Effusion's page

Sooooo, Lie says it takes at least a round.

It doesn't say it takes spending actions for a round. Any reason it couldn't be a round's worth of free actions?
(I don't think this is the best possible interpretation, but I'm interested to hear y'all's thoughts)

The general rules for speaking in combat say "Special uses of speech, such as attempting a Deception skill check to Lie, require spending actions and follow their own rules." The lie action under deception doesn't have an action cost, not even a free action. My interpretation of that is that lying would only cost actions when it says it costs actions (eg, saying "look, there's a zombie behind you" could be a lie, but it would fall under the create a diversion action which does have an action cost).

An elaborate lie taking more than one round is the same for all speech in combat, but it makes sense to specify under the lie rules to make it clear that you don't need to make a seperate check for every sentence of a lie. I don't see any reason to associate an action cost with it because of that.

I definitely want more focus on hexes, but if the familiar is going to remain a major component of the witch then I would like to see witch/patron specific familiar abilities that actually make it a meaningful tool. For example, you could have an ability that lets it take the sustain action for one of the witch's hexes.

The witch exists and the kineticist is coming in July, so you should already be good to go.

Effusion wrote:

So it turns out the dnd ai dm thing is not true according to WotC, along with several other non-ogl related rumors that have been circulating.

@DnDBeyond wrote:

No one at Wizards is working on AI DMs.

That's lawyer-speak for "the people working on the AI DM project are not WotC employees".

It's possible, but I wouldn't assume so. WotC has directly denied all the other parts of the subscription leak, which they did not do with the ogl, and other leaks from the same source (dnd shorts' WotC insider) have been discredited (they alleged that WotC is soliciting feedback and not reading it, which has been widely refuted by current and former employees).

So it turns out the dnd ai dm thing is not true according to WotC, along with several other non-ogl related rumors that have been circulating.

No one at Wizards is working on AI DMs.

WotC did a playtest a while back that introduced subclasses that worked with multiple classes. It was pretty poorly received for balance reasons, but I thought it seemed like an idea that would belong to a new edition. So, maybe they're looking to make character building more modular in general. That would make it a little bit more like pathfinder, but I highly doubt they'll go so far as to satisfy people who want complex character building with crunch. I'd also expect more dm facing mechanics for running exploration, which has been one of 5e's weakest areas.

The caster chassis is fine by itself. It's the very beaseline for a full caster, but still fine. What's lacking is the stuff that's supposed to be "make" the Witch: Familiars and Hexes.

With the introduction of the flexible caster archetype, I was thinking maybe witch could get a subclass option where they go down to 2 slots but their focus point pool and recovery are doubled. They would still need better options, but at least you've got something much closer to the 1e witch with a unique niche to build from.

PF2e is more successful at building narrative into mechanics than most combat focused systems. Even when I'm playing other games, I often look through my pathfinder pdfs for inspiration as a dm and as a player.

I don't think I really agree. The witch has some issues, but a lot of them can be addressed with baby steps. It's not fundamentally flawed in some of the ways the alchemist is/was... it's just weirdly behind the curve compared to other casters.

That's mostly because it has no unique mechanics; its only unique in flavor. Baby steps won't help until we know which direction to take them in (though I agree that a complete rewrite is just not on the table and thus not worthy of serious consideration). For example, if the witch's familiar gets unique options and becomes more valuable then maybe phase familiar actually becomes (or can be tweaked to be) a focus spell of comparable value to a basic lesson.

I no longer believe that the witch can be fixed or adequately improved with these kinds of tweaks; in lieu of a major redesign, it just needs better options for some combination of cantrips, focus spells, feats, and exclusive familiar/master abilities. Consequently, I definitely agree that the clarifications should be added, but I'm not so certain about free basic lessons. I believe that the witch would be much better off with stronger hexes at a cost than poorer hexes for free. Deciding whether they should get a free basic lesson or not should be done as part of a larger process of re-evaluating the class rather than as an isolated step.

There was some discussion about that a couple of pages back and (amazingly) there was broad agreement that the 1 minute lockout is unnecessary. The 1 hex per round limitation on focus cantrips was more contentious.

Effusion wrote:

If the witch isn't to have its own distinct mechanical identity, are there any reasons (other than the logistics) that the witch shouldn't just be thrown out as a class and exist as an archetype (or class archetypes) for spellcasters?

Well, the fact that it has some mechanical identity is a pretty decent reason. Besides, what's the point of destruction? Spite? It already does exist as an archetype.

As I said, I'm not asking about the logistics. Obviously it's not going to happen and it would be pointless to actually propose it. I'm asking if the witch actually does anything that justifies it existing as its own class rather than as an option that can be layered on top of another class to trade some class identity (feats) for versatility and flavor. "Worse at being a cleric but with stoke the heart" sounds exactly like that to me. A more robust list of patrons, lessons, and feats will make it impractical as purely an archetype in the future, but I wonder if it might be more appealing that way right now.

If the witch isn't to have its own distinct mechanical identity, are there any reasons (other than the logistics) that the witch shouldn't just be thrown out as a class and exist as an archetype (or class archetypes) for spellcasters?

What role is a curse witch going to be better at than a bard?

You can cast different hexes and sustain previous hexes simultaneously though. Bards can have Inspire Courage OR Dirge, never both, and when you use the other all current effects of those compositions immediately end.

Harmonize (6th) and symphony of the muses (20th) let bards stack compositions.

In this idealized stoke scenario, it seems like the witch is the lowest contributing member of this party by a good margin (100 for the witch vs 200 for the rogue, 300 for the barbarian, and 750 for the sorcerer). I don't really see how that makes hex spamming too good (which is currently achievable at level 20 with hex master).

What if witches got access to exclusive familiar/master power options based on their patron selection? For example, characters with the curse or fate patrons could select beast of ill omen (1e hex) as a familiar ability. That would be a way to retroactively boost the significance of patrons, give their familiars unique abilities that differentiate them from standard familiars, and adjust the class without adding specific feat dependencies or power creeping existing patrons (not to say that adding more flavorful feats isn't badly needed).

I am honestly of the opinion that the MUST have made a last-minute cut of a Class Feat that would have given them the Hex Cantrip that belongs to a different Patron/Tradition.

It's the opposite; hex cantrips were a last minute addition. In the playtest they were regular focus spells and the witch had 4 spell slots.

Phase Familiar is good because it gives you a free focus point to use with your basic lesson or Cackle.

Good compared to getting nothing, definitely. However, every caster except the warpriest cleric and universalist wizard starts with 1 focus point (2 for the oracle) and a focus spell tied to a character choice, except for bards and witches which get counter performance and phase familiar respectively.

The only thing I really don't like seems to be the Phase Familiar:

- Costs 1 focus point ( It would have been nicer with no cost )

- Hex ( Counts as one of your Hexes, so you have to deal with them ).

Really really disappointed.

The hex part isn't a problem as the hex limitation is per turn rather than per round. It's still seems pretty bad to me though as it only gives resistance to one instance of damage. If it negated the full damage, lasted a full turn/round, or didn't cost a focus point it would still be pretty situational but worth it when you needed it. As is, cackle would have been a better inherent because it's consistently useful (though that would take away from the appeal of the archetype).

Would be possible for a Cleric/Champion to take witch or oracle dedication? Or would somehow be out of the character?

Sure, patrons are so open ended that they can be pretty much anything with power including just a group of people or your deity.

Effusion wrote:

Anything with a duration of sustained can be kept going all day by a familiar with the independent trait. The non-cantrip options seem to be unseen servant, hideous laughter, illusory creature, enthrall, locate, and prying eye. Maybe not the most impressive list of spells, but being able to force someone laugh forever is good leverage.

Sustain a Spell Action: "Sustaining a Spell for more than 10 minutes (100 rounds) ends the spell".

Ah, you're right. They really should just be written as "sustained up to 10 minutes" then.

Anything with a duration of sustained can be kept going all day by a familiar with the independent trait. The non-cantrip options seem to be unseen servant, hideous laughter, illusory creature, enthrall, locate, and prying eye. Maybe not the most impressive list of spells, but being able to force someone laugh forever is good leverage.

Does anyone know if Lesson of the Frozen Queen (and the Baba Yaga patron I guess) is supposed to be a rare lesson (and therefore requires GM approval) or if only the focus granted by it is Rare? I probably wouldn't play a witch if I was denied access to Glacial Heart.

Spirit Objects and Glacial Heart are rare, so I would assume the patron/lesson are as well.

Mellored wrote:

Effusion wrote:

Mellored wrote:

Any good way of turning your familiar into a mount?

You have to make it one size category larger than yourself, so I guess you can cast enlarge on it. It lasts 5 minutes so it could get you through a combat.

that gives you flying a few levels earlier.

A creature needs the Mount special ability to fly with a rider, pretty sure.

I believe that's specifically for animal companions (crb 214). The rules for mounted combat (crb 478) and the mount action (crb 472) don't mention that restriction.

Any good way of turning your familiar into a mount?

You have to make it one size category larger than yourself, so I guess you can cast enlarge on it. It lasts 5 minutes so it could get you through a combat.

You can pool money with party members, make some money before crafting (you're expected to acquire 1k wealth by 2nd level and a minor healing potion is only 4gp), or retrain into it at a higher level.

I forgot that normally you need the magic crafting feat to make potions and oils, so there's that as well.

Mellored wrote:

Can you buy 6 potions for the same cost?

I don't know. Can you buy six potions at their listed price? Because that's the price to beat with crafting (that is: crafting six potions at their listed price takes 4 days).

Effusion wrote:

Given that you're in a place where they are for sale and that the dm has decided there isn't anything driving the market price up or down, crafting won't save you money. As I understand it, at least.

While true, Cauldron doesn't alter that math. Not really.

So...what does it do?

It effectively lets you craft 1.5 potions per day instead of 1.

Draco18s wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The amount of time it takes to craft potions is insane, its like 45 or 60 days, depending on exactly how you adjudicate it (and the exact wording on the final version).

Um? It's the normal crafting rules, you take four days if you pay full cost. The only difference is you don't need facilities and you can make six instead of four in those four days.

Or you can do literally any downtime Earn Income task for 4 days, and then buy the potions (at the same total cost), coming out ahead.

Which, I'll point out, you don't need a 1st level feat to do.

Can you buy 6 potions for the same cost?

Given that you're in a place where they are for sale and that the dm has decided there isn't anything driving the market price up or down, crafting won't save you money. As I understand it, at least.

Effusion wrote:

I guess they couldn't make eldritch nails a 2nd level feat because they already had living hair at 2nd level. I couldn't tell you why they decided the witch should have two separate unarmed brawling feats though.

Funny enough, I'm actually fine with Hair. It has some really good traits.

If you MCD into Witch as a martial, it's a pretty good get, but it's tough to justify the pick over say Basic Lesson IMO.

But on an actual Witch without further Feat support, you can still turn it into a decent "attack" action on the round if you strictly use it to Trip/Disarm, since most Witches are going to have a decent DEX.

IMO when you compare Hair to Nails, it's a no contest and Nails loses. At least the Hair gets to benefit from Handwraps.

They're similar enough though that you'd think they could have been one feat that said "you can instantly grow your hair or nails."

Nails has the unarmed trait, so is it the etching that prevents it from working with handwraps?

Sure Nails gives the hex benefit, but it's also a higher level Feat and it's specific to the Witch (objectively one of the WORST melee strikers in the game).

I guess they couldn't make eldritch nails a 2nd level feat because they already had living hair at 2nd level. I couldn't tell you why they decided the witch should have two separate unarmed brawling feats though.

Ok, funny. It's nearly close to French.

It's borrowed directly from french so it uses the same pronunciation and meaning (a witticism), just like hors d'oeuvres, raison d'être, and joie de vivre.

But, a new Cantrip Hex that has 2 actions would be a pretty radical increase to that style though (as we're talking basically a Magus in a sense at that point).

Unfortunately, it also specifies non-cantrip hex.

"Pretty good multiclass potential" just means the archetype feats are good. It doesn't mean the base kit is good. Sort of like how being an alchemist is terrible, but multiclassing into alchemist is pretty good for free alchemical things.

I think the point was that it's better as an archetype than as a class.

I've been mulling over ways to improve the witch other than just giving it 4 spell slots (which would work but it's a bit of a boring fix).

What if cackle refunded its focus point cost if it is used to sustain a hex? Or maybe just for hex cantrips (after adding a feat to pick up more of them)? It would still restrict the witch's actions by taking up their hex for the turn and they'd need to keep a focus point reserved for it, but it would give the witch a slightly different niche from the bard instead of simply being worse at the same thing and it would be a better justification for having fewer slots than other casters. It might need to be swapped with phase familiar as the innate focus spell to make it a signature class feature that can't be picked up through the archetype.

You're not overlooking anything; a witch only ever gets one hex cantrip at character creation and the dedication can't get one. However, consider that the wizard dedication can't get a bonded item or arcane thesis. It seems to me like the witch dedication is missing out on less.

You can only have one familiar at a time and they do not combine, so you get a choice of a 2 ability familiar or a 1 ability familiar (which gets its second ability back if you take basic witchcraft) with spells. You could retrain out of the wizard familiar feat.

Bard cantrips and witch cantrips are quite different, and most dedication feats don't give access to those kinds of abilities (eg, the wizard dedication doesn't give a bonded item or arcane thesis). Bard cantrips are powerful abilities, a core part of the class, and bards can collect several of them through feats. Witch cantrips are fairly weak abilities that are mostly flavor and a witch can only ever get one.

If witches ever get additional hex cantrips as feats then the witch dedication will as well.

Yes.

You have Claws of the Dragon at all times. When you cast Dragon Claws, you follow those rules except the base d4 becomes a d6 and you get +5 to your resistance.

As far as I know there would be no special interaction between your wizard and witch features so you'd know and learn your spells separately.

Because all updates from witch's familiar coming with lever are only "familiar abilities" - which means they are not "Master abilities". I.e. you cannot choose more then 2 master abilities if you will not use enhanced familiar feat from witch.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Familiars.aspx

Are you sure that's not just paizo being sloppy with their language? If you look at enhanced familiar it says " You can select four familiar or master abilities each day" but under the wizard section it says "your familiar's base number of familiar abilities." The wizard's thesis familiar refers to getting extra abilities rather than familiar abilities like the witch.

If we're trying to build them as closely as possible, the witch can take basic witchcraft (which eliminates the -1 penalty in addition to granting a feat): enhanced familiar, advanced witchcraft: incredible familiar, and advanced witchcraft: improved familiar to end up with 10+2 abilities, basic spellcasting, and no downtime if their familiar dies for 4 feats (or 5 abilities for 1 feat).

The familiar master taking equivalent feats would get 6+2 abilities on a familiar with 1 week of downtime on death for 4 feats (or 2 abilities for 1 feat).

That can't be the intent.

I don't see how it would make sense for the witch archetype to have a better familiar than the familiar master archetype on top of spellcasting.