No!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard being boring is not a Witch problem.
Maybe not, but the Witch functionally just being a Wizard who picks from a different set of focus spells kinda is.
The playtest version of the Witch just did not have much going for it, by far the least mechanically and thematically developed of the four classes we saw. Hopefully the final version fixes things up a bit, obviously.
The argument is not about wizards being boring (not being a witch problem) it is one that witches outshining wizards.
Witches outclassing wizards is a witch problem. Any introduced class has to not invalidate another class as a reasonable choice. The 'what unique mechanics and playstyle' a class is bringing is a very valid question when designing a class. Right now the arcane witch in the playtest was simply better than wizard, that is a witch problem because it makes witch more powerful than an existing class at the same schtick.
I agree wizards feel a little underbaked right now. Arcane thesis is where they really had the ability to make the wizard shine but it falls short after creation with lack of feat support. When I read paizo wizard blog about wizards I was excited by arcane thesis as something that made a wizard a wizard, they were studious researchers with theorums. Sadly the only choice made on thesis was at creation and then became irrelevant to later choices. That isn't witches fault but it does mean that witch needs to be more than a generic caster with rebranded focus spells.
I hope the witch design doesn't do this. Having a patron, more than 'hexes and lessons' defines a witch, it defines their relationship with their power, its what should separate them as a class, like performing does with bards, like fighting style does to fighters, or faith to cleric. I would much rather see patron choice restrict lesson and feat choices later (ala druids and order).
You fix Wizard, by fixing the Wizard.
Not tearing down every other caster so they can’t compete.
Yes, the way to make wizards seem ok isn't to make new caster bad... It's a good reason to NOT follow the same formula as a wizard [renamed Thesis, 'school' focus spells, ect]: if you do it's going to look like what it is, a wizard with the ability names filed off... At that point, it's little more than an archetype.
You don't fix witch by making it a better option than the wizard either. Witch can only be as compelling as other caster options.
None of the existing casters replace a wizards schtick. The witch playtest did and had better options. That is a problem.
Basically releasing a class that is a better version of an existing class is the new class' problem.
If I release a knight that did everything a fighter did in the same ways but with the same and better options that wouldn't be good.
Same as if I released an assassin that was straight up better than the rogue at what the rogue does. It would be the assassin class design issue.
Saying that eclipsing an existing class with a new class is not the new class' problem is what leads to power creep and invalidating older options except as 'flavour' choices.
Its exactly what happened towards the end of 1e. It would be good to not repeat it here.
The fact this thread exists with as many posts as it does says yeah maybe the witch is a better version of the wizard.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't fix witch by making it a better option than the wizard either. Witch can only be as compelling as other caster options.
None of the existing casters replace a wizards schtick. The witch playtest did and had better options. That is a problem.
How so?
If the criteria is “Arcane Caster” then the Sorcerer did so in the same book as the Wizard already. The Wizard isn’t weak, it’s boring.
You don't fix witch by making it a better option than the wizard either. Witch can only be as compelling as other caster options.
If new casters can only be as exciting as the wizard then I've lost all hope for the game...
Side note: I found the Playtest Oracle to be kind of an insult to the original Oracle. The original was a class based around customization and choice that should had translated perfectly to PF2: Literally making mysteries into paths that with class feats being revelations. Instead we got a mechanic that punishes you for using it arguably worse than Kineticist, little customization, and feats that were overall meh.
Yep, totally agree here: it was a fine class as long as you ignored it's focus spells and class feats... It was the perfect reason to multiclass into multiple caster classes for 3 sets of spell slots since most levels you didn't want the class feats.
Sorcerer doesn't replace wizard. Wizards are a prepared caster.
Witch (playtest) is essentially a familiar thesis wizard that gets to choose their spell list and has a better and more flexible selection of focus spells. That is why its a problem. Giving it focus spell cantrips on top of the fact it gets most of what the wizard gets already is compounding the same but more flexible (and more powerful/better options) power creep.
New classes shouldn't be a better version of existing class. Its not about boring its about power creep. Can do the same but more flexible is a kind of power creep.
This isn't about wizard being boring. Wizard can be boring and be balanced. Right now Witch is a straight up more powerful option than the wizard and that is a problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better focus spells? That’s solved by giving the Wizard better Focus Spells.
Focus spells =/= Cantrips
The APG is going to have more stuff for Wizards as well.
And to reiterate, I say this as someone who hopes the Final Witch is Occult only rather than pick-a-list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not one of the designers, but I'm not terribly certain where the argument that pick-a-list is more powerful than a solo list comes from and don't think that our one example of that (Sorcerer) really demonstrates that this is a design philosophy in PF2. Certainly having a variety of options does indeed present a character with power in the form of versatility, but not if one character can never benefit from more than one of those options at a time.
To me, a multi-list spellcaster cannot be said to have more versatility than a solo-list spellcaster because once the character is created, both of those characters have only the versatility offered to them by a single list at a time. Sure if you take one option that has a variety of uses, it has versatility, but if you can only choose one of several options, those other options existing doesn't offer your character any versatility more than publishing more Rogue Rackets makes the Racket feature more powerful.
I'd concede that giving Witches their choice of spell list does present a design challenge in the number of feat options tailored to each list, but do not feel it presents a problem to the power budget of the Witch's other features. At least not without some kind of clear design insight into the designers' balance concerns regarding the difference between spell list styles.
Incidentally, I also agree that if the Arcane-list Witch obsoletes the Wizard by having the same number of spells per day but being more mechanically or thematically interesting, this is a problem best solved by addressing the Wizard's shortcomings as the iconic arcane spellcaster.
|
|
“ Certainly having a variety of options does indeed present a character with power in the form of versatility”
That’s pretty much it, that they have to pick one list is not as a relevant as the fact of the amount of options and variety they have from having the lists in the first place. It’s the power of being versatile and having more options.
A power that is usually compensated by tweaks to their other abilities and what they’re granted, or at the very least that looking glass is there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard being boring is not the Witch's problem.
I think this hits the nail on the head. The witch being more interesting than the wizard is not a problem with the witch class.
That being said this version of Pathfinder is so versatile and modular that I think new wizard feats could remedy a fair amount of their banality.
If the criteria is “Arcane Caster” then the Sorcerer did so in the same book as the Wizard already. The Wizard isn’t weak, it’s boring.
As someone who really likes the PF2 wizard, I agree. The wizard is not weak. Their powers leave them fairly open ended though and people really like thematic over specialization.
|
If the criteria is “Arcane Caster” then the Sorcerer did so in the same book as the Wizard already. The Wizard isn’t weak, it’s boring.
My original post pointed out that arcane witches are an INT-based prepared caster that have the benefits of arcane bond + arcane school but with less restrictive spell selection.
I'm sure you already know that sorcerors are CHA-based spontaneous casters with bloodline abilities that are very different than a wizard's class features, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The Wizard being boring is not a Witch problem.
Correct. It's a design problem that I hope the designers solve, but not by releasing a different class that does everything better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't fix witch by making it a better option than the wizard either. Witch can only be as compelling as other caster options.
None of the existing casters replace a wizards schtick. The witch playtest did and had better options. That is a problem.
How so?
If the criteria is “Arcane Caster” then the Sorcerer did so in the same book as the Wizard already. The Wizard isn’t weak, it’s boring.
I actually agree with this very much.
The Wizard doesn't feel as much like an academic maestro of magic, and just feels like a generic caster.
The Witch is more than just a Wizard, if only just comparing themes alone.
And I don't think sprinkling a Witch archetype/school on a Wizard would even come close to covering the themes and concepts of the Witch.
“ Certainly having a variety of options does indeed present a character with power in the form of versatility”
This just isn't true though.
It's an option that you cannot change that happens at level one.
It creates more permutations that have to be managed balance-wise, but there's no way for that to translate to actual power in game because once the choice is made it cannot be changed (baring some kind of lucrative retraining, which to be frank, is probably unrealistic even in game terms with the lessons/spells/hexes you'd have to revoke with it).
That's like saying because the Rogue can pick one of three rackets it's stronger. It's not like a Thief is any more powerful because a Ruffian Rogue was an option at 1st level. It literally has no bearing on their power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't fix witch by making it a better option than the wizard either. Witch can only be as compelling as other caster options.
None of the existing casters replace a wizards schtick. The witch playtest did and had better options. That is a problem.
How so?
If the criteria is “Arcane Caster” then the Sorcerer did so in the same book as the Wizard already. The Wizard isn’t weak, it’s boring.
I actually agree with this very much.
The Wizard doesn't feel as much like an academic maestro of magic, and just feels like a generic caster.
The Witch is more than just a Wizard, if only just comparing themes alone.
And I don't think sprinkling a Witch archetype/school on a Wizard would even come close to covering the themes and concepts of the Witch.
“ Certainly having a variety of options does indeed present a character with power in the form of versatility”This just isn't true though.
It's an option that you cannot change that happens at level one.
It creates more permutations that have to be managed balance-wise, but there's no way for that to translate to actual power in game because once the choice is made it cannot be changed (baring some kind of lucrative retraining, which to be frank, is probably unrealistic even in game terms with the lessons/spells/hexes you'd have to revoke with it).
That's like saying because the Rogue can pick one of three rackets it's stronger. It's not like a Thief is any more powerful because a Ruffian Rogue was an option at 1st level. It literally has no bearing on their power.
There is a *slight* bonus of being able to retrain to a different spell list though. Not that this would be common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard thesis is the way the wizard is the academic maestro of magic.
The only place where the witch flat out invalidates the thesis is the familiar thesis. Maybe that is a problem, but it is not a problem that invalidates the wizard as a whole. But that is really a problem with the familiar rules and how bad an idea it is to focus what makes your character special into a familiar.
People really seem to write off metamagic as the wizard's area of specialization. Manipulating spells is the wizards thing and they get way more options for this than any other caster does. The only metamagic feat the witch gets is conceal spell, but did anyone notice that silent spell allows you to gain the benefits of conceal spell, without having to spend the action to do so? It is the superior feat and only wizards get it. Druids and sorcerers get some of the metamagic support that wizards do, but they are almost always competing with feats at the same level that those other classes have to spend on more "thematic" build options. Because the wizard is "bland" and doesn't have must take feats at each level to keep up with the necessary narrative elements of their class, they get to keep choosing interesting meta magic feats which, when factored together with different spell load outs, make for an almost infinite amount of interesting specialization and uniqueness.
Witches will never get widen spell, quickened casting, overwhelming energy, not without MC into another caster class.
Illusionists and Enchanters without silent spell are either terrible characters, or are requiring a lot leeway from their GM about what in-world people will allow around them to get away with as far as casting. Bards get a similar feat, but it requires you to be out in the open and drawing attention to yourself. It is still cool, but it is a very different character build. Witches are going to need to keep up stealth, and deception to get away with just conceal spell which is going to be difficult to do as you level up/ be a pretty significant character investment, and require that you succeed at 2 skill checks every time you want to cast a spell covertly. This includes all of your hex spells as well. PF2 witches are not going to be as subtle as the wizard. This is a big change from PF1 because wizards just got more metamagic, not as exclusive access to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a *slight* bonus of being able to retrain to a different spell list though. Not that this would be common.
Eh, even in that case, how is that any more powerful though? You can never cast from multiple lists at once.
And just speaking in the current structure of the Witch, doing that would be nearly impossible. You'd be retraining 90% of your character concept.
You can change a class feature that required a choice, making a different choice instead. This lets you change a druid order or a wizard school, for example. The GM will tell you how long this takes—always at least a month.
I mean a month of retraining in a campaign is almost akin to just rolling a new character.
Would we really say all characters are "more powerful" because you can kill your own character and make another at any time?
Of course not.
The Wizard thesis is the way the wizard is the academic maestro of magic.
Except they completed their Thesis on something pretty non-specific and then never really advanced it after that.
Most Ph D. people I know go on to actually progress in their field of study instead of just becoming "better" at their job. That ongoing advancement just doesn't feel there to me, at least academically.
The power progression is there, but the academic progression feels less so to me.
Except they completed their Thesis on something pretty non-specific and then never really advanced it after that.
Most Ph D. people I know go on to actually progress in their field of study instead of just becoming "better" at their job. That ongoing advancement just doesn't feel there to me, at least academically.
The power progression is there, but the academic progression feels less so to me.
Most of the thesis do provide benefits that continue to grow and change as the wizard levels up though. It is just subtly connected to your casting abilities and other feats. For some of them, like metamagical experimentation and Familiar focus, it is new abilities at certain levels, but even spell substitution becomes a more powerful ability the higher level spells you eventually have access to.
Especially with Spell substitution, it can be difficult to appreciate how much versatility this gives to a wizard and I think a lot of people look at it and think, this is boring, but it is a very unique ability that no other casters really get to touch (nor should other prepared casters since they mostly get access to their entire spell list).
Why isn't the ability to spell substitute 5th level spells an academic progression right along side learning how to cast them?
I think the thing some folks are waiting for are theses that feel more directly tied to school specialization than general casting ability. I think that is certainly something that could happen, but it isn't necessary from a pure game balancing of the wizards niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“ Certainly having a variety of options does indeed present a character with power in the form of versatility”
That’s pretty much it, that they have to pick one list is not as a relevant as the fact of the amount of options and variety they have from having the lists in the first place. It’s the power of being versatile and having more options.
A power that is usually compensated by tweaks to their other abilities and what they’re granted, or at the very least that looking glass is there.
Yes, I agree.
On pick-a-list (which is still a big topic apparently), while I don't think that mechanic is calculated on a character's power budget, I think it's calculated for the class' power budget, which is a part of why I don't like it.
I also think it's calculated in a significantly more meta "Developer Budget." By that I mean that any time the devs come back to the Witch in the future I think they'll look at the options they can give the Witch in relation to the level 1 spell list option, they'll treat it as an actual Feature to be designed for and around, and I don't like that. I think that'll lead to more conservative design for the class as a whole because everything will be either specific to a spell list like Sorcerer (ironically hampering build freedom) or weaker to future-proof or compensate for the potential of being used with one of three(+) spell lists. And while it makes sense for the Sorcerer's Bloodline to dictate abilities, I just don't think the Witch's choice of spell tradition or lack thereof should influence their other Witchy options, which is what I fear will happen.
I also dislike Patrons being tied to Hexes, or spell lists being tied to Hexes, and I think that'll ultimately be a design quagmire that locks options into silos. Though I think they addressed this somewhat in the post-playtest debriefing. I've said before that I think a Patron giving a tailored bonus spell list (i.e. one extra spell known per level of a different tradition) on top of Occult-only can serve most Witch needs, with archetypes to fill in. Especially if tailored Patron lists come with a built-in sidebar option to be fairly free-form and something that a player can either pick from a list or work with the DM to make their own.
Edit: On Wizards, more ties to their theses would be cool, but I think just more class options that make them the Fighters of magic-users would be great. Let them fiddle with spell math a bit more, keep piling on the metamagic options, saddle them with some cool archetypes, give them actually decent focus spells...
Why isn't the ability to spell substitute 5th level spells an academic progression right along side learning how to cast them?
Well, let me try to explain my very narrow "definition" that I have in my head to see if it makes any sense to others.
It's more of a progression of the person's specialty than it is a progression of their ability to substitute spells.
It is a directly linear progression that is parallel with their initial dedication, but they haven't actually "learned" anything new, only learned how to continue to do something as they advanced.
I would like to see some Feats that foster nuance on Spell Substitution, such as a feat once per day that did something like this:
Quick Spell Translation
Prerequisits: Spell Substitution Thesis
Frequency: Once per day
Action Cost: 1 Action
[Concentrait][Interact]You have become advanced at translating spells on the fly when they share the same school. You can swap a spell of the same school as a prepared spell.
This would be that "nuance" aspect to me, not that it's a great reflection of it necessarily, but it's what I'm trying to say.
Almost like a sub-category of their thesis.
On pick-a-list (which is still a big topic apparently), while I don't think that mechanic is calculated on a character's power budget, I think it's calculated for the class' power budget, which is a part of why I don't like it.
I don't think the Rogue calculates Rackets in its power budget just because it's a choice.
If the Rogue literally didn't get a choice and was always the Thief Racket how would it be in any way more powerful than a Thief that chose to be a Thief?
Choice that can be changed at reasonable intervals, that is a power increase. Rackets are not that and by extension, pick-a-list.
I raise the question again, if you can kill off your character at any time, does that mean every class receives this power budget?
Because that's effectively the argument.
|
|
You don't fix witch by making it a better option than the wizard either. Witch can only be as compelling as other caster options.
None of the existing casters replace a wizards schtick. The witch playtest did and had better options. That is a problem.
How so?
If the criteria is “Arcane Caster” then the Sorcerer did so in the same book as the Wizard already. The Wizard isn’t weak, it’s boring.
I actually agree with this very much.
The Wizard doesn't feel as much like an academic maestro of magic, and just feels like a generic caster.
The Witch is more than just a Wizard, if only just comparing themes alone.
And I don't think sprinkling a Witch archetype/school on a Wizard would even come close to covering the themes and concepts of the Witch.
“ Certainly having a variety of options does indeed present a character with power in the form of versatility”This just isn't true though.
It's an option that you cannot change that happens at level one.
It creates more permutations that have to be managed balance-wise, but there's no way for that to translate to actual power in game because once the choice is made it cannot be changed (baring some kind of lucrative retraining, which to be frank, is probably unrealistic even in game terms with the lessons/spells/hexes you'd have to revoke with it).
That's like saying because the Rogue can pick one of three rackets it's stronger. It's not like a Thief is any more powerful because a Ruffian Rogue was an option at 1st level. It literally has no bearing on their power.
They are, in that the power is the versatility itself, not in a “I took Power Attack [P1] so now I hit harder” sense.
They are, in that the power is the versatility itself, not in a “I took Power Attack [P1] so now I hit harder” sense.
What versatility?
At level 1, before I even play the game, I pick Occult.
What about my character is more versatile because I could have chosen Primal?
What about my character is more versatile because I could have played a completely different Class?
It's not more powerful or more versatile. It's just a choice a PC can make at character creation.
You can play that class with all its abilities but you get to choose its spell list, accounting for the adventure ahead, rather than a class that has the same list with no choice.
A Class that has the same list without a choice isn't going to have the same Class Abilities though.
And again, picking a one-time-choice option is no different than picking your Ancestry/Class.
You keep saying "deal more damage" power, as if that's what I'm saying.
It is not what I'm saying at all.
If I were able to wake up tomorrow and change my spell list from Occult to Primal, that would provide versatility, because I would be able to adjust based on circumstance.
"account for the adventure ahead" has absolutely no bearing on the Class ability to handle that adventure based on their choices in any other way that any other Class can prepare for that.
If it's an Undead Killing campaign, a Cleric's power budget doesn't suddenly go up, nor does an Enchantment School Wizard go down.
Level 1, one-time-choices are no different than selecting "Elf Fighter". The power-budget of the Class doesn't change at all.
Look at Sorcerer Bloodlines, Thief Rackets, Alchemist Studies, etc. None of those provide the individual choice at level 1 with any versatility in game.
They provide versatility to the initial concept or player choice on what they want to focus, but that's not different from choosing to be an Elf/Dwarf or a Fighter/Rogue.
And if you want to call that "versatility" then every single character in the game has that versatility because at any point in a campaign a person can shred a character sheet and make a new character (thus giving them all this "versatility" that somehow the Witch has).
You can make arguments for a single list but arguing that pick-a-list should have an impact on the powerbudget is just a stretch. It leans on some misplaced argument that somehow the Witch has to be "weaker" because Pick-a-list is one of their Class choices.
If the list they were going to be assigned was "awful" or they weren't guaranteed a list at all, then sure. Neither of those are true though.
The Rogue would be the same strength it is now if Thief was the only choice and it's in game versatility would be identical.
|
|
And if you want to call that "versatility" then every single character in the game has that versatility because at any point in a campaign a person can shred a character sheet and make a new character (thus giving them all this "versatility" that somehow the Witch has).
Wut.
You can make arguments for a single list but arguing that pick-a-list at all impacts the powerbudget is just not true.
We are very much going to disagree there.
And if you want to call that "versatility" then every single character in the game has that versatility because at any point in a campaign a person can shred a character sheet and make a new character (thus giving them all this "versatility" that somehow the Witch has).Wut.
Do you play at tables where you are held hostage and can never stop playing a character?
- I pick Fighter at level 1, I could have picked any Class at level 1, but I chose Fighter
- Now, later, I decide I want to play a Rogue instead, and I retire my character to a farmer and leave the campaign
- I make a new character and it's a Rogue
- We reduce the Power Budget of Fighter because I switched my character to a Rogue <- Your argument is here
We are very much going to disagree there.
That's fine, it's a pretty one-sided debate anyways.
EDIT: To further put it into perspective, if Paizo chooses to introduce new Rackets in the APG (and we already know they are), does that change the "power budget" for the original Rogue?
The answer is no. The class is exactly as powerful and versatile as a character as it was before. All that happens is more concepts are now available at level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The conversation gets a little wonky, if you don't feel like it raises the "power budget", that's fine. It does raise the power ceiling of the class though, and makes it exponentially harder to balance for.
The conversation gets a little wonky, if you don't feel like it raises the "power budget", that's fine. It does raise the power ceiling of the class though, and makes it exponentially harder to balance for.
That would only be true for raising the ceiling and "exponentially" harder to balance for if there were inherently more powerful lists.
Again, going back to Rackets, are we saying that the introduction of Rackets (which have self contained Feats and mechanics) inflates the Ceiling/Exponential Balance issues?
Does the introduction of new classes change power budget of other classes?
No. They are self-contained entities.
If you introduce the Mastermind now, the existing Feats for Rogue don't immediately gain power. The methods by which they are used might change, but it doesn't change the power budget.
I just really dislike using flawed logic to justify a point of view. I respect that pick-a-list is contentious among some, but hate it for the things that it actually does.
The Power Budget is not affected by pick-a-list anymore than the introduction of new Rackets changes the power budget of a Rogue.
We need to give credit to the system that Paizo built. The pieces of the game are structured in such a way that these types of compartmentalized items do not affect the grand chassis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would only be true for raising the ceiling and "exponentially" harder to balance for if there were inherently more powerful lists.
I don't think this is true at all. Giving a class more options raises the power ceiling for that class, even if the options are equally powerful in a vacuum. Synergies between abilities can raise the power of a build considerably.
and
harder to balance for if there were inherently more powerful lists.
Are you contending this is not the case?
|
|
It's not flawed, giving more options raises the ceiling, increasing the power of the clases.
Introducing more Rackets increases the versatility and power of the Rogue.
The pieces of the game are structured in such a way that these types of compartmentalized items do not affect the grand chassis.
This is 100% false.
That would only be true for raising the ceiling and "exponentially" harder to balance for if there were inherently more powerful lists.I don't think this is true at all. Giving a class more options raises the power ceiling for that class, even if the options are equally powerful in a vacuum. Synergies between abilities can raise the power of a build considerably.
If you want to make that argument, then according to you the Rogue will eventually out pace every single Class that cannot expand choices in that space.
Since there are only 4 lists with the devs saying no more to come, that initial selection never increases in value.
And the Fighter gets egregiously inferior over time since they have no choices at level 1 where as Rangers/Rogues/etc. all will continue to have their level 1 choices expanded.
If something is self-contained like the way these are designed, it doesn't raise the ceiling. The ceiling is the same for each choice with respect to the Class.
Are you contending this is not the case?
You could maybe (I wouldn't, but you can) argue Arcane since it has spells that it arguably should not have by essences.
If you want to argue that one or more of the lists is stronger/weaker than any of the others, then I would ask you how you feel about the Sorcerer (which according to your answer, means the class is in a flux of garbage balance).
It's how you use the list, just as it's how you use the Racket.
Everyone agrees the game is balanced until it's time to prove a point about what people personally want in a Class apparently...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree that the ceiling is being raised. This is a wider not taller debate. Paladins are not going to be stronger because evil champions, with evil champion abilities get added to the game. There will probably be class feats for every class introduced in the APG that are general and broadening the power level of the class, but that is only a problem if 1 of the choices is clearly superior to everything that previously existed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wider or taller, a bigger house is still a bigger house.
More like a wider choice of where to put the house, but the house is the exact same height no matter if you move it 10 ft to the left or 10 ft to the right.
The house isn't any bigger.
*slowly looks over at the Alchemist*
Fine. One Class.
But that has nothing to do with the Witch and is more of an issue with Mutagenist than the Class as a whole.
|
|
*slowly looks over at the Alchemist*Fine. One Class.
But that has nothing to do with the Witch and is more of an issue with Mutagenist than the Class as a whole.
You opened the door, you don't get to shut out the proof that your claim was obviously incorrect just to not be incorrect.
Also I'd put Alchemist up there with Wizard, both boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget property values.
The property values (lists) within the plot of land open to buy (witch class) are the same if the land is treated equally (balanced).
You opened the door, you don't get to shut out the proof that your claim was obviously incorrect just to not be incorrect.
You're using a strawman to justify an argument on a Witch by latching on to one general comment I made about the balance of the game.
And I don't in the slightest think the Mutagenist is unrecoverable in its current state or that the Field of Study is to blame.
There's just not enough Feat support to make the melee mutagenist concept work, which is all people expect because of PF1. A general Mutagenist is actually not that bad, you just can't be a melee powerhouse.
I'd just pop in to note that a spell list is significantly less compartmentalized than something like a Rogue Racket. I'd imagine the balance considerations for those two things are very different because a spell list affects what a class is capable of and a class' capabilities can determine what a list might be used for. Spell lists are one-size-fits-all. A Rogue Racket only fits the Rogue.
I also think the idea of a class being in part defined by what it isn't is a valid consideration when you're looking at whether a new class will "replace" an old class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wider or taller, a bigger house is still a bigger house.
I don't care if you put infinity mirrors on both walls, its still only 900 square feet.
Also I'd put Alchemist up there with Wizard, both boring.
The Alchemist would be in a much better place if it's only problem was it's being boring.
I'd just pop in to note that a spell list is significantly less compartmentalized than something like a Rogue Racket. I'd imagine the balance considerations for those two things are very different because a spell list affects what a class is capable of and a class' capabilities can determine what a list might be used for.
There are multiple Class feats under the Rogue that are contingent on Racket, they change proficiencies in Armor, they change weapon usage, and change ability score allocation both directly (changing primary) and indirectly (supporting Medium Armor or Dex to Damage).
The Mastermind Racket, likely based on INT, will literally change the entire stat prioritization of the Rogue (who before, would have dumped INT most of the time).
That's substantial. Ruffian Rogue vs. Scoundrel would play worlds apart even if they had identical Feats.