Calling All Witches


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Getting back on topic-ish, is it just me, or has almost everyone playing a Witch spent their first feat(s) on Extra Hex?


Our witch is a blend of leader and controller. She's the main healer in the party currently, but she also handles some batlefield management through evil eye and her other spells.


In my Kingmaker campaign, my wife plays a Witch named Abagail.

Abagail just reached level 11. Her main role has been supporting the party, through hexes, healing, and control, with a bit of damage thrown in now and then.

She is also our Duchess (soon to be Queen) and her ability to Intimidate or be Diplomatic outshines the rest of the group.

The Witch is a very well rounded class. My wife is new to tabletop RPGs and this is second character. Her first was a Druid in the RotRL AP I ran last year.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Genius Prime wrote:


I have to say this now. Because if I don't, I'll hate myself for not saying it. These ROLES you refer to are a 4E thing. This is Pathfinder. Not 4E. Thank you.

Actually only the names have changed. The roles have been there since 1st Edition AD+D, maybe even the Basic game itself. Only we used the terms Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief to describe them.


/sigh

I tried to get the thread back on topic...

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Has almost everyone playing a Witch spent their first feat(s) on Extra Hex?

I'm playing a dwarf witch, given to an orcish coven in payment for services rendered the dwarven king. He took Scribe Scroll as his first feat, so that he might be able to back-up any spells in his 4-hp familiar.


Most of my APG class builds use extra hex/rage power/talents/mysteries etc because for the most part they are just better than a feat.

Witches are great and have probably forever killed mystic theurge builds...


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ardenup wrote:


Witches are great and have probably forever killed mystic theurge builds...

Yup. I know I won't be mourning that loss.

My witch is 12th level by the way, playing Curse of the Crimson Throne. He mostly specializes in battlefield control, debuffing and blasting. A difference though, is that I made him cast spells like a sorcerer. it has been a great character to play.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ardenup wrote:

Most of my APG class builds use extra hex/rage power/talents/mysteries etc because for the most part they are just better than a feat.

Witches are great and have probably forever killed mystic theurge builds...

It depends on the feat and the character level. It also depends on the character concept and development plans. Granted, the Evil Eye/Misfortune and Cackle combination is one of the more powerful options available at 1st level for a witch, but other options (especially among the rage powers, where many can only be used once per rage) are much more limited at that level, compared to feats like Power Attack or even Weapon Focus in some cases (the +1 on attack rolls is a constant benefit and it's a prerequisite for Dazzling Display).

As far as killing the mystic theurge "builds" goes, not so much. The witch does not have access to many of the best cleric and sorcerer/wizard spells (or at least not all of them, depending on the patron); a well designed/developed mystic theurge will be more versatile than a witch, although the witch will not have to deal with the "problem levels" (5th-9th) that cause many to dismiss the mystic theurge as "unplayable/unviable."

Anyway, a witch based on a peasant farmer/hedge witch/spirit medium/necromancer concept:

Human Witch 5
14 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 17 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha
Heart of the Fields (Craft (Alchemy))
1- Hex (Evil Eye), Patron (Strength); Extra Hex (Cackle), Martial Weapon Proficiency (Scythe)
2- Hex (Cauldron)
3- Power Attack
4- +1 Int, Hex (Misfortune)
5- Craft Wand
Skills: Craft (Alchemy) 4, Heal 4, Intimidate 3, Knowledge (Arcana) 3, Knowledge (Nature) 1, Profession (Farmer) 1, Profession (Herbalist) 1, Spellcraft 5, Survival 3, Use Magic Device 5
Spells Known: All 0-level spells; Burning Hands, Chill Touch, Cure Light Wounds, Divine Favor, Enlarge Person, Identify, Mage Armor, Ray of Enfeeblement, Shield; Bull's Strength, Death Knell, False Life, Glitterdust, Spectral Hand; Heroism, Stinking Cloud

Shadow Lodge

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Getting back on topic-ish, is it just me, or has almost everyone playing a Witch spent their first feat(s) on Extra Hex?

Hell, I was just screwing around building a 20th level witch on HeroLab, and I'll be damned if almost all her feats weren't Extra Hex. 95% of the feats available just don't add quite the same oomph! as having another Hex.


See I never went with extra Hex. I designed my Witch as after the Old Folklorish Herbalist/Midwife, Hedgewitch who was in touch with the Old Gods. The Person you went to for advise on when to plant and harvest, and about the festivals and for cures, love potions, and advise. And when there was sickness in the family or in the animals. If you needed a calf pulled or a tooth pulled :) Or as a go between for you and the Goddess or Gods :)

So I went with Healing, Cauldron, and Fly, and for skills, Healing, Herbalist, Midwife, Brewing, and Fortune Telling :) As well as Knowledge: Nature, and Knowledge: Religion, and Knowledge: History,


I gotta say, I really like the Witch class. What keeps me from playing it is that it has Int as a prime req even though it's suppossed to get it's power from "communion with the unknown". The fluff just plain don't make sense.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:


Roles exist with or without classes. Healer, scout, tank, damage-dealer, buffer, battlefield control, jack-of-all-trades, face, and others are all roles. The good thing about Pathfinder is that a class can fit more than one, depending on the build.

However, certain classes are going to be more suited for certain roles than others. Luckily no one class is stuck in a one-role-only mindset, which keeps me playing the game.

That's pretty much true in 4th edition as well, both games are considerably more flexible than old 1st edition AD+D or the original pre 1st D+D.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
I gotta say, I really like the Witch class. What keeps me from playing it is that it has Int as a prime req even though it's suppossed to get it's power from "communion with the unknown". The fluff just plain don't make sense.

yes it does... the classic witch isn't necessarily persuasive, nor was she touched with the divine, she was taught her Craft and generally pretty darned smart. Witches have far more common in theme with Wizards than any other class.


LazarX wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I gotta say, I really like the Witch class. What keeps me from playing it is that it has Int as a prime req even though it's suppossed to get it's power from "communion with the unknown". The fluff just plain don't make sense.
yes it does... the classic witch isn't necessarily persuasive, nor was she touched with the divine, she was taught her Craft and generally pretty darned smart. Witches have far more common in theme with Wizards than any other class.

The classic witch' iconic power is beguilement. I think the classic witch is very persuasive.

But what I was talking about has nothing to do with the classic witch. It has to do with whether learning secrets through communion with other worldly entities has more to do with charisma (ie. persuading these entities to share their secrets with you) than with intelligence (ie. reasoning out what these entities are telling you).


LilithsThrall wrote:
LazarX wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I gotta say, I really like the Witch class. What keeps me from playing it is that it has Int as a prime req even though it's suppossed to get it's power from "communion with the unknown". The fluff just plain don't make sense.
yes it does... the classic witch isn't necessarily persuasive, nor was she touched with the divine, she was taught her Craft and generally pretty darned smart. Witches have far more common in theme with Wizards than any other class.

The classic witch' iconic power is beguilement. I think the classic witch is very persuasive.

But what I was talking about has nothing to do with the classic witch. It has to do with whether learning secrets through communion with other worldly entities has more to do with charisma (ie. persuading these entities to share their secrets with you) than with intelligence (ie. reasoning out what these entities are telling you).

I suppose that boils down to particular character flavor. One might see the charming seductress witch when they thing of witches or one might think of a frightful, spiteful hag. My first thought of a witch when I read the class was Madame Mim (I think was her name) from that ridiculous Disney movie, Sword in the Stone, where as my friend thought of something more akin Sleeping Beauty's villian. Although there is nothing really stopping a witch from putting a good statistic in charisma and ranking up social skills. With disguises and charms and skills charisma doesn't need to be a prime requisite to be useful. Understanding mysteries through a good intelligence works for me. Could be worse...we could have a casting class that dirives its spell DC by one statistic and its spells per day by another, ect...


Ringtail wrote:
I suppose that boils down to particular character flavor. One might see the charming seductress witch when they thing of witches or one might think of a frightful, spiteful hag. My first thought of a witch when I read the class was Madame Mim (I think was her name) from that ridiculous Disney movie, Sword in the Stone, where as my friend thought of something more akin Sleeping Beauty's villian. Although their is nothing really stopping a witch from putting a good statistic in charisma and ranking up social skills. With disguises and charms and skills charisma doesn't need to be a prime requisite to be useful.

A frightful, spiteful hag would still be known for her charisma score. She'd just have a lot more points in Intimidate than in Diplomacy.

On the other hand, a fairly mundane wall flower who spends most of her life being ignored by the people around her would have a low charisma. The problem is, I just can't think of too many witches who fit that profile. On the other hand, I can think of quite stories of wall flowers who decided to become witches and, once they became witches, their charisma skyrocketed.


"Witch" is a very old term with very many meanings. Let us not get bogged down in the perceived differences, that way lies trolldom.

Circe was a witch, women in salem and the inquisition were witches, my sister-in-law is a practicing witch. This term is about as slippery as Monk, and should be handled as such.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

"Witch" is a very old term with very many meanings. Let us not get bogged down in the perceived differences, that way lies trolldom.

Circe was a witch, women in salem and the inquisition were witches, my sister-in-law is a practicing witch. This term is about as slippery as Monk, and should be handled as such.

We're talking about "witch" as portrayed in the majority of myths, legends, folk tales, etc. We're not talking about witches as they allegedly were in real life.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
I suppose that boils down to particular character flavor. One might see the charming seductress witch when they thing of witches or one might think of a frightful, spiteful hag. My first thought of a witch when I read the class was Madame Mim (I think was her name) from that ridiculous Disney movie, Sword in the Stone, where as my friend thought of something more akin Sleeping Beauty's villian. Although their is nothing really stopping a witch from putting a good statistic in charisma and ranking up social skills. With disguises and charms and skills charisma doesn't need to be a prime requisite to be useful.

A frightful, spiteful hag would still be known for her charisma score. She'd just have a lot more points in Intimidate than in Diplomacy.

On the other hand, a fairly mundane wall flower who spends most of her life being ignored by the people around her would have a low charisma. The problem is, I just can't think of too many witches who fit that profile. On the other hand, I can think of quite stories of wall flowers who decided to become witches and, once they became witches, their charisma skyrocketed.

I'd be careful not to make reknown and CHA synonomous. And being frightful and spiteful doesn't neccessarily make one well known. With a good number of ranks in intimidate you don't neccessarily need a good CHA to be successful at it; if a peasant wandered near such a witch's home circumstance bonus could stack up nicely. Witch is a vague term, and for the rules it had to be decided which way to spin it. Besides, a sorcerer/ess could be a witch to the townsfolk, setting game terms aside, and there would be your charming seductress.

Shadow Lodge

I think using either Charisma or Wisdom fits in more with the mythical/folklore witches than Intelligence (as does spontaneous spellcasting). As such, I devised an archetype for the Witch class:

Change Spells/Day and Spells Known progression from wizard-equivalent to sorcerer-equivalent. Spellcasting is spontaneous. Spellcasting and Hexing is CHA-based. Patron bonus spells, like sorcerer bloodline spells, don't count against spells known. Increase skill ranks per level to 4 + Int modifier.

If you prefer Wisdom, substitute WIS for CHA.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

"Witch" is a very old term with very many meanings. Let us not get bogged down in the perceived differences, that way lies trolldom.

Circe was a witch, women in salem and the inquisition were witches, my sister-in-law is a practicing witch. This term is about as slippery as Monk, and should be handled as such.

We're talking about "witch" as portrayed in the majority of myths, legends, folk tales, etc. We're not talking about witches as they allegedly were in real life.

What I'm saying LT, is that there is a great deal of variance within even that definition. Enough to squabble over, for certain.


.
..
...
....
.....

Ringtail wrote:
With a good number of ranks in intimidate you don't neccessarily need a good CHA to be successful at it; if a peasant wandered near such a witch's home circumstance bonus could stack up nicely.

Aye, circumstance bonus from simply being known for ruthless murder and brutal acts.

::

Remember folks, you don't need ranks in Intimidate* to be scary. Intimidate is the art of implied harm/danger*. If you actually do stab them/turn them into a frog/burn their babies then..

..well, they should react accordingly*.

Actions speak louder than words* - even the scary words!

Spoiler:
*Subject to DM/campaign style. Gawd bless teh intrawebz.

*shakes fist*


Karameikos wrote:
Please share the primary role your level 1-10 witch is playing in your group: controller (battlfield control, area attacks), leader (buff/debuff/heal), striker (high damage dealer), defender (melee)

To get out of the 4e terminology…….. none of the above. My witch is the jack of all trades.....more like a hard hitting bard that never runs out of hex's. It is a very fun class to play.


BenignFacist wrote:

.

..
...
....
.....

Ringtail wrote:
With a good number of ranks in intimidate you don't neccessarily need a good CHA to be successful at it; if a peasant wandered near such a witch's home circumstance bonus could stack up nicely.

Aye, circumstance bonus from simply being known for ruthless murder and brutal acts.

::

Remember folks, you don't need ranks in Intimidate* to be scary. Intimidate is the art of implied harm/danger*. If you actually do stab them/turn them into a frog/burn their babies then..

..well, they should react accordingly*.

Actions speak louder than words* - even the scary words!

** spoiler omitted **

*shakes fist*

But the typical witch story has people scared because they heard from somebody who heard from somebody that the witch turned somebody into a frog.

Very rarely does the witch ever turn someone into a frog in front of the camera.
So, it's typically more of an implied threat.


Ringtail wrote:


I'd be careful not to make reknown and CHA synonomous.

I wouldn't.

Not every one who does something heroic gains renown and not everyone who gains renown has done something heroic. The difference is charisma.

As for Sorcerers getting known as witches, that's irrelevant. The crux of the issue is over whether or not someone who gains power from communing with otherworldly entities should be charisma based or intelligence based. When I see "communing", I think "socializing". That points to charisma.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Ringtail wrote:


I'd be careful not to make reknown and CHA synonomous.

I wouldn't.

Not every one who does something heroic gains renown and not everyone who gains renown has done something heroic. The difference is charisma.

As for Sorcerers getting known as witches, that's irrelevant. The crux of the issue is over whether or not someone who gains power from communing with otherworldly entities should be charisma based or intelligence based. When I see "communing", I think "socializing". That points to charisma.

Renown and Charisma simply don't mean the same thing.

Renown - n. The quality of being widely honored and acclaimed; fame
Charisma - n. Personal magnetism or charm

One can be famous and still be ugly and rude. One can be attractive and eloquent without being well renown.

Evil barbarian warlords may be well known, but I doubt he'd be the kind of guy you'd like to spend an evening with. Well maybe I would...

Witches being known for being seductresses or hags, or for turning people into vermin, or for eating children, et cetera, is a story about witches in general, which would be different than saying "THAT" witch has a reputation for said things.

A wizard makes an INT check when casting Contact Other Plane, which I would consider "communing with otherworld entities". That said communing with strange being for spell energies to me personally feels more like a Wisdom mechanic, but I'm not going to say I don't see how Intelligence plays into, it is a fine choice for the class as well.


Ringtail wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Ringtail wrote:


I'd be careful not to make reknown and CHA synonomous.

I wouldn't.

Not every one who does something heroic gains renown and not everyone who gains renown has done something heroic. The difference is charisma.

As for Sorcerers getting known as witches, that's irrelevant. The crux of the issue is over whether or not someone who gains power from communing with otherworldly entities should be charisma based or intelligence based. When I see "communing", I think "socializing". That points to charisma.

Renown and Charisma simply don't mean the same thing.

Renown - n. The quality of being widely honored and acclaimed; fame
Charisma - n. Personal magnetism or charm

One can be famous and still be ugly and rude. One can be attractive and eloquent without being well renown.

Evil barbarian warlords may be well known, but I doubt he'd be the kind of guy you'd like to spend an evening with. Well maybe I would...

Witches being known for being seductresses or hags, or for turning people into vermin, or for eating children, et cetera, is a story about witches in general, which would be different than saying "THAT" witch has a reputation for said things.

A wizard makes an INT check when casting Contact Other Plane, which I would consider "communing with otherworld entities". That said communing with strange being for spell energies to me personally feels more like a Wisdom mechanic, but I'm not going to say I don't see how Intelligence plays into, it is a fine choice for the class as well.

Charisma measures personality, not just personal magnetism. Personal magnetism refers to getting people to like you. However, in the game, Charisma also relates to Intimidation - which has nothing to do with getting people to like you. It does, however, have everything to do with strength of personality. One can be rude and ugly and still have a strong personality. One can "not be the kind of guy you'd like to spend an evening with" and still have a strong personality.

It's very important that you take terms like "Charisma" and be sure to define them the same way the game defines them (at least as long as you're talking about the context of the game), elsewise you're going to get yourslf very confused.
As for Contact Other Plane, when the wizard makes an Int check, it is to avoid going insane (ie. suffering a loss of intelligence and charisma). The power of the spell forces the beings to speak to you. If you scroll back, I specifically brought up the question of whether the biggest hurdle when communing with alien entities is getting them to talk to you or understanding what they have to say. In the case of Contact Other Plane, you've got the magic of the spell ensuring that they'll talk to you - it handles the charisma side of the issue for you.
In the case of a Witch, she has no such spell when she starts her career as a witch.


With the Sorcerer, Bard, and Paladin from the PFRPG Core Rules and the addition of the Oracle and the Summoner in the APG I think they figured there were enough CHA based casters already. That's 5 casters all from one stat, where INT only had the wizard, plus the Alchemist (kind of, as it uses a different mechanic) as the only INT casters, unless you add the Witch. Making the Witch a CHA based caster makes it too close to the Oracle.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
With the Sorcerer, Bard, and Paladin from the PFRPG Core Rules and the addition of the Oracle and the Summoner in the APG I think they figured there were enough CHA based casters already. That's 5 casters all from one stat, where INT only had the wizard, plus the Alchemist (kind of, as it uses a different mechanic) as the only INT casters, unless you add the Witch. Making the Witch a CHA based caster makes it too close to the Oracle.

That makes sense. It would have made more sense to have had a class whose fluff matched their "Int as prime req" game mechanic.


LilithsThrall wrote:
That makes sense. It would have made more sense to have had a class whose fluff matched their "Int as prime req" game mechanic.

Part of it may have been many of the witches from stories tend to cast in a more ritual manner (I get that vibe from the witches in MacBeth for example) and CHA based casting is almost exclusively a spontaneous caster's stat. Only the Paladin uses CHA for spells without being a spontaneous caster, and that may only be to reduce MAD from previous editions.

Personally, I could see either stat being used with the Witch. My "inner munchkin" prefers int for the additional skills.


LilithsThrall wrote:


But the typical witch story has people scared because they heard from somebody who heard from somebody that the witch turned somebody into a frog.
Very rarely does the witch ever turn someone into a frog in front of the camera.
So, it's typically more of an implied threat.

..so she has bad/good PR -- so do earthquakes, massacres and bad hair products.*

O_o None of which ever made an Inimidate check.*

O_o None of which need to imply anything.*

::

You don't need* to use the skill Intimidate to be intimidating. All you need to do is something people will be intimidated by.

Like, turning them into a frog.

Very rarely or otherwise.

Spoiler:
*Subject to DM/Campaign style. Maybe somewhere, somehow there is DM claiming a +20 size bonus to the Intimidate check of a shifting tectonic plate that has a 15 Charisma score and is, for some reason, trying to Intimidate a duck into giving it some taffy...

::

Note: Being able to use the skill Intimidate successfully can save you a lot of effort and the need to turn people into frogs.

..the Charisma 5 no-ranks-in-the-skill-Intimidate Witch might get very annoyed/have a hard time with having to continuously back up his/her/misc words with actions every time they want to scare a peasant....

...
..
.

''Out of the way old crone, this is my path!''

''Hee hee heee, oh really?''

''Yes.''

''Do you know who I am?''

''No. Nor do I care. You smell funny and lack presence.''

''I am THE WITCH!''

''The one infamous for turning Farmer Benson's child into a frog?''

''...hee hee hee hee, the very same...''

''Really?''

''..yes.''

''...''

''...what?''

''Oh, um, nothing...''

''Eh? What? Do you doubt me?''

''Well, yeah. I mean, well, you don't seem the type. No offense.''

''...eh?''

''Well, um, to be honest, your the least scariest person I've ever met. My grandmother, god bless her freaky facial hair, is scarier than you....''

''I am most certainly 'The Type'. With a gesture I can reduce your fine physical form to that of a slimy pond dweller...''

''Really?''

''Yes!''

''..um..

''What?''

''Um...well.. er.. can you, like, prove it?''

''...''

''No?''

''..no.''

''lol? Why?''

''*sigh* ...I kinda used my 5th level spell slots all ready. Goblins. Ya know?''

''Oh. Oh I seeee.. ok. Well...''

''Yes... well..''

''um....''

''...''

''...''

''Well, I guess you must be on your way? ''

''Oh, oh yes, of course. On my way, yes. Sorry.''

''No harm done. Um.. good bye.''

''..yes. Um.. no harm done.... um...''

''...?''

''...I am scary you know..''

''Just go.''

''Bye.''

''..bye.''

::

*shakes fist*


Likewise, a mad man shaking his fist isn't going to make everybody bow down and do as he says. He has to have something to back it up. But sure, a witch casting out of her Intelligence is fine, she's crafty, always got something up her sleeve, always plotting and has the smarts to live in the middle of the swamp so she's not blowing all her baleful polymorphs on every Tom, Dick, Harry and Dumdar who comes asking for treats.

She may be charismatic, she may be wise, but nobody ever said that the wise old wizard needs to cast out of his Wisdom, or the cleric orator who whips nations in religious frenzies needs to cast out of their Charisma.

Besides, another caster using Charisma? Might as well call that the universal casting stat considering how many use it anyway.


Talynonyx wrote:
Likewise, a mad man shaking his fist isn't going to make everybody bow down and do as he says.

Exactly!

..well, unless they have a Rod of Rulership.

..or a nation of loyally conditioned citizens.

..or, beer.

..or..

Spoiler:
Random: Rulership is a typo/spelling mistake? Eh?

*shakes fist*

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
That's pretty much true in 4th edition as well, both games are considerably more flexible than old 1st edition AD+D or the original pre 1st D+D.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't know a lot about 4E, as I pretty quickly decided that it wasn't for me. But what made 0E amazingly flexible was the fact that the rules were very light, and pretty nebulous in some areas. 3E/PFRPG are pretty rules heavy and (in my less-than-humble opinion) over-codified. There might be more published options for 3E/PFRPG, but that's because in 0E the options were up to the DM. Just as an example, the original boxed set didn't include a thief/rogue. So many players played a Fighting-Man, but flavored him as a thief/rogue.

I'd argue that the over-codification of d20 actually makes it less flexible, since there are often clearly defined things that you cannot do. This was much less prevalent in the older editions (although the system grew ever more codified as the new editions rolled out).


Kthulhu wrote:


I'd argue that the over-codification of d20 actually makes it less flexible, since there are often clearly defined things that you cannot do. This was much less prevalent in the older editions (although the system grew ever more codified as the new editions rolled out).

Aye, I agree.

We find games like All Flesh Must Be Eaten are stronger/faster to play than DnD/Pathfinder based ones.

There is a table for success, you assign modifiers on the fly, you make a roll you deal with the effects.

Some stuff is covered in the rules but most requires DM ad libbing.

Games run smoothly, characters are made very rapidly, fun is had.

Job done.

To be honest, we apply the same techniques to DnD/Pathfinder - however, initial character creation takes much longer.

It doesn't have to, but that's also the different 'fun' aspect for us with DnD/Pathfinder - making characters, playing with the system.

*shakes fist*

Scarab Sages

Evil Genius Prime wrote:
Karameikos wrote:
Please share the primary role your level 1-10 witch is playing in your group: controller (battlfield control, area attacks), leader (buff/debuff/heal), striker (high damage dealer), defender (melee). Additionally, do you feel the witch's spell list (excluding hexes) makes a more significant contribution during or out of combat?
I have to say this now. Because if I don't, I'll hate myself for not saying it. These ROLES you refer to are a 4E thing. This is Pathfinder. Not 4E. Thank you.

Agreed

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
That's pretty much true in 4th edition as well, both games are considerably more flexible than old 1st edition AD+D or the original pre 1st D+D.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't know a lot about 4E, as I pretty quickly decided that it wasn't for me. But what made 0E amazingly flexible was the fact that the rules were very light, and pretty nebulous in some areas. 3E/PFRPG are pretty rules heavy and (in my less-than-humble opinion) over-codified.

With flexible and highly customisable character choices, 3E was inevitably going to introduce more rules complications.

4E characters do have considerable choices within each class. While every class as a main role, they usually have a choice of secondary roles that they can be very good at. Also powers and skill selection do lead to a lot of customisation options in both role or style. Druids for instance can take on either a defender or striker role, or they can lean heavily on casting to serve various controller functions. As in older editions of D+D class flexibility will vary. After all no matter what edition you're working with, a fighter is always about hitting things. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Foghammer wrote:


Largely, I agree with you, but I don't think that PnP games are by their nature incompatible with the concept of combat roles.

It's my contention that those role concepts that are associated with video games are actually derived from Old School D+D gaming. In those days the roles were a lot more rigid than today.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I LOVE the Witch! The one I am currently playing is level 7:

Str: 8, Dex:16, Con:14, Int:23, Wis:7, Cha: 9
Feats: Extra Hex, Imp. Initiative, Toughness, Spell Focus (Necromancy), Imp. Familiar
Hexes: Fortune, Misfortune, Cackle, Evil Eye, Slumber

He is so fun to play! I do mostly buffing/debuffing but have the flexibility to be whatever the party needs....except for being competent in social situations (he is so awkward).

Extra Hex is a feat I would always take. Always. Your hexes are your strength...the more of them you have the more powerful you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My 9th level witch is the party artificer, diplomat, and battlefield controller.

In combat I use some nasty, creative debuff and spell combos (web + summon spider swarm was a hoot for at least 3 levels running). I've also used the slumber hex to drop some incredibly nasty save or sucks on BBEGs (most notably being the 6th level fighter we took on at PL 3 who would have mopped the floor with us but instead got stabbed in the eye while napping).

Most recently this took form in my character using blink to walk through a wall and drop black tentacles and a vomited wasp swarm on a group of bad men preparing to ambush us while the fighter murdered his way through a few foes (that I had evil-eyed down to incredibly ineffective attacks). I then used the healing hex (and a few pre-made potions) to top everyone off before the next fight.

Out of combat I've pulled off the DC 35-40 diplomacy/intimidate checks that have saved the day, done covert intelligence gathering (because threefold aspect is broken and amazing), and built a variety of half-price magical items (I took craft wondrous item, forge ring, craft staff, and the cauldron hex). As such the rogue has a ring of invisibility, the fighter has strength and constitution enhancements, and I have a few assorted oddities of enormous magical potential.

Oh, and being as my character's background is the traveling herbalist/healer/merchant, I'm also the reason the fighter (who insists on wearing a foul-smelling worg hide) and rogue (need I say more?) are actually allowed in anyplace respectable.

TL:DR; witch is a great debuffer, solid crowd-control/secondary healer, has a great spell selection for crafting, and has more than enough INT to be a good skill-monkey. Tends to run the way of the hemophiliac due to d6 hit die and a severe lack of protection spells, though.


I haven't got my character sheet in front of me at the moment, but in our current Legacy of Fire game I'm playing a half-elf witch (along with my friend playing her half-orc sister). I've had some designs on one of the achievements in the campaign, to heal 1000 points of damage . . . so far at level 6ish it's slow going, but I've been fairly satisfied with my role as healer/occasional debuffer. I've taken Extra Hex, and loaded up on things like Misfortune and Evil Eye, along with Cackle, and have so far been pretty effective for someone who hasn't done a single point of damage so far :3


MrTheThird wrote:
Evil Genius Prime wrote:
Karameikos wrote:
Please share the primary role your level 1-10 witch is playing in your group: controller (battlfield control, area attacks), leader (buff/debuff/heal), striker (high damage dealer), defender (melee). Additionally, do you feel the witch's spell list (excluding hexes) makes a more significant contribution during or out of combat?
I have to say this now. Because if I don't, I'll hate myself for not saying it. These ROLES you refer to are a 4E thing. This is Pathfinder. Not 4E. Thank you.

Actually they are a table top RPG thing (for most TTRPG'S anyway) 4E just put a name to them.

Really? Wow, i didn't know that? What was the 'Role' of Anya Kovatch, my knocker ornothopter pilot and messanger, in changeling: the dreaming? How about my Raymond Jacobs, my sandman and former artist in wraith? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what Private John Andrew's Role was in our WW1 the battle of the Somme based Call of Cthulhu game I played at uni. Because i was rather under the impression they where three dimensional characters with goals, interests and skill sets, which existed independently of the other characters, and mattered to the game beyond the question of what their part in resolving the primary plot line.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
MrTheThird wrote:
Evil Genius Prime wrote:
Karameikos wrote:
Please share the primary role your level 1-10 witch is playing in your group: controller (battlfield control, area attacks), leader (buff/debuff/heal), striker (high damage dealer), defender (melee). Additionally, do you feel the witch's spell list (excluding hexes) makes a more significant contribution during or out of combat?
I have to say this now. Because if I don't, I'll hate myself for not saying it. These ROLES you refer to are a 4E thing. This is Pathfinder. Not 4E. Thank you.

Actually they are a table top RPG thing (for most TTRPG'S anyway) 4E just put a name to them.

Really? Wow, i didn't know that? What was the 'Role' of Anya Kovatch, my knocker ornothopter pilot and messanger, in changeling: the dreaming? How about my Raymond Jacobs, my sandman and former artist in wraith? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what Private John Andrew's Role was in our WW1 the battle of the Somme based Call of Cthulhu game I played at uni. Because i was rather under the impression they where three dimensional characters with goals, interests and skill sets, which existed independently of the other characters, and mattered to the game beyond the question of what their part in resolving the primary plot line.

+1

Just ignore anyone who tells you that roles are a RPG thing. Roles were something that came about in the 3X message boards as an attempt to help people playing the game as a tactical minis game. Then, when 4e (which more strongly emphasizes the tactical minis aspect) came out, roles were incorporated. Ever since then, many people have been trying to rewrite history and say that roles have always been around. I think these people don't realize that many of us actually lived through the history (early RPGs) they are trying to rewrite.


I was going to say much the same thing actually. But left it because i thought the point was made better as is.

I've been playing since I was like seven, and I'm twenty seven now, and the idea off a role was entirely new to me. Playing a wide variety of games, it was a term that was never used, or if it was, it did not refer to what a character was meant to do, but rather the role that a character might play in the unfolding drama of the game. One exception exists in my mind, and that is CP2020, where we did talk about characters having jobs to do, but it was an in character conceit.

The very names of the 4e roles feel alien to me, the terms like net runner, get away driver, fire support, air cover, spotter, face and inflitrator, they made sense in CP2020, because they are the terms we felt the character would use, it was relatively in keeping with the worlds we where emulating, but I have never read a good fantasy tale where the hero shouts, 'Dude, your a sucky striker.'

But cries of 'Where is our arsing net overwatch, fizzle? We're getting creamed down here.'


I don't think about roles so much except when it becomes an issue for our group's makeup. I've played my current character, a male human witch 9/fighter 1/eldritch knight 1 (he prefers the term warlock) since we were all CL 8 at the start of this campaign. The other players were running a half-orc barbarian, a dwarf fighter (axe-and-board, defensive feat choices), and an aasimar cleric.

Since I was the only arcane caster up to this point, I had to diversify as both a debuffer and a damage-dealer with what evocations I had at hand. A staff of fire found in a treasure hoard didn't hurt matters, but he was already stocked with a necklace of fireballs and a few backup wands gleaned from fallen enemies (putting max ranks in UMD every level).

Last night, though, the half-orc bit the dust and his player made the decision to resurrect the character but retire him temporarily in favor of his new human evoker. With him covering the bases on offensive casting, I get a chance to focus on a different aspect of my character - debuffing with hexes (evil eye, misfortune), supplementing the cleric's channeling (heal), brewing potions (cauldron) and crafting arms and armor.

For feats, I've mainly stuck with ranged attack abilities like Rapid Reload and Shot On the Run, since my Dex is 20 but my Strength is a mere 10. I did invest in Spring Attack to deliver touch spells without getting creamed, though, and eventually I'll pick up Weapon Finesse (rapier). In the long term, I want 10 levels of witch so I have access to greater hexes and can add more with the Extra Hex feat, because soon I'll be dipping back into Eldritch Knight for the 1:1 BAB, d10 hit die, and ability to take feats with fighter levels as prerequisites.

My role in the party evolves depending on the people around me, but I like that a lot. Being a rock-em-sock-em fighter or a gee-whiz-flame-and-lightning wizard gets tiresome; bard feels a little TOO specialized for my tastes. So for me, the witch is a happy medium between those extremes and a LOT of fun to play.


If you aren't going to give a constructive answer can you please make a new thread and vent your bile there? The poster did not intend to start an edition or "terminology" war and your doing so here is distracting from the point of the thread.

THE. WITCH.

If you aren't talking about a witch shut up and go elsewhere.

I've not yet had a chance to play one but have made one as backup incase my current fellow bites the dust. (made an oracle too lol).
I've been trying not to concentrate on any one sole role since they can have in their spellbooks any spell on the list. While not as large a list as the wizard or cleric it does have alot of room for variation. I tried to mix a little utility and some crowd control while using hexes mainly to debuff the target. (took healing hex just in case but healing isn't his primary focus).

For fluff

Spoiler:
Born in a cheliaxian village, he was run out of town for talking to a little fox rather than to demons or the village elders. Still though he was powerful enough to not get killed outright and was raised from an early age out in the woods. he has some knowledge skills- learned from wandering the world in his early adulthood but mostly has perception, survival and things like that. A fox is his familiar.

-S


My witch just hit level 3, so I can only comment on levels 1-2.

We have a Paladin, A Fighter, and a Cleric. We also have a Ranger who shows up sometimes, but he's missed the last two meetings.

We're a fairly close-range party, and currently I've been serving as the debuffer. My hexes are Slumber and Evil Eye.

Things my Witch has done:

Charmed a bandit leader and talked him in to letting us leave with all our gear after he ambushed us.

Gave a "baby" troll a -2 to AC and Attack Rolls, allowing the fighter and Paladin to mop it up.

Cast Extended Ray of Emfeeblement on a Bugbear, rolling well, and throwing a -2 to attack rolls on top of it. He ended up with a -4 to hit.

Cast Burning Hands on some goblins, including women and children (Paladin was not happy).

Put a giant bat back to sleep after we practically walked into it and woke it up.

Combined Evil Eye with the Cleric's Doom spell to get a total of -4 to saves. Planning on taking Pox Pustules this level which will allow me to make enemies Sickened, for another -2. This will be a total of -6 to saves, and when I hit 8th level, it'll go to a combined -8. Assuming everything hits, this will make enemies extremely vulnerable to spells (or to my sleep hex!).

Took Scribe Scroll. Spend most of my gold making scrolls so that my spells per day isn't so restrictive. No one else can use the scrolls, but they've been very helpful for me. Charm person doesn't really gain all that much by using my caster level instead of CL1 (just a longer duration), and for 12.5g I can make a scroll and never have to slot it.

I don't have any "battlefield control" spells, which I'm sad about. I'll probably grab black tentacles eventually, and I get flaming sphere at 4th level from my patron. The cleric is fond of using obscuring mist, so that's covered.

For 3rd level, I chose Empower Spell. I have a trait that makes Ray of Enfeeblement cost 1 less level for Metamagic feats, so I can slot it as a 2nd level spell, and deal (1d6 * 1.5) + 3 STR damage.

I also get 2 2nd level spells. I've chosen Pox Pustules and Blindness/Deafness. B/D is my only long range spell (130 feet). All my hexes, and all my spells, are 35' or less, which is not good.

So, next session, I plan to be hexing people for -2 to saves, giving them a nasty rash for a -4 DEX, -2 to Attack/Damage/Saves/Skills, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement for 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, or 12 STR damage, and then BLINDING them, for -2 AC, no DEX to AC, -4 on STR/DEX checks, and 50% concealment for my friends.

I am a debuffer. BBEGs beware.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
inverseicarus wrote:

I have a trait that makes Ray of Enfeeblement cost 1 less level for Metamagic feats, so I can slot it as a 2nd level spell, and deal (1d6 * 1.5) + 3 STR damage.

...

It's actually (1d6+3)*1.5 since the entire calculation is a variable of the spell.

That is, unless the Paizo developers changed the way it worked since v3.5.


My DM has ruled that "variable, numeric" emcompasses rolls and not modifiers.

I searched around for it, and saw people arguing both ways. Is there anything official?

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Calling All Witches All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.