Can the Havocker still learn Hexes via Extra Hex feat?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Or no?


i ask because pathbuilder seems to suggest you can.


It is incorrect, the hex class feature is never gained for them, which disqualifies them from taking extra hex.


really wish something like this archetype existed for oracle, i really would have loved it if the spontaneous casting witch archetype was compatible with this archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Havocker is plain terrible, extending it to more classes/archetypes would just spread the pain around further. Why do you even like it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AVR, care to expand on why it's terrible?

It seems like it's a a worse kineticist with witch spell casting.

I mean, it looks like a downgrade to a normal witch, but the 9th level spell casting is still good. The kineticist powers...interesting on it. But you're not going to be as good as a kineticist because you don't have the rest of the class features to support it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about letting people enjoy things instead of crapping on what they like, AVR? Not everyone has the same tastes as you, or wants the same things out of the game.

To the OP, you would have to have the feature to gain extra of it, so sadly this one will never get the chance. Willuwontu is correct.

Sometimes when coding you miss things. This would be one of them I guess.


I mean, they can arguably get one hex, since the archetype itself doesn't explicitly alter / change out your patron (it alters your familiar and takes all your hexes), that should mean that you can take a unique patron. Whether you can then take Extra Hex afterwards to make up for it is... gray.

Might be worth a shot, though.


It really should have gotten gather power and infusion specialization, but it’s not the worst archetype of all time. A “problem” with the witch is that its hexes and spells tend to fill the same niches. But blasting with witch spells on the side allows for some interesting choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pounce wrote:

I mean, they can arguably get one hex, since the archetype itself doesn't explicitly alter / change out your patron (it alters your familiar and takes all your hexes), that should mean that you can take a unique patron. Whether you can then take Extra Hex afterwards to make up for it is... gray.

Might be worth a shot, though.

Quote:
A havocker’s patron grants her the ability to devastate her foes with a specific element. At 1st level, rather than selecting a standard patron and gaining patron spells, the witch selects a specific kineticist element, which represents the shadowy forces from which she gains her familiar and class powers. The havocker gains the elemental focus and kinetic blast class features with the associated element, using her witch level as her effective kineticist level. If the havocker takes levels in another class that grants an elemental focus, the elemental focuses must be the same type, even if that means that the elemental focus of one of the classes must change. Subject to GM discretion, the havocker can change her former elemental focus to make them conform.

You still have the patron class feature, but you can't select a unique patron that way, thus no hexes.

Grand Lodge

Havocker is actually decent if you think about using energy blasts. First off, you're a witch with 9th level spellcasting- you'll already be accounting for things with energy and spell resistance, and will have the tools a pure-energy kineticist dreams they could have.

Take pyrokinesis for example. A kineticist who wishes to ONLY use fire is in a bad spot pretty much any time they come against someone with high fire resist or immunity. A havocker instead just casts one of their spells they have prepared for the day.

I think they should have gotten metakinesis more so than gather power or infusion specialization though. Spellburn is fine considering the theme but some damage bonus through metakinesis would have been a warm welcome.


willuwontu wrote:
Pounce wrote:

I mean, they can arguably get one hex, since the archetype itself doesn't explicitly alter / change out your patron (it alters your familiar and takes all your hexes), that should mean that you can take a unique patron. Whether you can then take Extra Hex afterwards to make up for it is... gray.

Might be worth a shot, though.

Quote:
A havocker’s patron grants her the ability to devastate her foes with a specific element. At 1st level, rather than selecting a standard patron and gaining patron spells, the witch selects a specific kineticist element, which represents the shadowy forces from which she gains her familiar and class powers. The havocker gains the elemental focus and kinetic blast class features with the associated element, using her witch level as her effective kineticist level. If the havocker takes levels in another class that grants an elemental focus, the elemental focuses must be the same type, even if that means that the elemental focus of one of the classes must change. Subject to GM discretion, the havocker can change her former elemental focus to make them conform.
You still have the patron class feature, but you can't select a unique patron that way, thus no hexes.

I know that's what it says, but the text underneath it doesn't impose any restrictions, rather it says

Quote:
This ability alters the witch’s familiar and replaces the witch’s 1st-level hex.

Where do you then draw the line? The text doesn't really seem to match the crunch.


Syries wrote:

Havocker is actually decent if you think about using energy blasts. First off, you're a witch with 9th level spellcasting- you'll already be accounting for things with energy and spell resistance, and will have the tools a pure-energy kineticist dreams they could have.

Take pyrokinesis for example. A kineticist who wishes to ONLY use fire is in a bad spot pretty much any time they come against someone with high fire resist or immunity. A havocker instead just casts one of their spells they have prepared for the day.

This is pretty much why I liked the idea. It also fits my ideal mage, a being who has the ability for destruction indefinitely, while still having access to traditional spellcasting when the situation requires more variety. Like a Dragon Age type of mage (hence my preference for spontaneous spellcasting.)


Pounce wrote:

I know that's what it says, but the text underneath it doesn't impose any restrictions, rather it says

Quote:
This ability alters the witch’s familiar and replaces the witch’s 1st-level hex.
Where do you then draw the line? The text doesn't really seem to match the crunch.

And winter witch says

Quote:
A winter witch must choose her patron from one of the following patron themes: ancestors, deception, enchantment, endurance, moon, occult, portents, stars, transformation, trickery, water, winter, or wisdom.

Without saying it alters patron. I guess we could select a unique patron for winter witch then as it doesn't do anything to the patron class feature. /s

Sarcasm aside, the ability tells you that you don't select a normal patron, instead you select an element as your patron. It does not need to say it affects the patron class feature, it tells you what patrons you can select.


I had not known of this archetype..
and now I find myself rather curious!

Also wonder what if any other archetypes work with it..

This could be quite fun honestly.


Zwordsman wrote:

I had not known of this archetype..

and now I find myself rather curious!

Also wonder what if any other archetypes work with it..

This could be quite fun honestly.

According to Path Builder Witch Watcher also works with this archetype.


willuwontu wrote:
Pounce wrote:

I know that's what it says, but the text underneath it doesn't impose any restrictions, rather it says

Quote:
This ability alters the witch’s familiar and replaces the witch’s 1st-level hex.
Where do you then draw the line? The text doesn't really seem to match the crunch.

And winter witch says

Quote:
A winter witch must choose her patron from one of the following patron themes: ancestors, deception, enchantment, endurance, moon, occult, portents, stars, transformation, trickery, water, winter, or wisdom.

Without saying it alters patron. I guess we could select a unique patron for winter witch then as it doesn't do anything to the patron class feature. /s

Sarcasm aside, the ability tells you that you don't select a normal patron, instead you select an element as your patron. It does not need to say it affects the patron class feature, it tells you what patrons you can select.

Um, for clarification, you do have to pick a patron, but you don't get the bonus spells correct? I was reading you guys conversation and i got a little confused.

Also since the archetype says you gain the kineticist "Elemental Focus" that means the Havocker gains the basic wild talent associated with her chosen element, as well as the bonus class skills correct?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mako Senako wrote:

Um, for clarification, you do have to pick a patron, but you don't get the bonus spells correct? I was reading you guys conversation and i got a little confused.

Also since the archetype says you gain the kineticist "Elemental Focus" that means the Havocker gains the basic wild talent associated with her chosen element, as well as the bonus class skills correct?

No, you don't pick a patron. In the havocker text it has 'rather than selecting a standard patron and gaining patron spells the witch selects a specific kineticist element' which means you don't.

But yes elemental focus gives you basic aerokinesis or whatever.

.

Why I think it's bad: the effect of a kinetic blast without any class features supporting it (& 1/2 BAB) is sufficiently weak that it isn't more than an emergency backup. Compare to hexes which can be a witches bread and butter.

Infusions via spellburn are weak enough that you'd be better simply casting an attack spell of the level you'd be sacrificing via spellburn, rather than using your blast with the infusion. There is an emergency use case here too I guess - you can sacrifice a non-attack spell - but that's it.

You're sacrificing all of a witches hexes and their patron spells (which is crippling for a witch) for an ability which amounts to flavour and an emergency backup.


Syries wrote:

Havocker is actually decent if you think about using energy blasts. First off, you're a witch with 9th level spellcasting- you'll already be accounting for things with energy and spell resistance, and will have the tools a pure-energy kineticist dreams they could have.

Take pyrokinesis for example. A kineticist who wishes to ONLY use fire is in a bad spot pretty much any time they come against someone with high fire resist or immunity. A havocker instead just casts one of their spells they have prepared for the day.

I think they should have gotten metakinesis more so than gather power or infusion specialization though. Spellburn is fine considering the theme but some damage bonus through metakinesis would have been a warm welcome.

It's terrible and if someone playing a kineticist envied the Witch they would be playing a Witch. The picked the kineticist because they liked the utility powers and wanted to be good at blasting, not terrible.

Ask your GM if a pyrokinesis will be terrible in your campaign even if they where to take feats and infusions to help mitigate the issues and if so pick another element. Honing in on a specific downside for one class is not a good defence of another.

The best way to sum up the havocker is that it trades good at will abilities for a terrible one.


Math on why a kinetic blast is bad. Assume that you pick an energy blast, because hitting with a physical blast will be a problem given poor BAB.

At L1, your witch with say Dex 16, Con 14 and point blank shot is making a +4 ranged touch for 1d6+2 damage. Electricity is reasonably reliable. Against say a standard CR 1/3 goblin you hit 60% of the time and have a 33% chance of taking them out with one hit, 97% with 2 hits. It'll take ~2.5 rounds to take one goblin down. This is bad enough, but a CR 1/2 human zombie would last ~ 3.5 rounds.

At a commonly named sweet spot for D&D 3.x/PF, L6, the witch might be doing a +8 ranged touch for 3d6+2. Against a CR 3 ogre that'll take 3 rounds. Prepare to be splattered. Or a CR 3 shadow, with half damage vs. incorporeal that's ~4.5 rounds. Hope you didn't dump strength.

PFS mostly finishes at L11 and PFS players often make characters with a mind to how they'll look at that point. ~ +10 ranged touch, 6d6+2. Vs. CR 6 Ettin, 3 rounds, CR 6 Salamander 4 rounds.

At L20 you might have +17, 10d6+3. Vs. CR 10 fire giant 4 rounds, CR 10 young red dragon 3 rounds.

Those are monsters chosen for being CR about half level with no resistances or SR or possible buffs. A havocker takes 3-4 rounds to put just one of them down on average. Against equal CR threats expect them to take much longer. Hence 'emergencies only'.

Grand Lodge

Your patron gives you a few spells that aren't normally on the Witch list, and many of them certainly are good.
But the witch spell list is decent on its own, and many of the hexes a witch gets replicates spells she can already cast. Give that up for what is essentially a scaling cantrip? Sure, it's not an upgrade and ultimately is likely a downgrade for a witch but it's not the worst thing in the world. It's a neat trick, at the end of the day.


Other than a select few spells a long way downtown the road a witch doesn't get a lot of punch.

It is nice to know you can memorize some more utility spells and still contribute to a bit of damage now and then.

I would say yeah because it skips put on giving some options a kinetisist may have it's not that great but as noted it is a unique package so maybe for that alone not terrible.


avr wrote:
No, you don't pick a patron. In the havocker text it has 'rather than selecting a standard patron and gaining patron spells the witch selects a specific kineticist element' which means you don't.

I might debate that a bit.

"A havocker’s patron grants her the ability to devastate her foes with a specific element. At 1st level, rather than selecting a standard patron and gaining patron spells, the witch selects a specific kineticist element, which represents the shadowy forces from which she gains her familiar and class powers. "
"This ability alters the witch’s familiar and replaces the witch’s 1st-level hex."

The use of "rather than" and "alters the" rather than "instead of" or "replaces" like so many archetype use. Means that they're still picking a patron.
its just that the Patron is an element, rather than anything on the list. So they still count as having a patron for any feats or abilities that would require it.

So they still do pick a patron, just from the element list, not the patron list. Or am I misunderstanding the terminology here?
=========

As for a generalized thing. The concept sort of makes me think of some other versions of D&D's Warlock like thing. Elemental blasting all the live long day. with spells.

Wish it stacked with CArtomancer. But they alter/replace familiar

If I could have had both I could totally play Card Captors.
Well might just ask GM since the alter doesn't really conflict. and see if they'll let me just trade out an infusion for the 2nd hex from cartomancer.


Don't think anyone is arguing that you gain a patron. Just it's already been altered by stating you must choose this type. So you cant have a unique patron because you cant alter the same thing twice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Syries wrote:
Havocker is actually decent if you think about using energy blasts. (...) Take pyrokinesis for example. A kineticist who wishes to ONLY use fire is in a bad spot pretty much any time they come against someone with high fire resist or immunity. A havocker instead just casts one of their spells they have prepared for the day.

The result of playing that way is a "pyrocaster" type who multiplies in power when facing fire-immune enemies. Am I the only one who thinks that's a ridiculous character concept? Someone who's specialization is their worst ability? I mean, for a more comedic game where everyone plays some over-the-top joke-character that may work, but for a regular game?

Syries wrote:
Sure, it's not an upgrade and ultimately is likely a downgrade for a witch but it's not the worst thing in the world. It's a neat trick, at the end of the day.

You're giving up one of the most powerful non-spell class feature in the game for something that's de facto unusuable as anything but cleanup after the combat is already decided.

Does that mean the archetype is unusuable? No (it's still tier 1)! Does it mean you can't have fun playing the archetype? No! But it's an undeniable truth that from a mechanical viewpoint, it's a significant downgrade to the class.

There are plenty of archetypes that are technically down grade but are still cool because they make you shine at one specific thing, e.g. Virtuous Bravo Paladin (or as I call it, unchained Swashbuckler), and Beastmorph Alchemist (thanks to Deathsnatcher, an amazingly powerful polymorph character) - both lose a lot of versatility from their original class, but excel at what they specialize in. A Havoker is not like these - the kineticist stuff simply sucks, when a fight gets tough, you have to stop using your archetype's main point, making you just a "Witch Minus".


The 'patron' a havocker gets is whichever element of aether, air, earth, fire, void, water or wood they chose. This may not count as a patron as it is a 'kineticist element' instead. If it does count as a patron, only water has the same name as an existing patron and any of the others certainly won't be on the lists of eligible patrons which some witch archetypes have (winter witch takes your 4th level hex and so a water havocker couldn't take that archetype too; I know there are other archetypes with similar lists.)

Syries, I think you're seriously underestimating hexes and even patron spells. Hexes are something a witch will use almost every combat and are occasionally the only standard actions they use in a given combat. The witch spell list has some serious gaps in defence spells, buffs and to an extent in damaging spells, and getting a few off-list spells can help patch that.


I don't think Syries is saying that it is equal to hexes or is underestimating hexes. Just that there is still value in the replacement.


Witch hexes tend to be single target save or suck or buffs.

Kinetic blasts tend to be single target dmg, multi target dmg, or crowd/terrain control.

Agreed looking at damage (only) is not the right thing for havocker, but it is an option. It also means that fire might not be the best thing.


Doompatrol wrote:
Syries wrote:

Havocker is actually decent if you think about using energy blasts. First off, you're a witch with 9th level spellcasting- you'll already be accounting for things with energy and spell resistance, and will have the tools a pure-energy kineticist dreams they could have.

Take pyrokinesis for example. A kineticist who wishes to ONLY use fire is in a bad spot pretty much any time they come against someone with high fire resist or immunity. A havocker instead just casts one of their spells they have prepared for the day.

I think they should have gotten metakinesis more so than gather power or infusion specialization though. Spellburn is fine considering the theme but some damage bonus through metakinesis would have been a warm welcome.

It's terrible and if someone playing a kineticist envied the Witch they would be playing a Witch. The picked the kineticist because they liked the utility powers and wanted to be good at blasting, not terrible.

Ask your GM if a pyrokinesis will be terrible in your campaign even if they where to take feats and infusions to help mitigate the issues and if so pick another element. Honing in on a specific downside for one class is not a good defence of another.

The best way to sum up the havocker is that it trades good at will abilities for a terrible one.

A havocker is a witch who has offensive things to do when their foes are (more or less) witchproof. Sounds fine to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thnk I demonstrated above just how bad the damage of a havocker is. You need your enemies to be about 1/3 your CR or lower with no relevant defences to take them out in 2 rounds, 1/2 your CR makes it 3-4 rounds (CR = level is ~8 with a lot of variability) Consistent from 1st to 20th. Emergencies only, unless you just want the appearance of contributing without really doing so.


Indeed, it's a poor choice as a primary attack mode. But it offers something to do when you're up against undead, you've already buffed what you can buff and summoned what you can summon, and now you're looking for something to do besides play with your broomstick.


The creatures that are immune or resistant to your hexes are also usually immune to your spells. There’s too much overlap between them. The havocker somewhat fills that gap.


Slumber: Save or lose, mind-affecting, Will negates, no SR
Misfortune (preferably w/cackle until 8th level): Save or suck, will negates, no SR

Vs,

Electric blast: electricity damage, ranged touch attack, SR applies (similarly for other blasts, though a given havocker gets only one).

Vs.

Snowball: cold damage (more damage than electric blast from 2nd-8th level even without intensify spell), ranged touch attack, SR applies
Glitterdust: SoL, Will negates, no SR, area effect
Ice spears: cold/piercing damage (more than electric blast 4th-6th & 8th+ level) & special effects, Reflex half, no SR

Vs.

Light Crossbow: piercing damage (same damage as electric blast 1st-2nd level w/better crit range), ranged attack, decent range, no SR
Magic items: varies

If you just want something to do and don't care about how effective it is then pull out your crossbow and plink. Or use a havocker's blast, whatever, but that's a greater cost to be able to do. Spells are better of course - to the point where casting an attack spell is better than using a blast with spellburn. The misfortune hex does actually contribute even against undead. Against an undead horde use those spells, it's not the time to hold back.

A havocker has a certain style - until people start mocking you when you use your blast for its ineffectiveness.


blahpers wrote:
Indeed, it's a poor choice as a primary attack mode. But it offers something to do when you're up against undead, you've already buffed what you can buff and summoned what you can summon, and now you're looking for something to do besides play with your broomstick.
Melkiador wrote:
The creatures that are immune or resistant to your hexes are also usually immune to your spells.

Two-for-one reply: That's when you use your Element patron's Fireball, or about any of your Summer patron's spells. Since, you know, you have a patron because you didn't trade it away for a better cantrip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Indeed, it's a poor choice as a primary attack mode. But it offers something to do when you're up against undead, you've already buffed what you can buff and summoned what you can summon, and now you're looking for something to do besides play with your broomstick.
Melkiador wrote:
The creatures that are immune or resistant to your hexes are also usually immune to your spells.
Two-for-one reply: That's when you use your Element patron's Fireball, or about any of your Summer patron's spells. Since, you know, you have a patron because you didn't trade it away for a better cantrip.

Smuggled-in assertion: All witches should take one of the very few patrons that grant a blast spell. No thanks.


blahpers wrote:
Derklord wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Indeed, it's a poor choice as a primary attack mode. But it offers something to do when you're up against undead, you've already buffed what you can buff and summoned what you can summon, and now you're looking for something to do besides play with your broomstick.
Melkiador wrote:
The creatures that are immune or resistant to your hexes are also usually immune to your spells.
Two-for-one reply: That's when you use your Element patron's Fireball, or about any of your Summer patron's spells. Since, you know, you have a patron because you didn't trade it away for a better cantrip.
Smuggled-in assertion: All witches should take one of the very few patrons that grant a blast spell. No thanks.

Indeed. Personally I like thorns patron the best, due to the bullcrap that is wall of thorns.


willuwontu wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Derklord wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Indeed, it's a poor choice as a primary attack mode. But it offers something to do when you're up against undead, you've already buffed what you can buff and summoned what you can summon, and now you're looking for something to do besides play with your broomstick.
Melkiador wrote:
The creatures that are immune or resistant to your hexes are also usually immune to your spells.
Two-for-one reply: That's when you use your Element patron's Fireball, or about any of your Summer patron's spells. Since, you know, you have a patron because you didn't trade it away for a better cantrip.
Smuggled-in assertion: All witches should take one of the very few patrons that grant a blast spell. No thanks.
Indeed. Personally I like thorns patron the best, due to the bullcrap that is wall of thorns.

You. You I like.


Actual assertion: Havocker doesn't patch weaknesses any better or indeed as well as the features it trades away.

Also if you object to a patron with one blast in it, how can you ever support the idea of trading away the entire patron list for one crap blast. And trading away your hexes to boot.


Why I don't like it:

* The archetype doesn't change the primary ability of the blast to Intelligence, requiring you to have strong scores in Dex, Con, and Int (MADness).

* It does not give you the Gather Power ability (or Infusion Specialization or any other method of reducing Burn), requiring you to burn spells for every infusion you use

* You have a weak BAB, requiring you to take Energy blasts, which do little damage. You will never get a Composite Blast, so your damage will always be bad. At 9th level, you'll probably be doing 5d6+2 damage from your blast. That's about the same as Magic Missle cast at 9th level or Snowball cast at 5th level.

* You never get Utility Talents or Metakinesis. And those are good.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Actual assertion: Havocker doesn't patch weaknesses any better or indeed as well as the features it trades away.

Fine, but meaningless. Archetypes aren't required to be as good or better than the default class. See also: a jillion other archetypes people generally think are garbage yet are still fun to play.

Quote:
Also if you object to a patron with one blast in it, how can you ever support the idea of trading away the entire patron list for one crap blast. And trading away your hexes to boot.

I don't object to a patron with one blast in it. I object to being told that not picking one of those very few patrons is somehow wrong. We've already agreed that it's "suboptimal". Venting our spleens further in an attempt to make people feel bad about using an option (and consequently making the designers of said option feel bad, which I hope is not an intended consequences of such complaints) is actively harmful to the community.


blahpers wrote:

Actual assertion: Havocker doesn't patch weaknesses any better or indeed as well as the features it trades away.

Fine, but meaningless. Archetypes aren't required to be as good or better than the default class. See also: a jillion other archetypes people generally think are garbage yet are still fun to play.

I'm not going debate fun with you.

Quote:

Also if you object to a patron with one blast in it, how can you ever support the idea of trading away the entire patron list for one crap blast. And trading away your hexes to boot.

I don't object to a patron with one blast in it. I object to being told that not picking one of those very few patrons is somehow wrong. We've already agreed that it's "suboptimal". Venting our spleens further in an attempt to make people feel bad about using an option (and consequently making the designers of said option feel bad, which I hope is not an intended consequences of such complaints) is actively harmful to the community.

Literally no-one told you it was wrong not to pick one of those patrons.

They said that if you want to be able to do direct damage (the only point of playing a havocker) then there are spells and patrons that are better at that. No-one said that you need to be able to use those spells or do that damage. Simply that giving them up to play a havocker makes absolutely 0 sense.

Its giving up a feature with a myriad of options, to do a trick worse than several of said myriad of options already do better.

I don't think anyone is trying to make someone feel bad for playing said options either. Go crazy play literally whatever you want.

People are simply pointing out that it isn't a good option, you could do better and pretending it isn't hot garbage is spreading miss information.

EDIT: formatting


so you can spend a spell magic missile or get a blast with no usage limit.
you can get a wall spell or you can get a wall infusion and spells if needed.
you can get a sphere spell or get a sphere infusion and spend spells if needed.
Entangling infusion can lets you entangle and possibly root.
etc.

notice the trend? the trade (again) is not about damage: Its about letting you prepare different spells, while still keeping crowd/terrain control abilities. Even if it were about damage, its better than mundane ranged attack as it scales better with less investment.

*************
Just to make sure, its all about the usage and being creative. Doing anything else makes it substantially less useful. Although I wouldn't say its horrible.


Again I dont think it's hot garbage. Just not wonderful hexes. It's still functional. It isn't broken


I think I pointed out that the damage is so low that it's inadequate against opponents with a CR half your level. With numbers and everything. IMO this does in fact show that it's hot garbage, even compared to unoptimised blast spells.


Havocker doesn’t especially need constitution. The form infusion DCs are based on dexterity and the difference in damage per blast from constitution is negligible.

Because of infusions, you don’t really have to have “just one blast”. I imagine Fire was suggested because of its high number of form infusions. So you can fan of flames early on and not even care about your attack bonus. But almost every element eventually gets a decent dex-based form infusion. Which is why I said that what the archetype is really missing is infusion specialization, because you were almost never intended to pay full cost for most of those infusions. They are supposed to get cheaper and more easily usable as you increase level.


Compared to max lv spell or optimized martial standard action attack (weapon dmg +20 or more) its bad. Compared to mid level spells (typically 10d6 max) its meh. Compared to low level spells (max 5d6) and any martial standard action attack thats not optimized (typically weapon dmg +20 or less) its great.

Comparing it only to optimized max level spells and optimized martial full attacks few things can compare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
blahpers wrote:

Actual assertion: Havocker doesn't patch weaknesses any better or indeed as well as the features it trades away.

Fine, but meaningless. Archetypes aren't required to be as good or better than the default class. See also: a jillion other archetypes people generally think are garbage yet are still fun to play.

I'm not going debate fun with you.

Quote:

Also if you object to a patron with one blast in it, how can you ever support the idea of trading away the entire patron list for one crap blast. And trading away your hexes to boot.

I don't object to a patron with one blast in it. I object to being told that not picking one of those very few patrons is somehow wrong. We've already agreed that it's "suboptimal". Venting our spleens further in an attempt to make people feel bad about using an option (and consequently making the designers of said option feel bad, which I hope is not an intended consequences of such complaints) is actively harmful to the community.

Literally no-one told you it was wrong not to pick one of those patrons.

They said that if you want to be able to do direct damage (the only point of playing a havocker) then there are spells and patrons that are better at that. No-one said that you need to be able to use those spells or do that damage. Simply that giving them up to play a havocker makes absolutely 0 sense.

Its giving up a feature with a myriad of options, to do a trick worse than several of said myriad of options already do better.

I don't think anyone is trying to make someone feel bad for playing said options either. Go crazy play literally whatever you want.

People are simply pointing out that it isn't a good option, you could do better and pretending it isn't hot garbage is spreading miss information.

EDIT: formatting

We already know it "isn't a good option". It is not "hot garbage". And saying it is not "hot garbage" is not spreading misinformation. And accusing people of doing so is a personal insult. Knock it off.


I would hope we could at least agree that it’s better than white haired witch.


Great concept flawed execution on that one yeah.


Temperans wrote:

so you can spend a spell magic missile or get a blast with no usage limit.

you can get a wall spell or you can get a wall infusion and spells if needed.
you can get a sphere spell or get a sphere infusion and spend spells if needed.
Entangling infusion can lets you entangle and possibly root.
etc.

notice the trend? the trade (again) is not about damage: Its about letting you prepare different spells, while still keeping crowd/terrain control abilities. Even if it were about damage, its better than mundane ranged attack as it scales better with less investment.

*************
Just to make sure, its all about the usage and being creative. Doing anything else makes it substantially less useful. Although I wouldn't say its horrible.

Actually witches can't cast magic missile. I don't even think any patrons give it from what I remember.

That said, your examples are all examples of things a witch can do with spells, and she's probably going to have to use spell burn to use them with the havocker anyway. So either way she's using prepared spells.

Even without a patron in some cases.

You want to blast? snowball, boneshaker, Ice Spike - to name a few

You want a wall? wall of blindness/deafnesss is the only one witches get a base. But plenty of patrons give them, if you are willing to take havocker for the privilege you could take a patron, get a better wall and keep you hexes.

You want a sphere? I think you'd again have to take a patron.

You want to entangle? They can do that pretty effectively with there own spells.

Also glancing at the patrons to make this post. It strikes me you'd be better off just taking the elemental patron than playing a havocker. It gives you pretty much all the things you want from a havocker, but in the form of better spells.

And you don't lose your hexes for the privilege.

The trade for more flexible spells doesn't make sense, you get better options from several patrons you could just prepare and you'd have to burn spells anyway to use the havocker.

So to re-iterate my objection.

The havocker is a debatable trade off if you were just giving up a patron. Arguably not even that as patrons can give you a lot of what you'd like in the form of more effective spells.

Giving up hexes on top just doesn't make sense.

blahpers wrote:


We already know it "isn't a good option". It is not "hot garbage". And saying it is not "hot garbage" is not spreading misinformation. And accusing people of doing so is a personal insult. Knock it off.

I'm going to need you to define personal insult for me. My understanding if that it required you to target something personal about the person. And insult them.

I didn't do either of those things.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Can the Havocker still learn Hexes via Extra Hex feat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.