Why is witch its own class?


Witch Playtest


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would it not be better game design to make this a dedication feat line that could bolt a mysterious patron onto existing classes? This would greatly multiply the potential character options out there, with less actual rules needed. The Oracle's mystery should actually be this exact same thing. In fact, the oracle's curse works very well for a witch's patron as well - I can't think of any witches in common mythologies and lore who weren't wracked in some way by their use of the magic. Just combine these into the same dedication, with a wide variety of patron/mystery options, and let the player's build the theme they want.


See my reply to the oracle version of this thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wut?

CraziFuzzy wrote:
I can't think of any witches in common mythologies and lore who weren't wracked in some way by their use of the magic.

Off the top of my head: the Witch of Endor, Circe, the queen in Snow White, the Sea Witch (either Little Mermaid version or Amphitrite), Hecate, the Lechuza and Bruja stories I grew up with, Granny Weatherwax, Conjuremen, Freyja, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Magical Girls and Fox Employers from Japanese culture.

Its not that I can't think of witches or witch-like characters that are wracked by their power; I just don't think its as common a feature as you're proposing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The martial classes feel different enough to me, but some spellcasters not so much. Since "level 1-10 spells" counts as 90% of their class features, all you seem to get is a choice of what spellcasting tradition and 3~ focus spells throughout your career. There's always some bells and whistles but I think, on the table, they play pretty same-y unless they can gish. The focus spells might be different, but it's not enough "new mechanics" for the Witch imo.

What's the most concise way you can describe Witch and Wizard gameplay differences to a new player that wants to play an INT caster? One has hexes and the other has school powers? Or is it just the flavor?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To clarify my feelings, I feel like it can go in one of 3 directions, any of them are fine with me:

1. Broaden in order to encompass a greater thematic space such as the rural spell caster who learns from a patron, more down to earth than the wizard's 'science' bent on magic, with an emphasis on it being a kind of 'old magic' from before wizardry was properly developed (in a thematic sense, the rise and fall of civilizations makes the 'before' flexible.) This version *could* potentially sustain an arcane tradition, but it would be pulling the witch away from it's thematic roots since defining a rural version of arcane magic as being flavorfully different enough from wizardry is hard. I kind of sense that this would be leaning more on the Witch as a real world tradition of magic (in other words, the real world wiccan/pagan/self-preferred conception of folk magic)

2. Narrow in order to focus on the flavor that's already there, Witches have mysterious patrons and are heavily associated with Fey (Primal) and Hags (Occult), Witchery is a distinct branch of magic with a side groudned in the natural world, and a side grounded in dark esoteric lore. This makes sense with the emphasis on the Halloween Witch tropes like Cauldron, Cackle, Living Hair, etc and unless those start becoming tradition specific or broader, I think it would be necessary to keep a coherent flavor path line.

3. We need to be sold better on how arcane fits into the kind of Witch presented, its a very folk conceptual space and the arcane list is distinctly *at odds* with that, Mr. Jacobs mentioned the Runelord Sorshen as a possible patron, so I think we need more clarification on what it would mean to be *be* an arcane witch, is that just channeling a much stronger Wizard / Dragon Sorcerer / Imperial Sorcerer's magic? Some of the issue is that the playtest is a big unclear on the how, Witches use intelligence as if to study magic themselves- but the familiar as written heavily implies they're dependent on a patron for their spells and couldn't use a normal spellbook in the familiar's place.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

My preference is towards fewer classes, so I have mixed feelings about this witch. I like the old witch better. As-is, it doesn't stand out, so I am not sure it deserves a class

To justify a full class, it shouldn't just be a spell caster. All hexes all day was the schtick, and I liked it. Some nerfing is fine. My main witch stopped using slumber because it was no fun. My second witch never took that hex.

I think I'd like fewer spells. That along with most hexes converted to cantrips would make the witch distinctly non wizard.

Overall I don't think the focus power mechanism feels witchy. Maybe for big stuff, but certainly not the basic hexes. And focus point cost with 24h immunity seems like a double whammy.

I think a focus spell to remove hex immunity for making a save would be good. Basically burn a point and two actions to gain the chance to try again. And perhaps a cackle variant that burns focus to sustain all active hexes.

Also I'd like a bigger tie in to rituals. Getting things done without spells feels right.

Finally I want to mention patrons. I lean towards keeping them vague. If you know who your daddy is, you are a cleric. I prefer The-Magic-Sword's approach #1 because I now *must* create a witch whose patron is the collective Godclaw. Hellknights and witches together is too awesome to pass up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DougSeay wrote:

My preference is towards fewer classes, so I have mixed feelings about this witch. I like the old witch better. As-is, it doesn't stand out, so I am not sure it deserves a class

To justify a full class, it shouldn't just be a spell caster. All hexes all day was the schtick, and I liked it. Some nerfing is fine. My main witch stopped using slumber because it was no fun. My second witch never took that hex.

I think I'd like fewer spells. That along with most hexes converted to cantrips would make the witch distinctly non wizard.

Overall I don't think the focus power mechanism feels witchy. Maybe for big stuff, but certainly not the basic hexes. And focus point cost with 24h immunity seems like a double whammy.

I think a focus spell to remove hex immunity for making a save would be good. Basically burn a point and two actions to gain the chance to try again. And perhaps a cackle variant that burns focus to sustain all active hexes.

Also I'd like a bigger tie in to rituals. Getting things done without spells feels right.

Finally I want to mention patrons. I lean towards keeping them vague. If you know who your daddy is, you are a cleric. I prefer The-Magic-Sword's approach #1 because I now *must* create a witch whose patron is the collective Godclaw. Hellknights and witches together is too awesome to pass up.

The only problem I have with making the Witch a dedication is there are too many tropes and potential for hexes to be able to give it in a feat every even level.

I do like the idea of changing the casting to more of a spamming cantrip with limitations. Maybe the effectiveness goes down the more you use it. “Treat the result one level of success lower if you use this on a creature again.”
And I love the idea of a hellknight witch.
Edit: Maybe make them mainly focus casters. Have them have a way to get focus points faster or get their own pool of focus points.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Witch Playtest / Why is witch its own class? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Witch Playtest