| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And also didn't come at the expense of other familiar abilities.
Not exactly. Improved Evasion also included half damage on failure on top of negating damage on a success.
Isn't that the same as just picking Damage Avoidance(Reflex) in PF2?
They also got spell resistance at 11th.
That and there was plenty of items to help with familiars, magical and mundane. Best Friend Pendant, Bloodstone Collar and Familiar satchel for instance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So they were in fact still subject to AoEs.
I don't think anyone said they weren't, just that they are more vulnerable to them now.
And those items were useful but they didn’t come till later (Ultimate Intrigue, Blood of the Coven, and Ultimate Equipment respectively).
Yes, and? The order they came out in PF1 doesn't have to relate to how they come out in PF2: If anything, the more vulnerable they are now, the greater need there is.
|
The question is how much of “more vulnerable” is them actually being more vulnerable and how much is people actually taking them into account for AoOs more now.
It does relate cause those items came out long after P1 came out when Familiars were around from the get go. There were plenty of items to help with Familiars eventually. Would it be nice to have those items sooner rather than later? Yes. But that applies to a lot of items from P1.
The question is how much of “more vulnerable” is them actually being more vulnerable and how much is people actually taking them into account for AoOs more now.
I'm not sure it matters why they are more vulnerable: IMO they have both weaker defenses and are noticed more [active vs passive powers mostly]. It items themselves are just something easy that can be added to make things easier: something that might be nice to have in a book coming out with your spellbook being your familiar. With the basic features of the familiar set in stone already, it's one area that's an easy fix to increase survivability [no matter why you think it's lower'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Familiars and Animal Companions badly need magical equipment. We don't even have basic stuff like a ring of elemental resistance for plane hopping. That's a significant problem.
|
|
The base rules state that familiars cannot equip items.The question is how much of “more vulnerable” is them actually being more vulnerable and how much is people actually taking them into account for AoOs more now.
It does relate cause those items came out long after P1 came out when Familiars were around from the get go. There were plenty of items to help with Familiars eventually. Would it be nice to have those items sooner rather than later? Yes. But that applies to a lot of items from P1.
In P1 those items were equipped or carried by the Caster, not the Familiar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In P1 those items were equipped or carried by the Caster, not the Familiar.The base rules state that familiars cannot equip items.The question is how much of “more vulnerable” is them actually being more vulnerable and how much is people actually taking them into account for AoOs more now.
It does relate cause those items came out long after P1 came out when Familiars were around from the get go. There were plenty of items to help with Familiars eventually. Would it be nice to have those items sooner rather than later? Yes. But that applies to a lot of items from P1.
Some where familiar items: offhand, Bloodstone Collar was one.
|
|
Some where familiar items: offhand, Bloodstone Collar was one.In P1 those items were equipped or carried by the Caster, not the Familiar.The base rules state that familiars cannot equip items.The question is how much of “more vulnerable” is them actually being more vulnerable and how much is people actually taking them into account for AoOs more now.
It does relate cause those items came out long after P1 came out when Familiars were around from the get go. There were plenty of items to help with Familiars eventually. Would it be nice to have those items sooner rather than later? Yes. But that applies to a lot of items from P1.
The other two you brought up weren’t.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question for people who played Wizards in PF2 and Witches in PF1.
Do the PF2 cantrips and/or focus spells already capture the feeling of the PF1 hexes?
Not even a little for me. Cantrips feel like cantrips to me and focus spells are too few and too infrequent for hexes. For me, they'd need to be something like a bards Composition cantrips, unique to the class and usable at will. IMo, the playtest witch felt like a wizard whose familiar ate his spellbook... Lessons/Hexes were the wizards school/focus spells, cackle was pointless/worthless, ect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest hexes felt nothing like PF1 hexes, and thus the whole class felt nothing like a Witch from PF1. Focus spells are exceedingly poor as an "all-day" option, you get too few of them, and generally it felt like shoe-horning Hexes into a mechanic ill suited for them because it's a new shiny PF2 mechanic.
Bardic composition style cantrip hexes would be far and away the better option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 hexes are the exact opposite of the thing hexes were in PF1. In PF1 they were abilities you could use all day long, every fight, every enemy. Sure, there was a limit of "once per target per day" but those really only mattered for either (a) buffs to allies or (b) very powerful debuffs to enemies.
Now, focus powers are already limited to "once a fight" (well, once an hour) but retain their "once a day" feature as well, meaning that a buff-type ability is strictly inferior to a similar power granted by another class (compare the healing hex with a paladin's lay on hands; in PF1 yeah, a paladin got better at it than a witch did eventually, but in PF2, the paladin starts better and improves faster;[1] PF1 paladin caught up around level 6 because of the linear-vs.-quadratic nature of the two abilities).
And then there's the spirit link. Why does this spell even exist? Anyone who has access to divine spells will just use Heal (which is strictly better in all ways). Its also on the occult spell list (and Heal is not), but the witch that gets it has the primal list...which also has Heal.
[1] Paladin caps at 6*Lvl*16, but even if we assume that it gets used only 8 times instead of 16 per day[2], that's still a x48 multiplier. A witch on the other hand is 10*Lvl*PartySize, with a default party size assumption of 4 (and even then damage will not be evenly split, but we're going to assume best-case here) which is a x40 multiplier. Every level the witch falls behind the paladin another 8 points in healing.
[2] Improved focus recovery only helps the paladin further, as the faster focus recovery for the witch does not remove the 1/day/target limitation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is the answer to the OP, no, because witches are terrible? or Yes, because they are just plain better than wizards in every way?
I am pretty confident that the playtest witch saw hexes tested at the lower end of what they will end up being because developers "win" when they give the players cooler things in the final product than the players saw in the playtest, and usually "lose" when they have to scale those abilities back because players feel cheated .
This has me thinking that the witch will probably be toning down ints regular spell slot spells and won't really feel like a wizard at all when the witches first action in almost every round of combat is going to be thinking about throwing a hex out, while the wizard will be doing more interesting things with their spell slots due to metamagic, and arcane bond.
But I could be totally wrong. I look forward to seeing what they do with the witch though, I am pretty certain making it feel more different from the wizard is high on their list of changes.
So is the answer to the OP, no, because witches are terrible? or Yes, because they are just plain better than wizards in every way?
(I'm not convinced that the wizard is not also terrible, i.e. "both: witches are terrible, but still better than wizards")
I am pretty confident that the playtest witch saw hexes tested at the lower end of what they will end up being because developers "win" when they give the players cooler things in the final product than the players saw in the playtest, and usually "lose" when they have to scale those abilities back because players feel cheated .
I worries me when I hope the end product will end up a "win" as it's features haven't been openly tested: someone thought the Shifter [Oozemorph] looked fine too. The bigger the changes, the more wary I am and the witch needs some big changes to not feel like a 'wizard school'.
Bonewits identified half a dozen different types of witches, including the "gothic witch, or satanist" (the classic evil witch) and the "classic witch" aka "sorcerer. Not sure how well his nomenclature fits with pathfinder. Hard to tell until the APG comes out. Wizards (from the Anglo-Saxon wys ard, meaning "wise one", are a different thing altogether in Bonewits' view.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty confident that the playtest witch saw hexes tested at the lower end of what they will end up being because developers "win" when they give the players cooler things in the final product than the players saw in the playtest, and usually "lose" when they have to scale those abilities back because players feel cheated .I worries me when I hope the end product will end up a "win" as it's features haven't been openly tested: someone thought the Shifter [Oozemorph] looked fine too. The bigger the changes, the more wary I am and the witch needs some big changes to not feel like a 'wizard school'.
Haha, you must be confused. Paizo never printed a class called Shifter (:
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't a fan of the playtest witch, it was definitely the class that felt the furthest from completion in my mind. I'm still optimistic about the final result, but I it doesn't feel like as much of a "lock" as the other playtest classes.
I'm not sure if the witch need cantrip hexes in particular (that seems like the most obvious route to me, but sometimes there are better ways to create something than the obvious), but it does need something with some "Oomph". Something that screams, "Hey, I'm the witch! This is what I do!".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't a fan of the playtest witch, it was definitely the class that felt the furthest from completion in my mind. I'm still optimistic about the final result, but I it doesn't feel like as much of a "lock" as the other playtest classes.
I'm not sure if the witch need cantrip hexes in particular (that seems like the most obvious route to me, but sometimes there are better ways to create something than the obvious), but it does need something with some "Oomph". Something that screams, "Hey, I'm the witch! This is what I do!".
I would agree it was the furthest from complete in my mind too, which considering how vastly the Investigator changed between editions (Investigator to me is literally a brand new niche role that I don't think existed before) is interesting.
I think it just came off as watered down. They had several concepts going on all at the same time:
- Pick a list
- Lessons as "Patron"
- Hexes as once per combat spells
None of which was done in a particularly "witch" way (Lessons maybe) but more as an expression of a Witch mechanic in the form of an existing mechanical concept (Pick a list from Sorcerer, Lessons as Order Feats, Focus spells as Hexes).
It checked the boxes, but the "oomph" factor like you mention definitely was missing for me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The interesting thing about the playtest investigator was that even though I kind of hated how it played, it still felt close to "complete" for me if that makes sense. If I were to try and explain it, it would be something like:
Investigator: Overall lackluster implementation, but all the right "pieces" were in play. The class needed heavy tweaking, but it still felt like it had a solid straight path forward.
Witch: Lacked the vital "spark" to really sell me on the class. In a way I'm somewhat bummed we didn't get to playtest a version of the witch which had that "spark" - I have a lot of faith in Paizo's developers but its somewhat unfortunate the real "meat" of the class was never properly tested, if the witch receives heavy alterations before release.
I kind of question the need for a witch as a class, it could have easily become an Achetype open to sorcs, wizards and druids and it would have fit well. Other PF1 classes became archetypes and I feel a witch could easily have been moved down the same path.
Existing spell casting classes, Sorc, Wizard, Druid could all be bases for a witch concept. It might need a large amount of archetype feats (I don't think that is a bad thing) but didn't need to be a class in fact it kind of sits better as an archetype, it might remove or change druid anathemas but otherwise sits well.
Druid with Witch Archetype - primal wilderness witch, heavily flavoured with animal companions, enchanted, plants and shape changing.
Sorc with Witch Archetype - almost anything but the witch who is born into a witch family bloodline then does deals or summons for greater power, we even have a hag bloodline.
Wizard with witch archetype - the power hungry wizard seeking more powerful or forbidden lore making a deal with a patron for more power.
Not sure what Witch by itself needs as a class. As pointed out above it sort
I think it just came off as watered down. They had several concepts going on all at the same time:
- Pick a list
- Lessons as "Patron"
- Hexes as once per combat spellsNone of which was done in a particularly "witch" way (Lessons maybe) but more as an expression of a Witch mechanic in the form of an existing mechanical concept (Pick a list from Sorcerer, Lessons as Order Feats, Focus spells as Hexes).
It checked the boxes, but the "oomph" factor like you mention definitely was missing for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that a witch is unique and needs a whole class. Even in your description you have basically boiled it down to 'hexes.' No reason focus spell selection couldn't come from an achetype. A witch is a caster with hexes. It struggles already with should it get all or 1 spell list, or is it 3. Its needs divine, no it doesn't need divine. It struggles because the lore is varied. A druid right now can fulfill the forest/swamp witch fantasy just by removing anathema's. There are plenty of regular spells (curses, disease spells etc) that could work like debuff hexes.
It was its own class in pf1 because of the limitations of that system, pf2e doesn't have those limitations it could easily be an archetype with a large feat selection, or a series of archetypes (swamp witch, winter witch, hedge witch etc).
For the record if Oracle had remained more like the pf1 version it could also easily have been an archetype but the changes they made for it for pf2 gave it a unique core mechanic. Witches have no unique core mechanic, picking a spell list and a few focus spells works like a sorc. At will focus spells is a bard gimmick right now even if the witch got them there is still nothing all that unique which doesn't sit on another spellcasting chassis just as well.
Hexes as at will focus spells is not unique (even if the witch gets them)
selecting a spell list is not unique
There is nothing unique in the way Patrons have been done that would justify witches needing a class. Hell that is probably where they should have started. They completely changed how Oracle curses work for PF2e, Patrons are the strongest part of what gives a witch its flavour and they left them as a vague indistinct mechanically boring choice of spell list + focus spell. Its basically a less interesting version of sorcerer bloodline.
I am not saying that witches couldn't be their own class, I am saying that nothing about the pf2e playtest says they couldn't just be an archetype. Buff up the patron concept, make it the core mechanic, give it some serious anathema/obligation crunch and a lot more day be day impact on how the witch plays, right now its as impactful as a wizard's school specialisation and less impactful than a sorc's bloodline. It needs more.
Right now it feels like a specialised wizard (hence this thread and how interchangable the 2 are) and that is sad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is just a caster with schools.
I feel like Cyder wrote out some well-written points that this response doesn't address in good faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like that kind of inadvertently makes Cyder's argument for them, as it helps highlight just how generic and interchangeable PF2's full casters can feel, especially when both the Witch and Wizard are classes that cast fairly broad nets thematically.
That said we're kind of long beyond the point of "should the witch exist" arguments, the class is either finished already or in the processes of being finished, that ship sailed months ago.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agreed with the broader points he raised (which was extending off other posters like Midnightoker), I just the productive (and realistic) conclusion is that Witch should consolidate more strongly on Prepared Occult casting, which is inherently more distinguished and establishes more of a consistent internal baseline (unlike Pick a List). Having that is important because that core assumption can inform broad array of Feats relevant to every Witch, rather than relevant class feats be isolated into different Tradition silos (or the reverse, reduced to 'generic caster' which are the two poles Sorceror Feats seem to revolve around).
In a way that even emphasises more the potential overlap with Bard and 'at will Focus spell cantrips' which I do think is problematic, and unexciting if entire class were built around that. But I am fine with that playstyle being an option specific to particular Patron(s) with more Bardic-type theme (say, Siren-like mythology). Which would presumably double down on Occult scope, while others could go different directions including effectively expanding the list to Primal/Arcane/Divine spells/effects. They don't have to all be directly comparable, while Composition Cantrips could be one model, others could just play with normal spellcasting via bonus slots, list expansion, and spontaneous substitution and so on... Not to overly shill my own idea, but Sha'ir (spell fetching familiar, maybe with heavy elemental spell theme) seems logical extension of Familiar-Witch concept and doing so atop Occult list feels more interesting and distinguished from potential Arcanist class or Archetype. Some Patrons/etc could even "play with" non-spell related mechanics, variety here can be good, even while supported by solid baseline of Occult casting.
Meh, I'd still prefer the pick a list, flavorwise the class has plenty to go off of simply by emphasizing the patron and the familiar (and hopefully the coven mechanics that many of us asked to be generalized and put in the base chassis) and I would prefer that it do everything that it can to get out of the halloween witch conceptual space, which feels super limited. At the very least, I would hope that it retains access to both Occult and Primal, to dovetail with the lore written concerning the two paths many changelings take, and to provide some options, but really I think making it the prepared analogue to the sorcerer is the way to go, with all of the lists.
|
|
I feel like that kind of inadvertently makes Cyder's argument for them, as it helps highlight just how generic and interchangeable PF2's full casters can feel, especially when both the Witch and Wizard are classes that cast fairly broad nets thematically.
Well their point wasn’t that we should chop up the Wizard class and dole out its abilities, but that the that should be done to the Witch since it has nothing going for it.
And I obviously and strongly disagree, I find it much more thematic and interesting and unique than the Wizard, which is pretty much just a basic spellcaster.
I mean I didn’t think the Swashbuckler had a place and then I saw the mechanics and one in play.
Witch has something there I think, and I don’t think it’s that far. It’s like it has a splinter in it but we all can’t agree on where it is. That’s how it seems to me anyways.
If it can be done well as a class I’d argue it should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean I didn’t the Swashbuckler had a place and then I saw the mechanics and one in play.
Witch has something there I think, and I don’t think it’s that far. It’s like it has a splinter in it but we all can’t decide where it is. That’s how it seems to me anyways.
If it can be done well as a class I’d argue it should be.
The moment Swashbuckler got its own class was the moment I realized we're going to have lots and lots of classes printed in PF2 and confining iconic things like Witches to archetypes was just not going to happen.
Wich is fine by me. I love options!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well their point wasn’t that we should chop up the Wizard class and dole out its abilities, but that the that should be done to the Witch since it has nothing going for it.
And I obviously and strongly disagree, I find it much more thematic and interesting and unique than the Wizard, which is pretty much just a basic spellcaster.
I'll agree with you that the Wizard as implemented in PF2 is pretty damn boring, yeah. It's a real shame Paizo decided to make their class features so minimalistic.
However, in fairness to Cyder's point, the Witch is the thing that's being added, not the Wizard, so scrutinizing how that fits in the existing class framework isn't unreasonable. In that respect, the Witch looks a lot like a Wizard who picks a Patron instead of a School.
I'm not sure there's anything to be done about it though, because the moment you give the Witch any sort of meaningful and powerful new mechanics it risks instantly eclipsing the Wizard, because the Wizard's chassis is almost nonexistent.
To better explain my key point:
If a class to be added it should have unique mechanic or fill a unique role. Archetypes are flavour with some abilities that could fit well on multiple class chassis (so animal trainer, or staff acrobat, juggler, hellknight etc).
I am ok with corerulebook classes (like wizard) being a little generic.
For the record, in the absence of the witch playtest class, the wizard is fairly unique, its only once the witch is added that we see a ton of overlap. I feel that witch in its current implementation has too much in common with wizard for it to really feel like it couldn't be an archetype that could sit effectively and nicely on all non cleric spell casting chassis.
To use the archtype or class test with the playtest classes:
Swashbuckler has the unique mechanic. The flavour could have been an archetype but it goes beyond that with a builder/finisher mechanic in Panache which differentiates it mechanically from Rogue/fighter.
Investigator suffered a little bit with the feedback with comparisons to a rogue racket but has a couple of unique if under fleshed abilities. With a little work to refine the take the case mechanic and fixing issues with the relationship between its class schtick and intelligence it works.
Oracle has a totally unique focus and focus recovery mechanic. Meets class test
Witch - patrons (should be core identity of witch flavour) offer nothing mechanically that isn't already on another class. Right now it is a wizard with the familiar theory that can pick from 3 spell lists based on a school specialisation with the ability to pick different school specialisations spell rather be locked in. It competes with the wizard with offering prepared arcane school (the most versatile and arguably powerful school) while offering a choice in what focus spells you get. Its a better choice than wizard for a prepared arcane caster most of the time.
What I feel the witch needs is a better core mechanic that differentiates it. Hexes and focus spells is a great start. I don't think hex cantrips should exist. Instead I would like to see a mechanic where witches could reliably get a focus point back in combat by doing something 'witchy' like successfully cursing someone or some other action dependant non-automatic ability - probably dependant on the flavour of their patron. I also think reducing them to prepared occult casters makes sense with their patron flavour adding some choice spells from another list (a primal spell at each level for a 'nature' patron witch).
I think witch in the playtest version has missed the unique class schtick it needs to be more than a many feats available archetype that can fit on a different caster chassis.
Also while I like lots of class options I want each of my class options to have a unique playstyle and mechanic and not eclipse existing options. This whole thread is 'why play a wizard when you could play an arcane witch' and that represents an unhealthy choice. If Witch were enough its own thing than the witch replacing wizard debate shouldn't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disliked the playtest of the oracle for the record and they were my favourite class in PF1e. I didn't like the new curse/focus tie in at all.
That said it still meets the test of being a class rather than an archetype. I didn't say it was a good or bad thing just that it was significant enough to be class rather than archetype. Good and bad being somewhat subjective.
The problem with hexes being cantrips means we need to add more mechanics to them, weaken them, limit their effect to once per day on each target etc or they become a near mandatory action each round.
I would rather hexes remained scaleable and more powerful like other focus spells and where appropriate having a duration and then have a unique in combat way for witches to get back focus points - linked to patron theme since right now patron choice = spell list.
I think 'do witch thing that is thematically linked to patron granting an in combat way to regain a focus point' is a nice way to tie the concepts together. It promotes a play style in the way gaining and spending panache does but instead witches do witchy rather than swashbucklery things.
The hard part is coming up with what in combat actions should count as 'witchy' to grant focus but off the top of my head:
Successfully demoralising an opponent could count as a way to regain a focus point.
or you could have a class ability or class feat of:
Cackle - (1 actions) 1 target - must make a will save vs your witch class DC or be frightened 1, you regain 1 focus point. Has all the same limitations as a normal demoralise check.
Others could be able about inflicting other conditions - especially using class spells. eg. Nature witch might be able to regain a focus in combat when they use an entangle effect or create difficult terrain effect or maybe when they attack a target in different terrain caused by nature.
I just think there is a lot of potential for making the witch something a lot more than a reskinned wizard with a familiar than can pick their spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oracle is a case of "totally unique" not automatically being a good thing.
True enough. The oracle feels like its unique mechanic is "set yourself on fire, now you deal bonus fire damage to every creature adjacent to you."
I may end up sketching out my own version of the witch (not a full class, generating that many feats is too much work)
Hex Trait.
Hexes may only affect a target once per day.
There.
Yep, just like Composition cantrips use the Composition trait.
True enough. The oracle feels like its unique mechanic is "set yourself on fire, now you deal bonus fire damage to every creature adjacent to you."
Even better, your unique mechanic affects your other focus abilities too. It's kind of like having to spend a Kineticist's burn for the abilities of other classes you take... :P
Hex Trait.
Hexes may only affect a target once per day.
There.
Not that easy. If I critically succeed on my save versus a hex and suffer no effects does it count as affected or not? Do you mean you can only use a hex on a target once per day?
Buffing/healing hexes may not be a great under those circumstances, would probably best just have it cost 1 focus so I can use it every battle if needed.
Do debuff hexes then need the incapacitation trait?
Are buffing hexes too similar to bard focus cantrips?
Hexes are a lot more complex than composition cantrips.
Hexes now also can't scale with level and possibly need to be 2 actions rather than 1 else they may replace spells as your go to.
A spammable debuff that could last multiple rounds and potentially used on every foe is probably too powerful.
A spell caster that can spam a 1 action debuff to reduce a target's save vs their next spell (even if it can only affect a target once per day) is powerful. It automatically surpasses wizards who would need to invest in intimidate and charisma to achieve a similar outcome with demoralise. Demoralise also doesn't work on a ton of things.
I don't think the 'can only affect a target once per day' is as easy as it sounds. It also doesn't fix the witches lack of uniqueness in a way that doesn't doesn't ask the question 'what does a wizard bring that is worthwhile that a witch doesn't?' We have already seen how valued and power bards are considered given focus cantrips and how mandatory it can feel to use them each round. Imagine a wizard with 1 action focus cantrips that can debuff saves.
Hexes as focus cantrips doesn't really fix the problems a witch has in already being a better wizard.
Hexes as focus cantrips doesn't really fix the problems a witch has in already being a better wizard.
I our options are to make the witch feel bad because it might make the wizrds seem worse or having the witch feel good, I'm voting for a good feeling witch.
Not that easy.
Change from "affect" to "target". Also change "hex" to 'individual hex'.
spammable debuff
It's as balance as a spammable buff.
|
|
I hope not, it took me all of 5 seconds to make that response.Not that easy.Hex Trait.
Hexes may only affect a target once per day.
There.
If I critically succeed on my save versus a hex and suffer no effects does it count as affected or not?That's a very good and interesting question, design wise. Yes? No? Depending on the Hex?
Do you mean you can only use a hex on a target once per day?Yep, same as P1.
Buffing/healing hexes may not be a great under those circumstances, would probably best just have it cost 1 focus so I can use it every battle if needed.That's how they were in P1, I'd be against any more spammable healing, it's already rather easy to come by in P2. And would also make the Witch more tactical in their choices, rather than every fight being "round 1 cast x, round 2 cast y, etc"
Do debuff hexes then need the incapacitation trait?Some would, same as other spells.
Are buffing hexes too similar to bard focus cantrips?Nope, I'd like to see Reaction Buffs/Debuffs for them as well, would be thematic.
Hexes are a lot more complex than composition cantrips.Some are, some aren't. In P1 Hexes were awesome due to the sheer variedness of them.
Hexes now also can't scale with level and possibly need to be 2 actions rather than 1 else they may replace spells as your go to.Uh, Cantrips auto-scale. And most if not all of them are 2 Actions.
A spammable debuff that could last multiple rounds and potentially used on every foe is probably too powerful.You can't spam a Hex on the same target, that's what keeps it in check.
A spell caster that can spam a 1 action debuff to reduce a target's save vs their next spell (even if it can only affect a target once per day) is powerful. It automatically surpasses wizards who would need to invest in intimidate and charisma to achieve a similar outcome with demoralise. Demoralise also doesn't work on a ton of things.Again, Cantrips are 2 Actions to cast.
I don't think the 'can only affect a target once per day' is as easy as it sounds. It also doesn't fix the witches lack of uniqueness in a way that doesn't doesn't ask the question 'what does a wizard bring that is worthwhile that a witch doesn't?' We have already seen how valued and power bards are considered given focus cantrips and how mandatory it can feel to use them each round. Imagine a wizard with 1 action focus cantrips that can debuff saves.
1) The flavor and variety of the Hexes goes beyond this conversation, but they were plenty flavorful in P1, and in the Playtest.
2) Wizards don't have flavor. They're arcane lumps.
3) Ah! Since Bards Composition Cantrips are 1 Action (because they're sustainable in a fashion) you're thinking Witch's Hexes would be as well. Some might be, but there's no guarantee they would be.
Hexes as focus cantrips doesn't really fix the problems a witch has in already being a better wizard.
The Wizard being boring is not a Witch problem.