| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To maybe stir the conversation to a less comparative one - after all, we all can kinda see that Bards can have pretty big di...geridoos. And honestly continuing to stroke that thing is probably not very productive (it is a wind instrument, after all!). Bards have big buffs and debuffs that can work damn well if the battle can be positioned around them enough, and Occult Witch is able to single out targets from most any position and do similar things with slightly less impact-per-turn but also more choice in what they can do in-between. It also varies heavily table-by-table which can work in more scenarios. That much is clear and repeating it with a bunch of stats in a vacuum doesn't do more but reaffirm the latter fact.
Backpedaling a bit, I kinda want to explore the idea of unique familiar and master abilities for the Witch. I think it would be cool if all Witches got access to a small-to-medium list of odd-themed general choices while each patron theme would then grant them a small list of abilities unique to them.
I'd like to hear what ideas others have for either this general list or maybe some for specific patrons. Exact balance doesn't necessarily have to matter (to a sensical point, of course), it's likely best (or at least, for me, more fun) to design these things top-down, as it were.
For reference, the list of current Patron themes are Curse (Occ), Fate (Occ), Fervor (Div), Night (Occ), Rune (Arc), Wild (Pri), Winter (Pri), and of course good ol' Baba Yaga (Occ).
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)
You get Harmonize at lvl 6 which let's you keep up two compositions. You generally start with Inspire Defense as your second composition, then you mix it up with Dirge of Doom depending on the layout and enemy spread. You can go offensive with Inspire Courage and Dirge or defense with Inspire Defense and Dirge. Bard composition cantrips are better than any spell on your list, so you're kind of stuck using them as nothing much else is better other than to try to stick a Synesthesia on the monster.
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).
A Divine Witch is usually a healer. Not many healers can add a good amount of damage as well as being the healer and Divine caster. That's the main build for a Stoke the Heart caster using the Divine Spell list. A Stoke the Heart witch is not competing for a spot against a bard, but is competing for a spot against a cleric or another healer class.
| 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).
Strongest caster for what it does.
Having played both a druid and a bard to high level, if you want to do damage the druid is superior. If you want to buff and debuff boosting the party, bard is better.
Druid is superior to the wizard, sorcerer, bard, oracle, and cleric for doing damage. It is the most competitive caster damage class in the game because it is the only caster class you can build to do melee damage well. It has 8 hit points per level, great feats, better armor, and powerful druid circles.
I was able to optimize and build a druid that kept up with damage with martials in most situations and had far better utility and overall power than any martial in the group. As in the druid was clearly the strongest character in the group and if they went head to head, the druid would have won in most battles.
You can 100% optimize a druid to be one of the strongest members of a party against any martial built any way. They are that good.
If Paizo were to boost any of other classes, they should build them up to bard and druid levels. I put the druid on an equal level to the bard as a caster.
Maybe not enough people are playing up druids, but druids and bards are on par with martials and the best casters in the game. They need very little adjustment if any.
You get Harmonize at lvl 6 which let's you keep up two compositions.
Yeah definitely, but then we're talking level 8.
That's over a 3rd of the levels of the game in the rear view mirror, and although I am certain Paizo will take APs to 20th level, I have yet to personally achieve a group at that level range.
But even assuming all 20 levels are always in play, I think that's still a sizeable chunk of time and two Class feats.
I realized I overstated the dirge of doom bit, which is why I deleted my post. I'd love to see buff errata / better future build choices for the witch, even if I'm undecided on what that should look like. I have faith that paizo can deliver (and have delivered many times). And even with no changes, the witch isn't unplayable by any means, so I'm not upset if the witch stays the same.
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to some changes to certain existing options.
But I think Witch just suffers from lack of options in general. Lack of multiple Divine List chocies, lack of multiple Arcane list choices, lack of Specific Familiars that fit all themes, lack of lesson Hexes (and 2 action lesson hexes that work with Nails/Hair feats), etc.
I'd really just love to see how more options in those spaces (besides just Class Feats) enhances the Class, as its kit does lend itself to more diverse selections being key to maximizing its potential.
I'd just like to reiterate because it seems to have been lost in the replies which lament the 30ft range (which isn't accurate), but Dirge alone easily outdamages triple Stoke in most situations because you can simply extend it to 60ft with Extend Spell, and it also has immense defensive benefits. In the rare situation where you're fighting several enemies at greater than 60ft range, and you're supporting more than one ranged attacker (the situation where being able to cast Stoke multiple times might be better) if you're supporting martials then Inspire Courage will be better, and it gets better relatively the more challenging the encounter is. The only situation where multiple Stokes is really better than what a bard can do is when supporting multiple blaster casters who are targeting things further than 60ft away, which doesn't come up very often.
Being able to cast Stoke the Heart multiple times a turn would be generally worse than the existing Dirge of Doom.
Also, I think this discussion has been had before but the rules don't support frightened going away due to the composition rule as it isn't a magical effect. This is because Any ongoing effect that isn’t part of the spell’s duration entry isn’t considered magical, and frightened has a duration that differs from the spell's duration entry.
This means that things like healing, damage, freeing someone from a grapple or indeed the frightened from Dirge are not by rules considered to be a part of the ongoing effects of the spell, which would normally end if counteracted for example. I agree Dirge would be fairer if the frightened went away immediately, and it's fair to run it that way, but I don't agree that the rules actually say that's how it works.
Just for the record, extend spell Dirge is still easily outperforming triple Stoke the Heart in most scenarios (and this would be exacerbated in the most dangerous scenarios, those with creatures above the party level) even with the "end frightened immediately" interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The benefit for Evil Eye vs Demoralize is when you cast Evil Eye against an enemy that the party is not going to kill this turn. Use Demoralize to lower the AC of the enemy your party is attacking. Use Evil Eye to lower the attack bonus of the enemy that is hard to reach and is raining damage down uncontested for several rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I think this discussion has been had before but the rules don't support frightened going away due to the composition rule as it isn't a magical effect. This is because Any ongoing effect that isn’t part of the spell’s duration entry isn’t considered magical, and frightened has a duration that differs from the spell's duration entry.
I also remember this being hashed out elsewhere. But just so that the other side of the debate has its counterpoint here:
The example given in that rule you quoted
Any ongoing effect that isn’t part of the spell’s duration entry isn’t considered magical. For instance, a spell that creates a loud sound and has no duration might deafen someone for a time, even permanently.
Is for a spell that 'has no duration'. A spell that has effects and has a duration, such as a duration of 'sustained' would end all of its effects when the spell ends. For spells with a duration of 'sustained' that would be when the spell is no longer sustained, or when the spell is counteracted, or in the case of Bard compositions when casting a different composition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to reiterate because it seems to have been lost in the replies which lament the 30ft range (which isn't accurate), but Dirge alone easily outdamages triple Stoke in most situations because you can simply extend it to 60ft with Extend Spell, and it also has immense defensive benefits. In the rare situation where you're fighting several enemies at greater than 60ft range, and you're supporting more than one ranged attacker (the situation where being able to cast Stoke multiple times might be better) if you're supporting martials then Inspire Courage will be better, and it gets better relatively the more challenging the encounter is. The only situation where multiple Stokes is really better than what a bard can do is when supporting multiple blaster casters who are targeting things further than 60ft away, which doesn't come up very often.
Being able to cast Stoke the Heart multiple times a turn would be generally worse than the existing Dirge of Doom.
Also, I think this discussion has been had before but the rules don't support frightened going away due to the composition rule as it isn't a magical effect. This is because Any ongoing effect that isn’t part of the spell’s duration entry isn’t considered magical, and frightened has a duration that differs from the spell's duration entry.
This means that things like healing, damage, freeing someone from a grapple or indeed the frightened from Dirge are not by rules considered to be a part of the ongoing effects of the spell, which would normally end if counteracted for example. I agree Dirge would be fairer if the frightened went away immediately, and it's fair to run it that way, but I don't agree that the rules actually say that's how it works.
Just for the record, extend spell Dirge is still easily outperforming triple Stoke the Heart in most scenarios (and this would be exacerbated in the most dangerous scenarios, those with creatures above the party level) even with the "end frightened...
Extend Spell? Is that new?
The only Extend Spell I know if is the sorcerer focus spell which extends duration.
If you mean Reach Spell, it doesn't increase the size of emanations.
I will also reiterate that a Stoke the Heart witch should be compared against a cleric, not a bard. A Stoke the Heart witch is a divine caster often built as a healer, not a party support class like a bard.
Extend Spell? Is that new?
The only Extend Spell I know if is the sorcerer focus spell which extends duration.
If you mean Reach Spell, it doesn't increase the size of emanations.
Sorry, yes I meant Reach Spell, no need for the snark. You're quite right, I hadn't realised that this didn't apply to emanations as they have an area instead of a range. I'm not trying to be adversarial here, just trying to see whether Stoke the Heart would be overpowered with the suggested Hex change compared to existing options.
I don't quite see the value in only comparing it to a Cleric when discussing the support capabilities of the Witch, especially when we're discussing balance concerns with spamming Stoke. A Bard can heal pretty much as well as a Witch can regardless. Being restricted to the Divine list (versus Occult) is actually a point in favour the Hex buff being balanced with Stoke in my opinion.
I just can't see a divine Witch, especially with its inferior chassis, becoming anything close to a balance problem if you allow Stoke the Heart spam when compared to a Bard who can cast Inspire Heroics and Synaesthesia in the same turn. I know that is a high point of Bardic power, but I'm quite certain that their baseline would regularly outperform this buffed version version of Witch outside of scenarios involving the Witch supporting multiple blaster casters with damaging AoE hitting groups of lower level enemies from a distance, and the damage difference isn't exactly insane.
I guess what I'm saying is that by the numbers Inspire Courage is generally a better option than Stoke the Heart spam would be in most party compositions and it's a first level Bard ability that anyone can get with archetyping. So in the discussion of whether or not Stoke the Heart spam would be problematic for the balance of the game, I don't think it is.
Extend Spell? Is that new?
The only Extend Spell I know if is the sorcerer focus spell which extends duration.
If you mean Reach Spell, it doesn't increase the size of emanations.
Sorry, yes I meant Reach Spell, no need for the snark. You're quite right, I hadn't realised that this didn't apply to emanations as they have an area instead of a range. I'm not trying to be adversarial here, just trying to see whether Stoke the Heart would be overpowered with the suggested Hex change compared to existing options.
I don't quite see the value in only comparing it to a Cleric when discussing the support capabilities of the Witch, especially when we're discussing balance concerns with spamming Stoke. A Bard can heal pretty much as well as a Witch can regardless. Being restricted to the Divine list (versus Occult) is actually a point in favour the Hex buff being balanced with Stoke in my opinion.
I just can't see a divine Witch, especially with its inferior chassis, becoming anything close to a balance problem if you allow Stoke the Heart spam when compared to a Bard who can cast Inspire Heroics and Synaesthesia in the same turn. I know that is a high point of Bardic power, but I'm quite certain that their baseline would regularly outperform this buffed version version of Witch outside of scenarios involving the Witch supporting multiple blaster casters with damaging AoE hitting groups of lower level enemies from a distance, and the damage difference isn't exactly insane.
I guess what I'm saying is that by the numbers Inspire Courage is generally a better option than Stoke the Heart spam would be in most party compositions and it's a first level Bard ability that anyone can get with archetyping. So in the discussion of whether or not Stoke the Heart spam would be problematic for the balance of the game, I don't think it is.
I wasn't trying to be snarky. I at first forgot what extend spell was, thought it was new, then looked it up and found it was the sorcerer focus spell.
Then figured you were talking about reach spell.
I was genuinely hoping it was something new. No one plays extend spell. It's rarely used in my groups.
The reason the witch competes against the cleric in my group is the fervor witch fills a healer slot. The reason the player likes it is they can heal and do some other interesting things with Fervor and hex focus spells.
The Evil Eye witch would compete for the bard slot. The Evil Eye witch is far inferior to the bard at what they are both supposed to be able to do.
But a Fervor witch is definitely an interesting healer build that can do a little more than heal. So the Fervor witch has a good role competing against other healers.
The reason the witch competes against the cleric in my group is the fervor witch fills a healer slot. The reason the player likes it is they can heal and do some other interesting things with Fervor and hex focus spells.
The Evil Eye witch would compete for the bard slot. The Evil Eye witch is far inferior to the bard at what they are both supposed to be able to do.
But a Fervor witch is definitely an interesting healer build that can do a little more than heal. So the Fervor witch has a good role competing against other healers.
I keep saying things like this. Hopefully people realize that I am serious and that it does make sense.
A Fervor Witch is going to be a better Bard than a Cleric will be. While still being a decent party healer.
A Curse Witch is not going to be a better Bard than a Bard will be.
In general, when a Witch competes with a different spellcasting class for that same spellcaster's role, the other spellcaster will always win. Which is right and proper. But when a Witch competes with a different spellcasting class for the role of a third spellcasting slot, the Witch is going to be better at the third role while still being competent at the second class's role as well.
What role is a curse witch going to be better at than a bard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What role is a curse witch going to be better at than a bard?
Nothing. Curse witch not better than a bard at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep saying things like this. Hopefully people realize that I am serious and that it does make sense.
A Fervor Witch is going to be a better Bard than a Cleric will be. While still being a decent party healer.
A Curse Witch is not going to be a better Bard than a Bard will be.
In general, when a Witch competes with a different spellcasting class for that same spellcaster's role, the other spellcaster will always win. Which is right and proper. But when a Witch competes with a different spellcasting class for the role of a third spellcasting slot, the Witch is going to be better at the third role while still being competent at the second class's role as well.
I mean I get what you're saying, I do.
But you can read this same refrain the other way around and it comes across a lot less appealing.
The bard just outright beats the curse witch at the witch's own game and there's nothing the witch can really do about it. After all, it's not like we're talking about anything intrinsically bard-y here.
... But hey, maybe if you scrounge around for an extremely specific feat option you can pick up something that sort of lets you justify your existence by giving you a splash of something else entirely that maybe makes you kind of compelling but still leaves you out in the cold if you don't pick this specific combination of options. That's... not exactly inspiring, imo.
Nerf Bard, tbh. Dirge should give a save.
In general, when a Witch competes with a different spellcasting class for that same spellcaster's role, the other spellcaster will always win. Which is right and proper. But when a Witch competes with a different spellcasting class for the role of a third spellcasting slot, the Witch is going to be better at the third role while still being competent at the second class's role as well.
Is your argument that a witch can never be as good as the existing core caster of that type but that's OK because you can grab a focus spell or two to gain some outside functionality? That's an interesting take, but it runs into the issue that a sorcerer does it better with bloodline spells, the crossblood feat, better primary stat and 4 spell slots per level.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nerf Bard, tbh. Dirge should give a save.
Hell no. Buff everything else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What role is a curse witch going to be better at than a bard?
Well, Bard is a hard class to compete against in general. However...
Witch can dabble in alchemy with the natural high INT bonus, Cauldron, and Temporary Potions.
Witch can go sorcerer/wizard and get an elemental blasting spell at 2nd level with Lesson of Elements vs level 18 with Impossible Polymath.
Witch can get Conceal Spell to do all of the normal Occult mind-affecting shenanigans during social encounters without being detected as easily.
Speaking of mind-affecting shenanigans and social encounters - Witch can completely rework their spell list every morning to quickly switch between a downtime/social setting adventure and a dungeon delving combat focused adventure. Bard gets Esoteric Polymath and can quickly change out one spell.
Bard already does decent healing between Hymn of Healing and Soothe, so an Occult Witch isn't likely to do better.
If Familiars are useful to your campaign and character, then Witch gets a pretty good one. Bard doesn't get one at all natively to the class.
So what I am gathering is that a Witch's schtick is not that they can shine in any role but that they can be a better backup to other members of the party than another class? Wow - that really wants me to play the witch.
Yeah, that's fair. If a bit overly disparaging. Though Witch does shine better in that regard if there is a hole in the party composition. A party that doesn't have a e.g. crafter, primary healer, blaster caster, or whatever else. Then the Witch isn't directly competing for that spot against some other character that is better at it.
Witch certainly isn't going to be everyone's favorite spellcasting class.
But you can read this same refrain the other way around and it comes across a lot less appealing.
The bard just outright beats the curse witch at the witch's own game and there's nothing the witch can really do about it. After all, it's not like we're talking about anything intrinsically bard-y here.
... But hey, maybe if you scrounge around for an extremely specific feat option you can pick up something that sort of lets you justify your existence by giving you a splash of something else entirely that maybe makes you kind of compelling but still leaves you out in the cold if you don't pick this specific combination of options. That's... not exactly inspiring, imo.
Yeah. If the party already has a Bard, building an Occult Witch focusing on party buffs, enemy debuffs, and a bit of healing - is probably not going to end well.
If you do happen to like the Witch class and want to play a Witch in a party that already has a Bard, maybe go Primal Witch, or Arcane Witch. Don't try to step on the toes of the Bard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. If the party already has a Bard, building an Occult Witch focusing on party buffs, enemy debuffs, and a bit of healing - is probably not going to end well.
If you do happen to like the Witch class and want to play a Witch in a party that already has a Bard, maybe go Primal Witch, or Arcane Witch. Don't try to step on the toes of the Bard.
And with this we've come full circle where we once again ask why play primal or arcane witch when druid, wizard and sorcerer exist all of whom are mechanically stronger than the witch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess "just don't play a witch" is certainly a novel way to defend the class at the very least.
Nah can't be. That would be avoiding the issue, since that wasn't even remotely what anyone was talking about before that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nerf Bard, tbh. Dirge should give a save.Hell no. Buff everything else.
This is what always gets me. Nothing has to be bad. Nothing even has to be subpar.
Yes, there will be variance which means par and subpar will exist natively, but the gulf doesn't have to be as big as it currently is. The gulf doesn't really need to exist at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah no, I genuinely believe Bard is too good and it causes problems for the game - no other class has a standard routine so strong that it's hard to justify doing literally anything else. It's not often that you get so many complaints about a class so strong being boring as you get with the Bard.
Nerf Bard, tbh. Dirge should give a save.Hell no. Buff everything else.This is what always gets me. Nothing has to be bad. Nothing even has to be subpar.
Yes, there will be variance which means par and subpar will exist natively, but the gulf doesn't have to be as big as it currently is. The gulf doesn't really need to exist at all.
This is literally the core of all my arguments.
Witches deserve and should have more cool, unique and mechanically interesting things going for them. Alchemists as well.
In my view, the core of the Witch is dealing with Patrons, so leaning into that dynamic was a great route to make Witches better (A.K.A. more interesting and cool). The same goes for Alchemists, they don't have strong chassis like Monks and Fighters, therefore the class can't afford have placebo class paths.
Giving each class a strong and unique reason for them to exist at all is supposed to be the cornerstone of their design. Witches, and similarly Alchemists, aren't bringing in that IMO, both because of the main focus on a class feature that all casters have and because its distinct abilities aren't doing enough heavy lifting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nerf Bard, tbh. Dirge should give a save.Hell no. Buff everything else.
I would prefer classes have their own, interesting thematically appropriate builds that are as highly effective as say a druid or bard.
Paizo nailed druids and bards on nearly ever metric. The cleric is a crapshoot depending on the deity, but it at least at its core as a niche as the best healer and would shine real bright in a demon or undead campaign.
But most of these other caster classes are lacking with ineffective or unexciting or both ineffective and unexciting builds.
So what I am gathering is that a Witch's schtick is not that they can shine in any role but that they can be a better backup to other members of the party than another class? Wow - that really wants me to play the witch.
One thing more, it is rather well known that the vast majority of campaigns end well before level 20 (not due to lack of material support but because it would take most groups who play every week or two, a couple of years of playing a single character to reach it). Thus, characters should not be realistically looked at as having 10 class feats to diversify but more like 6-7 (of which 3-4 are needed to build the core of your character - thus 2-3 to diversify with). The number of people who actually PLAY at campaigns over level 12-14 is a very small fraction of the purchasers of pathfinder
I think they do well in a healer role.
I haven't had a problem getting my cleric and druid magic to work.Cleric and Druid get more complains compared to Bard whose only complain is "its boring to just use bardic performance."
I don't want to see the bard nerfed. It does one thing really well. If someone wants to do that one thing really well, bard is your class.
Only two people have played bards in my group to do that one thing really well. And the rest of the party loves the bard because they do that one thing really well.
But the bard will never be the following:
1. Never top damage dealer.
2. Never top healer.
The bard buffs the party and debuffs monsters. Both of these actions make the party better, but don't do much for the bard. If you like being a buffer and debuffer, then you play a bard. Why take the one class that does something really well that someone might like to do in a party away?
It would be like nerfing the cleric for being too good at healing, when some players just want to be the best at healing.
I don't want to see that. Let the bard be the best buffer and debuffer party support class in the game. It is their niche.
I guess "just don't play a witch" is certainly a novel way to defend the class at the very least.
How is that any different than the claim that the Swashbuckler shouldn't be played because the Rogue already exists?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And with this we've come full circle where we once again ask why play primal or arcane witch when druid, wizard and sorcerer exist all of whom are mechanically stronger than the witch.Yeah. If the party already has a Bard, building an Occult Witch focusing on party buffs, enemy debuffs, and a bit of healing - is probably not going to end well.
If you do happen to like the Witch class and want to play a Witch in a party that already has a Bard, maybe go Primal Witch, or Arcane Witch. Don't try to step on the toes of the Bard.
Yeah, that is what I have noticed too. We seem to be talking in circles.
'The Witch isn't as powerful as the Bard, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, ...'. Agreed. If it was, then it would overshadow and trivialize those classes.
'The Witch isn't as powerful as it was in 1e.'. Agreed. None of the spellcasting classes are as far as I can tell from what I hear on these forums. 1e still exists if you want that.
'The Witch isn't as powerful or as cool as I think it should have been.' Sure, there is room for improvement.
'The Witch isn't useful in the campaign we are playing in.' Not every class is going to be.
And on the other side:
'The Witch is good at being flexible and filling multiple roles that are missing in the party.' But that doesn't give the Witch its own identity.
'The Witch can be built in several different directions. Healing, Party buffing, Damage dealing, Debuffing, Summoning, even alchemy. Pick a couple even.' But there are other classes that do any one of these things better.
So I am not sure what else there is to say about it. Though if a class had no drawbacks or detractors, wouldn't it be considered too powerful?
If the witch isn't to have its own distinct mechanical identity, are there any reasons (other than the logistics) that the witch shouldn't just be thrown out as a class and exist as an archetype (or class archetypes) for spellcasters?
If the witch isn't to have its own distinct mechanical identity, are there any reasons (other than the logistics) that the witch shouldn't just be thrown out as a class and exist as an archetype (or class archetypes) for spellcasters?
This ship has sailed so long ago that it already fell off the edge of our flat earth.
If the witch isn't to have its own distinct mechanical identity, are there any reasons (other than the logistics) that the witch shouldn't just be thrown out as a class and exist as an archetype (or class archetypes) for spellcasters?
Well, the fact that it has some mechanical identity is a pretty decent reason. Besides, what's the point of destruction? Spite? It already does exist as an archetype.
I guess "just don't play a witch" is certainly a novel way to defend the class at the very least.How is that any different than the claim that the Swashbuckler shouldn't be played because the Rogue already exists?
Sounds like the same claim. More than a few people have found the non-CRB classes to be directly inferior to their CRB counterparts. At least as far as this thread goes, I can't see any mechanical reason to play a witch over any of the CRB spellcasters. Not to say the witch is unusable if you absolutely must have the flavor, but that it has no mechanical use case that isn't overshadowed by other classes.
That said Squiggit's comment was definitely referring to your suggestion to just not play an occult witch in a party with a bard because it'll just be plain better than you. Though a party with two bards with different cantrips and one speccing for debuffing and the other for buffing would probably be welcome.