|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the witch class has trap feats, which, by this I mean, they have options that might look appealing or neat, but are really, really bad to pick and overall make your character weaker, rather than stronger. I think 2e has done an amazing job so far avoiding trap options, so I really want to talk about the following two feats.
Living Hair and Nails.
Living Hair
You can instantly grow or shrink your hair, eyebrows, beard, or mustache up to several feet long and manipulate your hair for use as a weapon, though your control isn’t fine enough for more dexterous tasks. Your gain a hair unarmed attack that deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage, is in the brawling group, and has the agile, disarm, grapple, parry, and trip traits.
Nails
Your nails are supernaturally long and sharp. You gain a claw unarmed attack that deals 1d6 slashing damage. Your claws are in the brawling group and have the agile and unarmed traits. You can etch your claws with runes with the same cost and restrictions as etching runes onto handwraps of mighty blows; runes etched onto your claws apply to both hands but not to other unarmed attacks.
Your nails have a strong connection to your hexes, allowing you to deliver hexes through your nails. When you successfully cast a hex that requires two actions or more to cast and that would normally target one foe with a range of at least 30 feet, if your target is within your reach, you can make a nails Strike against the foe before applying any effects of the hex. If the nails Strike misses, the hex has no effect against the foe.
Lets start with the problems that apply to both of these options before focusing on each one separately. First, neither has the finesse trait, so you'll need strength to hit with your hair (muscle hair?) or your nails. The witch's primary stat is intelligence and they have very little in the way of armor training, even their unarmored only goes to expert, and only at level 13. If a witch wants to use either of these attacks they will need to put a lot of effort into keeping their strength up to hit with their trained/expert attacks and they will need almost maximum dexterity to actually stand on the front line even remotely safely with their trained/expert defense, not to mention they need intelligence to land their spells and hexes, and that is all ignoring constitution on a front line build, plus wisdom for saves and perception. Would making both of these attacks finesse solve the issue? Probably not as their training level is pretty low, but it would definitely help. I still don't know if I'd want to be in melee with the witches defensive stats.
On to living hair. Is there much of a reason to select this feat instead of nails? Sure the hair has more traits, but disarm is bad, parry is ok but a shield would be better and guess what, hair doesn't take up any hands, so why would you need to parry instead of casting shield or raising a shield. The best option here is actually grapple, because unlike normal attack rolls, a witch can get to legendary with athletics to grapple, but again, I'm not sure if I would want my witch on the front line to grapple enemies instead of casting spells with their legendary spellcasting.
Nails. Man, I love the nails feat. It has awesome flavor and a really cool "hexstrike" ability. The problem with nails is mostly the general problems; you need strength to hit, dexterity to survive, and intelligence to actually land your hexes, and that is totally ignoring constitution for a front-liner and wisdom for saves and perception. As for the "hexstrike", its really cool until you realize you spent a focus point to deliver a hex, missed because you're only trained/expert with a strength weapon, and then lost your focus point and two actions for absolutely no effect. This ability would work a lot better under a couple of different options.
1) Leave the ability alone, but make the weapon finesse, although this isn't a great solution.
2) Create "hex cantrips" similar to composition cantrips for bard that would let you try to deliver some form of weak hex nearly every turn with your nails so you're only losing actions on a missed attack instead of focus points as well.
3) Make it so that when the nails are used in combination with a hex, the witch can use their spellcasting training level to make the attack. I'm not really sure how I feel about this, it would make the witch temporarily legendary with their attacks, although only once per turn, without being a martial and while monks only have master training. Overall, it means less damage than firing a cantrip, so if you think about it as a melee cantrip, it actually doesn't seem too bad.
As of right now, my best build idea to use either of these abilities is to make a witch with champion dedication to become trained in full-plate and carrying a shield. Should a witch using nails look like a heavily armored champion slashing at people with their nails or hair? I don't think so, but its probably their best option to use either feat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As you identify, making them finessable would help, but only a little.
I feel like ultimately this is more of an issue with attack/weapon based options in general for casters. Casters make pretty bad martials and it shows.
That said, yeah, the fact that you can lose the Hex makes Nails really rough, too. Especially since even if you are going full martial witch you're going to be a few points behind on your attack stat most of the time.
IMO, Living Hair and Nails are there for multiclass witches much more than a the straight class. A fighter that takes the witch archetype [when they make it] has the proficiencies and stats to leverage natural weapons and survive doing so. I see this as the main reason for most, if not all, caster melee options.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that they make great multiclass feats, but uhh, should a class have feats designed to be taken by other classes more so than the base class? No, no they should not. Class feats should work well with the class they are made for and other classes can take them just for fun.
More feats for that hair please. I don't care if I'm a lot less effective than a martial, I just want the hair to be a decent option like it was in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Class feats should work well with the class they are made for and other classes can take them just for fun.
With the continued addition of melee options for casters, it doesn't seem like the Dev's agree with you. For instance, do you find that Glutton's Jaw works better for a sorcerer than nails does for a witch?
More feats for that hair please. I don't care if I'm a lot less effective than a martial, I just want the hair to be a decent option like it was in PF1.
What does the PF1 hex have that the PF2 version doesn't? What does it need for you to be "decent"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class feats should work well with the class they are made for and other classes can take them just for fun.With the continued addition of melee options for casters, it doesn't seem like the Dev's agree with you. For instance, do you find that Glutton's Jaw works better for a sorcerer than nails does for a witch?
I complained about it being dumb during the playtest. There is no reason I, as a clothy, want to get within melee range of...well, anyone.
I've seen a 1e witch use Living Hair, but is been mostly comical and not fruitful.
(Then again, it was a prewritten adventure that was full of "because reasons" and we blew up the moon).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More feats for that hair please. I don't care if I'm a lot less effective than a martial, I just want the hair to be a decent option like it was in PF1.What does the PF1 hex have that the PF2 version doesn't? What does it need for you to be "decent"?
Reach is the big one. The hex has 10' reach and the archetype's reach starts at 5 and increases every 4 levels. The archetype could also do a lot of different maneuvers using INT instead of STR (tripping, pulling, grappling w/ constrict and strangle).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Increasing Reach? Or was that just the Archetype?
The PF1 hex was 10' reach and you could use it as a hand but it only lasted 1 min/level/day [and reach worked different]. I was curious what aspects HyperMissingno thought was a needed aspect or if they were even thinking of the hex or, as you asked, the archetype.
I complained about it being dumb during the playtest.
LOL So did I, but we keep getting them so I can only assume it's for multiclass users.
Reach is the big one. The hex has 10' reach and the archetype's reach starts at 5 and increases every 4 levels. The archetype could also do a lot of different maneuvers using INT instead of STR (tripping, pulling, grappling w/ constrict and strangle).
But then we're comparing 1 hex to 5 hexes: are we expecting 4 add on feats for PF2's hair hex? Also, the int instead of str is interesting but I don't reallt see that in the cards with as hard as it is JUST to get dex to damage... :P
Myself, I think I'd rather have the hair be an additional limb instead of a natural attack and maybe grant a free manipulate item action at higher levels. Something useful that's not telling you 'go melee'. Reach/range options would be interesting, but again I'd rather see manipulation vs melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]With the continued addition of melee options for casters, it doesn't seem like the Dev's agree with you.
It could be that the devs think that melee spellcaster either is or should be a legitimate build if someone wants to pursue it.
The math obviously doesn't back that up, but I think that makes more sense than the idea the feat was designed for very specific multiclass combinations.
The math obviously doesn't back that up, but I think that makes more sense than the idea the feat was designed for very specific multiclass combinations.
*shrug* I wouldn't call picking one of a class that's good at melee [like fighter, barbarian, ranger, monk, champion, rogue] multiclassing into a caster as a "very specific multiclass combination". Secondly, when those combinations actually make the math work, I'm not sure why it doesn't seem to make sense to you: do you think that feats do NOT take the possibility of multiclass access into account? To me it that makes a whole lot more sense it's for multiclassing than them missing [or misunderstanding] the math on a d6 hp, no armor and max expert prof in melee.
There does appear to be a fair share of people, let’s say, asking for the Spellcasters to melee. Both now and in the playtest.
*nods* Yep, and I think so far the gish/magus type builds can only really be fleshed out by archetyping. The ability to claw with your Nails when casting your hex is very magus like.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely think low level feats take multiclassing into account, but why give a class a feat that you don't want that class to take?
"Hurray guys! We released the witch class and guess what, it has a bunch of class feats for fighter instead of witch!"
Like no, a class feat needs to work for the primary class first before you consider other classes using it.
As for all the sorcerer things like claws and glutton's jaw, I think they have those mostly because of pre-established lore. Dragonblooded sorcerers have claws and they have had claws for forever. Have they always sucked and been a terrible feature? You betcha. Do people still like them because of flavor? Probably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call picking one of a class that's good at melee [like fighter, barbarian, ranger, monk, champion, rogue] multiclassing into a caster as a "very specific multiclass combination".
I say very specific in the sense that leveraging special natural attacks is kind of a specific and niche build, especially in a game where natural attacks have so many restrictions put on them. Several of the classes you mention either have difficulty leveraging natural attacks or get strong ones natively to begin with, for instance.
do you think that feats do NOT take the possibility of multiclass access into account?
I think they absolutely take multiclassing into account. There are feats that are definitely better for multiclass builds. Or feats that feel like they should be low level feats but get pushed back to 4 to make it harder for MC characters to access and so on.
But I think the notion that they designed feats that aren't intended to be taken by the class they belong to is a bit of a stretch too. Plus I feel like in general Paizo has overestimated a lot of combat and proficiency options in PF2.
At the very least they expect Expert proficiency to be good enough for Clerics, Bards and Alchemists, so there's no reason to think they wouldn't also think it's good enough here.
Armor is a problem, but that can be solved by throwing a gratuitous number of feats at it, which again is something Paizo thinks is a reasonable solution, looking at stuff they printed like the Hellknight Signifer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry about that, got distracted by Pokemon.
The big thing PF1 witch hair has going for it is that you can deliver touch spells through your hair. An int based attack with 10 feet of reach was better than getting up close and personal, even if it did mean you had to go against full AC.
As far as I can tell, PF2 doesn't allow for delivering touch spells through natural attacks. I might have missed a rule somewhere though.
Without that, I would like feats that allow for the White Hair Witch archetype to be a thing once again. Things like more reach, grab/free grapple attempt after hitting an opponent, constrict. Was it the most optimal playstyle? Gods no, but it was fun gatdangit.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you can use whatever unarmed attack you want to "deliver a spell".
A spell with a range of touch requires you to physically touch the target. You use your unarmed reach to determine whether you can touch the creature. You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll. If an ability increases the range of a touch spell, start at 0 feet and increase from there.
Does that suddenly make hair worth it? Eh, not really, reach spell is significantly better, although the hair would save you an action by putting you dangerously close to enemies.
I definitely think low level feats take multiclassing into account, but why give a class a feat that you don't want that class to take?
As was pointed out upthread, several of us pointed this out in the 1st playtest and they kept those type of feats in so it's not exactly a new issue with the witch.
I say very specific in the sense that leveraging special natural attacks is kind of a specific and niche build
Well it's a "specific and niche" type feat [melee not using casting stat on caster] as are a lot of PF2 feats, so to leverage them you need a "specific and niche" type build.
But I think the notion that they designed feats that aren't intended to be taken by the class they belong to is a bit of a stretch too. Plus I feel like in general Paizo has overestimated a lot of combat and proficiency options in PF2.
I don't think I ever said it wasn't meant for the class, just that it was put in with multiclass in mind: as you said, you CAN toss away large amounts of feats it use it in class if you wish but it just plain work much better on a different class framework that doesn't need modifying to get into shape.
Now on them overestimating options, I'll 100% agree. Many leave me scratching my head so I guess it's not impossible the main idea was for a straight witch use for the feats but I really do hope that isn't the case for something this glaring.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing PF1 witch hair has going for it is that you can deliver touch spells through your hair. An int based attack with 10 feet of reach was better than getting up close and personal, even if it did mean you had to go against full AC.
I could see some extra reach feats but I seriously doubt a int to attack feat. To get the most out of this hex, I thnk they'd expect you to be a muscle witch with a higher str than int.
Things like more reach, grab/free grapple attempt after hitting an opponent, constrict.
With the new action system, you can pretty much do this already: you can grapple after a hit or hit after a grapple and it already has reach.
|
|
I want to point out that allowing a witch to use their spellcasting training for one attack a round with hair or nails sounds weird on paper, but isn't actually that crazy.
At max level, a witch could throw a produce flame with legendary proficiency for 9d4+casting modifier with a persistent damage critical hit effect. Their hair with maximum striking would only be 4d4+strength modifier+2 weapon specialization. The hair comes out significantly behind, usually, even if you allow it to attack this way multiple times.
The struggle here is to balance it out. Should this only be an option once per turn for the witch, functionally replacing their attack cantrip for the turn? Should it just be an always active thing with MAP and strength to hit being the main drawbacks? Is it ever ok, even with these limitations, to allow a full casting class to eventually reach legendary weapon attacks, even considering the slower progression than martials?
I think for nails, its easy, when they use the nails to deliver a hex, they can use their spellcasting training instead of their weapon training for their bonus to hit, making it essentially a weaker damage cantrip that is only melee range with a special rider ability (hex). Hair, however, is much harder to balance out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I also don't know why they think Cloth-armor classes with d6 HP and no proficiencies whatsoever can ever get in melee. It was bad in PF1 where the Caster/Martial gap wasn't that ridiculous (at early levels), now it's even more suicidal. The chance to hit even level -1 enemies with these is extremely bad and they can probably crit you every turn in return.
They def need to be given some gimmick that single-class witches can use, but then that still leaves Sorcerer (fully released class not subject to change) in the dust.
|
Yeah I also don't know why they think Cloth-armor classes with d6 HP and no proficiencies whatsoever can ever get in melee. It was bad in PF1 where the Caster/Martial gap wasn't that ridiculous (at early levels), now it's even more suicidal. The chance to hit even level -1 enemies with these is extremely bad and they can probably crit you every turn in return.
Because people keep asking for and trying melee caster options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I also don't know why they think Cloth-armor classes with d6 HP and no proficiencies whatsoever can ever get in melee. It was bad in PF1 where the Caster/Martial gap wasn't that ridiculous (at early levels), now it's even more suicidal. The chance to hit even level -1 enemies with these is extremely bad and they can probably crit you every turn in return.Because people keep asking for and trying melee caster options.
Well yeah, but presumably the people who want to do that want it to be functional and not something that requires massive piles of feats to get proficiency up to snuff and has terrible accuracy issues.
|
|
Well yeah, but presumably the people who want to do that want it to be functional and not something that requires massive piles of feats to get proficiency up to snuff and has terrible accuracy issues.Yeah I also don't know why they think Cloth-armor classes with d6 HP and no proficiencies whatsoever can ever get in melee. It was bad in PF1 where the Caster/Martial gap wasn't that ridiculous (at early levels), now it's even more suicidal. The chance to hit even level -1 enemies with these is extremely bad and they can probably crit you every turn in return.Because people keep asking for and trying melee caster options.
Getting good at something your class isn't built around requires investment.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue here is that even with heavy, niche investment, the witch is never going to be that good at using its hair or nails in its current state and that just doesn't sit well with me. At that point, just remove the feats, because like the title of this thread says, they are traps.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue here is that even with heavy, niche investment, the witch is never going to be that good at using its hair or nails in its current state and that just doesn't sit well with me. At that point, just remove the feats, because like the title of this thread says, they are traps.
Well not in it's "current state" no, because it's a playtest.
No I don't foresee the final version of Nails or Hair making the Witch good at melee just by itself, but then I wouldn't want it to either. But again, playtest. Calling options traps and demanding they be removed rather than improving them or looking at all the design space they're for (martial caster = investment from other sources) does nothing and it's not gonna happen.
"I don't like it so no one should be allowed to use it" isn't really productive for a playtest.
|
|
"I don't like it so no one should be allowed to use it" isn't really productive for a playtest.
It's a good thing I've suggested so many alternative options to removing the feats then! If you think I'm calling for their total removal, then I can tell you haven't read nearly any of my above posts fully.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness I was responding to immediate last post of "At that point, just remove the feats, because like the title of this thread says, they are traps."
Yeah, I get it. I really love the nails feat and the hair is flavorful, so I'd love to see them stick around, but in some better form. In their current, playtest state, I think they would be traps, so I'm glad they are playtesting them because I like the current balance of feat options in the game where most feats are hard to pick between and none as far as I know would make your character weaker in some way like these do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, Living Hair and Nails are there for multiclass witches much more than a the straight class. A fighter that takes the witch archetype [when they make it] has the proficiencies and stats to leverage natural weapons and survive doing so. I see this as the main reason for most, if not all, caster melee options.
If that’s the case it’s a little cruel to put those two feats in and not make an MCD for the new classes :(
A Monk MCD into witch with Nails and going Occult Ki spells sounds amazing.
If that’s the case it’s a little cruel to put those two feats in and not make an MCD for the new classes :(
Not really: a witch can multiclass into champion and gain up to expert heavy armor and +3hp/level. What would be "a little cruel" is expecting a straight witch to get any use out of those options. ;)
A Monk MCD into witch with Nails and going Occult Ki spells sounds amazing.
With no finesse on those attacks, it'd be difficult as you need str to hit and if you go Mountain Stance that means you can't use nails or hair: this means both str and dex [hit and ac] and con [hp] and wis if any ki abilities have DC's and Int to multiclass into witch... So you don't need cha?
If that’s the case it’s a little cruel to put those two feats in and not make an MCD for the new classes :(Not really: a witch can multiclass into champion and gain up to expert heavy armor and +3hp/level. What would be "a little cruel" is expecting a straight witch to get any use out of those options. ;)
A Monk MCD into witch with Nails and going Occult Ki spells sounds amazing.With no finesse on those attacks, it'd be difficult as you need str to hit and if you go Mountain Stance that means you can't use nails or hair: this means both str and dex [hit and ac] and con [hp] and wis if any ki abilities have DC's and Int to multiclass into witch... So you don't need cha?
Sorry I was assuming they would become finesse weapons or function on INT.
It’d be cool at least.
|
|
IMO, Living Hair and Nails are there for multiclass witches much more than a the straight class. A fighter that takes the witch archetype [when they make it] has the proficiencies and stats to leverage natural weapons and survive doing so. I see this as the main reason for most, if not all, caster melee options.If that’s the case it’s a little cruel to put those two feats in and not make an MCD for the new classes :(
A Monk MCD into witch with Nails and going Occult Ki spells sounds amazing.
Are you under the impression that there will not be MCD for these classes? There will be when the classes actually release, but they specifically choose not to include them in the playtest because they wanted to finish the classes before they introduced their MCDs to other classes.
Are you under the impression that there will not be MCD for these classes? There will be when the classes actually release, but they specifically choose not to include them in the playtest because they wanted to finish the classes before they introduced their MCDs to other classes.IMO, Living Hair and Nails are there for multiclass witches much more than a the straight class. A fighter that takes the witch archetype [when they make it] has the proficiencies and stats to leverage natural weapons and survive doing so. I see this as the main reason for most, if not all, caster melee options.If that’s the case it’s a little cruel to put those two feats in and not make an MCD for the new classes :(
A Monk MCD into witch with Nails and going Occult Ki spells sounds amazing.
Not at all, I was stating if those feats are meant to be used for gishes and they were put into the playtest that it’s a shame they didn’t do the MCD in the playtest so that could be tested more thoroughly (right now we can do it only as a witch MCD into martial and not vice versa)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I was assuming they would become finesse weapons or function on INT.
It’d be cool at least.
Ah... I'm a bit mystified that they aren't finesse: without it, it makes it that much more a muliticlass feat. Finesse would make that monk more workable but you'd still have competing casting stats to deal with.
it’s a shame they didn’t do the MCD in the playtest
Oh, I agree but if you want to playtest it we already know the basics:
Dedication = Prerequisites Intelligence 14, gain trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs, cast 2 cantrips and a witch familiar [holds 4 cantrips].Past that it's your spellcasting and class feat multiclass feats. You can pretty much copy the wizard feats word for word except cross out wizard, Arcane School Spell and Arcana with witch, hex/Lesson and witchcraft...
]Oh, I agree but if you want to playtest it we already know the basics:
Dedication = Prerequisites Intelligence 14, gain trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs, cast 2 cantrips and a witch familiar [holds 4 cantrips].
This would be the fastest way to get a familiar for most classes.
A familiar and cantrips is really good.A witches familiar plus cantrips is even better.
I think just getting a regular familiar would make the MDC worth taking.
A regular familiar plus trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs, with one granted cantrip might be the sweet spot.
Good point.
This might be a case of scarcity thinking on my part.
I wanted one for my bard and they take two class feats to get if you are not a gnome,sorcer or wizard.
I wanted mine for a character concept, but they might not he worth a damn mechanically.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's less that the familiar is particularly amazing and more that Paizo considers a familiar to be worth a feat in and of itself and upgrading your familiar to be worth another feat.
Given that, Witch Dedication giving you all of the basic spellcaster dedication features and a familiar on top of that would essentially be turning it into two feats at once and kind of out of balance compared to other caster feats.
Which is bizarre, since a familiar is largely a liability for the witch.
It'd be like a wizard trying to douse fires with their only spellbook.
Which is bizarre, since a familiar is largely a liability for the witch.
It'd be like a wizard trying to douse fires with their only spellbook.
Actually its worse. A wizard can set fire to his spellbook and lose none of his accumulated knowledge (there literally aren't rules to what happens when a wizard's spellbook is lost or destroyed, beyond not being able to study and regain spell slots and prep new ones).
A witch on the other hand...
[A week after your familiar dies and respawns] it recalls
almost all the spells your previous familiar knew, though
it loses one such spell for each spell level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually its worse. A wizard can set fire to his spellbook and lose none of his accumulated knowledge
I'm all in agreement that the Witch could use some improvements to their familiar but this is just flat out wrong.
The wizard prepares spells directly from their spellbook. A wizard leveling up gains new spells and adds them to their spellbook. If you lose that spellbook, you lose everything. That's the one leg up the witch has in that regard.
The wizard prepares spells directly from their spellbook. A wizard leveling up gains new spells and adds them to their spellbook. If you lose that spellbook, you lose everything. That's the one leg up the witch has in that regard.
I'll agree that that makes logical sense, but my point is, the rules don't actually say that.
It's less that the familiar is particularly amazing and more that Paizo considers a familiar to be worth a feat in and of itself and upgrading your familiar to be worth another feat.
The normal caster dedication gives out a trained skill or two which is also worth at least a feat and the fact that the familiar is a liability too balances this out IMO. I don't think anyone noticed that I didn't add any skills into the dedication writeup I did.
For instance, Animal Accomplice [1st level ancestry feat] gets you a familiar and Dwarven Lore [1st level ancestry feat] gets you 2 skills and a lore so we're pretty even as far as power goes when the difference between bard and my proposed witch dedication is a familiar vs trained in Occultism and Performance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll agree that that makes logical sense, but my point is, the rules don't actually say that.
The rules say you prepare spells from the spells in your spellbook and that you must study from your spellbook each day to prepare spells.
If on day 1 you prepare fireball from your spellbook, then your spellbook is destroyed, you cannot prepare anything on day 2 because you don't have a spellbook to study from. If later that evening you buy a new spellbook, you still can't prepare fireball on day 3 because it's not a spell in your spellbook (unless the new spellbook came with fireball in it, of course).
You say the wizard can "set fire to their spellbook and lose none of their accumulated knowledge" ... but the wizard doesn't have any accumulated knowledge. The wizard knows nothing innately (except focus spells). Everything is explicitly written into the spellbook.
I'm struggling to figure out what you think happens here. Do you think that if you lose a spellbook then buy a new one all your old spells instantly appear in the new book? Because that's definitely not supported by the rules, although as a houserule it's probably fine since otherwise the Wizard is pretty crippled if it happens at mid or high levels.
It's less that the familiar is particularly amazing and more that Paizo considers a familiar to be worth a feat in and of itself and upgrading your familiar to be worth another feat.The normal caster dedication gives out a trained skill or two which is also worth at least a feat and the fact that the familiar is a liability too balances this out IMO. I don't think anyone noticed that I didn't add any skills into the dedication writeup I did.
For instance, Animal Accomplice [1st level ancestry feat] gets you a familiar and Dwarven Lore [1st level ancestry feat] gets you 2 skills and a lore so we're pretty even as far as power goes when the difference between bard and my proposed witch dedication is a familiar vs trained in Occultism and Performance.
Skills can be gotten with Skill feats, unless you are a gnome it takes one Genral and one Ancestry feat or two Class feats to get a Familiar.
Some feats types are more precious than others, and some feat choices are not bargains.If you are a non-gnome trying to get Animal Accomplice, it's even worse, as the General feat you spend gives nothing but the right to buy Gnome Ancestry feats.
You don't even get the Lore from this culture you are so immersed in.
If the Witch MDC gets a Familiar from the start I will be happy as a clam because it will make getting a Familiar easier.
Right now I favor Alchemist MDC, which gives a crafting feat right out of the gate and opens up Alchemist Familiar.
Neither the crafting or the familiar scale without further feat investment.
Maybe the liability aspect of a Familiar will make it perfect for the Witch MDC feat.
Perhaps the lack of scaling without fear investment will make it OK.
The Ronyon: I SPECIFICALLY took 2 of the same type of feats, ancestry, to show that they are the same comparable strength: 1 familiar equals 2 trained skills and a trained lore. he fact that other ancestries have to jump through some hoops to get them are moot to that fact IMO. And I don't see how the dedication feat wouldn't give out a familiar with the way witch spellcasting works: if it didn't it'd be like the wizard dedication not giving you a spellbook.
The fact that other ancestries have to jump through some hoops to get them are moot to that fact IMO.
I respectfully disagree on this point.
A human can choose Natural Skill with an Ancestry feat or chooe Natural Ambition with that same feat.This doesn't make two additional trained skills equal or balanced with a Class Feat.
Not for the human nor for anyone else.
That being said, I hope that your argument prevails.