| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the class, but the fluff behind it (specifically, the way they get their powers) doesn't fit the campaign setting I'm creating. I'd rather have witches as practitioners of an older style of magic in this particular world. That means removing the requirement for a familiar and replacing it with a spellbook. How would this effect game balance, seeing as how the familiar is a major part of the class?
I love the class, but the fluff behind it (specifically, the way they get their powers) doesn't fit the campaign setting I'm creating. I'd rather have witches as practitioners of an older style of magic in this particular world. That means removing the requirement for a familiar and replacing it with a spellbook. How would this effect game balance, seeing as how the familiar is a major part of the class?
Well it wouldn't really hurt the class. Its just a flavor mechanic. Wether you learn spells from a book or a familiar wont change the power level of the witch. I dont really understand why a familiar doesn't work. A witch with a raven or a wolf is almost iconic. But changing it to a book wont affect much.
Crunch-wise (if I recall correctly - I'm away from my books right now), aside from being her spellbook, the witch's familiar is just like the wizard's (or arcane sorcerer's) familiar. So I think that replacing the witch class' familiar with a spellbook won't be that unbalancing.
Actually, since such a witch would be losing the other common uses of a familiar (e.g., spying, keeping watch), maybe she should get something else to replace that class feature. Possibly the same arcane bond with an item that a wizard could get, or maybe something completely different (connected with the patron?).
Edit: Ninja'ed! :)
I love the class, but the fluff behind it (specifically, the way they get their powers) doesn't fit the campaign setting I'm creating. I'd rather have witches as practitioners of an older style of magic in this particular world. That means removing the requirement for a familiar and replacing it with a spellbook. How would this effect game balance, seeing as how the familiar is a major part of the class?Well it wouldn't really hurt the class. Its just a flavor mechanic. Wether you learn spells from a book or a familiar wont change the power level of the witch. I dont really understand why a familiar doesn't work. A witch with a raven or a wolf is almost iconic. But changing it to a book wont affect much.
I'm fine with them being able to summon a familiar, I just don't want it mandatory. The issue is that, for this specific campaign setting, the idea of a witch getting her powers from a mysterious patron doesn't fit. It fits better as the oldest and most mysterious of magical traditions.
Crunch-wise (if I recall correctly - I'm away from my books right now), aside from being her spellbook, the witch's familiar is just like the wizard's (or arcane sorcerer's) familiar. So I think that replacing the witch class' familiar with a spellbook won't be that unbalancing.
Actually, since such a witch would be losing the other common uses of a familiar (e.g., spying, keeping watch), maybe she should get something else to replace that class feature. Possibly the same arcane bond with an item that a wizard could get, or maybe something completely different (connected with the patron?).
Edit: Ninja'ed! :)
Arcane bond works. The reason I want to pull the familiar is because the patron doesn't fit the campaign setting as the source of their powers. I want to replace the patron with a focus that does the same thing crunch-wise (gives extra spells), but has no RP effect.
|
I love the class, but the fluff behind it (specifically, the way they get their powers) doesn't fit the campaign setting I'm creating. I'd rather have witches as practitioners of an older style of magic in this particular world. That means removing the requirement for a familiar and replacing it with a spellbook. How would this effect game balance, seeing as how the familiar is a major part of the class?
I don't think it would affect it much at all. Check out the Gravewalker archetype: it basically replaces the familiar with an object (a spell poppet), and I don't see how a spellbook would be particularly different. You'd just need to come up with an idea to explain their patron class ability and where the bonus familiar spells come from.
It is one of their balancing factors. They lose it, they are screwed. In fact, it's basically their only balancing factor.
It is one of their balancing factors. They lose it, they are screwed. In fact, it's basically their only balancing factor.
A lot of people don't target the witches familiar.
It is one of their balancing factors. They lose it, they are screwed. In fact, it's basically their only balancing factor.A lot of people don't target the witches familiar.
And? Doesn't change the fact that that's basically the only balancing factor.
And? Doesn't change the fact that that's basically the only balancing factor.It is one of their balancing factors. They lose it, they are screwed. In fact, it's basically their only balancing factor.A lot of people don't target the witches familiar.
Could you explain?
That doesn't remove the risk entirely... there's AOE spell effects, breath weapons, environmental hazards, etc.It is one of their balancing factors. They lose it, they are screwed. In fact, it's basically their only balancing factor.A lot of people don't target the witches familiar.
So, the familiar is important to balance? How much so?
The familliar is a two edged sword. It brings utility to the witch and a weak spot. losing the familliar means losing the bulk of your learned spells. It also means no preparing spells at all unless it's raised or replaced.So, the familiar is important to balance? How much so?That doesn't remove the risk entirely... there's AOE spell effects, breath weapons, environmental hazards, etc.It is one of their balancing factors. They lose it, they are screwed. In fact, it's basically their only balancing factor.A lot of people don't target the witches familiar.
How big of a weak spot it is usually?
And? Doesn't change the fact that that's basically the only balancing factor.It is one of their balancing factors. They lose it, they are screwed. In fact, it's basically their only balancing factor.A lot of people don't target the witches familiar.
The witch's familiar is less of a balancing factor than a wizard's spellbook as they retain their hexes and even less so really than a fighter's sword. The familiar also never needs to be near combat and can in open areas can fly far above the party if it is a concern. Actual access to their familiar should never be a balancing factor; the balance from it is utterly binary - either the player is able to enjoy their character through access to their class features or they can't. It balances in so far as limiting spells known, which the OP seems to intend to maintain.
The spell storing aspect of the familiar is mainly flavour, a book/staff/crystal ball/lucky shoe would serve just as well or even no spellbook at all. The witch's spell list is less diverse than the wizard's and in many ways closer in power to a cleric or druid who gain access to their entire list.
I love the class, but the fluff behind it (specifically, the way they get their powers) doesn't fit the campaign setting I'm creating. I'd rather have witches as practitioners of an older style of magic in this particular world. That means removing the requirement for a familiar and replacing it with a spellbook. How would this effect game balance, seeing as how the familiar is a major part of the class?
Replacing a familiar with a spellbook mainly removes the "mini-character" the witch has. She can't send a familiar out to do minor tasks- the aformentioned lookout and spy, but also "bring us some tinder," "entertain those kids while we talk to the gendarmes," "get the key for my shackles!" and the like. It also removes a potential wealth of roleplaying opportunities from people who actually treat their familiar like a second character- it's essentially a second personality that some people can play off. If the players don't usually do that, no big loss- if they usually like that thing, there may be other classes for them.
Mechanically, I believe that the range of many Hexes gets shortened, since the Familiar can deliver any that require touch at 3rd level or so. A few hexes seem more likely to be delivered with a degree of stealth the Witch may not have, but a smaller Familiar might accomplish.
If the "fluff" is the only thing you dislike, I'd recommend looking for a way to re-fluff it first- the Patron might instead simply be a thematic talent they have in their magic instead of favor from supernatural entities.
The witch familiar is a major part of the class, however it's not a good or well thought-out one.
I've seen three witches played, now, and not one of them ever sent their familiar on any minor tasks. The risk of losing all your spells is far too crippling.
That said, the witch spell list falls short of the witch hexes.
Keep the familiar and give the witch a spellbook, both as per wizards; nothing will go wrong.
Wizards still get more and better spells.
Witches still get hexes.
|
My wife, who only has played Witch characters, did not like how the powers were attained either so we just made the change you were talking about in the OP but she kept the familiar. Her powers come from "A lost age" and everything else is just as written. /shrug It didn't change a darned thing but it made her feel better about the class, and her fun trumps any rules lawyering to me.
Another kind of house rule we use is familiars(and spellbooks/arcane bonded jewelry) are pretty much immune to events unless it is very specifically stated the action can pose a risk. Sending in a raven to deliver a touch attack makes it a viable opponent. Otherwise, the are killed only if she is.
The only time I would change this is for a specific plot device, but this eliminated her worry of wandering monster #3 shooting her fox with an arrow and ruining her fun.
I love the class, but the fluff behind it (specifically, the way they get their powers) doesn't fit the campaign setting I'm creating. I'd rather have witches as practitioners of an older style of magic in this particular world. That means removing the requirement for a familiar and replacing it with a spellbook. How would this effect game balance, seeing as how the familiar is a major part of the class?Replacing a familiar with a spellbook mainly removes the "mini-character" the witch has. She can't send a familiar out to do minor tasks- the aformentioned lookout and spy, but also "bring us some tinder," "entertain those kids while we talk to the gendarmes," "get the key for my shackles!" and the like. It also removes a potential wealth of roleplaying opportunities from people who actually treat their familiar like a second character- it's essentially a second personality that some people can play off. If the players don't usually do that, no big loss- if they usually like that thing, there may be other classes for them.
Mechanically, I believe that the range of many Hexes gets shortened, since the Familiar can deliver any that require touch at 3rd level or so. A few hexes seem more likely to be delivered with a degree of stealth the Witch may not have, but a smaller Familiar might accomplish.
If the "fluff" is the only thing you dislike, I'd recommend looking for a way to re-fluff it first- the Patron might instead simply be a thematic talent they have in their magic instead of favor from supernatural entities.
QFE
If you can replace that sort of utility (by means of a telepathically linked, permanent unseen servant, or somesuch) then go for it. But it can greatly hinder the class, potentially, depending on the player.
Just replace it with Arcane Bond, the familiar option is a bit stronger for witches since they can cast touch hexes through it, controversly the item bond seems a bit weaker for them, but nothing to cause any issues.
My wife, who only has played Witch characters, did not like how the powers were attained either so we just made the change you were talking about in the OP but she kept the familiar. Her powers come from "A lost age" and everything else is just as written. /shrug It didn't change a darned thing but it made her feel better about the class, and her fun trumps any rules lawyering to me.
Yes, I can see why the patron idea might not fit with the OPs idea, and having the magic come from the first age or something works better. But you could still use the familiar as a focus or a link to that age for example. So basicly just change the fluff a bit, but keep the class mechanically like it is.
|
|
I disagree that the familiar is particularly more powerful than an item. Sending your familiar out to cast a touch spell is likely to lead to a lesson in "how to lose all your spells known". The bonded item lets you cast spontaneously. The absolute utility of that ability is unbelievable. It's basically a "get out of jail free" card for the wizard.
But like I said, if you're worried about touch spell/hex usage (for god knows what reason, touch spells never get used anyway), look at the Gravewalker witch archetype. It allows you to use touch spells at range as a full-round action.
Just give the witch a tiny scorpion familiar and always keep it tucked away somewhere safe in her clothing. Same basic effect as not having one.
Just give the witch a tiny scorpion familiar and always keep it tucked away somewhere safe in her clothing. Same basic effect as not having one.
Except when you reach into your pocket to look for your keys, or that chocolate bar and forgot about the scorpion in there. Then you get stung in the hand and die, because you didn't learn Neutralize Poison yet!
Just give the witch a tiny scorpion familiar and always keep it tucked away somewhere safe in her clothing. Same basic effect as not having one.Except when you reach into your pocket to look for your keys, or that chocolate bar and forgot about the scorpion in there. Then you get stung in the hand and die, because you didn't learn Neutralize Poison yet!
If you piss off your familiar enough for it to want to kill you then you have serious emotional issues and deserve what you get.
Something like:
Every witch has an ancient book passed down through generations, a book of shadows. The witch develops spells studding the ancient writings left by her ancestors and adding her own. A witch receives bonus spells based on her family's traditions (same table as patrons).
If a witch loses her book of shadows she can make a new one by communing with her ancestors in a ritual lasting a week and providing material to create a new book. The new book will have only two spells of each level the witch is able to cast and the tradition spells.
You can keep the familiar and lose the patron. The two aren't inseparable.
Something like:
Every witch has an ancient book passed down through generations, a book of shadows. The witch develops spells studding the ancient writings left by her ancestors and adding her own. A witch receives bonus spells based on her family's traditions (same table as patrons).
If a witch loses her book of shadows she can make a new one by communing with her ancestors in a ritual lasting a week and providing material to create a new book. The new book will have only two spells of each level the witch is able to cast and the tradition spells.
I very, very much like this, except instead of passing the book down through the ages, the witch writes her own. However, a witch's book has much more personal significance than a wizard's book, which is why it is more difficult to replace.
Witches may still summon familiars.
Something like:
Every witch has an ancient book passed down through generations, a book of shadows. The witch develops spells studding the ancient writings left by her ancestors and adding her own. A witch receives bonus spells based on her family's traditions (same table as patrons).
If a witch loses her book of shadows she can make a new one by communing with her ancestors in a ritual lasting a week and providing material to create a new book. The new book will have only two spells of each level the witch is able to cast and the tradition spells.I very, very much like this, except instead of passing the book down through the ages, the witch writes her own. However, a witch's book has much more personal significance than a wizard's book, which is why it is more difficult to replace.
Witches may still summon familiars.
How about she gets new spells by going into a trance and auto writing. Same procedures for adding new ones except the ritual costs the appropriate amount in materials.
I disagree that the familiar is particularly more powerful than an item. Sending your familiar out to cast a touch spell is likely to lead to a lesson in "how to lose all your spells known". The bonded item lets you cast spontaneously. The absolute utility of that ability is unbelievable. It's basically a "get out of jail free" card for the wizard.
Since new familiars know their complement of 0 and 1st level spells as well as 2 spells for every witch level you have (basically pick your level-up spells again) and all of your appropriate "patron" spells automatically, it's as much of a mechanical inconvenience as losing an animal companion. The only thing you totally lose out on is bonus spells you got from other witches- hopefully you haven't burned your bridges with old covens. Losing a spellbook is more devastating, really- you rebuild those suckers from scratch. At least a familiar can run if things go south.
(for the record, I do like bonded objects more myself, but familiars have more punch in a lot of ways)
For an example of using fluff, I built a campaign world where magic was an extremely picky thing and would mishap horridly if the gestures or words weren't right. The concept of researching your own spells was absurd, since making a mistake would cause such wildly unpredictable results up to and including death with catastrophic collateral damage. I didn't want to do away with Wizards, though, since they're the defining magical class. How would they "learn" their new spells when they level up away from a library or mentor, though?
To explain it, I decided they would search the dimensions for beings with better understanding of magic that were willing to teach them. To do this, they placed their familiars in a trance using a cantrip, and the familiar's consciousness would go searching and report back. Bonded objects were a more recent development, using a fragment of the spellcaster's own spirit and allowing them to search in a more personal way. The extra spell per day was a beneficial side effect (your previous findings leaving an imprint on it your spirit could access), and the disruption to spellcasting was the risk you took binding a fragment of your spirit into it. Witches were "lucky ones" whose sponsorship meant that their familiar had regular and enviable access to a type of spell knowledge. As a side effect, witches sometimes broke away from the formality and rigid authority of academies that Wizards prefer, favoring informal groups based on their feeling a part of a privileged few (covens based on patron). These weren't the norm, but were common enough to be a known thing to spellcasters.
To use an odd metaphor- Familiars would search mystic card catalogs for spells, bonded objects were like e-readers with poor search functions, and witches were members of a large book club.
Don't give your witches spellbooks, give them grimoires.
I mean there's like five or seven things I think of cliched witches having:
A cauldron
A cat (familiar)
A grimoire (spellbook)
A large collection of creepy magic bits in jars (spell components)
A broom
A big pointy hat.
Sometimes a witch might also have a wand, but I think brooms serve like staves.
Don't see anything wrong with changing witches to use a spellbook/grimoire and changing their familiar into the wizard's arcane bond feature so they can pick between a familiar or a bonded item. (A cauldron or broom (staff), perhaps? Those are just suggestions. Maybe a big pointy hat.)