Re-Invisioning Coven Hex


Round 2: Summoner and Witch


Right now the Coven Hex is pretty useless to PC’s. Between requiring a hag and the spells some of which already appear on the witch’s spell list. I propose that Coven hex works more like ‘aid other’ but with spells.

One witch, with Coven Hex, casts a spell which she has memorized and -up to two- other witches (who also have the coven hex) then ‘aid’ this spell. They do so by ‘casting’ a memorized spell from the same school of the same level or higher.

This cooperative casting takes longer to cast by which all casters are, effectively ‘casting’ a spell:

Free action becomes a standard action

Standard action becomes a full round action

Full round becomes Full round + a standard action

Once cast, the caster level of the spell is increased by 2 per ‘aiding’ witch (IE: max 4) and the DC is increased by 1 (IE: max 2). Defined maximums for spells (EX 10d6 for fire ball) are still enforced. Meta-magic feats are applicable if the original spell had a meta-magic feat attached to it.

All spells are then removed from their memorized spells as though they were cast.

I think this is fair as you are tying up two (possibly 3) of your 6 person party that could be doing other things.

I also would like to see a Major Coven Hex that requires the Minor hex that allows spells to be cast through scrying devices such as crystal balls.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Interesting thought..

Mind you, the primary focus of this ability was to allow witches to work with hags for their ability, making this a decidedly NPC focused option. I could see going a different way with the rest of it...

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Contributor

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Interesting thought..

Mind you, the primary focus of this ability was to allow witches to work with hags for their ability, making this a decidedly NPC focused option. I could see going a different way with the rest of it...

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

It would be kind of interesting if a coven of three witches could get extra powers from adding a devil or satyr as a fourth. It would certainly add to the flavor.


I think it would be better to define a common set of "Ritual" or "Communal" or "Cooperative" spellcasting rules for spellcasters to use. Clerics and Druids, for example, would benefit from this for formal ceremonies when using Consecrate or Hallow spells on temples. It would also tend to give arcane casters another reason to form organizations.

With that in play, then the Witch's Coven hex might have more general uses.. like enhancing the effect of the Witch's participation in such spellcasting, or allowing the Witch to cooperatively cast spells with either Arcane or Divine casters (and Hags :) ).


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Interesting thought..

Mind you, the primary focus of this ability was to allow witches to work with hags for their ability, making this a decidedly NPC focused option. I could see going a different way with the rest of it...

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Why would you put a npc option into a player class? I know I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here again. TWO rules for design no matter what it is

1. less is more
2. FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

If you want witches to work with hags thats fine. But since most players play non evil characers, than this has almost no use to players. Now what would have been nice was to make it do something like this :
A witch or any other beings that can form a coven, can... that way two or more witch characters can use this.

Contributor

Actually, rather than getting rid of the perk for having a hag as the third in a coven, give some alternate perk for having a crone, with "crone" being the good variant of "hag."

There was, I believe, one of the 3.5 Ravenloft supplements that had a "bruja" or somesuch which was basically a non-evil hag.

If the good covens could audition crones, it would solve the situation pretty neatly and just require a couple extra monsters for the next bestiary.


Exiled Prince wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Interesting thought..

Mind you, the primary focus of this ability was to allow witches to work with hags for their ability, making this a decidedly NPC focused option. I could see going a different way with the rest of it...

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Why would you put a npc option into a player class? I know I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here again. TWO rules for design no matter what it is

1. less is more
2. FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

If you want witches to work with hags thats fine. But since most players play non evil characers, than this has almost no use to players. Now what would have been nice was to make it do something like this :
A witch or any other beings that can form a coven, can... that way two or more witch characters can use this.

So, your argument would be that an Anti-Paladin/Blackguard class should not be made and is a total waste of time, correct?

Personally, I feel that this adds a flavourful option to the class. Since the Coven does not actually require a Hag, just multiple witches with the Coven hex it isn't unusable by non-evil witches either.


Caedwyr wrote:
Exiled Prince wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Interesting thought..

Mind you, the primary focus of this ability was to allow witches to work with hags for their ability, making this a decidedly NPC focused option. I could see going a different way with the rest of it...

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Why would you put a npc option into a player class? I know I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here again. TWO rules for design no matter what it is

1. less is more
2. FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

If you want witches to work with hags thats fine. But since most players play non evil characers, than this has almost no use to players. Now what would have been nice was to make it do something like this :
A witch or any other beings that can form a coven, can... that way two or more witch characters can use this.

So, your argument would be that an Anti-Paladin/Blackguard class should not be made and is a total waste of time, correct?

Personally, I feel that this adds a flavourful option to the class. Since the Coven does not actually require a Hag, just multiple witches with the Coven hex it isn't unusable by non-evil witches either.

The flaw in your logic is that that class is evil. Pure and simple. No other way to play it. Just as the paladin is lawful good and can be played no other way (and retain it's class features). But to get back to my point, it would be more inclusive if the Hex would include other witches and not have to include a hag.

Silver Crusade

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

Actually, rather than getting rid of the perk for having a hag as the third in a coven, give some alternate perk for having a crone, with "crone" being the good variant of "hag."

There was, I believe, one of the 3.5 Ravenloft supplements that had a "bruja" or somesuch which was basically a non-evil hag.

If the good covens could audition crones, it would solve the situation pretty neatly and just require a couple extra monsters for the next bestiary.

This fits in more with what I think of when I hear "witch" as well.


Exiled Prince wrote:
Why would you put a npc option into a player class?

Maybe because NPCs can have PC classes? Just maybe? Thought I'd put that out there.

Exiled Prince wrote:
But to get back to my point, it would be more inclusive if the Hex would include other witches and not have to include a hag.

They don't. "If the coven does not contain a hag, its magic is limited by the lowest-level witch in the coven: 1st—bless or bane (DC 14); 3rd—augury; 5th—speak with dead; 7th—bestow curse (DC 16) or remove curse; 9th—commune."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I can perfectly see a Neutral witch, heck even a Good one, cooperating with Hags as a "any means necessary" measure.


Zurai wrote:
Exiled Prince wrote:
Why would you put a npc option into a player class?
Maybe because NPCs can have PC classes? Just maybe? Thought I'd put that out there.

Right, but wouldn't this be better served as a foot note under the monster description, or a foot note under the class as opposed to and option in the players section?

Exiled Prince wrote:
But to get back to my point, it would be more inclusive if the Hex would include other witches and not have to include a hag.
They don't. "If the coven does not contain a hag, its magic is limited by the lowest-level witch in the coven: 1st—bless or bane (DC 14); 3rd—augury; 5th—speak with dead; 7th—bestow curse (DC 16) or remove curse; 9th—commune."

Okay, so you need to pull off having 3 PC's all have Witch levels all have Coven hex?

I suppose this 'can' be done if the party is specifically designed around this theme. But other than roleplaying...Why? These spells aren't that groundbreaking and one guy plays a cleric he get these for free at, probably, a better save DC.


Piety Godfury wrote:
Right, but wouldn't this be better served as a foot note under the monster description, or a foot note under the class as opposed to and option in the players section?

Actually, no. It's not possible for the first because those monsters were already designed and layed out before serious work even started on the Witch class, and for the second, it's not better because there's no purpose served in including it in a footnote instead of where it belongs, in with all the other minor hexes.

Quote:
Okay, so you need to pull off having 3 PC's all have Witch levels all have Coven hex?

Nope, all you need is one PC. All kinds of campaigns have PCs involved in NPC organizations. This provides an actual mechanical advantage to being part of an NPC organization. How's that bad again?

Quote:
But other than roleplaying...Why?

Other than roleplaying, why play a roleplaying game? That's a rather silly question. Roleplaying options are generally considered a good thing in a roleplaying game.


Zurai wrote:
Piety Godfury wrote:
Right, but wouldn't this be better served as a foot note under the monster description, or a foot note under the class as opposed to and option in the players section?

Actually, no. It's not possible for the first because those monsters were already designed and layed out before serious work even started on the Witch class, and for the second, it's not better because there's no purpose served in including it in a footnote instead of where it belongs, in with all the other minor hexes.

Quote:
Okay, so you need to pull off having 3 PC's all have Witch levels all have Coven hex?

Nope, all you need is one PC. All kinds of campaigns have PCs involved in NPC organizations. This provides an actual mechanical advantage to being part of an NPC organization. How's that bad again?

Quote:
But other than roleplaying...Why?
Other than roleplaying, why play a roleplaying game? That's a rather silly question. Roleplaying options are generally considered a good thing in a roleplaying game.

Sure if your party comes up to you and says, "Hey we want to make a witch party." Or a guy comes up and says "I want to take Coven Hex and we have no other Witches... can you help me out?" A DM can make allowances.

But

1) How often is the "all witch" party going to happen? And I think the Organized Play group will not take this Hex, as written, because of the play opportunity and effectiveness.
2) A NPC org isn't going to help you in a dungeon.

Again
1)All of these spells can be taken by your cleric
2)It doesn't tie up 3 characters
3)It doesn't tie them up for a full round
5)The cleric is probably going to have a better DC.


Piety Godfury wrote:
1) How often is the "all witch" party going to happen? And I think the Organized Play group will not take this Hex, as written, because of the play opportunity and effectiveness.

So what? There's a lot of character options that Pathfinder Society players will never see. Like the Assassin prestige class, for example -- and that truly is a "never in Pathfinder Society" because PS doesn't allow evil characters. At least the Coven hex is a slight possibility.

Quote:
2) A NPC org isn't going to help you in a dungeon.

Uhh, OK. Not sure what that has to do with ... anything at all. But OK.

Quote:

Again

1)All of these spells can be taken by your cleric
2)It doesn't tie up 3 characters
3)It doesn't tie them up for a full round
5)The cleric is probably going to have a better DC.

So is it your position that, if you cannot be the best at something, it's not even worth having as a character option? Because that's what it sounds like. So witches with the Coven hex aren't as effective as a cleric would be with those spells. So what? Witches with the minor healing hex aren't as effective as a cleric at healing, either. Does that mean that hex shouldn't be an option?

Dark Archive

I wonder how hard it would be for a Witch with Leadership to get access to a pair of Hag cohorts?


Zurai wrote:
Piety Godfury wrote:
1) How often is the "all witch" party going to happen? And I think the Organized Play group will not take this Hex, as written, because of the play opportunity and effectiveness.
So what? There's a lot of character options that Pathfinder Society players will never see. Like the Assassin prestige class, for example -- and that truly is a "never in Pathfinder Society" because PS doesn't allow evil characters. At least the Coven hex is a slight possibility.

They aren’t class features of an otherwise acceptable class.

Quote:
2) A NPC org isn't going to help you in a dungeon.
Uhh, OK. Not sure what that has to do with ... anything at all. But OK.

Several of the spells are combat spells (Bane/Bless & Bestow Curse) and all of the other spells, in some implications, you 'may' need to cast in a dungeon. For example: if you need to talk to a dead person or someone in your party gets cursed. An NPC org isn't going to help you casting a spell in any of these cases if you are 3 levels down in the middle of a dungeon.

Quote:

Again

1)All of these spells can be taken by your cleric
2)It doesn't tie up 3 characters
3)It doesn't tie them up for a full round
5)The cleric is probably going to have a better DC.
So is it your position that, if you cannot be the best at something, it's not even worth having as a character option? Because that's what it sounds like. So witches with the Coven hex aren't as effective as a cleric would be with those spells. So what? Witches with the minor healing hex aren't as effective as a cleric at healing, either. Does that mean that hex shouldn't be an option?

What I'm saying is it is unreasonable for what you get. Your missing that it takes 3 PC's a full round to cast bless vs. 1 PC casting it as a standard.


Piety Godfury wrote:
Your (sic) missing that it takes 3 PC's a full round to cast bless vs. 1 PC casting it as a standard.

No, actually, I'm not. I responded to a post that, firstly, asked why NPC options should be put into PC classes, and secondly, stated that Coven would be OK if it didn't require hags. To that post, I responded saying that, firstly, NPC options are OK in PC classes because NPCs can take PC classes, and secondly, the Coven hex does not require a hag.

You then proceeded to firstly, ask whether you needed three PCs then, and secondly, state that an ability is useless if it's not more powerful than another class's similar ability. I responded that, firstly, no you do not need 3 PCs, and secondly, that roleplaying abilities are just fine in a roleplaying game.

Then you started going off on me. /shrug

Nowhere in there was the full-round action casting time relevant, so I didn't mention it.


Zurai wrote:
Piety Godfury wrote:
Your (sic) missing that it takes 3 PC's a full round to cast bless vs. 1 PC casting it as a standard.

No, actually, I'm not. I responded to a post that, firstly, asked why NPC options should be put into PC classes, and secondly, stated that Coven would be OK if it didn't require hags. To that post, I responded saying that, firstly, NPC options are OK in PC classes because NPCs can take PC classes, and secondly, the Coven hex does not require a hag.

You then proceeded to firstly, ask whether you needed three PCs then, and secondly, state that an ability is useless if it's not more powerful than another class's similar ability. I responded that, firstly, no you do not need 3 PCs, and secondly, that roleplaying abilities are just fine in a roleplaying game.

Then you started going off on me. /shrug

Nowhere in there was the full-round action casting time relevant, so I didn't mention it.

I didn't mean to go off on you. I apologize if it sounded that way.

I am stating that you need to have at least 3 participants (NPC or PC) with the coven Hex to cast these spells and it takes a full round. Now I read this last night so I can't reference it right now, so I may have ran it together with the hag portion. It seems unlikely; however, that the 'Coven' hex would give you spells without requiring cooperative casting.

So I, personally, don't think this is worth a salt to A PC. But someone wants to take it and curtail their party to witches I encourage them to knock themselves out.

I like the Idea of cooperative spell casting as an 'aid' as opposed to its current incarnation. There is nothing saying there can't be both.


And I'm not saying that Coven doesn't need improvement. My initial involvement in this thread was merely to point out that NPCs can use PC classes too, and that you don't need a hag to use the Coven hex. It wouldn't bother me one bit if Coven was improved, although to be honest I'd be just as happy if the only 'improvement' was to replace all the combat spells (bless/bane, bestow/remove curse) with noncombat ones (for example, break enchantment).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Is everyone here reading the same coven hex that I'm reading? Even without a hag, and even requiring three characters casting for one full round, the coven hex is the single most powerful, game-breaking class ability in this entire playtest.

Go back and read what a hag's coven does. Note that all of the coven spell-like abilities are usable at will. Now go back and look at the list of spells that a coven of three 9th-level witches can cast.

The coven hex lets you cast commune at will. At will! Who cares if it takes three of you a full-round action? You get to ask an unlimited number of yes/no questions, and have a deity provide you with the correct answers to every last one of those questions to the best of its ability.

So what if clerics can cast a few commune spells? A few commune spells are completely obsolete when a coven of 9th-level witches can do the same thing at will. That's one of the most game-braking abilities in the history of the d20 System. No group of three PCs should be privy to an hours-long audience with the gods whenever they feel like it.

Contributor

I'm thinking that after a while, the gods would stop taking the witches' calls if they abused it that much.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'm thinking that after a while, the gods would stop taking the witches' calls if they abused it that much.

The commune spell is always answered. Now, nothing says the deity itself is going to be the one answering the commune; in fact, the spell says that deities have servants that do this kind of thing for them. Think of it as a celestial call center.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Either way, it's an absurd ability for a group of PCs to have at will.


Epic Meepo wrote:

Is everyone here reading the same coven hex that I'm reading? Even without a hag, and even requiring three characters casting for one full round, the coven hex is the single most powerful, game-breaking class ability in this entire playtest.

Go back and read what a hag's coven does. Note that all of the coven spell-like abilities are usable at will. Now go back and look at the list of spells that a coven of three 9th-level witches can cast.

The coven hex lets you cast commune at will. At will! Who cares if it takes three of you a full-round action? You get to ask an unlimited number of yes/no questions, and have a deity provide you with the correct answers to every last one of those questions to the best of its ability.

So what if clerics can cast a few commune spells? A few commune spells are completely obsolete when a coven of 9th-level witches can do the same thing at will. That's one of the most game-braking abilities in the history of the d20 System. No group of three PCs should be privy to an hours-long audience with the gods whenever they feel like it.

Commune can be, handedly, abused. I give that. And you'll never have to worry about being cursed again. But the 'combat-sentric' stuff like Bless and Bestow Curse are (arguably) pretty useless. And how many times are you going to have to cast Speak With Dead before the guy just doesn't have any info or wont talk to you anymore?


Zurai wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'm thinking that after a while, the gods would stop taking the witches' calls if they abused it that much.
The commune spell is always answered. Now, nothing says the deity itself is going to be the one answering the commune; in fact, the spell says that deities have servants that do this kind of thing for them. Think of it as a celestial call center.

Agreed... Commune has always been only as good as your DM lets it be.


I would also like to see the spell choices for an all-witch coven increased; right now they are a bit dull. The "power of three" theme can be a fun one, I think. Having a cost in prepared spells for all 3 witches is probably a good idea for balance, though.

I wouldn't allow two witches to do any kind of coven magic for thematic reasons, though - you need at least 3 for a circle, after all! :-)


I would probably change it so that Bless and Bane are each usable 3/day by each member, and Bestow Curse is available 1/day to each member. But only as long as the other two Witches are within 30 feet. Probably as a standard action.


Personally, I'd prefer to see the coven grant the use of metamagic feats, allowing the head (highest level) witch to prepare a spell as if she had that feat without actually having it, and reducing the level restriction/increase of said spell by one for each additional member of her coven (to a minimum of the spell's normal level of course). For this purpose, allow her to "adopt" non-witch spellcasters into her coven, like the party cleric or wizard, etc., but with the condition that in order for her to prepare a spell in this manner, each other member of the coven must also be able to cast the spell. You might even consider that the other coven members lose the spell as if it was cast when allowing the witch to apply the feat, and cannot rememorize (or regain that spell slot) until she uses the modified spell. From a role-playing perspective, this might make some characters reluctant to participate, but it does provide the flavor of other witches sacrificing their own power to empower the head witch.


drakkonflye wrote:
Personally, I'd prefer to see the coven grant the use of metamagic feats, allowing the head (highest level) witch to prepare a spell as if she had that feat without actually having it, and reducing the level restriction/increase of said spell by one for each additional member of her coven (to a minimum of the spell's normal level of course). For this purpose, allow her to "adopt" non-witch spellcasters into her coven, like the party cleric or wizard, etc., but with the condition that in order for her to prepare a spell in this manner, each other member of the coven must also be able to cast the spell. You might even consider that the other coven members lose the spell as if it was cast when allowing the witch to apply the feat, and cannot rememorize (or regain that spell slot) until she uses the modified spell. From a role-playing perspective, this might make some characters reluctant to participate, but it does provide the flavor of other witches sacrificing their own power to empower the head witch.

Just some thoughts:

This is an interesting idea. How do you account for the 'better' metamagic feats? Why would a group, say, cast an empowered spell when they can maximize it every time? How would quicken and heighten spell work? If, quicken, works as it normally does wouldn't it be one of your two spells every round?

Flavor-wise, IMO, I don't really see a 'coven' hex (which seems to be exclusive to witches by its very inference) would or should include other casters. Particularly Devine as, by definition, they cast spells differently than Arcane casters. Though I see your point this may make it more useful to your standard party accompaniment.


Piety Godfury wrote:
This is an interesting idea. How do you account for the 'better' metamagic feats? Why would a group, say, cast an empowered spell when they can maximize it every time? How would quicken and heighten spell work? If, quicken, works as it normally does wouldn't it be one of your two spells every round?

The idea is for the lesser witches to sacrifice the spell from memory (or lose the slot) to give the greater witch more power. They don't need to know the feat to grant its ability, just the spell, so they don't have to be high enough level to use an advanced spell. That said, a group of level 5 witches with access to lightning bolt could not each prepare a maximized bolt, but working together can allow one of them to have such prepared as the expense of the others not being able to cast that spell for the day (unless memorized more than once by each individual, of course). The main feature here is allowing a coven to have access to metamagic feats when acting as a coven (meaning a minimum of three "witches" working in concert) to prepare the spell, and having each additional (or every two additional, if you prefer) witch added to the coven beyond the first reduces the spell level increase of the metamagic feat by one. Example: Two witches would allow one to prepare an Enlarged, Extended, Silent, or Still spell, three witches would allow an Empowered spell, four witches would allow a Maximized spell, and so on. Again, if you prefer, make it for every two witches beyond the first (I.E. three, five, seven, etc.), which would actually be my own preference for more of a flavor effect (Think "power of three", as in the three Fates, the three wyrd sisters in MacBeth, or even in the TV series Charmed; all the more reason for a true coven to be at least three "witches").

Piety Godfury wrote:
Flavor-wise, IMO, I don't really see a 'coven' hex (which seems to be exclusive to witches by its very inference) would or should include other casters. Particularly Devine as, by definition, they cast spells differently than Arcane casters. Though I see your point this may make it more useful to your standard party accompaniment.

Witches are considered arcane casters as written in the playtest, true, but they do have access to divine spells as well. In fact, if Jason and company choose to alter the spell list based upon suggestions from the board (which Jason has admitted were some good suggestions), then about half the witch's spell will be divine, a fair split between cleric and druid, making her technically a divine AND arcane caster, definitely a unique class by that alone. As for "adopting" non-witches into her coven temporarily, this provides two benefits:

One: She would be able to prepare metamagic spells in the field with the aid of other party members, instead of having to run home to her base coven or drag along her apprentices everywhere she goes "just in case", which means less NPCs to keep track of as well as less people to have to worry about protecting against any percieved threats (like an angry mob of villagers who blame the appearance of the witches for their misfortunes).

Two: She can prepare a metamagic feat on the fly as needed for what she learns she will be encountering, instead of having to boost a spell ahead of time and learning that spell in now useless against her foe. This would be like the bard or sorcerer using a metamagic feat on the spot, except that the witch doesn't need to know the feat, instead drawing the ability to use it by using her coven as a conduit for the power she gets from her "contacts" (the source of her power).

Using the feat would still be at minimum a full-round action, during which time the witch and all members of her coven can take no other action, and each member must still have access to the spell (not just have it on their spell list, but actually be able to cast it).

As for divine magic, a witch working with a couple level one clerics would be able to cast an Empowered cure light wounds and heal at least 5 points of damage each round, or a minimum of 9 points of she were 5th level. Yes, that might seem like a waste of spell power to some, especially since each one casting the spell themselves would heal at least 2 points of damage for a minimum 6 points as opposed to 5, but I'm just using this as an example.

Now, regarding the two feats you mentioned:

Heighten Spell: All this feat does is raise the effective level of the spell in question, making the save DC a little higher. For purposes of the coven, either require the witch to have at least one or two other witches present to use it, or deny access to the feat by listing which feats specifically the coven would grant access to.

Quicken Spell: By itself, this feat is, IMO, almost totally useless. The fact that it pumps the effective spell level up by four means that the highest level spell you can apply it to is 5, making it a level 9 spell. Yes, you can quicken a level 3 fireball with it, but that makes the spell level 7, which a wizard doesn't get access to until level 13, by which time he'll probably have better spells anyways or be facing off against enemies with fire resistance, or a helluva lot of hit points. Still, being able to fire off two spells in a round back-to-back is what makes this feat worthwhile. Allowing the witch to use her coven to prepare this feat would require at least 4 other witches (or 8 if you go the every two route) present, and they all would need to have access to the spell and be willing to sacrifice being able to cast it for the day that one extra time, which would kind of suck if it's your only level 3 spell you're giving up. Again, you could always deny access to this feat by restricting what feats a coven has access to by its size.

That last might even be the easiest way to explain it: For every two members in the coven, the witch gains access to a new metamagic feat as if she had the feat for purposes of preparing a spell. She may only use any feat granted in this manner one per 24 hour period, and may not use that feat again while she still holds a spell prepared using said feat. This way you don't have witches running around with multiple Empowered, Enlarged, etc., spells unless they want to actually take the feats.

Sorry for such a long post, people, but sometimes when my mind gets focused upon an idea, I can just keep on going. I really envy the R&D guys at Paizo for their job; wish that *I* was getting paid to design this stuff :-)

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 2: Summoner and Witch / Re-Invisioning Coven Hex All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 2: Summoner and Witch