Joynt Jezebel's page

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

"Mercenaries are useless, disunited, unfaithful
They have nothing more to keep them in a battle
Other than a meager wage
Which is just about enough to make them wanna kill for you
But not enough to make them wanna die for you"

John Cale

While I agree that Cale was, musically, very talented, can you shed some light on his credentials as either a tactician or a historian?

I can write a(n admittedly less-good) song that includes whatever words I like. That won't make those words true.

In quoting John Cale I didn't at all mean John Cale is a great expert so what he says on this topic must be true. If I had intended to do that I would have quoted someone like Sun Tzu.

The John Cale quote made a point I wanted to make better than I could myself.

Hasbro was rattling sabers about finding a way to cancel the Open Game License, so Paizo decided to move to a new system that is less vulnerable to challenges in court.

It is an age-old story, sadly. Game Designers' Workshop (GDW) was killed by a cause from TSR (owned, at the time, by Lorraine Williams). It had no merit, but they had to defend themselves and spend money. At the end, they were forced into an out-of-court settlement. After that, they closed.

I have a law degree and used to practice. It is hard to see any way of cancelling an open use license or even seriously trying to. My legal knowledge is Australian and hardly up to date but it sounds far fetched.

Which is all kind of irrelevant as the financial resources of Paizo and Hasbro are so imbalanced.

@Neriathale

Your comments about the systems I would almost totally agree with. Except regarding PF2 which I have never played, so I can't really say anything beyond it sounds a bit too much like 5th ed, or 4th ed.

Sysryke wrote:

4e is definitely not the best system, but I'll never agree with the hate some folks throw at it.

A lot of the hostility to D&D 4e has little to do with the system itself.

1 - In the minds of many, D&D 4e came out too early - well before D&D 3.5 had run its course. I offer the popularity of Pathfinder 1e as evidence of this.
2 - Some of the actions of WotC to try to force the new system on the community did not engender good will. Hasbro/WotC has a general problem with the way the interact with the RPG Community.

I tried 4th ed after hardly playing D&D for decades and thought it an OK [but no better] system.

I found the degree of hate a lot of players had for 4th ed bizarre. Can't you just play something else, or stay with 3.5?

I would add that 4th ed changed a lot of things players did not want changed. I have heard the complaint that it "just wasn't D&D" often.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

I don't recall playing 2nd ed at all. Maybe I played it once or twice but can't recall. So I am only talking about AD&D. I agree with TOZ and Dragonchess Player that version of the game didn't have the merits you found.

Ozreth wrote:

I suppose I wonder if it has been so many decades since trying it, why do yu deem it inferior? At the very least, the quickness, simplicity of rules (in combat, at least),

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Hell no.

The DMG was so hopelessly disorganised you practically had to know it by heart, which I did incidentally, to find anything.

Ozreth wrote:

Not to mention characters staying within a reasonable power level at all levels

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Can't say I agree here either.

You can apply exactly what the DMG says you should do and get massive parties that are near impossible to challenge and round take forever.

In AD&D every character automatically had leadership.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Arkat wrote:

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

64, nice! Did you move through all the editions? Have you ever gone backwards and tries TSR editions again?

I started way back in 1979 when only a starter version of D&D was available in Australia which only went to 3rd level if my memory serves me well.

I played a huge amount of Advanced D&D that came next. I overdosed in a major way and played mostly other RPGs for a long time. World of Darkness, Shadow Run, Champions others. For a long time I played D&D reluctantly when there were not better alternatives available or so I thought at the time.

Really, I suspect what I saw as faults in D&D were faults in the very early versions which were hopelessly disorganised and encouraged confrontation between players and DM. That and the fact that we were all new to playing and DMing and like beginners in anything made a lot of mistakes.

Just an aside, I have been DMing for 46 years and am still learning.

I really became more of an enthusiast around the time PF1 appeared. My then group wanted to play it and I was rather surprised to find it was really good. I don't want to abandon such a great game just because it is no longer commercially supported but it keeps getting harder to find players.

D&D 5th is OK but PF1 has so many more possibilities.

Given my history it should be no surprise I have done little if any revisiting of older versions. For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior. And I don't play with other Great Old Ones who might be inclined to go that far back in time.

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

Those guides are written from a powergamer/optimizer/rules lawyer perspective. You can find several threads on these boards where Ilzury is trying to come up with a way of reading the rules to do something that a class can't do. Every time one idea got shot down, another one with even more convoluted reading would pop up. Just about every one of the guides includes at least one suggestion that only works if you seriously twist the language of the rules.

Convoluted reading of language isn't limited to power gamers. There are FAQs which involve equally convoluted readings or even would clearly be wrong if they were not from an official source.

Of course, my ratings are strongly influence by the assumption that you want to play a Rogue, and have the ability scores according to that. If you want to make the most powerful Sylvan Trickster you can, the rating would be much different... but you'd basically play a spell-less Witch.

My character has an int of 14, which is fairly normal for an unchained rogue that wants to be a skill monkey. So saves for hexes are lower than for a witch, but not outrageously so.

Was it you who rated the best class features as-

1 full spell casting
2 eidolon
3 witch hexes?

That seems insightful to me.

So you believe a spell-less witch with a sideline in being an unchained rogue and the ultimate skill monkey is more powerful that an arcane trickster build to be a rogue or just an unchained rogue?

Interesting. I have not got far with my first arcane trickster. But I know all about playing witches. And explaining to people what a well played witch can do just with their hexes. Often they don't accept it.

On the spell-less witch idea, it could be interesting. I am sure a witch would be more powerful overall. But there is this-

"Cutting Edge
Prerequisite(s): Advanced talents, rogue’s edge

Benefit: A rogue with this ability immediately selects two additional skills with her rogue’s edge ability. She can select this advanced talent multiple times."

With your skill points per level, a maxed out int and lots of skill unlocks [which allow you do a lot]you are the ultimate skill monkey. And you mostly use hexes in combat.

But then the other question is whether you can use Hex Strike (a Swift Action) on a successful Attack of Opportunity?

"Swift Actions

I think the answer is you can activate Hex Strike as long as you have a swift action available. I.e. Have not used it from your last turn.

I don't know if I am repeating myself but I hate the idea of a 2 level monk dip. You hold up all of your witch progression to set this idea up. Big, big downside. And despite the monk dip you remain profoundly squishy and this strategy takes you close to combat. And it makes your character MAD.

The upside is you can hit people with reach weapons but your BaB is still crap. You can use hex strike with this, probably, but you have to hit with the weapon and then they get a save.

My suggestion- play a witch or play a monk. Trying to do both is... sub-optimal.

Fortune If you already have Soothsayer + Protective Luck, this might be worth grabbing. Powerful effect, but only once per day.

Fortune + cackle in combat is very powerful. Only once/day/ally but it is very good for 1 combat.

That is the sort of thing I was talking about Java Man. And it sounds very sensible. Rather a lot of work for a GM however.

Perhaps yes.

But it is still something the GM has to adjudicate somehow. The actions you suggest would normally be roleplayed and have costs.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is getting access to exactly the spells you want. Beyond the spells your class gives you I mean.

So far as I know there are no rules for it so it's up to the GM.

So if you want a particular spell you need to find a arcane caster who has it and is prepared to share it for a modest sum of money. And there are gazillions of spells on the wizard list.

It seems to me the most commonly used spells will be most readily available, you are not going to have much trouble finding mage armor as everyone wants it. But most spells on the wizard list are used very rarely. And it is going to get progressively harder to find spells of higher levels as casters who can learn them become fewer.

There is also killing a wizard and taking his spell book. Or is there some reason that does not work?

You find out something every day.

Where do you find those costs Java Man?

I believe the official rule as to this is the character gets the number of spells their class will give them.

For example witch starts with 3 + int mod 1st level spells and all cantrips.

At each level they gain 2 spells of their choice of a level they can cast.
[This means when they gain the level].

Spells from their patron.

So if you start a witch at level 3, they will start with-

3 +int mod level 1 spells.

2 more level 1 spells [level 2]

1 1st level patron spell [gained at level 2]

2 2nd level spells [level 3]. Technically the witch can take 1st or 2nd level spells here. Nobody does.

If the player want access to more spells, they can buy a scroll with the spell on it.

The rules are similar for other arcane casters.

The rules as written don't adjust for a number of spells likely to have been found adventuring unless you count buying scrolls.

Their is another thread that goes over some of the ground here which can be found at ClassBuild-Metrics-Part-2.

Dragon Chess Player- You are right of course and also correct that this is known by all knowledgeable players.

I wanted to question the use of a tier system that considers only the power of classes at high levels, especially considering that most campaigns never get close to level 20. Having that as the only way a tier system is done is flawed and misleading.

I was hoping someone would turn up a link to that old survey I was referring to.

@ Mr Charisma,

On Sorcerers and Wizards

I more than agree with you. What you say is correct imho but add to this that the number of spells a sorcerer can use is limited to spells known where wizards can get the whole list.

If Paizo had put me in charge of a project to create a PF1.5 instead of releasing PF2 I would have abolished arcanists, which get the best of both worlds as well as lots of other good stuff. Then revised sorcerers along the lines you suggest and maybe raid the arcanist class to further bolster sorcerers. Sadly Paizo was not so wise.

MrCharisma wrote:

a Tier list is never really objective

I've seen multiple threads where someone is asking for help because the Barbarian or the Fighter is derailing the campaign by being an unstoppable juggernaut and people just reply with "Well you should be able to deal with it, at least it's not a tier-1 class like a Wizard."

That arises when some players are playing optimised characters and some are not. But it is true enough.

With that in mind, I don't think this SHOULD be "objective" (if such a thing exists). I think an alternative could be that we just invite people to give their opinions on which classes are strongest at particular levels (or level-ranges), and get an aggregate of people's ideas. Getting multiple tier-lists along with the reasoning behind them is more likely to contribute to someone's idea of which characters suits them or what to look for. This would likely be more work, but perhaps it would be spread out among more people - you could simply be the one compiling results ...?

I agree fully and you seem to be the only person who has posted who has taken note of my main point.

Having one way of constructing a tier list that takes no account of level or the level play will reach is especially bad.

As to the archetypes thing, I'm in no way familiar with all of the tier lists out there, but I've seen a few that will acknowledge tier adjustments up or down for notably powerful or sub-par archetypes.

I have seen an archetype tier list and lists of compatible archetypes. Neither are anything like comprehensive and up to date.

There is the idea that PF1 (and DnD3.5) go through 3 or 4 stages. You can add the stages of growth to the results BUT it's not how the Game is played and it is difficult to impossible to switch classes even using Retraining.

I am not sure what you mean about stages.

And doesn't everyone know you can't change class? I mean a GM might allow a change of class with a wish but that is the only way I know you could do it.

So I think it is best as a comment added TO the class builds rather than a result by stage.

You went from talking about classes to talking about class builds. That is significant and points to something about tier guides. The guides talk about the power of a class. Which is a gross simplification, you need to rate each archetype as they are different. Even then archetypes are changed by race and the build being followed.

All this adds to the ratings chart is for someone say, "oh my game goes to 12th level so the high ratings are for *this* and *this* class". Yeah. I think an effectiveness rating for 4 stages is internal to the class rather than comparative to other classes.

Not sure what the 4 stages are.

The only thing I'll add is that if someone does want to put in the mountain of effort required to create a tier-by-level-range system, the Guide to the Class Guides might be a starting point on ranking the options available for each class.

Oh, I am not going to do it. As I said above, you really need to rate each archetype, archetype combo, race and build for each class. If you don't have to be stark raving mad to attempt that, you will be by the time you finish. If you ever do.

I wanted more to start a more abstract discussion on tier lists which considers the amount of time you spend at each level and the levels reached by most campaigns.

It seems no matter how often I say this I can't get people to take notice of my main idea.

I'm sick of Power Tier Class Discussions, 2015/05 holds many of the defining posts and criticisms.

Maybe.

The thread was closed down due to lack of civility which is more than justified.

Talking to people like they are intellectually disabled because they do not acknowledge that tier systems measure the ability to change a campaign's narrative is very uncivil indeed. Especially as some tier systems just talk of classes power.

A big part of changing the narrative is by persuasion, talking creatures into doing what you want w/o mind control of any kind. I don't recall any real talk of this in class tier discussions.

The amount of game-time spent in a class (popularity) doesn't address effectiveness of a build.

I keep saying this. I wanted to measure the power of classes considering the amount of time you play each class at each level.

has never publicly disclosed that aggregated play history.

Maybe. I did read a very interesting survey Paizo did publish that included details of player's class choices and [especially relevant here] what level campaigns typically reached.

Just before I stop, I think most of what you say and didn't comment on entirely sensible.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Giving a score for each level isn't the only way of doing it. It is possible to group levels for example levels 1-4 and then 5-8. Or levels 1-5 and then 6-10 and so on. 20 is divisible by 4 and 5 which makes these groupings convenient.

I feel like this is probably both more achievable and more useful. Ranking things every level is a spreadsheet and not many people are really going to evaluate things to that level of detail. However knowing which classes tend to be strong at 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20 is something people can look at and easily see trends.

I am sure you are right about this. Not to mention making it less work to do, though it is still a huge undertaking.

I follow what you say about various spellcasting classes. Experienced players all know this and will consider it when choosing a class. If you are going to compare classes you should not have an agenda beyond trying to be objective. A lot of classes or builds have noticeably bigger power jumps when they reach certain levels than others. You would probably mention these in notable cases.

My main point is all the tier lists I have seem look at level 20, or very close to it, only. That is OK as far as it goes and is relatively easy to rate and compile. But it zero rates the power level of the character at all lower levels. And it zero rates the fact that most campaigns never get close to level 20. I wanted a measure of how powerful a class is as you actually play it. And to point out what is missing from and, to many, misleading about the way class tier systems work.

Sysryke- I see what you mean about the amount of work.

I think it would take a total obsessive nutcase to do this for every class and archetype. I have not seen that done with conventional tier lists only. They rate the classes and occasionally mention am archetype.

And people do a lot of unpaid work over this game and forms of DnD. Writing a detailed guide is a huge amount of work. I may have got further with this idea if I had it a decade or so in the past, when PF1 was going strong.

Giving a score for each level isn't the only way of doing it. It is possible to group levels for example levels 1-4 and then 5-8. Or levels 1-5 and then 6-10 and so on. 20 is divisible by 4 and 5 which makes these groupings convenient.

Musta- You can stack the Wild Caller(ARG) and Evolutionist archetypes.

But this will not change the evolutions banned for Wild Caller(ARG) Eidolons. So it won't allow you to take energy attacks, though it will allow you to change around your Eidolon more often than other Summoners in ways that are otherwise legal.

There have been many people who have rated the PF1 classes and organised them into tiers.

All of these, or all those I have seen, consider the ultimate power of the classes i.e. what they are like at level 20.

I recall reading an old survey of PF1 players which I can't at present find. Hopefully someone will turn it up in a reply. It had a lot of interesting results, but what is of interest here is the levels campaigns reached. It showed that the percentage of campaigns that reached level 20 was minimal and the number that even got close was small. In PF Society play is limited to level 12 max for the most part.

This renders the normal tier system ... theoretical and divorced from what you actually play.

What I suggest is to consider the relative strength of each class at each level. Say a number from 1 to 5, with 5 best at that level. Then multiply it by the % of time you actually spend playing at that level. Then you add up the 20 scores and divide the total by 20 for a score of how the class performs when you actually play it.

Most interested in others opinions on these matters.

3. Witch [contends for top spot if you measure power by tactics and stamina. Falls lower if considering total theoretical spell access. Sorry Jezebel );

No need to apologize. I am quite OK with people disagreeing and having their own favourite classes.

What you say about the Witches more restricted spell list is very much a consideration.

The majority opinion when people make tier lists is the very best arcane casters are wizards, arcanists and sorcerer [razmiran priests] and these are pretty much the most powerful classes overall. I agree totally with this if and only if, iff to a logician, you are considering only the relative power of the classes at level 20 or near it. Witches are a bit behind but by no means a bad choice.

I admit singing the praise of witches is something of a soapbox issue.

There was a now fairly old survey conducted by Piazo that looked at the level campaigns usually reach and very few get to level 20 or anything near. If you look at matters thinking more about the level your character will reach witches look better.

Second, most people who post on these boards seem not to know what a well played witch can do, or if they know don't mention it.

4. Sorcerer (limited spells known keeps them off the podium. Not to derail, but I've often wondered if them being a 3/4 BAB class would fix the Wizard/Sorcerer disparity?)

I don't think that would do much. A pure arcane caster should avoid close combat like the plague. Being able to do a bit more damage with a crossbow or a few HPs more in melee before dying isn't going to change much.

Changing things so sorcerers, or all spontaneous casters, get 2nd level spells at level 3 like prepared caster, and so on for other spell levels, will definitely do more. It might do too much. I think the full prepared casters would still be better at the highest levels for the same reason they are now.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

It is obvious you have not played with me or another player experienced in playing witches. :P

For those problems hexes can't solve, they have spells. Which last longer as you often use hexes instead.

I do have relatively little experience with witches, though I did help one of my friends build a White Haired Witch years ago. I guess what I meant by offensive oomph was straight damage dealing spells. Even when it's not the most optimal choice, it bothers me that every casting class doesn't have at least one damage dealing cantrip/orison.

Witch offense, at least at the first few glances, seems to be more geared towards debuff and control effects.

I left some of my original text there for emphasis.

Other full arcane spellcasters certainly have more offensive options. There are a goodly number of very good offensive spells available to a witch- Web, Stinking Cloud, Lightning Bolt and Black Tentacles for example. I could not give a stuff about my limited ability to do HPs of damage.

Imagine a combat where our parties front line fighters take on a powerful monster with Misfortune on it, our Fighters have Fortune and Protective Luck used on them.

My Witch is Cackling maniacally to keep the hexes working and everyone else is cackling maniacally at the monsters attempts to do anything. It matters naught how many HP it has. It takes a fair while to do and won't work every time, but it does not cost a single spell slot.

I quite enjoy a Witch's familiar, as well as the hexes, I just wish they had a little more offensive oomph. Part of that depends on how much splat you have access to, and/or 3pp.

It is obvious you have not played with me or another player experienced in playing witches. :P

Just considering Paizo publications w/o third party witches are excellent offensively. They can devastate individuals with hexes and cackle. Then the hexes are still there for the next encounter.

For those problems hexes can't solve, they have spells. Which last longer as you often use hexes instead.

If you are in a situation where you cannot access, use or otherwise rely on your allies you are alone. In that case your top priority is probably your own survival. Most prepared arcane caster are really vulnerable in a solo situation. ... For a wizard or witch, you are going to want to focus on avoidance and protection.

As Witch Advocate General I have to point out some witches have other options.

A Blood-marked Skinshifter can turn into a bat, with the appropriate feat and a Kitsune can turn into a fox with a feat or a alternative racial ability.

This allows you to hide or pass yourself off as a harmless animal or fly away if a bat. You cannot spell cast as an animal, but you can still use most hexes.

Witch can hex all adventuring day long and has spells to supplement where the hexes don't cover.

Melkiador is always worth reading for insightful comment.

Witch is my favourite class. I usually play casters and the fact witches can use hexes all day long as Melkiador puts is a big part of the class's appeal.

They have so much stamina and start off so much better.

Some sensible individual said on another thread the very best class features, were, in order-
1 Full Casting
2 Summoners Eidelon
3 Witch Hexes.

Witches have both 1 and 3.

Excellent insight into the Witch. That sort of analysis is part of what I'm looking for.

Since witches are what I know best, I thought I would finish answering the question.

Hexes don't do much for gathering information of this kind. Hag Eye and Beast Skin are good greater hexes useful for gathering information, but they facilitate spying. The grand hex Summon spirit should be of use, but I have never had it so can't really confirm. Summon a ghost that knows what you are trying to find out is the idea.

Familiars with commune or other information gathering spells will work.

Apart from that it is just spells.

Sysryke- The other 2 respondents are giving answers that are at least largely correct. I also doubt they are the kind of answers you are looking for.

I had a look at witch spells to level 3 and found Ears of the City, Commune with Birds, Detect thoughts [sort of] and Planar inquiry. Read thoughts can also be very useful but you need something to go on for it to be any use.

Even more powerful spell like Contact other plane [a witch spell] or commune in its various forms [you need divine casters for these] all fall short of completely solving information problems.

I think this is deliberate design. Spells can be powerful tools to gather info but normally it does part of the job. The spell tends to point you in the right direction [when it works] but usually you have to search out something or make like Sherlock Holmes.

Another thing worth mentioning is having someone in the party with a familiar with commune is a real boon. It saves you 500gp each time it is used and you don't have to have the spell memorised.

This is a strange question to try to answer.

First you are almost never in a circumstance vacuum. Likewise you are never 100% sure of exactly what you will encounter. You can get fairly close to either extreme, but it is rare, especially the first I think.

Second, you scout, use information gaining spells and do detective work to find information. So if you are information poor you wait for spell preparation, then memorize and use divination then rest and prepare again. As to spells to use here, the only answer I can give is I believe "Ears of the City" is something of an under rated gem. Only works in urban areas of course.

What I do, and most other players do I think, is have a default spell list of the most powerful and generally useful spells that I modify according to circumstances.

Lastly, a word on my favourite class the witch. Witches have hexes which they can't change from day to day but that a witch can and should use to solve many of the problems of the game. This has a big effect on how witches relate to their spells memorised as compared to other arcane casters. A wizard out of spells is normally near useless, while a witch in the same circumstances has markedly reduced options but is still potent.

Paradoxically, where a wizard has an extra spell per level, the fact a witch preserves spells by using hexes means their spells last longer. Witches have more scope to mould their spell selection to circumstances, including information droughts than a wizard does.

"Rogue, Sylvan Trickster – An analogous build to the defiler is promising, but needs closer investigation (and ideally someone who has played it…) for a more certain rating."

A quote from your guide Northern Spotted Owl.

I have played this archetype, once previously and again now, though not very far in terms of level.

Do you want some details for your guide?

I ask because if I remember right you saying something like PF1 is in it's dying throws, sad but true, and you are moving on.

I have some feedback. Negative at first sadly-

Chosen of Abadar-

"They can use detect poison and detect magic at will, but only when used to evaluate goods, wealth, or contracts."

Those spells are not really relevant to evaluating those things most of the time.

Maybe a version of Discern Lies that works on written documents as well. That is a 4th level spell so you might want to move it to something you get at higher level.

Then I realised how many of these templates there were and decided I wasn't going to go through all of them.

Second and more generally-

1 Rather than this format-

"If chosen at character creation, typically these abilities become available at 1st level (Level 1), 5th level (Level 2), 10th level (Level 3), and 15th level (Level 4)."

Just say level 1, level 5 and so on with each entry. It just simplifies things and makes it easier on players who skip the introductory parts. They are being lazy but it certainly happens.

2 Adding a template to character races isn't the way PF1 normally goes about things. It gives some characters a power boost, that is fine for NPCs, but it does not really work with PCs.

Unlike my other suggestions this isn't a gentle criticism. If you give one PC a template unless you give the other PCs one too, which alters the power of everyone, the PCs who miss out will scream the house down. I would.

If you want to make the idea idea more compatible with the game as is for PCs you could re-do these ideas as archetypes. Some such archetypes exist already e.g. Asmodean Advocate for the cleric. But that means major changes to your idea, which is what I mean by this not being a gentle criticism.

@Tom Sampson- On your suggestions for taking prestige classes with a witch, the ideas you suggest may allow for interesting possibilities and characters.

But prestige classes in PF1 are normally, by deliberate design, less powerful than base classes. This is doubly true for a witch. Prestige classes that progress arcane casting normally assume you are starting from a class like wizard with a more comprehensive spell list.

Witches get less from this as their spell list is less extensive. With a couple a rare exceptions, winter witch for example, prestige classes do not progress your hexes. As these are such a big part of a witch's power prestige classes are even worse for the witch and should be studiously avoided if trying to build a powerful character.

We seem to be on the same page about Garden of Delight. Giving the Seducer a powerful game mechanical reason to act like they are in a porn movie seems... mistaken. But it is actually an animal porn movie. I doubt anyone thought of this, or if they did it was someone trying to sneak it into the game as a joke.

On Seducer's Kiss I don't agree that spending feats and acquiring magic items in order to make it good is worth it. A witch is totally unsuited to melee and has other things to do.

@Spotted Owl- more on the Seducer archetype. I agree that the "sexy witch" theme can possibly be bad for a campaign. Not necessarily but it is possible or likely.

You rate the archetype yellow, which [pun unintentional] I disagree with. To consider each of the archetypes features-

Otherworldly Allure Pretty neutral.

Fey Charm (Su) You have to take a markedly improved version of Charm hex at level 1. It is a decent hex and this version is better. A slight plus.

Also, consider that the Charm and Fey Charm hexes can be used on animals too. On second thoughts, don't consider that. Don't think about anything like it at all.

Seducer’s Kiss (Su) This just sucks.

Garden of Delight (Su) Tiny hut 1/day, and if someone rests for 8 hours within they heal at double the normal rate. And anyone you shag in the garden gains a +2 morale bonus to all saves for 24 hours.

You get this at level 8. This is the purple rating, meaning broken good, better than blue used in some guides.

I think the correct rating for this archetype is blue, with a warning about it's possible hazards to play.

As Tom Sampson says, play this as a Gathlain, which is an excellent race that can fly and a FCB giving you druid spells and this is very good indeed.

the Iron Collar of the Unbound Coven in your guide, as it clearly empowers the coven hex.

I have never been in a position to set up a coven. But the collar allows it's user to make a swift action attempt to incapacitate a humanoid 3 times per day. Even with a DC 15 save that is excellent.

Kitsune has a variant with +2 int and it raises the DCs of enchantment spells by 1.

Alternatively, you could take the alternative racial triat-

Superior Shapeshifter Some talented kitsune take more naturally to shapeshifting than magic, and develop that gift. They gain Fox Shape as a bonus feat at 1st level, ignoring its prerequisites. This racial trait replaces kitsune magic.

I think being able to turn into a fox is better for a witch. You can use most hexes as a fox.

I agree that the Seducer archetype has the potential to ruin or frustrate roleplay, but it also facilitates playing as the Gathlain race whose favored class bonus adds Druid spells to the Witch's list

I had an NPC along these lines using the Feytouched Hexer 3rd party archetype.

A Seducer is more powerful but I don't want to play one. I am unusual as I am a guy who often plays female characters. But all that sex with other PCs is... rather too much.

You talk about worrying a lot, even when your fellow players tell you not to.

Your fellow players are right and you should not worry.

Also Pathfinder rewards specialization and teamwork. If I am playing a character who gains 2 skill points a level and does not need a high Int I make jokes like "what is a skill?". Trying to turn such a character into a skill monkey is never going to work and is going mean making choices that mean you are less good at things your character is good at. Leave that to the Rogue.

Beyond your specialization, you need to find a way to be useful in a variety of situations and to make your character survivable.

Have you tried playing a witch? They are very support focused, while having a more active than reactive playstyle. It may be the reactive nature of support that you are not enjoying. And while they can do some damage, that's not what they are good at, so it's not expected of them.

Melkiador is always well worth listening to and not just for the paragraph I quoted.

Witches are my favourite character class and I suspect they are under-rated. Hexes can usually be used once per enemy, not once per day. That gives you lots of stamina and allows you to use some of your spells for things outside combat. And a witch with a wand of CLW is sort of a second rate cleric if the party lacks a real cleric.

I also appreciate clerics. There are a lot of classes that are far more spectacular, but clerics provide a lot of the bread and butter that makes everything work. There are a whole raft of nasty things that can be inflicted on party members other than damage for which the cleric may have the answer. Once you gain some levels their offensive capacity is not bad either. And they are not squishy.

Azothath wrote:

Sorcerer archetype Razmiran Priest

 Req: PFS legal, 20 pt Abil buy, 5th Lvl $10500 gear | 11th Lvl $82000 gear....
Abacade male aasimarᶝ lawbringer Sor Arch-Razmir Priest 5 | 11
NN med sz humnoid outsdr(ntv)
...

it is a centric build with a good race but not the most tweaked, but who'd think a lawbringer was a razmiran priest?! I should have applied Innocent racial trait but +1 Fort ya know... Alchemical items are self crafted.

You could choose halfelf, halfling, human, ratfolk and adjust the ability scores. Humans have Comp Edu trait which is nice. Ratfolk swarm and work well with this class.
You can move some of the Equip/Gear around as a Page of spell Know would be nice at 5th. I did skimp on the wand charges...

Personally I think the class is gimped as it needs social skills AND it trades away good things. It focuses on UMD which for a caster is a trap and doing cleric spells at +1 SplLvl isn't all that. I think a dip in Rogue would cure it mostly BUT sorcerers take a beating on multiclassing. I think a Clr 1 (Bastet)/Wiz4 or Wiz10 would beat up the Razmir Sor...

Well, you are entitled to your opinion Azothath. Every other opinion I have read about the Razmiran, or False, Priest is to the effect that it is brilliant.

"doing cleric spells at +1 SplLvl isn't all that" well I disagree and agree with practically everyone else.

The point is that buying a scroll of each of the more useful divine spells is quite doable by the time this ability comes online and you only have to pay once.

It isn't that you have the most powerful spell ready. But so often you have the most needed spell, be it restoration or dispel magic or neutralise poison.

Nobody has mentioned a Beast Talisman or at least I don't think so. It is expensive but in many ways better than an amulet of Mighty Fists. Deserves to be better known.

I support the idea of doing away with AoO for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it complicates the game.

Second, I am a long term martial artist and I think the AoO rules are supposed to be realistic. Realism in Pathfinder or D&D, really? I would say if somebody wanders past then something like an AoO would take place, but you are just as likely to AoO allies as foes and people who are moved or tripped into going past are also going to suffer AoO.

Mightypion- That is just the kind of thing I was saying.

And as to soothsayer, yes, but that costs you another hex.

The whole idea is never going to produce an optimal character.

If you want to be a pure full arcane caster and go into melee regularly the best idea I can think of is Witch [Ashtifah].

Choose a race with a natural attack and take -

"Hex Strike (Combat)
Chanting and cursing, you put a hex on your enemy as part of your unarmed strike.
Prerequisite: Hex class feature, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: When you gain this feat, choose one hex that you can use to affect no more than one opponent. If you make a successful unarmed strike against an opponent, in addition to dealing your unarmed strike damage, you can use a swift action to deliver the effects of the chosen hex to that opponent. Doing so does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

You want the natural attack to save the need to spend a feat. At level 2 you get this-

Ghostwalk (Su): Starting at 2nd level, as a move action after using a hex, an ashiftah can become invisible as per vanish APG and can then take a 5-foot step. Using ghostwalk doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.

This allows you to hit and vanish. Then do it again.

The bad news is your HP and BaB still suck. One level of swashbuckler for oportune parry and repost will help.

Remember if you try all this and die anyway I did tell you it is a long way from optimal.

I'd be tempted to go with wizard or alchemist for the immortality.

Me, by contrast, would go for Druid or Paladin for the immorality, as explained in my last post.

A druid with wild shape and polymorph self. Just think, you could have sex with absol... uh, sorry, I mean a paladin . Strong, powerful, noble and you have to be good looking and charming to a high degree. And because of your mandatory alignment you would be universally trusted and liked and you have to rescue damsels in distress. You would get so much puss .. sorry, sorry. Somebody else has been messing with my post honest. What I mean is you would be universally well liked and admired and have the opportunity to do so many good deeds.

Northern Spotted Owl-

I have looked at your guide and spreadsheet. There is little if anything I would say is wrong, but some things I think that could be added.

Going by class on which I have something to say.

Oracle

Oracles can be completely different depending on the mystery selected.

The Ju-ju Oracle, the one that gets the Spirit Vessels revelation, is one of the best necromancers in the game by dint of that mystery alone and gets some other good stuff as well.

The 3rd party Snakes Mystery gets to be a powerful summoner by taking one
revelation Snake Summoner. The other revelations are good too making this a fine choice if allowed.

Druid

I think the Saurian Shaman archetype deserves to be called out as powerful and flexible.

The totemic summons gives great power and flexibility to your SNA. You can add feats to make SNA better still and get hold of a Rod of Giant Summoning asap.

A sly trick is to take the Destruction domain and when eventually you can summon Cylopes you have a deadly combination that costs not a lot to set up.

Finally, the bonus feats you eventually get while wild shaped promise added combat power. Your wild shape lacks the flexibility of many other druids but you can't have everything.

Witch

The Ashiftah archetype is wondrous.

Witches excell where due to a small or strangely constituted party the caster/s are overworked. If you take the extreme example, if the party has only one caster the best choice imho is a witch.

Firstly, just because witches have more healing magic on their list than other arcane casters does not mean you don't need a divine caster. You do. But if you have a witch with a wand of CLW you go a fair way to covering for the lack.

Secondly, the fact hexes don't run out gives witches a lot of stamina. You solve problems with hexes when you can and preserve your spells for the problems you can't. And if you are out of spells, it isn't the disaster it would be for, say, a wizard as you still have your hexes.

My suggestion is your Oracle should go somewhere in Golarion.

I hope this helps.

"Very well Warrick. Where do we go to find our way to Darga?" replies Galatea in a friendly voice, while slowly and enticingly withdrawing currency from her purse, suggesting a strip tease for misers.