Jadrenka

MadMars's page

94 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I thought the books actually went into this when I read them. Am I wrong? Saying "they'll have to wait until she's redeemed, etc."


Kasoh wrote:
keftiu wrote:

This is the next game from the Kingmaker devs, Owlcat Games. Info seems scarce at the moment, but they've confirmed Witch and Oracle will be in, along with a new race that I haven't seen elaborated on yet.

Any hopes, expectations, fears?

Wrath can get pretty dark though and very adult with all the demons and corruption about so that'll be interesting to see how its handled.

That's what makes it fun! Let's let the adults have something for once.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


I think making one dimensional caster's who focus on mainly one thing has always bad.

This isn't an argument per se, but a salt-to-taste type thing. I enjoy playing hyper-specialized casters such as save-or-suck Enchanters or Cold Caster builds in much the same way someone loves playing a dexterous rogue or a fighter who specializes in greatswords. Nobody is wrong for wanting casters who can't over specialize to dominate one area of the game (although I would disagree that thats unfun or overpowered to allow), but I don't like that my favorite thing has become far less viable.

I will say I wanted sorcerers to be able to heighten at will. I just don't think they were as good without it, and I don't buy the choice paralysis argument.

Ultimately, a lot of this comes down to preference, vision for the game, etc. But most of the serious "casters were over nerfed arguments" won't appear here because this board tends to lean heavily in favor of Paizo's design decisions for obvious reasons. Not that there are not plenty of dissenters, of course, but the majority of dissent is going to be found in reddit/rpgnet/random forum here etc. To get a good argument, you'll need to go somewhere else and talk to somebody WAY smarter than me, or get lucky and bait one of the wise old timers here on the other side to feel wordy.

Both sides also accuse the other side of being the hostile perpetrators of bad faith arguments and disagreements, which probably perpetuates the endless cycle of these threads.

I am a minority-of-one on my view of casting in any case, it seems. My lonely camp is "only blasting is good now" which seems to be the exact opposite of experience of everyone else. My view comes from play and armchair rocking alike.

I still enjoy the game and want it to thrive. I think some of the changes have been positive. I like that items are much more important to casters now, but I wish the spell DCs of casters scaled better and sooner. I want a spell to crit as often as a rogue's sword because while that would be more powerful, spells are also hardcapped now. There is no more infinite charisma/insane amount of spell shenanigans. You need to be getting more out of your best spells than a fighter does out of her mace, because you're waiting for those opportunities with a lot more eagerness.

I utterly despise the incapacitate trait, which prevents casters from ending encounters with spells like paralysis while for some reason, a fighter one-shotting the ogre with a crit is fine (this really happened in my game, it is not a hypothetical*.) The counter argument says its all about the cinema of the game. One simply doesn't feel good while the other feels exciting and like earning it. I disagree, but either opinion is arbitrary. It is gone from every one of my games until the end of time.

Basically, casters are not useless, they just lack the exciting interactions with the very good new action economy martials enjoy. Their DCs are close-ish but need to be better, they need for variety in terms of class features, etc. Some things were done to make them more viable but I just don't like the design direction.

For instance, casters can do a lot more non-magic things better now as a trade-off. I hate that. I want more magic, not more mace-swinging viability. To other people though, while a fighter can be all about fighting, a wizard who does only magic feels boring or silly. Again, opinions, opinions.

*The fighter did have some help from magic weapon to do this, but a caster's role should not be to simply help the martials. In any case, as far as I can tell he could have done it without the help. This is why healbots are bad and boring, in my eyes. The reverse is true. A fighter shouldn't just be a wizard's bodyguard for when black tentacles can't cut off enemy charges.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The words "pound" and "realistic" should never be used in the same sentence. Same for mile, Fahrenheit and foot. Wayward colonies and their silly ideas...

BRITAIN: "Lol Wayward colonies and their silly ideas."

USA: "YOU MADE ME THIS WAY DAD!" *continues indulging in sanity-destroying units of measurement anyway*

No doubt that bag is really filled with unjustly collected taxes meant for Europe.

In all seriousness, I really like bulk, personally. It doesn't have to make perfect sense, just enough sense. It's easy to use and explain to players, and stops the tedious inventory tracking of PF1 while never getting so ridiculous as to be a non-element. It also eliminates some difficult math problems for incompetent idiots like myself.

(Seriously, Paizo I am not about to calculate the volume of the items I want to put in my backpack vs my backpack. I am flattered you believe me to be capable of that but I want you to know that your faith was beyond misplaced. You may as well pray to Baba Yaga for spells.)


Why is Irrisen so awesome?


18 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sad to tell you this, but it was inevitable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
MadMars wrote:

You're all welcome here so long as you support my exact vision for the witch class, as outlined in my thesis.

/s

Did you update it with the cuddle clause?

Yes, your peer review was extremely valuable. I think the board will ultimately approve my designs but in the event it doesn't, I will have to accept my loss with grace. I only hope I can have as much dignity in defeat as Tableflip McRagequit always did.


beowulf99 wrote:
True, I love a good round of what if and all that. I was just providing my opinion on the whole subject to be honest, not trying to shut down the discussion.

That's fair, I'm sorry if that came off accusatory. I didn't so much mean that you would do so out of malice, just that calling it pointless felt like it was invalidating the exercise (to me.)

I *would* be willing in any case to be that while info travels faster in Golarion than in Middle Ages/Early Modern Earth, it probably goes more slowly than Modern Earth. I think stuff like rolling to identify a simple lion in any case probably doesn't belong in the game, although having a character choose to roll could be fun if they were trying to ham it up as someone from a very different society or background.


beowulf99 wrote:

An even more interesting conundrum: What if you decide to specifically avoid using a creatures weakness simply because you don't have the proper skill to know what it's weakness is, even if that action would then change your "standard" actions?

Say for instance a Dual Wielding rogue with a Sap and a Dagger decides not to use the Sap against a Skeleton, simply because he feels that would be "meta gaming" to take advantage of the Skeleton's weakness, and therefore leads with his dagger instead, even though throughout the parties combats he's led with the Sap.

Is that meta gaming?

RE: The DM of & MadMars, that discussion is basically pointless. The fact is that neither of you are from a middle ages agrarian society with limited access to formal education, so what is the point of trying to figure out how fast information would disseminate/ how accurate information would be in one? After all there is Magic in the world, people have access to teleportation or long range magical communication. Sure, nobody is walking around with all of the information ever thought of by any person like we do (smart phones and all that), but who's to say that information doesn't make it's way around Golarion faster or more accurately than it did in the middle ages of Earth?

Someone brought up the idea that people painting Lions in the middle ages would mess up the legs and just copy a dog. Well, I'm pretty sure just about any caster with access to a summon Animal spell can summon a Lion or a bear or a badger or... etc.. regardless of where they are from. So would you require a recall knowledge check to make sure they know what they are summoning and tell that player that they can't do that if they don't happen to know what a Lion is?

At the end of the day, the rules are there to enable our fantasy worlds, not cripple them. Ignore pointless checks, keep the game moving and make sure your players are having fun. Otherwise you may as well hang up the campaign, cause if it's not fun, you shouldn't be playing it.

Of course it's pointless, that's what it makes it fun to argue about! I don't personally run it either way, and have never had the issue in a campaign. But why not have fun entertaining the question? It's so boring to just shut it down and not explore the idea.

For the record though I wouldn't make a PC roll a knowledge check for something super basic, and don't worry, my games and worlds are very fun! Have you considered sometimes people have fun playing the game a different way?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

I don't work with animals. I don't study them.

However, I can recognize virtually every single one in my country and in fact most of them around the world. I know which ones are poisonous, which ones might want to eat me, which ones have unpleasant defenses, which ones are found in which habitats, which ones are related to others, what animal kingdom they're from, what common ancestors they had. I even know animals that existed for the past few hundreds of millions of years. I'm moderately educated and interested about nature, but there's nothing special about my knowledge. It comes from living in our world and having a natural curiosity about it.

One thing that doesn't hold up to scrutiny here, but I think is interesting to explore, is the assumption of the actual level of information and education the average person on Golarion has access to. Don't get me wrong, we have gauges, and there are schools, apprenticeships, etc.

But for me, it's a hard sell that someone coming out of Sandpoint would recognize even 15% of Varisian fauna (especially as some of its fauna is from places like Leng), and that's assuming they were educated. The opportunities you likely used to learn those things (formal education, traveling, safely observing the wilderness) are something a person living in say a desolate war-torn wilderness full of monsters would never have. How many ogres has a level one PC read about or observed up close? There is no way your knowledge is just osmosis in the sense you think it is. You only know about animals that existed millions of years ago because thousands of people worked hard to get you that information, and then literal millions struggled to deliver that information to you through the hard fought process of funding things like schools. There's a lot I feel you're taking for granted. No one did Valeros that favor. No giant shoulders for him to stand like we have.

It just feels *odd* idk. And you probably still only possess that information on animals in broad strokes. It would be truly impressive for amateur enthusiast who doesn't study animals to be able to differentiate various obscure relatives of the Sydney Funnelweb.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

You're all welcome here so long as you support my exact vision for the witch class, as outlined in my thesis.

/s


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Or we could save the Occultist stuff for the Occultist.

Only if we save the witch stuff for the witch. :)


Samurai wrote:
MadMars wrote:
Puna'chong wrote:
I'd rather have a Witch and an Occultist
I agree. The witch shouldn't be the prepared occult caster, that's what I can reasonably infer we'll have the occultist for.
But the PF1e Occultist class doesn't just cast Occult spells, it's an Infused item using class as I described. And who knows how long until they get to Occult Adventures 2e anyway? Giving the witch some of the Occultist flavor now is a good opportunity to see if people are interested in it.

If we can turn the witch into something substantially changed, we can substantially change the occultist. I like witch better my way, and wouldn't want to sacrifice my favorite class to test such a sentiment. Of course as you see above other people feel just the opposite.

Besides, this new edition features occult far more prominently. There's no reason to assume it's so far off, and an occultist prepared caster could still heavily be themed around implements. It would need to be substantially differentiated from both the wizard and bard anyhow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

I could actually see Occultist being pick-a-list, depending on what items they dive into.

(I'd also like them and the Arcanist to be renamed, if they stay Occult and Arcane respectively)

Huh, I just really vibe with it the other way around. I feel like the witch has broader potential than the occultist, but I think it's just subjective stream-of-consciousness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:
I'd rather have a Witch and an Occultist

I agree. The witch shouldn't be the prepared occult caster, that's what I can reasonably infer we'll have the occultist for.


Sporkedup wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:

Having one "pick one of 3" is disconcerting, whereas if they had 2 "pick one of " classes then it would feel like a pattern (plus we would be content speculating on what future class had X pattern of traditions to pick).

I could be surprised, but I doubt they will reduce the witch to one tradition. One bit of political wisdom that seemed good to me was "they will hate more for taking something away then they ever loved you for giving it to them in the first place." If the playtest witch had been occult then that would be that, but now that "pick a tradition" is out there, it will haunt them if they go back on it. See unchained summoner vs. original summoner to see how this went in PF1.

I'm not sure the playtest is nearly far-reaching enough to ruin people's opinions on the final drop in the summer. I don't disagree with your thoughts but I imagine the final result would be less intense.

Especially if they do announce at some point (should be around that time, probably?) that a prepared-anything or otherwise tradition-flexible class is coming to fill the gap that witch briefly would have threatened to accommodate. Right? I don't know. While plenty of folks on here have pretty strong opinions one way or the other, I think we're all aware that we're just picking at concepts to help out the designers, and no one here will really mind as long as Paizo releases a high-quality witch class. I think pick-a-list is a weak tie to witch, but if that's what comes out, as long as they have enough chassis to bring flavor into the game, you won't hear me complain.

I wouldn't ever begrudge someone their fun, and I'm fine if I don't get my way, but witch was my favorite class in PF1 for years and if it doesn't do it what I'm hoping it will- regardless of quality- I doubt I would play or enjoy it. That doesn't make anyone else wrong, but I certainly have a stake. My lone opinion isn't important by any means, but some people do have strong feelings on a personal level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree broadly with Rysky and the others, but trolls would be a bad example for me. Trolls getting harmed by fire (well, the common ones) is so commonly known OoC it would be really, really, hard to ask a PC to roleplay not knowing it. I might just say "everyone in the world basically learns that if they live anywhere in the vicinity of trolls so bring out the fire" in that very specific niche of "monsters' attributes are so common they could probably even be guessed at by a fair number of people who have never even played the game."

That's a very specific niche indeed, though, limited to things like trolls, hydras, etc.


Quandary wrote:
re: 2b) the lead designer directly addressed undead horde issue, stating they couldn't fit it in Core, but they have different solution planned for future product (could be APG?) which IMHO sounds like swarm/troop type mechanic.

That would be excellent, because while I understand the logic of building monsters/npcs separately for ease, fun, and balance, it would feel weird to have an evil necromancer be able to command as many undead as he wants (or well, a lot) because I say he can while the party's evil necromancer cannot simply because he's not one of the DMs funny accents. It can be an uncommon ability, of course, but it would nice to have a balanced frame of reference for: "If it's cool with you for PCs to do this, here's a fun way for them to do it."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hiruma Kai wrote:


I like to remind people, just because you won initiative doesn't necessarily mean you want to attack first in a civilized area.

To be fair, if you call for initiative at all, many players will assume they are already under attack. You might tell players to trust you or to play the game differently but I think it has become a default response, especially because going first in 3.5/PF counted for a lot.

Generally, if I want players to respond peacefully to a monster or odd scenario (or have the option to do so) I don't call for initiative, and it's a handy clue that they aren't under immediate attack and have the time to consider options.


I once had a DM declare we left a pack mule at the bottom of the dungeon because no one *declared* they were leading the mule back up. And it was a long, long, way back up.


Lyz Liddell wrote:
Henro wrote:
MadMars wrote:
Maybe overdoing it on the curse could kill the oracle, and then the mechanical reward is getting to roll up a divine sorcerer?
I can’t figure out who that jab is aimed at, or if it even is a jab in the first place.
I think it's a jab at me. >.>

It was meant to be a light one. I'm in the camp that would either like to see penalties softened, or the bonuses increased to make the penalties more appealing.

Now that it's been made clear the logic was in favor of having the Divine Sorcerer as an option for those who wanted an oracle-like feel without the curse, I've honestly switched sides to merely wanting the bonuses and thematic imagery of the mystery/curses increased, rather than the curse to go away, since it now serves a clear and excellent purpose to provide players with a fun "power at a price" type character (bonus because you don't have to be evil like in many settings!)

The price should still include some serious power, though, for the penalties to be worth it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe overdoing it on the curse could kill the oracle, and then the mechanical reward is getting to roll up a divine sorcerer?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.
You could look at somebody play a PF1 caster, run around casting burning hands and magic missile and conclude that casters are super weak and all those people on forums are out of their mind when calling casters OP.

To be fair a lot of them appeared to be. Casters weren't nearly so overpowered in PF1 as many people pretended (the hysteria on this forum could be amazing to watch), and aren't nearly so unplayable in PF2 as many people here pretend (the hysteria over the nerfs can be amazing to watch.)

They were too strong in PF1 and needed to be re-balanced, and they were re-balanced poorly, but not cripplingly so in PF2.

It's not the "exciting" opinion to have, but I feel mine is the correct one.


Henro wrote:
MadMars wrote:
But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?
I don't see the Occult list is "spooky" by default - bards aren't spooky by default either.

But it's not so broad it works well with things like Winter Witch. Truthfully, the Witch Spell list didn't quite in PF1 either, even with additions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Nothing stopped people from worshiping God in real life despite the fact that he/she pretty much never ever cured anybody of cancer/brought their kid out of coma/sent the angels down to right wrongs/stopped the bad guys from gassing the chamber.

Belief and religion are funny like that.

A lot of people would dispute that God never did.

It's a funny world, like that. I cannot not imagine the level of zealotry constantly active and visible deities would generate even if they weren't doing anything. There would be tons of people worshiping...just Whoever. Aroden would have done just fine for sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
MadMars wrote:
But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?
Soothe and Life Boost.

I think most of my concepts go a tad farther than that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

The thing that casters are not fun to play is an opinion, not a fact.

Pretty much everything ever said about the relative success of both editions at being a fun fantasy game is opinion and not a fact. This statement is meaningless, even as a condescending reminder: everyone already knows. RPGs aren't exact science.

As far as the party issue, most people (if not all) are already arguing in that context. Casters were overnerfed even relative to the party. It goes on and on. No one is arguing they should be able to solo the game. Don't worry, I already know that's just my opinion.

As for me, I don't like blasters and trying to compete with martials for DPR. Ironically, I feel blasting and buffing are the only things casters do well in this edition. Enchantment is still okayish but I miss the really incredible things you could pull off with it. Felt like it does when you crit with a scythe or greataxe. That kind of feeling. It just isn't the same now.

I still like PF2, though, it's a great game. I just *mostly* play non-casters in it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tossing my vote in favor of multiple lists. A primal witch is the one thing I have always wanted for the game, and I don't think occult fits any kind of witch but one. It's a personal preference purely, but I couldn't sacrifice a favorite thing.

A polymorphing specialist witch becomes particularly possible under such a system, and patrons with random spells pulled from another list would never cover it so completely. Sure a patron could provide some, but I would never get ALL of them, otherwise. I imagine there's a lot of people who feel this way, just in different lanes (preference for arcane, etc.)

Oh, and I can't neglect to mention a winter witch who actually has all the options she needs now. That's one thing primal gives me that is simply too cool.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


How I would have it.

- You gain a familiar and Receptacle of Power. This receptacle stores all of yours spells like a spellbook does.
I would then allow the familiar to enter and leave the receptacle as well as see out of it and commune from it.
If the familiar dies its essence returns to the receptacle and the witch can recall it during the next daily preparations.

Examples of Receptacles of Power could be Crystal Balls, Arcane Tomes, Broomsticks, Mirrors.

This way they have an object like a wizard with the same vulnerabilities as the wizard. It is tied to the familiar and the familiar is still teaching them / giving them power. It also acts as a thematic familiar satchel and explains why their familiars can come back after a single day. Non witches could gain basic functionality through a magical item maybe (could even make it a 2 action ability to call the familiar out of the item if you wanted to limit its function in combat, but I think the minion trait does that well enough)

It would need a "if this gets lost how would you get a new one" rule, but that shouldn't be much different to design than the current "if you need a new familiar one".

MadMars wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

Honestly, I think both wizards and witches could do with some kind of mechanic for restoring their lost spell receptacle. Like: maybe there could be some kind of ritual for this kind of thing?

Maybe witches could access the ritual for free but other classes with lose-able spell lists could hunt it down.

I like that characters can lose spells, i am even happy for the witch to lose spells permanently. Just not being tied to common gameplay mechanics and a squishy easily killed class feature.

If a character is to lose major power it should be because the gm made very specific choices and considerations. Not that they followed the basic combat rules.

I don't know. With sunder gone, there's no martial equivalent, and it would be a tad
...

Yes, I am aware. I am saying that I do not like the idea of a witch losing spells permanently, or personally happy with it.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

Honestly, I think both wizards and witches could do with some kind of mechanic for restoring their lost spell receptacle. Like: maybe there could be some kind of ritual for this kind of thing?

Maybe witches could access the ritual for free but other classes with lose-able spell lists could hunt it down.

I like that characters can lose spells, i am even happy for the witch to lose spells permanently. Just not being tied to common gameplay mechanics and a squishy easily killed class feature.

If a character is to lose major power it should be because the gm made very specific choices and considerations. Not that they followed the basic combat rules.

I don't know. With sunder gone, there's no martial equivalent, and it would be a tad unfair.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
MadMars wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

1) not gonna lie that is odd*

2) Divine sorcerers aren’t granted their magic, they inherited it cause one of their parents went and f&@&ed an immortal.

*okay double checking on this and you get to choose whether they’re Occult or Divine. Occult makes sense, and I would have probably went with Primal instead of Divine.

i believe they're occult or divine because of the spirit essence being integral to ki.

tbh, it's probably to side step calling eastern atheistic religious practices occult.

To be perhaps unnecessarily technical, many eastern religious practices are non-theistic rather than atheistic. This makes divine the best choice in a lot of cases I think.

non-theistic and atheistic are the same thing, non = not, a- = not.

atheist just means not a theist, and thusly a religion that isn't centered around god figures, and instead focuses on reforming the self for yourself.

to be clear atheistic religions are just religions without a god. (and there are plenty of theistic eastern religions)

atheism does not preclude the supernatural, it's purely a position on the belief on god or a god. belief in no supernatural entities or abilities is materialism(i believe, it's been a while since i looked into that specific portion of atheism).

Midnightoker wrote:
Temperans wrote:

This is something I mentioned in the other witch & divine spells thread.

But according to the playtest. Deities can in fact be the patron of Witches, which further brings into question why is it that witches cannot get divine casting.

And all divine power does not come from deities:

Quote:
By tapping into a supernatural inner reserve called ki, you can create magical effects.

And also Divine power can be studied and manipulated per the Monk Ki Strike:

Quote:
Your study of the flow of mystical energy allows you to harness it into your physical strikes.
Per the Core
...

Not in theology or religious studies, no. Non-theistic simply involves a lack of concern, atheism is active rejection. This is a common misconception in the west outside of academia due to lack of non-theistic religions sharing a portion of the cultural spot light.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping the devs will at least consider my middle ground idea rather than "choose whatever, it makes no difference" or "tie everything into niche and very specific flavor." In any case, I'll be playtesting the class as we received it soon and we'll see how I feel about my own idea after that. Hopefully I can post (useful) results.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Oracle curses should mostly be a matter of flavor, and not mechanics. The idea of a class feature actually penalizing you has always struck me as somewhat absurd.

Player: Hey, want to check out the new Oracle class!
New Player: Sure! What makes it unique?
Player: Horrible curses that penalize your character!
New Player: Think I'll take a pass on that.

There's just no real way to sell that without, at best, making it sound like you're making up for the penalties that probably shouldn't have been there in the first place.

As a general rule, I have always remained against mechanics that penalize you for using your basic class features. I personally loathe things like "magic is exhausting so as you cast you begin to take all these penalties!" or whatever. A heavy curse like in the current oracle write-up is just right out for me.

I wouldn't dare suggest removing it because I don't like it, of course, people with different tastes might still have a lot of fun with it. But honestly the oracles curses in PF1 while a little *too* non-present, at least let me enjoy the class without feeling too arbitrarily penalized.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

1) not gonna lie that is odd*

2) Divine sorcerers aren’t granted their magic, they inherited it cause one of their parents went and f&@&ed an immortal.

*okay double checking on this and you get to choose whether they’re Occult or Divine. Occult makes sense, and I would have probably went with Primal instead of Divine.

i believe they're occult or divine because of the spirit essence being integral to ki.

tbh, it's probably to side step calling eastern atheistic religious practices occult.

To be perhaps unnecessarily technical, many eastern religious practices are non-theistic rather than atheistic. This makes divine the best choice in a lot of cases I think.


Temperans wrote:

Either is better than the current version.

Just need to be careful about making it mimic deity pages/stats too much. Definetly no edicts. Anathema (if any) maybe only in the type of spells they can cast? but that could be a feat or archetype. Ex: winter witches cant cast fire descriptor spell.

Hmm that might be a nice feat: You cant cast spell that oppose your patron/lessons, spell related to your patron/lessons get X benefit.

I'm definitely on board with that. I'm not looking to provide edicts or anathemas, only to distinguish witches without being either too vague or too rigid in regards to other classes. A potential downside to my model is that old patrons wouldn't benefit from the printing of new lessons (although this is true in regards to spells and patrons in PF1.)

Still, I feel like it makes the choice consequential and interesting without leading to choice paralysis or restricting concept.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
MadMars wrote:
Does anyone else like this?

Do it like Bard. Bard works already. Do that thing.

But sure, the vague malarkey of PF1 is better than what we have now.

Finally looking at Bardic muses, I'm not as into it as my idea, but I respect the idea of trying to streamline things through functionally identical mechanics. I just like my idea a *tad* more.

Edit: Rysky if you join me I will recant that portion and offer free cuddles to those who desire them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of a patron determining your spell list, so that was good, and I'm thinking I could get back on board with broad patron themes like PF1 in the sense of "winter", "trickery", whatever, but maybe they only grant access to certain groups of lessons while deliberately excluding others? So you have options but it isn't too zaney?

Like how the winter witch archetype could choose winter, trickery, transformation, etc. as their patron but couldn't choose fire or summer. But instead, we just sort of do that out the gate since patrons would be a bigger role over the kind of witch you play.

So if you pick a Winter patron, you can choose the snow lesson, the dreams lesson, the death lesson, etc. but not fire or being good at cuddling (since your cold flesh precludes this.)

Does anyone else like this?


Voss wrote:
I'd like to see it just dropped and Witches just Sustain their hexes/spells, and apply whatever non-annoying flavor they want.

Basically this. I would love to see the option remain (and was really just suggesting we needed more rather than calling for the removal of the option prior) but it should by no means be a main thing. Literally just a random thing you can do if you want, no pressure, no required assumptions about your character.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure it was James Jacobs who made the call to kill him. Think about it, how else would we have even known he was dead?

It's all very suspicious.


I would have preferred Alahazra, silly outfit and all, but that's the way these things go. I still miss Seoni's preposterous lack of outfit. The birdperson is going to be cool, but has big shoes to fill.

Er, if bird people wear shoes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Stargin wrote:

I'm coming to the conclusion that picking traditions should be left to the sorcerer.

Witch should be occult tradition and Lessons can handle grabbing spells of any of the other three traditions, including divine.

To me having a Mysterious Patron kinda requires occult tradition but having it Mysterious allows it to carry out tradition shenanigans through Lessons.

Being able to pick multiple traditions just leads to questions of "Why this one and not that one."

And being able to pick all of them just treads too much on Sorcerer.

The solution is single tradition really.

I've waited so long for primal witches and it jives so much better with my image of the class I would be loathe to give it up, and opening it up to as many options as seem feasible is a better idea than restricting it to one person's image.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:


Failing that, you can ask your GM to play nice with your familiar and you'll agree to not try to get them to use wands or drop bombs.

That's what I always did in PF1. I'd tell my GM I promised never to use my familiar for a mechanical advantage in combat and in exchange they agreed not to target it, ever. It was a working solution in a home game.


I think it needs something more exciting all together. A lot of the proposals feel too mechanical. Replacing one type of component with another might be useful, for instance, but it's a tad boring. Something best saved for a non-iconic feature.

Hexes in my opinion should still be the selling point of the witch. "You don't have to rely entirely on spells, your magic is much more than that."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

What if a patron wasn’t necessarily permanently a patron, but a drive-by contract on provisions of a lesson. The contract could come with stipulations or payment of some kind, perhaps an indefinite one.

Then a witch continues to gain lessons either via the same patron or a new more powerful patron or even a different one (showing a different lesson)

Then the lessons themselves can be the true restrictive pieces, since they would be the contract effectively.

“You must hex at least 5 candidates your patron deems worthy each week to retain your powers, if not your familiar is weakened as if it had died and been resurrected. If the familiar was already in this state the prior week, the familiar dies instead but a new one can be granted by normal means.”

And then each lesson defines a worthy target or the gm can dictate a target as worthy (perhaps anyone at least your level or greater or with a specific sub type or type).

Paying to maintain your basic class features seems like it could get very tedious. After all, the wizard/druid/cleric/sorcerer/bard just gets to cast his spells, why not you?


I'm all for making patrons matter more, especially mechanically, and as the biggest fan of Irrisen, the winter witch prestige class, and ice magic there ever was, I hope we would get some meager support for that like we got in PF1.

That said, I would be careful with the "dark unknown entity" concept a tad. It's better when it doesn't apply across the board, because while it's a cool theme sometimes you just want to be mysterious and witchy without necessarily being indebted to the Devil or trapped in some kind of hellish occult ritual stock exchange. I'll expect I'll play more than one witch and I don't want to be expecting to pay the dark price for my powers and uncovering the awful truth behind my patron every single time. It would eventually feel very goofy.

Of course, one could argue it could turn out to be positive just as many times as it would negative in story (leaving aside the issue of that single trope alone becoming repetitive over time at a table) but I don't think this is the natural tendency of GMs in a lot of cases, well meaning though most of us may be. Witches may be a kind of inbetween of clerics and wizards but neither core class comes with that much baggage. An option to play a more casual, in control, less-burdened witch should ideally remain open. In this regard patrons are functioning well if only for a lack of mechanics tilting it either way.


I really like the idea of being able to be a primal caster who isn't reliant on wisdom, especially because it makes me not feel like a druid. Primal also covers some broad concepts that aren't necessarily about jiving with nature intuitively (fey alone can kind of throw a wrench in that.) The idea of an int based primal caster or (cha in the case of sorcerer) is just too cool. I definitely don't want to move everything that uses primal towards an animal companion/friend to nature model in any case.


I still do not understand this/cannot find it. Would someone mind telling me what skill you get in each case?

Edit: Wait, do they mean nature for primal, arcane for arcane, and occult for occult?


It is a straight-up amazing game, I agree.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
MadMars wrote:
Does anyone know if you could do dex-to-damage with it on a thief rogue? You would probably have to be human, right?

Human rogue with versatile heritage and general training as their level 1 ancestry feat can start with proficiency in the dueling sword, and can take the dedication as soon as 2nd level.

Pretty much all the Aldori duelist characters you're going to see are going to be human, it's just that for people with martial weapon proficiency you can be half-human and be okay.

I mean an elven fighter would in theory work just as well, though, right?

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>