| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the last errata pass the Magus can finally use non-attack spells for their Spellstrike. (with the AoE effects and the like put behind Expansive Spellstrike)
But the enemy still has to save regulary against the attack.
IMO
that just does not go far enough
This detracts from the dynamic use of Spellstrike and makes the save spells not very fun to use it with the spellstrike.
You still use two actions for the spell and one for the attack, you only can upgrade the whole process with a focus point - and you don't always have the conflux spell at hand that would be best suited for the situation.
One loses range and the advantage of making an attack roll spellstrike while having to contend with the lower saving throw *AND* making the class more MAD. Not everybody wants their magus to be intelligent, with the reduced number of attack spells they now have to contend with lower saving throw *and* having only a secondary attribute for the spells.
Considering all that I suggest: The Magus should treat saving throw spells as attack spells.
Critically hitting the enemy, acts as the critical failure of the saving throw
regular hitting, makes the spell as if the saving throw is regulary failed
Regular hit - well, either the spell goes poof (which would be a tradeoff I am willing to pay) or it acts as if the enemy was successful at the saving throw
which incidently would lessen the pain of just having wasted up to 3 actions without getting anything for it. (The decision between that I would rather leave up to discussion)
These errata adjustments were focused more on the fact that the remaster reduced a number of attack spell options, so they added this so that it wouldn't have too few options (although I still think there are enough for him not to need to resort to this).
The main problem with the magus to this day is just one! It triggers maneuver reactions with SpellStrike and this creates a very strong incentive to not fight in melee, and most magus players choose Starlit Span. The rest didn't change at all, they just allowed him to use save spells without needing the expansive spellstrike if it doesn't want to do an AoE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, I don't necessarily agree with OP - I think if you don't want your Magus to have a great Int score you should do what Warpriests have done and don't try to force a square peg in a round hole with save DC spells in the first place.
But YuriP's comment gave me an idea. I'd like to see Magus get a similar version of the Maneuvering Spell feat from the Sixth Pillar archetype, but coded specifically for Spellstrike. I've adored it on my Aloof Firmament magus, and I think all magi should be able to feel the thrill of doing the PF1 "cast touch spell THEN move to touch" knowledge check.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see so many people fixate on the potential for an enemy to make the save on a hit. I feel they're overlooking the ability to deal damage on a miss. Personally I think they should just throw out the stupid "lose the spell on a critical miss" clause.
I will say, I don't necessarily agree with OP - I think if you don't want your Magus to have a great Int score you should do what Warpriests have done and don't try to force a square peg in a round hole with save DC spells in the first place.
But YuriP's comment gave me an idea. I'd like to see Magus get a similar version of the Maneuvering Spell feat from the Sixth Pillar archetype, but coded specifically for Spellstrike. I've adored it on my Aloof Firmament magus, and I think all magi should be able to feel the thrill of doing the PF1 "cast touch spell THEN move to touch" knowledge check.
That's a really good idea on a modified version of that feat but if I could suggest make a focus spell instead of a feat (One reason being the focus point cost would help prevent it from being used to much and being abused), but definitely keep a free action.
I also think that after putting out even more variations of SpellStrike and having them available to more Archetypes and Class Archetypes but still having those classes having a greater number of spell slots than Bounded Casters classes does really brings home the issue that the overly severe limit that Bounded Casters suffer from serves no useful purpose. I'd even go so far as to say that the Summoner isn't penalized as much as the Magus is in that through taking the Magical Understudy, Magical Adept, Share Eidolon Magic, and Magical Master the Summoner at least has access to greater number of spell slots. Magus equivalent option Studious Spell while not being a feat tax hardly gives the class anything in the way slots and restricting the choice of spells so ridiculously makes no sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You still use two actions for the spell and one for the attack
Am I missing something, or is that not mathing correctly?
Spellstrike only costs two actions total. Doesn't matter the spell (as long as it qualifies for use - which has its own action cost limits for the spell). Both the spell and the strike happen. For those two actions.
So where is 'two actions for the spell and one for the attack' coming from?
Maybe they're talking about recharging.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can partially agree with the OP’s criticism — the Magus is generally going to lag behind in save DC accuracy, even with the effects on a successful save, and melee builds are generally too MAD to comfortably accommodate boosting Int — but I think the proposal may also need a bit of refinement. You wouldn’t want enemies crit failing often on crowd-control spells like slow, for instance, and being able to do so would give the Magus the added strength of having the best accuracy for any spell, which I don’t think should be the case. It may be better to limit this to basic saves only, and if you want to get fancy, perhaps you could even add a mechanic that decouples damage from other spell effects, so that a creature takes damage based on the attack roll but still makes a save against other effects.
Beyond that, I do agree the Magus could use some more adjustments. Melee Magi really don’t need to be vulnerable to Reactive Strike IMO when Channel Smite removes the manipulate trait from its spell, Arcane Cascade could stand to be made less clunky, and the class could be pushed to be less MAD overall, so that it’s not just Starlit Span that can easily opt into Int for better spellcasting. It doesn’t have to be an overhaul, just a few targeted changes that could bring some easy, but significant wins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't want to claim that my suggestion is the ultimate solution
I think I have a decent enough grasp on the balance, but there are surely many players who can do that better
I see the problems that Teridax notes, there has to be some sort of differentiation between non-damage and damage spells, I forgot for a second how easily one could 'abuse' the hitting for some spells
although with the action investment and little other opportunity to reliably land spells, maybe that is what the magi need (?)
I know the errata is mostly a fix for the reduction in attack spell (hence why I put the 'remaster' in the title in quotations)
I really love the class from the concept and it opens so many cool concepts, but it plays a bit clunky and the remaster did not really help
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite possible that they'll fix Arcane Cascade because they've made several similar adjustments to other remastered classes with very aggressive action economy mechanics.
Trying to guess, it's quite likely that they'll compress Arcane Cascade with something else like recharging SpellStrike (which to me would be the most logical thing).
As for the handling trait solution, I agree with Teridax, they've already given the hint on Channel Smite, I think it's very likely that they'll use the same solution by adding exactly the same line to the activity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to make three changes to the Magus, they'd be the following:
With this, most melee Magi would no longer be prone to triggering Reactive Strikes, would have far less difficulty slotting Arcane Cascade into their turn, and would be far less MAD. Although more could be done to accommodate melee Dex-based Magi, the above would be quick and simple enough to not radically disrupt most players' builds, and would improve most subclasses without affecting Starlit Span, by far the strongest hybrid study at the moment (in fact, it would let more subclasses share its strength of making Int easier to build). If this somehow makes the class too strong overall, that could be addressed by altering the Psychic to make amps a spellshape free action focus spell, and also by having the multiclass archetype no longer give out amps, both of which arguably need to happen on their own merits and would make the Magus less dependent on one particular synergy for their power.
Beyond this, there's perhaps more to be done with fancier changes: because basic saves are there for pure damage effects, much like many attack spells, it wouldn't change the Magus's niche to use their attack roll to determine the save result of basic save spells, even if the spell probably ought to whiff entirely on a miss (this is what Channel Smite does). If we want to let Dex-based melee Magi deal more on-hit damage without having to also build Strength, one way to go about it could be to have Arcane Cascade replace Strength with Int as your melee damage roll modifier, with an increase to the base amount. There's also likely more that could be done in the realm of feats, and another user, Kalaam, made a good proposal to include more feats that let you recharge Spellstrike with successful skill actions. The Magus certainly doesn't need a ton more vertical power, but they would definitely feel better to play with changes that addressed some of the unnecessary clunkiness in their build and playstyle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to make three changes to the Magus, they'd be the following:
Have Spellstrike remove the manipulate trait from the spell you're using.
Remove Arcane Cascade's requirement entirely, allowing the Magus to enter it whenever they like.
Give the Magus heavy armor proficiency. With this, most melee Magi would no longer be prone to triggering Reactive Strikes, would have far less difficulty slotting Arcane Cascade into their turn, and would be far less MAD. Although more could be done to accommodate melee Dex-based Magi, the above would be quick and simple enough to not radically disrupt most players' builds, and would improve most subclasses without affecting Starlit Span, by far the strongest hybrid study at the moment (in fact, it would let more subclasses share its strength of making Int easier to build). If this somehow makes the class too strong overall, that could be addressed by altering the Psychic to make amps a spellshape free action focus spell, and also by having the multiclass archetype no longer give out amps, both of which arguably need to happen on their own merits and would make the Magus less dependent on one particular synergy for their power.
Beyond this, there's perhaps more to be done with fancier changes: because basic saves are there for pure damage effects, much like many attack spells, it wouldn't change the Magus's niche to use their attack roll to determine the save result of basic save spells, even if the spell probably ought to whiff entirely on a miss (this is what Channel Smite does). If we want to let Dex-based melee Magi deal more on-hit damage without having to also build Strength, one way to go about it could be to have Arcane Cascade replace Strength with Int as your melee damage roll modifier, with an increase to the base amount. There's also likely more that could be done in the realm of feats, and another user, Kalaam, made a good proposal to include more feats that let you recharge Spellstrike with successful skill actions. The Magus certainly...
I think removing the requirement from Arcane Cascade completely would be wrong. However, I could see making it become a free action (or potentially reaction) if done immediately following casting a two or three action spell, as well as likely immediately after a spellstrike. Arcane Cascade by design should require casting a spell, and I see making it free after casting a reaction or one action spell might be too-cheap.
Having seen a magus in the party, and seen it happen that the spellstrike invoke an AoO, it still was not that big a deal for them. Rather than making them immune to those reactions, I think it might be better to allow the reactions but make them less dangerous.
Give them a +1 status bonus to AC vs any reaction triggering off of their spellcasting (potentially not just limited to manipulate reactions, but that could be the limitation). Then include a boost while in Arcane Cascade where the bonus increases by the number of points of damage done by the Arcane Cascade. Also, while in arcane cascade, have reactions occur, but happen after the action is completed, meaning that the spell cannot be stopped by the reaction, even if getting a critical hit.
It might be interesting to have a Magus study that got heavy armor, but it doesn't seem like heavy armor should be the 'standard' in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think removing the requirements for Arcane Cascade completely isn't good because it is altered by the spell that was cast before it, which is something I think is pretty cool. As I said, it's easier to compress it together with another action like recharge and conflux spells (preferably both), it alters less things and makes more sense.
As written, Arcane Cascade doesn't actually require a spell to function by itself; it initializes the bonus damage as force damage by default, so it would work fine as-is. You could keep the adjustment by simply having your subsequent spells and Spellstrikes modify the damage type on the fly, and this altogether would be much less of a buff than simply letting the Magus enter the stance for free or as a reaction, given how the latter would still amount to a single-action activation with shield, the cantrip.
|
I like the idea of the arcane cascade being fueled by leftover spell energy. But I think it'd be okay as something you activate as a free action after casting a spell/spellstrike. Currently, it's just a bit too much hamstrung by "combat starts.. move to enemy, spellstrike, don't have action left to cascade.. next turn, now you first need to cast a new spell.."
Barbarian now gets to rage for free at the start of combat. Gunslinger is pretty guaranteed to have a gun loaded and drawn at start of combat. Magus shouldn't need a multi-round boot sequence.
After some winded debates, the best option is to bestow a -2 penalty on saving throws on a Spellstrike critical hit.
The reason is that... some critical failures are insanely OP, and critical hits are no longer about "rolling 18, 19 or 20", but 10 points above AC.
I will say if you roll a natural 20, then you should apply either a -4 penalty, with a feat that makes it an automatic failure, with the opponent rolling to avoid turning it into a critical failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can partially agree with the OP’s criticism — the Magus is generally going to lag behind in save DC accuracy, even with the effects on a successful save, and melee builds are generally too MAD to comfortably accommodate boosting Int — but I think the proposal may also need a bit of refinement. You wouldn’t want enemies crit failing often on crowd-control spells like slow, for instance, and being able to do so would give the Magus the added strength of having the best accuracy for any spell, which I don’t think should be the case. It may be better to limit this to basic saves only, and if you want to get fancy, perhaps you could even add a mechanic that decouples damage from other spell effects, so that a creature takes damage based on the attack roll but still makes a save against other effects.
Beyond that, I do agree the Magus could use some more adjustments. Melee Magi really don’t need to be vulnerable to Reactive Strike IMO when Channel Smite removes the manipulate trait from its spell, Arcane Cascade could stand to be made less clunky, and the class could be pushed to be less MAD overall, so that it’s not just Starlit Span that can easily opt into Int for better spellcasting. It doesn’t have to be an overhaul, just a few targeted changes that could bring some easy, but significant wins.
Magus only lags behind in save DC proficiency compared to a legendary caster for 6 levels total from 1-20: from 7-8, 15-16, and 19-20. You can absolutely make an Int-focused melee Magus, as long as you're willing to sacrifice some points in Strength - and if you're trying to use the offensive utility spells so much, then a couple points of damage lost from cutting Str a bit is absolutely worth getting more accuracy on your Slows and other, better example save spells.
Even if you aren't Starlit Span, your magi typically take on two flavors - one that eschews some damage in favor of DC for utility spells, and one that eschews save DC almost entirely for big damage. Flavor to taste between the two. It being "MAD" is only if you want to have everything all at once.
Reactive Strikes are so uncommon on monsters now that it's genuinely a surprise when I get hit by one by Spellstriking in melee, and I can count on one finger the amount of times I've been interrupted from a crit because of it.
Honestly, the Manipulate trait shouldn't even be on Spellstrike itself - most Spells Cast into a Spellstrike have the Manipulate trait already, so they'd provoke anyways from the subordinate action. I don't see why a Magus shouldn't have a cool moment where they cast a rare non-Manipulate spell into a Spellstrike because they know a monster could react to them. Is it because a crit ReStrike would only interrupt the subordinate cast if it weren't this way or something?
I would also vote for a free-action Arcane Cascade. Or at the very least allow Magus to be one of the exceptions to the "as little between-turn tracking as possible" rule and let them ArCas as the first action on their 2nd turn. It's not hard to remember "my last two actions were to Spellstrike last turn"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus only lags behind in save DC proficiency compared to a legendary caster for 6 levels total from 1-20: from 7-8, 15-16, and 19-20.
Proficiency is only part of the formula; your spellcasting modifier will also be lower even if you start with a +3 Int mod, a costly investment for any Magus. For a Starlit Span Magus, boosting Int isn't too big an issue, but a melee Magus will want to put points into Strength, Dex, Con, and Wis, so boosting Int will come at the expense of those stats and make the class MAD, no matter which way you slice it. Cutting Strength when making Strength-based attacks means sacrificing not only damage, but accuracy, which is not something you want to give up when your signature ability rides on one attack roll, and is counter-productive when the intent is to improve accuracy.
I also maintain that a free-action Arcane Cascade would be a far more significant buff than removing its requirement of casting a spell or making a Spellstrike. Again, a free-action Arcane Cascade means you can just cast shield in lieu of entering the stance and get the benefits of both the stance and the cantrip for a single action. Not only that, but the damage type for the stance would be force, making it a direct upgrade to just activating the stance with no requirement of casting a spell prior. The stance is valuable for its theme of cycling spell power, but I do think that is something better-achieved by having the stance's damage type dynamically adjust to whichever spell you just cast, rather than basing it on a prior requirement.
As written, Arcane Cascade doesn't actually require a spell to function by itself; it initializes the bonus damage as force damage by default, so it would work fine as-is. You could keep the adjustment by simply having your subsequent spells and Spellstrikes modify the damage type on the fly, and this altogether would be much less of a buff than simply letting the Magus enter the stance for free or as a reaction, given how the latter would still amount to a single-action activation with shield, the cantrip.
Teridax has the advantage that you can adjust the damage type of Arcane Cascade to specific weaknesses and then use spells in SpellStrike with more freedom and even greater firepower.
By removing the requirement and consequently the ability to receive the damage type of the previous spell, you are taking away this advantage and technique from Arcane Cascade, nerfing it. I don't think it's a stance that needs this type of nerf, it's also cool because of this flexibility and ways to enter the stance without excessively penalizing the action economy have already been presented.
Magus only lags behind in save DC proficiency compared to a legendary caster for 6 levels total from 1-20: from 7-8, 15-16, and 19-20.Proficiency is only part of the formula; your spellcasting modifier will also be lower even if you start with a +3 Int mod, a costly investment for any Magus. For a Starlit Span Magus, boosting Int isn't too big an issue, but a melee Magus will want to put points into Strength, Dex, Con, and Wis, so boosting Int will come at the expense of those stats and make the class MAD, no matter which way you slice it. Cutting Strength when making Strength-based attacks means sacrificing not only damage, but accuracy, which is not something you want to give up when your signature ability rides on one attack roll, and is counter-productive when the intent is to improve accuracy.
I also maintain that a free-action Arcane Cascade would be a far more significant buff than removing its requirement of casting a spell or making a Spellstrike. Again, a free-action Arcane Cascade means you can just cast shield in lieu of entering the stance and get the benefits of both the stance and the cantrip for a single action. Not only that, but the damage type for the stance would be force, making it a direct upgrade to just activating the stance with no requirement of casting a spell prior. The stance is valuable for its theme of cycling spell power, but I do think that is something better-achieved by having the stance's damage type dynamically adjust to whichever spell you just cast, rather than basing it on a prior requirement.
I don't see MAD as a big problem because during the necromancer playtest I played a post-remaster magus and there were still plenty of good cantrip and attack spell options. Not that I'd really complain if there were any improvements, I just don't think the situation is really bad.
By removing the requirement and consequently the ability to receive the damage type of the previous spell, you are taking away this advantage and technique from Arcane Cascade, nerfing it. I don't think it's a stance that needs this type of nerf, it's also cool because of this flexibility and ways to enter the stance without excessively penalizing the action economy have already been presented.
I think you've missed this crucial part of the comment I made:
You could keep the adjustment by simply having your subsequent spells and Spellstrikes modify the damage type on the fly
So again, I am not proposing to remove Arcane Cascade's ability to adapt to your spell damage, and am in fact proposing to make it even more dynamic, not that force damage is a nerf given how little it gets resisted.
I also don't find it terribly useful to frame this discussion in terms of buffs or nerfs: I personally don't really care about buffing or nerfing the Magus in terms of raw power, I just want them to feel smoother to play in a way that is healthy. If a change were to be a net nerf in power, but a significant improvement to a build's feel, I would still lean in favor of that change. Again, I don't think what I'm proposing would be a nerf at all, it'd actually be a buff, but it is also a buff that preserves the action tax that you and others seem intent on trying to eliminate from the class. Perhaps there is room to do that and just let the Magus double up on casting spells and entering the stance, which would give them exceptionally good action compression when it comes to entering their own stance, but that's not an assumption I want to rely on when proposing less disruptive changes for the class.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
I had understood that the idea would be to use the variation of Spellstrike's options to compensate for the types of damage and not that it would dynamically change the arcane cascade. It's interesting, but wouldn't we need a way to lock its damage so that it doesn't accidentally take another type of damage?
As for the nerf, it's because Arcane Cascade is already in a delicate situation, even though it has been rebalanced later, nerfing it now doesn't feel very good to many people.
It's more of a psychological issue, people tend to be negatively reactive to nerfs, which is why I'm usually wary of any nerf suggestion. That's why I tend to prefer smaller changes than a big improvement accompanied by a nerf somewhere else.
I had understood that the idea would be to use the variation of Spellstrike's options to compensate for the types of damage and not that it would dynamically change the arcane cascade. It's interesting, but wouldn't we need a way to lock its damage so that it doesn't accidentally take another type of damage?
Not at all, the proposal was simply to let you enter Arcane Cascade at any moment without the requirement of casting a spell or making a Spellstrike beforehand, and having the damage type change to the damage type of whichever spell you cast while in the stance. If you want to avoid cycling to a damage type you don't want, you could perhaps specify that you can change Arcane Cascade's damage type to one of the spell's damage types.
As for the nerf, it's because Arcane Cascade is already in a delicate situation, even though it has been rebalanced later, nerfing it now doesn't feel very good to many people.
It's more of a psychological issue, people tend to be negatively reactive to nerfs, which is why I'm usually wary of any nerf suggestion. That's why I tend to prefer smaller changes than a big improvement accompanied by a nerf somewhere else.
I mean, what I'm proposing is a pure buff. If you want the damage type of a specific spell, you'd just enter Arcane Cascade before casting the spell rather than after, with the added advantage of being able to enter the stance without needing to spend actions casting a spell. Because this is the kind of improvement that would address a particular bit of clunk that a lot of players take issue with on the Magus, I don't think we need too much hand-wringing over how it would be received, and I do think there is room to nerf the class in areas where they're excessive, so long as the result is a class that feels good to play.
Proficiency is only part of the formula; your spellcasting modifier will also be lower even if you start with a +3 Int mod, a costly investment for any Magus. For a Starlit Span Magus, boosting Int isn't too big an issue, but a melee Magus will want to put points into Strength, Dex, Con, and Wis, so boosting Int will come at the expense of those stats and make the class MAD, no matter which way you slice it. Cutting Strength when making Strength-based attacks means sacrificing not only damage, but accuracy, which is not something you want to give up when your signature ability rides on one attack roll, and is counter-productive when the intent is to improve accuracy.
I also maintain that a free-action Arcane Cascade would be a far more significant buff than removing its requirement of casting a spell or making a Spellstrike. Again, a free-action Arcane Cascade means you can just cast shield in lieu of entering the stance and get the benefits of both the stance and the cantrip for a single action. Not only that, but the damage type for the stance would be force, making it a direct upgrade to just activating the stance with no requirement of casting a spell prior. The stance is valuable for its theme of cycling spell power, but I do think that is something better-achieved by having the stance's damage type dynamically adjust to whichever spell you just cast, rather than basing it on a prior requirement.
Melee magi who want to use their Int mod can absolutely bump out of Strength - Finesse weapons exist. My 0-Str. Aloof Firmament magus does this. He decided to also can a couple points of Wis for Cha, but that was for flavor; those could've gone purely to D/C/I/W and been perfectly fine. Remember - your job isn't to deal pure damage as a utility magus, it's to use your action compression to get okay-to-good damage on a target while affecting a bunch of people incidentally with a powerful utility spell, then picking off stragglers. Starlit Span has the easiest time with this because it's ranged, but any Magus looking to do this with enough investment in mobility could achieve a similar result - Laughing Shadow and Aloof Firmament are good starting choices.
You did totally bring up Shield in the previous post and I completely missed it - whoops! Yeah, for it to be a free action it'd have to be restricted to 2A spells, really, and at that point just rework the ability. The fact that it already had the snag with how stances are formatted and needed special errata to fix it probably should have clued in that it being a Stance action is kinda jank.
Hmmm. If I wanted to keep it close to its current iteration just for simplicity's sake, I guess I'd... keep it a single action if they just Cast a Spell, but make it a free action if they specifically Spellstrike or use a Conflux Spell, maybe? That way it'd incentivize you actually using the magus's own special things to their advantage, but not completely lock you out if you need to just raw-dog a spell every now and then?
|
Personally? I think they should remove the Recharge feature from Spell Strike all together.
I mean, Spell Strike already requires two actions to use, so it's not like you can spam it in multiple turns. That would remove some of the more glaring action tax from the class in my opinion.
I mean, does any other class require you to spend an Action just to use its key feature more than once?
The swashbuckler and ranger said helloPersonally? I think they should remove the Recharge feature from Spell Strike all together.
I mean, Spell Strike already requires two actions to use, so it's not like you can spam it in multiple turns. That would remove some of the more glaring action tax from the class in my opinion.
I mean, does any other class require you to spend an Action just to use its key feature more than once?
That was good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melee magi who want to use their Int mod can absolutely bump out of Strength - Finesse weapons exist. My 0-Str. Aloof Firmament magus does this.
More power to you, but that’s not something a Twisting Tree Magus can opt into without abandoning their subclass. It’s not something a Resurgent Maelstrom can consistently rely on either, and it’s clearly not something an Inexorable Iron Magus is intended to focus on when their flavor text describes how they “transform the mass of an enormous weapon into an unstoppable force”. Even on subclasses that can decently use finesse weapons, without being explicitly pushed towards them like Laughing Shadow and Unfurling Brocade, you’re asking players to limit themselves to about half the builds available to them and pick weapons with much lower damage dice just to be less inaccurate at a thing their core class mechanic normally lets them bypass. This is why when melee Magi boost Int to access Psychic Dedication, those boosts typically come out of their defenses instead.
Hmmm. If I wanted to keep it close to its current iteration just for simplicity's sake, I guess I'd... keep it a single action if they just Cast a Spell, but make it a free action if they specifically Spellstrike or use a Conflux Spell, maybe? That way it'd incentivize you actually using the magus's own special things to their advantage, but not completely lock you out if you need to just raw-dog a spell every now and then?
I really do think just making Arcane Cascade work like a regular stance and let you change the damage type with every damaging spell you cast while in it is the simplest solution here. It doesn’t reduce the number of actions the Magus spends, which I guess is what some people want to change but is something I think is worth not disrupting without strong supporting arguments, but instead it just makes the stance much less inconvenient, as you wouldn’t specifically have to use it after spending at least one other action. If it’s okay for it to be a free action, then all the better, but I think the stance can be improved without directly reducing the Magus’s intentionally congested action requirements.
|
|
The swashbuckler and ranger said helloPersonally? I think they should remove the Recharge feature from Spell Strike all together.
I mean, Spell Strike already requires two actions to use, so it's not like you can spam it in multiple turns. That would remove some of the more glaring action tax from the class in my opinion.
I mean, does any other class require you to spend an Action just to use its key feature more than once?
After giving the Magus a wedgie.
After all, they don't depend on Focus spells or burning an action to use their stuff.
The ranger, of course, doesn't. But the swashbuckler loses its panashe every time it uses a finisher. And normally swashbucklers use finishers as often as a magus uses SpellStrike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...you’re asking players to limit themselves to about half the builds available to them and pick weapons with much lower damage dice just to be less inaccurate at a thing their core class mechanic normally lets them bypass.
But it doesn't? Nothing about Spellstrike lets you bypass saves. Magus only bypasses being reliant on Int for spell attack rolls specifically, because the conceit is that you're trading it for your full martial progression instead with a Strike stapled on top. For other spells, Spellstrike is pure action compression - a Strike+Spell for 2 actions, which is still something entirely worth building around. Just because Spellstrike signposts "hey, you can make GREAT use of the Spell Attack Rolls that other casters generally find only good or okay" doesn't mean it's saying "stay completely away from saves forever". If it did, Expansive Spellstrike (and the current errata to base Spellstrike) wouldn't exist as a concept.
And while it's fine that plenty of magi are built for just being pure single target damage, pretending that's all the class can do well and that it should mostly ignore its save DC unless Starlit Span is tunnel visioning to me.I really do think just making Arcane Cascade work like a regular stance and let you change the damage type with every damaging spell you cast while in it is the simplest solution here...
I think my only real gripe with this idea is that it no longer feels like an "arcane cascade" to me, a la your excess magic flowing over from your casts and spellstrikes like a waterfall into even your regular hits. A simple name change and fluff text change would fix it, obviously, but then now we've mucked up a bunch of existing characters' visions... not that the Remaster hasn't done that plenty already, I guess.
After all, {ranger and swashbuckler} don't depend on Focus spells or burning an action to use their stuff.
Uhhhh, did we forget that we need to spend panache for finishers, and need to spend bravado actions to regain panache?
Also, like, pretty sure all of the ranger hunter's edges can only be used on your Hunted Prey?|
|
After all, {ranger and swashbuckler} don't depend on Focus spells or burning an action to use their stuff.Uhhhh, did we forget that we need to...
The ranger, of course, doesn't. But the swashbuckler loses its panashe every time it uses a finisher. And normally swashbucklers use finishers as often as a magus uses SpellStrike.
Problem with those things:
Recharging Spell Strike is literally spending an action just to recharge spell strike, or using a focus/conflux spell.
Panache is regained by doing any action that contains the Bravado trait. All those actions DO something, besides just gaining Panache.
As for the Ranger, they don't spend Hunt Prey. They designate a target until they need to designate a new target. Furthermore, they get feats and a class feature that make marking targets for Hunt Prey easier.
So again, I ask, why not just get rid of needing to Recharge a spell strike?
After all, {ranger and swashbuckler} don't depend on Focus spells or burning an action to use their stuff.Uhhhh, did we forget that we need to...The ranger, of course, doesn't. But the swashbuckler loses its panashe every time it uses a finisher. And normally swashbucklers use finishers as often as a magus uses SpellStrike.Problem with those things:
Recharging Spell Strike is literally spending an action just to recharge spell strike, or using a focus/conflux spell.
Panache is regained by doing any action that contains the Bravado trait. All those actions DO something, besides just gaining Panache.
As for the Ranger, they don't spend Hunt Prey. They designate a target until they need to designate a new target. Furthermore, they get feats and a class feature that make marking targets for Hunt Prey easier.
So again, I ask, why not just get rid of needing to Recharge a spell strike?
I don't see the need for it.
You apparently don't play many swashbucklers or rangers. Rangers do not switch enemies well same as the magus. Swashbuckler finisher tag allows one attack per round with a finisher using up panache.
All this for far less damage than the magus does. The magus focus spells work great and allow them to do damage or something useful while recharging.
Not to mention the magus doesn't need to spellstrike every round, something the people that keep asking for this don't want to accept. Spellstriking is a huge damage spike when it hits, really big when it crits.
But it doesn't? Nothing about Spellstrike lets you bypass saves. Magus only bypasses being reliant on Int for spell attack rolls specifically, because the conceit is that you're trading it for your full martial progression instead with a Strike stapled on top.
Correct, attack spells are what I am referring to. Bypassing spell attack rolls with weapon attack rolls is central to the Magus's gameplay and one of their biggest advantages, which is why it's always the point of comparison when people refer to spell save DC accuracy. And again, to be clear: I'm not saying the Magus needs to be accurate with spell saves; I think it's actually a good thing that they're not necessarily the best at applying crowd control and debuffs on top of burst damage. I'm just saying that building to make their spell DC less crappy imposes a prohibitively major cost on most Magus subclasses that you can't just handwave away.
For other spells, Spellstrike is pure action compression - a Strike+Spell for 2 actions, which is still something entirely worth building around.
Again, not how Spellstrike works. The need to recharge makes Spellstrike work not as action compression, but action deferment -- rather than pay all three actions at once, you get to pay two now and the third on your next turn. This is the basis of the Magus's two-turn rotation, which is also why it's particularly costly to whiff with a spell or Spellstrike: if you don't get that much out of it or anything at all, you've just blown the big thing your current turn and the next revolve around setting up. This is again why accuracy is such a big deal on the Magus, more so than on pretty much any other class.
And while it's fine that plenty of magi are built for just being pure single target damage, pretending that's all the class can do well and that it should mostly ignore its save DC unless Starlit Span is tunnel visioning to me.
Is anyone suggesting or even implying this? I'm certainly not; I'm just saying the Magus is clearly not as good at save DCs as they are with attacks, which leaves plenty of room for spells that use neither. I'm just pushing back against this notion that all of the Magus's problems can be solved by just pretending to be a Starlit Span Magus irrespective of subclass, because on top of being flat-out impossible to do in some cases, it's clearly not ideal in every case. It's also not a terribly helpful mentality, I find, because if the only real option you're presenting someone is "we have Starlit Span at home" regardless of the subclass and the tradeoffs it represents, people are just going to keep overpicking Starlit Span due to how convenient it is over the other subclasses.
I think my only real gripe with this idea is that it no longer feels like an "arcane cascade" to me, a la your excess magic flowing over from your casts and spellstrikes like a waterfall into even your regular hits. A simple name change and fluff text change would fix it, obviously, but then now we've mucked up a bunch of existing characters' visions... not that the Remaster hasn't done that plenty already, I guess.
This is fair, though I do think it's worth asking whether specifically reacting to a spell by entering a stance is truly that central to the Magus's vision as opposed to... well, you know, Spellstrike. I personally have quite a favorable opinion of the remaster despite some issues, and I'd quite like to see certain aspects of the Magus reexamined in greater depth if at all possible. If that means smoothing over the class's clunky action economy, all the better, though I'm assuming the action taxes are unfortunately an intended balancing point.
I would refrain from using inflammatory language that assumes lack of self-restraint on the part of others, but I do otherwise agree that removing the recharge requirement entirely would likely require making balance adjustments to Spellstrike that many players would hate. Spellstrike has the immense power of not only compressing accuracy, but letting the Magus do so with spells designed to deal immense burst damage on their own, i.e. slot spells and certain focus spells, while also layering on an additional Strike whose action cost you only pay later on. We can already see how problematic this can become when made easily spammable with Starlit Span, and while I'd like to make the Magus's action economy less congested, I think unfortunately they're stuck in a situation where the only real way to balance out their sometimes-excessive burst damage is by making their action economy quite clunky. I did try my hand at a Magus rework where their own version of Spellstrike did have action compression, but no accuracy compression, but the end result ended up being essentially the opposite of the Magus, so while the idea I think has its own merits, the more you lean into action compression and a more fluid action economy, the farther away you get from the Magus and what they can be allowed to do as one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's clear up a few things here.
So in practice, if a saving spell is used, the magus is worse than a summoner who casts a spell and orders the eidolon to attack. In fact, it is even a little worse because the summoner compresses an action with Act Together, is not limited to the range of the physical attack (which is not a problem due to Starlit Span) and can make the eidolon to use any action not only Strike.
The real benefits that the magus has are the following:
So what happens is that if SpellStrike has its recharge removed, the conflux spells lose one of their main benefits, further increasing the incentive to use other focus spells provided by other archetypes, in addition to, of course, providing an extra action for free use. That's why I'm not very favorable to this idea, it would be a too significant boost in actions and would probably require redoing all the conflux spells for them to remain viable.
That's why, for me, compressing the arcane cascade into another action makes more sense, especially the recharge one. Another change that I think is deserved is to remove the manipulate trait from spells when used with SpellStrike to at least slightly reduce the huge advantage that Starlit Span has over other subclasses and even that the summoner has over the magus when it comes to casting a saving throw spell and Strike with the eidolon.
I think a third suggestion I could make is to have SpellStrike replace the saving throw roll with the attack roll. This would allow the use of these spells without suffering from the MAD problem and will add the item bonus. Perhaps, to balance it out, it would also be necessary to make the SpellStrike failure effect a critical failure effect on the spell (since otherwise saving throw spells would be better than attack spells), or to increase and decrease the degree of success on the save in case of success and critical failure respectively (however, this would have to be restricted to spells with incapacitation).