Wumiao Xue wrote:
well，high wisdom characters don’t sign powerful contracts with unknown entities.
I thought the 2nd edition witch doesn’t get to choose though. The patron just looks at the prospective witch, sniffs them, and says, “Meh, I guess you’ll do.” and BAM! Magical sugar daddy, no strings attached*.
Been lurking about PF2e, and was really looking forward to the Witch class.
Personally, I think the Familiar is the actual core of the Witch mechanically and flavorfully. The Familiar is the face of the patron. It’s where the Witch’s magic comes from. Lose the Familiar, lose the spells, lose the connection to the Patron. When a new Familiar arrives, it’s like reclaiming a damaged spellbook.
So far, they have bonuses to the number of abilities Familiars can gain and even have a feat to boost the number of abilities. I think the witch playtest could’ve been a chance to try pushing that a little more.
Knowledge Option feats:
Spell Option feats: These could expand a witch’s spellcasting abilities.
Combat Familiar options:
Overall, I really love the whole patron and lesson system. I really liked how the iconic Witch art has her nine-tail fox familiar. I also think the Witch’s flavor and roleplay can create a varied experience. Not all witch’s are particularly happy being bestowed these gifts, and could range instead of a very close-knit relationship with their familiar to a hilarious “old-married” couple bantering. Could flavor witch’s to be like the demons from The Golden Compass series, to the guardian spirits of Nioh, or the traditional style of historical/mythological witches consorting with their familiars.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark also pointed out that just like the good aligned cleric is the best opposition for fiends or undead, the bard is the best opposition to the cloying mental influence of the eldritch horrors. Similar types of magic, and bardic performance is one of the best ways to protect from mental spells. So they sort of the equal opposites of that Lovecraftian stuff.
Oh neat! Reminds me of the Silver Balladeer. Defending against aberrations as an ingrained thing then...unless you’re performance is reciting Lovecraft?
Occult just means mysterious, magical, mystical.
Common usage tend to also mean hidden or secret version. Studying the occult usually means someone who studies obscure (and usually frowned upon, unconventional knowledge of magical nature). Lot of modern things can be ouiji boards or holding seances.
In Pathfinder, occult magic is the mysterious hidden magic that is unknown. Magic in PF is either provided by the gods (divine), nature (primal), or traditional studies of magic (arcane). Occult is the in-between.
The bard is a traveler that meets many various new people and learns the world through socializing and experiencing. They decided to make the bard a full-caster and felt that the bard is the most likely to learn new secrets by personal experimentation and taking on the words and ways of other people.
From the playtest class preview in 2018:
“That's pretty awesome already, but here's the even cooler part: bards have collected all sorts of esoteric bardic knowledge since forever, right? With an offbeat spell list that combines mental magic, a handful of unique additions, and a little bit of healing, bards are the primary occult spellcasters, blending mental and spiritual essences.”
Maybe I missed it and outside the play test, not sure what changes have made it through: do you still need a freehand to cast a spell or are they keeping the change that a freehand is not required and even a weapon can be used for touching?
If freehands aren’t required, maybe it could be:
[[[Power - Spellstrike (available as Core Feat lvl. 1 Magus)
Cost one free action.
Perform a strike. You channel a spell through your attack and apply your spell. This counts as two attacks for multiple attack penalty.]]]
If I remember from PF1, the benefit of spellstrike was being able to move, attack, and use a touch spell in the same turn. Spellcombat’s benefit was using a spell and attack in the same turn without moving which the 3-action economy allows already.
Though, would that be overpowered if you have a sorcerer or wizard dedication and follow it up with Magical Striker?
I don’t know, in the “Before you Post”, they call out that extreme appeals of passion and hyperbole are read, but not strongly considered. His recommendation was more for helping your voice be heard.
Paizo’s iconic for cleric (Sarenrae) seems to be a divine gish. They added in the archetypes later such as the ecclesitheurge to play that powerful divine caster. The priestly cleric is just one of many types of possible clerics anyway. Clerics of different deities don’t look and act the same, which I think is fine and is in line with Paizo’s customization strength. Paizo clearly hasn’t suffered for this.
They mentioned how barbarian totems, Druid Wild orders, and bard muses were treated differently to see which how these different “specialization” works out. They found bard muses system very uninspiring and meaningless, so they made the 1.6 change to make it feel more. I think they could also test the cloth divine caster through the sorcerer, which seems to work, but has overall mixed feelings which needs to be addressed.
Feats. We just overall need more feats. There’s a strong core. Just needs fleshing out.
I’m prettt optimistic that they will have more support for these different styles. Just, this play test they prioritized mechanical ideas, over flavor. Once they’ve comb through the data, I think we will see more flavorful options.
Coz I want to be a sun-praising dirty cleric that drops the lightning bolt wrath of the gods upon thine enemies.
Theoretically speaking, the new system seems setup for hybrid classes without having to make full-on hybrid classes.
I imagine we could have a “sub-archetypal” dedication feat that requires to be a class or currently have a dedication and an appropriate ability score or skill. For example, 16 int and 16 cha (alternatively, maybe a wizard class/dedication with 16 cha or sorcerer class/dedication with 16 int) that gives some arcanist options. Or a dedication feat for someone who is either a rogue/hunter class/dedication with int gains some investigator features. Picking these up could count towards a feat in that archetype dedication also.
Or, it could just be the same feat in different dedications that has different requirements. The whole modular feat setup looks like it has a strong foundation for future development.
Then you have choose whether your Shield cantrips is one of your main cantrips, or a side cantrip.
It doesn’t matter the tradition. If the cantrip is from your main class, you get full heighten. If you choose the cantrip from a multiclass or feat, you get a weaker heighten, but at least you have an additional cantrips than those who didn’t multiclass or choose that feat.
If you choose a cantrip from your main spell list and the same cantrip again from a different spell list, you still only have 1 cantrip...and I think it’s assumed that it uses the higher source for heightening. You don’t gain two Shield cantrips that are separately used. PF2E seems doesn’t allow duplicates, and if there are, it selects the highest at the time.
So let’s say you’re a Bard Half-Elf. You pick Guidance and Shield as your cantrips. You pick up Otherworldly Magic and choose Shield again as an arcane.
You have Guidance and Shield as your cantrips. You don’t have Guidance - Occult, Shield - Occult, and Shield - Arcane under your cantrip list.
I think the core questions are:
2) if the same cantrip (Shield in this case) can be picked up multiple times, are they on separate “cooldowns”?
So, in his case since he used his Class Shield, is his Ancestry cantrips Shield still usable?
i think no because:
There isn’t a Shield-A, Shield-B. It’s just...Shield. I don’t think the language lends to that nor do I think that’s the intention to have an unlimited spell be allowed to be selected for separate cooldowns.
Based off the Shield cantrip spell entry language itself, someone would just argue: but that was my Feat Shield cantrip, not my Class Shield cantrip, but I don’t think that’s intended.