Will the arcane Witch replace the Wizard?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
NECRO0G1ANT wrote:
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 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?

@AnimatedPaper, it's true that an arcane witch and a wizard can choose to prepare different arcane spells from each other, but that doesn't mean the classes designs don't overlap.

After all, the same could also be said of two wizard characters, and they would be the exact same class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
True, but I reckon the catastrophic effects of familiar death is a bug rather than an intended drawback of the witch class.

I HOPE that that's the case but who knows how it'll all shake out. I'd also rather see hexes move from focus to cantrip and make the focus spells be the 'metamagic' for them that buff hexes to full spell levels.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

You could even get School specific or thesis specific with it too.

For instance, an Illusionist specific metamagic when casting an illusion spells that allowed a Demoralize against a single creature on cast using your spell proficiency could be fun.

Or something else thematic for the school. You’d have to codify it in a way that it was applicable properly, such as certain traits or specific markers in the spell, but there’s a lot to work with.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
NECRO0G1ANT wrote:
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 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?

@AnimatedPaper, it's true that an arcane witch and a wizard can choose to prepare different arcane spells from each other, but that doesn't mean the classes designs don't overlap.

After all, the same could also be said of two wizard characters, and they would be the exact same class.

I don't think you understand me. I agree the class designs overlap. I'm saying if you're really worried that someone else is wearing the same dress as you, maybe don't shop at the same store.


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
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.

What it is, is irrelevant as we don't know what the final rules for familiar death are other than that they are being reduced even further and the developers know that allowing it to die in AoE was too harsh and this is a part of why it is changing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
True, but I reckon the catastrophic effects of familiar death is a bug rather than an intended drawback of the witch class.
I HOPE that that's the case but who knows how it'll all shake out. I'd also rather see hexes move from focus to cantrip and make the focus spells be the 'metamagic' for them that buff hexes to full spell levels.

I think this hints at the fundamental underlying question :

What should be a spell?
What should be a focus spell?
What should be a hex?
And in what way is a hex different from a cantrip?

For what spells are, we already have the lists. For focus spells and cantrips we have the mechanics from the CRB.

What was the difference between spells and hexes in PF1?

I would say hexes were more restricted than spells (single target usually) but usable all day, though often with restrictions on how many times you could target an individual. They did not provoke and a Witch did not have many of them.

In a way, they were the Sorcerer's spellcasting taken to extreme and balanced with restrictions. And the Witch's spellcasting provided flexibility and utility.

Can they still work that way in PF2?


The Raven Black wrote:

think this hints at the fundamental underlying question :

What should be a spell?
What should be a focus spell?
What should be a hex?
And in what way is a hex different from a cantrip?

For what spells are, we already have the lists. For focus spells and cantrips we have the mechanics from the CRB.

What was the difference between spells and hexes in PF1?

I would say hexes were more restricted than spells (single target usually) but usable all day, though often with restrictions on how many times you could target an individual. They did not provoke and a Witch did not have many of them.

In a way, they were the Sorcerer's spellcasting taken to extreme and balanced with restrictions. And the Witch's spellcasting provided flexibility and utility.

Can they still work that way in PF2?

For me, looking at PF1 to PF2 isn't that informative. Just look at bardic performance vs Composition Spells: you're going from a pool of rounds usable per day to at will cantrips [or renewable with 10 min rest spells]. Neither PF2 way mirrors PF1.

In the same way, I don't see why witch would have to care about mechanics matching. If anything, hexes correlate to cantrips much better than bardic performances did and it works for bards. So for the question "in what way is a hex different from a cantrip?", I'd say none in PF2 seeing how bards performance is a cantrip now too. What I can tell you what hexes aren't like is a focus spell...

As to more restricted than spells, some WERE spells and were at will: you might not be able to retarget but you aren't limited in times per day so IMO a wash on "more redistricted".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, all of my witches got Extra Hex as many times as possible. You end up with quite a few hexes!


Extra Hex was pretty much the go-to feat for every Witch I ever DMed. The web of debuffs a 1e Witch could pump out every combat without ever having to use a spell slot was really pretty potent.

My most enjoyable Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign had a Witch and a Conjuration (Teleportation) Wizard. The capabilities of that party once they got up there in level were wild. And on topic, the Witch and Wizard were extremely distinct mostly because the Witch's hexes were their primary focus, and the Wizard got to spend most of his time abusing the action economy with summons. Even if they had the same spell school the two characters' play styles still would have been entirely distinct.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:

Extra Hex was pretty much the go-to feat for every Witch I ever DMed. The web of debuffs a 1e Witch could pump out every combat without ever having to use a spell slot was really pretty potent.

My most enjoyable Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign had a Witch and a Conjuration (Teleportation) Wizard. The capabilities of that party once they got up there in level were wild. And on topic, the Witch and Wizard were extremely distinct mostly because the Witch's hexes were their primary focus, and the Wizard got to spend most of his time abusing the action economy with summons. Even if they had the same spell school the two characters' play styles still would have been entirely distinct.

Yes, the problems I outlined in my post didn't exist in 1E, although of course the two editions are totally different with regards to spellcasting and class balance.


graystone wrote:
For me, looking at PF1 to PF2 isn't that informative. Just look at bardic performance vs Composition Spells: you're going from a pool of rounds usable per day

Which, by the way, was one of the worst changes from 3.5e to Pathfinder, seeing as it completely nerfed the Inspire Competence bardic performance and required them to change Song of Freedom (=Break Enchantment) to Soothing Song (=Mass cure serious wounds + remove fatigue, sickened, or shaken).

I'm not still bitter about that at all.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
graystone wrote:
For me, looking at PF1 to PF2 isn't that informative. Just look at bardic performance vs Composition Spells: you're going from a pool of rounds usable per day

Which, by the way, was one of the worst changes from 3.5e to Pathfinder, seeing as it completely nerfed the Inspire Competence bardic performance and required them to change Song of Freedom (=Break Enchantment) to Soothing Song (=Mass cure serious wounds + remove fatigue, sickened, or shaken).

I'm not still bitter about that at all.

I can't say I agree: you can use you cantrips all day. Inspire Competence is a preemptive aid another using your best skill [up to +4 bonus] and it wasn't changing Song of Freedom but Soothing Performance [12th] to Soothing Ballad [14th] {mass cure serious wounds and removes the fatigued, sickened, and shaken to counteract fear effects OR paralysis OR restores 7d8 Hit Points}. Seems just fine to me: I don't see the nerf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I can't say I agree: you can use you cantrips all day. Inspire Competence is a preemptive aid another using your best skill [up to +4 bonus] and it wasn't changing Song of Freedom but Soothing Performance [12th] to Soothing Ballad [14th] {mass cure serious wounds and removes the fatigued, sickened, and shaken to counteract fear effects OR paralysis OR restores 7d8 Hit Points}. Seems just fine to me: I don't see the nerf.

I was talking about the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder 1, not from Pathfinder 1 to 2. Performances per day was a much better mechanic than rounds of performance per day. It was much less fiddly, and allowed the performances to use time taken as a balancing requirement without increasing the cost in daily resources.

Song of Freedom in 3.5e allowed the bard to cast break enchantment, a 5th level spell (well, 4th for bards) multiple times per day in addition to their regular spells. But if they had kept that for PF1, it would have cost 10 rounds of performance which is about a third of a 12th level bard's rounds of performance. So it got replaced with a mass cure serious wounds for 4 rounds instead. 25 hp to the whole party over four rounds is not all that exciting for in-combat healing, and having to wait four rounds to get rid of Shaken or Sickened is not particularly useful. Losing Fatigued isn't nothing though, but hardly worthy of a 12th level ability. And for out-of-combat healing, you're probably using a wand anyway.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
I was talking about the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder 1

Ah, my mistake: I assumed it was a PF related post. [quoted post was "looking at PF1 to PF2"] I wasn't expecting the segue into a different game. As to "fiddly", that's a matter of opinion and I'm not sure there'd much meaning in debating it as it's not really relevant in comparing the PF2 witch vs the PF2 wizard.


The real issue is that there is basically nothing nowadays to differentiate an evoker from say, an illusionist.

No more spell focus = DC stays the same for your school

Focus spells are... Well, pretty much a joke? Utility is exceedingly limited, and there are very few of them to boot.

The spell list is still very very small, and there are a lot of absolutely useless spells, or spells that only have a real effect on a critical failure of the save (which personally, given the fact that you now have fewer spells to use per day, I would avoid...).

The "feats" are underwhelming, and I would say that they do not offer real diversification of the wizard at all.

When building a fighter, barbarian, or rogue, there are several viable ways to go at it.

If I am building a wizard who is going to go dungeon dwelling... Not so much.

Removing all buffs except haste did not exactly help either. I get why they did it, and sure theoretically wizards are still flexible.

But that's theory only. If a DM is set on you only having common spells, and limits everything uncommon or rare... (which he can do), then all wizards are going very similar to one another.

And I was going over spell lists and now wail of the banshee and finger of death are not on the arcane spell list anymore... Well. They've only been staples for several editions now. But that's just a pet peeve of mine.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Ignoring all the hyperbole for a moment, are 9th and 7th level spells really "staples"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ignoring all the hyperbole for a moment, are 9th and 7th level spells really "staples"?

They were "cool gets" that you'd read when you first looked at spells and go "Someday I want that!" but definitely not "staples" at any table I ever played at (in any edition).

Andarr wrote:
The spell list is still very very small, and there are a lot of absolutely useless spells, or spells that only have a real effect on a critical failure of the save (which personally, given the fact that you now have fewer spells to use per day, I would avoid...).

The largest spell list by a good margin is "very very small"?

And it's the release spell list. As more books get printed, it's going to get bigger, which means directly influencing the power of the list and by proxy all its users every single book that contains new spells.

The Concordance

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Random idea for future class inspired by the fears in this thread: Dual-list casters... As in, for instance, making witches pick two separate lists, to draw spells from. However, make them always have to pick half their spells from one list, and half from the other.

I suspect this extra flexibility in spells, (since spells normally appear in more than one list, you can get a much more tailored personal list this way,) I would probably reduce the number of known spells to just the two-per-level. (keep the same number of slots to work with.) But this would allow a few more casting class options that still maintain a different thematic flavor. (I'd even go so far as to do something like Witches always have occult as one of the lists... So you have another class built, say "shaman", that dual-lists, but one always has to be primal. Yes they'd overlap in the occult-primal option. But hopefully hexes [or the equivalent] and the class specific feats add just enough flavor to separate them then. Forcing one of the lists to always be the one type even allows for flavor of, say, giving an occasional extra spell/focus-spell based on that specific list that they MUST take. (aka, an occult power/spell extra every now and then for witches.). To add to said flavor)

Just an Idea.


Yako Zenko wrote:
Random idea for future class inspired by the fears in this thread: Dual-list casters... As in, for instance, making witches pick two separate lists, to draw spells from. However, make them always have to pick half their spells from one list, and half from the other.

Funny enough, in one of the Witch threads the "Duality" approach was mentioned (Witches get to choose between Primal or Occult).

And while it wasn't my ideal Witch, it did open up the possibility for other spellcasters to be doing something similar (I.E. one caster gets Occult + Arcane as choices, one gets Primal + Divine, etc.) which offers a lot of interesting pairings.

Grabbing from either list seems like it could be too strong, but it depends on how much overlap the essences have with each other (for instance an Arcane + Divine pick from both would basically just be every spell).


Seems fitting for a Mystic Theurge to be able to pick from every spell. (definitely better than the previous version).


Temperans wrote:
Seems fitting for a Mystic Theurge to be able to pick from every spell. (definitely better than the previous version).

If Mystic Theurge becomes a thing, I hope it functions as the arcane/divine version of the Halcyon archetypes' arcane/primal schtick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even though Witches might get more raw spells compared to Wizards, they are basically locked to the absolute worst Wizard thesis in the game. Familiars are the most worthless thing in this game that, quite frankly, don't even really pay off until higher level, and even then abilities like Spell Blending or Metamagicka greatly outweigh them based on what playstyle of Wizard you want. For sure, blaster-type Wizards would probably rather play one of those other theses. Even support-type or battlefield controllers may want to sacrifice lower level spells for more effective higher level spells.

The best part is that if a Wizard's familiar dies, the Wizard just can't use his Arcane Bond ability. Hurts some, but by no means a deal breaker. The Witch's familiar contains all of the spells they can cast. Once it's dead, no more spells which means the Witch is basically out of the combat. And because Familiars have close to no HP and garbage AC and saves, even basic low-tier bad guys could target and slay the familiar within the round. A GM dick move, but not any worse than a GM destroying a Wizard's spellbook (which thankfully isn't really a thing since destroying objects is really only possible with certain rare options).

So really, Arcane Witches are just Familiar Focus Wizards who are a little less bad. But they're still bad because they have what is essentially a dead feature, which is now intrinsically tied to their spellcasting capabilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just to be clear, we haven't seen the final version of the witch and they made clear they heard us about the whole "dead familiar no casty" thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Just to be clear, we haven't seen the final version of the witch and they made clear they heard us about the whole "dead familiar no casty" thing.

I'm sorry, but this is such a gimmick, and a fun tax.

I've been playing for over 20 years now, I can count on one hand the amount of times when my DM actually did something against my familiar actively.

Most of the times, DMs forget your familiar even exists unless you try to do something with it (send him scouting, cast a spell through him...) so saying that the witch won't be able to cast if her familiar dies, I hope you are not actually counting that as a real drawback. Because factually speaking, it won't be.

Or the DM will have to keep track and try to somehow kill the witch's familiar, which seems like a fun tax for the DM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andarr wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Just to be clear, we haven't seen the final version of the witch and they made clear they heard us about the whole "dead familiar no casty" thing.

I'm sorry, but this is such a gimmick, and a fun tax.

I've been playing for over 20 years now, I can count on one hand the amount of times when my DM actually did something against my familiar actively.

Most of the times, DMs forget your familiar even exists unless you try to do something with it (send him scouting, cast a spell through him...) so saying that the witch won't be able to cast if her familiar dies, I hope you are not actually counting that as a real drawback. Because factually speaking, it won't be.

Or the DM will have to keep track and try to somehow kill the witch's familiar, which seems like a fun tax for the DM.

Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andarr wrote:
I hope you are not actually counting that as a real drawback. Because factually speaking, it won't be.

You say that, but the sentence right before that you suggest never touching your familiar in hopes the GM forgets about it.

Never getting to use one of your class features for fear of your character getting crippled if you do certainly sounds like a drawback.

Of course, the GM doesn't even need to do anything to your familiar. Past very low levels any random AoE can kill it. Which means either sending it far away every combat or hoping your GM forgets it.

Either way "it's not a problem, just never ever use it and maybe cheat a little" doesn't really sound like a very good argument against changes.


Andarr wrote:
I've been playing for over 20 years now, I can count on one hand the amount of times when my DM actually did something against my familiar actively.

Actively? The playtest way didn't require active targeting: just a simple area attack is enough. In PF1, for instance, you got improved evasion and 1/2 the masters hp. PF2 is a straight 5hp/level and straight saves only at base and various things to protect it [like a Familiar satchel] or ways to mitigate it's lose [like a stone familiar].


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andarr wrote:
I've been playing for over 20 years now, I can count on one hand the amount of times when my DM actually did something against my familiar actively.

Yeah? Well I lose familiars all the time.

Once had a necromancer who gave his raven familiar a bodyguard of four advanced mummies with long spears. He still died three times, once to a fireball targeting the party (I hear those are pretty common), once to a hawk in the sky from an enemy ranger, and once to a symbol of death trap triggered in a dungeon.

I lost SO many levels because of that dang bird!

Everyone's play experience is going to be different.


"fun tax" LOL.

You know like a cheerful aneurysm or a joyful gut punch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Just to be clear, we haven't seen the final version of the witch and they made clear they heard us about the whole "dead familiar no casty" thing.

To be fair, even if they can still cast spells without their familiar, it still falls under the "worthless class feature" problem. So even if it's "fixed," there is no reason for me to use it. It might work better with a Witch since they will have better Focus powers, but that's a small part of an otherwise dying feature.

And before we say that I'm not giving it a fair shake, I have played a Familiar Wizard for 8 levels now, wondering how the playstyle is. It has not done anything for me in all that time besides occupy a class feature that I really could have used for something else, like Spell Blending or Metamagicka. The fact that my other players and GM are more mindful of my familiar than myself poses a big problem in both its functionality and its impact on the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Just to be clear, we haven't seen the final version of the witch and they made clear they heard us about the whole "dead familiar no casty" thing.

To be fair, even if they can still cast spells without their familiar, it still falls under the "worthless class feature" problem. So even if it's "fixed," there is no reason for me to use it. It might work better with a Witch since they will have better Focus powers, but that's a small part of an otherwise dying feature.

And before we say that I'm not giving it a fair shake, I have played a Familiar Wizard for 8 levels now, wondering how the playstyle is. It has not done anything for me in all that time besides occupy a class feature that I really could have used for something else, like Spell Blending or Metamagicka. The fact that my other players and GM are more mindful of my familiar than myself poses a big problem in both its functionality and its impact on the game.

Its more likely that they make it easier for us to protect our familiar, I'm also confused as to why you aren't using Spell Battery or something, its literally extra spells.

Scarab Sages

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


And before we say that I'm not giving it a fair shake, I have played a Familiar Wizard for 8 levels now, wondering how the playstyle is. It has not done anything for me in all that time besides occupy a class feature that I really could have used for something else, like Spell Blending or Metamagicka. The fact that my other players and GM are more mindful of my familiar than myself poses a big problem in both its functionality and its impact on the game.

If you haven't used the Familiar and Master Abilities, you're better off switching theses. Although the ones you mentioned are worse, IMO.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Just to be clear, we haven't seen the final version of the witch and they made clear they heard us about the whole "dead familiar no casty" thing.

To be fair, even if they can still cast spells without their familiar, it still falls under the "worthless class feature" problem. So even if it's "fixed," there is no reason for me to use it. It might work better with a Witch since they will have better Focus powers, but that's a small part of an otherwise dying feature.

And before we say that I'm not giving it a fair shake, I have played a Familiar Wizard for 8 levels now, wondering how the playstyle is. It has not done anything for me in all that time besides occupy a class feature that I really could have used for something else, like Spell Blending or Metamagicka. The fact that my other players and GM are more mindful of my familiar than myself poses a big problem in both its functionality and its impact on the game.

Its more likely that they make it easier for us to protect our familiar, I'm also confused as to why you aren't using Spell Battery or something, its literally extra spells.

They can worry about making sure our familiars don't die all they want. The fact is that they don't do much of anything, so even with all of those safety benefits, you're looking at insuring something that just gets in the way of the battle map more often than not.

I mean, I am using it, but it's not really good enough to warrant spending a unique class feature on, when I could get the same thing with one, maybe two, feats. Even besides that, an extra 1st level spell at 7th level is not doing me any good because I have no application for my lower level spells. The range is too low (even with Reach spell), it's mostly just spells that cause minor inconveniences or can't be used due to ineligible targets, and most importantly, higher level spells do more for me, by design, compared to lower level spells. Why would I want an ability that provides lower level spells unless certain valuable spells actually cap out at that point?

In short, there aren't really that many good lower level spells. It'll improve its usefulness next level when I can get a free Invisibility spell, and maybe again in the future when there's another higher level spell that I could stand to have an additional one memorized for. But it's still not the bees knees.


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


And before we say that I'm not giving it a fair shake, I have played a Familiar Wizard for 8 levels now, wondering how the playstyle is. It has not done anything for me in all that time besides occupy a class feature that I really could have used for something else, like Spell Blending or Metamagicka. The fact that my other players and GM are more mindful of my familiar than myself poses a big problem in both its functionality and its impact on the game.
If you haven't used the Familiar and Master Abilities, you're better off switching theses. Although the ones you mentioned are worse, IMO.

I mean, spell blending might not be as good as I'm making it out to be since I have to prepare those things ahead of time, but more often than not I can certainly sacrifice a couple low level slots for an additional Fireball or something. And metamagic specialization is more useful than I personally thought, since I can select metamagic feats I might not normally take with the bonus one and perform more eloquent tactics.

Compared to a winged rodent who is just there and that I can get with just a single feat, I think we'll be okay making that sacrifice.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Not gonna lie, I feel like this is more about your play style than familiars as a mechanic.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Not gonna lie, I feel like this is more about your play style than familiars as a mechanic.

Perhaps. If I had an Animal Companion, I'd probably be singing a different tune. But the amount of investment I'd have to put into a Familiar to make it worthwhile compared to the other options is an investment I do not find as being "worth it."


Nope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, if I wanna play a wizard, I'll play it for being a wizard.
Having a patron isn't appealing to me, so the witch can only replace wizard only if I'm powergaming and pick the class for the spell slots?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

To be fair, if I wanna play a wizard, I'll play it for being a wizard.

Having a patron isn't appealing to me, so the witch can only replace wizard only if I'm powergaming and pick the class for the spell slots?

That'll depend on the implementation of the Patron. Right now (APG Playtest) you can take a black marker to the word "patron" and do remarkably little work fixing the sentences. And none of it is mechanical.

Scarab Sages

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

To be fair, if I wanna play a wizard, I'll play it for being a wizard.

Having a patron isn't appealing to me, so the witch can only replace wizard only if I'm powergaming and pick the class for the spell slots?

All classes should be mechanically distinct from one another; thematic differences, like those between an arcane witch and familiar wizard that you mentioned, are important but not sufficient by themselves.

A strength of 2E is that players have many viable options for creating their character due to class balance and each class having unique features. That advantage is lost when the differences come down to just flavor.

The point of my original post is that the playtest version of the arcane witch overlaps with, and slightly improves upon, the wizard. That's bad and I hope it gets fixed.

Valuing mechanical difference, or achknowledging imbalances, does not mean one is "powergaming."


This may just be my personal playstyle but I don't think a witch can't really achieve what I'm aiming for as well if I focus wizard.

Wizards begin play with "Scribe Scroll". I use this to scribe any unused spells I have in the downtime at the end of each day. Balancing those scrolls between selling them for profit, and keeping them for personal use.

As soon as it's affordable I get a cart/cart animal and hire a driver. I then use any travel time to continue on with my mad scroll scribing.

I start diverting that gold toward broadening my spell list (since wizards can learn as many wizards spells as they want). Eventually, I have a broad arsenal of scrolls at my disposal. A lot of very situational spells I'm unlikely to use in a given day but would be handy when I need them are then prepared as scrolls.

The best part is this spell arsenal doesn't set me back any gold at all as I fund it with scrolls that I sell.

This usually puts me in a situation of having more spells than anyone else in the party as well as a huge variety of what I can cast.

The only way a DM can really stop me from doing this is either giving me no downtime (including travel time as I turn that into scroll scribing downtime) or making NPCs refuse to buy my scrolls. I've never had a DM do this TBH what I do kind of feels like the way wizards were meant to be played.

In addition to this, I spread my skill points through the knowledge trees, eventually coming to have very high (if not max) ranks in every single knowledge.

So endgame I'm that guy to go to if you need practically any spell on the wizard spell list or to know most anything about anything.

I can see where you can do all this with a witch, but that involves taking scribe scroll as a feat and finding some way to deal with only a few knowledges being class skills.

TL:DR - I feel like wizards excel in being an arcane jack of all trades. Both in terms of the spells they can cast at any given moment, and terms of being really good at knowledge by virtue of having all of them as class skills and stacking int.

With no scribe scroll / not all knowledges as class skills it seems like you need to do some stuff to make a witch into a wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ubahtias, You seem to be talking about PF1 and not PF2. This thread is talking about the PF2 versions of these classes.


graystone wrote:
Ubahtias, You seem to be talking about PF1 and not PF2. This thread is talking about the PF2 versions of these classes.

I'm out the loop I think. We're currently running a campaign based on the rules the pfd20srd. Where would I go to see the PF2 rules and how they differ?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Here ya go ^w^


Here is where you can find the Playtest Rules for the new Classes


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Here is where you can find the Playtest Rules for the new Classes

Interesting. That link took me to my (currently empty) shopping cart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Here is where you can find the Playtest Rules for the new Classes
Interesting. That link took me to my (currently empty) shopping cart.

Fascinating... it worked this morning and it now does the same for me?

I guess that's what I get for trying lol


The APG playtest pdf isn't watermarked or anything, so is it allowable to just give people copies who weren't able to download it during the playtest?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
The APG playtest pdf isn't watermarked or anything, so is it allowable to just give people copies who weren't able to download it during the playtest?

Probably.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
The APG playtest pdf isn't watermarked or anything, so is it allowable to just give people copies who weren't able to download it during the playtest?

Considering I sent them to my players, I assumed so but maybe there was a limit.

shrug

101 to 150 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 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.