Will the arcane Witch replace the Wizard?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

... wut

Silver Crusade

Also, Archives of Nethys says hi.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Isthisnametaken? wrote:
I hope Paizo does not turn future content into a “pay to win” RPG system to sell books.

They give away all the rules content for free on the internet- in multiple places.

Sure, for PFS they ask you to own the books, and the modules and adventure paths are things you're going to have to pay to own. But you can access the rules needed to make any character allowable within the rules in Pathfinder for $0.00 (including the last edition which has lots and lots of rules).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Isthisnametaken? wrote:
power creep
Isthisnametaken? wrote:
bloat

One persons power creep/bloat is anothers needed options and bringing the game closer to what they want. They are all in the eye of the beholder and aren't objectively one or the other. If anything, I'm thinking there isn't enough feats for several classes as/is so I'll take plenty more bloat...

Isthisnametaken? wrote:
Halcyon speaker stuff seems broken already

I don't recall anything broken offhand.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would consider "class is not fulfilling a fantasy it is supposed to be able to cover, so we will supplement this with additional options in new books" to be a feature, not a bug, anyway.


Halcyon Speaker is a pretty benign archetype. I think it's probably also at the very least uncommon, because your character needs to have some not-insignificant involvement with the Magaambya. So even if it were potent above and beyond just taking a spellcaster dedication (which I don't really think it is, all things considered), the DM would ultimately be able to nip any power trips in the bud.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
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.

I wood be ok with it. I even said as much in my feedback. My PF1 witch had a (base) spell save DC of 14. Mostly because I leaned heavily into not caring about DC and doing things that (de)buffed no matter what.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
wood be ok with it.

Are you a leshy? ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In some respects Witch was kind of an odd class to port into PF2.

Its most defining concepts were that it had a weird spell list but a suite of powerful at-will abilities, including extremely debilitating debuffs.

Then PF2 is a game with standardized spell lists, where every single caster gets scaling at-will abilities and has consciously gone out of its way to limit the ability to just shut down enemies.

Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Megistone wrote:
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 Seifter who expressed concern players would simply spam hexes if they were 1-action.

It's the other way around: What I said was if you have two or three action hex cantrips, they will compete with your spell slot and focus spells to be your main spell for the turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
wood be ok with it.
Are you a leshy? ;)

My taberlet thinks it is smarter than me.

And it doesn't know several words (like "do").

Mark Seifter wrote:
It's the other way around: What I said was if you have two or three action hex cantrips, they will compete with your spell slot and focus spells to be your main spell for the turn.

This is one reason why I'm OK with witches not having a spell list.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's the other way around: What I said was if you have two or three action hex cantrips, they will compete with your spell slot and focus spells to be your main spell for the turn.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I feel like one of the downsides of the Bard as written is that their composition cantrips are so strong that it makes it really obvious what your third action every round is going to be. They end up being kind of 'solved' in terms of action economy, while other classes tend to have a more open third action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah, I think Hexes and Hex Cantrips can come in a variety of flavors and action types, so letting them be what they need to be instead of one-size-fits-all seems great to me and leaves a lot of space for them to be flavorful. Something like Nails doesn't need the same economy as something like Evil Eye, for example.

Nails can be spammable (a Hex Cantrip that's also a strike?!) and Evil Eye as a focus-using Hex can be usable at will, but only once/24 hours on an enemy. And if I want to build a Nails witch that's great, but if I want to Evil Eye everyone then I'm still limited by my focus points and the number of enemies I have. A spell list would still be beneficial and having fewer slots per day like a Druid would mean that the Hexes have room to be the Witch's main muscle.

Badabing, badaboom!

Honestly, I think Witch should overall be taking more cues from the Bard's design than the Wizard's, but that's just me.


Draco18s wrote:

My taberlet thinks it is smarter than me.

And it doesn't know several words (like "do").

LOL Preaching to the choir... auto correct with limited vocabulary, virtual keyboards and my clumsy fingers often lead me to do the same. It wasn't me this time so I has to comment. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this is a perfect example of when people try to interpret two-three sentence responses from the devs on a podcast into corroborating evidence, they lose a lot of the nuance.

I'd rather people stick to direct quotes, and then follow it with "here is how I interpret that" than "they basically said this" and totally botch the actual intent.

There was a lot of this on the reddit summary of a particular podcast, and since then I take anyone not using direct quotes with a massive grain of salt.


Draco18s wrote:
This is one reason why I'm OK with witches not having a spell list.

It could work but it'd need to lean into focus spells I think. And maybe modifiers to hexes to get more mileage from them: like unique metamagics and/or focus spells to alter them enough to fill in the gaps enough to make no spell list sting less. For instance, a focus spell that increases the number of targets of your single target hexes or adds an effect like evil eyes dealing some damage too.

Squiggit wrote:

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I feel like one of the downsides of the Bard as written is that their composition cantrips are so strong that it makes it really obvious what your third action every round is going to be. They end up being kind of 'solved' in terms of action economy, while other classes tend to have a more open third action.

I too don't think it's bad per se as long as it's an equivalent choice though they don't need to be equivalent in every situation: for instance, hexes might shine in attacks, while spells might shine in healing and focus for buffs. It'd only be bad if one is clearly better all the time and competing for the same space.


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

I think it says something that I'm seriously considering the concept of a spell-less Witch, but I outright reject focus-spell-only hexes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the one hand, also excited that people are talking about Witch again! (Had maybe one more post on the topic when the forum shut down, which admittedly I saw coming)
On the other hand, a little baffled by the reappearance of certain arguments--not to say there aren't some thoughts here that have been worth reiterating certainly, even if we have moved beyond the playtest.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's new to them at least.

I would just at least advise those that didn't get to participate to at least peruse what was discussed before, even use some of what was said between posters from before as a basis for new discussion if they want to avoid rehashing.

I know several people in this thread showed up in the previous threads and voiced opinions, and I thought we had a lot of really valuable insights there, but it was a long and honestly at times, heated, debate.

And ultimately what it all came down to was not that we all disagreed on the final vision, in some senses, we all agreed, but it was the road taken to get there that differed.

I'd say just about everyone thought the Witch deserved:

- at least some mechanical ties to patron

- familiar being more important but less punishing on death

- varied spell lists (either via patrons, lessons, or pick a list)

- hexes being a primary feature of the class

And I'm fairly certain that Liz Liddell was listening intently across everything based on the notes/tidbits we did get on the podcast.

shrug

People are going to talk about what they're going to talk about, I just figured maybe since they are probably working on getting the APG ready and they were diligently listening the entire PT, we let them execute instead of trying to change the tire on a moving car.

Not saying I'm anti-feedback, just don't think repeating feedback is necessary, they made it clear we were heard, so if there's feedback, lets give them something new to read.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
This is one reason why I'm OK with witches not having a spell list.
It could work but it'd need to lean into focus spells I think. And maybe modifiers to hexes to get more mileage from them: like unique metamagics and/or focus spells to alter them enough to fill in the gaps enough to make no spell list sting less. For instance, a focus spell that increases the number of targets of your single target hexes or adds an effect like evil eyes dealing some damage too.

Sure, sure. I didn't try to speculate too far into what one would do to make it happen, I just acknowledged that "these are the things I like and I'm sure it could work" because there's a lot of available design-space to work with.

WatersLethe wrote:
I think it says something that I'm seriously considering the concept of a spell-less Witch, but I outright reject focus-spell-only hexes.

That's mainly my grumbling complaint over the playtest design too. Yeah, you can use focus spells "a lot" but once-per-combat for what the witch does just...isn't a witch.

Especially when a lot of the effects are also once-per-creature-per-day.


WatersLethe wrote:
I outright reject focus-spell-only hexes.

Yeah, I'd drop that like it was radioactive. That'd be just awful. They just don't feel like anything special: you could cross out hex and replace it with 'hag bloodline spell' and I wouldn't blink an eye.

Midnightoker wrote:

- at least some mechanical ties to patron

- familiar being more important but less punishing on death

- varied spell lists (either via patrons, lessons, or pick a list)

- hexes being a primary feature of the class

Patrons? Not a worry for me: other fires need put out first.

Familiars... Oh boy, was it bad. Really, really, really, REALLY bad. That alone made me not want to play it long term.
Spell list: not as important to me but would like to see some off list spells come in from patron/lessons/feats/ect
Hexes: yes! I want it Hex, the class right in your face.
PS: I hope cackle either gets a fix to actually do something or gets dropped plus it'd be nice if you could do something other than laugh...

As to past feedback, I mainly recall 'OMG, familiars are awful!' and 'a fireball killed my spellbook!'. Patrons and hexes where forced into the background.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's the other way around: What I said was if you have two or three action hex cantrips, they will compete with your spell slot and focus spells to be your main spell for the turn.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I feel like one of the downsides of the Bard as written is that their composition cantrips are so strong that it makes it really obvious what your third action every round is going to be. They end up being kind of 'solved' in terms of action economy, while other classes tend to have a more open third action.

This is exactly my take, that it feels more boring in the bigger picture for the action economy too be so 100% "solved" as you put it. I'm OK with one class the Bard playing like that, and honestly maybe that's especially appropriate for class whose niche is "support" ...where you want to be very consistent doing that all day 'at will' (distinct from merely having some limited usages or more situational 1-action options). Problem is even if other 1-action options/etc are potentially relevant to the Bard, they are less motivated to invest/commit to them because their existing schtick already "solves" the action economy so well... Whereas other characters are more open minded because they don't have an all-day at-will "solution" to action economy.

So I'm not enthused for that play model to extend to other classes... MOST ESPECIALLY one that (can) share spell-list with the Bard, essentially tying Occult Tradition even more strongly to this dynamic. Even if the scope of Witch "Composition" Spell 'capabilities' is totally different than Bard Performance, just the 100% "solved" action economy dynamic remains, combined with shared spell list. I'd just really prefer to avoid that if at all possible.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


As to past feedback, I mainly recall 'OMG, familiars are awful!' and 'a fireball killed my spellbook!'. Patrons and hexes where forced into the background.

I'm not sure why that's all you recall, but I was going to put together a list of the threads that were relatively comprehensive about the subjects anyways.

Spell list threads:
Why witches should have one spell list
Why cant witches choose the divine tradition
The great divine witch debate
Arcane is a weak tie to witch flavour suggest

Patron threads:
What do you see the patron as?
So patrons do nothing mechanically?
3 Design paths for patrons

Familiar threads:
Witches with no familiars
So.. about our squishy spellbooks

Hex Thread:
Hexes: is focus 1 target per day too restrictive

Cackle:
Cackle, please dont make me
Idea for replacement to cackle

General thread that touches on a lot of these:
What sets Witches apart from other casters

Hopefully this helps fuel discussion.


Midnightoker wrote:
I'm not sure why that's all you recall, but I was going to put together a list of the threads that were relatively comprehensive about the subjects anyways.

I recalled that hex thread but the title pretty much boiled it all down for me. Cackle needed rebuilt to actually DO something, so that ability needs built from scratch IMO: I not sure what they'll do with it so I don't know what to talk about there. Spell lists/patrons: I recall some of those but nothing stood out for me. Nothing really jumped out as 'Oh, I like that' or anything.

Familiars stood out to me, I think, because it's death was an issue that just wrecked your playing experience and it was easy to happen accidentally with a random area affect. It's, IMO, a fatal flaw without a way to seriously mitigate it.

Scarab Sages

Mark Seifter wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Megistone wrote:
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 Seifter who expressed concern players would simply spam hexes if they were 1-action.
It's the other way around: What I said was if you have two or three action hex cantrips, they will compete with your spell slot and focus spells to be your main spell for the turn.

Oh, my mistake.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Constant debating aside I don't recall anything specific, other than I really liked having a Cauldron or Grimoire as an alternate prep for spells over a familiar.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


- 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.

This was something I noticed too when I created my Elemental Sorcerer Bloodlines by Element type. I don't really know why they had the "Elemental Type" paragraph that just said basically "Use Fire, or if you choose a different Element, switch Fire damage to Bludgeoning", and even that was part of the Errata because they forgot to say "remove/replace the existing Fire trait" in the printed book.

I instead wanted to create unique spell lists for each elemental type, and it was a bit of a struggle to get 1 spell of each level for each element. Some levels there were 2 or more choices, other levels it was more of a stretch. In the end, it didn't seem much, if any, longer than printing the Elemental Type paragraph, and the individualized lists are much more flavorful and true to the Element that "use Bludgeoning damage instead".

Elemental Sorcerers: For their Granted Spells use the following, chosen by their Element Type
Fire: Cantrip: Produce Flame 1st: Burning Hands 2nd: Flaming Sphere 3rd: Fireball 4th: Wall of Fire 5th: Elemental Form 6th: Fire Seeds 7th: Fiery Body 8th: Prismatic Wall 9th: Storm of Vengeance
Air: Cantrip: Electric Arc 1st: Gust of Wind 2nd: Obscuring Mist 3rd: Wall of Wind 4th: Gaseous Form 5th: Cloudkill 6th: Chain Lightning 7th: Reverse Gravity 8th: Wind Walk 9th: Storm of Vengeance
Earth: Cantrip: Telekinetic Projectile 1st: Shillelagh 2nd: Acid Arrow 3rd: Meld Into Stone 4th: Shape Stone 5th: Wall of Stone 6th: Flesh to Stone 7th: Volcanic Eruption 8th: Earthquake 9th: Storm of Vengeance
Water: Cantrip: Ray of Frost 1st: Hydraulic Push 2nd: Water Breathing 3rd: Feet to Fins 4th: Hydraulic Torrent 5th: Wall of Ice 6th: Repulsion 7th: Energy Aegis 8th: Polar Ray 9th: Storm of Vengeance


One idea I had for hex use was allowing witches to cast their hex traited focus spells from spell slots.

It wouldn't give the cantrip like use but it would give some wider bredth to the focus point hexes (which are incredibly unlikely to go away)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
I don't really know why they had the "Elemental Type" paragraph that just said basically "Use Fire, or if you choose a different Element, switch Fire damage to Bludgeoning", and even that was part of the Errata because they forgot to say "remove/replace the existing Fire trait" in the printed book.

I think sub-types of one Sorceror Bloodline were not prime factor in deciding content of normal spells lists. Besides parity between Traditions, parity between schools seems important, and covering broad range of capabilities (overall and within each Tradition). The CRB already grew beyond their planned size, so adding more unique Air/Earth/Water spells means they would need to cut others, and would probably mean a school/tradition imbalance (given obvious Elemental spells would tend to be Primal and Evo/Conj).

I think a key premise of understanding 2E Elemental Bloodlines is that Acid/Earth, Ice/Water and even Air/Electric are intentionally delinked from them... Those are distinct themes which can deserve their own Bloodline, and probably will in future. As such, using Acid/Cold/Electric spells are not appropriate damage spells for Water/Earth or (to some extent) Air... They instead envisioned the direct damaging power of these Elements being Bludgeoning damage, rock/water/wind slamming the target. One reason for this IMHO, as your own simulated Bloodline spell lists reflected, is many of the obvious non-Fire Elemental themed spells are non-damaging, but that means that non-Fire Sorcerors who want to cast damaging spells would be forced to use Fire spells... Which can feel very anti-thematic. Enabling 'pure water/earth/air' BASIC damage spells lets them play in this basic niche without breaking theme, and they can pick up normal thematic non-damaging air/water/earth spells from base primal list.

I pretty much expect APG will be able to flesh out more spells appropriate to Air/Earth/Water elements, and certainly Fire is already doing fine so doesn't need as much attention. Some of these could be damaging, some can not be, I don't think each Element needs to be equally damage focused, it was just important to give them a baseline of some basic damage spells in CRB.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
graystone wrote:


As to past feedback, I mainly recall 'OMG, familiars are awful!' and 'a fireball killed my spellbook!'. Patrons and hexes where forced into the background.

I'm not sure why that's all you recall, but I was going to put together a list of the threads that were relatively comprehensive about the subjects anyways.

Spell list threads:
Why witches should have one spell list
Why cant witches choose the divine tradition
The great divine witch debate
Arcane is a weak tie to witch flavour suggest

Patron threads:
What do you see the patron as?
So patrons do nothing mechanically?
3 Design paths for patrons

Familiar threads:
Witches with no familiars
So.. about our squishy spellbooks

Hex Thread:
Hexes: is focus 1 target per day too restrictive

Cackle:
Cackle, please dont make me
Idea for replacement to cackle

General thread that touches on a lot of these:
What sets Witches apart from other casters

Hopefully this helps fuel...

Love this.

I would also add The PF1 Witch, what do you want to carry over?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:

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?

The point of the wizard as that they DON'T have to pick those exact options. You set up two characters to be as close as possible; if you're concerned about thematic overlap between characters, don't do that. But honestly, better to just not worry about it. Especially with the Arcane spell list, the witch and the wizard can each prepare their 3-4 spells per level, not pick the same spells, and still feel like they had good options to choose from. Especially if the players take the time to coordinate so that one does mostly debuffs and the other does mostly AOE, for example.

I sill think they should have trimmed the heck out of the arcane list and let arcane schools beef it back up for the wizard, but that's all behind us now. Might as well take advantage of the huge list that covers basically everything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Samurai wrote:
I don't really know why they had the "Elemental Type" paragraph that just said basically "Use Fire, or if you choose a different Element, switch Fire damage to Bludgeoning", and even that was part of the Errata because they forgot to say "remove/replace the existing Fire trait" in the printed book.
I think a key premise of understanding 2E Elemental Bloodlines is that Acid/Earth, Ice/Water and even Air/Electric are intentionally delinked from them... Those are distinct themes which can deserve their own Bloodline, and probably will in future. As such, using Acid/Cold/Electric spells are not appropriate damage spells for Water/Earth or (to some extent) Air... They instead envisioned the direct damaging power of these Elements being Bludgeoning damage, rock/water/wind slamming the target. One reason for this IMHO, as your own simulated Bloodline spell lists reflected, is many of the obvious non-Fire Elemental themed spells are non-damaging, but that means that non-Fire Sorcerors who want to cast damaging spells would be forced to use Fire spells... Which can feel very anti-thematic. Enabling 'pure water/earth/air' BASIC damage spells lets them play in this basic niche without breaking theme, and they can pick up normal thematic non-damaging air/water/earth spells from base primal list.

Just wanna say, this is why Elemental is my favorite bloodline. I've always wanted to play a sorcerer with a wind or water focus that didn't make me use electricity or cold damage. Getting to create a mini cyclone of air (air fireball) seems super satisfying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
Just wanna say, this is why Elemental is my favorite bloodline. I've always wanted to play a sorcerer with a wind or water focus that didn't make me use electricity or cold damage. Getting to create a mini cyclone of air (air fireball) seems super satisfying.

Agreed, my first response when reading it was "ah damn that is cool" and then I proceeded to think of dumb names for the burning hands replacement spells.

And laughing at the idea of persistent bludgeoning damage from all three.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
Just wanna say, this is why Elemental is my favorite bloodline. I've always wanted to play a sorcerer with a wind or water focus that didn't make me use electricity or cold damage. Getting to create a mini cyclone of air (air fireball) seems super satisfying.

Agreed, my first response when reading it was "ah damn that is cool" and then I proceeded to think of dumb names for the burning hands replacement spells.

And laughing at the idea of persistent bludgeoning damage from all three.

Agreed! I still remember my player's reaction when I told her she could be a water sorcerer in 1E, but it'd actually be more like an ice sorcerer.

"Oh, okay. I guess I can play like a WoW mage."

As for persistent damage, there was a reddit thread with ideas of how it could work for water. You can get really creative with how you want to describe it!


To me this is more of a Wizard problem. They are still pretty bland. But if we look at what sort of feats they get that no one else does it comes down to:
- School focus
- Mastering Metamagic and similarly twisting spells
- Counterspelling
- Drawing on their Arcane Bond (but Witch will likely have some similar things, at least thematically)
- Overcoming magical resistance (Spell Penetration)
- Creating/using magic items (Scroll Savant)

So adding more of these kinds of options onto Wizard might help to improve their identity as a class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I like the idea of Wizards being the core caster who plays with the building blocks of magic. Taking a spell and fiddling with its parameters. If Wizards firmly carve a niche of being a "magical scientist" then that's a direction I think you could have a lot of fun with. It's sorta kinda there right now, but I think the meh focus spells and sort of rudimentary metamagic makes it hard to see in core. Fewer options (and again, aggressively meh focus spells...) also makes it hard to cleanly separate them from an Arcane Sorcerer in some regards.

I also think Wizards can do with being the Fighter of magic-users; lots of options for playing with the math of a spell, higher chances of spell crits (probably with these bonuses coming X/day or from focus spells, so we aren't nuking everything), more ways to get around resistances, etc. Right now the Wizard's class options are boring enough that their identity is really primarily their spell list, with a little added stank from their specialization.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Uchuujin wrote:

- Counterspelling

- Drawing on their Arcane Bond (but Witch will likely have some similar things, at least thematically)

Playtest witch had Counterspell too. I'd have to recheck regarding the familiar bond things. I don't remember anything that was like Focus Conservation and such, but I vaguely remember a related effect.

And instead of scrolls, the witch got potions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Make Scrolls available from level 1 again, and not requiring a week+ of work! Would go a long way in making them fun at the early levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would think maybe being able to invest in a magic item to make it a little better. I know it stinks of resonance, but could be something.

Something like an invested wand lets you use it one extra time per day before overcharging, or lets you use it at your full character level instead of the items level?

Invested scroll that functions something like a wand (one free cast, another second cast destroys it), or adds itself to your spells known / bonus prepared spell?

Invest in a staff to gain an extra charge or two on it, or maybe be able to invest in two staves at once (but split the charges between them)?

Just really cements the idea that wizards are the very best with traditional spell casting implements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll just say I hope not, because if the arcane witch does replace the wizard, something went seriously wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
The point of the wizard as that they DON'T have to pick those exact options. You set up two characters to be as close as possible; if you're concerned about thematic overlap between characters, don't do that.

I get where you're coming from, but I also think that you're highlighting the problem here.

Yeah, a wizard can contort themselves around to accommodate the witch by avoiding certain options, but should they really feel like they have to do that in the first place?


I want to say no to the op solely based on not every wizard wants a familiar and witches require one.


On Elemental spells, I think an open niche to explore is actually Fire spells which either aren't damaging, or only minorly... exploring other possibilities of the theme. Maybe a bit harder and less obvious, but I think it can be done. Smoke is an obvious one though that is Fire-related but not necessarily applying Fire type damage. On the other side of things is Water/Earth/Air spells that might have damaging component but not just be reducible to simple "X type damage", but have some other effect. Forced movement stuff already exist but could continue, movement penalties ("don't have Swim speed? sorry...") are others, Rock encrustations applying AC/attack penalty or chance to lose actions... Lots of possibilities.


if Wizards were allowed to be the best Metamagic users I think that’d set them apart. Some kind of action economy buy back there would help a lot.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Pathfinder lacks a comprehensive underlying theory of magic. It is that, I think, that leads to most of the problems in defining various kinds of magic users. Second edition has made a start at it, but it's still somewhat jumbled and confused, IMO.

Scarab Sages

Vlorax wrote:
I want to say no to the op solely based on not every wizard wants a familiar and witches require one.

OP here. That's a fair point, but in that case, is there a reason to play a wizard with the Improved Familiar Arcane Thesis instead of a witch?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
I want to say no to the op solely based on not every wizard wants a familiar and witches require one.
OP here. That's a fair point, but in that case, is there a reason to play a wizard with the Improved Familiar Arcane Thesis instead of a witch?

Well, a wizards spellbook isn't in danger of exploding when an area effect spell goes off...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
if Wizards were allowed to be the best Metamagic users I think that’d set them apart. Some kind of action economy buy back there would help a lot.

I wonder if we could build off of arcane theses with later feats. Like the "Metamagic" thesis gives you one level 1 metamagic feat, and lets you have a floating one after level 4. But what if there were later wizard feats that had "Metamagical Experimentation thesis" as a prereq that expanded on this, had some sort of action economy buyback, etc.

Like there are druid feats that require an order, and bard feats that require a muse. So there's no reason they can't do that.

The "Post-Doc Wizard having to go on adventures because they can't get a tenure track position, but still publishing their research" concept really does speak to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
Pathfinder lacks a comprehensive underlying theory of magic.

I think this is fair. That lack of cohesive central point leaves the Wizard feeling kind of generic, because their whole identity basically stops and starts at 'casts spells.' A druid is a spellcaster who reveres and protects nature. A sorcerer is a spellcaster who receives strange powers from their tainted bloodline. A wizard... just kind of is a spellcaster.

Strictly speaking the most unique thing about the CRB Wizard is that, uh... they're worse at focus spells than the other casters. Neat??

Maybe they should poach ideas from the PF1 Arcanist for future wizard options. TBH I feel like they should have built the PF2 Wizard off the Arcanist's chassis to begin with since it practically was an Unchained Wizard anyways, but here we are.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:
That's a fair point, but in that case, is there a reason to play a wizard with the Improved Familiar Arcane Thesis instead of a witch?

Not really, but there isn't really a compelling reason to pick the Witch instead either, they're just too interchangeable. You basically just look at whose focus spells you like more and go with that.

There's a little bit more to it, like what graystone pointed out, or the way in a low level campaign the singular extra spellcasting a day Wizards get can be really valuable (or in a high level campaign a universalist's absurd ability to recycle spells) and how much value you place on the Witch's slight flexibility in preparing spells. But ultimately it's kind of just a wash. Close your eyes and throw a dart at a board if you can't pick it doesn't matter all that much.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
Well, a wizards spellbook isn't in danger of exploding when an area effect spell goes off...

True, but I reckon the catastrophic effects of familiar death is a bug rather than an intended drawback of the witch class.

If I'm wrong and witches will have to regularly spend combat actions or something to keep their familiar safe, then consider my concerns put to rest. ;) I don't think the witch class' USP should be babysitting familiars, however.

51 to 100 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Will the arcane Witch replace the Wizard? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.