What sets Witches apart from other casters:

[Strill]

We've got a pretty good idea of the full caster formula so far. If you compare the starting class features of the Witch to the Wizard, they seem to line up pretty evenly, except one.

* Patron/Familiar <-> Arcane Thesis (Improved Familiar)
* First Lesson <-> Arcane School
* Spell slots and Cantrips are identical
* Cackle....Arcane Bond?

The one mechanical difference is that the Wizard gets some extra power and flexibility via Arcane Bond, while the Witch gets Cackle, which doesn't appear to have any mechanical benefit at 1st level. Given how closely the Witch matches the Wizard, this seems unintended.

The other main difference is fluff. It's not terribly clear how the Witch's patron choice might tie in with her personality and behavior. For example, with a Cleric, the descriptions of each god provides immediate inspiration for how a Cleric of that god might act. For the Witch, on the other hand, the there's not really any advice or suggestions on what the Patron might be like, and it's hard to be creative when staring at a blank canvas. For example, what does it mean for a deity to use a Witch rather than a Cleric? What kind of relationship is that? Also, why would a Witch with a divine patron share accoutrements and aesthetics such as Living Hair or Swamp Witch, with a Witch whose patron is fey? Are we to understand that all godlike beings agreed on a standard witch aesthetics template?

The fact that the patron is 100% up in the air also means that other class features can't play off the patron as much. For example, the Wizard's Arcane Bond changes when they choose Improved Familiar Thesis, and their School selection forces them to prepare spells of their chosen school. These tie-ins help differentiate individual wizards, constantly remind you of what Wizard you're playing, and ensure your character is always prepared to act out their specialty. The Witch's lessons here seem like the closest thing to this sort of flavor, but these themes aren't reinforced anywhere else in the class. A Sorcerer gets special class feats depending on their bloodline, but there's no class feat support for the Witch's patron at all.

[Corwin Icewolf]

I'd say a deity using a witch rather than a cleric is probably trying to sneak under the radar, either working towards something they don't want other deities knowing about or trying to do something that violates their alignment "for the greater good" or somesuch nonsense. Having a witch instead of a cleric=plausible deniability, basically.

There actually are class feats that give you additional lessons which could allow you to hint more strongly at your patron's identity. Also not all witches have living hair or nails, which is why those are class feats and not features. I guess that's about as strong as you'd get without going with some anathema system equivalent which to be honest would irritate me.

[thenobledrake]

Just because you get the same kind of access to focus spells doesn't mean the focus spells you get are actually the same.

Wizards don't, for example, have a school that provides a healing effect or a misfortune effect for an enemy.

[Strill]

thenobledrake wrote:

Just because you get the same kind of access to focus spells doesn't mean the focus spells you get are actually the same.

Wizards don't, for example, have a school that provides a healing effect or a misfortune effect for an enemy.

I understand that. I'm saying that the classes follow a common structure, and by comparing which class features correspond to one another, you can pick out glaring discrepancies, and speculate on their inclusion.

[Corwin Icewolf]

thenobledrake wrote:

Just because you get the same kind of access to focus spells doesn't mean the focus spells you get are actually the same.

Wizards don't, for example, have a school that provides a healing effect or a misfortune effect for an enemy.

This is true as well, and in fact the witch hexes in general seem a good bit stronger than most wizard focus spells.

[Xenocrat]

Wizard focus spells are the worst by a mile, and the hexes are both very strong (restrained by the sustained requirements) and very plentiful and flexible in selection.

[Temperans]

Well wizard is one of the weakest classes so it not hard to make stronger spells.

But yeah Witches feel too similar to other classes specially since they lost what made them so great before, at will hexes (even if they were 1/target without a feat).

[Corwin Icewolf]

Temperans wrote:

Well wizard is one of the weakest classes so it not hard to make stronger spells.

But yeah Witches feel too similar to other classes specially since they lost what made them so great before, at will hexes (even if they were 1/target without a feat).

Maybe at least some of the hexes should be at will then.

[shroudb]

a thing to note, is that in pf1 a lot of hexes were at will, but simultaneously, their spelllist was more restricted (as opposed to now that they have full access AND choice of spelllist) and they also had fewer spells than other spellcasters (while now they get the standard array of them)

i do think some of the options like twin hex (probably as a feature, because as a feat it would be a straight up mandatory pick) and etc should come back though. Although Hexes are ok at low levels, at higher levels spending 1 action per round for some of them and a focus point seems kinda weak.

I would love more options for the Cackle as well. Atm it's mostly an aesthetics kinda thing and the upgrades are either exacty the same as other casters have for Sustain or too small to matter.

[Salamileg]

I agree on Cackle. There should definitely be a low level feat (2-6) that makes use of it.

[caratas]

Cackle seems pretty rough for the class to lean on so heavily as its 'thing' - Most of the other classes have an ability at level 1 that sets them apart from the rest of the pack to do their corner of the party.. but cackle sort of just fulfills an incredibly niche thing that will probably come up once.. maybe twice in an entire campaign.. that makes it not feel too great.

[Shisumo]

So far, the witch to me feels surprisingly bland, especially as compared to how very flavorful and unique the 1e witch is in play. It concerns me that it would be fairly easy to build a witch that might be entirely indistinguishable from a wizard at the table.

The hexes were the heart of the class in 1e, but that concept is hamstrung somewhat by tying them to the limitations of a Focus pool. I keep looking at Cackle and thinking there's some kind of window for a solution there.

What if Cackle also allowed the witch to Refocus 1/ten minutes?

[Salamileg]

caratas wrote:

Cackle seems pretty rough for the class to lean on so heavily as its 'thing' - Most of the other classes have an ability at level 1 that sets them apart from the rest of the pack to do their corner of the party.. but cackle sort of just fulfills an incredibly niche thing that will probably come up once.. maybe twice in an entire campaign.. that makes it not feel too great.

I had an idea for a low level feat that allows you to use your Cackle while sustaining a hex to move it from one creature to another. Would also work to essentially apply it to a new creature if your hexed creature died. So if you only plan on using a single type of hex for a fight, you'll only have to spend one focus point and still be able to affect multiple creatures.

[Prince Setehrael]

I would honestly prefer to switch out Cackle with Cauldron.

Witches are the masters of Potion Crafting. I feel like it should be a Class Feature with some feats to improve them.

[Squiggit]

Cackle is more comparable to the Druid's extra known language or the Sorcerer not needing to use material components than arcane bond.

It's intentionally a fluff-first mechanic and you're not going to trade it out for something stronger, because it's not supposed to be strong in the first place.

[Strill]

Squiggit wrote:

Cackle is more comparable to the Druid's extra known language or the Sorcerer not needing to use material components than arcane bond.

It's intentionally a fluff-first mechanic and you're not going to trade it out for something stronger, because it's not supposed to be strong in the first place.

So that begs the question of what the Witch gets in comparison to Arcane Bond.

[Squiggit]

Wizards get one extra spell per day and Witches don't have restrictions on their last spell slot.

Whether or not you think that's balanced I guess is a YMMV thing, but it also seems weird to intentionally ignore the advantage the Witch has in that regard.

[Strill]

Squiggit wrote:

Wizards get one extra spell per day and Witches don't have restrictions on their last spell slot.

Whether or not you think that's balanced I guess is a YMMV thing, but it also seems weird to intentionally ignore the advantage the Witch has in that regard.

If you feel restricted by your School spell choices, then why did you pick that school? I don't see why your school spells wouldn't just be spells you would've picked anyway.

[Xenocrat]

Yeah, the basic Witch spell chassis is much stronger, no school restrictions, no really weak focus spells tied to a school restriction.

The wizard gets arcane bond and some different thesis options instead.

[Xenocrat]

Strill wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Wizards get one extra spell per day and Witches don't have restrictions on their last spell slot.

Whether or not you think that's balanced I guess is a YMMV thing, but it also seems weird to intentionally ignore the advantage the Witch has in that regard.

If you feel restricted by your School spell choices, then why did you pick that school? I don't see why your school spells wouldn't just be spells you would've picked anyway.

Every school is restricting at some spell levels. And the focus spell tie in is very restrictive.

[Dubious Scholar]

Witch focus spells are very open. Monk level open, except with even more effects.

That's their advantage - ideally they're getting more mileage out of focus than Wizard.

[Temperans]

But that's not the theme of witches. They are have more themes in common with rituals than focus spells.

And the fact still remains that focus spells are too limiting in amount to fulfill the previously at-will nature of hexes.

[Xenocrat]

It’s a new edition, who cares about previous paradigms.

[Temperans]

....the stated goals of same stories, similar (notice I didnt say same) feel to PF1, the fact this is an official conversion, do I need to list more reasons for why we need to look at the previous version?

[shroudb]

Temperans wrote:

....the stated goals of same stories, similar (notice I didnt say same) feel to PF1, the fact this is an official conversion, do I need to list more reasons for why we need to look at the previous version?

"Focus spells" are just the SU and SP abilities of PF2 though.

So, pf2 witches having a focus on "Focus spells" is very much in the vein of PF1 witches having a focus on their "SU" abilities (in both cases, on their Hexes)

Yes, you don't spam as many in the same encounter in pf2 as in pf1, usually 1-2 per battle until level 12, but on the flipside they are much stronger than pf1 (compared with the general "nerf" to the rest of the spells in the 2nd edition).

most of the hexes are also sustain based, so you can keep cackling every round to sustain them, very much similar to pf1.

So, "story wise", i don't see them all that different. "Story wise" it doesn't really matter if a witch was casting 4 evil eyes per battle or 1-2, what it matters is that "she's a caster that always uses her Evil eyes and cackles at her enemies". That part is the same.

[Ediwir]

A feat to make more use of cackle would also solve my current conundrum - namely, that I have no idea what to take at lv8 because all remaining options, save perhaps Improved Familiar, don't really appeal.

[Temperans]

Evil eye is one of the options and specifically one of the combat hexes. But hexes are not just for combat and focus pools doesnt translate to exploration or downtime usage.

Using cackle doesnt work either as you need to rest to restore focus points so either way you are spending 10 minutes doing what you could do every minute. Like the Water Lung hex which could be used on the whole party and lasts for a minute for each.

Also Witches focus is not on an SU ability it's on Hexes that are classified as an SU ability. You know what else was SU Bardic performances those are now cantrips. Unless you mean they should be 0 cost focus spells, then I'm with you.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Salamileg wrote:

caratas wrote:

Cackle seems pretty rough for the class to lean on so heavily as its 'thing' - Most of the other classes have an ability at level 1 that sets them apart from the rest of the pack to do their corner of the party.. but cackle sort of just fulfills an incredibly niche thing that will probably come up once.. maybe twice in an entire campaign.. that makes it not feel too great.

I had an idea for a low level feat that allows you to use your Cackle while sustaining a hex to move it from one creature to another. Would also work to essentially apply it to a new creature if your hexed creature died. So if you only plan on using a single type of hex for a fight, you'll only have to spend one focus point and still be able to affect multiple creatures.

I for one would really enjoy that mechanic.

[Xenocrat]

Temperans wrote:

Evil eye is one of the options and specifically one of the combat hexes. But hexes are not just for combat and focus pools doesnt translate to exploration or downtime usage.

Using cackle doesnt work either as you need to rest to restore focus points so either way you are spending 10 minutes doing what you could do every minute. Like the Water Lung hex which could be used on the whole party and lasts for a minute for each.

The utility hexes were to fill gaps in the witch's spell list, gaps that are your own fault now if you choose a tradition that doesn't cover them. And PF2 really tore up utility spell casting in favor of strengthening skills and forcing you to walk, swim, and climb places you want to go.

[Salamileg]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

caratas wrote:

Cackle seems pretty rough for the class to lean on so heavily as its 'thing' - Most of the other classes have an ability at level 1 that sets them apart from the rest of the pack to do their corner of the party.. but cackle sort of just fulfills an incredibly niche thing that will probably come up once.. maybe twice in an entire campaign.. that makes it not feel too great.

I had an idea for a low level feat that allows you to use your Cackle while sustaining a hex to move it from one creature to another. Would also work to essentially apply it to a new creature if your hexed creature died. So if you only plan on using a single type of hex for a fight, you'll only have to spend one focus point and still be able to affect multiple creatures.

I for one would really enjoy that mechanic.

Thanks, I'm thinking about homebrewing it if the witch I'll be GMing for ends up feeling lacklustre. Probably place it at 4 or 6.

[Dubious Scholar]

Xenocrat wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Evil eye is one of the options and specifically one of the combat hexes. But hexes are not just for combat and focus pools doesnt translate to exploration or downtime usage.

Using cackle doesnt work either as you need to rest to restore focus points so either way you are spending 10 minutes doing what you could do every minute. Like the Water Lung hex which could be used on the whole party and lasts for a minute for each.

The utility hexes were to fill gaps in the witch's spell list, gaps that are your own fault now if you choose a tradition that doesn't cover them. And PF2 really tore up utility spell casting in favor of strengthening skills and forcing you to walk, swim, and climb places you want to go.

Really? I'm looking at the Primal list and I sure see a lot of utility spells still.

[Arachnofiend]

Random idea: Change cackle to an action that forces an enemy to reroll the save on a spell with a duration - you keep the duration from the original casting, but you have a chance to turn the mild effect of a success into a failure (of course, a success could also get re-rolled into a crit success and cancel the spell entirely but so it goes).

[Xenocrat]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Evil eye is one of the options and specifically one of the combat hexes. But hexes are not just for combat and focus pools doesnt translate to exploration or downtime usage.

Using cackle doesnt work either as you need to rest to restore focus points so either way you are spending 10 minutes doing what you could do every minute. Like the Water Lung hex which could be used on the whole party and lasts for a minute for each.

The utility hexes were to fill gaps in the witch's spell list, gaps that are your own fault now if you choose a tradition that doesn't cover them. And PF2 really tore up utility spell casting in favor of strengthening skills and forcing you to walk, swim, and climb places you want to go.

Really? I'm looking at the Primal list and I sure see a lot of utility spells still.

Try reading their durations and how hard it is to apply them to a full party compared to PF1. As well as the 50% reduction in spell slots making the utility vs combat trade off tougher.

[Malk_Content]

Ithink its pretty clear that there is a perception that Witches aren't getting much that sets them apart. Looking at their Class Features they all just seem worse than wizard stuff (oh my spell book can die... great) despite how powerful they may be. Sure when you take the time to look into all the focus spells you realize those are potent, but I think folks are going to look at the witch and especially Cackle and go "well this seems pretty drab."

Cackle laid out how it is makes it seem like it should be something important which sets up for dissapointment. If it was just a line in the Witch Spellcasting section that just said "Witches sustain spells by Cackling, removing x trait and adding y trait to the Sustain a Spell Action, it would be far less of a let down.

My Sorcerer (Hag bloodline) was really looking forward to converting to Witch when the playtest dropped but after reading it just came away with a sense of meh. Its very dissapointing when you consider the other 3 playtest classes seem to happily merge a thematic and mechanical niche.

[Squiggit]

Malk_Content wrote:

Cackle laid out how it is makes it seem like it should be something important which sets up for dissapointment.

No it doesn't? Nothing about Cackle suggests it's important or significant. It's just a neat little ribbon class feature that for some reason people are absolutely obsessing over instead of looking at the rest of the class, which is really solid.

[Malk_Content]

Squiggit wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Cackle laid out how it is makes it seem like it should be something important which sets up for dissapointment.

No it doesn't? Nothing about Cackle suggests it's important or significant. It's just a neat little ribbon class feature that for some reason people are absolutely obsessing over instead of looking at the rest of the class, which is really solid.

It being an Action makes it pop out as something significant. Yes it is a little ribbon ability. But the presentation makes it seem like more and sets up for the disappointment.

Look at other classes that get unique actions as core features. They are all play style defining. Rage, Quick Alchemy, Confident Finish etc. Actions entries pop out as something big and important. Cackle jumps from the page, your eye is drawn to it as it separates from the surrounding block of text, takes more text than most of the other class defining actions and then once you've read through it you realize its functionally nothing.

I'm not saying it should be stronger, just that it doesn't really need to be its own action, and having set it up that way gives an impression of blandness to the classes mechanics (whether that is true or not doesn't really matter when perception could be shifted with 0 mechanical change)

[Rysky]

If you’re comparing Cackle to Rage that’s a you thing, not a class thing. It’s an ability with a single paragraph of text.

“It’s a free class ability that costs an Action, so it must be important!”

Um, no? Again this is an odd perception thing rather than something in the text.

[Evilgm]

Rysky wrote:

Um, no? Again this is an odd perception thing rather than something in the text.

It's not an "odd perception thing". It's a perfectly understandable thing. Most of the text blocks for the Witch look just like the text boxes for every other caster class, except for this obvious section with that enticing Action symbol in it.

The fact that most people read it and wonder "what exactly does this do" is exactly the kind of design issue Playtesters are supposed to highlight, so that the Designers understand there's a potential perception issue. They may decide it's not a big deal, but that doesn't invalidate the value in people telling them their expectations and disappointments.

[Lightning Raven]

Presentation sometimes makes or breaks one thing. I'm certain that Cackle isn't as important as the books implies it is. It's just a slightly changed and mostly meaningless change, but looks like it will be something that is the spine of the class.

In fact, my initial thought was that a Witch could sustain multiple hexes with a single action, so I went looking for AOE hexes or multiple target hexes. Well. Guess who's disappointed?

[Arachnofiend]

If Cackle isn't going to be changed to a marquee feature that does something cool and defining for the class then it should probably just be dropped, frankly. "The same thing every other caster does with slightly different tags" seems like an odd use of text.

[Malk_Content]

Rysky wrote:

If you’re comparing Cackle to Rage that’s a you thing, not a class thing. It’s an ability with a single paragraph of text.

“It’s a free class ability that costs an Action, so it must be important!”

Um, no? Again this is an odd perception thing rather than something in the text.

It is presented in the exact same way every other class defining action is. If you've looked at the core classes (also the other apg classes) and then come to the witch and it's the only class action that does functionally nothing. I understand it's a ribbon, but judging from my players asking if there is something they missed my sample size of 4/4 think it's meant to be something more.

[Bandw2]

Arachnofiend wrote:

If Cackle isn't going to be changed to a marquee feature that does something cool and defining for the class then it should probably just be dropped, frankly. "The same thing every other caster does with slightly different tags" seems like an odd use of text.

yeah, honestly, really feel like they could save the price of the ink on this one. it's flavourful, but i don't need the book to tell me i laugh when i sustain spells. I do it anyway because i'm a CE faetouched sorcerer killing people who wander in the woods at night.

but really this is so niche a difference, that it should be made more different or removed.

[ChibiNyan]

You could add an "alternative" Wizard school that gives you access to hexes instead of school powers (mechanically same thing) and sprinkle in <5 class feats into their pool and you'd get this class from a mechanical standpoint. That doesn't mean Witch shouldn't exist as a class, just that it needs to be updated to "play" different in encounters. They do have the familiar gimmick, though those things were gutted in the edition change that I can't really call it a positive like before.

Regardless of whether the oracle is good or bad, it definitely has very unique play style and considerations! Every other caster has a major gimmick that completely changes the experience of playing them.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Bandw2 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

If Cackle isn't going to be changed to a marquee feature that does something cool and defining for the class then it should probably just be dropped, frankly. "The same thing every other caster does with slightly different tags" seems like an odd use of text.

yeah, honestly, really feel like they could save the price of the ink on this one. it's flavourful, but i don't need the book to tell me i laugh when i sustain spells. I do it anyway because i'm a CE faetouched sorcerer killing people who wander in the woods at night.

but really this is so niche a difference, that it should be made more different or removed.

The real reason cackle works the way it does is so that Witch class feats can modify it without modifying the sustain a spell action it's mostly identical to- if they don't put a cackle multiclass feat, it would keep those class feats limited to base class witches.

[Rysky]

Lighting Raven wrote:

I'm certain that Cackle isn't as important as the books implies it is.

Malk_Content wrote:

It is presented in the exact same way every other class defining action is. If you've looked at the core classes (also the other apg classes) and then come to the witch and it's the only class action that does functionally nothing. I understand it's a ribbon, but judging from my players asking if there is something they missed my sample size of 4/4 think it's meant to be something more.

And these are all assumptions you are having aka a player perception issue.

Where does it state these abilities are super important and class defining? Can they be? Yes. But why are you assuming they all are/have to be?

And it doesn’t do nothing, it helps avoid AoOs for Sustaining spells. That’s pretty significant.

[Lightning Raven]

Everyone here is going by the assumption because every class gets their "thing" show right early into their entries, such as Rage, Sneak Attack, Flurry of Blows, etc. I would certainly think that Cackle is supposed to be the driving force of the class along with Patrons.

Surprisingly enough, both of them have no bearing on how I'll be playing the Witch.

[Rysky]

So a player perception issue.

A Witch’s thing is their spells.

[Temperans]

You mean the spells every other caster gets with no difference due to how PF2 list works?

Or do you mean hexes the things that should had never been spells in the first place and they get very few uses off?

[Sin_Dark]

Honestly I just rolled up a 1st level Witch and Wizard and you can barely tell the difference. At this point the Witch could be a Archetype as said by others.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

You mean the spells every other caster gets with no difference due to how PF2 list works?

Or do you mean hexes the things that should had never been spells in the first place and they get very few uses off?

They’re casters, casting is their thing.

Not saying they can’t have more than that, but the perception that Cackle is supposed to be the Witch’s main thing is just silly.

And Hexes work great as Focus, it’s what a lot of people predicted they’d be.