| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the class needs a rewrtie, but it definitely feels like it's missing a little something. Being given a wizard chassis but cleric casting isn't the end of the world, but it does leave a little bitter aftertaste, especially when it's not necessarily clear what Big Thing is supposed to be so strong it justifies that worst-of-both-worlds chassis. The class isn't terrible, it isn't even that bad, but you pay a lot for what you get and it doesn't always feel like a good trade.
Even the defenses of the witch in this thread I've noticed tend to point more toward specific confluences of character options that are mechanically compelling, rather than overarching class mechanics or themes.
None of that is even addressing the more subjective complaints I've heard from players, like the hex limitation making it feel like the class ramps up really slowly, or the character feeling kind of one-note since they lean so much on a single cantrip for life, or that the class feels really flat against solos because you only get one shot to even land your cantrip and that if you can't leverage that then you really just sort of turn into a "generic spellcaster" (their words) more than a witch.
I mean if you can cast Life Boost twice per encounter at level 1, that's a pretty darn viable healer and actually opens up your level 2 Class Feat (for an archetype even).Agree with your general point but minor correction, it's once per encounter and one additional time per day. You'd still be limited by refocusing conditions.
Sorry that wasn't clear, I meant two times in a single encounter. Being able to go ham once per day is a pretty big boost.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That 1 minute limitation on hexes is completely unnecessary. Seems it was included as some kind of legacy inclusion from PF1. The hex cantrips are inherently balanced and don't require a 1 minute limitation for use. The action economy limitations are a sufficient check on the power of hex cantrips.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one hex per round limitation is also completely unnecessary. The action economy is already enough of a limitation - even if most hexes are one action to cast. The offensive ones still require sustaining every round, so casting Evil Eye or even Elemental Betrayal on three different enemies and then doing nothing but sustaining for the rest of the battle still seems like a bad battle plan.
Does mean that they would need a different 20th level feat though.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly unless SoM has some secret sauce in it, I think we’ll be due a “casters unchained” at some point. There has been a over abundance of caution in their design overall, and when a caster class is on the weaker side, all the various “chains” really effect player experience.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlikely IMO. Casters are received pretty positively most other places for discussion that aren't these forums, to the point where they consider their current state not only fine but good for balance.
Perhaps some classes/features might receive a pass like alchemist, but I'd be pretty shocked to see anything on the scale of Unchained Rogue/Monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think having a hybrid caster chassis is fine if there's a reason to take a little less defense and spell versatility.
...Which, for the Witch, again, is supposed to be their Hexes. Thus, why I think it would be fine if they got two free lessons, if we got literally nothing else.
I don't think it's fair to say 'The witch is built unlike the other casters' and then in the same breath say 'Well the other classes have to pay for their Focus Spells so why shouldn't Witch'. And the answer is because the whole class is themed around giving up a spell slot per spell level to gain a wide array of Focus Hexes to toy with and a Familiar that is more versatile than all others.
Also agree that the getting rid of the hex cooldown (or at least not making them the length of a whole damn encounter) would really improve things. One hex per round is... unnecessary, but I'm not sure if it's really harmful. At the very least it would stop people from saying "well Witch's first turn is almost always just casting two Hexes and then sitting on them lol".
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come on dude, you know you don’t have the data to back that statement up.
But nah, caster “chaining” is pretty much systemic in this edition, it’s not a case of some weak features here and there - though those certainly exist and should be handled independently - but it’s been the same since the edition launched.
Standardised action requirements for spells with almost no ways to change them leaves casters out of the new dynamic action system. They’re pretty much still on the old “standard action, move action, reaction” set. Spell with the attack trait are a permanent underclass of spell. The standardisation of proficiency progression has pushed casters to only really get comfortable and not have “failure as a default” option at very end game. So on and so forth.
These are intentional design decisions made to reign in Paizo’s mistakes in PF1. We’ve now had an over correction.
I’ll admit if all caster were as good at interacting with the action systems as bards, and the general caster power level was closer to the bard, I probably wouldn’t care nearly as much. The bard is just such a outlier for how casters could have been overall that it just makes me sad that the rest are so hemmed in
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come on dude, you know you don’t have the data to back that statement up.
But nah, caster “chaining” is pretty much systemic in this edition, it’s not a case of some weak features here and there - though those certainly exist and should be handled independently - but it’s been the same since the edition launched.
Standardised action requirements for spells with almost no ways to change them leaves casters out of the new dynamic action system. They’re pretty much still on the old “standard action, move action, reaction” set. Spell with the attack trait are a permanent underclass of spell. The standardisation of proficiency progression has pushed casters to only really get comfortable and not have “failure as a default” option at very end game. So on and so forth.
These are intentional design decisions made to reign in Paizo’s mistakes in PF1. We’ve now had an over correction.
I’ll admit if all caster were as good at interacting with the action systems as bards, and the general caster power level was closer to the bard, I probably wouldn’t care nearly as much. The bard is just such a outlier for how casters could have been overall that it just makes me sad that the rest are so hemmed in
Check any reddit thread on the 2e subreddit. The top upvoted comments when a 5E played asks about nerfed casters is pretty much the same every time, casters are fine as is and the martial casters disparity is balanced.
The notion that these forums have the zeitgeist of the views of the masses has been time and again shown not to be the case both by playtest responses and other discussion arenas.
Even here when you get pockets of people bemoaning the nerfs to casters, its hardly a consensus. What data do you have to backup this much needed unchained issue?
Monk and Rogue had notable math issues based on legacy 3.5 issues (in the case of the rogue, skill system update nerfing by extension) and it took 6ish years before it came along. Both of which were much more out of line with the whole than any current class.
We're about as likely to get unchained casters as we are to get pathfinder 2.5
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, casters are fine. In my games, they're verging on too good, honestly. I just can't reconcile the "casters suck" cries with my experience at all, and at this point I'm more interested in finding out how the table variance is making such a big difference or whether the issue is being overblown by some.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters suck if:
a) you are regularily fighting enemies with a level advantage so you almost never get criticals
b) if you are playing a simple blaster caster, and don't get that Reflex is often a pretty good saving throw for enemies
c) you haven't got the synergy going to debuff enemies saving throws, like Intimidation or Bon Mot plus targetting will saving throws
d) you only buff and heal, because of the above
Its mostly about GMs and players. But to be fair my group started down this path too. Casters are more complex to play than martials who can get by on flanking/buffing/healing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, casters are fine. In my games, they're verging on too good, honestly. I just can't reconcile the "casters suck" cries with my experience at all, and at this point I'm more interested in finding out how the table variance is making such a big difference or whether the issue is being overblown by some.
I'd love to hear this as well but it's hard to contextualize the data due to the power of team work, good tactics, and when to risk it for the biscuit.
Was your SoS that misfired a bad call?
Hard to say. Does anyone have Bon Mot? Demoralize? Is he weak to that save? What spell was it? Does it have a good success effect if it doesn't stick? Would battlefield control be better?
There was just a post on the subreddit talking about how the GM was having trouble handling wall of stone because of how good it was at isolating combatants to severely drop the encounter difficulties.
I'm all for having the discussion, but some seem to believe the jury already decided casters are guilty of being too weak. I didn't even realize court was in session!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one hex per round limitation is also completely unnecessary. The action economy is already enough of a limitation - even if most hexes are one action to cast. The offensive ones still require sustaining every round, so casting Evil Eye or even Elemental Betrayal on three different enemies and then doing nothing but sustaining for the rest of the battle still seems like a bad battle plan.
Does mean that they would need a different 20th level feat though.
I think the one hex per round limitation is necessary. It would be messed up if the witch was granting Stoke the Heart to 3 characters a round. That's a bit too much power in the single action hex cantrip. Or launching 3 1 action 10d4 clinging ice cantrips against the same target. I would not remove the limitation.
Come on dude, you know you don’t have the data to back that statement up.
But nah, caster “chaining” is pretty much systemic in this edition, it’s not a case of some weak features here and there - though those certainly exist and should be handled independently - but it’s been the same since the edition launched.
Standardised action requirements for spells with almost no ways to change them leaves casters out of the new dynamic action system. They’re pretty much still on the old “standard action, move action, reaction” set. Spell with the attack trait are a permanent underclass of spell. The standardisation of proficiency progression has pushed casters to only really get comfortable and not have “failure as a default” option at very end game. So on and so forth.
These are intentional design decisions made to reign in Paizo’s mistakes in PF1. We’ve now had an over correction.
I’ll admit if all caster were as good at interacting with the action systems as bards, and the general caster power level was closer to the bard, I probably wouldn’t care nearly as much. The bard is just such a outlier for how casters could have been overall that it just makes me sad that the rest are so hemmed in
And the druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the one hex per round limitation is necessary. It would be messed up if the witch was granting Stoke the Heart to 3 characters a round. That's a bit too much power in the single action hex cantrip. Or launching 3 1 action 10d4 clinging ice cantrips against the same target. I would not remove the limitation.The one hex per round limitation is also completely unnecessary. The action economy is already enough of a limitation - even if most hexes are one action to cast. The offensive ones still require sustaining every round, so casting Evil Eye or even Elemental Betrayal on three different enemies and then doing nothing but sustaining for the rest of the battle still seems like a bad battle plan.
Does mean that they would need a different 20th level feat though.
I agree but I do wish Cackle didn't have the hex trait.
Only the wizard is terrible in my games. Every other caster has at least a few fun builds with cool innate capabilities. The wizard is universally disliked in my group mostly for being boring and having terrible focus point and feat options. It just lacks anything that makes it feel uniquely powerful.
Extra spell slots are insufficient when they fail about half the time making half your spell slots feel useless, while other classes have focus point options that hit as hard as spells or do something useful that are reusable.
What it comes down is having lots of spells and ability to cast spells isn't all that great if the spells aren't great and they get resisted 50% of the time or more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards definitely need, like, something too. Their whole shtick seems to be "default caster that other casters bounce off of to feel unique" which does kinda blow.
Maybe if the Arcane Schools did each something unique? Universalists obviously get an extra feat and *any* first level spell choice, as well as the neat Drain Bonded Item-per-spell-level thing. Why don't the other schools do more than give you extra slots and a fixed spell of 1st level (plus the school spell). I guess you could argue the School Spell *is* the unique thing but like... eh?
Also the Arcane Theses could stand to be more than they are. Staff Nexus seems the most out-there of them (which, considering it came from APG rather than CRB, makes sense and at least shows that more interesting things may be on the way).
Wizards' theme should probably be "THE most flexible Arcane caster" as a theme, but, yeah, even one more spell slot doesn't really help that all too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the one hex per round limitation is necessary. It would be messed up if the witch was granting Stoke the Heart to 3 characters a round. That's a bit too much power in the single action hex cantrip. Or launching 3 1 action 10d4 clinging ice cantrips against the same target. I would not remove the limitation.The one hex per round limitation is also completely unnecessary. The action economy is already enough of a limitation - even if most hexes are one action to cast. The offensive ones still require sustaining every round, so casting Evil Eye or even Elemental Betrayal on three different enemies and then doing nothing but sustaining for the rest of the battle still seems like a bad battle plan.
Does mean that they would need a different 20th level feat though.
I don't think Stoke is as good as you think it is. Inspire Courage will increase the damage output of a single martial more (lets not get into Inspire Heroics), and it applies to the whole party. The only general case where Stoke seems to be better is when a caster uses a save or suck (because Inspire Courage doesn't increase their DC), and Dirge is likely more effective in that situation (and again it applies to everyone, and their version of cackle (lingering composition) is much stronger). Clinging Ice would be the only problematic hex cantrip to be spammed I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the one hex per round limitation is necessary. It would be messed up if the witch was granting Stoke the Heart to 3 characters a round. That's a bit too much power in the single action hex cantrip. Or launching 3 1 action 10d4 clinging ice cantrips against the same target. I would not remove the limitation.The one hex per round limitation is also completely unnecessary. The action economy is already enough of a limitation - even if most hexes are one action to cast. The offensive ones still require sustaining every round, so casting Evil Eye or even Elemental Betrayal on three different enemies and then doing nothing but sustaining for the rest of the battle still seems like a bad battle plan.
Does mean that they would need a different 20th level feat though.
Stoke the Heart can be set on three characters at a time. It does take two rounds to build up to that though.
And 10d4 Clinging Ice means 20th level character. How does that compare to martial character damage? I doubt that it out-damages Fighter, Barbarian, or Ranger even after accounting for the MAP penalty that each of those classes would be dealing with.
However, piling all of that onto one character each round may indeed be a bit too much. So perhaps attack hexes should have a cooldown lock out for the rest of the round. Then you could still sling out 3 10d4 Clinging Ice each round, but it would have to be against different enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Stoke is as good as you think it is. Inspire Courage will increase the damage output of a single martial more (lets not get into Inspire Heroics), and it applies to the whole party. The only general case where Stoke seems to be better is when a caster uses a save or suck (because Inspire Courage doesn't increase their DC), and Dirge is likely more effective in that situation (and again it applies to everyone, and their version of cackle (lingering composition) is much stronger). Clinging Ice would be the only problematic hex cantrip to be spammed I think.I think the one hex per round limitation is necessary. It would be messed up if the witch was granting Stoke the Heart to 3 characters a round. That's a bit too much power in the single action hex cantrip. Or launching 3 1 action 10d4 clinging ice cantrips against the same target. I would not remove the limitation.The one hex per round limitation is also completely unnecessary. The action economy is already enough of a limitation - even if most hexes are one action to cast. The offensive ones still require sustaining every round, so casting Evil Eye or even Elemental Betrayal on three different enemies and then doing nothing but sustaining for the rest of the battle still seems like a bad battle plan.
Does mean that they would need a different 20th level feat though.
Or Evil Eye making the person save 3 times. Making 1 action hexes spammable forcing multiple saves would be way too good.
Stoke the Heart maxes at +6 damage per damage roll. I'm not sure why you don't think it is powerful?
Let's say you cast it on a caster, a rogue, and a barbarian.
1. Caster is using flaming sphere, then unloading a chain lighting on 10 targets.
That +6 damage on the flaming sphere and every target doubled if a critical fail on damage. That would be a potential damage of 126 with the average being something like 60 being the average.
2. Then the rogue gets to attack hitting maybe twice, then he gets it on his opportune backstab.
3. Then the barbarian gets it on a Whirlwind Attack or a swipe or just two attacks and an AoO.
You're basically pushing 30 points with the martials and 50 or 60 with the caster and you get an upwards of 90 points of damage from those three actions.
Stoke the Heart is a very good damage booster that works for all damage rolls. The bard can't match that damage boost. You could even argue it works with Persistent Damage as it states it works with a damage roll.
It seems like a very underestimated hex.
Spammable hexes would limit what they could do with them and create headaches with other classes. Even the bard can only do 1 composition cantrip a round without feats to allow otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's a coincidence that the other two classes outside of magus and summoner for the SoM twitch thing are wizard and witch. We'll see if content from that book helps those classes out. None of it's class specific (which is a shame) but maybe there's still really synergistic stuff. Utimately I'm at the acceptance stage for magic balance. It is what it is and anything beneficial in SoM will be cream on top.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stoke the Heart is a very good damage booster that works for all damage rolls. The bard can't match that damage boost. You could even argue it works with Persistent Damage as it states it works with a damage roll.
It seems like a very underestimated hex.
If I could pick additional Hex cantrips independent of Patron, that would definitely be high on my ranking.
Unfortunately it rides along with the Divine spellcasting tradition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say you cast it on a caster, a rogue, and a barbarian.
1. Caster is using flaming sphere, then unloading a chain lighting on 10 targets.
That +6 damage on the flaming sphere and every target doubled if a critical fail on damage. That would be a potential damage of 126 with the average being something like 60 being the average.
2. Then the rogue gets to attack hitting maybe twice, then he gets it on his opportune backstab.
3. Then the barbarian gets it on a Whirlwind Attack or a swipe or just two attacks and an AoO.
You're basically pushing 30 points with the martials and 50 or 60 with the caster and you get an upwards of 90 points of damage from those three actions.
Stoke the Heart is a very good damage booster that works for all damage rolls. The bard can't match that damage boost. You could even argue it works with Persistent Damage as it states it works with a damage roll.
It seems like a very underestimated hex.
Warning: This post contains excessive white room maths.
Let's compare this buffed version of Stoke to a bard as exists now, with Dirge, Inspire Courage, and/or Harmonize (to use the same number of actions as a Witch). I'll acknowledge that this analysis has some shortcomings, mainly that of the 30ft-60ft range of Dirge meaning that extreme range encounters against many low-level foes while using SoS spells would favour Stoke, but that is not really changed by the multiple hexes in a turn buff, given you will rarely be very advantaged by being able to cast Stoke on two other casters in one turn.
1. The average damage of a 17th level Sorcerer (DC39) with Dangerous Magic (because why wouldn't you have that if you're blasting) affected by Stoke using Chain Lightning on 10 level-2 creatures with a Moderate save (+26) is 800.13 (assuming no crit successes because this dpr calculator doesn't account for that).
The same caster targeting enemies affected by Dirge of Doom instead has an average damage of 805 (again assuming no crit successes). It's unlikely for Dirge to hit this many enemies, but it's unlikely for you to face this many enemies to begin with. Extend puts it to 60ft, and most martials are gonna engage in melee so I'll generalise for the purposes of the comparison. There is a potential advantage to Stoke vs. Dirge here due to the range. Inspire Courage only puts it to 753.88, Harmonized with Dirge puts it to 815.
2. Rogue (+32 to hit, assuming fully runed Rapier, I'm running it as a basic +32/-27/-22 followed by Opportune at +32 always triggering) targeting level-2 enemies with flat-footed and High AC (effectively 35 AC) does 220.55 with Stoke, 216.38 with Dirge, and 220.57 with Inspire Courage. Dirge + Inspire Courage (harmonize) puts it to 235.05. Damage favours the compositions as AC goes up.
3. (Dragon Instinct) Barbarian (+32 to hit, assuming fully runed Halberd) hitting five level-2 enemies (not flat-footed) with Whirlwind with stoke is 310.75, with dirge is 303.63, with Inspire Courage is 309.63, with both is 336.
Totals
Total for triple Stoke is 1331.43 damage.
Dirge with one Bard fully runed shortbow Strike (+29 vs level-2 dirged AC of 36) is 1349.01 damage (assuming extend was used).
Inspire Courage is 1321.81 assuming two Bard bow Strikes.
Harmonized is 1386.05, but again this would assume all 10 enemies are within 30ft, in reality likely some would be and some wouldn't be.
I may have made an error somewhere in my assumptions or my calculations, but I think that current Bard is better than this buffed version of Stoke Witch. In fact this buffed version of Stoke Witch will likely be outperformed by a current Witch multiclassing into Bard and picking up Dirge and/or Inspire Courage.
Now against truly absurdly low AC/saves foes Stoke will become better (at the point you're usually critting), but generally either Dirge or Inspire Courage (definitely both) will be the superior option, and they give other benefits. I guess there is a niche for extremely ranged spellcasters casting SoS where even extend spell can't get enemies within range of Dirge, but I don't think it would be unfair for Stoke to be better than Dirge in one scenario.
That is why I think Stoke would be pretty much fine if it could be spammed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say you cast it on a caster, a rogue, and a barbarian.
1. Caster is using flaming sphere, then unloading a chain lighting on 10 targets.
That +6 damage on the flaming sphere and every target doubled if a critical fail on damage. That would be a potential damage of 126 with the average being something like 60 being the average.
2. Then the rogue gets to attack hitting maybe twice, then he gets it on his opportune backstab.
3. Then the barbarian gets it on a Whirlwind Attack or a swipe or just two attacks and an AoO.
You're basically pushing 30 points with the martials and 50 or 60 with the caster and you get an upwards of 90 points of damage from those three actions.
Stoke the Heart is a very good damage booster that works for all damage rolls. The bard can't match that damage boost. You could even argue it works with Persistent Damage as it states it works with a damage roll.
It seems like a very underestimated hex.
Warning: This post contains excessive white room maths.
Let's compare this buffed version of Stoke to a bard as exists now, with Dirge, Inspire Courage, and/or Harmonize (to use the same number of actions as a Witch). I'll acknowledge that this analysis has some shortcomings, mainly that of the 30ft-60ft range of Dirge meaning that extreme range encounters against many low-level foes while using SoS spells would favour Stoke, but that is not really changed by the multiple hexes in a turn buff, given you will rarely be very advantaged by being able to cast Stoke on two other casters in one turn.
1. The average damage of a 17th level Sorcerer (DC39) with Dangerous Magic (because why wouldn't you have that if you're blasting) affected by Stoke using Chain Lightning on 10 level-2 creatures with a Moderate save (+26) is 800.13 (assuming no crit successes because this dpr calculator doesn't account for that).
The same caster targeting enemies affected by Dirge of Doom instead...
As you stated, they must all be within 30 feet. Which is not going to happen too often having played a bard and run with multiple witches. It's a hard 30 feet and no more. Stoke doesn't have that limitation and will be useful even if the enemy is at a 100 or a 1000 feet such as a druid using Storm of Vengeance.
Stoke is but one hex cantrip. Spammable 1 action hex cantrips will greatly limit their power. The bard can also only cast one composition cantrip per round. These limitations are both similar.
I would not support hex cantrips being spammable as I feel it would greatly limit what they could do with them.
That being said, no one is going to match the bard at buffing and debuffing anytime soon. They are the buff and debuff casting king. It's their niche. But boy are they boring to play.
I played a bard for 17 or 18 levels. So damn boring. Inspire Courage, Harmonize, Inspire Defense, round done over and over again. At least the witch player mixes things up as their best abilities that far exceed what they can do with spells are not their one action hex cantrips.
A bard's composition cantrips are so good that the group wants you to do them over and over and over again and if you don't, they look at you disappointed. It's like a blessing and curse that bard composition cantrips are so good that you analyze your spell list and go, "Damn. I don't have any spells other than synesethsia that is better than my composition cantrips."
Not sure the witch would be any more fun if pushed into that kind of corner like the bard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not support hex cantrips being spammable as I feel it would greatly limit what they could do with them.
That being said, no one is going to match the bard at buffing and debuffing anytime soon. They are the buff and debuff casting king. It's their niche. But boy are they boring to play.
I played a bard for 17 or 18 levels. So damn boring. Inspire Courage, Harmonize, Inspire Defense, round done over and over again. At least the witch player mixes things up as their best abilities that far exceed what they can do with spells are not their one action hex cantrips.
A bard's composition cantrips are so good that the group wants you to do them over and over and over again and if you don't, they look at you disappointed. It's like a blessing and curse that bard composition cantrips are so good that you analyze your spell list and go, "Damn. I don't have any spells other than synesethsia that is better than my composition cantrips."
Not sure the witch would be any more fun if pushed into that kind of corner like the bard.
I am with Deriven on this. Bards are powerful but their cantrips are kind of too good so they are chained to using at least 1 every round and its bad for the playstyle of the class. I kind of wish they were limited to 1 composition cantrip that varied based on muse and it was a 1 and done or more like inspire heroics but lasted a number of rounds based on fail, success or critical success. Right now it is boring. The larger the party the more they are trapped in inspire courage, harmonize, Dirge or Inspire Defence. Its not good for the class and there is know skill or chance in it.
Spammable cantrip hexes would be bad, it would mean there was always an optimum strategy each round and witches would end up chained to it.
More Hexes, more ability to pick up hex cantrips are great ideas but the 1 per round limitation is a good thing means they do other things with their round.
For me what is missing with witches is what is missing for wizards and sorcerers, not enough deep feat chains. Fighters get feats that build on other feats, bards do as well (especially enigma, warrior and polymath muses), druids do with their additional form option feats. Clerics do with font + the emblazon weapon chain.
Witches familiar feats are boring and familiars are too dependent on GM. Deeper patron feats rather than free for all lesson pick feats would be better. The familiar patron connection is actually bland right now, any familiar, any power for any patron. Same with lessons, they are linked at all to your initial patron choice. Patrons are fairly bland right now (mechanically) and their entire impact is determined at level 1. They do not expand or grow.
The witch hair chain is nice but extremely expensive in the number of feats to push a sub-par playstyle option to still be... well mostly a subpar choice. The hair should have started with manipulate actions. 1 Feat to make it attack with reach, d6 and grapple and 1 to deliver hexes with only the manipulate feat being the pre-requisite for either of the other 2.
Wizards have the same issue, they lack deep feats, feats that really build on earlier feat choices or expand school and thesis. You make most of your important choices as a wizards at level 1 and then everything else is kind of meh. There is little to no feeling of feat progression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters suck if:
a) you are regularily fighting enemies with a level advantage so you almost never get criticals
b) if you are playing a simple blaster caster, and don't get that Reflex is often a pretty good saving throw for enemies
c) you haven't got the synergy going to debuff enemies saving throws, like Intimidation or Bon Mot plus targetting will saving throws
d) you only buff and heal, because of the aboveIts mostly about GMs and players. But to be fair my group started down this path too. Casters are more complex to play than martials who can get by on flanking/buffing/healing.
I actually think more people wouldn't mind playing casters if they tailored their expectations with the above in mind. I know I've found more success as a caster tailoring my spell, feat and item choices with the idea that I will always be fighting with a level disadvantage. The fancy failure and critical failure effects get people excited over something that doesn't occur nearly often enough to matter and that virtually never occur in any climactic/important battle.
Stoke the Heart is a very good damage booster that works for all damage rolls. The bard can't match that damage boost. You could even argue it works with Persistent Damage as it states it works with a damage roll.
It seems like a very underestimated hex.
If I could pick additional Hex cantrips independent of Patron, that would definitely be high on my ranking.
Unfortunately it rides along with the Divine spellcasting tradition.
This is pretty spot on. Stoke is a fantastic spell for breaking enemy hordes together with AoE spells, but divine is a miserable list for anyone except the cleric. I also don't agree that fast healing X once a fight from life boost is nearly strong enough to qualify a witch as a healer.
some back and forth about hexes vs compositions
Given that hexes seem to take the same power budget as compositions, the cat's already out of the bag as far as balance and expected power level goes. Unless the designers think prep casting beats out spont casting enough to warrant the lower power of hexes. Spammable hexes would at least give you some kind of quantity vs quality comparison even if you still needed to sustain them instead of having a lingering option like bards.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can cast different hexes and sustain previous hexes simultaneously though. Bards can have Inspire Courage OR Dirge, never both, and when you use the other all current effects of those compositions immediately end.
I find a lot of the bards arguments to be schroedingers bard. It's a choice and lingering composition doesn't allow you to have more than one going, only means you don't have to spend an action to keep it up.
Sustaining Evil Eye and then casting Elemental Betrayal or Life Boost on turn two is a level of versatility the Bard does not have.
Debate away on the value of that versatility, but it is a distinct difference between the two that routinely goes unmentioned while I see lots of arguments that include Dirge and Inspire as default assumptions (one of which isn't even a default ability or available for 5 levels)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this idealized stoke scenario, it seems like the witch is the lowest contributing member of this party by a good margin (100 for the witch vs 200 for the rogue, 300 for the barbarian, and 750 for the sorcerer). I don't really see how that makes hex spamming too good (which is currently achievable at level 20 with hex master).
You can cast different hexes and sustain previous hexes simultaneously though. Bards can have Inspire Courage OR Dirge, never both, and when you use the other all current effects of those compositions immediately end.
I find a lot of the bards arguments to be schroedingers bard. It's a choice and lingering composition doesn't allow you to have more than one going, only means you don't have to spend an action to keep it up.
Sustaining Evil Eye and then casting Elemental Betrayal or Life Boost on turn two is a level of versatility the Bard does not have.
Debate away on the value of that versatility, but it is a distinct difference between the two that routinely goes unmentioned while I see lots of arguments that include Dirge and Inspire as default assumptions (one of which isn't even a default ability or available for 5 levels)
Inspire is what you use before dirge comes online. It's not like any other 6th level bard feat is worth a second glance. That includes harmonize since using it locks you out of lingering and without that you don't have room for repositioning, bon mots, manifold missile wands, weapon attack or whatever other random 3rd action you want to use in addition to your spell cast for the turn.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can cast different hexes and sustain previous hexes simultaneously though. Bards can have Inspire Courage OR Dirge, never both, and when you use the other all current effects of those compositions immediately end.
Harmonize (6th) and symphony of the muses (20th) let bards stack compositions.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check any reddit thread on the 2e subreddit. The top upvoted comments when a 5E played asks about nerfed casters is pretty much the same every time, casters are fine as is and the martial casters disparity is balanced.The notion that these forums have the zeitgeist of the views of the masses has been time and again shown not to be the case both by playtest responses and other discussion arenas.
Even here when you get pockets of people bemoaning the nerfs to casters, its hardly a consensus. What data do you have to backup this much needed unchained issue?
I see this idea ALOT on these boards and the whole notion just needs to straight up die.
Lets break down what's happening here, but I'll start with the ease one first!
What data do you have to backup this much needed unchained issue?
As a rule, I don't and haven't made claims about population data that I don't have. Precisely because I don't have it, and you don't either.
I try to talk about what I personally feel are present within the system, and try to present the issues I have with it, without trying to evoke some outside authority. In the very post you are replying to I talk about some of the reasons I think this is the case. I'm not trying to make a "weight of opinion" argument.
The notion that these forums have the zeitgeist of the views of the masses has been time and again shown not to be the case both by playtest responses and other discussion areas.
This gets said a lot. It's a handy way to dismiss opinions that happen to converge on particular points you don't agree with, without actually addressing arguments.
Check any reddit thread on the 2e subreddit. The top upvoted comments when a 5E played asks about nerfed casters is pretty much the same every time, casters are fine as is and the martial casters disparity is balanced.
This is a weird appeal to authority. You dismiss this forum with one hand but tout this one with another.
But anyway, I went hunting for your "top-rated comments" by doing a simple "top of all-time search" and looking at the first page of results. I then did some simple keyword searches to narrow down the threads.
And you know what? I found almost nothing you described. When I waded into my lesser results, I did have a handful of comments here and there, but with handfuls of upvotes not much better than the Favorites than this forum uses.
The single biggest topic of conversation though about 5e casting is the merits of its "Arcanist" style casting vs Pf2 - something I've never even broached because that's its own thing.
I'm going to chalk this down to your own confirmation bias.
Interestingly though, I did find someone who used almost your exact language to bemoan other people complaining about the incapacitation trait. Made me wonder if I had found your reddit account!
BUT!
Stepping aside from that, look at the claim you've actually made here. You've made a claim about people comparing two different systems and the differences therein.
It doesn't matter if PF2 is better than 5e or PF1 or any other game. That's all totally irrelevant to the in-system complaints I've raised. It may be okay for you because it's "better" than something else, but that doesn't mean it's good internally, it's just not as bad as something else you experience.
TL;DR: Quit trying to delegitimise people you don't agree with!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of you who didn't like Witch's design in PF2e I would recommend taking a look at the Legendary Cabalist. This class became the official Witch of my group. I'm not getting anything out of it, but all the problems I have with the current class are solved by Cabalist. For example: Thematic gain more focus being part of the core of the class instead of just a feat like the brewmasters’ society that allows your familiar learns alchemical formulas when it levels up. Speaking of feats this class is packed with awesome feats! for example: Hair Travel which allows the Cabalist with 1 action to move using her hair gaining a +10 status bonus to speed and the hair gains the spider climb effects. Plus, all the new feats paizo releases for Witch i just add to Cabalist list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those of you who didn't like Witch's design in PF2e I would recommend taking a look at the Legendary Cabalist. This class became the official Witch of my group. I'm not getting anything out of it, but all the problems I have with the current class are solved by Cabalist. For example: Thematic gain more focus being part of the core of the class instead of just a feat like the brewmasters’ society that allows your familiar learns alchemical formulas when it levels up. Speaking of feats this class is packed with awesome feats! for example: Hair Travel which allows the Cabalist with 1 action to move using her hair gaining a +10 status bonus to speed and the hair gains the spider climb effects. Plus, all the new feats paizo releases for Witch i just add to Cabalist list.
I've personally found Cabalist, or at least some of its animas, problematic due to some really unbalanced circumstance bonuses to its spell DC. +1+1/4 of your level bonus to DC is a LOT - even +1 is very notable and, as far as I know, without precedent; +6 to DC just breaks the game's math, and it's generally rather easy to trigger it. I'd flat-out ban the animas with that effect, or nerf them to just grant the +1 bonus.
Similarly, Bizarre Weaponry feat chain is problematic too, with an entry feat that gives you rather powerful natural weapons at expert proficiency at the 1st level, a 4th level feat that straight-up allows you to attack with Int instead of Str (and use it for damage too), an 8th level feat that grants a d20 fatal trait on Empowered Tongue, and a 12th level feat that increases your proficiency with your bizarre weapons to master at 12th level, to legendary at 18 level, and gives you Magus' Spellstrike. It makes you a better martial than most martials, breaking several conventions in the process. Maybe that's required to make unarmed Cabalist actually useful, but that's going really, really far.
These two factors combined convinced me to just use Witch and buff it instead of trying to nerf Cabalist to make it balanced. Legendary Kineticist and Mesmerist were fine, but Cabalist is… iffy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards can just do inspire courage + intimidate. Intimidate is better than evil eye in a majority of scenarios assuming you have a competent party that focus fires.
I mean Demoralize is language-dependent, auditory, and lasts 1 round, and requires continuous investment from the Bard to maintain DC parity.
shrug
You can cast different hexes and sustain previous hexes simultaneously though. Bards can have Inspire Courage OR Dirge, never both, and when you use the other all current effects of those compositions immediately end.Harmonize (6th) and symphony of the muses (20th) let bards stack compositions.
At the cost of all 3 actions with Harmonize.
And since that's a level 6 Class Feat, that means level 8 is the soonest it comes online for Dirge + IC.
That's now 2 Class Feats for what people are making for a baseline claim on the Bard having both all the time and they can't even move at all (good luck keeping everyone in range without Stride on the table).
Sounds almost exactly like the Schroedinger's Wizard arguments of old where Contingency + ideal spell was on standby always.
Meanwhile the Witch can Cackle, sustain, 2 action spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Intimidate has enough use outside of combat for the investment to be justified.
Except if a Bard doesn't want to be someone that Intimidates or if they want to be good at other Skills that are not Intimidate (limited to 3 legendary skills)
2) Intimidating glare only costs 1 skill feat.
Ah so now it's a Visual trait ability, which means it requires line of sight.
3) 1 round is enough for most cases in a competent party with reasonable damage output. It's a bigger problem to spend the action and fail, which happens with evil eye 20%+ more often than with intimidate.
Ah so now we're making assumptions about how easily parties can take down enemies?
It's only "20% more often" at certain intervals with maxed Skill increases.
4) It's a much bigger investment to pick the witch chassis for evil eye than to pick a skill increase investment for intimidate. Bard chassis is much better than witch chassis.
Not really. They don't spend any additional resources to get Evil Eye. It comes default with the Patron.
Spending Class Feats/Skill Feats/Skill Increases is spending things all Classes get for certain abilities.
We're now comparing Evil Eye Witch to Bard with Intimidating Glare + Maxed Intimidate.
That's not really a "fair" comparison since the Witch is now down several resource investments compared to the Bard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why comparing evil eye with intimidate and not dirge of doom ( even if it's something up for only 75% of the game ).
This would also give the bard the possibility to invest in some other skill ( unless they prefer to raise performance, maybe making a good use of versatile performance ).
Because they are trying to combat the "you can't use IC and Dirge at the same time" argument.
I guess Demoralize was supposed to be the smoking gun? Not sure.
I think Bard is perceived pretty positively, and IMO, the strongest caster in the game in terms of overall strength. Why the Witch is expected to be "as good as" a Class some would even argue is too strong is something I personally don't get (why do they get weapon proficiencies and better saves than other casters for instance? Something even DMW pointed out about Bard).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they are trying to combat the "you can't use IC and Dirge at the same time" argument.
Is this for sure?
Reading Dirge of doom, you could use it and then use inspire courage.
The enemies within 30 feet will be frightened 1 until they conclude their turn, and the bard allies will be boosted until the bard next turn.
Compositions specifically state that they end any ongoing composition effects.
That's why you couldn't just for instance continue to stack effects with Lingering Composition.
I agree the bard is pretty good, and probably the best choice when it comes to support martial characters.Demoralize for a bard is really tricky imo.
I am having some sort of similar dilemma with my current character ( a champion with bard dedication ) which is about to hit lvl 12.On the one hand, I raised performance to benefit from versatile performance, which allows me to level 1 skill and get 4 bonuses instead of 1 ( performance, demoralize, make an impression, impersonate ), and I also invested in different skill feats to make demoralize more powerful ( virtuosic performer, intimidating glare, battlecry ).
Yeah, Versatile is pretty good, and if I was "counter argumenting myself" would have been one of my first points to be honest due to how easily you can funnel into Perform.
Obviously at higher level a full intimidation character could shine with stuff like scare to death ( which is really strong, though language dependant ), but I can't find a real reason not to just go with dirge of doom ( or dirge of doom + IC, if I were a bard ).
Sure, but I mostly take issue with the "Let's only measure the Witch with Evil Eye vs. the Bard with several Skill Increases and Skill Feats baked into the comparison".
Personally, I think Bon Mot with CHA as 3rd priority on Witch is fantastic if you're running the Occult list, but I'm not going to sit here and craft a build with the assumption that all Evil Eye witches be built that way.
Just like I would hope others wouldn't be doing that for the Bard (because Bards of course don't have to take max Demoralize, Dirge of Doom, Harmonize, etc.).
which is easily met for a vast majority of situations. If you don't have line of sight against the enemy, witch hexes will also fail often.
Visual requires they can see the target. Thus any enemy that is blind, uses another sense to see, etc. is immune to the effect (Avert Gaze is also technically on the table).
I am.
Then we are at an impasse. It is not my experience that you can guarantee dropping a target the same turn it gains the Frightened condition. It's happened maybe a handful of times for my tables period.
If the argument is "my tables are playing wrong" if they don't successfully accomplish that task, then I don't think we have much to discuss. It sounds like our games are very different.
The bard spends zero class feats, one skill choice and one skill feat. The witch lives with 2 less health and lower saves, a worse cantrip, and a class feat (basic lesson). If you can make the witch perform better than the above with a skill choice and a single skill feat, I'd love to see it.
I'm not going to craft a build to meet some made-up win condition.
If your assumption is that ALL bards are built this way and that no Witch build can produce equally beneficial effects for their party, then consider yourself "the winner".