|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll try to put something together with the scribe tools but I wanted to share some basic ideas here first.
My main goal is to divorce the magus and spellstrike from a strict dpr role, make it less clunky and more fluid which will hopefully make it more fun to play.
The major change to accomplish that is simplifying spellstrike. It will be simple action compression. For 2 actions, you can strike and cast a 1 or 2 action spell or vice versa, full stop. No recharging. At base, this is very similar to what summoner can do with act together which is one of its biggest strengths. That efficiency will be mirrored with spellstrike.
This will open up the power budget I believe to make the subclasses more interesting and powerful. With base spellstrike simplified, it's a good foundation to add unique stuff on top of it. Rather than through feats, spellstrike will have adjustments and boons from level one based on the subclass.
I'm not sure what to do with cascade honestly. That one is still an enigma.
Some questions, as I'm not certain it is entirely clear on what you are proposing.
If I understand correctly, you are saying you are going to make Spellstriking involve a casting a 1 or 2 action spell as well as making a strike. And I get the impression you are saying this would take the same one or two actions to cast the spell, but you might be planning it to always take two actions. It isn't clear.
It also isn't clear if you are divorcing the interaction between the strike and the spell people are used to with spellstrike. It sounded like you saying just action compression, that you are simplifying by getting rid of that interaction.
If you are allowing a 1 action spellstrike, that is really powerful, and depending on how you implement it, could create a situation where someone could preform up to three spellstrikes in a round, which seems wrong. Even if you limit it to once a round with a Flourish trait, simply always getting a free extra strike a turn if you cast a spell is pretty powerful. Much like giving a limited Haste.
I know you mentioned comparing it to the Summoner, with Act Together, but you should also consider Act Together is used in a situation where they can be targeted in two different places, so while powerful, is also comes with a greater risk.
Also with your discussion of simplifying it down to action compression only, you don't discuss if you count each attack for MAP if the spell is an attack spell. Does map increase for the spell attack during the activity, or only at the end of the activity?
So something to consider, to give the free strike, a 'cost', would be to have MAP be calculated like many combined attacks, if the spell is an Attack spell the MAP is combined, but only added after the end of the activity. But as part of the activity the strike always occurs first, and if the strike misses, you apply a -2 STATUS penalty to the following spell attack's to hit, and/or a -2 STATUS penalty to the DC of your spell if it is a DC based spell. This would mean that if you miss, your spell is less likely to be effective, therefore there is a COST, to choosing to take the otherwise free action. (a chance it makes your spell less effective if you miss)
Another point of clarification. Are you allowing spellstrikes to combine a ranged or thrown strike, as well as melee strikes with your action compression? If you are allowing ranged strikes, are you requiring the spell to be a ranged spell. Is it accurate that when spellstriking, the spell and the strike have to target the same creature, so if you allowed a range strike, you'd have to have a spell that can target the creature within the spell range, and within the weapon range? Or do you have some other non-action compression interactions, allowing a weapon to carry a touch spell to a range or short range spells boosted to weapon ranges?
So it seems like you'd need to clarify:
Number of actions for the activity.
MAP interactions
Flourish or 1/round limitation?
Melee limitation?
Single Target for both Strike and Spell (and what happens with area spells)
Ranged spell/Ranged Weapon interactions?
Order of strike and spell if relevant?
Any interaction between strike effect and spell effect?
Reducing the options to change spellstrike via feats and limiting it to only via subclass may make subclass more impactful, but seem like it could really straitjacket your options. This sounds a little more like a 5e subclass where your boosts are chosen at level X when you take the subclass and you just work for them over time. But without examples is hard to know for sure if that works out as a problem or not. Feats let someone build something they like together as a package, skipping the things that don't interest you.
Arcane Cascade, would you need to change it much? (save potentially for starlit span which may have assumptions based on ranged spellstriking) As you don't say what you're thinking I can't give you much feedback on it.
Just trying to be constructive about things to consider in your quest. Hope it helps.
|
|
Some questions, as I'm not certain it is entirely clear on what you are proposing.
If I understand correctly, you are saying you are going to make Spellstriking involve a casting a 1 or 2 action spell as well as making a strike. And I get the impression you are saying this would take the same one or two actions to cast the spell, but you might be planning it to always take two actions. It isn't clear.
It also isn't clear if you are divorcing the interaction between the strike and the spell people are used to with spellstrike. It sounded like you saying just action compression, that you are simplifying by getting rid of that interaction.
If you are allowing a 1 action spellstrike, that is really powerful, and depending on how you implement it, could create a situation where someone could preform up to three spellstrikes in a round, which seems wrong. Even if you limit it to once a round with a Flourish trait, simply always getting a free extra strike a turn if you cast a spell is pretty powerful. Much like giving a limited Haste.
I know you mentioned comparing it to the Summoner, with Act Together, but you should also consider Act Together is used in a situation where they can be targeted in two different places, so while powerful, is also comes with a greater risk.
Also with your discussion of simplifying it down to action compression only, you don't discuss if you count each attack for MAP if the spell is an attack spell. Does map increase for the spell attack during the activity, or only at the end of the activity?
So something to consider, to give the free strike, a 'cost', would be to have MAP be calculated like many combined attacks, if the spell is an Attack spell the MAP is combined, but only added after the end of the activity. But as part of the activity the strike always occurs first, and if the strike misses, you apply a -2 STATUS penalty to the following spell attack's to hit, and/or a -2 STATUS penalty to the DC of your spell if it is a DC based spell. This would mean...
Thanks for the reply. Yes, it will be 2 actions regardless of whether the spell takes 1 or 2 actions which is how it normally works. I intend to remove spell attack combination and map shenanigans. Spellstrike will just be action compression. Cast + strike or strike + cast.
One of the main benefits that I think will be apparent is the ability to cast a buff and strike more efficiently.
I should have said rather than *just through feats, subclasses will have additional effects on spellstrike. There will still be feats to adjust spellstrike.
As for starlit span, that might just be its benefit that it can make a ranged strike as part of spellstrike. It's a little boring but that mirrors how the subclass currently works. Might make adjustments to that.
For an example of something more interesting, I was thinking laughing shadow could step 10 feet before or after a spellstrike if they have a hand free.
That would be compressing not just two actions into an activity, but would be packing 3 actions (which can normally cost a total of up to 4) into one two action activity which can theoretically be done each round. Not only that, but one of three actions, the step example, is something beyond a normal person's capability to do as an action.
I know you are just using it as an example, but it seems like it could get out of hand rather easily if you are compressing 4 actions worth of actions into 2 action activities. Have you considered having a basic spell strike, which is a 2 action spellstrike and potentially more normalized between the subclasses, and have an advance spell strike that is a three action activity, but packs more into it usable under certain circumstances? Again, making the choice between using a basic spell strike and a more encompassing one having give and take, meaning in some rounds it will be better to do one or the other.
It sort of sounds like you might be trying to incorporate some of the flavor of the arcane cascade to the spellstrikes themselves, rather than relying on arcane cascade, but I might be wrong.
You might be able to make Arcane Cascade automatically get triggered anytime someone completes an advanced spellstrike.
I'll also say after listening to many discussions about Magus, I've grown to like the idea of spell strike causing damage to people whom either crit-fail on melee strikes against the Magus in Arcane Cascade, or anyone who hits the Magus with a melee strike as part of a reaction to their casting.
The idea is interesting, but it keeps the main problem that really limits the magus IMO that is it triggering enemies reactions, this is what mainly currently prevents most melee magus to be viable builds. It may be possible to implement Arcane Cascade as an instance to prevent Spellstrikes from initiating reactions.
|
|
The idea is interesting, but it keeps the main problem that really limits the magus IMO that is it triggering enemies reactions, this is what mainly currently prevents most melee magus to be viable builds. It may be possible to implement Arcane Cascade as an instance to prevent Spellstrikes from initiating reactions.
I was debating what to do about that.Could be that it triggers normally unless you manage to land a strike first, similar to sword and pistol.
Given this more flexible version of spellstrike, you'd still have to strategize around avoiding triggers but you'd have a tool to address it
If you are suggesting having the success of your spellstrike stopping the target from being able to use a reaction on based you your casting your spell as part of the spellstrike that adds some complexity to the spellstrike, but would be thematic.
If you are suggesting just any strikes made by the Magus stops any target hit from being able to react to a spell cast in the spellstrike, you would need to make it clear that the strike as a part of the spellstrike is included, and occurs prior to spellcasting in the spellstrike, It might create a dynamic where someone might be willing to make their spellstrike as a second strike to insure they don't get an AoO from the strike.
If any strike can stop AoO from being made, it brings to question if it blocks AoO from any spellcasting or just ones made as part of a Spellstrike.
---
Just as a note, I know people worry about AoO for spellstrikes, but I have to admit so far my experience has been that my Son's Magus has been hit by an AoO due to spellstriking only once in several levels of adventuring. As opposed to the once spellstrikeing, I believe he has gotten attacked (can't recall hit or miss) at least twice from movement instead.
I don't discredit the danger an AoO seems to present, but my experience seems to support some of the others who say it isn't that big a risk. Also avoiding AoO, also avoids the opportunity to eat up an enemies reaction. This actually makes me question if instead of avoiding AoO, it would be better to have the Magus mitigate some of the risk of AoO without negating it completely.
A couple options I would consider.
* Any reaction resulting from the spellcasting in a Spellstrike, the effect of a critical success it dropped to a success. This leaves a chance of taking damage, but insures it isn't a critical. I think one of the big fears with AoO is the impression of a free strike, at no MAP and risking giving them a crit. If you know that it won't be a crit, that might make the risk more palette-able.
* Provide a +2 circumstance bonus to AC vs any attacks made as a reaction to their spell casting during a spellstrike. Might allow the bonus to increase either tying it to their weapon rank increases of a weapon/attack wielded or might have it tied to their spellcasting rank. A +2 makes it at least as good as having/using a shield, and since it is limited to only reactions I don't think it is too strong, and has room for being boosted up to +4 with advancements. It admittedly would not stack with shield/cover, but that may be ok, since it doesn't require a dedicated action to raise a shield to benefit. If not stacking is a serious issue with the perspective, it might be able to be made into a circumstance penalty made to strikes made to you with a reaction triggering from your spellcasting portion of your Spellstrike. (or just general spellcasting if you generalize the ability to not only affect spellstrikes)
Also if you add my prior suggestion to have anyone striking a Magus during their spellstrike, take damage from Arcane Cascade if it is up, the Magus would at least get something out of the exchange then, even if both strike and spell missed, and they took damage.
|
I think the simplest fix for magi getting hammered with spellstrike would be to write one cantrip without manipulate.
Every cantrip has a gimmick. Telekinetic Projectile has high damage and flexible type. Needle Darts has good range and metal types. Ignite can be used for flanking and is good for doing persistent fire damage to oozes (and fire weakness is often easy to guess). And so on. So one cantrip having the gimmick that it doesn't have the manipulate trait seems reasonable.
This would give a magus in such a situation the choice between going for a less-great attack with the safe cantrip, or the party trying to engineer situations where the enemy loses their reaction, for example by using spells like Laughing Fit.
I attempted a brew along that same starting point and ended up with an entirely different class. This isn't to say that following that design route will lead to the same result, but the more I delved into that bit, the more I ended up coming to the conclusion that the Magus's clunky action economy is a necessary feature rather than a bug. Even if you sacrifice Spellstrike's accuracy compression via its combined attack rolls, which I think you'd need to do if you want to make non-attack spells more desirable, being able to compress a spell and a Strike into two actions is still going to be extremely strong, which I suspect is one of the reasons why the Summoner's eidolon is a liability as well as an asset. There's definitely room for it, but I think it's also so baked into the Magus's current design, right down to their many Spellstrike-oriented feats, that it'd be difficult to change Spellstrike on such a fundamental level without also changing the Magus into something else.