already made available to the Magus, specifically an amped imaginary weapon. Moreover, your "research" did not improve by any meaningful degree, as your most compelling spell was, once again, an uncommon AP-specific spell that is infamously overtuned, and is abusive on anyone who can cast that spell. You also failed to apply the math inherent in my proposal and account for differentials in save DCs versus AC, which once again favor options that already exist.
For the avoidance of doubt: casting the spell instead of the spellstrike is not at all the same thing, nor is an increase in damage, because in the spellstrike there is, you know, the strike damage (weapon, runes...), in the spell by itself, no.
Except the Spellstrike needs to be recharged, so even though you are compressing the Strike and the spell into two actions, it still takes three actions before you can do the whole thing again. You also forget how Spellstrike on all but one subclass limits you to a melee attack, whereas spells like sudden bolt can be cast from a distance. You also fail to account for how my proposal has these spells do nothing on a miss, drastically reducing their base accuracy.
Your magus doesn't just benefit from an advantage derived from the favourable maths of rolling a strike versus vs. causing a saving throw, but from the versatility of deciding on the spot whether it's convenient to use a strike with an attached debuff or just use the spell to inflict the debuff.
And again, what you fail to understand is that this basic advantage of being able to decide ahead of time what to do with your turn is not a property exclusive to the change I proposed. A Magus can already choose whether to Spellstrike a target or attempt another set of actions with DaS, and can already have save spells at the ready in case their roll is poor. You are continually listing this benefit that already exists, that is already not picked over alternatives, and insisting that this is something that somehow only my Magus can achieve. It is simply not correct, and you could have saved yourself time, energy, and anguish if you had simply listened the first time.
Your magus sees an 20 and thinks: ‘You know what? The opponent is screwed’ and decides on the spot to use slow. Clear now?
Lol no. Again, DaS here does not enhance your accuracy; your ability to obtain that 20 is already possible without it, and DaS does not make it more likely to occur. In fact, in the case of a nat 20, the chances of that occurring are exactly as likely as the Magus casting slow without a Spellstrike and their target rolling a nat 1. You are confusing the extreme results that come from a nat 20 or a nat 1 with DaS somehow increasing their frequency, as with sure strike. It does not, therefore DaS is not the issue here, even if sure strike is.
If you don't understand this now, you either do it on purpose, so it's pointless or you don't get it because you can't and it's pointless anyway to continue.
It's not that I don't understand; I understand the point you are trying to make perfectly fine. The problem is that the point you are trying to make is fundamentally incorrect, in ways that have been pointed out to you repeatedly. Not only that, there is no real point to your point, as I had conceded that there was a problem with the thing I had suggested long before you even showed up. I made all of this clear to you, yet still you chose to argue out of wounded pride, resorting to spurious and ultimately vacuous comparisons that, even if taken at face value, do not support your point. I am genuinely baffled by your approach to this discussion, especially as I outright told you how you could have made a convincing argument, and you still continued to ignore even the most basic elements relevant to discussion of the Magus (chiefly, imaginary weapons) in favor of extremely niche AP-specific spells like blood feast. What are you even trying to achieve? What is it that you hope to obtain from this conversation?
To be fair, while DaS doesn't increase your luck it does remove the gambling risk. You essentially know if you can commit to your spellstrike with a spell slot or not, which is very valuable.
Without it, you can tempt it, with as many insurances as you can (off guard, buffs, etc to try to crit on something other than just 20) and use a hero point or sure strike. But if you don't roll well enough that's it, the spell is expanded (sure it might still have an effect on a hit and all)
With DaS you know in advance wether the fight is ending or not when you can apply your attack result to the save for stuff like Slow, etc. Since those don't have the incapacitation trait.
If they DID that would maybe balance it a bit more, where a crit would give a failure effect. But would a clause like "fortitude and will save spells cast this way gain the incapacitation trait be enough ? I think it could make some spells suddenly less usable.
DaS is extremely strong not because it guarantees all of your spellstrikes will crit, it doesn't change your luck (tho you can skew thet statistics if you ONLY spellstrike when you roll a 20, but then you're gonna spellstrike a lot less often) but it is strong before you always know if it is worth spending your powerful and very limited ressources this round or not. It takes away the gambit aspect of spellstrike. Which, with your proposition, can be even greater with some save spells if you tie the result 1 to 1 to the strike's result.
So it's both more impactful than you give it credit for, and less OP in itself than some people believe.
Sorry to say Teridax but I don't think your spellstrike version would be easy to balance without a bunch of caveat rules.
Maybe if restricted to reflex saves, but then it might cause issues if later on a reflex spell with potentially fight ender condition is published.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, sudden bolt has the uncommon tag and thus can be made to not exist in a given campaign, also means a magus CANNOT access it by simple levelling up and has to find access to it in some way.
So it's both more impactful than you give it credit for, and less OP in itself than some people believe.
It is worth stressing that I do in fact acknowledge the power of DaS, my posts make it quite clear that being able to anticipate the success of your roll is a big benefit. The point I am making, however, is that this benefit is not exclusive to the thing I suggested; it is a benefit the Magus can access to full effect even now. It is therefore not something that would interact abusively with my suggestion, even if sure strike would.
Sorry to say Teridax but I don't think your spellstrike version would be easy to balance without a bunch of caveat rules.
Maybe if restricted to reflex saves, but then it might cause issues if later on a reflex spell with potentially fight ender condition is published.
I agree, though once again, and as my posts should normally make quite clear, the thing to work around is sure strike, the thing that actually increases the accuracy of your rolls, rather than DaS, which doesn’t. On any basic save, it would be fine (which would make it especially simple to implement on a Spellstrike that only worked with cantrips as a baseline), but when crowd control gets involved, that’s when there’s a risk.
I do think, however, that the idea is workable. Earlier we discussed enabling Spellstriking with slot and focus spells as part of the class’s progression, and I also mentioned the idea of “strikeshape” actions, which would let you modify your Spellstrikes much like how a spellshape modifies spells. If instead of a recharge, you had to use a single action to then use a Spellstrike with a non-cantrip spell on the same turn, it would be impossible to also pile on a sure strike, thereby avoiding the issue.
Making it 3 actions non-compressible on ranked spells is pretty constraining though. It feels contrived all to prevent *one* spell from being abused.
Maybe we should just rework Sure Strike to be DaS but as a 1st rank spell,that doesn't let you substitute your modifier lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incentivized to do spellstrike? Thats not the same as restricted to spellstrike.
So if you want to play the class where you only slot spells for spellstrike go ahead.
But anyone who wants to use some slots or all to use other spells can.
What other incentive does any caster need to cast wall of stone for example if they want that effect?
Its silly to imagine playing this game so rigidly that players dont use the full breadth of their abilities just because they wouldn't always be eking out every part of their class.Even sillier is to willfully ignore how incentives work and how they shape playstyles, much as they have done for the Magus to an extent already demonstrated on this thread. As already mentioned, the lack of support for diversification plays a part in making the Magus a more rigid class than they need to be, and they could benefit from options that encourage and reward them to diversify. Just because you are not being literally forced to prepare nothing but Spellstrike spells does not mean you do not lose out on significant inbuilt benefits for doing so, much like how a Wizard can technically opt for nothing but touch spells, but is unlikely to ever do so.
The Magus could stand to gain from feats and even altered features that would at least support players trying to diversify. I don't believe this to be a particularly controversial statement, because more options are genuinely a good thing, and there is room for the Magus to have more feats, especially feats that encourage doing something a bit different. Let's face it, though: you're not here to have a constructive conversation, you're just here to argue, and have gleefully abdicated any and all responsibility to educate yourself or listen to anyone else, so all of this is more for the sake of any potential reader than for you, on whom this is entirely lost.
Perspective.
Magus is a spellstriker.Magus is a wavecaster with access to all arcane spells.
Party compositions can vary and have different needs at different points in a campaign.
Magus has tools to be a damage dealer but can step in and provide any other function the arcane list allows in up to 4 encounters either in or out if combat for any given day.
So while the main reason to pick a magus is to contribute damage, the class already has flexibility built in to the arcane spell tradition.
I dont feel a class with built in flexibility needs additional feats to do what they can already do.
And yes on those days where a magus slots spells that are not for spellstriking they have less offensive potential but in exchange they have the ability to provide some support.
And its not all or nothing and your posts suggest it is. That was the argument you felt the need to demean with ad hominem attacks about my intentions.
Making it 3 actions non-compressible on ranked spells is pretty constraining though. It feels contrived all to prevent *one* spell from being abused.
Maybe we should just rework Sure Strike to be DaS but as a 1st rank spell,that doesn't let you substitute your modifier lol.
I would love to rework sure strike, but I also think it is worth trying to consider the possibility that it is here to stay as written. 3 actions for accuracy compression on a Spellstrike is for sure constraining, but I don't think it's particularly contrived, certainly not more so than an action-compressing Spellstrike that then requires a recharge to shift that third action to an off-turn. I also think there are other valid reasons to make slot Spellstrikes a three-action activity in a world where the Magus's burst ceiling is a two-action Spellstrike with a cantrip and no recharge, specifically in that it would make those Spellstrikes even less reliable and something you'd have to commit additional actions towards engineering, much like a flurry Ranger's Impossible Flurry.
So while the main reason to pick a magus is to contribute damage, the class already has flexibility built in to the arcane spell tradition.
I dont feel a class with built in flexibility needs additional feats to do what they can already do.
Might as well scrap virtually all of the Bard or Wizard's feats, then. This is an absolutely inane argument, one that uses the excuse of "perspective" to shut down the very notion of trying to understand the point of view of players wanting feats from the Magus that don't just push them to Spellstrike more, and certainly not with limited daily resources or consumable items.
This argument is all over the place. You don't want to force the player to use their spell slots for non-Spellstrike stuff, but the feat forcing them to always have at least one available is great, except that you also acknowledge that nothing can be forced anyways by the feat as it is optional to pick it.
I think the only thing that's all over the place here is your attempts to find a contrarian position where no contradiction exists, and no position exists where your attempts to contradict what is being said would appear reasonable. It's not rocket science: an optional mechanic by nature cannot force the player to do anything, so I couldn't force players to diversify their spell selection even if I wanted to. However, if we are trying to design a mechanic that pushes players to diversify, then actually forcing that diversification to happen at some point, instead of having a feat that can very well be used to not diversify at all, would achieve the intended goal better. Arguing that the current feat could have players diversify if they wanted to is both incredibly weak and fails to acknowledge how this does not change the baseline mentality with having four spells to prepare already.
If the best Spellstrike spells were in fact more situationally specific than the best utility/support/control spells, I would agree. But they are not.
It does not get swingier than immunity. You can agree or disagree to your heart's content, the fact remains that there is nothing stopping a player from just preparing nothing but Spellstrike spells with this feat, and nothing about this feat that pushes the player to step out of their comfort zone. The variant I proposed, however, does. It does not get more basic than this.
But be that as it may, we don't need to come to an agreement about whether the original Standby Spell or your proposed variant of it supports utility-Magus better, or why. The original definitely does support it, is my main point.
It doesn't, no more than the Magus being a prepared arcane caster makes them this ultra-versatile utility powerhouse in practice. The very fact that the Magus has full access to the entire breadth of arcane spells, yet is near-universally recognized as a damage-dealer with a narrow focus on combat, demonstrates that simply allowing the Magus to prepare spells other than Spellstrike spells from a basic spellcasting feature is not enough. Your argument that the Magus already has support for diversification baked into their kit just because a feat lets them prepare another Spellstrike spell therefore does not hold water, and if I'm being honest I don't think you really believe that either.
Right it doesn't exist.
Correct. As an AP-exclusive uncommon spell that is known for being overtuned, sudden bolt is a spell that, for all intents and purposes, will not exist at the vast majority of tables. The fact that it is so very obviously overtuned, a symptom of frequently poor balance in AP-exclusive character options, means that trying to use it for comparison here merely demonstrates that it, not the Magus in any proposed variant, is overtuned. I could do the same comparison with a Wizard or any kind of spellcaster who can cast the spell and arrive at the same conclusion.
Lol, your ability to calculate is certainly equal to your ability to comprehend a text.
As you yourself point out in the case of critical disintegrate worsen the degree of success.
Wait, the degree of success of what? A save pheraphs?
Now tell me , my dear Teridax, what happens to the 14 d10 when a saving throw is passed with success or critical success? Do they become 7d10? Or 0 d10 on nat 20 ?) and explain to me again, Teridax, do you use a top spell slot of yours against a single minion pl -4, or can we assume a pl +2, +1? Now do the calculations with disintegrate with a medium saving throw of a on level creature , if so it is more favorable to you, and then come back and claim that disintegrate is better.
Well, Souljoker, let's go over this together, just so that there's no ambiguity:
So not only does disintegrate deal more damage, its interaction with sure strike is even more severe than any save spell you have managed to produce, and this is before we even get into monsters with high Fort saves, a matter that appears to have continually escaped you in its entirety. So I'd say my math and reading comprehension are just fine, though you might certainly want to brush up on both.
Cool opinion . Now we are in the realm where sudden bolt is a broken spell and therefore does not exist, but imaginary weapon on a magus is not broken at all and every Gm is overjoyed to have every magus use it. Also every magus uses it, because "I Supreme Teridax" decided so. Sure bro.
This may come as a shock to you, but unlike sudden bolt, imaginary weapon is not an AP-specific spell with restricted access. The Psychic archetype is common, which means that literally any Magus can access imaginary weapon and its amp by level 6 unless the GM explicitly denies it by fiat, something that is generally frowned upon in PF2e. By contrast, sudden bolt is a spell the GM typically has to allow by fiat, and generally has no reason to. That you would fail to differentiate an AP-specific spell from a commonly-available and far more popular option I think speaks volumes as to how in-tune you are with the subject of discussion at all, and that you would whine about how I'm not equating the two for the sake of your shoddy argument speaks volumes as to what you actually want out of this conversation.
But then even more fascinatin: Polar ray is worse than imaginary weapon and I am the one who can't do the math? Or maybe you are the one who doesn't know what drained 2 does? A lv 8 spell. So enemy at least level 16, does that sound right? So if we combine drained 2 to damage, we have 10 d8 + 32 which is more damage on average than 16 d8. Poor creature, let me help you 16d8 - 10 d8 = 6 d8. The average of 6 d8 is less than 32 :)
Correct, if you manage to get an enemy drained 2, you might deal 5 more damage on average... on a hit. This clearly escaped you, but the drained condition does not increase on a crit, making imaginary weapon the better option overall, and so putting aside the fact that one spell costs a spell slot and the other a mere Focus Point. Boil blood has a similar issue, with the additional problem that the target's Fort DC will not always be the same as their AC, and often it will be to your disadvantage (you may hit with the attack, for instance, but trigger only the success effect for the spell). Word of advice: if you want to be condescending and insult someone's intelligence in a manner as crass as you have, be sure to have all the facts on your side, otherwise you just end up demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect in full force.
You don't get it. I'm obviously not the right person to explain this concept to you, maybe it's my English, which is not my native language, or maybe I'm not good enough. Try asking a patient friend for advice, maybe he will succeed where I have failed miserably.
Btw you completely ignored my example about command? I suggest you ask for help to understand that too. Have a good day dear.
I don't think there is anything to "get", is the issue. I didn't bring up command because I already answered the point about the Magus having access to save spells already, and you failed to furnish any argumentation as to why the interaction you listed with DaS was in any way abusive or even excessively strong. In fact, I explicitly told you how you could have constructed a winning argument if you really wanted to point out how my suggestion could lead to abuse, specifically by comparing hit and crit chances to failure and crit failure chances and showing how those would be altered with sure strike. I went out of my way to inform you of how comparing your attack roll to a save DC is not the same as simply hitting or critting against a target's AC, particularly not against Fortitude saves, and generally have tried to help you find your way out of this hole you have so frantically dug yourself into.
Even more broadly, there are literally no stakes here for me in this argument you chose to have: as already mentioned several times, I have already conceded that my suggestion is flawed and in need of amendments. Whether or not you are right about DaS interacting excessively well with my suggestion therefore does not change the conclusion that my suggestion is flawed, and I have no reason not to concede to you if your arguments were convincing, because I have already done so with another person. The problem lies with you, specifically you, who have not only failed to make your point, but have outright refused to make any kind of cogent argument, and exchanged substance for petty insults as you decided, not me, that your honor was at stake in this discussion. It is painfully obvious you are here not to say anything true or meaningful, but to get back at me for correcting you when you said something that was incorrect. That kind of attitude leads to nowhere good, and I think it's safe to say your approach has not led to your satisfaction, much less benefited this conversation. I would therefore strongly urge you to reconsider your attitude in this discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, please keep it civil.
It's obvious enough you disaggree on some pretty core things and have different visions of what are magus' strength/weaknesses (or what they should be)
But you've been going in circle for a while now, so take a step back and chill a bit.
It's just a talk, no need to get heated like that it just makes the whole discussion less enjoyable for everyone.
If you can't aggree just ignore each other instead of egging yourselves on and on.
I'm talking about DaS as itself, I already said I don't aggree with tying save result to strike result directly.
What's HR standing for here ?
Also I know it's not directed toward me but dude chill out with the insults, like come on we're all adults here (I hope).
IT DOES.
It does not, and actually reading the mechanic should make this pretty obvious. Screaming via text and insulting people isn't going to make your arguments more convincing, but it does make you come off as incapable of having a civil, intelligent conversation. I suggest you give it a rest, particularly as we all seem to be in agreement that there are flaws in my suggestion that would make it too risky to implement on Spellstrike as currently written.
Good thing we aren't doing that then in this thread of the discussion, we're just looking at an existing feat to see if players that have already chosen a certain non-Spellstrike based slot preparation style are supported by it (as you claimed the feat was a lost opportunity for them). Hooray, they are, as it greatly lowers the risk for using their chosen style. This fact is not changed by how much support there is overall for the utility spell prep style, or how many players actually end up choosing that feat or style, or which other versions of the feat we can imagine, or anything like that.
But it doesn't, is the point. You have no evidence to support your claim, and the feat being discussed does not reliably achieve what you claim it does. This is the fundamental problem with your argument, as it ultimately amounts to just "trust me, bro".
But, since you apparently consider me a liar, I guess I'm wasting my time here. It would be nice if you could mention that earlier next time, if possible.
It's not that you're a liar, so much that you, much like Souljoker over there and quite a few others on these forums, appear to be the kind of person who really wants to have their way no matter what, and are ready to say whatever is expedient to that means, regardless of truth or salience. Your initial reply served little purpose other than to try to play gotcha and muddy discussion around how the Magus's features and feats gear them towards Spellstriking more, and hasn't improved in relevance since. It is clear that you believe the Magus is built for diversity, and are ready to argue until the cows come home against all evidence. Even though it's been pointed out to you that this feat does not alter the Magus's basic incentives, which do not make them a naturally diverse class, can and is used to pick nothing but Spellstrike spells, and could have been easily implemented in a manner that would have in fact achieved the goal you claimed it had, you have so far only ignored this, repeated yourself, and deflected around the variant as if that were the central topic of discussion. That, to me, is pretty clear evidence that at least some part of you is aware that what you're saying isn't really true, but is still ready to keep saying it anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Magus has as much utility potential as any PC who invests in an archetype to gain arcane spellcasting. Scrolls, wands, staves, etc. Even if you never touch a Magus slot during an adventuring day, there really is a whole lot of utility to gaining a spell list and spell book.
One neat perk is that Magus has top R slots on par w/ normal casters, meaning that their ability to "come back tomorrow with the right spell" is equal in utility power to a Witch, while being higher than an arcane archetype.
Overall, it is close enough to "wrong" to say that a wave caster does not have the potential to focus on the utility of their nature as a prepared spellcaster. Yes, a Magus offers less slots compared to a non-wave caster, but the point is that the system has so many ways to gather extra slots/castings, that the actual in-practice difference is being over-stated to the point of being misleading. Even if there were 0 class feats to help with utility, this would still be true.
What other people haven been trying to explain to you, is that there are Magus feats that someone who seeks utility will find genuinely worth considering. Options like familiar, Analysis, etc. Even options that appear S-Strike focused actually enable a cleaver player to increase their utility, as w/ Striker Scroll or Standby Spell. Because your S-Strike "needs" can be helped/met via those S-Strike restricted abilities, that frees up your normal wave slots for more utility choices.
That really should not be difficult to understand.
You'd think that Magus was outright banned from a Marvelous Mount wand or carrying a scroll of Cozy Cabin w/ how the discussion's been going.
Yet any utility-seeking Magus can just pick Standby Spell, and then load their wave slots full of utility while still always having their max-cannon at the ready. It's the perfect feat for PCs that like the idea of prepping niche spells, but don't want the commitment and potential damage-kneecapping that usually carries.
.
.
Onto the DaS issue.
Firstly, the specific judgement of how much power of DaS has is not really the point. The point is that the PC's ability to use fortune and other means of enhancing their attack rolls means that the balance of attack roll abilities like SStrike is greatly affected in ways that foe save rolls are not.
And this is why so many proposals around attack rolls for save spells just fall flat. It's a paradigm shift that Paizo clearly knew would be a bad idea.
.
That said, I do think you are underestimating how good DaS is, especially after the remaster changes.
The 0A version is almost a gimme now, and the "lock-in" restrictions got more permissive, not less. A Magus can still do plenty if DaS shows a low roll, literally anything that doesn't involve a Strike.
If the Magus really, really wants to still damage the foe, they still have all their save options. Oh, what's this? AC spells are not Strikes? Looks like that's still completely valid too, and will avoid using the DaS roll.
Overall, the main reason DaS is so crazy good is because it's 0A and a discrete action that happens outside the actual attack its enhancing. And it takes no resources to perform (/ does not cost a spell slot).
It is waaaaaay better than Sure Strike because of this.
I'll repeat, it has 0 impact on your action economy.
And you never can get a bad outcome to whiff resources when using it.
And you will never run out of DaS, nor need to allocate daily resources to increase how many DaS you can do.
There certainly is some apples vs oranges going on there, but DaS is kinda the entire power core of Investigator. And the fact that an Archetype Investigator's version of it only looses out on the INT to hit is really stupid, due to the "don't pick that class, just poach it's power via archetype" incentive.