Looks like I'm in the minority but I absolutely love eschew materials. Not needing an item to cast spells is huge, imo. It rarely comes up, of course, but when it does it feels awesome. I haaate having to rely on items. You're sent to prison and have your crap taken from you? You can still cast that third action spell.
Of course it matters little if you're a wizard since you need your spellbook, and if you don't have your spell pouch you probably won't have your spell book either. But for sorcerers it's an important feature thematically and sometimes mechanically, imo.
Uh... Sorcerer doesn't need Eschew Materials because they can replace any Material Component with their Blood for a Somatic component.
The Feat is a Wizard only Feat, and as you just pointed out, it does absolutely nothing for Wizards who lose their possessions because of the spellbook.
As written, the Feat is quite literally useless. It doesn't even, though maybe it's supposed to, remove the "Manipulate" trait from the spell, which would at least make it negate AoO on Material Spells (not terrible).
Are there even any spells that have Material, but not somatic components? Outside of those spells (which have to be pretty rare since I can't remember seeing one, ever) Eschew Materials wouldn't dodge AoOs (even if it removed the manipulate trait).
I don't have beef with the sorcerer feature which removes components. Some players may get stuck on it, but at least it's pretty easy for them to understand/me to explain what the ability does (if someone takes your shit, you can still cast material spells). The wizard feat I do have beef with, since players may take it erroneously believing it's going to help them.
Yeah. The sorcerer mechanic is both free (part of their spellcasting feature, not a feat) and stronger (actually does free up your hand). Conflating the two is a mistake because those are some significant differences.
Are there even any spells that have Material, but not somatic components?
Time Beacon. APG might have more, though.
Eschew Materials does have a narrow field of use - a wizard who is captured and stripped of their possessions will still be able to cast their remaining prepared spells.
In fact, if the feat didn't exist, I suspect we would be seeing some people picking up on the fact that the plot of the first book of Carrion Crown doesn't work without it and complaining about that, in the same way people complained about Serpent's Skull re: changes to dominate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd disagree, mildly- Eschew Materials frees up a hand. Changing sustaining without doing anything for casting doesn't do much.I mean, maybe. That'd still be better than what Eschew Materials does.
I hope Cackle actually does something now. Imagine using a Class feat to change the concentrate trait for auditory on sustains...Sadly, it doesn't free up a hand.
Eschew Materials... Unlike when providing somatic components, you still must have a hand completely free.
I retract my disagreement, then!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly if the Wizard Feat allowed them to prepare Cantrips even without a Spellbook, that'd be neat.
Probably not the intended outcome, but if a player takes this, I might just give it that bump so it does have oomph even if you're without a Spellbook.
Maybe with a "When you gain expert proficiency in Spellcasting, you may prepare Cantrips that you have in your spellbook even if you do not have your spellbook present."
Too powerful?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witches have reportedly gotten the following:
I can't speak for everyone, but this version of the Witch sounds amazing to me.
- - Specialized Familiar mechanics along with special familiars and unique interactions (also the introduction of "pet cache" for safety). They lose a spell at every level for this, so it's likely to be powerful.
[...]- - Loose Patron identity that highly depends on the GM
A lot of it sounds great to me, but the two things that make me worried are more focus on familiars and (seemingly) less focus on Patrons.
Being "the best familiar class" never sounded like the Witch niche for me, and I really hope there is a way to downplay or ignore the familiar. Because honestly, I can't think of a Witch in fiction where their familiar does much other than maybe talk (which is already easy to do) - and would love to portray a Witch that uses an object like a mirror or something to connect to their Patron rather than an animal.
As for Patrons, "Loose Patron identity" sounds a lot like "mostly cosmetic" to me. Especially with the talk of sidebar suggestions and wanting Patrons to be "really flexible." While I like "vague Patron" as being an option - the way it was discussed makes it sound like that's going to be the focus rather than an option, which would make me very sad.
Eschew Materials does have a narrow field of use - a wizard who is captured and stripped of their possessions will still be able to cast their remaining prepared spells.
Yeah, it does.
But is "Can be handy in one very specific scenario assuming you have a handful of specific spells prepared" really still worth calling a good feat? Especially since one of the selling points of PF2 was making feats more robust and interesting?
Either way, kind of off topic. Sorry.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of it sounds great to me, but the two things that make me worried are more focus on familiars and (seemingly) less focus on Patrons.Being "the best familiar class" never sounded like the Witch niche for me, and I really hope there is a way to downplay or ignore the familiar. Because honestly, I can't think of a Witch in fiction where their familiar does much other than maybe talk (which is already easy to do) - and would love to portray a Witch that uses an object like a mirror or something to connect to their Patron rather than an animal.
As for Patrons, "Loose Patron identity" sounds a lot like "mostly cosmetic" to me. Especially with the talk of sidebar suggestions and wanting Patrons to be "really flexible." While I like "vague Patron" as being an option - the way it was discussed makes it sound like that's going to be the focus rather than an option, which would make me very sad.
The way I am viewing that is more that the Familiar is going to fill a lot more of that role in terms of the Patron's identity/relationship with the Witch.
This allows us to essentially "have the cake and eat it too" as the GM, because you can still remain as in the shadows as you would like by using the Familiar as a proxy.
Basically, the Familiar is the "messenger" but ultimately the style by which the messages are delivered, executed, requested, etc. is all fulfilled to your Patron's (GM's) liking, while still being less "hands on" than say a God would be in a Cleric's life.
This also allows a lot more freedom on the part of the player, in a LOT of different interesting ways.
Maybe a Witch doesn't 100% trust their familiar, as they are effectively playing a game of telephone with the real boss. Matters of "X said to do this" become a little more nuanced. Punishment for not completing tasks demanded is also delayed (or maybe not at all).
Effectively the Familiar is your "handler" if you think in terms of like Agent operatives ("you're on a 'need to know basis'").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's good and fine. Not busted at all, especially considering how rare the situation comes up and how it enables that player to... do something at all in the case that such a situation happens.
I think that's good and fine. Not busted at all, especially considering how rare the situation comes up and how it enables that player to... do something at all in the case that such a situation happens.
I've not exactly crawled every spell myself, but from what I've seen the vast majority of 2-action spells are Somatic and Verbal, and the ones with Material Components are for the most part (with a few notable exceptions, like Invisibility) fairly niche. And of course there's not a single Cantrip with a Material Component so even if somehow your every prepared spell was from the limited list of spells with Material Components you still wouldn't be totally useless without a Spell Component Pouch or this feat because Cantrips are for the most part quite useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna build a Witch focused on fighting with their hair. <3
Was there any discussion at PaizoCon or anywhere that talked about what would be allowed for Organized Play and even what might be ACP purchases?
Ark
Basically, where that came up the response is that it's still way too early to talk about PFS sanctioning. Most APG stuff is "common" though, and those things have deliberately been the kind of thing that can be sanctioned with no restrictions. My guess is that the ancestries are likely to be a mix of common and uncommon (might just be me being optimistic about common kobolds), and are most likely to need ACP purchases.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna build a Witch focused on fighting with their hair. <3
Should be a relatable character. I think most women spend a lot of time fighting with their hair.
|
Was there any discussion at PaizoCon or anywhere that talked about what would be allowed for Organized Play and even what might be ACP purchases?
Ark
IRCC Tengu is the only race that was free to play in PFS1e and is in the APG. I remember Lyz called the Catfolk an uncommon race, but that could have been in general terms or game specific.
|
Was there any discussion at PaizoCon or anywhere that talked about what would be allowed for Organized Play and even what might be ACP purchases?
Ark
I reckon all of the options will be common or gated behind ancestry or nationality, with the exception of ancestries.
All of the new ancestries/versatile heritages will remain uncommon and require ACP, is my guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to get investigator and inquisitor mixed up. Even people here in the office do!
I'd rather have the inquisitor over an investigator. Investigator just seems too specific. If I ever get to play in an Eberron campaign again, tho... an investigator in Sharn? Awesome.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have the inquisitor over an investigator. Investigator just seems too specific.
I don't really see how too specific is a win for the inquisitor here. Default inquisitor fluff has them serving a specific, unique role within a church. An invesitgator is 'someone who investigates things'... when "go investigate this place" is like, one of the most basic and reoccurring types of adventurer activity you'll see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely called my PF1 investigator a Spy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll also be getting "rogue with a bit of divine magic" without archetypes in the APG.
The investigator class coming out the same month as Agents of Edgewatch launches is surely not a coincidence.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The investigator class coming out the same month as Agents of Edgewatch launches is surely not a coincidence.
Well, they've specifically stated Investigator wound up in the APG (instead of later, they always intended to do it) because of Agents of Edgewatch, so yeah, definitely not a coincidence,