|
It is with great shock that I found by DM telling me that I provoked an AoO when I attempted to use my 4th level human Witch's 'Blight' power. I had no way to combat this; no spellcraft check, no dodging, nothing. And I wondered, why punish the Witch for using their class abilities? At least when I play a wizard, he could cast defensively when using a spell like shocking grasp.
Also, why oh why are so many of the witch's powers touch only? If my booster/hexer is going to be wading into melee, he should at least be protected by some armor or a shield. But not my witch!?
So what we've got here is a spellcaster who:
-Has almost good boosts and hexes that require you to touch the target, who then gets a saving throw to negate.
-Has supernatural abilities that provoke attacks of opportunity when used, with no way to negate this, and yes, normal rules state that supernatural abilities do not provoke, but the hex rules state that: "using a hex is a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity."
-Has a bad Ba+ with which to execute these touch only, provoke attack of opprotunity, negate with a saving throw hexes. I might add that the 1/2HD Ba+ gives it horrible hit points as well.
-No armor to protect one's self from said AoO
Now, I LIKE witch's not having a good Ba+ and no armor and no shields. It works VERY well with what a witch is in my mind. However, the hexes need to be at a range for this to work well, otherwise, you'll have a dead witch far faster than a dead wizard.
Speaking of witch (har har) my witch only survived a few rounds of combat because she needed to be amongst the party to help boost them and hinder their enemies.
Also, I think the coven ability needs to be something they just get. I can never see a player taking it (I know I won't!).
That is all!
Agreed, melee touch plus save is too much defense against a lot of these on its face.
|
As far as I knew, Supernatural Abilities don't provoke attacks of opportunity when used.
Edit: look under special abilities for supernatural abilities . Its at the bottom of the page.
the hex info in the pdf states it does provoke because its a standard action
Yeah, hex is an action that provokes because it says it is. I'm kinda in between on the issue. Easy fix would be to make them spell like and then they could be just cast defensively but would then be subject to spell resistance and the like. I like them bypassing spell resistance, but the AoO for every melee hex is a problem, so I would like less melee hexes personally, most of them seem like they would work just as well as ranged powers. And a ranged hex that negates ability to make AoOs like the rogue can might not be all bad.
The best solution IMO would be to change the wording to follow the normal rules for supernatural abilities.
I figure I'm like most players/DMs who, after reading great fantasy literature or watching cool movies, tend to think of our characters in terms of the images I've gotten from books and film.
Alas, on the one hand, D&D (er, Pathfinder) isn't always like that, but I just can't shake from my mind that the "witch" ought to be...well...like a witch. That is to say:
1) always female
2) always old, warty, and butt ugly
3) always cackling
4) riding a broomstick
5) totin' a black cat
6) stirring up some foul concoction in a bubbling cauldron
7) and hexing her enemies at range!
Witches are a staple of classic literature--never mind fantasy literature! We've got witches going as far back as Beowulf, and they were made "mainstream" as long ago as Shakespeare. I mean, they're pretty well established. So...in my way of thinking, either the Witch should be like a witch, or the Witch should be called something else.
{2) always old, warty, and butt ugly}
Circe and Medea were witches, and were by no means old, warty, or butt ugly.
You also might want to check out a movie called The Craft, it may change your mind about what witches are supposed to look like.
{3) always cackling}
Ditto.
{4) riding a broomstick}
Not always the case. Baba Yaga used a mortar and pestle.
Wizards also have stereotypes in fiction, and wizards in the game don't necessarily follow that. Nor do monks or druids.
Wizards also have stereotypes in fiction, and wizards in the game don't necessarily follow that.
I'm on to you now Sean. Now I know who killed the Grow Long Beard Su from the Wizard list, and wanted the starting age to be earlier than 80 for humans . . . harumph.
Edit:
Also, for hot witches, check out Morrigan in Dragon Age . . . she definitely seems like she fits the classic qualifications for being a witch, even with being attractive and all . . .
Willow Rosenberg (Alyson Hannigan) as well as many of the Joss Whedon Witches are hotties.
|
|
I think the old hexblade class had the right idea with making the hex a ranged supernatural ability that allowed a save but didn't require any attack roll from the character. Depending on how powerful they are, I also might recommend removing the save per round feature of the some of the hexes, especially if they stay at touch range only. It's a pretty big letdown for a witch to risk so much to use their class features just to have their opponent shrug off the effect after a single round. The way it reads, the target of Waxen Image actually gets two saves before the witch can even use the ability.
Once the image is complete, the subject must make a Will save. If the subject fails, the witch gains a small measure of control over the creature. Whenever she exercises this control, the creature receives a new Will save to end the effect.
Does this really mean the target gets a second chance to break the hex before the witch gets to control them once?
Also, Julian Sands, totally not a warty old cat lady.
N'Longa from the Solomon Kane stories was also a witch without a cat and broom. He had a PhD. Get it? Because he was a witch doctor, aheh.
I know the Witch in our playtest was really ticked when he learned Evil Eye provoked. "I'm just looking at him. Are you kidding?" and then later, "So, I could wander up to him and then begin to wrack my brain for convenient religious scripture to mentally study, but if I look at him angry then he gets a free swing" and "So if I were to, say, take out a gold piece right now and throw it on the ground, forcing all of the enemies to make perception checks to percieve the ring of the gold coin bouncing on the stone floor, I would cause what could only be described as a catastrophic meltdown as everyone provoked from everyone."
He just elected to step back, but still found it really annoying. And so did we, but, mostly because of him. :x
Circe is a goddess.
Her Wikipedia entry says, "In Greek mythology, Circe is a minor goddess of magic (or sometimes a nymph, witch, enchantress or sorceress) living on the island of Aeaea."
Medea is an enchantress.
You are nitpicking, as these terms do not have precise historical/mythological meanings. In fact, the Wikipedia entry on her says, "Medea is known in most stories as an enchantress and is often depicted as being a priestess of the goddess Hecate or a witch."
The Craft is a bad modern movie.
Your opinion. Though compared to the myth of Medea, all movies are "modern."
Morgan le Fay is another good "hot witch" example. Seductress extraordinaire.
|
Sure Granny Weatherwax is a crone, and Githa Ogg is a chubby ol' biddy. But Magrat Garlick is lovely (in her rather plain way) and Tiffany Aching can't really be considered old at all, what being 9 and all.
Other awesome witches of popular culture include:
Raven of the Teen Titans.
Scarlet Witch of the Avengers.
Tia Dalma from Pirates of the Caribbean.
I figure I'm like most players/DMs who, after reading great fantasy literature or watching cool movies, tend to think of our characters in terms of the images I've gotten from books and film.
Alas, on the one hand, D&D (er, Pathfinder) isn't always like that, but I just can't shake from my mind that the "witch" ought to be...well...like a witch. That is to say:
1) always female
2) always old, warty, and butt ugly
3) always cackling
4) riding a broomstick
5) totin' a black cat
6) stirring up some foul concoction in a bubbling cauldron
7) and hexing her enemies at range!Witches are a staple of classic literature--never mind fantasy literature! We've got witches going as far back as Beowulf, and they were made "mainstream" as long ago as Shakespeare. I mean, they're pretty well established. So...in my way of thinking, either the Witch should be like a witch, or the Witch should be called something else.
you need to read some terry pratchett, the witches in his series are the best witches ever made.
1) they are always female.2) they are not always old, warty, and butt ugly (read the tiffiny aching series for a great example of that.)
3) cackling is a sign of madness
4) they do ride broomsticks, the best are dwarven made.
5) cats are good company
6) if necessary
7) a witch is never limited by range to hex or curse her enemies.
read the terry pratchett series!!!!!!!!
|
|
Any chance of an actual (Paizo) response to this problem, rather than all the nonsensical side issues? Or is this a "feature" in PC talk?
I thought the whole point of quantifying abilities as Extraordinary, Spell-Like, or Supernatural was so that you could just go Ability (Su) in a stat block and know what rules to follow. Now it's like Ability (Su*)
* may not actually follow Supernatural Abilities rules, you'll have to look this up on a case by case basis, or consult Sebastian.
{2) always old, warty, and butt ugly}
Circe and Medea were witches, and were by no means old, warty, or butt ugly.
You also might want to check out a movie called The Craft, it may change your mind about what witches are supposed to look like.
{3) always cackling}
Ditto.
{4) riding a broomstick}
Not always the case. Baba Yaga used a mortar and pestle.
Wizards also have stereotypes in fiction, and wizards in the game don't necessarily follow that. Nor do monks or druids.
Circe is a goddess. Medea is an enchantress.
The Craft is a bad modern movie.
I don't see all witches as old and wrinkled and warty. And I doubt that would be a fun class to play.
And the Craft was OK. Not great, but OK.
Blair Witch Project was a bad movie...
Morgan le Fay is a sorceress.
Witch: from O.E. wicce "female magician, sorceress."
Historically, it's not as specific as you think.
Practical Magic is a decent movie and has several witches of varying degrees of appearance. There is also Kiki from Kiki's Delivery Service.
But I want examples of male witches other than the negative Warlock played by Julian Sands. It does not say anywhere in history that to be a witch you must be female.
Edit: to stay on topic, touch attacks for witches do not work for me at all. Ranged attacks for curses and hexes work much better. Or if touch must be used, at least be able to be delivered from the tip of a sword or staff and not just the actual touch of the finger or a wand or dagger.
Witch has a distinct European meaning that is different from Greek legends.
While the word "witch" may be derived from Old English ("wicca","wicce") or High Old German ("wīh"), the idea that Europe has a monopoly on persons who are "credited with usually malignant supernatural powers" is absurd and ethnocentric in the extreme. This is like positing that only Romans can understand Pavor Nocturnus because the words are Latin.
Or, we can simply observe that in the earliest known usage of the word wiccan (see Laws of Ælfred) the word is plural for both genders, and thus is not gender specific, as Ælfred gives us no context to evaluate the gender of the noun. This carries over into the word "wicche" in Middle ENglish, which did not differentiate between masculine and feminine.
It's not like we're talking about seiðkona, which clearly only refers to women.
edit: on topic, I'd like to see hexes that require a melee touch fall under the "otherwise noted" exception listed in the Hex ability descriptive text.
I think having hexes as ranged touch attacks (a la Magica de Spells *FOOF* bombs) would make sense, but there should be some bonus for up-close-and-personal touching.
I think having hexes as ranged touch attacks (a la Magica de Spells *FOOF* bombs) would make sense, but there should be some bonus for up-close-and-personal touching.
Then again, if she looks like the artwork, there are many players who would forgo their DEX bonus to AC to get her to do some up-close-and-personal touching
On 'Hot' Vs. 'Ugly' Witches:
Witches originate from the Bible. Some of the earliest 'practitioners' of witchcraft are of 'ill repute.' One of note being Jezebel, who is said to be "well favored." The tradition states, then, that Witches tend to be comely.
Witches originate from the Bible.
"European pagan belief in witchcraft was associated with the goddess Diana..." and "Belief in witchcraft, and by consequence witch-hunts, is found in many cultures worldwide, today mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. in the witch smellers in Bantu culture)."
Jezebel and the witch of Endor originated from the Bible. There were plenty of older historical sources.
|
As with any other class, the Witch class should represent an archtype that can represent a wide array of characters. Just as wizards, clerics, and druids can come from a multitude of backgrounds, personalities, appearances, and alignments, so should a witch.
I do agree that the hexes need a little more than they have. I get that they need to be somewhat weak, as at-will abilities that's natural. I do not think, though, that they should be a waste of an action.
The ordeal that must be undertaken to get a hex to work is simply too much for what they do, even as at-wills.
Risking a full attack by moving into melee, then taking an AOO, then having to succeed at a touch attack, and then hoping that they don't make their save, is too much. I'd recommend not making them provoke, and then depending on the hex, either make it a ranged touch with a save, a melee touch without a save, or something similar.
There were plenty of older historical sources.Sure, there are plenty of shamanic traditions that existed prior to the Bible. The Talmud, which is where Jezebel appears, is believed to be authored in the 11th century BC. If there is a text the says literally 'witch' or 'witchcraft' prior to this date, I am unaware of it.
Though I'm sure you can find similarities in the epic of Gilgamesh or Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The 'western' idea of Witches roots are, I would argue, stem from Judeo-Christian belief.
If there is a text the says literally 'witch' or 'witchcraft' prior to this date, I am unaware of it.
The word "witch" does not appear in the New Testament of the King James Version, and only appears twice in the Old Testament (Ex. 22:18 - Deut. 18:10). The Hebrew word is "kashaph" - to whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic - sorcerer, witch. This verb and its related nouns mean the same as the Akkadian "Kasapu" and the Ugaritic "Ktp" (sorcery).
Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:10 - There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
The word "witchcraft" appears twice in the OT and once in the NT. In 1 Samuel 15:23 the Hebrew word is "qecem" and it also means divination, divine sentence, witchraft. In 2 Chronicles 33:6 it is the same word as in Ex. and Deut. from the previous paragraph. In Galatians 5:20 the Greek word is "pharmakeia" and it means... to dispense medication or poison, sorcery, witchcraft.
The word "witchcrafts" appears three times in the OT and not in the NT. The Hebrew word is "Kesheph" and it means magic, sorcery, witchcraft. It appears in 2 Kings 9:22, Micah 5:12 and Nahum 3:4.
So, which word specifically are you looking for? I'm sure I can find you older uses of kashaph/kesheph, qacam/qecem, and pharmakeia in different places.
I suspect that trying to chase down the "historical" meaning and origin of the term witch, along with its many variants, could go on a long time. Every society that has ever existed has had some form of
"witches," most of which revolve around a male/female loners whose knowledge/abilities are beyond the understanding of the average person. They may or may not be seen as a threat to society as a whole, and be revered or feared accordingly. To try to say that there is a particular point of origin is tricky at best, and impossible at worst.
I suspect that trying to chase down the "historical" meaning and origin of the term witch, along with its many variants, could go on a long time. To try to say that there is a particular point of origin is tricky at best, and impossible at worst.
My point exactly. To claim that the idea of witches didn't exist until the Bible was written is a bit off the mark, to say the least -- even the idea of witches similar to those depicted in the Bible.
|
|
If there is a text the says literally 'witch' or 'witchcraft' prior to this date, I am unaware of it.The word "witch" does not appear in the New Testament of the King James Version, and only appears twice in the Old Testament (Ex. 22:18 - Deut. 18:10). The Hebrew word is "kashaph" - to whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic - sorcerer, witch. This verb and its related nouns mean the same as the Akkadian "Kasapu" and the Ugaritic "Ktp" (sorcery).
Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:10 - There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
The word "witchcraft" appears twice in the OT and once in the NT. In 1 Samuel 15:23 the Hebrew word is "qecem" and it also means divination, divine sentence, witchraft. In 2 Chronicles 33:6 it is the same word as in Ex. and Deut. from the previous paragraph. In Galatians 5:20 the Greek word is "pharmakeia" and it means... to dispense medication or poison, sorcery, witchcraft.
The word "witchcrafts" appears three times in the OT and not in the NT. The Hebrew word is "Kesheph" and it means magic, sorcery, witchcraft. It appears in 2 Kings 9:22, Micah 5:12 and Nahum 3:4.
So, which word specifically are you looking for? I'm sure I can find you older uses of kashaph/kesheph, qacam/qecem, and pharmakeia in different places.
All of which shows pretty conclusively that trying to determine what is or is not a witch historically really comes down to who your translator is.
Back on topic, though, I too am having issues with the extreme frailty of witch hexes. At this point, I'm having serious difficulty trying to determine why I would play one over a suitably fluffed wizard; the diffculty being that I can't rely on the hexes in any meaningful sense, and without them, the class just becomes a wizard variant with an unusual spellbook. In particular, having so many hexes that require touch attacks strikes me as basically insupportable for a d6 HD arcane class; not only does it not really fit with witchcraft imagery from the traditions I'm most familiar with (where the Bad Stuff a witch does to you comes either a) from her potion work or b) from a long-nailed finger pointing at you) but also is all too likely to just get you killed outright. Saves, on the other hand, are absolutely appropriate - but can we get the witches out of melee, please?
I'm going to allow a 30-ft. range and a saving throw.
I suspect that trying to chase down the "historical" meaning and origin of the term witch, along with its many variants, could go on a long time. To try to say that there is a particular point of origin is tricky at best, and impossible at worst.My point exactly. To claim that the idea of witches didn't exist until the Bible was written is a bit off the mark, to say the least -- even the idea of witches similar to those depicted in the Bible.
I guess my original point was that:
There is a sentiment, by some on this thread, that "Witches can't be attractive." That every "attractive" Witch from classical literature was actually something else, and that modern conceptualization of attractive Witches are 'dumb' or invalid because it's a modern concept.
I was just pointing out that "Hey Hot Witch (called a -Witch-) in the Bible."