rnphillips's page

At least they are interesting and have a real mechanic. Not like witch and psychic. With Oracle they tried.

I do very much like the alternative attributes system in the GMG, where Str and Con are rolled into one stat, Dex is split into two stats (one for finesse/ranged, and the other for reflex/AC), and Will is moved to Cha.

I think that is just as bad.

At the moment Cha and Int are dump stats except for skills. You get a very samey 24/20/20/20/8/10 array at lvl 20, or maybe some 18’s instead of 20’s. There is no choice. Pump increases into dex/wis/con and your accuracy stat.

The game would be much more interesting with only 3 stat boosts at 1/5/10/15/20 or maybe even 2.

I would also house rule Will saves away from Wis, probably to Cha. I would house rule Int bonus as skill proficiency increases, not just trained.

HumbleGamer wrote:

It's an investment like any other feat or dedication. If a character wants something, then he has to give up for something else.

This one is not even a "real" tax feat, since it allows the chaeacter to just invest a single class feat, trading 2 additional skill feats to "end" The dedication rather than expending 2 more class feats.

Probably even way too good, but that's it.

It's not mandatory, like any other dedication or feat. It's just a matter of choices and character customization.

If it was a matter of choice, then why allowing an easy way out of what seems to be one of the most interesting archetypes out there? And especially this one and only this one?

Actually, it's very close to a widely available level 2 class feat giving Heavy Armor proficiency. It's even closer to such a feat than to an actual archetype that would push you to take 2 extra class feats and really force you to choose with other archetypes.
But Sentinel, it can be pushed in nearly every build and delays you for 4 levels at most.

Too many coincidences making me think this is not an actual archetype but a fix.

You give Paizo way too much credit. They can’t even fix Alchemist that everyone complains about, why are they stealthily fixing medium armor users who don’t care.

This isn’t specifically PF2 but TTRPG gripe: Fix broken mechanics and undertuned classes! The model is apparently develop it and forget it, on to the next thing.

Dex vs Str Animal Companions
Alchemists
Witches
Fighter vs anything
Spell accuracy
Recall knowledge
Druid form size issues
And plenty more…

I’ll add, in reference to the discussion on flickmace, trait balancing. Die size > reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ; other stuff. Reach weapon trait should add a penalty for adjacent squares. Fixed.

Sounds about right. I'm glad you had fun. Martials in general have a lot of variety in their combat actions. I'm sure people here will say that the Wizard needed to target the monster weakest save or some such nonsense and the Alchemist is there to give you healing potions or whatever.

The other problem, I feel, is not enough role diversity in the martial category - we have monk and champion being different, then every other martial competes for the Striker role. Can we just have less strikers and more other sorts of martials?

This is so true and I'm surprised this hasn't been voiced more often.

Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b##$@~~% in terms of abilities that you need counter-b!#@$&%* and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.

How do casters solve the encounter then if they can't act?

Interestingly, casters are so delayed in their development that they still get 2 proficiency increases after fighter hits legendary.

People need to stop referring to warpriest as "tanky". It has no legendary saves, doesn't get heavy armor, maxes out at expert proficiency AC and at this point in time does not have feats that help bring it anywhere close to "tanky".

Its expert weapon proficiency and only master spellcasting show us its clearly not meant to be an offensive threat either.

The magus being introduced has obviously resulted in comparisons being drawn and unfortunately in its current state a warpriest cleric gets the raw deal in just about every way.

Any martial with the cleric archetype is arguably better at being a warpriest than the warpriest. Even the cloistered cleric or a sorcerer with just the champion archetype can be more "tanky" than a warpriest while keeping legendary spellcasting.

I hope they overhaul it or add some seriously good feats to bring it into line with other classes.

If you don't want divine font why would you even consider Warpriest in the first place? None of your suggestions give you that.

Nothing to do with that, he was brand new to the system. He didn't have the desire or capability to game the system.

It was entirely about him not being good at hitting things or casting spells. After he switched to Cloistered his spells were functioning at a level closer to what he wanted and his strike capabilities had a negligible decrease (as he rarely has the opportunity to do them). He is now good at one thing and seems to be enjoying his spells more than using his claws between castings of heal and trying to be hit with his Vibrant Thorns up. Maybe it's got something to do with him being older and having played many systems, but Cloistered with an archetype does what he expected a Warpriest to do better in every way.

He expected a Warpriest to be even worse at melee than the actual Warpriest and instead be casting offensive spells? Weird.

rnphillips wrote:

VampByDay wrote:

Man, I dunno if it is just my group, but there needs to be another cleric doctrine. Warpriest is just. . . terrible. Sure they get expert quickly in weapons and get up to medium armor, but that also maxes out at expert meaning at higher levels they can’t go into melee without being a joke. They are going to be 2-6 AC behind most front-liners (depending on if they are running with a shield) and about three behind to-hits if you account for the fact that they can’t start with an 18 in strength/dex. Sure, there are a few spells that can help but most of those are limited to, say, one fight, and that doesn’t change the fact that:

Bottom line:
a warpriest ends up with expert in weapons, medium armor, and master in spellcasting
A cloistered cleric ends with expert in weapons, unarmored (can get up to medium or heavy armor with a dedication feat), and legendary in spellcasting.

Warpriest is a full caster. Your mistake is thinking otherwise. If you want to primarily wade into battle and throw occasional support spells, play a champion with cleric dedication.

I don't think that the trade off between cloistered and warpriest is that bad. At max level you lose legendary proficiency in spellcasting but you get master fortitude. You don't need any proficiency in spellcasting if you are only casting support and heal spells anyway. Maybe giving warpriest an extra 2 hp/level would be ok?

Bard is also a full caster and does everything the Warpriest does except better. Better buffs, actual debuffs, better spell list, better proficiencies in Perception and Will, and can be equally proficient in similar weapons, or in superior weapons thanks to either Warrior Muse (which is just a feat) or Fighter dedication. Other than a Heal Font, there's no justification to play a Warpriest over a Bard.

Also, Legendary Spellcasting is a capstone ability only available by 19th level. Master Fortitude is something available by 13th level on average. They are by...

I didn't know Bard got 4-5 free max spell level heals per day. Wait, you said better so you must have meant 5-6 free max spell level heals per day.

By your argument Bard is better than Cleric, period.

From the recent Warpriest discussion, I'm left wondering if there is enough space for a divine class that gets:

Heavy Armor proficiency advancing to Master at martial rates
Master with simple and diety favored weapons
At least d8 Hit Dice
A healing Font like ability
At least wave casting

Can this be made to fit?

Um, Champion with Cleric dedication? I'd say Lay on Hands is pretty healing font like.

TBH a fighter taking a ton of out of combat feats isn't a bad idea. They're really strong on their own.

Wizard taking melee feats is problematic because of the way proficiency works though. You could spend every class feat you have on weapons and you still won't be very good at it, whereas the fighter taking nothing but skill boosting feats would get noticeably betterat all those things.

Dual wield fighter without double slice. Interesting. Wouldn't want to get called out for overspecializing.

breithauptclan wrote:

I hear a lot of griping about Warpriest. I haven't actually played one myself though, so I don't know how much of that is just coming from whiteroom number comparisons rather than actual play experience.

As for a better version of martial cleric ... this is why I wanted Magus to have choice of tradition instead of being locked to arcane casting. I think a divine tradition Magus is exactly what you are looking for.

For actual play experience I have a player that went through 2 books of Age of Ashes as a Warpriest and rerolled as a cloistered after that. It just didn't do what he wanted. His spells sucked (because we had a Bard he didn't buff) and he wasn't that great at hitting things either.

As a Cloistered Cleric with Champion dedication he is getting the kind of character he wanted from the beginning - maybe a little better at damage mitigation and a little worse at melee strikes than he was aiming for.

He could have taken Champion dedication as a warpriest, but I guess he wouldn't be gaming the system the same way?

Man, I dunno if it is just my group, but there needs to be another cleric doctrine. Warpriest is just. . . terrible. Sure they get expert quickly in weapons and get up to medium armor, but that also maxes out at expert meaning at higher levels they can’t go into melee without being a joke. They are going to be 2-6 AC behind most front-liners (depending on if they are running with a shield) and about three behind to-hits if you account for the fact that they can’t start with an 18 in strength/dex. Sure, there are a few spells that can help but most of those are limited to, say, one fight, and that doesn’t change the fact that:

Bottom line:
a warpriest ends up with expert in weapons, medium armor, and master in spellcasting
A cloistered cleric ends with expert in weapons, unarmored (can get up to medium or heavy armor with a dedication feat), and legendary in spellcasting.

Warpriest is a full caster. Your mistake is thinking otherwise. If you want to primarily wade into battle and throw occasional support spells, play a champion with cleric dedication.

I don't think that the trade off between cloistered and warpriest is that bad. At max level you lose legendary proficiency in spellcasting but you get master fortitude. You don't need any proficiency in spellcasting if you are only casting support and heal spells anyway. Maybe giving warpriest an extra 2 hp/level would be ok?

Champions have incredible AC with heavy armor and excellent proficiencies. For 1 level 2 feat, the champion can take divine grace and get a +2 bonus to any saves when they need it. They have other options which are different than the sentinel ability, available much earlier, and some of the other feats are the same. Champions don't really need or benefit from the Sentinel archetype.

Defending not spending 1 feat to get +4 to all reflex saves so that you don't get tripped every round by pointing to a reaction that gives +2 to magic saves on Champion of all classes is not doing your side of the argument any favors.

Not to mention that by your logic, Wizards should be getting melee feats and Fighters should be getting nothing but out of combat feats. God forbid they spend even one feat enhancing their primary skills.

Maximum expert defense and attacks (both at 14, trained before then). Max dex mod of 7, giving it worse than caster defense and worse than caster attack accuracy. Compared to animal companions, for the same feat cost, it has lower movement speed, 3 less ac, and 1 less hit bonus. It has a lot of immunities, but it also can't be healed by spells.

It seems to be complete garbage and certainly not worth using as one's invention. What am I missing? Why wouldn't an inventor just go Beastmaster and retheme it rather than use its own class feats?

rnphillips wrote:

These would all be cool if Inventor didn't have -3 to hit and -1 ac relative to a fighter.

The Inventor is one of the classes that can compete with a Fighter quite well.

Obviously not in single target damage, as it's the main Fighter asset. But the extra damage from Overdrive compensate partially your low hit rate and you have AoE attacks that the Fighter doesn't have, making the Inventor a better choice if you have to face groups of enemies.

Overdrive costs an action every single turn to get what, 2-3 extra damage on a hit?

Edit: My bad, about 1 1/2 actions per fight. I'm just bitter because Inventor could have been so much more but instead it is a sub-par martial lacking almost all of the potential cool flavor and ooc utility it should have had. Just looking at all the pages wasted on the inventions and feats split among the three invention types...ugh.

Overspecialization in PF2 is a trap option, and not a style of play to be easily encourage by game choices. Trying to push past the head of the curve established by the basic class choices of the class that is best at something is almost always a recipe for siloing your character into a style of play that will not always work out for you in play.

PF2 is very good at punishing players that try to turn every encounter into a nail to be hit with a hammer.

If we do get further support for core classes, I really hope it maintains the clear and current pattern of pursing different options rather than better options. Whether you like where the game is currently or not, supplemental support is not a good place to fix balance issues.

If the core balance of the game is not where you like it, I suggest considering any number of homebrew changes to the core math of the game, or even making your own and reporting it back here. Perhaps if enough people adopt them, 3rd parties will begin tailoring content to your preferred variant.

Given that nearly every build posted on these and other forums "overspecializes", I think most people disagree with you

I also wouldn't call spending a class feat to have bulwark give +4 to all reflex saves overspecializing. It is exactly the opposite.

Temperans wrote:

Except that the Champion is being charged a tax for access to those other feats. Which they really shouldn't given they are "legendary in armor".

I really think it's made on purpose, to discourage Champions to take the Archetype. And I like it that way.

You are giving them too much credit. It is completely inconsistent. Focus on shield? No feat tax. Focus on armor? Feat tax. Focus on dual wield? No feat tax. Focus on 2h? Feat tax. And so forth.

These would all be cool if Inventor didn't have -3 to hit and -1 ac relative to a fighter.

I can sympathize if only because I want to play a monk whose perception is the stuff of legend. Unfortunately, proficiencies in the monk kit were stacked and I'm guessing perception was the sacrificial lamb for the rest. Even still, I think legendary should be a class innate thing over a buyable thing but I would be down for canny accumens master proficiency to be lvl 13 or 14 instead of 17.

Monk only has average saves for a martial.

I wish they had separated archetype dedication from dedication feats. In other words, I should be able to access archetype feats without actually taking the dedication feat (yet still committing to the dedication). Too many dedication feats are dead feats. Why should my Champion have to waste a feat to have access to a feat that improves his ability to wear plate armor (Sentinel)? Why should my 2H fighter have to waste a feat to get access to bunch of 2H weapon or bow feats (Mauler and Archer). Why should my Druid only get a basically pointless 2nd animal companion just to have access to feats that enhance animal companions?

That another class with an archetype is better at something a class is a specialist in seems wrong to me.

I would expect the odd one here and there, but any large number would probably have to wait for an equipment-related book.

Like the Grand Bazaar?

Not sure if it would be totally fair if STR based companion got to the same AC as DEX based ones. 1 point behind would be fine though.

Yes master proficiency in barding should exist, some heavy barding options, and higher level barding runes in the same way that armour runes work.

Better reflex saves for a little bit better damage seems fair. AC should be exactly the same. Do you expect str rangers to have worse AC than dex rangers?

To add insult to injury, dex companions get master defense vs expert with any other.

It was a bad decision on their part to make the default difficulty higher. After all, who will have an easier time adjusting the content? Savvy, experienced players or novices? Requiring novices to make adjustments to every published adventure or AP is too much of a burden for them.

That's... disappointing.

Heh, I guess I won't be playing a melee focused character in this edition. Constantly getting pounded into paste with no ways of avoiding sound unfun and definitely not how I would want to play a swordsman.

Someone has to get hit. If everyone plays ranged, a more fragile person will take the hits.

rnphillips wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Scimitar should have been agile and finesse. I'm still not sure why they don't make this weapon finesse at least.

1d6 finesse, sweep?

I think finesse and forceful would make it an interesting foil to the shortsword. Sweep in this case would just make it a worse shortsword.

Good point.

rnphillips wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

I've seen some silly PF2 takes, but this one tops most of them.

You don't think they phoned in the Witch? They handed that one off to the intern and gave him 3 hours to add "flavor" to the Wizard chassis.

As mentioned in the post above the SB has an interesting-ish mechanic at least, but the theme is so narrow and already perfectly replicated by the fighter that is wasted when it could have been applied to a more interesting and unavailable concept. Fighter already had a whole line of feats dedicated to the free hand style...what were people using that for if not swashbuckler type characters? What's next, the "Dervish" class that is just a dual-wielding martial? Or the "Mauler" class for 2H fighter types?

To further make my point, look at page 150 of the CRB. Huh, looks a bit like a "Swashbuckler" to me.

Squiggit wrote:

Ironically, "just play a fighter (or rogue)" was something people said about the Swashbuckler in general before the APG playtest hit...

The funny part is that argument is significantly *more* valid than the one against opening the Swashbuckler up, as developing an entire class is time that could be spent developing a class that supports a concept that has no support whatsoever, like a Kineticist.

Swashbuckler and witch were both a waste of development time and are basically archetypes. Investigator almost as well but its mechanic turned out at least unique and interesting.

Scimitar should have been agile and finesse. I'm still not sure why they don't make this weapon finesse at least.

1d6 finesse, sweep?

Having locks jam if you fail once would be so horrible.

You should no longer be able to make further attempts after a crit fail though.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Seems odd, since Twisting Tree already increases the normal die to 1d6, meaning Deadly Simplicity would do nothing.

But honestly, isn't having an Agile d6/parry, reach, and trip d8 Weapon you can freely switch between while also casting spells from it enough? Why would you also want to increase the damage to d10?

Oh right, players only want to break the game and don't care about game balance at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Somebody had to say it ;)

To be fair, there are lots of unbalanced things in the game already that Paizo doesn't care about. Deer barbarian getting reach trait for free, for example.

The summoner feats are great, but I can't help wondering if they are a tax because the core mechanics are below par. If I need to take feats to make the class perform, that is not a good thing.

No clue about the differences between the eidolons but I want to play a gnome construct summoner and ride around in (or become?) my battle mech.

HumbleGamer wrote:

It's a matter of "when" rather than possibility.

I won't probably allow a character to interpose between a dragon and a sword and board fighter fighting, making the fighter drink the potion from his hand.

The text just mention willing ( or helpless ) creature, but that's it.

Leaving apart the "activation part" which I am not quite sure a familiar ( as well as an animal companion ) could do on its own.

When is "in combat", because you only specify actions during combat. So, you are clearly not following RAW by forbidding it.

Feeding Elixirs is a core mechanic of the Alchemist. Forbidding it is just making their life harder (and you don't need to).

Well if you are going to play the RAW game, familiars can't activate magic items.

Claxon wrote:

It's often very flat one dimensional "Yeah, that one's committing a crime better go kill 'em." It doesn't have to be, but often is.

I agree there are many abilities you could flavour in this way, don't think it's inherently a bad thing to do provided the tone of the game is appropriate and everyone is cool with it, and even provided what seems to be the most popular option in the thread - I'm just disagreeing with rnphillips' argument that it's inconsistent or hypocritical of keftiu to point out the not-great way the original request could be interpreted because rnphillips assumes that everyone is killing with these one-dimensional reasonings. I'm currently up to Book 5 of an AP in which the only sapient creatures that have been killed are unapologetically evil creatures who were currently in the process of doing terrible things and wouldn't stand down without violence, or those same creatures attempting to hunt down the PCs. Everyone else has been handled in a variety of different ways, varying from non-violence to non-lethal violence. I don't think it'd be fair to assume this is how everyone's tables work, but assuming no-one's table works this way, and therefore anything to do with treating other creatures well is inconsistent, seems blatantly incorrect as well.

I'd also say that 'committing a crime' is a bit of an off-handed way to summarize what the villains of these stories tend to be doing. Committing a crime could be jaywalking, or perhaps graffitiing; the BBEGS in the stories that Paizo publishes tend to be actively attempting to exert violence on others and unwilling to listen to reason (with a few notable exceptions!). While that's still committing a crime, it's a very different scale to other possible crimes - and if your PCs are murdering people for minor theft or similar crimes, I think they're not acting in the way Paizo presumes the cast of most APs are acting.

That reads a lot like reasoning used by almost every colonizing group in history, from US settlers against Native Americans to the British in Africa to the Spanish and Portuguese in Central and South America. This reasoning is especially hypocritical given how every single intelligent race has or will be made into a playable ancestry. But we still march into a "dungeon" and slaughter anything that has the gall to defend its home.

If you start every encounter trying to non-violently detain these people and explain why you are there, you are in the vast minority.

Go with your character concept, not with what all the min/max types are telling you to do. Far too often people play the rules and forget that this is a roleplaying game. I personally think animal barbarian with shield looks dumb (as does any unarmed attack + shield). There is a reason the classes that fight unarmed also forgo armor and shields. It is part of the fantasy.

I generally don’t think physical abuse is the proper response to someone having a panic attack, and I think mechanically rewarding it is kind of abhorrent.

In a game where we routinely murder intelligent beings without a second thought, this is where you draw the line?

The rules as written are clearly contradictory and not as intended. Stunned X should prevent you from acting and it should immediately reduce available actions by X. Thus, if you get stunned 1 on your turn you lose 1 action immediately. If you don't have an action to lose you can't use reactions etc. and the actions you regain at the beginning of your turn are reduced by 1.

This is the only way that makes sense, given what stunned and slowed mean in english.

Would the cantrips be balanced if there was no 1 minute immunity? A large part of the problem as well is that only a couple of them are decent. Too bad Paizo only puts out new content rather than adjusting already published content, but that is par for the ttrpg industry.

Guntermench wrote:

I think they mentioned the dual wield one will be getting Dual-Weapon Reload free at level 1.

Yup, and more broadly, Paizocon basically told us we're getting a LOT of different reload solutions.

Like, a unique way for each Gunslinger path, Dual Weapon Reload as a level 1 feat, Magic Bandolier that transfers runes onto every gun on it and then lets you summon dropped guns back into it all at once with an action so you can gracefully do the fire and drop multi-gun technique, multi shot guns that have magazines 'slide pistols' that don't need a free hand to reload.

The works.

A laundry list of work arounds rather than fixing the fundamental problem.

But a player that picks Evil Eye, Basic Lesson, Enhanced Familiar, Greater Lesson, Faerie Dragon? I have a hard time seeing how that caster isn't extremely effective.

If there is a problem to me, it's the differential not the Class as a whole.

Compared to a Wizard that takes Familiar Master Dedication, Familiar Mascot, Improved Familiar (Faerie Dragon), Blessed One dedication? Seems less effective to me, let alone extremely effective.

There is a hidden assumption that your cantrip will be useful when there's a great chance that it will be somewhat limited. Evil eye grants immunity even if it has no effect (such as on a successful save) and other players will also be applying frightened (demoralize is very commonly built around). And if you have a bard in your party? Forget it.

We can argue about power all day long, but when a class directly mirrors another class that is a failure in design. Arcane witch is literally a familiar wizard that trades spell slots for a cantrip and slightly different feats. Can you say the same about any other class pairing? The whole vibe of the witch class doesn't even feel witchy. Where's the identity? A familiar...exactly the same as a wizard gets? Hexes? Uh, 1 hex cantrip does not scream out "witch" any more than the sorcerer hag bloodline's focus spell. They tossed in a couple feats that have a witchy feel but most are terrible because, for example, witch melee is not a thing.

I look at a class like bard and see all the cool feats that add to the bard theme (bardic lore, tons of sound-based focus spells and ways to enhance them, using performance in place of other skills, etc.). It's not just that the focus spells are powerful. I look at the bard class and it makes me feel like I'm playing a musical, supportive character.

I look at witch and see a reskinned wizard.

The whole idea of feeding an elixir to another person who is actively engaged in combat seems unrealistic to me.

I enjoy characters that only use the core ancestries, like your last one.

Another option is to play a fighter with champion dedication, especially if you want to use a boarding pike. You get access to the champion reaction at lvl 6, but you get all the cool fighter feats that are for 2 handed weapons. The downside is you don't get the reaction for the first 5 levels which might be all you end up playing.

It sounds to me like you already have a good plan. Champion liberator using a boarding pike and prioritizing str, take the marshal archetype at lvl 2 and play it by ear after that. No need to plan everything out in advance. I'd make cha 14 or 16 to start since marshal aura depends on that stat to succeed.

Witch as written is a weaker Wizard with a reskinned spellbook.

Main stat: identical
Hp: identical
Spell mechanic: identical (vancian)
Armor: identical
Weapons: essentially identical
Saves: identical
Familiar: witch gets theirs faster when they die, wizard has the option of choosing an arcane thesis instead of a familiar
Skills: witch gets one more
School: witch gets to choose, wizard has arcane only
Spell slots: wizard gets 4 per level, witch gets 3
Feats: largely identical or insignificant, witch gets some decent focus spell feats
Other: witch gets a focus cantrip, wizard gets drain bonded item

If I were, for example, to play a rune patron witch instead of wizard I would lose 33% of my spell slots and an extra max level slot for the ability to cast discern secrets cantrip. Same familiar, same casting stat, same armor, saves, weapons...really?? Archetypes have more differentiation but this is an entire class!

Of the apg classes, only the oracle really shines as class with significant mechanical structure changes. The others come across to me, to varying degrees, as reskinned core classes. Witch is the most egregious as I argued above. It's good to see that 3 of the 4 upcoming classes all have significant mechanical changes that make them unique and interesting. Gunslinger though just seems like a fighter with guns.

WatersLethe wrote:

The Tage wrote:

I was thinking of playing a witch but after reading this thread I don't think I will bother.

I keep hearing the argument, or maybe just a general sentiment/hope, that "they should get better with more supplemental material."

This is reminding me of all the times I want to get a new video game on release but then I read about how it is missing features or is buggy and everyone says "wait for the first few major patches and it will be great." I don't want Paizo to have to patch their classes before they become playable.

It's fair to be disappointed in a piece of work from a company when it fails to hit the mark. However, Paizo hits the mark FAR more reliably than other companies, recognizes when their customers are unhappy and work to improve the situation instead of staunchly refusing to acknowledge issues, and even when they miss the mark the result is still better than others. The Witch is, in fact, playable and even strong in certain circumstances. For example, they can be built to absolutely melt enemies with stacking debuffs, or have an ungodly number of summons with careful cackle usage.

As one of the most vociferous detractors of the Witch, I HIGHLY encourage you to not let it color your impression of the system as a whole.

The Witch just looks that bad because it was released along the Swashbuckler (a hit from the start), the Oracle (terrible in the playtest but much better in the release) and the Investigator (one of the best classes in terms of concept and essence of an investigator, but awful mechanics in the playtest, it ended up quite solid on release) and it is directly competing against Bard with one of its core mechanics.

It's a tough challenge for the Witch and it would've been far easier to swallow if the Paizo elected to fully realize the patrons and integrate it with the class as a whole and the setting, similar to the overhaul they did with Oracles. They kept it all vague like it was in the playtest with just a...

Like they've done for Alchemist? Or spell attack rolls? Going on 2+ years now. He's right to be wary.

You could pretty easily scale multiclass and ancestry casting spell attacks/DCs to legendary and it wouldn't cause any issues (in my opinion). The balancing factor of these spells is still that they are extremely limited both in terms of number of slots, and level of spell. All it would do is open up options, and most of the time those options still wouldn't be great - lower stat is one issue, but also lessened effect. Your Fireball as a martial is still doing 4d6 less than the caster's, and you can only do it once a day.

We should be incentivizing those differences, not relegating every MC caster to just evergreen utility spells.

If dedications gave legendary proficiency for spell casting, no one would ever play a caster. Casters already suffer from limited spells, significantly fewer successful attacks, essentially worthless weapon skills, and the worst defense (AC, saves, and hp) in the game.

Imagine if you could play a fighter swinging away with your halberd an infinite amount of times per day and then whipping out a 90% effective fireball if you felt like it.

I would be up for innate spells having legendary proficiency though.