|
I am surprised that the Witch class doesn't have a vulnerability component similar to the Oracle's curse.
I am reminded of the Wicked Witch of the West melting when water was thrown on her, as well as medieval witch-hunter tests or ordeals (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal).
A particular vulnerability could be assigned to each kind of familiar, or chosen by the player when he develops the witch.
This vulnerability would further distinguish the witch from her spellcasting peers, and would reflect the negative side of making pacts with otherworldly powers.
I am surprised that the Witch class doesn't have a vulnerability component similar to the Oracle's curse.
Perhaps the answer lies in this initial assessment. Since the Oracle has it, and it is flavorful, the author's felt little need to "oraclize" the witch as well.
And also, as it stands now, the witch's great weakness, is the familiar itself. Kill it, and she looses all her spells, the entire library. Not especially convenient for a 17th-level caster to endure (with potentially hundreds of spells down the drain).
That, really is more of a vulnerability than the Oracle ever had.
|
|
Even so, there is a theme of vulnerability related to witches in history and fantasy that could be used to differentiate the class. That doesn't steal anything from the Oracles and their historical "divine madness."
Regarding the familiar and "vulnerability": A wizard's spellbook can be stolen, destroyed or lost. A fighter's prized sword can be sundered. Perhaps the witch is getting off easy -- her familiar and its spells (at least two per level) can be replaced merely by a ceremony one day later, costing only 500 gp/witch level. It's a pretty good deal when you compare it to replacing a spellbook, special mount, magical item, etc.
The vulnerability that I am referring to more closely follows "vulnerability" as defined by game rules. As in, someone with this "vulnerability" receives 50% more damage from a specified energy attack.