Witch, Witch, You’re a Remastered Witch

The rules don't ask for an action from your familiar, which doesn't mean it can do it when it can't act. Speaking is not an action and you can't do it while Unconscious.

"When you Cast or Sustain a hex, your familiar can curse a creature within 15 feet of it"

It seems very much active to me. The Familiar needs to be able to act to "curse a creature".

Ok, explain what overt action they must use? what reaction or action must they use? Abilities never require the familiar acts.

Familiar Ability says: "The benefit can occur only once per round when you Cast or Sustain a hex, and you can choose whether it occurs before or after the effects of Casting or Sustaining the hex." Note there is no requirement to act: in fact, the witch choices if it happens and when meaning the familiar isn't the one acting but the witch. Would you stop a witch from using the ability if they didn't command it [or it didn't have independent] because it didn't have any actions so it couldn't act?

The rules don't ask for an action from your familiar, which doesn't mean it can do it when it can't act. Speaking is not an action and you can't do it while Unconscious.

"The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it."

Note what 'can't act' prevents: "can’t use any actions, or even speak". The witch patron abilities aren't actions or speaking so they aren't limited.

I have flashbacks from PF1 where it wasn't mentioned that you can't act when you're dead... T_T

I hope the Plant/Fungus familiar picks get a buff so they don't just change your traits. It doesn't need to be much, just something; I can't think of enough corner cases where being a Plant or Fungus is demonstrably better than being an Animal.

I have flashbacks from PF1 where it wasn't mentioned that you can't act when you're dead... T_T

It boils down to whether or not a witch can or can't use master abilities when a familiar isn't commanded [as they can't act]: they have identical usage requirements as the patron ones, so preventing the Familiar of Ongoing Misery ability should also prevent Cantrip Connection or Lifelink. I know I haven't played it that way before.

For a GM to pick out the familiar seems like metagaming. Why would all monsters attack the familiar hissing at them, ignoring the guys actively attacking them

For a GM to pick out the familiar seems like metagaming. Why would all monsters attack the familiar hissing at them, ignoring the guys actively attacking them

A lot of attacks hit multiple creatures and being within 15' means they are close/far enough for both ranged and melee versions. Add to that, when you can tell a creature is actively engaging in a fight [you have to see it as a threat/a distraction for it to flank for instance], it doesn't seem odd for it to be a valid target. There is also the fact that smarter foes might actually know of familiar abilities and how they work.

I have flashbacks from PF1 where it wasn't mentioned that you can't act when you're dead... T_T

So you could Weekend at Bernie's your character in PF1? I did not know that.

Elfteiroh wrote:

I have flashbacks from PF1 where it wasn't mentioned that you can't act when you're dead... T_T

So you could Weekend at Bernie's your character in PF1? I did not know that.

"A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions. A dying character loses 1 hit point every round. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable."

"Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled."

Dead never bother to reiterate the no actions because you were, well dead and the only way to regain conscious was bringing hp to 0 which dead doesn't do.

nicholas storm wrote:

For a GM to pick out the familiar seems like metagaming. Why would all monsters attack the familiar hissing at them, ignoring the guys actively attacking them

A lot of attacks hit multiple creatures and being within 15' means they are close/far enough for both ranged and melee versions. Add to that, when you can tell a creature is actively engaging in a fight [you have to see it as a threat/a distraction for it to flank for instance], it doesn't seem odd for it to be a valid target. There is also the fact that smarter foes might actually know of familiar abilities and how they work.

Not saying the familiar should never be targeted. Just saying that if the GM's solution to the resentment familiar is just to kill it all the time, that seems metagamey.

I mean if the weird fragile creature is constantly letting off waves of horrible curse energy f#$@ing you up, not killing it feels a little metagamey too.

I think a question a GM should ask themselves is if they created a Resentment Witch NPC foe would they require a recall knowledge check to figure out the effect is coming from the familiar?

If the answer is yes, then against a witch PC their creatures should at least spend an action to figure it out too.

I’m wondering if design-wise, Paizo expects Primal casters to spend their time blasting away (it is known as the “physical blaster”).

In that case, I can see why they decided on the patron packaging.

Snow Witch has Clinging Ice’s speed reduction + Freezing Rime’s difficult terrain, when placed in front of you and positioned using your team on your “corners” to negate “walking around”. It takes 2 actions for an enemy to get to you and attack from the 30ft range. A speed hampered enemy might see that ice on the ground and just decide to deal with the pain in front of them, rather than charging towards the middle of the party over the frosted terrain.

Wilding Witch would instead be a “trapped beast in the corner”. Most enemies might expect to charge a caster and take them down. If they fail, the Wilding Witch hexes them, and now they’re in the middle of the party, and not even great at taking their target down anymore. And if they continue going after the Witch, they’re now weakened. Familiar of Keen Senses also serves to help the Witch know if enemies are sneaking around. I do understand that this relies a lot on the GM’s style, which lowers the value of the familiar ability. Maybe, if you’re GMing with a Wilding Steward Witch player, consider having more enemy skulking around so the Witch player can feel like their familiar is supporting?

They’re both defensive, but Snow demobilizes while Wilding deters/detects. I wonder if they expect Primal Witches to always be focusing on pumping out blasts. Snow might prefer having more speed for a “kiting” style, whereas Wilding might want to be more durable for “duking it out”.

Ignoring the Resentment elephant familiar in the room hissing at everyone, I find myself more curious about the intended design and playstyle that Paizo thinks Primal (and Arcane) should be doing.

I think a question a GM should ask themselves is if they created a Resentment Witch NPC foe would they require a recall knowledge check to figure out the effect is coming from the familiar?

If the answer is yes, then against a witch PC their creatures should at least spend an action to figure it out too.

My thoughts exactly.

SuperBidi wrote:

"When you Cast or Sustain a hex, your familiar can curse a creature within 15 feet of it"

It seems very much active to me. The Familiar needs to be able to act to "curse a creature".

Ok, explain what overt action they must use? what reaction or action must they use? Abilities never require the familiar acts.

Familiar Ability says: "The benefit can occur only once per round when you Cast or Sustain a hex, and you can choose whether it occurs before or after the effects of Casting or Sustaining the hex." Note there is no requirement to act: in fact, the witch choices if it happens and when meaning the familiar isn't the one acting but the witch. Would you stop a witch from using the ability if they didn't command it [or it didn't have independent] because it didn't have any actions so it couldn't act?

SuperBidi wrote:

The rules don't ask for an action from your familiar, which doesn't mean it can do it when it can't act. Speaking is not an action and you can't do it while Unconscious.

"The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it."

Note what 'can't act' prevents: "can’t use any actions, or even speak". The witch patron abilities aren't actions or speaking so they aren't limited.

I think you can expect A LOT of table variation on this.

And honestly it seems to fall under the TGTBT clause.

I feel Paizo really tries to avoid making a given class feat a must-have.

Note also that the wording "or even speak" seems to put speaking within the purview of "any actions". So, the usual acceptance of the word "action" (ie what you do when you act) and not the game term of Action.

Elfteiroh wrote:

I have flashbacks from PF1 where it wasn't mentioned that you can't act when you're dead... T_T

It boils down to whether or not a witch can or can't use master abilities when a familiar isn't commanded [as they can't act]: they have identical usage requirements as the patron ones, so preventing the Familiar of Ongoing Misery ability should also prevent Cantrip Connection or Lifelink. I know I haven't played it that way before.

Actually...

If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don't act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

Commanding is mainly to make sure they do what YOU want, and during your turn. They can still act, but under the GM's control.

Commanding is mainly to make sure they do what YOU want, and during your turn. They can still act, but under the GM's control.

As a GM, I usually have PC's minions do some actions like hiding, staying away from the fight, or balancing on their PC's shoulder, unless the player actually prefer their minions to act like mindless dolls (or if they actually are).

I don't see how this materially changes my point: in neither does a command happen or the familiar initiate the action: in both cases, the master and familiar do not have to use any action for the ability to work. The fact that the familiar can do unrelated actions isn't a factor.

I think you can expect A LOT of table variation on this.

And honestly it seems to fall under the TGTBT clause.

I feel Paizo really tries to avoid making a given class feat a must-have.

Note also that the wording "or even speak" seems to put speaking within the purview of "any actions". So, the usual acceptance of the word "action" (ie what you do when you act) and not the game term of Action.

Oh, there might be just like I'm sure the 'new' dying rules will see a LOT of table variation. That doesn't really change how it's written though. Only one of the master's abilities require the familiar to do anything [and it specifies how many actions it is to use it] and they do not even have to be in the same location as the master: the only difference with the patron abilities is the inclusion of a range. This means that a ruling that impacts the patron abilities should also impact passive abilities like Cantrip Connection or Spell Battery since they all have the exact same action requirement: none.

As to TGTBT clause... Is it? I don't think so: if you successfully hide your familiar, who's going to get targeted? The witch that's is within 15' of a target worth using the ability on. It'd be one thing if it was someone with lots of armor and hp but we're talking about a d6 hd caster without any armor prof that has to get within 1/2 a move of melee [and possible within reach] to use the ability. If you throw enough resources and tactics into pulling it off, it seems like a suitable payoff IMO.

If familiar patron abilities are allowed during Absorb Familiar - turn it into a gem and make a necklace to hang around the martial’s neck (or shove it in their pockets). Now enemies will think the hissing that’s ruining their lives is coming from the martial.

I think I will pass on this rule debate. Around my (PFS or not) table, insisting on this is a good way to get me angry considering how far-fetched this interpretation is. RAI is rather clear: The Familiar acts (hiss and curse), nothing it can do while Unconscious.

for me, the most important factor is "how visible/obvious" are abilities like the extending of a debuff.

Notably, those abilities aren't spells, they don't have manifestations.

So, how does an enemy knows that his slow is getting extended from the hissing cat and it's not a result of the very obvious spell that was cast on him instead?

That is obviously subject to table variation and that should be a weighting issue of how often a familiar is attacked or not.

The idea that the resentment gets to do it's familiar ability without people knowing it's the source while the inscribed one gets a worse ability along with a flashing neon sign pointing at it being the source seems a bit stupid if I'm being honest.

I've personally never liked when the GM hides information about what's happening. The worse I got being a GM considering that I should have no clue about the result of the saves being rolled by enemies. In general, the feeling is really bad and it very often leads to rules debate about "obviousness", something that is not at all clear in the rules.

Also, when I see the triggers of some reaction (your ally is about to fail a Saving throw and a +1 status bonus would allow them to succeed), I think what's happening is supposed to be known by everyone.

I on the other hand do not believe that the characters (or enemies) have some sort of meta knowledge without actively trying to gain that through checks.

if an enemy disappears midfight, the playes dont know if he teleported away or if he simply went invisible.

similarily, while it's obvious that the familiar is doing "something" it would take, in my tables, actively rolling and trying to figure out "what" it is doing.

As for knowing if you made a save or not, obviously I'm sharing the fact when you make the save or not, but that doesn't translates to "your character knows that he will only be slowed for 1 round (as an example)" not without having even identified the actual spell/effect cast on him and thus its effects.

The same goes for enemies too. If the know they made the save, and are still slowed after 2-3-4 rounds, maybe that was the effect for making the save, as far as they know.

Now, if someone DID indeed take the actions/feats to identify spells, and make the check, it's adifferent thing altogether. Then he knows that X effect should only last Y time, and he can see that the effect last longer while the familiar is doing "something" he can usually put 2 and 2 together.

But passively? Hell no.

I on the other hand do not believe that the characters (or enemies) have some sort of meta knowledge without actively trying to gain that through checks.

if an enemy disappears midfight, the playes dont know if he teleported away or if he simply went invisible.

similarily, while it's obvious that the familiar is doing "something" it would take, in my tables, actively rolling and trying to figure out "what" it is doing.

As for knowing if you made a save or not, obviously I'm sharing the fact when you make the save or not, but that doesn't translates to "your character knows that he will only be slowed for 1 round" not without having even identified the actual spell cast on him and thus its effects.

The same goes for enemies too. If the know they made the save, and are still slowed after 2-3-4 rounds, maybe that was the effect for making the save, as far as they know.

Now, if someone DID indeed take the actions/feats to identify spells, and make the check, it's adifferent thing altogether. Then he knows that X effect should only last Y time, and he can see that the effect last longer while the familiar is doing "something" he can usually put 2 and 2 together.

But passively? Hell no.

I rule it the same way you do but with a small difference: The enemy will know that the Familiar hissing at them is affecting them.

I think a question a GM should ask themselves is if they created a Resentment Witch NPC foe would they require a recall knowledge check to figure out the effect is coming from the familiar?

If the answer is yes, then against a witch PC their creatures should at least spend an action to figure it out too.

I'm pretty sure that if players just splatter on the spot an obviously magical agressive creature-minion of an enemy spellcaster no GM would even blink. And definitely wouldn't demand recall knowledge.

P.S. And to think of it, most players and a lot of PCs know about Final Sacrifice :)

Yeah, I think i might shoot the incredibly pissed off crow that keeps making me feel bad

Spamotron wrote:

I think a question a GM should ask themselves is if they created a Resentment Witch NPC foe would they require a recall knowledge check to figure out the effect is coming from the familiar?

If the answer is yes, then against a witch PC their creatures should at least spend an action to figure it out too.

I'm pretty sure that if players just splatter on the spot an obviously magical agressive creature-minion of an enemy spellcaster no GM would even blink. And definitely wouldn't demand recall knowledge.

How often do players spend actions trying to destroy an illusory creature they have already disbeliefed just because it can move to provide flanking instead of using said actions against the enemies that can actually harm them?

Yeah, I think i might shoot the incredibly pissed off crow that keeps making me feel bad

TBT it depends on how far the enraged enemy Barbarian is.

I think a DC 15 Occultisk Recall Knowledge check for an enemy to determine the familiar is the source of their problem makes sense. Beyond that, there's a fair number of abilities which can protect the familiar, so if you find your GM is targeting them you should probably start using them.

A character wouldn't have specific knowledge about the action without some extenuating circumstance but just as you'd expect a PC to do they'd see what's happening on the battlefield, including the familiar doing its thing, and react accordingly. Which potentially includes killing the familiar.

Also let's keep in mind, that as long as enemy is going out of his way to target the familiar, that's free extra HP for the party.

Just make sure to pick up something like lifelink so that it doesn't get instagibbed.

If I was targeted by a spell and suffered some effects, I am not going to be shocked when those effects continue for more than one round. If I am neverthless quesetioning the precise duration, I am not going to spend a Recall Knowledge action to decide whether to spend an attack action on the familiar nearby rather than just spend the attack action.

Of course, if I have to move before attacking and that only puts me in reach of the familiar we have some thinking to do.

I agree that lifelink, tough, and various other familiar abilities mitigate the survability issues and placement behind reaction strike frontliners, difficult terrain/cover etc. when applicable will all make this less of an issue.

In any case, the resentment ability is so strong requiring you to exercise a little bit of restrain, planning, investment, or foresight isn't asking too much. None of the other patron's presence abilities are as universally useful and strong as yours. If you don't like the risk in a given round, don't take the reward, your Evil Eye is strong enough to keep you going even if patron's presence becomes a "break glass only in case of emergency or high familiar survivability circumstances" ability.

Don't forget flight. Won't help against all creatures, but it definitely keeps the familiar safe at low levels.

They should have made Cackle a free feature of the Witch, not an optional feat. Another tax on the poor witch.

Congratulations to everyone who can still have a Witch without Cackle if they want.

They should have made Cackle a free feature of the Witch, not an optional feat. Another tax on the poor witch.

Poor witch is a weird take by now TBH.

Atalius wrote:

They should have made Cackle a free feature of the Witch, not an optional feat. Another tax on the poor witch.

Poor witch is a weird take by now TBH.

Isn't Cackle still a virtually mandatory feat to take?

Isn't Cackle still a virtually mandatory feat to take?

Far from it, in my opinion. An interesting feat, yes, a mandatory one, not really.

Atalius wrote:

Isn't Cackle still a virtually mandatory feat to take?

Far from it, in my opinion. An interesting feat, yes, a mandatory one, not really.

But it also depends on your Patron. Some will push you more towards Cackle than others.

For Resentment, would it be mandatory?

SuperBidi wrote:

Atalius wrote:

Isn't Cackle still a virtually mandatory feat to take?

Far from it, in my opinion. An interesting feat, yes, a mandatory one, not really.

But it also depends on your Patron. Some will push you more towards Cackle than others.

For Resentment, would it be mandatory?

Nothing is ever mandatory. It saves you an action and costs a focus point. It's good, but you could easily take another feat without killing your build. You're still limited to one Hex per turn so if you want to support your Frontline with a Life Boost or two, you might find it hard to use Cackle all that often, for example.

Evil Eye is also one of the hexes that could be more effectiv, if you don't sustain them, depending on how your GM rules the sickened condition. If it ends with the duration, sustain becomes necessary. If it doenst end with the duration, it could potentially cause the target to waste one (or more) actions trying to get rid of it, which can easily be more ompatful than having the enemy stuck at sickened 1.

For Resentment, would it be mandatory?

In fact, with the Remaster, Cackle became less relevant as there is no more immunity to Hexes. So if you miss a turn, you can just cast it during the next turn.

But for Resentment, you'll very often extend one round durations debuffs thanks to Ongoing Misery. So if you miss a turn, you lose the debuffs on the target. So I think Resentment is the only one where Cackle is still a thing.

Yeah. I don't think most patrons it particularly matters if you drop your hex cantrip for a round (Inscribed technically, but we know it's the worst patron anyways). Could be more useful with some of the lessons, but even then it's focus point to sustain it... or focus point to recast the next turn usually, so...

Atalius wrote:

For Resentment, would it be mandatory?

In fact, with the Remaster, Cackle became less relevant as there is no more immunity to Hexes. So if you miss a turn, you can just cast it during the next turn.

But for Resentment, you'll very often extend one round durations debuffs thanks to Ongoing Misery. So if you miss a turn, you lose the debuffs on the target. So I think Resentment is the only one where Cackle is still a thing.

The offensive hexes also would give a new save if you recast them. If any enemy fails or critically fails, I might spend a focus point to avoid giving them another chance to save. The target could also move out of range, in which case sustaining is better.

On the other hand, with the new focus rules you have more flexibility to recast focus hexes, too.

Cackle has always been more than just a hex sustain feat.

It’s also meant for getting multiple sustained spells rolling, or layering multiple spells as tactical play that non-Witches can’t do.

With Flaming Sphere’s change to Floating Flame (basic save for damage), Primal/Arcane witches can find some enjoyment in using Cackle + Sustain and having 2-actions left for either a spell or other stuff. Or Organsight’s RK + Rousing Skeleton. Or when you reach the point

But it’s still a useful tool for some.

One example: Cackle is a fine candidate for a Wilding Steward witch. If you’re more frontline oriented (either Athletics or Gouging Claw), having Cackle can be helpful for handling multiple enemies that go after you (and saving Interposing Earth for others) while still maintains some actions for spellcasting or maneuverability. If you’re far range, a Floating Flame can end up being more economical than a Thunderstrike for some sustained single target damage.

Or it can be completely optional due to other strong choices such as Basic Lessons or Enhanced Familiar.

Whereas a Silence in Snow witch, it would be a lower priority if they want to be doing continual chip damage with Clinging Ice, but a higher priority when they need to be defensive and space out from danger (using their familiar ability and hex cantrip‘s effect).

Action efficiency is just as valuable as character potency, and it has its place.

Cackle has always been more than just a hex sustain feat.

It’s also meant for getting multiple sustained spells rolling, or layering multiple spells as tactical play that non-Witches can’t do.

With Flaming Sphere’s change to Floating Flame (basic save for damage), Primal/Arcane witches can find some enjoyment in using Cackle + Sustain and having 2-actions left for either a spell or other stuff. Or Organsight’s RK + Rousing Skeleton. Or when you reach the point

But it’s still a useful tool for some.

One example: Cackle is a fine candidate for a Wilding Steward witch. If you’re more frontline oriented (either Athletics or Gouging Claw), having Cackle can be helpful for handling multiple enemies that go after you (and saving Interposing Earth for others) while still maintains some actions for spellcasting or maneuverability. If you’re far range, a Floating Flame can end up being more economical than a Thunderstrike for some sustained single target damage.

Or it can be completely optional due to other strong choices such as Basic Lessons or Enhanced Familiar.

Whereas a Silence in Snow witch, it would be a lower priority if they want to be doing continual chip damage with Clinging Ice, but a higher priority when they need to be defensive and space out from danger (using their familiar ability and hex cantrip‘s effect).

Action efficiency is just as valuable as character potency, and it has its place.

"Primal/Arcane witches can find some enjoyment in using Cackle + Sustain and having 2-actions left for either a spell or other stuff. Or Organsight’s RK + Rousing Skeleton. Or when you reach the point" Pardon my noobery, but how does this 'Organsights RK' work. Your idea intrigues me.

Organsight “debuffs” an enemy so that when you special RK against it, you have a chance to deal Organsight’s damage. This damage occurs whenever they take Slashing/Piercing damage from you.

Rouse Skeleton is a reflex basic save slashing damage AoE that can be Sustained.

Since the slashing damage happens even on a Success, you have a high change of triggering Organsight’s damage (if you originally triggered it on the RK).

It’s great for long fights (as the Witch has more subclass options for bursts sustained combat).

The hard part about this (and the reason it’s not broken, though very potent/efficient) is that you have use up 2 spell slots (Organsight and Rousing Skeleton), it takes 2 turns to get them out (unless you Quickened Casting), and Witch is INT-based, so you need good Medicine skill or vast amount of Lore skills to nail the Organsight RK check often.

However, once you get that out, if you have 3 FP for Cackle, you can burst out some damage.

Organsight “debuffs” an enemy so that when you special RK against it, you have a chance to deal Organsight’s damage. This damage occurs whenever they take Slashing/Piercing damage from you.

Rouse Skeleton is a reflex basic save slashing damage AoE that can be Sustained.

Since the slashing damage happens even on a Success, you have a high change of triggering Organsight’s damage (if you originally triggered it on the RK).

It’s great for long fights (as the Witch has more subclass options for bursts sustained combat).

The hard part about this (and the reason it’s not broken, though very potent/efficient) is that you have use up 2 spell slots (Organsight and Rousing Skeleton), it takes 2 turns to get them out (unless you Quickened Casting), and Witch is INT-based, so you need good Medicine skill or vast amount of Lore skills to nail the Organsight RK check often.

However, once you get that out, if you have 3 FP for Cackle, you can burst out some damage.

Awesome!! Thanks a lot I look forward to incorporating this into my game!