Will the arcane Witch replace the Wizard?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

301 to 341 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The changes I would want to see brought to the witch, when combined with pick-a-list, would likely result in a stronger class. I think the conversation about options and how they affect overall power is being greatly simplified at the moment, but this thread maybe isn't the best place to expand that conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

All the rackets let you keep Dex as your main stat if you wish. Barring new abilities which rely on Intelligence, I imagine we may yet see Mastermind rogues who still dump their intelligence.


Ravingdork wrote:
All the rackets let you keep Dex as your main stat if you wish. Barring new abilities which rely on Intelligence, I imagine we may yet see Mastermind rogues who still dump their intelligence.

We won't know until we see the Racket, but I will say that I have yet to build a Ruffian that uses DEX as it's primary (not that a good one can't be done). Scoundrel on the other hand, definitely have picked Dex before.

Henro wrote:
The changes I would want to see brought to the witch, when combined with pick-a-list, would likely result in a stronger class.

Now that I could see, but it'd depend on what you wanted specifically I suppose.


I don't really want to make this thread a sequel to the "Why Witches should have one spell list" thread. I said all (or at least most) that I wanted to say there and the class is probably finalized or close to finalized at this point. Don't take this as me telling you to go sift through that thread though - it's pretty big. But any argument I make now that the playtest is over is going to be a lot more half-hearted than anything I made there.

On the topic of mastermind rogues and the power ceiling: Mastermind Rogues will raise the power ceiling (of rogues) if it allows you to build a more powerful rogue than whatever was the previously most powerful build. That's what the power ceiling is.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
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.

You made that claim that everything is balanced and also made in a vacuum in regards to everything else.

It's not a strawman to point out the flaws in those assumptions.


See, I think this is a great discussion, because I think it touches on the ecosystem of these classes and how much modularity there is in P2e. That ecosystem is germane to the topic of whether an Arcane Witch will just step on a Wizard's toes.

Just a real quick and dirty example: if you're designing a casting class for P2e, do you design it differently if it has access to a spell list that can heal than if it only has access to a spell list that can't?

I would say yes, at some level you look at that class differently if it can heal than you would if it cannot. If it can't heal, maybe you want to think about ways to give it healing; bonus spell slots? A focus spell? A class feat? You might look at its lack of healing in relation to another class. Maybe you give it the ability to cast a healing spell but restrict it. Maybe you don't at all, but even that is a consideration and an affirmative decision to limit the class' capabilities in some way.

Now, for the sake of argument, if you give it the baseline ability to select a list that can heal, your considerations on this narrow question, I think, are going to be very different. Do you even want the non-healing list option to have the capability to heal at all? If you do, do you want this option to be available to either list choice, or just the list that can't heal? Maybe you abandon the idea of bonus spell slots because one list can heal and the other can't, or you have to clearly delineate what the bonus slots do for one list option over the other...

And on and on. I'm not meaning that example to be some end-all-be-all on pick-a-list, just as an example of how design considerations might change. The increasing complexity of those considerations is what I fear will lead to a more watered-down Witch.

Not that the complexity is bad, but that in the Witch's case in particular the playtest told me that there was too much going on, and because of that the parts I cared about (Witch-specific mechanics) were suffering.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean we're talking about how to design a Class.

You can design a Class based on a selection, Racket based Feats are prime examples of that.

I don't think there was too much going on with the Witch, there was just too little going on with its cohesion. It was a jumble of parts without a defined playstyle to me.

That seems pretty easy to add.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not understand the argument.

The wizard needs more feats and more theses, just like the barbarian needs more feats and more instincts. These sorts of things are going to happen, and these options should be attractive to players either because they fulfill a fantasy the player is into, they make class more fun to play, or whatever.

There is going to be a Witch, just like there are going to be a bunch of other classes both because "those classes were popular in the previous edition" or "those classes fulfill an important part of the setting." These classes should ideally be appealing.

Essentially Paizo should make more things, and they should do a good job making those things so that people like those things. Certainly "at what point does this choice affect your conception of the character" is key in terms of their aesthetic appeal (an ancestry, a class, and a subclass each define your character much more than an 8th level feat does.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One spell list or not, I don't see the answer to the question "will the arcane witch replace the wizard" being yes, so it is probably not that necessary a tangent to jump to.

The key things that the witch will not get is access to, based on the playtest, are a broad range of metamagic feats, or hopefully any class ability that feels like academic study focus of the wizard thesis.

If the witch ends up with less spell slots and cantrip like hexes, the comparison will be even less necessary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Uchuujin wrote:
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.

It's not really a matter of interesting or powerful. It's a matter of whether or not the Witch meaningfully differentiates itself from the Wizard.

The playtest Witch did not. Hopefully the APG Witch will.

Rysky wrote:
Again the versatility itself is the power

Versatility is only power if you're actually versatile. The witch can't actually access any of this supposed versatility though in play.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

One spell list or not, I don't see the answer to the question "will the arcane witch replace the wizard" being yes, so it is probably not that necessary a tangent to jump to.

The key things that the witch will not get is access to, based on the playtest, are a broad range of metamagic feats, or hopefully any class ability that feels like academic study focus of the wizard thesis.

As a wizard player, I don't think metamagic is class-defining for wizards because *most* metamagic feats are 1) bad and 2) optional.

Also,the metamagic arcane thesis doles out the bonus metamagic feat too slowly to be a good pick.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

The playtest Witch did not. Hopefully the APG Witch will.

Rysky wrote:
Again the versatility itself is the power
Versatility is only power if you're actually versatile. The witch can't actually access any of this supposed versatility though in play.

The Playtest Witch had 3 lists to pick to use at creation and could get spells from other lists through their Lessons.


Spell list by their very existence act as an extremely powerful racket or build path. Normally build paths give you a limited number of options, but spell list take that and ranp it up to 11 giving increasingly more options as the game grows older.

So yes, pick-a-list doesnt let you access all list simulaneously. But the amount of available options that change with that 1 choice is virtually infinite. So no matter wether people think it adds more power or versatility, the devs will definetly think so, even if subconsciously. A class with the option between arcane and divine has 2 entirely different playstyles and both styles need to be considered for their class feats. Every new list add more playstyles, which means more feats.

I am sure every feat, spell, and focus spell of the sorcerer was curated so that no bloodline was strictly better. And what's the way to balance each bloodline? By changing the power of their feat, bonus and focus spells.


NECR0G1ANT wrote:

As a wizard player, I don't think metamagic is class-defining for wizards because *most* metamagic feats are 1) bad and 2) optional.

Also,the metamagic arcane thesis doles out the bonus metamagic feat too slowly to be a good pick.

Meta magic thesis is basically 2 extra class feats, 1 first level (widen spell is useful for a long time even if you don't see the advantage of reach), and then one that you get to pick freely as you level up, which is pretty versatile a power if you want it. Plus you can use most of them with cantrips so they can last all day. Lightning Arc + reach spell is a pretty worth while turn.

I think spell blending and spell substitution are pretty powerful too. I just think they aren't as flashy as a lot of people want them to be.


Unicore wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:

As a wizard player, I don't think metamagic is class-defining for wizards because *most* metamagic feats are 1) bad and 2) optional.

Also,the metamagic arcane thesis doles out the bonus metamagic feat too slowly to be a good pick.

Meta magic thesis is basically 2 extra class feats, 1 first level (widen spell is useful for a long time even if you don't see the advantage of reach), and then one that you get to pick freely as you level up, which is pretty versatile a power if you want it. Plus you can use most of them with cantrips so they can last all day. Lightning Arc + reach spell is a pretty worth while turn.

I think spell blending and spell substitution are pretty powerful too. I just think they aren't as flashy as a lot of people want them to be.

While metamagic is interesting, I've found myself not using metamagic often as I find myself needing that action for other things. Moving, parry, shield cantrip, ect. Standing in place and and spending every action on a single spell is fairly uncommon for me. PF2 is a much more mobile game than PF1 but using metamagic makes you less mobile than PF1.


Spell On The Run would be an exceptional Class Feat metamagic then.

You may use an action with the metamagic trait as a free action if your last action was a Stride or Step.

Honestly, a lot of different forms of this could emphasize casting styles while drawing excellent concepts out.

Sneaky Metamagic
You may use an action with the metamagic trait as a free action if your last action was a single action stealth check.

And on and on. Then your choice of action economy helps emphasize your casting style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The Playtest Witch had 3 lists to pick to use at creation and could get spells from other lists through their Lessons.

The latter is an example of power, since you could pick up lessons via feats to broaden your spell list. The former isn't, because you're locked in once you make that decision. At no point does your character benefit from potentially having been able to pick a different list at the start of the game.

You might as well argue that Alchemists are strong because you can choose to play a Fighter or Bard instead. Think about that versatility. You could go from being an Int based support class to a Charisma based full caster with strong buffs to a high damage martial, just by rerolling your character!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Now that goes past strawman straight into nonsensical(er), Caster A has 3 spell lists to pick from is more versatile than Caster B that only has 1 spell list is not anywhere in the vicinity of "Class A is versatile because I can play a different class or just reroll the character".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Now that goes past strawman straight into nonsensical(er), Caster A has 3 spell lists to pick from is more versatile than Caster B that only has 1 spell list is not anywhere in the vicinity of "Class A is versatile because I can play a different class or just reroll the character".

But it is, because those choices only ever come into play before you start the campaign. Arguing a class should have its power budget effected by things that cannot make the class stronger once you start playing is absurd.

The fact that you could have, potentially, been an Occult caster instead of an Arcane caster is no more relevant in the middle of a campaign than the fact that I could have picked Fighter instead of Alchemist.

If, instead of releasing one Witch class, the APG had three identical classes (let's name them Witch A, Witch O and Witch P), would they somehow each be weaker than a Witch who picked that spell list? Even if they played identically in game?

Versatility is only a relevant way to measure power if that versatility is actually something you can leverage.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You can keep saying “before you play” over and over it doesn’t make not be a part of the class and an option for that class.

And that you can have three completely different spell lists is something that is indeed taken into consideration for its power budget.

These rebuttals are rather silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes in term of in play versatility the class is not any more versatile than any other class.

But what we have been saying is that in terms of development the class is more versatile. Every spell list is different so each spell list gets a different set of option is the way things work as demostrater by the Sorcerer.

Are you saying that Ranger's Edge, Rogue Rackets, Swashbuckler's path thing, Cleric's path thing, and Wizard's Thesis all dont give versatility to the class as a whole? I mean all of those are lv1 options with no possibility of changing it.
And if they do give versatility, why is a spell list which entirely changes the class less versatile?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


Are you saying that Ranger's Edge, Rogue Rackets, Swashbuckler's path thing, Cleric's path thing, and Wizard's Thesis all dont give versatility to the class as a whole?

Don’t try to make this an argument about class flexibility.

It was specifically stated that pick a list affects the power budget of a class.

It does not.

If I have three pairs of shoes, rain boots, running shoes, and dress shoes my feet don’t become able to adapt to all situations because I can only wear one pair at a time. In the Witch scenario, the shoe selection is permanent forever. I have a running shoe and I run and I do not fair well in the rain or at dinner parties.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

... it does affect the power budget when the Designers are overseeing it, why would you think it didn’t?


Rysky wrote:
... it does affect the power budget when the Designers are overseeing it, why would you think it didn’t?

What are you even talking about?


it might be time to ask what this conversation about witches spell list (whatever that is going to look like) has do do with the OP. I guess if the witch does not have the arcane list at all, folks will feel like wizard's niche is more protected?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any new prepared Arcane caster will inevitably be compared to the Wizard. There's been a lot of discussion about spell lists. If the Witch comes out with three lists that include Arcane like the playtest, then the question "Will the arcane Witch replace the Wizard" is apt, because then you will have two prepared Arcane casters to pit against one another.

If it doesn't, and it's only one list or whatever, then the point is moot.

Also, the "power budget" conversation seems like two ships passing in the night to some degree.

One side thinks that picking a list doesn't factor into a class' power because that choice only matters at step 0. That is true. In-game versatility only matters if you can use it in game. Once you're locked in you only really need to consider what you can do now, in-game, not really what you could have done in theory.

The other side (or part of it at least) thinks that picking a list does factor into a sort of "development power budget" rather than necessarily in-game power because the class will be designed with different lists in mind. This is true insofar as it's another factor for the designers to consider when they create options for the class, even if the considerations don't actually manifest in a way that affects the class' in-game power one way or another.

But at this point it's just, I dunno, class design talk with a prompt that brings up some of the more discussed aspects of the playtest Witch. Which I think is fun, and just something to jaw about on a game forum. I think whatever the APG Witch is is done by now, so it's not like any of this is going to actually somehow convince the designers one way or another


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:

One side thinks that picking a list doesn't factor into a class' power because that choice only matters at step 0. That is true. In-game versatility only matters if you can use it in game. Once you're locked in you only really need to consider what you can do now, in-game, not really what you could have done in theory.

The other side (or part of it at least) thinks that picking a list does factor into a sort of "development power budget" rather than necessarily in-game power because the class will be designed with different lists in mind. This is true insofar as it's another factor for the designers to consider when they create options for the class, even if the considerations don't actually manifest in a way that affects the class' in-game power one way or another.

I think it's fair to say that pick-a-list doesn't affect the class's power budget, except insofar as one list possibly being stronger than another and thus providing a higher power ceiling. That is, if you abstract the power levels of the arcane spell list to a 10, and the divine list to an 8*, you have to balance the rest of the class as if the spells provide power 10.

But pick-a-list does affect the class's development resource budget. For example, the cleric's feat list is pretty open. It's rare for a cleric not to have at least 3 feats to choose from at each even level. The fighter even more so - at 10th level, the fighter has 10 feats to choose from, and only one of them requires a previous feat (and one requires training in a skill pretty much every fighter will have anyway). But compare that to a sorcerer - it's actually pretty rare for a sorcerer to have more than two feats available at a given level, either because of bloodline siloing (Arcane/Divine/Occult/Primal Evolution) or because one of the feats gives you an ability based on your bloodline (Advanced Bloodline). This seems likely to happen to other pick-a-list classes as well.

* Just an example. If you don't think that this power level is correct, you're probably right. That's not the point of this post.

Scarab Sages

Unicore wrote:
it might be time to ask what this conversation about witches spell list (whatever that is going to look like) has do do with the OP. I guess if the witch does not have the arcane list at all, folks will feel like wizard's niche is more protected?

OP here. The discission is fine, although I don't quite follow the exchange between Midnightoker and Rysky.

Denying the Witch access to the arcane spell list in a possible solution to overlap, although I think reducing the witch's number daily spells and boosting their hexes is better. The two are also not mutually exclusive.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Puna'chong wrote:

One side thinks that picking a list doesn't factor into a class' power because that choice only matters at step 0. That is true. In-game versatility only matters if you can use it in game. Once you're locked in you only really need to consider what you can do now, in-game, not really what you could have done in theory.

The other side (or part of it at least) thinks that picking a list does factor into a sort of "development power budget" rather than necessarily in-game power because the class will be designed with different lists in mind. This is true insofar as it's another factor for the designers to consider when they create options for the class, even if the considerations don't actually manifest in a way that affects the class' in-game power one way or another.

I think it's fair to say that pick-a-list doesn't affect the class's power budget, except insofar as one list possibly being stronger than another and thus providing a higher power ceiling. That is, if you abstract the power levels of the arcane spell list to a 10, and the divine list to an 8*, you have to balance the rest of the class as if the spells provide power 10.

But pick-a-list does affect the class's development resource budget. For example, the cleric's feat list is pretty open. It's rare for a cleric not to have at least 3 feats to choose from at each even level. The fighter even more so - at 10th level, the fighter has 10 feats to choose from, and only one of them requires a previous feat (and one requires training in a skill pretty much every fighter will have anyway). But compare that to a sorcerer - it's actually pretty rare for a sorcerer to have more than two feats available at a given level, either because of bloodline siloing (Arcane/Divine/Occult/Primal Evolution) or because one of the feats gives you an ability based on your bloodline (Advanced Bloodline). This seems likely to happen to other pick-a-list classes as well.

* Just an example. If you don't think that...

I agree with this.

It does change how the class would be designed in terms of balance and structure but it doesn’t change the power budget.


Rysky wrote:
Now that goes past strawman straight into nonsensical(er), Caster A has 3 spell lists to pick from is more versatile than Caster B that only has 1 spell list is not anywhere in the vicinity of "Class A is versatile because I can play a different class or just reroll the character".

Caster A is more versatile up until level 1 when he makes a permanent choice and has one spell list from then on. The witch/sorcerer is only more versatile until you actually start playing.

The wizard was versatile in pathfinder 1e because it could change how it approached matters on a daily basis it had options. A choice locked down at first level is an example of variability rather than versatility.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

That sounds like a distinction without a difference.


I still think it is a mistake to read the wizard as only having a unique niche if they are the only ones with access to the prepared arcane list.

That feels pretty limiting to future class design.

I do think the way a witch puts spells into their familiar is going to matter and I'd rather not see the familiar just existing as a living spell book. That does feel like a distinction without a difference.

However, as long as the feats and builds of the two classes remain different:

The wizard: Studying the intricacies of arcane knowledge and how to bend and manipulate spells.

The Witch: Making deals, becoming more indebted to their patron.

Then the characters will functionally feel different no matter what the spell list.

The problem might be that the patron of the playtest felt a little too flat mechanically as the narrative drive of the class?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to agree. The problem with the playtest witch wasn't that she was a prepared arcane caster, it was that she shared most of her mechanics with other casters without really offering anything unique.

Occult Sorcerer and Bard feel very different, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
I tend to agree. The problem with the playtest witch wasn't that she was a prepared arcane caster, it was that she shared most of her mechanics with other casters without really offering anything unique.

And the unique stuff was objectively worse than a comparable existing feature (silent spell vs. conceal spell) or just bad (living hair*).

*Living Hair is still good to have, thematically, but its mechanical benefits are not feat-worthy. They were a hex and had an appropriate niche as a hex.


Draco18s wrote:
Henro wrote:
I tend to agree. The problem with the playtest witch wasn't that she was a prepared arcane caster, it was that she shared most of her mechanics with other casters without really offering anything unique.

And the unique stuff was objectively worse than a comparable existing feature (silent spell vs. conceal spell) or just bad (living hair*).

*Living Hair is still good to have, thematically, but its mechanical benefits are not feat-worthy. They were a hex and had an appropriate niche as a hex.

And cackle really didn't DO anything useful...


For symmetry reasons I want:
-A prepared dedicated arcane caster (wizard)
-A prepared dedicated divine caster (cleric)
-A prepared dedicated primal caster (druid)
-A prepared dedicated occult caster (?)
-A spontaneous dedicated arcane caster (?)
-A spontaneous dedicated divine caster (oracle)
-A spontaneous dedicated primal caster (?)
-A spontaneous dedicated occult caster (bard)
-A prepared "pick any list" caster (?)
-A spontaneous "pick any list" caster (?)

So the wizard is going to face competition from similar classes eventually anyway.


graystone wrote:
And cackle really didn't DO anything useful...

It gave different tags to an existing action. Which is of "meh" importance. Didn't really fall into either bucket.

(You can't call it inferior to Sustain, because those different tags could be considered beneficial--eg a barbarian multiclass. Similarly it has functional use. But you're right, it was a reflavor and it was boring)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

For symmetry reasons I want:

-A prepared dedicated arcane caster (wizard)
-A prepared dedicated divine caster (cleric)
-A prepared dedicated primal caster (druid)
-A prepared dedicated occult caster (?)
-A spontaneous dedicated arcane caster (?)
-A spontaneous dedicated divine caster (oracle)
-A spontaneous dedicated primal caster (?)
-A spontaneous dedicated occult caster (bard)
-A prepared "pick any list" caster (?)
-A spontaneous "pick any list" caster (?)

So the wizard is going to face competition from similar classes eventually anyway.

I agree to an extent, though some of those really don't need to happen if we don't a good concept.

That being said, I think the Witch should sit in the prepared pick any list slot, with patron magic being the strongest possible counterpart for the sorcerer's bloodline concept.

Also you left the Sorcerer out of it's spontaneous pick-any-list slot.

Looking at the rest of the list- I'd like the Spontaneous Primal Caster to be a Shaman of some sort, though the Druid isn't the worst for that.

Prepared Occult Caster should probably dip into the borderline psionic, mystical, crystals and stuff flavor. Like the occultist stuff in pf1e, but probably more like the Medium or some such (def don't name it the occultist), someone who uses meditation and such to train their spirit to reach into the beyond.

Arcane Spontaneous is... hard, I would say the Arcanist would fill that niche well enough, with preparing a spell list as it's own unique mechanic. But I don't see the flavor of it at all, maybe it could use objects as a take on an artificer that stays away from alchemy by default?


Draco18s wrote:
graystone wrote:
And cackle really didn't DO anything useful...

It gave different tags to an existing action. Which is of "meh" importance. Didn't really fall into either bucket.

(You can't call it inferior to Sustain, because those different tags could be considered beneficial--eg a barbarian multiclass. Similarly it has functional use. But you're right, it was a reflavor and it was boring)

It was a basic action anyone could take with a very minor/niche benefit which also brings new vulnerabilities [like deafened]. IMO it was very much a sidegrade to a basic action dressed up to look like a real actual benefit/class ability... Whatever you call it, it left me shrugging my shoulders and wondering why it was taking up page space.


graystone wrote:
It was a basic action anyone could take with a very minor/niche benefit which also brings new vulnerabilities [like deafened]. IMO it was very much a sidegrade to a basic action dressed up to look like a real actual benefit/class ability... Whatever you call it, it left me shrugging my shoulders and wondering why it was taking up page space.

Oh that's definitely fair. It was not exciting, it was dressed up as a special class feature, but did nothing new. The downsides are ignorable, as if you're deaf, you can just sustain normally.


*side note 1: The "Artificer" as far as Pathfinder is concerned is closer to the Occultist whoses entire stick is using objects to gain power. Its also one of the classes that works well as a focus spell based class.

*side note 2: Prepared any fits the Shaman better than the Witch due to how Spirits worked (a mix of Mysteries and Hexes). Its just has a much better parity to the Sorcerer.

*side note 3: Arcanists is a weird one since it is a prepared Arcane caster with spontaneous casting. So I would say it deserves a unique spot. Just like the Psychic which fits as a prepared occult caster but with spontaneous casting. Both still leave the way for a Spontaneous Arcane or Prepared Occult.

My point is that looking at the Classes mechanics is just as important as looking at its theme. New classes dont need to be limited by the rules of existing classes (look at Swashbuckler).

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

Want to post a reply? Sign in.