hey everyone, was just helping a buddy make a witch, and picked scorpion familiar. Was just wondering other than holding spells for them, is there a point to them? they don't seem to do any damage or anything?
The scorpion can sting for str damage, is great for after opponents are subdued....
also +2 to initiative is pretty good.
I selected the scorpion for those reasons!
It is a familiar not an animal companion. What are you expecting from it?
|
The "point" of a familiar is something that all too often is lost on new, or off genre players.
A familiar at its best, is a second character. They have (or can develop) their own personality, make their own decisions, and have a fully functional role in ... whatever it is you want them to do.
For example, lets take the example of Dan and Ted. Dan is a young up and coming Tengu witch. He made a pact with his patron of trickery. He does not know his name, but knows only that this greater power is responsible for the granting of his powers. With this contract he signed he gained the services of a familiar to host, provide, and store his spells. It came in the form of a Male raven. Ted, while not as intelligent as many creatures knows a thing or two about the nature of his contract... that being that HE ALONE is responsible for the spellkeeping, and in fact has maneuvered himself into a position where he has begun to create a power-shift from the PC, to the familiar. Every morning Dan and Ted have their daily argument, "Ted, I get it! Just... I just want these spells. That's all." and Ted responds "Not buying it. Your mouth says Magic Missile, but your FACE says enlarge person... I understand you don't want to appear foolish but, those are my terms!"
Ted is mean. He frequently goes out of his way to pester, berate, abuse, and generally make a fool of Dan. Because he can get away with it. Dan knows that he has to deal with it, because the investment in Ted has gotten to the point where cutting the contract up and acquiring a new familiar would mean losing thousands of gold in lost scrolls, wasted time training the new familiar, and the two week "Probationary period" where he doesn't have access to his spells at ALL!
While not adventuring (I mean that loosely, as in not INSIDE of a dungeon) many players have day jobs. Dan works at a bank. Ted operates a fish market. While Dan sits at a register counting out poor laborers copper pieces Ted is striking labor union contracts with international merchant princes, toasting to the greater glory of the Osirion nation, and dining on the finest of exotic fish.
Not to mention, Ted can fly.
Not to mention, Ted can fly.
That's fine -- Dan can simply end the contract and Ted is nothing more than a normal crow (oh I'm sorry Raven) again -- yeah it's a bit of a pain to deal with getting a new familiar -- but sacrificing the old Ted for your new cacodaemon? Priceless.
They can deliver a touch spells for you once you reach a caster level of 3. But it will put your companion at risk. And who would want to do that? :p
Spectral Hand is a much better replacement at higher levels.
One more reason I'm increasingly finding witch to be 'less than the sum of its parts' in practice, even though it looks superb in theory. (I'm playing one in a game right now, and by level 8 I'm wishing I was something else).
I have been feeling that way witch my witch as well (level 7) until the last campaign when she was the savior of the day. Dispel magic was our friend against an insanely strong enemy with a butt-ton of stat enhancing armor. Granted, had to throw my hero points to replenish when one failed, but it made the main baddie hitable.
Some things a pretty neat, but you need to get used to the idea that you are likely going to be a support character.
The witch requires coordination with the party. You have lots of options -- but you have to plan accordingly to use them at the right time.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Flux Vector, on this one. We've been finding that the Witch is, indeed, less than the sum of its parts - or, as has become the phrase, hereabouts, the witch is the wizard's poor cousin.
A quick comparison between a specialist wizard (pick pretty much any type you like) and a witch illuminates the situation. In many ways - hit dice, saves, BAB, skill points, etc. - they're pretty much the same (too much so, I think it could be argued, making witches rather less innovative than the other new classes). But, where they differ, the witch is almost always inferior. Basically - again, as compared to a specialist wizard - the witch...
- can cast less spells (that is, no bonus spells)
- has no powers
- gets no bonus feats (including Scribe Scroll, at 1st level)
- and, perhaps most importantly, has a relatively poor spell list - that is, her list is very sparse, in comparison (especially, if you are using other sources for spells), and has way too many save-negates and otherwise sub-optimal choices. To make matters worse, a lot of the new witch-specific spells are kind of weak for their level or are geared toward nasty NPC witches, not relatively benign PC ones.
Then there are the patron spells. I consider the patron spells to be almost a bad thing, since, had no one thought of the idea, I'll bet *all* of those spells would have been on the main witch list (for example, splitting up the ability-boosting spells, so that each witch can only have one type, was just plain mean and feels at odds with their partial focus on transmutation). Compare this to a cleric, for example: domain spells are often ones that a cleric could not otherwise get access to (that is, the lists were not made up of spells that all clerics should have had access to, in the first place). And, to come at this from another angle, bonus spells added to a "known list" for sorcerers, oracles, and the like are a genuine advantage - no one would argue against that - but simply adding them as a possible spellbook choices for a caster who prepares spells, such as a witch or wizard, is relatively trivial (it almost makes me wonder whether they were originally planning to make witches cast spells as sorcerers, rather than wizards - they even call it a "list of spells known" on page 70).
Finally, on top of everything else, the witch's familiar is often more of a hindrance than a help, because of the whole walking (and very killable) spellbook thing. Really, if your familiar is killed, it's time to retire. Definitely a game-breaker.
All this, just to get hexes. Now, the hexes are nifty, for sure, but, in practice, they definitely do not make up for the rest (especially the inferior spell list). Especially at high level, they tend to fail too often and/or have minimal impact on the situation, as compared to similar spells. There are some exceptions. Healing, for example, is very useful at low-to-mid level (less so, later) and can even, in theory, be used to harm undead (although, in practice, getting that close to undead can be a bad idea for the fragile witch). Disguise, while not powerful, is quite handy, at least in some campaigns. And so on. In general, though, the hexes just don't tip the balance.
Of course, if you really want to make a witch player cry, compare a 1st level witch to a 1st level Magus. Just sad, really. Honestly, I wish I had had time to playtest a witch back during the playtest period before the book came out - I definitely would have suggested beefing them up a bit and distancing them a bit more from wizards. But, alas, it's too late, now.
Sidenote, about the familiars: Cute idea, but I'm not sure they realized that it weakens the witch, mechanically. Flavor is great, but it shouldn't weaken the character in the process (at least, not without balancing it in some other meaningful manner - Oracle curses come immediately to mind). Having said this, Carbon D. Metric's story, while amusing, doesn't really work in the game - familiar's are just too stupid and lack any real presence (Int 6, Cha around 5 to 7 usually). The book hints at the idea that witch familiars are more free-willed, but, if so, their stats should have been shifted away from the standard wizard model to reflect this. Another case of copying wizards too closely. Of course, given that making the familiar more free-willed might weaken the witch even more, I'm not in a hurry to change that particular system.
So, what to do, other than getting used to the idea that witches will tend to only ever get played once by any given group of players, never to be seen again... (as has been the case, here). We have a few ideas about how to both beef them up and decrease the similarity to wizards. No firm house rules, yet, but here are some ideas that have been tossed around:
- Give them 4 skill points, instead of 2, and add one or more class skills, e.g. Bluff, Sense Motive, Survival, and/or Handle Animal. This would also make up for the fact that, unlike wizards, witches do not gain access to all Knowledges.
- Allow the witch to cast patron spells from bonus slots, as per specialist wizard and domain spells. (I especially like this idea.)
- Ditch the Cauldron hex (which doesn't feel like a proper hex, anyway) and just give them Brew Potion at either 1st or 2nd level.
Not sure what we're going to settle on, but the general agreement is that something needs to be done. The latest incarnation of the Magus clinched that. As I said earlier, a comparison between them is just plain embarassing, for the witch.
- Give them 4 skill points, instead of 2, and add one or more class skills, e.g. Bluff, Sense Motive, Survival, and/or Handle Animal. This would also make up for the fact that, unlike wizards, witches do not gain access to all Knowledges.
- Allow the witch to cast patron spells from bonus slots, as per specialist wizard and domain spells. (I especially like this idea.)
- Ditch the Cauldron hex (which doesn't feel like a proper hex, anyway) and just give them Brew Potion at either 1st or 2nd level.
I agree with your overall assessment of the witch.
I like all three of your ideas.
I also think the witch would benefit greatly from having some more hexes available. I’d like to see some offensive hexes that use fort or reflex saves, or perhaps a few rays. Also, there are quite a few combat utility spells that could make nice hexes.
I was thinking about this some more, last night, and came to the conclusion that there this is one easy way to make the witch more effective, even without any class-tinkering: just give them better witch-specific spells (in the Ultimate Magic book, for example). I'm not saying that that this would completely solve the problem, but it would certainly help. One of the problems we found, in the APG, is that the pickings are just plain poor, when it comes to witch-specific spells. Nearly all of them fall into one or more of three dubious categories:
1. Spells that are geared more toward evil NPCs than heroic PCs. Actually, even unheroic PCs might want to pass on a lot of these, since they are really just plot devices, best left in the GM's hands. In particular, many take a long time to achieve their effects and, thus, are really only of use getting nasty vengeance and that sort of thing.
Example: Feast of Ashes. Nifty spell. Very flavorful. But it is really just a plot device spell, of little or no use to most PCs in a normal campaign (especially good-aligned ones), unless they're have a mean streak and are on a real vengeance kick. Cup of Dust is, of course, another good example of this type.
2. Spells that are at least one level higher than they should be, as compared to similar non-witch spells. Not sure what happened here. Paizo is usually pretty good at game balance stuff, but some of these spells are just plain inferior. Maybe they were rushed...?
Example: Twilight Knife. Two words for you: Spiritual Weapon. Sure Twilight Knife can flank and occasionally do a little sneak attack, but does this make up for its inferior damage, its use of the witch's inferior BAB, and (worst of all) the fact that it will only attack when the very-non-melee-oriented witch does so? I don't think so. But even if you consider the pros and cons of the two spells to be a wash, wouldn't that still make this a 2nd level spell, like Spiritual Weapon, not a 3rd level one?
Sidenote: It occurs to me that this spell is actually pretty easy to fix. Just allow it to be cast on other people, so that it partners with them. Linked to a fighter, with his improved BAB, it might be kind of useful, especially since the witch can then turn her attention elsewhere. And linked to a rogue... well, there are some nice sneak attack possibilities, there, obviously. Now, *that* would be a 3rd level spell.
3. Spells that perform a very specialized function that can often be accomplished with a more generalized spell (that can also do other useful things). To make matters worse, this sometimes combines with problems #2 and/or 3. Why would I take a higher level spell to perform a very specific plot-device-sort-of function, when a lower level one can more or less achieve a similar effect and do other, more PC-related things, as well?
Example: Rest Eternal. One word for you: Disintegrate. Actually, there are any number of even easier, lower level ways to get rid of a body so that it can't be raised/undeadified. And they don't allow an opponent to ignore them by making a caster level check (which, BTW, will inevitably succeed, if the raiser/undeadifier is patient enough). This also fits into category #2. Come on, 5th level for this effect?
And, of course, there's the general problem that the vast majority of the witch's combat spells (including those drawn from other classes) are of the "save negates" variety. At high level, we found that this was, by far, the biggest problem of all - far worse than any other arguable balance issues. It led to a vicious circle: witch wastes time casting spells that don't work -> witch switches to hexes that often have the same problem (although not quite as bad, since the DCs get a bit higher) -> witch switches to buffing party, effectively becoming an inferior cleric (and only for a limited time, since each person can be affected only once). The higher the level, the worse it gets.
To be fair, this problem has as much to do with the system, at high level, as it does to do with the witch class. As has often been mentioned, there is a problem, in the game, that critters' hit dice and ability scores tend to mushroom beyond their CR, at higher levels, resulting in inflated saving throw bonuses quickly outstripping PC spell DCs. Smart wizards avoid this problem by taking spells that have a reduced effect with a successful save (rather than no effect) and touch spells that allow no save. Witches very seldom have that option.
This also means that many flavorful spells have only a tiny window of utility, level-wise, since the save DC is based on the spell level and has nothing to do with the caster's level. Look at Beguiling Gift, for example. Cute spell. Very witchy. And, in a *story*, it would be a good "signature move" for a witch of *any* level. But, in the *game*, it will really be forgotten quite quickly, since its save DC will never improve beyond its poor start. Far too many witch spells are like that (although, to be fair, this is a problem for other casters, as well).
I remember that, in 3.5, Beguilers had a similar problem, but at least they could mitigate it, somewhat, with the "magic feint" ability (I can't remember exactly what it was called, but it allowed them to raise the save DCs, a bit, with a successful feint). Witches either need something like that or they need a broader selection of spells so that it doesn't matter as much. The latter would, of course, be easier to incorporate, with Ultimate Magic just around the corner (hint, hint).
Having more and better hexes would help a lot. the SGG book helps in that regard a lot. I said it during playtest and still feel the same way. Their familiars need to be tougher than they are. Do those two things and i think it helps a lot.
We actually house-ruled an increase to the familiar's mental abilities, mainly for flavor. Yes, I realize that, if the GM wants to make life difficult for the PC by having a contrary familiar, this makes the witch even a little weaker. But it just felt right. There is no story potential in a Int of 6 and Cha of 7 or less. And it runs counter to the description of the witch's familiar, in the APG.
We changed it so that the witch familiar's Int and Cha both started at 10 and went up by 1 every 4 levels (instead of every 2). Wis didn't really enter into it, since the score started at 12, anyway. As a general rule, we figured Wis would be left alone, as long as it is at least 10 (which is almost always the case, anyway). Some of us thought it should maybe improve, slowly, as well, but that's still undecided as a long-term change.
In practice, this had very little mechanical effect on the game, but it just felt a lot better, story-wise. I don't think it made the witch any tougher or weaker, really, since the familiar in question was generally helpful but occasionally... shall we say, opinionated (never enough to refuse spells, though - that would just be cruel).
|
|
Having more and better hexes would help a lot. the SGG book helps in that regard a lot. I said it during playtest and still feel the same way. Their familiars need to be tougher than they are. Do those two things and i think it helps a lot.We actually house-ruled an increase to the familiar's mental abilities, mainly for flavor. Yes, I realize that, if the GM wants to make life difficult for the PC by having a contrary familiar, this makes the witch even a little weaker. But it just felt right. There is no story potential in a Int of 6 and Cha of 7 or less. And it runs counter to the description of the witch's familiar, in the APG.
We changed it so that the witch familiar's Int and Cha both started at 10 and went up by 1 every 4 levels (instead of every 2). Wis didn't really enter into it, since the score started at 12, anyway. As a general rule, we figured Wis would be left alone, as long as it is at least 10 (which is almost always the case, anyway). Some of us thought it should maybe improve, slowly, as well, but that's still undecided as a long-term change.
In practice, this had very little mechanical effect on the game, but it just felt a lot better, story-wise. I don't think it made the witch any tougher or weaker, really, since the familiar in question was generally helpful but occasionally... shall we say, opinionated (never enough to refuse spells, though - that would just be cruel).
A smarter familiar would help. I still think it needs to be tougher aka live longer. It is just IMHO way to important to a witch and a major issue if they die.
A smarter familiar would help. I still think it needs to be tougher aka live longer. It is just IMHO way to important to a witch and a major issue if they die.
Yeah, no argument here. I merely mentioned that mental ability boost as a story enhancement. Doesn't help the familiar's survivability all the much. Of course, this is a problem for wizards, as well, but I never worried as much about it for them, as it wasn't nearly as important. The witch set-up is exactly the sort of weakness mechanic that I usually recommend fervently avoiding in any rpg. I mean, if the weakness never comes up, it's kind of meaningless. But if it does come up, the character is effectively crippled and probably out of the game. No win, either way.
As for how to improve familiars... That's actually trickier than it sounds, since you don't want to step on animal companions' toes. I'd think the best way would be to up their defenses but not their offenses. Make it less likely that they will die accidentally, as long as the witch doesn't do something stupid. Or leave that alone and just make it easier to replace the lost spells (okay, not very satisfying as a story-based answer, but it works, mechanically).
|
|
A smarter familiar would help. I still think it needs to be tougher aka live longer. It is just IMHO way to important to a witch and a major issue if they die.Yeah, no argument here. I merely mentioned that mental ability boost as a story enhancement. Doesn't help the familiar's survivability all the much. Of course, this is a problem for wizards, as well, but I never worried as much about it for them, as it wasn't nearly as important. The witch set-up is exactly the sort of weakness mechanic that I usually recommend fervently avoiding in any rpg. I mean, if the weakness never comes up, it's kind of meaningless. But if it does come up, the character is effectively crippled and probably out of the game. No win, either way.
As for how to improve familiars... That's actually trickier than it sounds, since you don't want to step on animal companions' toes. I'd think the best way would be to up their defenses but not their offenses. Make it less likely that they will die accidentally, as long as the witch doesn't do something stupid. Or leave that alone and just make it easier to replace the lost spells (okay, not very satisfying as a story-based answer, but it works, mechanically).
Actually during play test someone suggested a interesting fix and very witchy. If the familiar dies it just shows up later in X number of hours. I think it was suggested rolling 3d8. Anyways the same familiar would just come from around a corner perhaps in a dungeon from ahead of the party and walk back to her witch. With no lose of spells other than the number of hours it was actually gone.
I thought that was a very cool way to handle it, since the familiars are sent by the witches patron who apparently has the powers to empower the witch so why not make sure their servant sent to guide the witch is something a bit more and or able to bring them back to life or what have you. Leaving how or why the familiar comes back a mystery, I think would help sell the unnatural aspect of the witch.
I personally think a lot of the problem systemic, and not limited to witches: it's a problem with "save or lose" spells in general. It just hurts wiches more, near-cripplingly more, because the witch spell list and hex list both are heavily invested in "save or lose" effects. ... My opinion is that spell save DCs in general should probably be reconsidered, maybe to 10 + 1/2 caster level + primary stat bonus.
That's pretty much my feeling, as well. As you say, it's a problem for all spellcasters, but it's a crippling one for the witch, who has such a narrow spell focus. Not sure how I feel about the 10 + 1/2 caster level + primary stat bonus method. My gut instinct is that it should work well, since that's the mechanic most critters use, anyway (which just puts everyone on roughly equal footing). In a way, I'm surprised that didn't come up earlier as a viable option, during the move from 3 to 3.5 or 3.5 to PF. Still, it would have some pretty sweeping effects, so I'd have to ponder it a bit.
On the less extreme front, one of our GMs has already changed the Spell Focus bonus back to +2, as it used to be, pre-3.5, and I think I'll do the same, the next time I ref. It just makes sense, really, when you look at the other ability-based feats, e.g. Toughness, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Dodge, etc. etc. All of them add a bonus, in one ability-related area, equivalent to what you would get if the ability was raised by either +2 or +4 (depending on the narrowness of the focus). Why should Spell Focus be any different? Really, if the bonus is only +1, it should apply to *all* schools. You could then have a School Focus feat that adds +2 for a single school. Seems kind of obvious, really. And it takes at least a small step toward fixing the problem we've been discussing - for everyone, not just witches.
Actually during play test someone suggested a interesting fix and very witchy. If the familiar dies it just shows up later in X number of hours. I think it was suggested rolling 3d8. Anyways the same familiar would just come from around a corner perhaps in a dungeon from ahead of the party and walk back to her witch. With no lose of spells other than the number of hours it was actually gone.
I thought that was a very cool way to handle it, since the familiars are sent by the witches patron who apparently has the powers to empower the witch so why not make sure their servant sent to guide the witch is something a bit more and or able to bring them back to life or what have you. Leaving how or why the familiar comes back a mystery, I think would help sell the...
Really, that might be the easiest, cleanest way to deal with the problem. In that case, you could pretty much leave the familiar rules alone, in every other respect (aside from the mental boost - I still stand by that). And, as you pointed out, it makes sense, given the origin of the familiar. We've been mostly worried about the mechanical problems, during this discussion, but the familiar fragility issue is an even more serious story problem. It just doesn't fit with the whole patron schtick.
I think, to keep things simple and consistent with other systems, I'd just assume that the familiar reappears at the next dusk or dawn, whichever comes first (hmmm... or maybe just dusk, automatically - seems more witchy). Not sure whether there should be any sort of price for this. I think that would depend on how stupidly the familiar was killed and would be more of a roleplaying thing. After all, a smart familiar that thinks it is being used as bait is probably going to be pretty annoyed. I would imagine the patron might be a little miffed, as well.
|
|
IF there was a price for the witch familiar coming back. What I was going to do was have the familiar inform the witch of a task their patron needs or wants done. It could be something really minor like, planet a new rose bush in garden x, or something a lot more involved, like using their hexes and spells to get the local major voted out and help a new one get voted in. That to me makes more sense than X cost. What the task is should depend on how the familiar died etc, but also sometimes mix it up to keep the PC guessing.
The same spell against the creature itself is likely to have at best a 30% success rate, and that's assuming the GM hasn't toughened it up by making it wear its treasure hoard or the like. In particular, practically no creature has a weak fort save, especially not in the endgame; this in particular renders almost all 'formerly save or die' type spells a near-waste of time for PCs to even know, let alone memorize and use - the exception being against "humanoid" opponents (but then, "creatures with class levels" are an even harder saving throw target...)
Wow, that's so different from my play experience.
Well, not quite. You're forgetting about racial DC mods, class DC mods, spell perfection, etc.
And, yeah, if something has a good fort save, you don't throw fort saves at it -- or at the least, you force it to save twice and take the worse.
Even if a level 6 spell like Flesh to Stone comes out to only be a 30% success against a marilith, tossing Persistent on that gives you about a half and half chance to flat out win the encounter. Not bad. If you did something smart like pick Flesh to Stone for spell perfection the DC gets higher still. And if we're talking about level 20 (which I mostly don't, because I find that probably less than 1% of campaigns go that high), you might as well throw quickened something else that wins the fight afterwards just for kicks if she's still standing. Maybe quickened hold monster, or whatever.
This is assuming you have racial DC mods (of which I know of zero in core Pathfinder),
Gnome!
class DC mods (again, of which I know of zero in core Pathfinder),
Sorcerer! (Although, if we're talking just witch, then no.)
and spell perfection - which itself only applies to one specific spell, IIRC. That makes it a questionable use of a feat, especially if you pick a 'save or lose' spell that's otherwise going to tend to fail often.
If you can read Spell Perfection, understand it, and think it's a questionable use of a feat then I'm not sure if we're even playing the same game enough to have an honest discussion.
Personally, I think by level 15 the game's already become somewhat silly, but the question becomes: If not Save or Lose spells, then what in its place?
If you don't know what a creature or monstrous humanoid is, it's safest to assume that it has a good fort save for its level/CR. Thus you just... never use spells with fort saves?
I mostly don't, honestly -- unless I'm planning to force multiple saves vs. Persist or Bouncing or unless I can blanket a whole bunch of targets such as with Stinking Cloud.
Persistent spell is a good approach, but that's entirely because it forces two failure chances instead of one.
I don't have any idea what you're trying to say here. Persistent Spell is only good because it does... the only thing it does? Huh?
Discussing things around the 'maximal numbers' shows that even in a best-case scenario for the player, things aren't favorable.
Except you have it backwards, because monsterwise, save bonuses grow faster than PC Save DCs. Look at it the other way around: at level 1 it's very possible to throw a spell that, if not for the nat-20-always-makes rule, some enemies would literally be unable to make. You can't realistically do that to anything at level 20.
I don't think a half and half chance to win the fight is that bad for a single PC, given that there are typically going to be at least 4 of them.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Persistent spell is a good approach, but that's entirely because it forces two failure chances instead of one. Mathematically it's the same as 'casting it twice.' Tactically it's the same as 'casting it twice in one round.' In that sense it's an overpowered feat, since it replicates having spell + quickened spell used in the same round on the same target, for less of a spell-level adjust than quickened spell and no additional spell slots expended. Edit - in fact the 3.x complete arcane supplement had a 'twin spell' metamagic feat that did exactly that - cast the spell twice for one slot. It was a +4 spell level adjust.
The crucial difference here is, Persistent Spell only forces a second save if the target succeeds on it's first save and avoids being affected.
So, unlike 'spell + quickened spell' or 'twin spell', it's entirely incapable of producing more than one spell effect per round.
"Save or lose" on creatures, well sure the individual creature cares about it, but it's not going to ruin a campaign if the creature fails its save. There's always the next encounter, and the next one, for the creatures and the DM. If a player fails their save vs a save or lose, it's much more of a problem, and much less fun for the player.
Well, not necessarily. Most of the former actual Save or Dies are gone or significantly weakened in Pathfinder.
If you're, say, a two weapon fighter or a marilith, I'd consider Slow to be a Save or Lose. Sure, you're still technically in the fight and able to act, but you basically no longer have any reasonable chance of killing anything you'd actually be fighting. That doesn't spell the death of the PC two weapon fighter, though; it just means his teammates need to pick up his slack that fight (or even possibly get right of the Slow somehow.)
Taking 200 damage from a Destruction spell though is going to outright kill the 'average' sub-20 wizard in one go. A rogue or fighter would probably survive it, but at least in the fighter's case, you'd target him with hold person instead to prey on his weak will save, the coup de grace him.
Please let's not turn me into CoDzilla, but in Pathfinder, wizard PCs really do not have less HP than anyone else.
But that's what I mean by 'save or lose' - something that if you fail your save to it, you might as well start rolling your character's replacement. Slow is borderline, since the character has a better chance of surviving it than he does of being reduced from say, 250 hp to 50 hp.
I'm not going to insist that my definition is right and yours is wrong, but I think you're probably going to get in some weird arguments because you have a somewhat different definition for that term than most people. (It's been a fairly standard D&D slang term for a good decade.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Right, but for 'save or lose' type spells it's exactly the same as casting it twice - if the first save fails, the second is irrelevant, the target's already done for the encounter. For direct damage spells, you'd probably want to use twin, or quicken, so you could push through more damage. But at that point you're taking a +4 level modifier and the damage spells you can 'afford' to use that on aren't necessarily good uses of 7th, 8th, or 9th level spell slots.I'd consider it smarter to go with Persistent Disintegrate as an 8th level spell, than a metmagicked up 4th or 5th spell, for example. Also probably smarter than polar ray.
Ah, but if I'm casting it twice, as through 'Quicken Spell + Spell', I can wait to see if they fail the first save, and then select a different target for the second spell, or choose not to cast it altogether if there isn't anyone else to hit.
Persistent spell is locked in. Same target, same spell, only affects them once. Not as good.
You can also use Quicken with No Save spells, giving you better options. For example, I'd rather quicken an ill omen to set up a destruction than use a Persistent disintegrate. Better, more reliable damage, with the same two-save benefit of Persistent Spell and additional re-rolls down the pipe, all for the cost of a 5th level slot.
And yes they do, wizards have the lowest hit die. They just changed that from d4 to d6 - a good change, but 20d6 averages to 70.
And added Favored Class. There's a cool +20 HP at 20th for any character who really doesn't want to multiclass at all, which tends to be the pure casters more than other people.
And added the Pathfinder version of Toughness. There's another +20 HP at 20th for anyone who doesn't need to spend a lot of feats on combat effectivness, also tending to be the pure casters more than other people.
And shifted the physical stat bump items to share a common slot. Effectively, a +CON item is significantly less expensive for a character who doesn't much care about STR or DEX. Guess which classes those are?
Etc.
It's a lot of little things that add up to erasing the HP gulf entirely and then some.
|
|
The problem with the familiar being gone for days is the witch can't memorize her spells with out it. Which means once the spells are used she is SOL until it turns back up and if you are in the middle of a adventure odds are the adventure would then be over before the familiar ever turned back up.How long would it take a wizard to replace his spellbook if it was dropped into a fire? Just for perspective's sake.
What I've considred is leaving the familiar rules as they are and adding one iconic item for the witch.. The Book of Shadows. which is an item that's very much like a wizard's spell book but instead of preparing spells for the book it is a book used to teach the famillar witch spells.
Depends on the level of the wizard. Low level ones would be screwed I agree. As they get higher most I know carry spares even if they are not full spell book spares they will have key spells in them. Or leave a spare book with the NPC's guarding the camp or at a nearby village or something. Something a witch can never do.
Whoah... I clearly missed a lot of stuff while I was off-line. I'm not even going to dive back into the save DC discussion, right now, as I wanted to get back back to the witchy stuff that started all this.
Well, okay, except to say one thing. While I have seen a lot of valid theoretical points on every side of the discussion, from a practical, real-life point-of-view, I have to go with Flux Vector on most points. Why? Because of actual game play. Lots and lots (one might even say, too much) actual game play, with very, very experienced players. What we've been seeing in our group is a definite move away from "save negates" spells, especially at level 13+ (high levels have become a lot more common lately, now that we are doing all of the Pathfinder arcs). It is simply far too easy for critters to make the saves, by then, so you end up wasting a lot of rounds and a lot of spell slots to no useful effect (just check most of the double digit CR critters, in the Bestiaries or in any PF arc, to confirm this). Yes, you can up with all sorts of feat tricks and the like to mitigate this, but should you have to? The critters don't. Besides, that's a whole lot of extra work (and a whole lot of choices you don't get to make the way you might like, just because you're too busy trying to be competitive), for what amounts to a marginal increase in your chances. Better to skip the whole business and just stick to spells that focus on "save = partial effect", "no save but touch roll required", buffs, environmental effects, etc. Oh, and even with feats and the like, it's still hard to make spells more than a level or two lower than your best ones retain any semblance of utility (as I mentioned earlier), which is a real shame, story-wise.
Note that no one in our group ever made a firm decision, in this regard, or, if they did, they never mentioned it to me. It just kind of happened, with everyone, as a gradual process of evolution. Survival of the fittest spell, as it were. Which, in my mind, is often the clearest indication of how something is working (or not working) in a game.
And, to bring this full circle, the problem is that witches seldom have a choice in the matter. Which brings me to...
I was thinking about the problems with the witch, again, last night, and the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that the main problem is simply the sparse, save-heavy spell list. When you think about it, the witch should, in theory, be a full spellcaster, roughly on par with a wizard, cleric, druid, etc. (i.e. *not* a bard, ranger, paladin, etc.). Yet, their spell list is even smaller than a bard's and pretty much as limited. If we assume that the witch is supposed to be more or less on par with the wizard in all other respects (i.e. BAB, hit dice, saves, weapons, armor, etc. all the same; hexes replacing powers, bonus feats, all Knowledges, and the choice of school specialization, with the resulting bonus spells), then shouldn't the two spell lists be at least roughly equal in size and versatility? Or, at worst, I would assume that a witch's should be about on par with, say, a druid's.
Anyway, I don't see that radical a change coming along any time soon, but it did occur to me that the witch could benefit tremendously from a spell list boost from other sources. With this in mind, I took a look at 3.5's Spell Compendium, to see what it had to offer. The results were quite gratifying. Even sticking to the witch's rather narrow focus, it was easy to come up with dozens of new choices, many of which get away from the "Will negates" mantra.
In making this list, I tried to stick to three criteria:
1) The spell should follow Pathfinder trends, should not require extensive rewriting to work in PF, and should not "step on the toes" of any existing PF spell. Having said this, I can't make any absolute promises of getting the last of those three conditions 100% perfect, since there were so many spells to examine and compare. Honestly, by the end of making this list, my eyes were starting to glaze over... If anyone finds any glaring problems, just tell me.
2) The spell should feel appropriately witchy. In mechanical terms it should be at least somewhat related to spells the class already gets, i.e. curses, enchantments, some illusions, some transmutations, some elemental stuff, "oogy" spells (you know, like Vomit Swarm), limited healing (often gained at a higher level than would be available for a druid and/or cleric), etc.
3) Ideally, the spell should get away from the way-too-common "Will negates" trend, since the class really needs more buffs, utility spells, indirect effects, touch attacks with no save, and "partial effect on successful save" attacks. Having said this, if a spell really seemed witchy, as per #2, and really worked in PF, as per #1, I occasionally fudged this criteria (so, yes, you will find a couple of flavorful enchantments).
Anyway, without further adieu, here is the list I came up with. With apologies to those who don't have the Spell Compendium, for obvious reasons, I can't describe every one of these spells, here. For those who do have the book, however, take a look and see what you think. I'm pretty sure that adding these spells would fix many of the witch problems, especially at higher levels. Not all, mind you (I'm still pondering the skill adds and patron spell change I mentioned earlier), but most. So, in theory, if we get these kinds of additions in the Ultimate Magic book, the witch should become a more enjoyable class to play, without altering the class, itself, extensively.
(Oooops... given length of this post, maybe I'd better put the list in a new one. One moment, please...)
Potential Witch Spells from the Spell Compendium
(page numbers in parentheses)
Level 1
Animate Fire (12), Animate Water (13), Backbiter (23), Ebon Eyes (77), Familiar Pocket (88), Moon Lust (143), Omen of Peril (149), Ray of Clumsiness (166), Surefooted Stride (216), Spirit Worm (202)
Level 2
Augment Familiar (17), Blinding Spittle (32), Chain of Eyes (45), Claws of Darkness (47), Create Magic Tattoo (55), Curse of Ill Fortune (56), Curse of Impending Blades (56), Dark Way (58), Death Armor (60), Decomposition (61), Frost Breath (100), Malevolent Miasma (137), Phantasmal Assailants (154), Phantom Foe (156), Ray of Sickness (167), Ray of Weakness (168), Reflective Disguise (171), Stolen Breath (207), Veil of Shadow (228), Wave of Grief (236)
Level 3
Acid Breath (7), Clutch of Orcus (49), Contagious Fog (52), Corpse Candle (53), Crumble (56), Curse of Impending Blades, Mass (57), Darkfire (59), Enhance Familiar (82), Entangling Staff (83), Fortify Familiar (98), Infestation of Maggots (123), Junglerazer (127), Mage Armor, Greater (136), Mesmerizing Glare (140), Miser’s Envy (142), Nauseating Breath (146), Puppeteer (163), Rust Ray (178), Shadow Binding (182), Spiderskin (202), Unluck (227)
Level 4
Burning Blood (40), Consumptive Field (51), Languor (130), Miasma of Entropy (141), Murderous Mist (145), Revenance (175), Spell Enhancer (198), Surefooted Stride, Mass (216), Wither Limb (241), Wrack (243)
Level 5
Arc of Lightning (15), Crawling Darkness (55), Curse of Ill Fortune, Mass (56), Dimension Door, Greater (64), Doomtide (70), Graymantle (107), Illusory Feast (120), Indomitability (121), Jungle’s Rapture (128), Last Breath (130), Rejuvenation Cocoon (172), Shadow Form (183), Wail of Doom (233)
Level 6
Aura of Terror (18), Drown (74), Fleshshiver (95), Freezing Fog (99), Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability (120), Miasma (141), Ray of Entropy (167), Reflective Disguise, Mass (171), Spectral Touch (197)
Level 7
Arrow of Bone (16), Avasculate (19), Bestow Curse, Greater (27), Evil Glare (85), Hiss of Sleep (114), Shifting Paths (188), Solipsism (194), Swamp Lung (216), Sword of Darkness (217), Transfix (222), Withering Palm (241)
Level 8
Blackfire (29), Cocoon (49), Flensing (95), Ghostform (103), Heart of Stone (111), Maddening Whispers (135), Red Tide (170)
Level 9
Black Blade of Disaster (29), Drown, Mass (74), Eye of Power (87), Magic Miasma (137), Unbinding (225)
Ritual of Recollection
School: Transmutation, Level: Witch 3
Casting Time: 1 Hours (V,S,M 400gp worth of strang witchy ritual stuff)
Range: Touch
Target: one familiar
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None, SR: NoThis spell can be cast following the ritual to resummon a witches familiar. Once completed the familiar gains access to all of the spell the witch's previous familiar possessed.
This has possibilities, but there are some problems. First, the level and cost seem kind of high. What are 1st to 4th level witches supposed to do? They won't ever reach 5th level without spells. And, come to think of it, how will the witch prepare this spell, without her familiar? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing she would want to permanently devote a slot to, so you've got a Catch-22, here.
To be honest, I prefer more of a roleplaying cost for losing a familiar. As I said earlier, that allows the GM to tailor it to suit the situation. Stupid death = annoyed familiar. Accidental death = well... slightly less annoyed familiar. And, of course, there is already a price, in that the witch can't prepare spells while the familiar is gone (or benefit from the skill bonus, Alertness, etc.). As Dark_Mistress pointed out, this pretty much makes a full spellcaster SOL.
Now, if the ritual is just that - not a spell, but simply a sort of invocation that can be used by any level witch, with minimal GP cost - then I have no problem with the idea. You know, an apology to the patron. Probably done at midnight or something like that. Works for me.