Patrons and a single list creates internal contradictions in the class. Why is a Dragon patron teaching you occult magic? or a fey patron teaching you occult magic. Why is Baba Yaga teaching you occult magic?
I don't understand this concept, a dragon can learn to cast occult magic just like anyone else, it can also have a unique reason to be able to(Mcguffin artifact, esoteric knowledge, or perhaps from being exposed to the astral plane).
like reasonably the only tradition that's iffy is divine, since the list is heavily deity focused.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean some of the reasoning in the original post is contingent on lack of structure for the class in general:
I think letting the sorcerer choose any list is quite interesting and lends a cool draw to that class. Sorcerers, however, are kind of built around this. They get a lot of feats that care about which care about their tradition, which makes it the mechanical throughline of the class. Witch doesn’t get anything like this, which makes the choice seem a little shallow and unnecessary to me.
The above take is not that Witches shouldn't get all traditions, but that they don't have any feat or lesson support to go along with their list selection.
Those that would be in favor of multiple lists would probably want feat support for those lists, because, why wouldn't they? It's a playtest, so I think expecting all the rules right out of the gate is tough (especially considering Sorcerer was I believe the Class with the most pages in the CRB).
The next point is:
Witches in fiction are known for casting specific spells and curses than for casting magic in general.
All witches get Hexes, so curses are effectively covered as long as Hexes get buffed/changed/etc. Again, not in contention with multiple lists.
Some witches turn you into frogs, or create wards around areas, or extend their lifespans by boiling babies. They rely much more on individual spells to realize their character concepts than Wizards. I think the current way the witch gets her spells goes counter to this aspect of the class.
Counter how? Because they can't get all the spells they could potentially want?
It's even more difficult to do that if they are all Occult, which we both just acknowledged doesn't actually solve the problem, it just requires a different solution.
the next point is super confusing to me:
o explain what I mean, occult witches don’t get access to Baleful Polymorph, and one of the occult lessons is the lesson of curses.
So the argument behind why a Witch should be occult is that a spell you consider to be iconic isn't on it? This seems like an issue with the Curse Lesson itself.
next point is:
If you choose the lesson of protection, you never get access to the spell, protection.
It would be easier to access Protection if Divine was the spell list tied to the Protection discipline, but I'll leave this to again being an issue with the Lesson and not with the spell list itself.
Also protection is uncommon, so no one really knows it by default.
_________________________________________________
I'm sure you've made further points elsewhere on the thread, but this seems like a case of blaming the wrong party. The issue is that Patrons don't do anything, Lessons are flimsy, Hexes don't feel strong enough to convey the "curse" aspect of witches, etc.
Right now, the Class is literally only exemplifying the Pick a List aspect as it's primary feature. I agree that is bad. However, it's not bad because Pick a List is bad, it's bad because that's what is defining the class right now when it should be all the other things that make a Witch a Witch.
If the Sorcerer was just the "pick a list spontaneous" and exemplified few strong concepts of blood magic, bloodline spells, blood focus powers, etc. or mediocre versions of them, it would also not feel like a Sorcerer.
And that was one of the stronger things they emphasized on release of the Sorcerer, the Spell list literally takes a backseat, which should be the goal for any class regardless of how many lists they have.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clear up some possible confusion:
1. Any one list with only very minor access to additional spells from other lists will not satisfy many witch concepts. This goes for Occult as well as all the others. Individual witches from PF1 (and from media) have a range of abilities that aren't well represented by a single list from the 4 available.
2. "Pick-a-list" plus improved access to certain spells from other lists would satisfy most concepts, potentially even more thoroughly than a single set list with improved access to other spell lists.
I think we can mostly agree on those two, correct?
Here is why I think a single list, and occult in particular, is still the better option.
A. If a class can choose any spell list, and then have access to select spells from any other list, it becomes very hard to predict the power and capability of the class. It could easily just become Wizard+ or Druid+, and it's harder to develop class features in support of such wide options available.
B. A single list allows you to make a set of options granting access to the other three, rather than creating a set of options for all four lists. This should reduce work and page count, and give better control over exactly what a base witch can be expected to be capable of.
C. Occult has some weirder spells, and can potentially be seen as the weakest spell list. If it could settle in as the weaker spell list, given to classes with slightly more class features or more tailored spell access, I think that would give the devs a useful tool in class design.
D. Occult doesn't have a prepared caster yet. Prepared casters really showcase the strengths and weaknesses of a list as a whole, since they can potentially get the whole shebang. I think witch would suit that role baseline quite well.
E. If the default standard witch spell list (whatever it might be) doesn't mesh well with someone's witch concept, a class archetype can be introduced that switches it out, but also gives tuning knobs to make sure they're getting appropriate use out of their list, and don't overshadow other classes who ostensibly focus on that list.
F. For class cohesiveness, there may be benefit in selecting one list and building it out as the baseline. It may prove easier to describe the class effectively, and set expectations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Midnightoker
I feel we are both in agreement that the playtest witch is a bad example of a pick-a-list class. From there, the class can move forward by improving the pick-a-list aspect or by removing it entirely. We both seem to think that the class needs various other aspects to be improved, regardless of whatever path is taken.
As to my own view; I don't think being pick-a-list is strictly necessary if the witch gets many more bonus spells which you and I both seem to want. I agree that the pick-a-list nature would need to be expanded greatly to resemble something like the sorcerer rather than just be a disconnected choice at level 1. I think this risks creating a pretty cluttered class, but I can't know for sure that's the case.
EDIT: Waterslethe's reasons A, B and F for wanting a single-list witch overlap with my position quite well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear you henro.
We all want a better Witch.
@Waterslethe good points for sure. Balance should always be a consideration. We’ll see what they come up with either way.
|
Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when...right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first.
Which is minor, all things considered.
(Unless you saying access to mean Clerics get Uncommon and Rare spells too automatically, which they don’t aside from the ones granted by their deity).
Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when...right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first.Which is minor, all things considered.
(Unless you saying access to mean Clerics get Uncommon and Rare spells too automatically, which they don’t aside from the ones granted by their deity).
It's not minor when talking about errata that removed a deity getting Divine spell access, because they already had access. A witch who needs to find the spell first could be given a spell for free from their own list as a way to ensure they get it and save money or time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great points
I think this is a great summary. From a design perspective I think it makes sense to start with a solid core with a strong identity. Right now, as others have discussed, that's not really there; clearly, since we're having discussions about all of the different versions of a Witch that there could be. Mechanically Patrons need to be fleshed out more, in whatever form that takes. Hexes need to be tuned for PF2e, along with whether they're tied to a choice of Patron, or they're a buffet of options, or whether there could be Hex Cantrips, etc. There's a lot that needs to be filled in, and I think that makes this conversation hard
It's my opinion, though, that starting with a single list tells people that this is what your garden variety Witch is. With bonus spells provided by the Patron mechanic, it makes the choice of Patron really impactful. Depending on the amount of flexibility in bonus spell choice it also makes every Witch a little unique, even if they have the same patron. One list gives the archetype that trades out Occult for Primal (or Arcane for Divine, or Primal for Occult, whatever it is) space to dig in on the differences and accommodate any glaring weaknesses or reconcile specific flavor concerns
I think Occult is the best list to go with as that base. Put aside that the playtest came with three list options and ask yourself: if the playtest had come with just Primal, would you have questioned where Occult is? If it had come with just Arcane, would you have questioned where Occult is? If it had come with just Divine, would you have questioned where Occult is? If it had come with just Occult, would you have questioned where the other three are?
I might have questioned whether a Primal Witch was forthcoming if the playtest had come with just Occult, but not whether the Witch was going to have an option between Occult and Primal. That may just be my personal opinion, but every time I come back to this question I just can't see the Witch having a spell list that doesn't include Occult, but I can certainly see one (many) that don't have Arcane or Primal or even Divine. Those all feel like archetypes
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put aside that the playtest came with three list options and ask yourself: if the playtest had come with just Primal, would you have questioned where Occult is? If it had come with just Arcane, would you have questioned where Occult is? If it had come with just Divine, would you have questioned where Occult is? If it had come with just Occult, would you have questioned where the other three are?
To illustrate why I think that's getting discussed at all, it's contingent on two things (one of which Waterslethe mentioned already)
A prepared Arcane exists. A prepared Primal exists. A prepared Divine exists.
The only two times of prepared casters that don't exist are prepared Occult and prepared Pick-a-list.
Provided "Ultimate Magic" doesn't come down the line with the other two spell list essence combinations yet to be seen (but that's an entirely different rabbit hole)
So the logical conclusion is to focus on those two tradition types, since we'd be looking at "list overlap" if those weren't the case.
And if the Witch only got Occult, and the Patrons/Hexes/etc. were all in the same state, you can bet your bottom dollar I would have raised a stink about not getting a bunch of Primal spells that certain witches just out right need to be able to exist (Elphaba has Fireball, Morgan La Fey needs fey like spells, Malificient needs to be able to change into a dragon, etc. etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if the Witch only got Occult, and the Patrons/Hexes/etc. were all in the same state, you can bet your bottom dollar I would have raised a stink about not getting a bunch of Primal spells that certain witches just out right need to be able to exist (Elphaba has Fireball, Morgan La Fey needs fey like spells, Malificient needs to be able to change into a dragon, etc. etc.)
For sure. From that perspective, would you have been asking for a binary choice between occult and primal, or would you have felt a bit of blending would have better served both the class and the concept?
Because it stands, the witch is not filling either of the prepared niches. It's not a prepared occult and it's not a prepared any, as it's leaving divine out in the lurch.
I think if they moved away from the witch theme, leaned heavier on the patrons and a true list-pick, that wouldn't be a bad class at all. Separate the traditional folklore witch, keep the name, but expand more by focusing on the patron relationship and effect. That's a totally viable class to me. But I think it would lose out on the hex/curse portion--what dragon is going to grant you a bunch of twitchy hexes instead of grand arcane magic?
|
|
It's not minor when talking about errata that removed a deity getting Divine spell access, because they already had access. A witch who needs to find the spell first could be given a spell for free from their own list as a way to ensure they get it and save money or time.Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when...right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first.Which is minor, all things considered.
(Unless you saying access to mean Clerics get Uncommon and Rare spells too automatically, which they don’t aside from the ones granted by their deity).
But they still can't change spells out through out the day so the ones they pick are what they're stuck with that day.
For sure. From that perspective, would you have been asking for a binary choice between occult and primal, or would you have felt a bit of blending would have better served both the class and the concept?Because it stands, the witch is not filling either of the prepared niches. It's not a prepared occult and it's not a prepared any, as it's leaving divine out in the lurch.
I think if they moved away from the witch theme, leaned heavier on the patrons and a true list-pick, that wouldn't be a bad class at all. Separate the traditional folklore witch, keep the name, but expand more by focusing on the patron relationship and effect. That's a totally viable class to me. But I think it would lose out on the hex/curse portion--what dragon is going to grant you a bunch of twitchy hexes instead of grand arcane magic?
That's a tougher question to answer.
I'd like to find a way to make everyone happy, because that's just the type of thing I hope for despite it being somewhat unrealistic at times.
I do think the legacy of the witch from PF1 needs to be considered in some aspect, so to that extent, it can't just be "dumped" down to a pick-a-list class as the focal point.
And personally, if Pick-a-list was the focal point of the class itself, I would have to see it as the Arcanist, since their themes seem to jive with that better as master of all magic (though the name is then grossly unfitting).
It's just too hard to see with Patrons/Hexes/Familiars/Lessons in their current state. At least for me.
I'll be clear that I think Occult/Primal as a hybrid list would work really well for Witch. But Paizo has set 2e spells up to be tradition based rather than class based, which probably prevents a lot of headaches for them and makes things really nice and clean for us. If Witch is the first one where they go with a hybrid list, sign me up
Assuming that they don't go with a hybrid list, or don't create a custom list just for the Witch, I don't think Primal encompasses all that a Witch is just on its own. I do think it's perfect for an archetype that reinforces the difference between the traditions with different class abilities
I can only assume the Witch will come with archetypes in the APG, so I think it's reasonable to make the base class itself very focused on being something: a spell list, a class ability (Cackle, right now), Hexes, a Patron, a Familiar, and "Lessons" that further marry the Witch to their choice of patron.
That's a lot of small things going on, when you consider that a Wizard is really their Arcane Bond, their choice of school, and Arcane. Or a Druid is their Order and further abilities, Shield Block, armor proficiency, and Primal. Even Sorcerers pick their list but that's all essentially one package with Bloodline dictating pretty much everything else, along with their unique passive Refocus
Having one "pick one of 3" is disconcerting, whereas if they had 2 "pick one of " classes then it would feel like a pattern (plus we would be content speculating on what future class had X pattern of traditions to pick).
I could be surprised, but I doubt they will reduce the witch to one tradition. One bit of political wisdom that seemed good to me was "they will hate more for taking something away then they ever loved you for giving it to them in the first place." If the playtest witch had been occult then that would be that, but now that "pick a tradition" is out there, it will haunt them if they go back on it. See unchained summoner vs. original summoner to see how this went in PF1.
I'm not sure the playtest is nearly far-reaching enough to ruin people's opinions on the final drop in the summer. I don't disagree with your thoughts but I imagine the final result would be less intense.
Especially if they do announce at some point (should be around that time, probably?) that a prepared-anything or otherwise tradition-flexible class is coming to fill the gap that witch briefly would have threatened to accommodate. Right? I don't know. While plenty of folks on here have pretty strong opinions one way or the other, I think we're all aware that we're just picking at concepts to help out the designers, and no one here will really mind as long as Paizo releases a high-quality witch class. I think pick-a-list is a weak tie to witch, but if that's what comes out, as long as they have enough chassis to bring flavor into the game, you won't hear me complain.
But they still can't change spells out through out the day so the ones they pick are what they're stuck with that day.It's not minor when talking about errata that removed a deity getting Divine spell access, because they already had access. A witch who needs to find the spell first could be given a spell for free from their own list as a way to ensure they get it and save money or time.Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when...right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first.Which is minor, all things considered.
(Unless you saying access to mean Clerics get Uncommon and Rare spells too automatically, which they don’t aside from the ones granted by their deity).
That's never been something I said. Their lists change while clerics are constant.
|
|
That's never been something I said. Their lists change while clerics are constant.But they still can't change spells out through out the day so the ones they pick are what they're stuck with that day.It's not minor when talking about errata that removed a deity getting Divine spell access, because they already had access. A witch who needs to find the spell first could be given a spell for free from their own list as a way to ensure they get it and save money or time.Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when...right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first.Which is minor, all things considered.
(Unless you saying access to mean Clerics get Uncommon and Rare spells too automatically, which they don’t aside from the ones granted by their deity).
I wasn't claiming you said that, I was pointing out the limitations they were still under.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For sure. From that perspective, would you have been asking for a binary choice between occult and primal, or would you have felt a bit of blending would have better served both the class and the concept?Because it stands, the witch is not filling either of the prepared niches. It's not a prepared occult and it's not a prepared any, as it's leaving divine out in the lurch.
I think if they moved away from the witch theme, leaned heavier on the patrons and a true list-pick, that wouldn't be a bad class at all. Separate the traditional folklore witch, keep the name, but expand more by focusing on the patron relationship and effect. That's a totally viable class to me. But I think it would lose out on the hex/curse portion--what dragon is going to grant you a bunch of twitchy hexes instead of grand arcane magic?
That's a tougher question to answer.
I'd like to find a way to make everyone happy, because that's just the type of thing I hope for despite it being somewhat unrealistic at times.
I do think the legacy of the witch from PF1 needs to be considered in some aspect, so to that extent, it can't just be "dumped" down to a pick-a-list class as the focal point.
And personally, if Pick-a-list was the focal point of the class itself, I would have to see it as the Arcanist, since their themes seem to jive with that better as master of all magic (though the name is then grossly unfitting).
It's just too hard to see with Patrons/Hexes/Familiars/Lessons in their current state. At least for me.
Spring boarding off of this, imo, arcane has the best witch spell selection, with good necromancy, enchantment and polymorph spells.
Like they have charm and baleful polymorph and can curse people, I don't think that list should be excluded either.
I'd prefer they added all lists before limiting it to occult.
Spring boarding off of this, imo, arcane has the best witch spell selection, with good necromancy, enchantment and polymorph spells.
Like they have charm and baleful polymorph and can curse people, I don't think that list should be excluded either.
I'd prefer they added all lists before limiting it to occult.
I'll take it Bandw2 ;)
But I agree on Arcane. But that's probably because Arcane gets the widest grab on spells in general
Having one "pick one of 3" is disconcerting, whereas if they had 2 "pick one of " classes then it would feel like a pattern (plus we would be content speculating on what future class had X pattern of traditions to pick).
I could be surprised, but I doubt they will reduce the witch to one tradition. One bit of political wisdom that seemed good to me was "they will hate more for taking something away then they ever loved you for giving it to them in the first place." If the playtest witch had been occult then that would be that, but now that "pick a tradition" is out there, it will haunt them if they go back on it. See unchained summoner vs. original summoner to see how this went in PF1.
I'm not sure the playtest is nearly far-reaching enough to ruin people's opinions on the final drop in the summer. I don't disagree with your thoughts but I imagine the final result would be less intense.
Especially if they do announce at some point (should be around that time, probably?) that a prepared-anything or otherwise tradition-flexible class is coming to fill the gap that witch briefly would have threatened to accommodate. Right? I don't know. While plenty of folks on here have pretty strong opinions one way or the other, I think we're all aware that we're just picking at concepts to help out the designers, and no one here will really mind as long as Paizo releases a high-quality witch class. I think pick-a-list is a weak tie to witch, but if that's what comes out, as long as they have enough chassis to bring flavor into the game, you won't hear me complain.
I wouldn't ever begrudge someone their fun, and I'm fine if I don't get my way, but witch was my favorite class in PF1 for years and if it doesn't do it what I'm hoping it will- regardless of quality- I doubt I would play or enjoy it. That doesn't make anyone else wrong, but I certainly have a stake. My lone opinion isn't important by any means, but some people do have strong feelings on a personal level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, the if the designers are being convinced by the argument of restricting the list, I would question the posters in this thread if they think a duality choice between Occult and Primal is a good compromise, it would be very lore friendly given the direction of changelings:
As changelings come of age, they sometimes manifest abilities granted by their hag heritage. Some gain the ability to see in the dark, some grow fingernails long and hard enough to serve as claws, and others gain even stranger abilities specific to their hag mother. For instance, dream mays, the children of night hags or their cousins the dreamthief hags, can gain an enhanced ability to resist the magic of dreams and sleep. Other types of changelings include slag mays, the children of annis hags; callow mays, the children of green hags; brine mays, the children of sea hags; and others for each type of hag. As beings infused with supernatural power, changelings find themselves able to command various traditions of magic, with many drawn to either the occult magic common among hags or primal magic.
At roughly the same time in their lives, many changelings— women in particular—begin to hear the Call, a psychic urging from their hag mother luring them away from the communities that raised them. If followed, the Call eventually leads the changeling to the hag’s coven, where they are subjected to terrible rituals that twist them into hags themselves. Some changelings, especially those who have strong social bonds or embrace druidic traditions, are able to resist this Call and continue on with their mortal lives.
Courtesy of AoN of course.
It makes it seem like Changelings would have a connection to both an Occult Path, and a Primal Path, which I think would be pretty on brand for the witch- some witches embrace the path of occult magic and all of the darkness and secrets that path offers, while other witches focus on nature worship, but with a different approach than the Druid who invests in it more formally. I assume the Changeling in the same book, ought to be a model witch?
All of that said, I actually want to edit in a note that I'm fully in support of multiple lists at this point, it would make a good counterpart of the sorcerer and fulfill more flavors of witch, and I think that with a few specific changes (remember that other thread about replacing cackle in the base class with a stronger, more useful coven mechanic, that uses party spellcasters?) it could actually fulfill a super interesting niche in this game.
Hexes are focus spells / cantrips with an emphasis on sustained effects, the familiar as spellbook from your patron (with some mechanic to make it less squishy), and the ability to form a circle with other party spellcasters in place of Cackle/Coven all on a multi-list caster that can encompass lots of different Witch concepts? That's my perfect Witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was more relevant in the Divine list thread. But
Something people may find interesting. Raksashas which are fiends/devils cast occult magic. I discovered this while looking through the bestiary for what cast occult stuff.
Also poltergeist undead cast occult too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occult and Primal is a good compromise
So interestingly, I think this dichotomy could be exceptional cool if paired with an opposition type class or say other two spell list classes. In the prepared space I could easily see a primal and divine, a arcane and occult, and an occult and divine.
Possibly shaman, arcanist, inquisitor? Hmmmm.
I don't think people here are suggesting that oracle should be occult-only as a form of restriction. Think of it more as focusing. By building witches as they are with four slots per level and pick-a-list, balancing inherently means that hexes and familiar options are going to be lighter to balance. People who want a more narrowed witch aren't out to gut your concepts, as much as enable them to lean more into cross-tradition learning, more powerful and relevant hexes, and a general witchier sense.
Again, I imagine they'll end up with pick-a-list and a weak witch base. Is what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woo that Occult/Primal idea is getting some traction :D (even if I'm not sure if devs like that idea)
Do we have any particular reason to think they don't? If so I've missed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Occult and Primal is a good compromiseSo interestingly, I think this dichotomy could be exceptional cool if paired with an opposition type class or say other two spell list classes. In the prepared space I could easily see a primal and divine, a arcane and occult, and an occult and divine.
Possibly shaman, arcanist, inquisitor? Hmmmm.
there's already Halcyon casting, god i already remember how to spell it now.
which is a mixture of arcane and primal, would be neat if they got a full class.
I could pretty much see wizard archetypes filling the prepared pick-a-list class slot. I mean, many of the arguments for witches being able to pick divine also applied to wizards being able to learn other traditions.
|
“ It feels like the obvious answer to this is a simple stipulation that your patron can only teach you whatever kind of magic it knows.”
And why can’t a Dragon know Primal magic?
Again, Occult would be the Witch themselves. If they had a Nature Patron (Dryad) and bonus spells the bonus spells would be nature themed.
As for Sorcerer they’re (in my opinion) ehh, and also unique. You start adding more and more pick-a-lists and that wears off real quick. Also since their lists are tied to their Bloodlines it’s more innate to the class.
The current version of the Witch has no ties to any of the 3 lists.
I could pretty much see wizard archetypes filling the prepared pick-a-list class slot. I mean, many of the arguments for witches being able to pick divine also applied to wizards being able to learn other traditions.
That's why I think the Witch ought to be done differently, picking magic schools and casting through Infused objects like the Occultist. The Wizard can already specialize in 1 school of magic, but that only lets him pull from the Arcane list. He becomes a master Necromancer or Illusionist or Evoker. And that is a good role for the Wizard. The Witch is more of a dabbler, using Infused objects to cast spells of a few schools, but pulling spells from 3 different traditions. That alone would make the witch unique and different without having to create a "Witch spell list" of her own. Plus, it makes sense to fold an "Occult Adventures" class into the witch. Witches are famous for using Infused magical objects, from the Magic Mirror to the Cursed Apple to the Flying Broomstick. All of those can be created as unique Witch feats or abilities by creating an Occultist-based Witch class instead of pulling almost exclusively from the current batch of Wizard and other caster feats. And the Occultist style magic is easier than ever since Eschew Materials gives an obvious path of needing to swap a material component for a somatic component to cast a spell. That makes the Witch a kind of Anti-Sorcerer... the sorcerer can master 1 Magic Tradition and doesn't need material components, while the witch can only pull from a few schools of magic but can several traditions and absolutely requires material components. This way a witch character plays very different from most other casters and can't really be nailed down as a single caster style (buffer, damage dealer, summoner, etc). Depending upon the schools chosen, she could cover any of those roles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have a Witch and an Occultist
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have a Witch and an Occultist
I agree. The witch shouldn't be the prepared occult caster, that's what I can reasonably infer we'll have the occultist for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I would still vote for the Witch to be a prepared Occult caster. That doesn't mean Occultist can't also be a prepared Occult caster. But I want the Occultist to be the Occultist, not the Witch to be the Occultist
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could actually see Occultist being pick-a-list, depending on what items they dive into.
(I'd also like them and the Arcanist to be renamed, if they stay Occult and Arcane respectively)
Huh, I just really vibe with it the other way around. I feel like the witch has broader potential than the occultist, but I think it's just subjective stream-of-consciousness.
Honestly if they make a spell sword gish archetype of several flavors with specific names you might be able to repurpose the magus name as the new arcanist.
|
|
I'd rather have a Witch and an OccultistI agree. The witch shouldn't be the prepared occult caster, that's what I can reasonably infer we'll have the occultist for.
But the PF1e Occultist class doesn't just cast Occult spells, it's an Infused item using class as I described. And who knows how long until they get to Occult Adventures 2e anyway? Giving the witch some of the Occultist flavor now is a good opportunity to see if people are interested in it.
But the PF1e Occultist class doesn't just cast Occult spells, it's an Infused item using class as I described. And who knows how long until they get to Occult Adventures 2e anyway? Giving the witch some of the Occultist flavor now is a good opportunity to see if people are interested in it.I'd rather have a Witch and an OccultistI agree. The witch shouldn't be the prepared occult caster, that's what I can reasonably infer we'll have the occultist for.
If we can turn the witch into something substantially changed, we can substantially change the occultist. I like witch better my way, and wouldn't want to sacrifice my favorite class to test such a sentiment. Of course as you see above other people feel just the opposite.
Besides, this new edition features occult far more prominently. There's no reason to assume it's so far off, and an occultist prepared caster could still heavily be themed around implements. It would need to be substantially differentiated from both the wizard and bard anyhow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woo that Occult/Primal idea is getting some traction :D (even if I'm not sure if devs like that idea)Do we have any particular reason to think they don't? If so I've missed it.
I could be imagining it, but I got feeling that is the idea that hasn't got commented on by devs much .-.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm not strongly in favour of non-occult witches, I would certainly be able to accept a witch choosing whether to be primal or occult based on patron choice. I might even be able to accept divine and arcane. But it would have to be strongly tied to patrons, rather than lessons, which aren't my cup of tea. The lessons seem to lack strong connection to what your patron is, even if you choose ones that are thematically close. The patron itself should mean something, and tieing tradition choice to that makes sense, but not lessons so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or we could save the Occultist stuff for the Occultist.
Only if we save the witch stuff for the witch. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could actually see Occultist being pick-a-list, depending on what items they dive into.
(I'd also like them and the Arcanist to be renamed, if they stay Occult and Arcane respectively)
oh they could make them a full caster that has access to all spells of a school instead of a tradition. where they get to pick a school like every 6 levels.
they'd probably still cast spells as occult though.
|
|
I could actually see Occultist being pick-a-list, depending on what items they dive into.
(I'd also like them and the Arcanist to be renamed, if they stay Occult and Arcane respectively)
oh they could make them a full caster that has access to all spells of a school instead of a tradition. where they get to pick a school like every 6 levels.
they'd probably still cast spells as occult though.
*tilts head back and forth*
There's something, don't know how practical it would be though.