| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was probably brought up earlier in the thread but I dunno where but, why are witches only receiving three spells per spell level? As a 6 HP per level caster who is fairly squishy, like the wizard and sorcerer, shouldn't they be getting four spells per spell level, like the wizard and sorcerer?
Or do their hex cantrips make up for the gap?
The hex cantrips are supposed to make up the gap, yes.
They really don't, though, in general feeling like bonuses on the level of things you should be able to get from skill feats or aid actions.
They're loaded with restrictions, and you only ever get one, so even saying "hex cantripS" is deceptive.
As something that's taking up such a substantial portion of the class's budget, it doesn't feel good, and can be very situational.
Some people will argue that their benefit is astounding because you can sustain them along with others, but that relies on white-room theorycrafting where nothing ever drops off, you always have a target in range that can accept them, and you rarely want to do something besides sustain.
The benefit from most hex cantrips are so small compared to what other classes can achieve with a similar number of actions, and it locks you out of really participating in the 3 action economy, that it just feels bad.
In PF1 you could go one battle with a cackle-sustain heavy approach, then the next battle totally switch up your methods. The PF2 witch is locked into one playstyle, and that largely depends on their level 1 choice.
I've decided that it feels way better to reflavor other classes as witchy, and reflavor other abilities like Bon Mot, Aid, and Inspire Courage to be spooky.
If you like being a sustaining debuffer with a strong familiar, the class is strong enough. If you want to be any other flavor of witch, it's meh. Probably strong enough, if Midnightoker's theorycrafting is correct, but unfun and limited, and very much unlike PF1's witch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally don't like super narrow abilities, but having a super narrow ability Cantrip does feel a bit meh.Honestly, if they just made it to where they could use it on any target, but non-plants/fungus/animals treat their degree of Success as one tier better, that'd probably be enough (maybe even too good.. food for thought).
That, or I was thinking if you could select who is protected by the cantrips, for exemple cast it on a Champion, then the animal/plant/fungus has the choice of attacking the champion& triggering the Hex, or attacking someone else and triggering the champion reaction. (Or cast it on someone else with other reaction or really squishy etc...)
I'm a little bummed by it as I'm planning a Primal Witch, but I'm not interested by the winter theme, so I'm kinda resigning myself to forget the cantrips hex.
I generally don't like super narrow abilities, but having a super narrow ability Cantrip does feel a bit meh.Honestly, if they just made it to where they could use it on any target, but non-plants/fungus/animals treat their degree of Success as one tier better, that'd probably be enough (maybe even too good.. food for thought).
That, or I was thinking if you could select who is protected by the cantrips, for exemple cast it on a Champion, then the animal/plant/fungus has the choice of attacking the champion& triggering the Hex, or attacking someone else and triggering the champion reaction. (Or cast it on someone else with other reaction or really squishy etc...)
I'm a little bummed by it as I'm planning a Primal Witch, but I'm not interested by the winter theme, so I'm kinda resigning myself to forget the cantrips hex.
I think the bigger issue seems to be that Hexes within the Same tradition are locked.
Evil Eye should, IMO, be 100% locked to the Occult list. Same for Stoke The Heart and Divine. They are way too strong an a BFC/AoE caster (such as a Primal Witch).
Most of the issues I hear are "I wanted X list, but I had to select Y Cantrip".
If the List had the choice of any Hex Cantrips of the same Spellcasting Tradition, that'd probably be less problematic than opening up Stoke The Heart and Evil Eye to all casters.
Basically similar to how Domains work.
A 4th level Class Feat that stated:
"Hex Cantrip Expansion
You can select another Hex Cantrip of another Patron that shares your Patron's Spellcasting Tradition."
Might be okay, but I still think it deserves scrutiny for problematic combinations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
- The fact that you only ever get 1 locked into your patron/casting tradition choice is terrible.Doesn't change the power level, and is only a conceptual limitation.
Yes and no. It is not conceptual if you have a GM that doesn't allow customized Patrons not in the book.
- The limit of one per round, once per target per minute greatly reduces their usefulness.They cost one action, all Cantrips are "once per round", so the argument here that for some reason this is "exclusive to Hexes" is ridiculous. Any other 1 action Cantrip (such as Shield) is either redundant or also limited in that regard (Compositions) or they cost 2 actions so you can't do it anyways.
That is true, except for one thing. The single action of a Hex Cantrip is hailed as one of their great benefits. I am saying that to me it isn't as great of a benefit as people say because of those other limitations.
People will say: it is worth losing a spell slot per level to gain these cool Hex Cantrips. Look they are one action so they are awesome and worth it.
I don't feel they are, my opinion.
Please keep in mind, my arguments are not that the Hex Cantrips are bad in any way. I feel they are really well balanced to the game.
My argument has been and will continue to be, that they are not worth the loss of the spell slot.
So let's look at some examples with Clinging Ice (a spell few discuss here):
I can't for example cast Clinging Ice and Elemental Betrayal in the same round to take advantage of that action boost.
I can't cast it twice in one round on 2 different targets. I would still be limited to each target once per fight...but no, we have double limitations of one per round and once per target.
If there are are only one or two targets in the fight I can only use this cantrip one or two times.
Overall the damage of this cantrip is no better than all the other damage cantrips out there.
When I compare to a Buff/Debuff type of Hex Cantrip that requires a sustain. It is very nice that I can cast it for 1 action and then sustain it for one action. That is a nice ability. I can then cast a standard 2x spell or move and try to cast my Hex Cantrip on another target. Those are fair options. As you said, nice variability.
At low levels losing a spell slot for a few of these Hex Cantrips might feel fair to me, at high levels I would never want to lose a collection of higher level spell slots for any of these.
I feel the action tax on this class is painful. With limited focus points to use, combined with the hex limitations it really almost forces you to sustain and that can be tough if you have to move to keep your squishy caster safe.It has the highest action variability out of any caster simply because of Sustain, Cackle, and one action Hex Cantrips.
These are all white-room, theorycrafting, assertions that just don't hold up. Some of them are just outright not true
You yourself have stated that Cackle is usually going to be a poor use of resources in many cases.
I feel the limit of only ever having one Hex Cantrip limits the variability you are praising. (For what it is worth I am playing a Winter Witch).
Most of what we discuss here is theorycrafting. Stating that my opinions on the value gained or lost "is not true". Well, it is my opinion on the subjective value of something.
I know that forum/chat discussions are always tough to convey the proper level of intent in a statement. So I'll end with the thought that I like the witch, I like her variability.
The core of my opinion on this subject is that I just don't see how a 6 hp/no armor/low skill/low save (just like the other pure casters) losing the 4th slot is worth the one limited Hex Cantrip they receive.
If a variant witch came out that said, your patron doesn't give you a Hex Cantrip instead you gain the 4th slot, I would take that in an instant and be really happy.
You yourself have stated that Cackle is usually going to be a poor use of resources in many cases.
Rofl what? That's news to me since I've used it as an example of what's possible by using the ability.
It is a waste to use it on a Hex Cantrip, it is not a waste to use it on Turn 2 with a Hex Cantrip, sustain a Focus Hex, and then cast a spell as well for a big payout.
Please keep in mind, my arguments are not that the Hex Cantrips are bad in any way. I feel they are really well balanced to the game.
My argument has been and will continue to be, that they are not worth the loss of the spell slot.
And I say they are because they derive value by not requiring any invested resources and are supplemented in combination with Focus Hexes.
You wanna know why I think that? Read any number of arguments I've made above.
As far as why losing a spell slot (which amounts to one equivalent DC/Save spell to their Hexes, since the rest are below level) is not worth it, I don't really see the argument being anymore than "opinion" based.
Witches are designed to have Hexes out at all times. That's why they don't need the slot. Your argument only really makes sense in the context of a Witch never using their Hexes.
And if you're never using your hexes, why are you playing a Witch?
And not to be rude, but not understanding the fundamental math for tiers of success and making judgements on the balance of a Class (even going as far as saying the Wizard is in better shape) is a bit, idk, bold I guess. Not that any of us are experts, but shows a fundamental gap in understanding of a core concept of the game.
So...math is still math. +1 is still a 5% change. What makes that a bigger deal than a 5% bonus/penalty in first edition?
crits.
If you have a 30% chance to miss, 50% chance to hit, and 20% chance to crit.
+1 gives you a 25% chance to miss, 50% chance to hit, and 25% chance to crit.
So a net 5% chance of turning no damage into double damage.
Or in nudge fates case, 5% of avoiding a crit failure +5% of avoiding a failure = 10% chance it will be uses on any given roll (at least for rolls that can crit fail).
Personally I am fine with it bringing up the bottom more than increasing the top.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if they just made it to where they could use it on any target, but non-plants/fungus/animals treat their degree of Success as one tier better, that'd probably be enough (maybe even too good.. food for thought).
that works nicely.
I'm adding this to my houserule.
You yourself have stated that Cackle is usually going to be a poor use of resources in many cases.Rofl what? That's news to me since I've used it as an example of what's possible by using the ability.
It is a waste to use it on a Hex Cantrip, it is not a waste to use it on Turn 2 with a Hex Cantrip, sustain a Focus Hex, and then cast a spell as well for a big payout.
Either:
(A) you just contradicted yourselfor
(B) violated the one-hex-per-turn rule: Cackle is, itself, a hex
Either:
(A) you just contradicted yourself
or
(B) violated the one-hex-per-turn rule: Cackle is, itself, a hex
Apologies, then turn 3.
I was indeed missing that Cackle counts as your Hex for the turn.
With that said, the other thing Cackle gives you is another Focus point and a 3 action turn back.
I would probably never use cackle to sustain a single Hex Cantrip, because by their nature they aren't worth a Focus point, but it depends on the context.
If my second turn after casting a Focus hex is to cast Animate Dead, then okay, probably worth it to sustain (otherwise impossible).
But if it was a Cantrip, I'd let it drop off and target someone else next turn instead (provided there is at least one viable target left). If there were no targets, maybe I would cackle, but again it depends.
And not to be rude, but not understanding the fundamental math for tiers of success and making judgements on the balance of a Class (even going as far as saying the Wizard is in better shape) is a bit, idk, bold I guess. Not that any of us are experts, but shows a fundamental gap in understanding of a core concept of the game.
Wow, OK....
For the record, I do understand the fundamental math for tiers of success. I do understand the difference that +/- 1 brings the chance of changing a tier.
That is not something that existed in PF1.
It is still 5% change to the outcome. I do not see that as such a big deal. I fully understand it is a benefit. But it is still something that is only going to occur 1 out of every 20 rolls. So we look at 1-3 rolls per turn and that a fight is typically 5-7 turns. Let's average that to 2 rolls per turn to take an average over 6 turns. That is 12 rolls. If you run the statistics on that you become likely to have that +1 matter one time over the course of the combat. So I can spend 33% of my action resources for the entire fight to gain one or two changes in degree of success. I don't see that as a big deal. Useful, sure, big deal, no.
If you want to say I lack a fundamental understanding of the game...OK. I disagree.
Unless you want to go Metamagic heavy, the Wizard has pretty weak class feats. Depending on the type of familiar the MCD Witch grants, depending on the type of build you want to play I can build a better "witch" with a Wizard. It will take a few levels more but my mid level I will have way more spell slots, the familiar and 3 witch hexes. The only thing I lose is the hex cantrip.
If you want to say I lack a fundamental understanding of the game...OK. I disagree.
Why did you assert that it was "only 5%" when it isn't then? As myself and others have pointed out it's actually a 10% increase.
Look, if you don't want to get called out for lack of knowledge after making judgements on what is "strong" and then asking questions after the fact then I'm sorry but it is what it is.
The fact that +1 means a lot this edition is a relatively accepted fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to say I lack a fundamental understanding of the game...OK. I disagree.
If you assume that a critical hit = 2 hits (it does for strikes), if a +1 to hit takes you from hitting on 10 and critting on 20 to hitting on 9 and critting on 19-20, a +1 to your roll has added two "hits" to your d20 (one on 9, and one on 19).
Its at least a 10% shift in accuracy/ damage.
If you want to say I lack a fundamental understanding of the game...OK. I disagree.
If you assume that a critical hit = 2 hits (it does for strikes), if a +1 to hit takes you from hitting on 10 and critting on 20 to hitting on 9 and critting on 19-20, a +1 to your roll has added two "hits" to your d20 (one on 9, and one on 19).
Its at least a 10% shift in accuracy/ damage.
OK but if you need 11 to hit, then the natural 20 is already a shift in degree of success.
So it is not "at least" a 10% shift. It is at most a 10% shift.
Any time your chance of success is 11 or higher the top end +1 doesn't come into play. Given multiple attack penalties of -4/-5 are coming into play then you really only see the extra 5% likely to come into effect if you are facing really easy target rolls or only on your primary roll each turn.
That will shift the statistical odds some but not a lot. I could run the numbers, but I honestly don't have the time to right now.
At the end of the day, if a witch spends one action per round to keep a +/-1 out there she is using 33% of her actions to shift 1 tier maybe 2 or 3 times for the fight.
Is that good use of actions, sure...it is OK. I'm not saying it is bad. My original feeling hasn't been shifted, I still don't see how the numbers add up to +1 being a big deal when taken in context of the action cost and percentages involved in it actually mattering.
I still don't see how the numbers add up to +1 being a big deal when taken in context of the action cost and percentages involved in it actually mattering.
If I told you that on a 1, I will give you nothing, on a 2, I will give you nothing, and on a 3 I will give you something, and on a 4 I will give you twice as much of that something.
Then I have on average on a roll of a 1d4 to get .75 things (2*0)+(1*1)+(1*2) = 3 somethings out of 4 possibilities.
If it was "5%" like you stated, then the "4" in this case would still only grant 1 something, but instead it grants 2 somethings (twice as much), and therefore because you are more likely to get both a 3 AND a 4, it is worth more.
If you want any further demonstrations as to why the math works this way, then I implore you to look back through any number of threads that have been discussed on these forums (for over a year mind you) where the general consensus is "+1 is worth 10%".
If you want any further demonstrations as to why the math works this way, then I implore you to look back through any number of threads that have been discussed on these forums (for over a year mind you) where the general consensus is "+1 is worth 10%".
Its even bigger on spells where you save vs damage i believe, as you're typically affecting 3 results instead of just 2 (its 12.5% I think?).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK but if you need 11 to hit, then the natural 20 is already a shift in degree of success.
So it is not "at least" a 10% shift. It is at most a 10% shift.
If your success threshold on the raw d20 is an 11, then the +1 turns crit-fail into fail, which is also not-nothing on everything other than attack rolls.
Its even bigger on spells where you save vs damage i believe, as you're typically affecting 3 results instead of just 2 (its 12.5% I think?).
If you want any further demonstrations as to why the math works this way, then I implore you to look back through any number of threads that have been discussed on these forums (for over a year mind you) where the general consensus is "+1 is worth 10%".
Correct, this is the fundamental reason that DC spells outperform Spell Attack Roll spells as well.
There's nuances to it (like Trip's CF affects the actor) which is why "10%" is generally accepted. You are right though, it can mean more in certain moments.
____________________________
And Azure, I didn't mean to offend, but just like the Bard situation, we have to agree on baselines for comparison.
For instance, in this case if you don't accept that a +/- 1 is worth 10%, then Evil Eye cannot be valued the same by everyone.
If we are to discuss the power of the Witch further, we need to be able to agree what a +/-1 is worth.
I still don't see how the numbers add up to +1 being a big deal when taken in context of the action cost and percentages involved in it actually mattering.
If I told you that on a 1, I will give you nothing, on a 2, I will give you nothing, and on a 3 I will give you something, and on a 4 I will give you twice as much of that something.
Then I have on average on a roll of a 1d4 to get .75 things (2*0)+(1*1)+(1*2) = 3 somethings out of 4 possibilities.
If it was "5%" like you stated, then the "4" in this case would still only grant 1 something, but instead it grants 2 somethings (twice as much), and therefore because you are more likely to get both a 3 AND a 4, it is worth more.
If you want any further demonstrations as to why the math works this way, then I implore you to look back through any number of threads that have been discussed on these forums (for over a year mind you) where the general consensus is "+1 is worth 10%".
OK...I don't want to derail the witch thread with this conversation so it is unlikely I will respond again.
The +1 granted in most cases (especially related to the witch) is on a d20, not a d4. Hence the 5% original number quoted.
I understand how the math works. I went to college for aerospace/mechanical engineering (tutored calculus for 4 years in college, yes I was a paid tutor my freshman year as I had already been doing calculus for 2 years at that point). The job market sucked so I switched up to computer programming post college and spent the last 20 years working as a programmer. I do math. I'm not saying that to sound special, I am sure there are a lot of great mathematicians on this forum. Simply to give a bit of context.
I'm also taking the context of the numbers and applying them to the additional numbers related to action economy to formulate my opinion on the topic.
Thank you all for your responses. Perhaps if I care enough I will seek out those threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its even bigger on spells where you save vs damage i believe, as you're typically affecting 3 results instead of just 2 (its 12.5% I think?).
If you want any further demonstrations as to why the math works this way, then I implore you to look back through any number of threads that have been discussed on these forums (for over a year mind you) where the general consensus is "+1 is worth 10%".
Correct, this is the fundamental reason that DC spells outperform Spell Attack Roll spells as well.
There's nuances to it (like Trip's CF affects the actor) which is why "10%" is generally accepted. You are right though, it can mean more in certain moments.
____________________________
And Azure, I didn't mean to offend, but just like the Bard situation, we have to agree on baselines for comparison.
For instance, in this case if you don't accept that a +/- 1 is worth 10%, then Evil Eye cannot be valued the same by everyone.
If we are to discuss the power of the Witch further, we need to be able to agree what a +/-1 is worth.
I agree :-) the baseline is indeed important.
If you like being a sustaining debuffer with a strong familiar, the class is strong enough. If you want to be any other flavor of witch, it's meh. Probably strong enough, if Midnightoker's theorycrafting is correct, but unfun and limited, and very much unlike PF1's witch.
I missed this response Waterslethe.
I hope to be able to test a few of them soon. Just been in a rut as far as getting games together (though I might be running another group soon as well, because I'm dumb). I might notice grievances or interactions as I play it (or things that aren't possible).
I do think a lot of the Witches kit comes down to versatility between turns, which is a lot harder to measure.
Like, when you have an all day cantrip that can be sustained every turn (and cast on other people as well), it kinda shakes everything you do on a turn up. Do you drop sustain and do something else? Do you cast another Hex? Do you cast a spell, move, and cackle?
The question is does that variability make the Witch feel empowered? And it is my guess (since I'm now seeing my players really shake their turns up with different actions and choices) that it will.
The only thing I'd be worried about is choice paralysis.
I think the Class could use options and potentially a few touch-ups on some abilities/feats, that I won't deny.
But I'm also trying to be fair to the fact that Paizo worked really hard to get the APG out on time, and that might have lead to things making it past errata that otherwise might have been caught if we weren't in the middle of a historical event.
That's not necessarily me making excuses for minor issues, but this is a great Class and for that to be the case when it was set to undergo the most changes since it's PT print, considering the circumstances, I think is alright.
We still haven't gotten the latest errata. Who knows, maybe nothing changes, but that doesn't mean that Paizo isn't going to evaluate when they have more data.
I just don't think there's enough data either way at this point, even for my point of view, which I'm more of "idk looks pretty good to me, I'm gonna see what play feels like" than "it's perfect, change nothing!"
The question is does that variability make the Witch feel empowered? And it is my guess (since I'm now seeing my players really shake their turns up with different actions and choices) that it will.
The only thing I'd be worried about is choice paralysis.
I can say from experience that both are true. My witch's turns are incredibly varied, and the number of options both empowers and sometimes paralyzes me.
I can say from experience that both are true. My witch's turns are incredibly varied, and the number of options both empowers and sometimes paralyzes me.The question is does that variability make the Witch feel empowered? And it is my guess (since I'm now seeing my players really shake their turns up with different actions and choices) that it will.
The only thing I'd be worried about is choice paralysis.
I'd rather have too many choices than too little, and given that the biggest criticism I've seen on the Wizard is "it's boring even if it isn't weak", that's nice to hear.
Might get to run an encounter with one today! Fingers crossed!
If you don't mind me asking, care to share some details on the Witch you're playing?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my character sheet, if you need additional context.
In one round, I might use my evil eye hex on an enemy to lower their AC versus the party martial's strikes, then cast guidance on said martial to increase his attacks against the debuffed foe, then command my familiar to Demoralize two other foes.
If I need to, I may use my third action to better protect myself instead, such as casting shield, Take Cover, or simply Striding to a safer location.
When targeting an enemy myself, I might use evil eye or Demoralize before targeting him with an attack spell such as telekinetic projectile.
Alternatively, I do not present an obvious threat, such as when out of combat, I might use Bon Mot to penalize a target's Will save before following up with a charm spell (using my Conceal Spell metamagic feat if I can).
Since my familiar has Independent, he can keep out of harm's way each round, attempt to Demoralize a nearby target, or (with the right abilities) draw things for me and ready them for use by my witch.
Numerous times I've used that old cat to keep an eye on an NPC or to discreetely case a locale while the party adventured elsewhere. The following day, I grant it the power of speech, to better inform my witch of his findings. I can then use that information to better prepare appropriate spells when confronting that NPC or visiting that locale.
And I could do all of this in my first two levels.
Hope that helps!
Here's my character sheet, if you need additional context.
I find this almost hilarious because you're doing several things that people in here have pointed out as potent combinations (Bon Mot, Independent + Demoralize Familiar, Evil Eye action economy, etc.) and it sounds strong and flavorful.
You also have Cauldron and a 16 CHA, both of which I thought were decent choices for the Witch too.
Thanks for sharing!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else find it kind of odd that a witch that chooses to go Divine or Primal will not use their Key Ability to "Learn a Spell"?
With Primal and Divine spells needing to be learned via Nature and Religion respectively, it seems a bit odd. No real point here, just a musing on my part.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else find it kind of odd that a witch that chooses to go Divine or Primal will not use their Key Ability to "Learn a Spell"?
With Primal and Divine spells needing to be learned via Nature and Religion respectively, it seems a bit odd. No real point here, just a musing on my part.
I mean, zero Sorcerers and Bards use their Key Ability to Learn A Spell. This is not super unusual, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else find it kind of odd that a witch that chooses to go Divine or Primal will not use their Key Ability to "Learn a Spell"?
With Primal and Divine spells needing to be learned via Nature and Religion respectively, it seems a bit odd. No real point here, just a musing on my part.
Learn a Spell is less useful to witches at least, since they don't need to make a check to learn a spell from a scroll (but lose the scroll in the process).
I mean, zero Sorcerers and Bards use their Key Ability to Learn A Spell. This is not super unusual, really.Does anyone else find it kind of odd that a witch that chooses to go Divine or Primal will not use their Key Ability to "Learn a Spell"?
With Primal and Divine spells needing to be learned via Nature and Religion respectively, it seems a bit odd. No real point here, just a musing on my part.
Sorcerers and Bards are not prepared casters with a limited spell list. They don't use the "Learn a Spell" action.
So far the only class in the game this applies to is the Witch in certain traditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, zero Sorcerers and Bards use their Key Ability to Learn A Spell. This is not super unusual, really.Does anyone else find it kind of odd that a witch that chooses to go Divine or Primal will not use their Key Ability to "Learn a Spell"?
With Primal and Divine spells needing to be learned via Nature and Religion respectively, it seems a bit odd. No real point here, just a musing on my part.
Sorcerers and Bards are not prepared casters with a limited spell list. They don't use the "Learn a Spell" action.
So far the only class in the game this applies to is the Witch in certain traditions.
What do you mean? A bard or sorcerer have to use the learn a spell action for uncommon or rare spells.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerers and Bards are not prepared casters with a limited spell list. They don't use the "Learn a Spell" action.
This is not true. They must use the Learn A Spell action to gain access to Uncommon or rarer spells, which they can then take normally.
It's a tad more niche for them than the Wizard, but about on par with a Druid or Cleric.