| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, I guess.
Doesn't make much sense to me that a Rune Witch would be weaker than other classes because you might have made a Curse Witch instead though, so I'm not sure I really buy it. The options are entirely mutually exclusive after all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mmmm. I don't think multiple spell lists necessarily has a "power budget" cost so much as it has a "design budget" cost.
Class options need to encompass all four traditions, so feats and abilities can't be focused around a single type of spellcasting. I think that the feats seem designed to be pretty theme-agnostic, for the most part, so they could fit different traditions, themes, and spell loadouts, but made them a little less focused as a result. When you look at Fighters they have a ton of feats focused on different fighting styles.
Witch (and Sorcerer too, I think) feels kinda like if Fighter had one 2hander feat, one archery feat, one sword and board feat, and then a handful of dual wielding feats. You can technically build each type and rely on the base chassis, but really most of the support and interesting options are for dual wielding. To really do justice to every flavor you need a lot of bespoke feats and features, which Fighter has but Witch doesn't.
That's why to an extent I think Witch has promise, because a lot of what disappoints me about the class isn't fundamental--there just aren't a lot of interesting options that make it look better to me than reflavoring another caster.
The things I think will be harder are mostly my own gripes, which are (1) that patrons should have felt a bit more like deities or bloodlines in their depth and provide a list of skills trained, maybe a bonus feat, and some bonus spells pulling from all traditions to match a theme; and (2) that lessons aren't both baseline parts of advancement and also plentiful.
Hex cantrip choice is also a gripe, but I think that's easy enough to fix as a feat and eventually people can skip the options with cantrips they like less as more patrons are released.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer bloodlines are deep? They feel super shallow to me, at least in this system. Maybe that's because they moved all the cool passives like stretchy arms to the focus spell camp. Those things feel different when you have to activate them every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deeper than Patrons. Not a whole lot of similar mechanics to deities and bloodlines, where you pick a theme and get a package, so admittedly I was stretching a bit to reference what we have... Maybe barbarians get a bit of that, and I think oracle mysteries are just a bit too specific as power packages.
I think deities is really what I'd be aiming for, except more vague flavor-wise so the patron could fit more concepts.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer bloodlines are deep? They feel super shallow to me, at least in this system. Maybe that's because they moved all the cool passives like stretchy arms to the focus spell camp. Those things feel different when you have to activate them every time.
I think this is a real problem Witches and Sorcerers and frankly a lot of classes are running into.
No one gets deep class features in 2e. Bloodlines give you more than Patrons, maybe, but there still isn't actually a lot going on there.
Most classes have like one or two real class features beyond spell access or proficiencies, so it doesn't feel like there's much in the Witch chassis that actually makes them witch-y.
Of course, the witch chassis is also just flat out worse than most of their counterparts for no real reason too, which isn't helping matters much either.
The thing is while no class gets deep features some of the features can lead into deep skill trees. Like the Barbarian instincts go in pretty different territories when you consider the feats each one unlocks. The big thing is that some of these are passives.
If each bloodline offered a feat line that wasn't all focus spells I'd be more into 2's sorcerer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys have way different experiences with familiars than my group. Even just looking at the ability list shows me lots of good stuff.
How good/useful familiars are can vary WILDLY from one DM/table to another depending on how they adjudicate them. For instance, Share Senses is fairly useless when you need to stay in line of sight so you can use the command action every round on it and Spell Delivery can be a good way to get them killed when stray area attacks come in and the familiar isn't in full cover.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one gets deep class features in 2e. Bloodlines give you more than Patrons, maybe, but there still isn't actually a lot going on there.
I think this hits the nail on the head for a lot PF2e.
Most classes have like one or two real class features beyond spell access or proficiencies, so it doesn't feel like there's much in the Witch chassis that actually makes them witch-y.Of course, the witch chassis is also just flat out worse than most of their counterparts for no real reason too, which isn't helping matters much either.
Witches I feel aren't quite there yet... but then I feel that about any class with a really thin number of feats and a reliance on spells that any class can get with MC feats if they don't get the spell list natively.
I often wonder if the caster chassis might have been better with 1 less spell slot per level but better feats (and the option to take feats to get the spell slots back if you wanted to).
It would need some work and the spell feats might need to be coupled with something else but it would allow more variants and specialisation.
Witch feels flat because prepared (non-druid) casters by design are kind of flat.
I suppose the only real disappointing thing (amongst all the awesome) for Secrets of Magic is there was no new caster class feats for CRB and APG casters.
The Cabalist by Legendary Games (other than a couple seriously OP feats -brewmaster in particular is insanely strong) offers a lot more flavour for those looking for a prepared occult witch type. Its basically like a witch with a lot stronger patron flavour (they have anathemas which I feel the witch probably should have had based on patron).
Anyway witch is serviceable as a class if not quite 'there' yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s all true, but we have no idea how much it “cost” the Witch to be able to pick a tradition to begin with.
The options, once picked, may not be equitable. But it’s entirely possible that that difference is accounted for, at least in the design point of view, by being able to pick traditions to begin with.
I think single action hex cantrips was a bigger part of the power budget than being able to pick a tradition.
The sorcerer suffers almost not degradation in performance for being able to chose a tradition.
People are seriously underestimating the power of single action hex cantrips within the 3 action PF2 paradigm.
"I disagree that witches are bad. I think their feats are mostly bad, but their core chassis is fine."
I think the Witch core chassis is fine just because it follows the same formula as all the other prepared spellcasters. But I disagree that the class isn't bad just because its "core chassis is fine".
This class as everyone said has so many issues and needs to be revisited.
I would only revisit the feats myself. The rest of the class works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer bloodlines are deep? They feel super shallow to me, at least in this system. Maybe that's because they moved all the cool passives like stretchy arms to the focus spell camp. Those things feel different when you have to activate them every time.
That part was disappointing. It was more fun as a sorcerer when you turned into some creature like your bloodline.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are discounting the power of familiars way too readily. They definitely deserve to be accounted for in a class' power budget!
My witch's cat familiar has been crazy useful in Fall of Plaguestone.
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 discretely 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.
It's pretty good at stealth since I trained in that skill, but even if it wasn't, few people would look twice at a stray cat.
What can't you do with familiars? I just used mine to burn down an enemy stronghold! XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are discounting the power of familiars way too readily.
I really don't think they are as they might be close to useless depending on how a DM/table runs them. For instance, there is NO assurance that "used that old cat to keep an eye on an NPC" works as you might have to VERBALLY command it every round or that it isn't hit by area attacks while trying to stay within the 30' range of Demoralize. A familiar MIGHT be great if the DM everything to make it so but you could say that about anything in the game. The flipside is that they MIGHT be nigh useless if the DM does everything to make them so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are discounting the power of familiars way too readily.I really don't think they are as they might be close to useless depending on how a DM/table runs them. For instance, there is NO assurance that "used that old cat to keep an eye on an NPC" works as you might have to VERBALLY command it every round or that it isn't hit by area attacks while trying to stay within the 30' range of Demoralize. A familiar MIGHT be great if the DM everything to make it so but you could say that about anything in the game. The flipside is that they MIGHT be nigh useless if the DM does everything to make them so.
If I had to command the familiar every six seconds OUT OF COMBAT to get it to do anything, I'd tell the GM to take a hike and play a video game, since that's clearly what they're into.
In any case, a simple conversation with the GM about Companion Creature expectations during character creation ought to head off any such issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are discounting the power of familiars way too readily.I really don't think they are as they might be close to useless depending on how a DM/table runs them. For instance, there is NO assurance that "used that old cat to keep an eye on an NPC" works as you might have to VERBALLY command it every round or that it isn't hit by area attacks while trying to stay within the 30' range of Demoralize. A familiar MIGHT be great if the DM everything to make it so but you could say that about anything in the game. The flipside is that they MIGHT be nigh useless if the DM does everything to make them so.If I had to command the familiar every six seconds OUT OF COMBAT to get it to do anything, I'd tell the GM to take a hike and play a video game, since that's clearly what they're into.
In any case, a simple conversation with the GM about Companion Creature expectations during character creation ought to head off any such issues.
Burning down an enemy stronghold is something that would definitely require constant command in a campaign I run. I would never make such a thing so easy as that is out of the purview of its listed capabilities.
You make what you did sound like it is standard for familiars. It is not and becomes much, much harder to do as you level.
A stray cat may not be much around a town, but wandering into a magma dragon's lair deep underneath the ground would make it highly unusual and likely not tolerated. Or wandering into undead infested areas where stray cats get eaten as does anything on sight.
All these niche uses by people claiming how good they are doesn't change my experience rolling against on level or higher level DCs. When I hear these stories, it sounds more like the DM didn't bother to make the player roll and just let them do what they wanted.
That's fine if your table is having fun. Once that familiar is expected to roll against creatures, it don't live long. I do make it roll if you want to scout or what not. I don't handwave this "It's just a cat or just a this or that." Your familiar wants to scout, it has to roll like a scout.
Your familiar wants to burn down strongholds, it has to roll its stealth versus guards.
It wants to do a touch spell, it gets to experience AoOs, auras, aoe attacks, and the like.
In these low level examples I hear all the time, sure, you might make it work. But where I play in the 8th to 20th level, familiars don't do much. An extra focus point here or there, but if they're scouting or trying to burn down strongholds, they're more likely to get caught and annihilated quickly by the powerful creatures that populate higher level adventures.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to command the familiar every six seconds OUT OF COMBAT to get it to do anything, I'd tell the GM to take a hike and play a video game, since that's clearly what they're into.
You'd be taking a hike in quite a few f the games I've played in then.
Secondly, I have no idea what you're going on with about video games: the familiar needing Commands in no way references video games but is ALL in the core rules. This is about F2, not other RPG let alone other game media. Disagreeing with how the rules works doesn't mean than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are seriously underestimating the power of single action hex cantrips within the 3 action PF2 paradigm.
Pretty much.
The fact that Witches can be casting Spells/Cantrips every turn and use a Hex is a pretty huge advantage.
Heck, a maximized turn Elemental Sorcerer has a potent turn when they cast and use Elemental Toss in the same turn.
A Witch casts a 2-action heal on their Fighter in the same turn they Stoke the Heart their Primal/Arcane casters Fireball on a handful of enemies is a more valuable turn than most other casters can pull off in general, even with Focus points.
Next turn? Sustain and then cast another spell/cantrip or sustain. Or cast StH on the Fighter, and then use 1 action heal on yourself/Demoralize/Bon Mot/Recall Knowledge/etc. Or Cackle the sustain and summon a creature. Ad infinitum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suplexing on-level goblins into submission in PF1 was where Familiars have peaked, and the rules 100% supported this to work. Literally the most badass thing a Familiar has ever done in any of our games.
There is no ability or effect in PF2 that is guaranteed to work without extreme GM handholding or chicanery. Burning down a stronghold? Was it made of straw or sticks occupied by a couple Swinefolk? A stray lightning bolt could have just as easily did the job.
One thing about the familiar issue is that I'm sure you can construct a familiar that is useful using the existing familiar abilities, but if you have an idea about what your familiar is and what they're like then it might be difficult to make that familiar useful without changing that concept.
Like if your familiar is literally something you wear, then you pretty much are just getting the extra focus point, spell slot, and cantrip and calling that a day.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only do I not see the appeal of releasing a "devkit" for the explicit purpose of being yelled at because you made a class that was underpowered, or set costs and balancing in a way that amateur community designers disagree with — I'm not convinced such a thing exists at all, besides the very broad and basic design guidelines everyone who's been with the system for a long time can already tell.
The GMG or conversion guide would have been the places to talk about such devkit things, and though there were some less obvious formulas, tables and guidelines listed, both basically went "it's as much art as science, look at the things which already exist and use your best judgement".
It seems most likely to me that Witch was simply kind of undercooked, rushed because its main developer became unavailable after they'd already committed to changes from the playtest. No grand conspiracy or huge mistakes, just a lack of time and resources.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like if your familiar is literally something you wear, then you pretty much are just getting the extra focus point, spell slot, and cantrip and calling that a day.
Considering Unique Familiars get some solid abilities, it would probably just be better to allow those abilities to be bought at premiums.
Like Faerie Dragon's Breath Weapon is actually pretty solid:
Breath Weapon Two actions
Frequency once per hour;
Effect The faerie dragon breathes euphoric gas in a 10-foot cone. Each creature in the area must attempt a Fortitude save against your class DC or spell DC, whichever is higher. A creature that fails its save is stupefied 2 and slowed 1 for 1d4 rounds; on a critical failure, the duration is 1 minute.
The Faerie Dragon only costs 6 abilities, which means that with a single 2nd level Feat by 6th level, you've got a once per hour AoE save or suck that costs not very much.
Infernal Temptation is also really good considering at worst it's a better version of True Strike Once per day.
And both those Specific Familiars cost nearly the same number of abilities as they grant (Faerie comes with 6 and Imp comes with 7 and costs 8).
____________________
In short, if there were more Specific Familiars or ways to buy the action-based abilities that some of the Specific Familiars get, then the concept issue you talk about would probably be less of an issue.
That said, I have pretty much no issues with a person flavoring their Faerie Dragon as a Cloak (ala Dr. Strange) or their Imp as a Pixie/Gremlin and keeping the rest the same.
One of my players wanted to do a baby phoenix (Wizard funny enough) so I tried to make an AoE burn style behavior in the same power range as the Breath Weapon listed above.
There is precedent for Familiars to get strong combat abilities, but if you really want a harmless toad that you keep in your backpack as an afterthought because that's your character concept, there's not much for you on that front.
And I think some people's vision of the Witch is that the Familiar is just like a regular familiar for anyone.
But for the Witch it's basically supposed to be an avatar of the Patron, it's not supposed to be this innocuous creature that has no bearing on the story or the Witch's story. It's the outlet by which the Patron interacts with the Witch.
Making a familiar innocuous in the case of the Witch is antithetical to the concept. Should there be an archetype for it? Absolutely, why not, but putting Familiars in a box and saying "I have all these narrative reasons that I don't want my familiar to be strong/specific/etc" is no different than denying the use of Rage because you're a "cool headed" Barbarian or not using Attack of Opportunity because you're an "honorable" Fighter.
There's plenty of power in a Familiar, but there's no way to refute against the "ye olde argument" of "My character doesn't want a X" where X is a specific familiar or one with stacked ability choices or one that wades into the trenches with you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I just say that I want more hair feats? Better reach, grapple, stuff the White Hair Witch had back in the day, maybe a status bonus to athletics or using Int over Str when using the hair, fun stuff like that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I just say that I want more hair feats? Better reach, grapple, stuff the White Hair Witch had back in the day, maybe a status bonus to athletics or using Int over Str when using the hair, fun stuff like that.
I want the actual Witch Hair/Nails feats to not be abysmal.
Those two feats I will never defend. Upthread Alfa/Polaris remarked about Liz leaving and the Class being "underbaked" and I think those two Feats are the greatest evidence for that being probably true.
They have flavor, but they are absolutely pointless, and I'd venture as far to say that Eldritch Nails is a downright trap feat because using a Hex with your nails is not only not even possible for most of the levels you have the Feat, but it's also almost always worse than just using the Hex normally (even with an MCD).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not only do I not see the appeal of releasing a "devkit" for the explicit purpose of being yelled at because you made a class that was underpowered, or set costs and balancing in a way that amateur community designers disagree with — I'm not convinced such a thing exists at all, besides the very broad and basic design guidelines everyone who's been with the system for a long time can already tell.
The GMG or conversion guide would have been the places to talk about such devkit things, and though there were some less obvious formulas, tables and guidelines listed, both basically went "it's as much art as science, look at the things which already exist and use your best judgement".
It seems most likely to me that Witch was simply kind of undercooked, rushed because its main developer became unavailable after they'd already committed to changes from the playtest. No grand conspiracy or huge mistakes, just a lack of time and resources.
I think a lot of people have missed what I was actually getting at with the whole dev kit thing.
I don’t ever expect them to release one, because I also don’t think one actually exists. At least not in the way people assume.
My point ultimately was that people talk like there is one. Like every class in PF2e is built from assigned points, and if a class is bad or weak it’s because their kit must be “highly costed”.
I think those arguments are nothing more than a rationale for those class’ just being poorly designed and ultimately mistakes on the devs end that they should focus on addressing. We know they aren’t secret genius’. We know the game isn’t actually a tightly and intricately balanced series of delicate precision. There isn’t really any curtain to peer behind, or, at least, there isn’t really much to see.
But people talk like there is, and rationalise like there is, and use it a tool to beat down the arguments of people who better from the system.
When something is bad or not performing we should be able to say “Hey, this actually kinda sucks, can you take another swing at it” without having to provide pages of proof that it’s the worst thing to ever possibly exist.
There are some new feats in Ruby Phoenix for witches that want to use hair/nails.
Care to divulge? If they had "graduate" options that might change my mind.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The usual answer to "can you take another swing at it" is "not really" due to a bunch of stuff regarding how making and updating books works, staff they have available, and other stuff I'm not privy to, which is a different conversation.
And I think both "sides" make the mistake of assuming everything's easier/more airtight/more professional than it is, just in different ways. There are definitely people who think everything's part of a secret plan with plenty behind the curtain, just as there are people who assume design paradigms they don't like are mistakes that could be trivially solved by these professionals if not for...x. Whatever "x" is to them.
The answer, as is often the case, is probably boring and somewhere in the middle. PF2 has some pretty cool, tight design and math in some places, and some pretty glaring oversights or stilted concepts in others. They do what they can to live up to the best notions of good design they have and patch up the old issues while releasing a lot of stuff and slowly breaking new design ground. The audience will be divided on almost any possible decision taken, so the devs stick to those notions of balance and go for the middle while the fans quibble about their differences in preference.
The intent has consistently seemed to be to hit that middle of trying to appeal to the most people with the broad base of the system, and encouraging you to do your own errata and homebrew and variant rule-usage throughout the life of the game. (Which is still distinctly different from 5E leaving most of what the game can do to the table, before I hear that in return.) Their own errata is obviously valuable for communicating what they want for the game more clearly, but examining and tweaking things can't and shouldn't stop on that level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, those pages of proof are far more convincing arguments for what you want.
You’d think.
The threads are out there, if you want to find them I’d look up some the early days threads about Spell attack runes and the like. Many of them got really deep into the math.
They aren’t compelling to many because they effectively have a zero-sum mentality. “If you are winning then I am losing” whenever that doesn’t exist in a game like this. You don’t win because I lose, and I don’t lose because you win. We win when we can all engage in an experience as equals. Predisposition towards failure, as some parts of the system have ended up creating, aren’t fun, and create a barrier to that shared engagement. What’s more, these predispositions are evenly spread, they tend to group around certain classes and play styles, which elevates this barriers further for those who enjoy and want to play those classes and styles.
Obviously no one thinks in those literal terms, but the effect is largely the same on the conversation.
We only lose when we aren’t able to enjoy a game equally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, rereading them, they're not amazing. All 3 are also for hair only. Interact with objects, up the die and get grapple, and hexed hair like the hex nails feat.
I mean, getting to d6 and having Grapple IS useful. But yeah.
I think it was Mark Seifter that outlined the math for a 1E problem and got it fixed, even before he got hired onto the Paizo team.
After hearing him talk on Arcane Mark on Wizards, I have serious reservations about anything he designs.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rushed probably makes the most sense. Playtest witches had a wizard/sorcerer-esque kit, release Witches have druid/cleric spellcasting but still retain a lot of those wizard/sorcerer chassis features. Sort of feels like there was a missing pass to try to cohesively put those ideas together.
They have flavor, but they are absolutely pointless, and I'd venture as far to say that Eldritch Nails is a downright trap feat
Careful, you might have someone show up and tell you that Eldritch Nails actually completely invalidates martials.
Making a familiar innocuous in the case of the Witch is antithetical to the concept. Should there be an archetype for it? Absolutely, why not, but putting Familiars in a box and saying "I have all these narrative reasons that I don't want my familiar to be strong/specific/etc" is no different than denying the use of Rage because you're a "cool headed" Barbarian or not using Attack of Opportunity because you're an "honorable" Fighter.
You're sort of right, ignoring the familiar is ignoring part of the witch's kit, but I also think you're overstating it. Familiars aren't new territory and the only thing unique to the witch familiar is that it's easier to recycle them, which only contributes somewhat to their overall power. For a lot of the stuff people talk about when they talk about leveraging a familiar, it's stuff anyone can access with a feat or two. It's relatively low hanging fruit with a power ceiling that depends a lot on what your GM feels like letting you do.
So maybe it's a bit much to compare it with a protected, class-defining thing like rage. Though I do agree people write it off too easily as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rushed probably makes the most sense. Playtest witches had a wizard/sorcerer-esque kit, release Witches have druid/cleric spellcasting but still retain a lot of those wizard/sorcerer chassis features. Sort of feels like there was a missing pass to try to cohesively put those ideas together.
There's definitely that "untied shoe" feeling of sorts in certain places, and I've always been a proponent of making things that are choices as balanced against each other as possible.
And IMO even though I like the Witch, I think it's pretty hard to say it doesn't have the most differential of directly competing options (Eldritch Nails or Familiar's Language vs Basic Lesson is honestly hilariously different).
Careful, you might have someone show up and tell you that Eldritch Nails actually completely invalidates martials.
I'd love to have someone try! Even with a Witch MCD there was just no way to make it even feel like it was reasonable.
The thing that gets me is that you don't even have a viable Hex option to use with it til you get Curse of Death....
You're sort of right, ignoring the familiar is ignoring part of the witch's kit, but I also think you're overstating it. Familiars aren't new territory and the only thing unique to the witch familiar is that it's easier to recycle them, which only contributes somewhat to their overall power. For a lot of the stuff people talk about when they talk about leveraging a familiar, it's stuff anyone can access with a feat or two. It's relatively low hanging fruit with a power ceiling that depends a lot on what your GM feels like letting you do.
Well the GM can't really stop me from using Faerie Dragon's Breath weapon, Infernal Temptation, Spell Battery, Partner in Crime, Refocus, Extra Cantrips, etc
Those are tangible benefits regardless of what any GM says, but I think any GM that is being overly restrictive on the narrative aspects of the Witch's Familar are kind of ignoring the fact that the familiar is mentioned in every Class Feature the Default Witch gets:
Hexes - "Your patron and familiar teach you special spells called hexes."
Spells - "Your patron has sent you a familiar, a mystical creature that teaches you and facilitates your spells."
Patron - "This entity is typically mysterious and distant, revealing little of their identity and motivations, and they grant you spells and other magical powers through a familiar, which serves as a conduit for their power."
So when you say:
So maybe it's a bit much to compare it with a protected, class-defining thing like rage.
I think that may be where the difference in opinion lies. The Familiar is the conduit for not just some but all of the default Witch abilities.
Whether or not people want to see the Familiar in that respect is entirely up to them, but the fact is that the entire base kit involves the Familiar.
If a GM is denying you aspects of Familiar use that are reasonable, that's not really any different than a GM denying Sneak Attack at all costs, stealing the Wizard's spellbook/bonded item, or any other number of things a GM may do to prevent a Witch from being successful.
Outside of the above it also describes the Familiars as such
"This familiar follows the rules here, though as it's a direct conduit between you and your patron, it's more powerful than other familiars."
So if you don't believe they are as integral to the Class as Rage is to the Barbarian in terms of overall weight and thematic meaning, then I'd disagree.
That may not be the perception from some, but I do think that is the intent mechanically/narratively of the Class itself (IMO).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you recall the stream in question, I can't remember anything recently.
Wasn't recently, this was a year or so ago. I remember the stream wasn't specifically about the Wizards but he referenced them on "good design example" and I think it must've been Focus Spells because it was one of the big pain points of the Wizards, one no-one is claiming is well done.
Although that's not the only time I found his reasoning questionable.
I eventually stopped watching Arcane Mark since it was never useful.
What exactly do you mean about 'deep' features?I think this hits the nail on the head for a lot PF2e.
No one gets deep class features in 2e. Bloodlines give you more than Patrons, maybe, but there still isn't actually a lot going on there.
I, too, am curious about what this means.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about the familiar issue is that I'm sure you can construct a familiar that is useful using the existing familiar abilities, but if you have an idea about what your familiar is and what they're like then it might be difficult to make that familiar useful without changing that concept.
Like if your familiar is literally something you wear, then you pretty much are just getting the extra focus point, spell slot, and cantrip and calling that a day.
The familiar is useful. It's not a net negative. Extra focus points and spells are nice.
It's forgettable. When I have a player who forgets he has a familiar and has done so for nearly every witch since he tried his faerie dragon in battle, it makes it seem like an unnecessary class feature. It seems familiar should do something more to make it so that if you forget them, it would feel like you lost something.
If a caster forgot his spells, he would feel badly. If a barbarian forgot their rage, they would feel badly. If a rogue forgets his sneak attack, he would feel badly. But if a witch forgets their familiar, they feel no loss of performance.
That makes a familiar seem like some tacked on feature that doesn't have a real effect.
Familiars are largely tacked on 90% of the time, there's exceptions (a consumable heavy character with a Valet+Independant familiar who hands them potions or scrolls being the most useful) but familiars are extremely weak mechanically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM is denying you aspects of Familiar use that are reasonable, that's not really any different than a GM denying Sneak Attack at all costs, stealing the Wizard's spellbook/bonded item, or any other number of things a GM may do to prevent a Witch from being successful.
I'd say more like denying the Wizard's familiar. A familiar thesis wizard's familiar is about the same as a witch's familiar except insofar as how long it takes to come back if it dies. So unless your familiar dies a lot they're pretty comparable.
I, too, am curious about what this means.What exactly do you mean about 'deep' features?I think this hits the nail on the head for a lot PF2e.
No one gets deep class features in 2e. Bloodlines give you more than Patrons, maybe, but there still isn't actually a lot going on there.
At least personally, what I mean is that most classes' budgets just come down to proficiencies and spell access and there simply aren't a lot of bespoke class features anymore. Most of that got folded into class feats, which improves flexibility but can also make it feel like parts of your identity are locked behind specific buy-ins.
It's not necessarily a good or bad thing, but does contribute to some class comparisons looking harsh or classes feeling same-y (this was a big complaint about the Playtest Witch after all, which was almost identical to a familiar thesis wizard except it had cackle and better weapons instead of arcane bond).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main diference between Witch familiar and Improved Familiar Attunement of Wizard is that the Which familiar works like a live spellbook. That's the why the Familiar ressurects so fast and also that's downside of a witch to loose a familiar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Valet+Independant familiar
There is quite a debate over those 2 working together. IMO, they don't as one requires the familiar to be commanded [valet] and the other depends on it's not being commanded [independent].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, too, am curious about what this means.What exactly do you mean about 'deep' features?I think this hits the nail on the head for a lot PF2e.
No one gets deep class features in 2e. Bloodlines give you more than Patrons, maybe, but there still isn't actually a lot going on there.
Things that build on class features to you can excel at something. Dragon Disciple could argue to have deep features. There are some feat chains in Fighter and martial archetypes that generally allow it. Casters are mostly left in the cold.
Wizards get a few things for arcane bond but nothing for thesis and almost nothing for schools... mostly nothing worthwhile (Form control...).
Sorc bloodline flavouring is a bit weak/shallow.
Oracle curses are good, clerics at least get feats to build on their core on their class gimmick and add depth to it (Divine font, although domains are kind of thin).
Witches get a few familiar feats on a feature that many are (at least in this thread) finding hard to make much use of outside a focus battery or with extreme GM fiat. The feats themselves don't add a hell of a lot of depth they are just 'get more of the same.' There is for me also a disconnect that I start with say a fox familiar then suddenly it is a faerie dragon later. Continuity of story around the familiar is lacking. Hexes are nice but don't really build on each other. The new hair feats are great but its a lot of investment to be a terrible option still subpar after 3 or 4 feat investment and not really being useful till mid to late game with heavy feat investment. It needs to start as a good option else we end up with the whole problem of filler/almost useless feats ala PF1e dodge->mobility->spring attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about the familiar issue is that I'm sure you can construct a familiar that is useful using the existing familiar abilities, but if you have an idea about what your familiar is and what they're like then it might be difficult to make that familiar useful without changing that concept.
Like if your familiar is literally something you wear, then you pretty much are just getting the extra focus point, spell slot, and cantrip and calling that a day.
The familiar is useful. It's not a net negative. Extra focus points and spells are nice.
It's forgettable. When I have a player who forgets he has a familiar and has done so for nearly every witch since he tried his faerie dragon in battle, it makes it seem like an unnecessary class feature. It seems familiar should do something more to make it so that if you forget them, it would feel like you lost something.
If a caster forgot his spells, he would feel badly. If a barbarian forgot their rage, they would feel badly. If a rogue forgets his sneak attack, he would feel badly. But if a witch forgets their familiar, they feel no loss of performance.
That makes a familiar seem like some tacked on feature that doesn't have a real effect.
Isn't this thread the proof that people do feel a loss about forgetting their familiar.
Familiars have had too long a tradition to just be there as a passive boon, but pf2 mechanics tried to change that into something more active, and perhaps more engaging.
But I have to say that when the illusion of choice is so clear, it's not well designed (lvl 2 feat choices).
First lesson should be free, later could be feats, similar to domains for cloistered clerics
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about the familiar issue is that I'm sure you can construct a familiar that is useful using the existing familiar abilities, but if you have an idea about what your familiar is and what they're like then it might be difficult to make that familiar useful without changing that concept.
Like if your familiar is literally something you wear, then you pretty much are just getting the extra focus point, spell slot, and cantrip and calling that a day.
The familiar is useful. It's not a net negative. Extra focus points and spells are nice.
It's forgettable. When I have a player who forgets he has a familiar and has done so for nearly every witch since he tried his faerie dragon in battle, it makes it seem like an unnecessary class feature. It seems familiar should do something more to make it so that if you forget them, it would feel like you lost something.
If a caster forgot his spells, he would feel badly. If a barbarian forgot their rage, they would feel badly. If a rogue forgets his sneak attack, he would feel badly. But if a witch forgets their familiar, they feel no loss of performance.
That makes a familiar seem like some tacked on feature that doesn't have a real effect.
Isn't this thread the proof that people do feel a loss about forgetting their familiar.
Familiars have had too long a tradition to just be there as a passive boon, but pf2 mechanics tried to change that into something more active, and perhaps more engaging.
But I have to say that when the illusion of choice is so clear, it's not well designed (lvl 2 feat choices).
First lesson should be free, later could be feats, similar to domains for cloistered clerics
I see no proof of the familiar being anything other than a forgettable aspect of the witch in this thread.
This thread is proof that the PF1 witch was overpowered and the new witch vastly reduced their capabilities to the point where former players of PF1 witches feel their power has been reduced too much. Much like wizard players feel.
I personally think the witch isn't too bad, at least certain builds. But the feats are pretty unattractive and the familiar is forgettable. Familiars in PF1 weren't great, but they could do some things well like scouting fairly well.