|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed something about the Playtest version of the witch, and I wanted to check to see if I understand everything correctly. I apologize for being months late. A Witch that takes either the Lesson of Protection or Lesson of Deceit gains the arcane spellcasting tradition. They are now an INT-based prepared caster with the arcane spellcasting tradition, like the wizard.
However, witches get 3 or 4 daily spells of each level while wizards only get 2 or 3. Wizards are granted an additional daily spell at each level by their arcane school/arcane bond class features, yes, but those extra spells are limited; they must all from either the same school, or instead be ones the wizard has already cast (for universalists). Witches lack this limitation, right? So advantage: witch.
In addition, witches automatically receive a familiar, which receives an extra ability at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels. This is exactly the same as the Improved Familiar Attunement Arcane Thesis class feature, right?
My point is that the Playtest version of the witch receives an improved version of Arcane School and the equivalent of an Arcane Theses. I think this is a problem because:
1) It makes arcane witches too similar to wizards, especially if the wizards chose the Improved Familiar Attunement for their Arcane Thesis. Arcane witches and wizards are currently more similar to each other than Occult Sorcerers and Bards are to each other.
2) It makes the witches slight better than wizards because the former has the same number of spells as the latter, give or take one, but with fewer restrictions.
My solution would be for witches to receive the same 2 or 3 daily spells at each level that most other casters receive. The witches’ hexes should be buffed so they become a class-defining USP, much like compositions are to a bard.
What are your thought on arcane witches?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I broadly agree with your concern, but I wouldn't really spend too much time worrying about specific fixes that assume final Witch rules will retain multilist aspect... Because while nothing definitive has been publicly revealed AFAIK, Paizo's official APG Playtest response seemed to indicate that removing the multi-list aspect of Witch is on the table. And IMHO dropping it to single base list has high chance of being Occult only, which would remove this concern. How it compares to Bard playstyle is then separate issue, although Prep/Spont already distinguish them. Of course, base tradition can and often is augmented with specific off-tradition spells, but that's not equivalent of flatly casting off other base tradition.
Here's summary threads people made based on Paizo's official Twitch stream: (1st more on this issue, 2nd more in general)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/e77eql/paraphrased_transcrip t_of_paizos_playtest_twitch/
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42vcf?Playtest-Retrospective-Summary
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been my concern ever since they tried to unify spell lists. While the old system of class specific lists was cluttered, the difference in spells allowed for easily created niches (buffing/enchanting bards being a prime example). With the parts of the spell system this edition inherited from 3.5, tt seems like there are only so many classes you can have with the same spell list before some start to make others feel obsolete.
The old prepared/spontaneous divide provides an immediate niche to separate casters on a spell list. In PF1, you also saw full and 2/3 casters, with the latter usually being a gish of some sort for further difference. But this edition went for less spells per level, in return for opening up save DCs, so that is out.
So, without specialized spell lists, it only feels like you can have ~8 caster classes without needing a LOT of effort for differentiation. Wizards seem like the easiest victims for this, since their main class ability has always been "prepared caster with the best spell list", with everything else being a bit of bland side dressing. Their features were never as flavorful as the sorcerer bloodlines.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with specialized lists PF1 kind of had a problem of full casters not feeling like they had much to their character other than their spell list.
I was really hoping PF2 would fix that, but they didn't.
I don't think they're going to 'replace' wizards, but I do think it's a fair concern that there's a lot of overlap.
Like, this is the second book of classes Paizo has published and just with how much thematic overlap there is between the classes has me already feeling like we're running out of full casters to publish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even with specialized lists PF1 kind of had a problem of full casters not feeling like they had much to their character other than their spell list.
Fair. The old system just had more spell lists to throw around so it was easier to avoid this problem.
I worry they will run back into the same kind of territory they faced with the occult classes. Where they create entire new systems of magic (various psychic spells), or create a class with a bunch of spell like effects without using the spell system (kineticist). Those classes were nice, but it definitely felt like they were trying to take a sharp turn to get some space from the standard spell classes.
They might want to just give a class a limited selection of spells, and enough uses that the class is happy with it. I am sure many PF1 magus players could get by with just a few different elemental flavors of shocking grasp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Easily solved with a different selection of feats imo and thesis like metamagical experimentation is likely to get better as time goes forwards.
As for schools, universalist is more flexible in some ways with drain bonded item than simply having another slot.
I dunno, I would say that the differences in theme and mechanics are there (although slight atm in regards to mechanics), I don't mind both being similar.
I fall on the side that would rather witches keep the multi spell list access but have it more closely tied to their patron selection. Having occult only really limits the themaatic application of witches to a very niche category (vs nature witches, white witches, devil witches and so on). A spell list doesn't really define a character for me though and as the four spell lists get bigger my characters will be defined by what I pick/use rather than what the class allows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like what the wizard needs mostly to stand on its own is "flashier low level feats". Once you get into the higher levels the thing that sets the Wizard apart is not the arcane list, but with how much mileage they can get out of spell slots (the universalist with bond conservation can get silly). But the low level wizard feats are mostly metamagic.
We've recreated the "Wizards take a while to get rolling" issue in a strange way.
I strongly prefer the Witch as prepared "pick a list" to "prepared occult". We're going to need both eventually anyway though.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the various spell list stays. the problem isnt the spell lists it's the hexes. the hexes should be the defining feature of the class, but it simply isnt. the problem exists with the oracle revelation spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having occult only really limits the themaatic application of witches to a very niche category (vs nature witches, white witches, devil witches and so on).
My take on that is those themes don't really require a full separate spell list.
Do Nature Witches really need Summon Elemental or Giant, Ant Haul, Grease, Weapon Storm, Elemental Form, i.e. all of Primal List?Do White Witches or Devil really need all of the Divine List, or just healing and Diabolic stuff?
Devil Sorceror spells are not all normally Divine, and a White Witch might even want Healing magic that is normally Primal and not Divine.
So using this broad brush of "pick a list" doesn't really seem ideal for enabling these concepts...
Allowing Patron concepts to selectively expand base list as well as offer unique focus spells and feats/ base mechanics,
like Deities/Domains/Bloodlines do, but potentially more widereaching than we've seen so far with those, seems more appropriate IMHO.
This can be more than just singular Patron choice but they could have sub-selections as well, like Deities/Domains,
some sub-selections possibly shared by multiple Patrons, or even 'universal' sub-selections in certain cases.
Not all Patron concepts even need to use the same kind of mechanical approach, some could not expand base spell list at all,
but instead offer more unique mechanics ala Composition Cantrips but not necessarily in same thematic niche as Bard.
(although a Bardic type Patron could certainly exist to play a rather Bardic Witch)
I thought of how Sha'ir concept is very Familiar centric as Witch is, and could be Subclass (Patron) of Witch,
with Genie Familiar going to "fetch" spells from the planes as is traditional in D&D Sha'ir
which I imagined would work out somewhat similarly to Arcanist but with Genie fetched "spell essences"
letting you "Spontaneously Substitute" those spells for your normally prepared Occult Witch spells,
the Genie spell access including Elemental/Arcane stuff that isn't normally on Occult list,
at higher levels able to "fetch" more frequently (1 or 2hr VS daily) even multiple (staggered levels) "SpontSubstitute" spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like what the wizard needs mostly to stand on its own is "flashier low level feats".
I think you've hit on what makes the casters seem same-ish to me. I can glance down the wizard list, for instance, and see some variation of the feat traits "Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer" from level 1 - 20. For myself, I think moving all those cross-class feats off the class lists* and filling in those spaces with class unique feats would go a LONG way into making it feel like each class was their own thing. I know such a change is unlikely at this point, but I can dream. Maybe when PF2.5 comes out...
* What I mean by this is make them like multiclass feats that require spellcasting to take. Doing so would also make thing more backwards compatible when, say the witch, gains access to Reach Spell, requiring the "Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer" feat entries be errata'd. And then when the NEXT book that has a caster in it then TWO books needs errata'd again...
So that is change to core game which you seem to recognize is far off...
But I'm curious what you think about option to deal with that within scope of current game...
Just not taking (all of) those Feats, either taking other Class Feat of same Level (or earlier ones you missed),
or delving into Multiclass or other Archetype Feats that aren't just like standard common Caster Feats..?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to be interested to see how the feat expansions will work tbh. I feel that having class feats tied to classes is likely to be as limiting and problematic for expansion as having spell lists was in PF1e in the design field.
Either there will be a lot of reprinted content going forwards. Or there will be a class feat section similar to the spell section and "feat lists" similar to spell lists.
I do think that class specific feats were a good idea, but having universal class feats would have been wise as well (expansion wise).
This brings me to an experiment I conducted recently where I compared every spell from cantrips to level 3 spells from 5e to PF2e (I skipped PF1e as spell levels aren't set in stone). I did this because I wanted to know why I felt so uninspired/disappointed by the PF2e spell lists.
What I found was:
- The PF2e spell list is smaller than 5e's CRB to PHB after removing uncommon spells from the list, but not dramatically so thanks to spells that heighten to different spells. (I compared all levels of spells for this not just cantrips to level 3).
- The biggest issue with blasting/damage in the spell lists is feat support and a low number of feats for blasting. Especially when you take away niche spells (disrupt undead and similar).
- I actually liked the PF2e spell lists more than the 5e spell lists mechanically, more of the spells have long term usability and are worth casting imo. Less filler.
- The 5e lists supported multiple arch-typical themes and seem to have been intentionally built to support those themes every spell level. Where as PF2e seems a bit scattershot, an issue I think may have come from the change to spell traditions.
To give a hyper exaggerated hypothetical example to explain the point above. Imagine an elemental master class, they get ~80 spells in their list from spell levels 1-10. Air, Earth, Water, Fire.
5e: would likely have the character having something close to two of each element at each level. Making sure that if you wanted an air master you could always select something that would suit that archetype or maybe have a choice between two spells of that theme.
PF2e: would have a chaotic list, most spells having value or fitting the theme of the tradition but for specific spellcasting archetypes it is more likely to support 1, and then split the other spells randomly throughout the levels where they would be appropriate. So you might get four earth spells at 1, two fire, two air no water. The next level might have two earth spells, one air, two water.
Again; a highly exaggerated example. But as I said, an issue I believe comes from the shift to traditions over class based spell lists.
Also one that I don't think will remain as much of a noticeable issue after 1-2 major supplements expanding spell traditions with new spells.
I find this interesting regarding my own personal dislike as it highlighted a danger that needs to be looked out for if they do go the route of universal class feats. Thankfully skill feats are thematically tied by default, but general feats are still at risk despite being minimized by the ability to take most skill feats as a general feat anyway.
So that is change to core game which you seem to recognize is far off...
But I'm curious what you think about option to deal with that within scope of current game...
Just not taking (all of) those Feats, either taking other Class Feat of same Level (or earlier ones you missed),
or delving into Multiclass or other Archetype Feats that aren't just like standard common Caster Feats..?
Currently as the game sits, multiclass/archetype isn't a bad way to go: either double down on casting, which can be a big boon even just with the cantrips [like occult getting attack cantrip options] or gish or even more exotic [like Pathfinder Agent/Bellflower Tiller Aid build that passes out bonuses between spells]. But really anything you can take to get away from the common caster feats helps.
It just comes down to numbers: casters tend to have less feats per level [and total] and more overlap then martials: wizard shares 13 out of 33 class feats, sorcerer 10/32 and druid 8 out of 47. A ranger shares 9 out of 62 feats, a fighter shares 11 out of 78 and 4 out of 54 for the rogue. 17-39% overlap vs 7-14% clearly shows the disparity in 'uniqueness' from feats putting a greater burden on spell lists to make up the slack IMO. I do have to say, cleric does a good job in this and is a standout for casters: 3 out of 49, beating even the rogue: if only all caster looked like that.
Within the constraints of the current game, what Paizo could do to help out would be for each of those universal feats, add a unique class feat of the same level so you're not looking at levels where there are more universal caster feats than feats unique to your own class. It'd help each character feel more unique without having to multiclass and it's help balance out the class feat totals among the classes: as it is, casters are getting the short end of the stick in terms of options, unique or otherwise.
|
|
So, without specialized spell lists, it only feels like you can have ~8 caster classes without needing a LOT of effort for differentiation. Wizards seem like the easiest victims for this, since their main class ability has always been "prepared caster with the best spell list", with everything else being a bit of bland side dressing. Their features were never as flavorful as the sorcerer bloodlines.
As a wizard player, my view is that the arcane spell list is pure offense, with damaging spells and debuffs. The wizard's USP is that through arcane school and arcane bond, they have more daily spells thab other casters (except sorcerors, but off topic). So wizards can afford an aggressive playstyle.
Witches' higher base number of daily spells, free of the limits of arcane bond, intrude on the wizards' design space. If wiches didn't have arcane tradition, then obviously this wouldn't be an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this logic being applied to the Wizard and not every other caster as well?
Bards and Sorcerers (Occult) are distinct and don’t overlap.
This is a matter of balance and distinction through the witches final class abilities. And to be honest, the playtest is over, and we don’t know what the final is going to look like. Providing further feedback at this point, IMO, is beating a dead horse.
I had a similar concern about Swashbuckler before I saw the rules for it, that it would overlap with Fighter. Of course, that’s not really the case.
The rules for Witch are vastly different from Wizard, if the concern is that it will outshine the Wizard, that comes down to balance and the implementation of mechanics in their finality.
Patrons, lessons, hexes and bound familiars are completely different themes and mechanics, execution for that distinction are fully possible (and honestly almost a certainty for me, they were close in the PT, just a few tweaks would get it there for me personally).
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the witch gets less spell slots (substantially less, even), but more at-will cantrip hexes. That should set the class apart from the others.
I hope the witch gets less spell slots (substantially less, even), but more at-will cantrip hexes. That should set the class apart from the others.I think that would be a fine solution, although I think it was Mark who Seifter expressed concern players would simply spam hexes if they were 1-action.
Yeah they want it to be a spellcaster, not a hex caster who has the option of casting spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plenty of design room to keep Hexes from being spammed. There was a ton of discussion in the playtest on spell lists. I'm personally in favor of just Occult with specific archetypes coming from Patrons. I'd be concerned with the core mechanical chassis (Hexes, Patrons, Familiar) suffering because Paizo is also considering them in relation to the option of three spell traditions.
I digress and this has all been discussed ad nauseam, but I think it's pertinent to the discussion of how spellcasters need to find identity beyond spell lists. I think Druid is the best example of that right now, because their class feats seem so much more inspired to me than what the other casters have. Bard is close. Both aren't defined just by which spell list they pull from, but what they're actually doing beyond that. A Primal Sorcerer can't mimic what a Druid does, and an Occult Sorcerer likewise can't mimic what a Bard does because the class feats are so defining, rather than just the spell list.
That's why I think Witch should be really focused on that triad of mechanics and not the spell list as its "thing", because otherwise I really, genuinely feel that "prepared caster with hexes" could just be a robust archetype for the classes we already have. I guess I come down opposite to OP in a sense; what's the purpose of the Arcane Witch when we could just make it a Wizard archetype? There's gotta be more there, for every casting class.
I am going to be interested to see how the feat expansions will work tbh. I feel that having class feats tied to classes is likely to be as limiting and problematic for expansion as having spell lists was in PF1e in the design field. spells for this not just cantrips to level 3).
Yeah, they went pretty hard on that. They removed a lot of things from the shared pool of feats, and moved them to class.
The pfsrd provides a break down of feats that you can pick. There are only 17 'nonskill feats' from core, and 13 of those are level 1 feats. There is nothing past level 11. You pretty much HAVE to fill those feat slots with skill feats (which also already have their own set of separate feat slots, and don't have much need for the general feat slots).
Paizo set a precedent of giving us pretty much nothing from shared set of combat feats. Most of their design focus has been on dedications, which require a rather large investment (it doesn't help that the first feat of many dedications just gives some bland skills).
If they allowed us to take certain dedications through general feats, then it would be pretty easy to solve this problem. Like a "martial dedication" that let you grab nonspellcaster class dedications, or maybe the creation of a trait tag like "hell knight" that would let you get any hell knight dedication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like what the wizard needs mostly to stand on its own is "flashier low level feats".I think you've hit on what makes the casters seem same-ish to me. I can glance down the wizard list, for instance, and see some variation of the feat traits "Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer" from level 1 - 20. For myself, I think moving all those cross-class feats off the class lists* and filling in those spaces with class unique feats would go a LONG way into making it feel like each class was their own thing. I know such a change is unlikely at this point, but I can dream. Maybe when PF2.5 comes out...
* What I mean by this is make them like multiclass feats that require spellcasting to take. Doing so would also make thing more backwards compatible when, say the witch, gains access to Reach Spell, requiring the "Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer" feat entries be errata'd. And then when the NEXT book that has a caster in it then TWO books needs errata'd again...
To relate this excellent concern back to the OP, as kind of weird as the Metamagic feat distribution is in PF2, I don't think it is a safe bet to assume that all metamagic feats will be available to the Witch, while I think most metamagic feats that do not modify or interact with specific class features will be available to the wizard going forward.
A lot of metamagic feats in PF2 are not on all full caster lists. Like wizards are the only casters who get access to silent spell right now, which is a pretty big shift from PF1 where anyone could get it and some oracles basically got it as default. Instead, it seems like in PF2 there are a lot more almost the same feats and class features that do most of what another class feat or feature do but are their own separate thing.
There are only 2 metamagic feats that are on all the caster's spell lists, so I think that metamagic manipulation of spells really is supposed to be more of a wizard niche than it might strike most people when they glance over the feat lists, because many of the other classes share 3 or 4 metamagic feats with the wizard but currently there are a couple of metamagic niches that are only present on the wizard, but feel like they should be available to witches, so it will be interesting to see how much those feat lists end up paralleling each other by the time the APG is printed. (Such as secret illusionist/enchanter, which could be a sorcerer in PF1, but is pretty difficult to replicate in PF2)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think just the normal ongoing development of game (APG as major part, but not just), adding Feats both Class-specific, and the proliferation of Archetypes (which can include Class-specific ones, or ones relevant to wider variety of Casters) will help differentiate Class builds more. I think it's not even that there is sharing (which also exists between martials), but that especially for casters "the basic stuff" is just larger part of the mix. But it was all set up to be optional, so with more options you can move in more unique directions.
I do think there is a different vibe from 1e, in that the play style is more pushed to "at the game table" than "at the desk" (building character), so it's not necessarily about abilities/builds being "interesting" in themselves but using even humble tools effectively and creatively at the table. Casters have a whole level of customization over other characters with their spells, and just because they might have common shared/pattern caster feats doesn't mean they all play the same, or people must think of their characters the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a matter of balance and distinction through the witches final class abilities. And to be honest, the playtest is over, and we don’t know what the final is going to look like. Providing further feedback at this point, IMO, is beating a dead horse.
The rules for Witch are vastly different from Wizard, if the concern is that it will outshine the Wizard, that comes down to balance and the implementation of mechanics in their finality.
Patrons, lessons, hexes and bound familiars are completely different themes and mechanics, execution for that distinction are fully possible (and honestly almost a certainty for me, they were close in the PT, just a few tweaks would get it there for me personally).
I think you missed my point entirely. During the playtest, arcane witches, because of their high number of daily spells, were more or less wizards that have fewer restrictions on the spells they prepare. Also, their familiar was identical to that of the Improved Familiar Arcane thesis. Patrons had no mechanical effect whatsoever.
I posted because I wasn't sure if people realized how much the two classes overlapped. Unless Paizo makes certain changes to the witch, such as altering available spell traditions, number of daily spells, or revisiting hexes, the two classes will continue to overlap. That would be bad.
If I waited until publication to offer feedback, then it would be too late for the changes I feel are necessary. You may feel this discussion is "beating a dead horse", but I not aware that anyone had voiced these concerns of mine before. And you certainly don't have to post in a discussion you think is pointless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? It seems to have doubled down on building the character stats and nothing else to me. Characters are relentlessly the same (broad strokes between classes and almost no variation within classes), with maybe a few personality quirks (if the player bothers) that don't feel tied in to the character- they're interchangeable between whatever stat blocks you happen to play.
Someone mentioned the overlap of bards and occult sorcerers above, which I just find odd. The bard is just strictly better. That's just how PF2 rolls - sometimes there are dead options that fill out the stat block, and its best just to avoid them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a matter of balance and distinction through the witches final class abilities. And to be honest, the playtest is over, and we don’t know what the final is going to look like. Providing further feedback at this point, IMO, is beating a dead horse.
The rules for Witch are vastly different from Wizard, if the concern is that it will outshine the Wizard, that comes down to balance and the implementation of mechanics in their finality.
Patrons, lessons, hexes and bound familiars are completely different themes and mechanics, execution for that distinction are fully possible (and honestly almost a certainty for me, they were close in the PT, just a few tweaks would get it there for me personally).
I think you missed my point entirely. During the playtest, arcane witches, because of their high number of daily spells, were more or less wizards that have fewer restrictions on the spells they prepare. Also, their familiar was identical to that of the Improved Familiar Arcane thesis. Patrons had no mechanical effect whatsoever.
I posted because I wasn't sure if people realized how much the two classes overlapped. Unless Paizo makes certain changes to the witch, such as altering available spell traditions, number of daily spells, or revisiting hexes, the two classes will continue to overlap. That would be bad.
If I waited until publication to offer feedback, then it would be too late for the changes I feel are necessary. You may feel this discussion is "beating a dead horse", but I not aware that anyone had voiced these concerns of mine before. And you certainly don't have to post in a discussion you think is pointless.
I didn’t miss the point.
I do not agree with you and was active on the witch forums, honestly more than any other class from the PT, and I simply do not feel like the argument made is based on anything but personal taste.
I want them to have all four lists and I firmly think that after adjustments to the class, which will inevitably come, that it will not overlap with the Wizard.
I don’t even agree with your assertion that the Witch from PT is somehow invalidating the Wizards existence anymore than it would a Druid, or an Aberrant Sorcerer invalidates a Bard.
Spell lists are but a modicum of the overall class, and making blanket claims about a class as a whole on the bearing of spell lists alone is like saying two martial classes that can be archers/TWF “overlap too much”.
And I didn’t say the discussion was pointless, but to think this is the first time the conversation has been had at this point would be fair from the case. There were literally multiple threads with hundreds of posts, and those all occurred when the devs were actually looking for feedback.
Now, I’d imagine almost everything is in post production, since the playtest confirmed the direction they were going was a good one with minor tweaks and additions. I was only pointing out that discussing something that’s finalized already, and after many people discussed it at length during the appropriate window, might not be the best way to utilize the discussion.
If there are new points to bring up sure, but again, we’re making assumptions based on the PT of the class, which won’t be the final, and at this point is unlikely to change. If you wanted to discuss the final product, we’re going to have to wait until August.
Using specific mechanical items (spells per day) to make an argument when we know those numbers are subject to change is less important to me than discussing the concepts around the overlap, because if the only thing to support an argument is the number itself then it’s not final.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying feedback is pointless (or "beating a dead horse") because the playtest is over is just flatly wrong, because Paizo specifically said they were open to feedback past the official closing of the playtest. Whenever Paizo do reach the final iteration of the rules and send it to the printers, it will be pointless to submit more feedback (in terms of affecting APG rules content, it could inform future expansions), but AFAIK they are still working on them... although I'm not sure exactly when their due date is to finalize for the printers. I think the official announcement that "pick a list" is on the table for being cut clearly is major context to consider for feedback now, but shifting to single occult base list wasn't stated to be certain... So feedback on problems deriving from "pick a list" design still seems valid and useful for Paizo to consider (both if they choose to stay with "pick a list", or as factor in whether they drop it or not).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They stated pick a list was potential for being cut as much as they said Divine could be added.
And we do not know when the deadline for feedback is, but is it really crazy to assume that when they closed the PT feedback forums (a bit ago I might add) that at this point we might just owe them a little time to consume that feedback and make it a reality?
Like, maybe they are still tweaking it, but probably based on the mountains of survey data, feedback threads, etc from the PT. I doubt they are skimming the forums for a thread hashing the same discussion back again that was done to death already without new discussion points (or ones based on specific numbers).
And I have seen no new arguments here that weren’t already discussed, IMO.
|
|
Now, I’d imagine almost everything is in post production...
You "imagine", yes. You don't know that all decisions have been made and finalized. And as Quandry has said, feedback is still appreciated.
And I have seen no new arguments here that weren’t already discussed, IMO.
Since I was not able to participate in the playtest or the forum discussion, I posted now. I reckon others are in the same boat, or want to discuss it more. If you're bored with this discussion and don't like that it's happening after the playtest has closed, you don't have to post.
Feedback can also be useful since it allows them to consider their issues, and attempt to create solutions with future publishing.
Heck, the original archetype system in PF1 seems like a system designed specifically to provide post class launch changes and options. It became a highly versatile system with countless popular options. So trying to find ways to create that kind of system would help paizo to refine the new edition.
I feel this can be worked upon with current systems in PF2. Dedications already provide a mechanic that could be adapted. Specifically, we already have a precedent of spellcaster dedications, where your character can add on various spells.
One solution to limited spell list is to create a dedication with a "dedicated spell list"- this would be a short list of spells thematically associated with the dedication, and you could build the dedication so it is meant for a specific class. I am not familiar with what the play test is doing, but I could easily imagine an Irrisen themed 'winter witch' dedication that adds various ice themed spells. Or a curse based witch dedication that grabs curse spells from multiple spell lists. Such a list could even be future proofed by allowing them to grab all spells with a specific trait tag (as we saw with the old hex crafter magus archetype, which got all curse spells).
While I am concerned about the high investment and the low early returns of many dedications, the system does attempt to recapture the archetype system's post publishing tuning, and it has potential to solve this kind of problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell lists are but a modicum of the overall class
Are they though? The 'full' spellcasting classes, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, don't really have many class features at all outside their spellcasting.
The classes with reduced spells per day like Druids and Bards have a little more meat to their chassis as a result, but even still spellcasting is still pretty clearly a huge chunk of their power budget and what they are as a class.
Wizards and Witches don't even have that though. They're both full spells/day casters which means a pretty thin chassis. So you end up in a situation where the only difference between a level 1 Witch and a level 1 Wizard with the familiar thesis is... a focus spell and drain bond.
So how different the two of them are pretty much comes down entirely to how big of a deal that focus spell is. There are some pretty nice focus spells, but there are a lot of ones that aren't going to really matter much too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a similar concern about Swashbuckler before I saw the rules for it, that it would overlap with Fighter. Of course, that’s not really the case.
I don’t even agree with your assertion that the Witch from PT is somehow invalidating the Wizards existence anymore than it would a Druid, or an Aberrant Sorcerer invalidates a Bard.
It’s true that this isn’t the first thread that has asked if option X invalidates/replaces/overlaps with option Y. You bring up Fighter/Swashbuckler and Occult Sorcerer/Bard in response to my concerns about Arcane Witch/Wizard. I don’t think it’s a sound analogy.
Swashbucklers are different than fighters because they have different weapon/armor proficiencies and the panache mechanic, but lack combat flexibility. Fighters and swashbucklers are both capable melee martial builds, but they play differently don’t overlap much.
Occult Sorcerers are different than bards because they have different skill proficiencies, more spells per day and interesting blood magic, but lack the bard’s performance cantrips. Occult sorcerers and bards are both capable CHA-based spontaneous occult casters, but they play differently and don’t overlap much.
Arcane witches and wizards are too similar, IMO. They have nearly identical proficiencies. They have almost the same number of daily spells, and the witch’s familiar works the same as the familiar the wizard gets from the Improved Familiar Attunement. The only difference is they get different focus spells, though focus spells on a wizard are optional (Universalists), and the focus spells are a minor difference.
I don’t know how or if they’ll change witches (though I have confidence in the game designers’ abilities), but if they leave in the witch’s access to the arcane tradition and number of daily spells then the witch will overlap with, and in many cases outshine, the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just doing a short post since I didn't get enough time to respond to things I wanted to during the playtest & have even less time right now.
Fan of switch-list Witches, don't see good reason why divine was excluded. Don't think having Sorcerer/Witch be switch casters invalidates other casters that share a spell list (though I think there don't need to be any more switch casters after Sorcerer/Witch).
While I do not see the Wizard being replaced by an arcane Witch - I do think that Wizards are the most thematically weak class out of the current caster batch. Since the original PF2 Playtest I disliked how little impact arcane schools had and how Universalist seemed like a better option most of the time. Honestly, I see any perceived overlap here as more a fault of Wizard rather than the Witch.
As for spells per day - considering the survey questions and what I saw in posts, I see it as very likely that Witches will lose a spell a day from the playtest in exchange for hexes becoming more useful/usable - which I'd probably be fine with.
Someone mentioned the overlap of bards and occult sorcerers above, which I just find odd. The bard is just strictly better.
I know for me, bard seems like an occult sorcerer except it had Composition Spells/Cantrips... And some weapon/armor proficiencies... And Muses... It's easy to look at it all as just a big upgrade to a 'bloodline'.
Not to say I hate sorcerer [they make a great multiclass option].
|
|
Just doing a short post since I didn't get enough time to respond to things I wanted to during the playtest & have even less time right now.
Fan of switch-list Witches, don't see good reason why divine was excluded. Don't think having Sorcerer/Witch be switch casters invalidates other casters that share a spell list (though I think there don't need to be any more switch casters after Sorcerer/Witch).
While I do not see the Wizard being replaced by an arcane Witch - I do think that Wizards are the most thematically weak class out of the current caster batch. Since the original PF2 Playtest I disliked how little impact arcane schools had and how Universalist seemed like a better option most of the time. Honestly, I see any perceived overlap here as more a fault of Wizard rather than the Witch.
As for spells per day - considering the survey questions and what I saw in posts, I see it as very likely that Witches will lose a spell a day from the playtest in exchange for hexes becoming more useful/usable - which I'd probably be fine with.
I think I'd be great if witches lost a daily spell but got better cantrips in exchange. Wiches weren't given the divine list due to flavor/thematic reasons (they'd be too close to clerics), which I think is backwards.
The wizard's unique class features - Arcane Bond and Arcane School - just give them more daily spells. So when a similar caster shows up with those same extra daily spells, what's the point of a Wizard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the "pick any list" thing is a lot cleaner than "pick any list except divine". Since the latter implies the existence of "pick any list except occult", and "pick any list except primal" and "pick any list except arcane" classes.
I mean, unless of course there are ideas for those three classes, but we're still going to need a "pick any list at all" caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that Wizards are the most thematically weak class out of the current caster batch
I agree that this is the real takeaway. Wizards just are a very bland class with not a lot of thematic strength behind them. You pick a school, but your school barely means anything at all. You pick a thesis, which is nice, but it's not class defining... and you've got some of the most generic feats in the game on top of that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that Wizards are the most thematically weak class out of the current caster batchI agree that this is the real takeaway. Wizards just are a very bland class with not a lot of thematic strength behind them. You pick a school, but your school barely means anything at all. You pick a thesis, which is nice, but it's not class defining... and you've got some of the most generic feats in the game on top of that.
I'll be honest, I don't get a lot more 'theme' out of sorcerers: it's pretty much the same- bonus spells every level, focus spell, blood magic/thesis... It boils down to list and casting type [prepared vs spontaneous]. If sorcerer had a prepared options, would we need wizard?
I do think that Wizards are the most thematically weak class out of the current caster batchI agree that this is the real takeaway. Wizards just are a very bland class with not a lot of thematic strength behind them. You pick a school, but your school barely means anything at all. You pick a thesis, which is nice, but it's not class defining... and you've got some of the most generic feats in the game on top of that.
This is where I think the lack of specific class feats hurts the class a bit, if the wizard schools each had a feat every level that supported a school and a few more thesis supporting feats it would start to be dramatically different.
One thing I would like to see is dedications that have a "you must choose 4 feats from this dedication" that can be ignored if you are a specific class or have a specific focus.
So, for the familiar master dedication we know is coming in the APG. Maybe the witch and wizard with familiar thesis could ignore the 4 dedication feat requirement entirely.
I think the same goal is served by having such Archetype Feats simultaneously just be Class Feats (with pre-req of appropriate Sub-Class as relevant). Which allows them to have different Level if appropriate, but also is smoother if there might also be Class-Unique Feats (that general Archetype doesn't get) which use the base Feat as a pre-req. (rather than refer "out" to non-Class Archetype Feat, simpler to have it presented all within class) ...Also, for planning Class sections, each Sub-Class having certain portion of Feats is simple formula to plan layout around... but if some Sub-Class' Feats end up located in other section for general Archetype Feats, layout balance could get weird.
But it probably depends on the type of product it is in... The above might apply to product with moderately large section for all classes and covering all Sub-Classes, which is meant to be balanced page-wise. In a different kind of product with less general focus on Classes, but that happens to have an Archetype appropriate to a Class... it might be simpler to just grant a Class (or Sub-Class) Dedication-Free access to those Feats, like you proposed.
I think the same goal is served by having such Archetype Feats simultaneously just be Class Feats (with pre-req of appropriate Sub-Class as relevant). Which allows them to have different Level if appropriate, but also is smoother if there might also be Class-Unique Feats (that general Archetype doesn't get) which use the base Feat as a pre-req. (rather than refer "out" to non-Class Archetype Feat, simpler to have it presented all within class) ...Also, for planning Class sections, each Sub-Class having certain portion of Feats is simple formula to plan layout around... but if some Sub-Class' Feats end up located in other section for general Archetype Feats, layout balance could get weird.
But it probably depends on the type of product it is in... The above might apply to product with moderately large section for all classes and covering all Sub-Classes, which is meant to be balanced page-wise. In a different kind of product with less general focus on Classes, but that happens to have an Archetype appropriate to a Class... it might be simpler to just grant a Class (or Sub-Class) Dedication-Free access to those Feats, like you proposed.
Possibly but then we run into the issue of printing space and paizo deciding if it is worth their while or not (in business and layout rather than gameplay).
if the wizard schools each had a feat every level that supported a school and a few more thesis supporting feats it would start to be dramatically different.
Any non-generic feats would help, but school specific every level would tend to funnel wizards of those schools to those feats making those wizard tend to look alike. I think I'd rather see about an equal mix of straight wizard feats [any school/thesis], school and thesis feats. If they did it right, I'd want it so it was a tough choice each time which type I wanted to pick. That way, the chance you'd see matching feats on different character much reduced.
Yeah I would say around 3 to 6 school focused feats at the most.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd be great if witches lost a daily spell but got better cantrips in exchange. Wiches weren't given the divine list due to flavor/thematic reasons (they'd be too close to clerics), which I think is backwards.Just doing a short post since I didn't get enough time to respond to things I wanted to during the playtest & have even less time right now.
Fan of switch-list Witches, don't see good reason why divine was excluded. Don't think having Sorcerer/Witch be switch casters invalidates other casters that share a spell list (though I think there don't need to be any more switch casters after Sorcerer/Witch).
While I do not see the Wizard being replaced by an arcane Witch - I do think that Wizards are the most thematically weak class out of the current caster batch. Since the original PF2 Playtest I disliked how little impact arcane schools had and how Universalist seemed like a better option most of the time. Honestly, I see any perceived overlap here as more a fault of Wizard rather than the Witch.
As for spells per day - considering the survey questions and what I saw in posts, I see it as very likely that Witches will lose a spell a day from the playtest in exchange for hexes becoming more useful/usable - which I'd probably be fine with.
The Divine list was not given to PT Witches because it is the opposite of Arcane as far as Essences are concerned and the PF1 Witch was Arcane-only. It was not done because of Clerics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Divine list was not given to PT Witches because it is the opposite of Arcane as far as Essences are concerned and the PF1 Witch was Arcane-only. It was not done because of Clerics.I think I'd be great if witches lost a daily spell but got better cantrips in exchange. Wiches weren't given the divine list due to flavor/thematic reasons (they'd be too close to clerics), which I think is backwards.Just doing a short post since I didn't get enough time to respond to things I wanted to during the playtest & have even less time right now.
Fan of switch-list Witches, don't see good reason why divine was excluded. Don't think having Sorcerer/Witch be switch casters invalidates other casters that share a spell list (though I think there don't need to be any more switch casters after Sorcerer/Witch).
While I do not see the Wizard being replaced by an arcane Witch - I do think that Wizards are the most thematically weak class out of the current caster batch. Since the original PF2 Playtest I disliked how little impact arcane schools had and how Universalist seemed like a better option most of the time. Honestly, I see any perceived overlap here as more a fault of Wizard rather than the Witch.
As for spells per day - considering the survey questions and what I saw in posts, I see it as very likely that Witches will lose a spell a day from the playtest in exchange for hexes becoming more useful/usable - which I'd probably be fine with.
There was also the fact that Oracle was in the PT as well, and although they did state the primary reason was exactly as you say, I can't help but feel that there was at least a little incentive to let the Oracle shine as the "divine" in the playtest.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm stoked there's a new Witch thread. I was super sad when the playtest forum closed and no one was talking about witches anymore.
I, for one, am hoping that they go with the reduced spell slots with more hex cantrips paradigm. Hexes were always my favorite thing about witches, and I don't actually see a big problem with them being a go-to option. Like others have said, there are ways to break up hex-spam if it's absolutely necessary to do so, though.
If they do go that way, they'll be significantly different from Wizards, even if they do keep the pick-a-list paradigm.
I can't wait for more news about what Paizo is thinking now with Witches!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to contribute in combat with hexes all day long was clearly the most common thing people mentioned as reasons why they loved PF1 witches in the relevant PT thread.
Yeah, but this is a very different game and having their spellcasting capability smacked down sufficiently to allow that would leave me doubting whether the people asking for it would actually like what they got.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, am hoping that they go with the reduced spell slots with more hex cantrips paradigm.
I'm all for this but hexes are going to have to set themselves apart from a bards cantrips and maybe kineticists [if they make it and the cantrip way].
Being able to contribute in combat with hexes all day long was clearly the most common thing people mentioned as reasons why they loved PF1 witches in the relevant PT thread.Yeah, but this is a very different game and having their spellcasting capability smacked down sufficiently to allow that would leave me doubting whether the people asking for it would actually like what they got.
Looking at the bard as an example of what happens to spellcasting when you get your own set of unique cantrips [that contribute to combat all day] I think I'd be fine with it.