| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Its kind of strange to me.
PF1 familiars were very locked and the familiar archetypes did change some stuff but not all. While Eidolons were decried as bad because of all the customization being overpower. Yet here we are in PF2, familiar having Eidolon style customization being weak and forgettable. While Eidolons get chained up with ridgid archetypes and limitations.
It still baffles me. How the two mechanics effective switched and somehow became worse and less fun.
*******************
* P.S. I know that Summoner is not released. But what I hear is that they kept the playtest system where you have to spend feats on the Eidolon.
The familiars in PF1 were independent creatures. Now you literally have to pay for independence for companions including familiars. Understandable in the balance equation, but not so great in the "feels like real creature" parts of the game.
It's a very different game system. It's all very much locked down with the illusion of choice. A familiar doesn't do or give much. It's more of a thing to roleplay if you enjoy roleplaying familiar companions.
The eidolon from the playtest is more like a weapon with some tricks than an eidolon like it was in PF1. We'll see how it is in the final iteration, but it was sure playing weak in the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Witches automatically got Basic, Greater, and Major Lessons at levels 2/6/10 instead of having to purchase them as Feats, how would that change your perceptions of the Class, and is that something you'd agree with?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Witches automatically got Basic, Greater, and Major Lessons at levels 2/6/10 instead of having to purchase them as Feats, how would that change your perceptions of the Class, and is that something you'd agree with?
As for me, that'd be a huge step in the right direction. Lessons give you hexes, and although they're not hex cantrips at least you wouldn't be paying for them with feats, so it feels better. They also give the spell list tinkering that I currently feel is very lacking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Witches automatically got Basic, Greater, and Major Lessons at levels 2/6/10 instead of having to purchase them as Feats, how would that change your perceptions of the Class, and is that something you'd agree with?
While it would improve my perception of it [it's something], it wouldn't touch my major complaints about the class. I'd still have only 1 hex cantrip [#BardEnvy], still have the same class feats to pick from, still get locked into a familiar, ect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if witches got access to exclusive familiar/master power options based on their patron selection? For example, characters with the curse or fate patrons could select beast of ill omen (1e hex) as a familiar ability. That would be a way to retroactively boost the significance of patrons, give their familiars unique abilities that differentiate them from standard familiars, and adjust the class without adding specific feat dependencies or power creeping existing patrons (not to say that adding more flavorful feats isn't badly needed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if witches got access to exclusive familiar/master power options based on their patron selection? For example, characters with the curse or fate patrons could select beast of ill omen (1e hex) as a familiar ability. That would be a way to retroactively boost the significance of patrons, give their familiars unique abilities that differentiate them from standard familiars, and adjust the class without adding specific feat dependencies or power creeping existing patrons (not to say that adding more flavorful feats isn't badly needed).
This would go a long way to helping. Right now the amount of post 1st level support/differentiation for patrons is zero. I want more 'deep' options for each patron (whether familiar or otherwise). I want the same for wizards based on thesis and/or school (though we do have some school exclusive feats just not many and some aren't really good- the transmutation one).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if witches got access to exclusive familiar/master power options based on their patron selection? For example, characters with the curse or fate patrons could select beast of ill omen (1e hex) as a familiar ability. That would be a way to retroactively boost the significance of patrons, give their familiars unique abilities that differentiate them from standard familiars, and adjust the class without adding specific feat dependencies or power creeping existing patrons (not to say that adding more flavorful feats isn't badly needed).
You mean like my suggestion up thread?
Absolutely :)
I'm also working on a complimentary set of rules for just familiars that helps flesh them out a bit more so you don't have to pick Faerie Dragon, Dweamorcat Cub, and Imp just to get your value back. First I went at adding a bunch more specific familiars, but also "familiar focuses". Also want to put out some rules for narratively handling familiars, so that way Gms and players dont feel compelled to forget about them, but also feel safe allowing them into the narrative without overriding other players.
Figure if people find familiars that hamstrung and not fun, then maybe some additional rules for how to handle it might help.
Focus Familiars are basically my attempt at Archetypes for Familiars, and the plan was to make Focuses for specific Patrons as well (up thread I describe specific Familiar abilities that coincide with the Patron's initial Hex, these powers would probably be the initial ability for those "Focuses" or something similar).
For those interested, still under development and a lot more I plan to add.
What if witches got access to exclusive familiar/master power options based on their patron selection? For example, characters with the curse or fate patrons could select beast of ill omen (1e hex) as a familiar ability. That would be a way to retroactively boost the significance of patrons, give their familiars unique abilities that differentiate them from standard familiars, and adjust the class without adding specific feat dependencies or power creeping existing patrons (not to say that adding more flavorful feats isn't badly needed).This would go a long way to helping. Right now the amount of post 1st level support/differentiation for patrons is zero. I want more 'deep' options for each patron (whether familiar or otherwise). I want the same for wizards based on thesis and/or school (though we do have some school exclusive feats just not many and some aren't really good- the transmutation one).
Aren't lessons the post-1st level support? The lessons you receive are going to be highly dependent on your patron.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No they aren't. Lessons are totally independent from patrons.
Your spell list might inform your lesson selection a little bit, but even that's far from a hard and fast rule and isn't the same as actual patron support.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big problem for the Witch at the moment is it feels like it was built with a core identity in mind like Oracles but was given no baked-in way of increasing that core identity while also diversifying.
Oracles get their Major and Extreme curses automatically and even two Oracles of the same mystery could still end up feeling notably diverse given their class feat choices.
Witches right now feel like they just... have to choose to either 'Be a better Witch' by picking Lessons or to sidegrade and either put off their core class identity for flavor or forego it altogether.
It also doesn't help that the Witch not only got saddled with these 'identity progression feats' but also had potential feat slots wasted with the generic shared caster feats. Seriously, the only unique Metamagic feat Witch gets is Split Hex, at 18th level? Man, that sucks.
And while yes, a lot of this *could* be helped by a better selection of feats in the future books, that also still doesn't help the 'either progress in your class or don't' feeling that Witch gives.
Wizards *AT LEAST* get great spell slots and don't have a real identity holding them down. One wizard can focus on metamagic and the other can focus on the feats that give them access to more spells and even focus spells in general and neither will walk away feeling like they 'missed something'.
I guess as an example of a similar thing that I don't find egregious - Clerics also have to spend feats on their Focus Spells. But, at the same time, if you ask me, a Cleric's identity isn't *mainly* on their focus spells - it's a combination of their Doctrine and their god's divine powers - which are both baked-in to the class via the Doctrine and the Divine Font, along with the extra spells on their list. Two Clerics of Sarenrae could diverge, too - one decides to focus on their god's domain spells and the other on improving their font or... I dunno, only taking 'Hands' feats. Either way, neither of them feel like less of a Sarenrae Cleric than the other.
I like the idea of baking in the Lessons with level progression. Even if it was just two baked-in lessons to get you to 3 Focus Points and 3 non-cantrip Hexes, and you had to use a feat to get Extra Lessons along the way, that STILL goes a long way in making Witches diverse but *also* not making them feel like they had to not be as Witchy to do so.
I dunno, this post is all over the place but that's kinda how I am with the Witch - I don't dislike it's current incarnation, I just feel like it's having an identity crisis of sorts in a way. It was sold as a Focus-spell-based class with a better-than-average familiar... who has to pay their way into Focus Spells. At least we get Familiar Ability progression for free, which is nice, but regardless of your stance of familiar viability it's still only half of what we 'were promised' so-to-speak.
@BigHatMarisa
That's pretty much why I wanted better Patrons. So that the Witch had actual class paths that fit their theme better while allowing the feats to be the variant choices. Like the best classes do.
If the Patrons were designed more thoroughly, like Instincts, Mysteries, Causes or even Sorcerer Bloodlines (these aren't a great example, but they're still pretty flavorful AND have several interesting feats expanding them), then a Witch wouldn't be less of a "Witch" if they didn't chose the Lesson feats at higher levels.
Treating Patrons as Domains wasn't the best way to go, because Clerics and Witches have a very distinct identity AND the domains can afford to be light on flavor because gods are an integral part of Golarion and have a ton of lore to work with, from how clerics dress to Boons and Curses they can give their followers.
Several members of this forum, including me, tried to bring this aspect of the class into focus and how important it was to give it more depth. Sadly, while the Patrons were given a little bit more (which isn't hard, since they were a meaningless "feature", it is even generous calling them a feature, in the Playtest) it is still a far cry from potential and possibilities that such concept could achieve.
Will say it once again. Keeping thing vague isn't helping anyone, since homebrewing and "reflavoring" isn't contingent of having agnostic feats. Quite the opposite, actually, since with a developer-made framework it is much easier to create satisfying and balanced homebrew that fits the DM and Player's wishes.
The question is what would said Patrons actually give?
If the class is sold around Focus Spells and familiars - which, I guess it doesn't *have* to be since we're speaking in hypotheticals anyways but in the case we're still trying to keep things close to the original mechanical sell - would the Patrons give unique Hexes based on their teachings? I mean the Focus Cantrips are great examples of how unique each Patron can already be at the start. Maybe the baked-in Lessons you get can be that Patron's 'signature hexes' and then you can take feats to gain more 'generic hexes' later on from the list?
So, like, taking the Fate patron gives you 'True Strike' cantrip for example, but at, i dunno, levels 5 and 10 (or 4 and 8 or what have you) they give you... Roll the Bones and Red String, two non-cantrip Hexes that also bring you up to 3 Focus Points. Then you can still take a Basic Lesson or whatever at level 6 to gain life boost.
Because I'll admit I do like having the choice of what hexes I want, but having some more cohesion between theme and mechanics is nice, too, so maybe that's a good even ground? Maybe the free Lessons can also give you a known spell, too, like the feat-costing ones, maybe they don't. I don't know why they wouldn't.
I think the pick-a-list satisfies the old PF1 Patron class feat's 'unique known spells' thing, and 'unique patron hexes' would be a nice natural progression that at least bring all Witches up to *par* on their advertised Hexing.
I'm aware of what the PF1 Patron spells were like, I'm simply saying that the 2e pick-a-list is what that became. "Your Patron decides what magic you learn" and such. Considering the Witch had a good amount of spells in PF1 that ended up spread across all lists in PF2, (it's hard to ignore losing Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning as an occult witch feelsbadman) I think pick-a-list still has plenty reason to stay, both thematically and mechanically.
I liked the idea of patron-unique familiar abilities, as above in the thread, yeah. Honestly I think those *and* baked-in lessons could both exist in the class together without it becoming 'overloaded' or anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually prefer that patrons are more freeform. That gives me so much more flexibility in flavor than a fixed list of deities or similar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it is only one fork in the road, after all, though I'm not sure what it would 'take away', per se. The idea being that the Patrons would still be freeform in *idea* as they are now (Fate, Curse, etc.) but instead of having a list of *bonus spells* like in PF1 it gives (for the sake of argument) two unique hexes.
So, you can still choose from the list of hexes we already have if you decide to take Lessons. So, for example again, say I pick Fate as my patron's theme. I gain Nudge Fate as my hex cantrip and add True Strike to my familiar. Then, at level 2, I choose Basic Lesson as my feat, choosing Lesson of Life for the Life Boost hex (and adding Spirit Link to my familiar). Then, at level 4, my patron gives me the (unique) Roll the Bones hex. I can still choose a feat at level 4 because my class already had that lesson baked in.
It's a simple (and kind of balance-ignoring) solution which only seeks to add things to the Witch without taking anything away. Since, honestly, it seems a good portion of people here agree that the Witch feels like it needs *more*, not a readjustment of what we have. It also preserves the structure of the current class (which I have admitted I currently like).
Another change not to do with hexes could be related to those unique patron familiar abilities. Perhaps, instead of gaining new *slots* for familiar abilities every 6 levels, your familiar just gained a patron ability that doesn't count against its point total every day. For example, if you had a patron with the Dragon theme, at sixth level, your familiar gained a Breath Weapon ability (which had to be of a damage type fitting of your patron).
And Rex, I think the current system in place is probably the most freeform it can get *mechanically* while still having the choice matter for gameplay immediately. At the moment it's more like picking a Domain rather than picking a specific god.
Like two Witches of a Fate theme can have completely different sources for that theme, just as a domain can be split between tens of gods. There's still plenty of room for flavor. For example Reiki's (my Witch) conversion into 2e changed her from her old theme of Enchantment and into Fate, but the idea stayed the same - her familiar materialized in the Forest of Spirits from the concentrated emotions created by one of Daikitsu's trysts with Nalinivati. This was 'Enchantment' back in PF1 due to the spells being mind-affecting and heavily focused on the state-of-mind, all things easily manipulated when controlled by powerful emotions like love. That love theme turned into Fate in 2e, as love is sometimes viewed to be a fated thing, or even a fate-denying thing.
But that Fate theme could just as easily come to another witch through other means, like a splinter group coven of a luck god or something. You can really go nuts flavor-wise with what we have, and what we're suggesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware of what the PF1 Patron spells were like, I'm simply saying that the 2e pick-a-list is what that became. "Your Patron decides what magic you learn" and such. Considering the Witch had a good amount of spells in PF1 that ended up spread across all lists in PF2, (it's hard to ignore losing Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning as an occult witch feelsbadman) I think pick-a-list still has plenty reason to stay, both thematically and mechanically.
I liked the idea of patron-unique familiar abilities, as above in the thread, yeah. Honestly I think those *and* baked-in lessons could both exist in the class together without it becoming 'overloaded' or anything.
Based on Baba Yaga who sort of already gets a "unique familiar ability" I do wonder if the end goal for the class may *have* intended to be each patron gets a unique familiar ability and then lessons were baked in (but still freeform)
But options are just super light right now on lessons.
Like if night patron looked like this:
Night bound Familiar
Ability cost 2
Granted abilities darkvision and one ability of your choice
When your familiar is adjacent to the target of your shroud of night, they can only ignore the effects of a failure if they possess greater darkvision.
Then allow higher level abilities (like kinspeech and spell battery) that can be purchased as well.
__________________________
It's like the bricks were there, they just never got placed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware of what the PF1 Patron spells were like, I'm simply saying that the 2e pick-a-list is what that became. "Your Patron decides what magic you learn" and such. Considering the Witch had a good amount of spells in PF1 that ended up spread across all lists in PF2, (it's hard to ignore losing Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning as an occult witch feelsbadman) I think pick-a-list still has plenty reason to stay, both thematically and mechanically.
I liked the idea of patron-unique familiar abilities, as above in the thread, yeah. Honestly I think those *and* baked-in lessons could both exist in the class together without it becoming 'overloaded' or anything.
It has become really clear that Paizo devs highly evaluates the "pick your spell list" feature, while most players only treat it as a small option.
I, for one, am on the camp that "pick a spell list" hardly constitutes as that big of a deal since they are mainly generic lists that other classes have access to, thus they have nothing particularly "Witchy" (Or sorcery-specific for that matter) about them and when you ultimately look at this feature, it is largely irrelevant from a mechanical standpoint since you only get to pick one anyway and there's very little crossover, at least not enough to warrant the "cuts" made to these classes.
By the way, a few pages ago I made a post giving my very rough ideas of what a mechanically deeper patron would look like in my mind. Nothing specific, though. But it was deleted for some reason. It basically structured the deal you made with your patron, specifying the kind of deal, benefits, restrictions, demands, payments, etc. With that framework, there could be more mechanics tied to them associated with each aspect, kinda like Oracles have flavor+mechanics on their Mysteries and on their Curses as well, on top of that the deal made with the Patron could act as tenets that Druids, Clerics and Champions are behold to (with plenty of space to adhere to the letter of the deal, of course).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Swashbuckler and Investigator have really strong core identities though, along with great feats that are both flavorful and mechanically sound.
Singling out the Oracle as the only class with significant mechanical changes is a disservices to both of them. Specially when we consider that the Swashbuckler's reception in its playtest form was probably the biggest success so far with the Investigator only failing in giving better combat prowess, but having a much stronger thematic identity than its PF1e counterpart from the get go (The investigative feats of the class are definitely great design examples within Pathfinder2e).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were, for example, to play a rune patron witch instead of wizard I would lose 33% of my spell slots and an extra max level slot for the ability to cast discern secrets cantrip. Same familiar, same casting stat, same armor, saves, weapons...really?? Archetypes have more differentiation but this is an entire class!
I've noticed the same thing. You can see it my first homebrew Witch buff proposal here. It quickly became apparent, however, that people didn't like the change to spellcasting (a safer and easier option with a past precedent) in favor of better hexes, so I tried to make a second version.
I still think that even with my proposed, egregiously buffed hex cantrips, Witch needs another buff to really compete.
I don't think it's fair to say that pick-a-list isn't a big deal, at least in terms of what classes get what. They may be more generic, yes, but your spell list choice is still very important when playing a Sorcerer/Witch. There's a reason that the core casters (and Oracle) are built around having a single list, after all. It can be considered 'their defining style.'
Now, do I think it should be considered as part of a class's "power budget" when designing it? ...Not really. As you said, you only get one , and currently we don't have any sort of Serve Two Masters to get funky with mixing and matching and such things probably won't come for a while since it toys with the Four Lists system in a way the designers currently haven't seemed to be comfortable with yet.
But it *is* still an important way to define your Witch. After all, a Witch that chose the Primal list will almost definitely play different to one that chose the Occult list.
I think the only problem I see with a 'deeply mechanical' patron as the way I'm perceiving your summary of it is that it would take a *lot* of text for that. Oracles do have plenty of flavor and mechanics meshed together with their Mysteries, and to do that means that each mystery took up literally half a page of text. If you're wanting to go even more in-depth than that with bargains/restrictions/similar things it'll take even more than that.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still say Paizo does not value "pick your spell list" highly as the sorcerer has no real weaknesses for doing so.
Paizo values the 1 action hex cantrips highly. That is why the witch is weaker than the wizard in overall casting.
If you will notice, even with a "pick your spell list" trait the sorcerer has 4 spells per level. But what it lacks is a 1 action cantrip like the witch has. That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My primary take on the Witch is that it isn't suitable for every player, every table, or every campaign. Some people, some GM rulings, and some campaign types are going to make Witch unusable.
Issues - Things that are going to indicate that you are in one of those categories where Witch is not suitable:
* GM rulings that make Familiars not usable outside of combat. Familiars are already not usable much during combat, so having table rulings that don't let them do anything without constant monitoring and commands makes Familiars completely forgettable. Not good for a class that features Familiar so heavily.
* Campaign (or rather, table of players) that focuses almost exclusively on combat, with maybe enough plot to make the combat meaningful. Pretty much every other class - with the likely exception of Alchemist - is better at combat than Witch is. Witch is still relevant in combat - certainly not a detriment to the team, but not a powerhouse either. So if your DPR is all that is valued, pick a different class.
* Campaign that is static. Only a handful of skills are needed, and/or only needed rarely. Enemies are predictable and the same tactics generally work on them. The flexibility of Witch won't be valuable. Pick a class that is better at those things that are valued.
-----
What I feel that Witch is really good at: being flexible. Alchemist (again) is likely the only class that is better at it since the Witch has to select spells and familiar abilities during morning preparations, while Alchemist can keep reagents on reserve for contingencies.
I'm actually surprised that people who play PFS don't value Witch higher. Maybe because PFS focuses too much on combat? Because there are a lot of things about Witch that can be reconfigured after you find out what party your are playing with that day and what the adventure is going to be like. No retraining needed for choosing different spells and familiar abilities.
I remember in D&D 3.5 that the Bard was considered the best 5th player character class. The first 4 were the standard monster food groups: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue. But Bard could fill in for many of the other roles - second string for everything, as needed. That is what I see Witch doing now. Being second string for a bunch of different roles at the same time.
Consider that no matter what tradition you pick, at 2nd level Basic Lesson can give you something that will fill in for the weakness of that tradition.
Arcane (no healing): Lesson of Life (arguably tied for 1st place focus point healing spell)
Divine (no good damage spells - at least at low levels): Lesson of Elements (good blasting spell and Hex to boost its damage effectiveness)
Primal (hard to target Will saves): Lesson of Vengance (two good Will save spells)
Occult (hard to target Reflex saves): Again, Lesson of Elements.
So by 2nd level you have a single character that can be relevant at anything that the party is missing. Whatever is needed, that one character can handle it.
-----
So what is the equivalent to the above list of the reasons to not pick a Witch? What criteria of player, GM rulings, and campaign would make Witch shine the best? My thoughts:
* GM that allows the Familiar to be useful out of combat. graystone and I hashed out the various rules ambiguities and possible rulings and the consequences of such in a different thread, so here I am just going to say that if you do have the GM/table rulings that let Familiars do stuff, then you are going to be a lot happier with Witch (or any other class/character that buys in to a familiar).
* Skill encounters having as high of screen time and importance to the campaign as combat encounters do. With the Witch having INT as class ability, they generally have a bunch of trained skills. Add the Skilled familiar ability of the Familiar and that one character can definitely be a good skill monkey. Probably not quite as good as a Rogue (but the point isn't to outshine the Rogue at being a Rogue). But the Witch will generally be better ant INT skills instead of the DEX skill that the Rogue tends to lean towards. (And have a full set of spells too...)
* Varied adventures. Having a dungeon delve one day, a stealth/infiltration the next, followed by a chase/tracking/apprehension the day after that is going to make the flexibility of the Witch really useful.
-----
Things that I think could be published/houseruled to make the Witch better:
Ability to get other Hex cantrips. Probably though a low-level feat.
Getting some of the Lesson feats for free during level up. Though I would still want to be able to take Major Lesson multiple times at higher level.
Witch-specific familiar abilities. More of the same abilities that other characters can get is good, but not great.
Fixing/replacing some of the feats that are just broken. Looking at you Living Hair and Eldritch Nails.
Proper subclass that will give some things that are currently feats (Druid style subclass). Like a 'Nature Witch' that gives Wortwitch automatically. Or 'Brewing Witch' that gives Cauldron. Maybe one that I can't come up with a name for that would give Cackle. But still leave all of these feats available for purchase without any other prerequisites (unlike Druid subclcass feats).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.
It's conceptually powerful, but I think they overvalue it in some of these circumstances.
As rnphillips points out, compared to the wizard the rune witch has fewer spells per day and no arcane bond and picks up... a trained skill and +1 to recall knowledge. That's not a trade most wizards would make if given the opportunity.
It's a little muddier for other comparisons, but they're not great either, imo. The other 3-slot casters have much better chassis and druids and clerics know significantly more spells.
And phase familiar is definitely down toward the bottom in terms of starting focus spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And phase familiar is definitely down toward the bottom in terms of starting focus spells.
I mean it's pretty much there to get a focus point for the Witch and allow people to take more risks with their familiar.
I think breithauptclan makes some solid points in regards to familiars and GM restrictions. If an entire class feature is rendered useless because the gm doesnt allow narrative play or players don't value/use the familiar, then that's an entire class feature being wasted.
Familiars were core to the PF1 Witch too, it's not like the direction of familiars being integral is some weird thing out of left field.
Like if we gms just decided Take The Case does nothing, that obviously wouldn't be fair either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a valid point that witches are worse in campaigns with more restrictive familiar rules, but I think it's being emphasized vastly too much. It's not like familiars are witch specific or even a particularly difficult thing to pick up. The only special thing witches get is the ability to revive their familiars faster, which probably gets worse the more generous your GM is about familiars, not better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.It's conceptually powerful, but I think they overvalue it in some of these circumstances.
As rnphillips points out, compared to the wizard the rune witch has fewer spells per day and no arcane bond and picks up... a trained skill and +1 to recall knowledge. That's not a trade most wizards would make if given the opportunity.
It's a little muddier for other comparisons, but they're not great either, imo. The other 3-slot casters have much better chassis and druids and clerics know significantly more spells.
And phase familiar is definitely down toward the bottom in terms of starting focus spells.
The power problem is mostly just that a lot of the Witch's hex cantrips aren't powerful enough to replace an entire spell slot like Inspire Courage is; if your patron cantrip is something you actually do want to cast every round like stoke the heart or evil eye then the witch is sitting in a much better place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's fair to say that pick-a-list isn't a big deal, at least in terms of what classes get what. They may be more generic, yes, but your spell list choice is still very important when playing a Sorcerer/Witch. There's a reason that the core casters (and Oracle) are built around having a single list, after all. It can be considered 'their defining style.'
Now, do I think it should be considered as part of a class's "power budget" when designing it? ...Not really. As you said, you only get one , and currently we don't have any sort of Serve Two Masters to get funky with mixing and matching and such things probably won't come for a while since it toys with the Four Lists system in a way the designers currently haven't seemed to be comfortable with yet.
But it *is* still an important way to define your Witch. After all, a Witch that chose the Primal list will almost definitely play different to one that chose the Occult list.
I think the only problem I see with a 'deeply mechanical' patron as the way I'm perceiving your summary of it is that it would take a *lot* of text for that. Oracles do have plenty of flavor and mechanics meshed together with their Mysteries, and to do that means that each mystery took up literally half a page of text. If you're wanting to go even more in-depth than that with bargains/restrictions/similar things it'll take even more than that.
Some of my propositions would leave open space for the GM and Player to work around with (satisfying those that want vague things), with the whole thing offering an framework that expressed the mechanics (for example, a willing bargain between patron and witch is very much different from a coerced one, this would allow for some freedom). And on top of gaining one cantrip hex as Witches currently do, they would gain more powers pertaining their patrons (such as Demon/Devil oriented ones would get special benefits in deception or intimidation, for example. Or Fey, and similar, patrons granting illusion-based abilities).
The idea was to let the player+GM decide the relationship between Patron and Player, then having the system codify the benefits, duties and payment (Or punishment, since I don't think an atonement ritual would be fitting for breaking a deal with a dark power).
Also, just to clarify, I do think that having access to different spell lists is a good boon for a class, my gripe with this is that this is a very generic benefit that takes away from a class' unique identity (given what we've seen so far from these classes), specially when it comes to feats (something that all casters suffer from).
To me, it's a very similar problem to Starfinder's Archetype, they are very generic and price paid is flavor (and often strength as well).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The power problem is mostly just that a lot of the Witch's hex cantrips aren't powerful enough to replace an entire spell slot like Inspire Courage is; if your patron cantrip is something you actually do want to cast every round like stoke the heart or evil eye then the witch is sitting in a much better place.
The bard cantrips are sitting at the probably too good end of the spectrum especially Dirge of Doom (no save , effectively stacks with almost every thing)
Nothing will look good compared to them. But still the witch could use some fractionally better options.| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My primary take on the Witch is that it isn't suitable for every player, every table, or every campaign. Some people, some GM rulings, and some campaign types are going to make Witch unusable.
If that is indeed the case, then the Witch is a complete failure as a class, since fitting multiple concepts and all kinds of campaigns is, very much likely, the main condition for it existing a class in the first place.
Otherwise, it would've been an archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The power problem is mostly just that a lot of the Witch's hex cantrips aren't powerful enough to replace an entire spell slot like Inspire Courage is; if your patron cantrip is something you actually do want to cast every round like stoke the heart or evil eye then the witch is sitting in a much better place.The bard cantrips are sitting at the probably too good end of the spectrum especially Dirge of Doom (no save , effectively stacks with almost every thing)
Nothing will look good compared to them. But still the witch could use some fractionally better options.
Well yeah I'd agree, if you actually compare 1:1 Inspire/Dirge are much better than Stoke - they fill the same design space of replacing a spell slot with something you can use reliably though, and I'd say Stoke is closer to "proper" balance tuning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.It's conceptually powerful, but I think they overvalue it in some of these circumstances.
As rnphillips points out, compared to the wizard the rune witch has fewer spells per day and no arcane bond and picks up... a trained skill and +1 to recall knowledge. That's not a trade most wizards would make if given the opportunity.
This is only when looking at the core chassis. By including the feats, Witch gets the ability to learn a healing spell. Also gets better focus spells generally, more focus points, and can recharge more than one focus point at higher levels.
Wizard might be able to do something like that by multiclassing, but Witch gets to keep the Archetype slot open.
Arcane Witch makes a better Bard than a Wizard does.
Also, a more minor nitpick, that +1 to recall knowledge doesn't have to be done by the Witch. Cast it on a different character who is better at doing the recall knowledge already. They get to do it once for free right then. It also applies to some perception checks, which can be useful in battles against stealthy enemies, or for detecting a mind-controlled character during a social encounter. Discern Secrets is actually one of my favorite Hex Cantrips.
And phase familiar is definitely down toward the bottom in terms of starting focus spells.
Fully agree with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still say Paizo does not value "pick your spell list" highly as the sorcerer has no real weaknesses for doing so.
Paizo values the 1 action hex cantrips highly. That is why the witch is weaker than the wizard in overall casting.
If you will notice, even with a "pick your spell list" trait the sorcerer has 4 spells per level. But what it lacks is a 1 action cantrip like the witch has. That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.
Bards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My primary take on the Witch is that it isn't suitable for every player, every table, or every campaign. Some people, some GM rulings, and some campaign types are going to make Witch unusable.If that is indeed the case, then the Witch is a complete failure as a class, since fitting multiple concepts and all kinds of campaigns is, very much likely, the main condition for it existing a class in the first place.
Otherwise, it would've been an archetype.
Imagine a campaign where social encounters, skill encounters, and RP are primarily all that happens. You only have an actual combat every few sessions and it is always against minor threat level enemies.
How good would Barbarian and Fighter look in those campaigns.
Does not working well in this type of campaign mean that Barbarian and Fighter were poorly designed and should have just been archetypes?
Now turn it around. If you have a campaign that is primarily combat and RP - where social encounters and skill encounters are rare and generally only against trivial level DCs. Witch doesn't look good in those campaigns. Does that really mean that Witch should have been printed as an archetype? Just because this scenario of this type of campaign is more common, doesn't mean that Witch is bad. It just means that your play-style isn't a good match for Witch. Yours isn't the only play-style that is played.
No class is going to shine in all types of campaigns and play-styles.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards.I still say Paizo does not value "pick your spell list" highly as the sorcerer has no real weaknesses for doing so.
Paizo values the 1 action hex cantrips highly. That is why the witch is weaker than the wizard in overall casting.
If you will notice, even with a "pick your spell list" trait the sorcerer has 4 spells per level. But what it lacks is a 1 action cantrip like the witch has. That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.
Yes, bards. Bards pay for their composition cantrips by having one less spell slot than Sorcerers do. This is exactly the thing Deriven was talking about
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is only when looking at the core chassis. By including the feats, Witch gets the ability to learn a healing spell. Also gets better focus spells generally, more focus points, and can recharge more than one focus point at higher levels.Wizard might be able to do something like that by multiclassing, but Witch gets to keep the Archetype slot open.
Arcane Witch makes a better Bard than a Wizard does.
You're not wrong. My problem with this line of thinking though is that the whole issue then becomes predicated on the Witch picking the correct feat. There are twelve class feats that open up to the Witch at level 2 and then dozens of archetypes they may or may not qualify for as well. My sorcerer dedication fighter and medic ranger and familiar master wizard and so on and so forth don't feel like they're hacking apart their own identity because of it, but for the Witch it just seems fundamentally true.
Lessons help a lot, but imo that's part of the problem and why I tend to focus on the chassis. Far too much of the Witch feels backloaded onto these feats.
No class is going to shine in all types of campaigns and play-styles.
They won't, but general usability should still be a goal for classes and I don't think the unique talents the Witch brings to social and skill encounters are all that noteworthy either.
They're certainly not bad in those scenarios, but not exactly in unique or exceptional ways either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at it, when comparing Bard and Witch as others have, it would be nice if Witches didn't have the stupidly long lockouts on their cantrips. 1 minute is, like, *most* combats (which I think was kinda the point). At least that would make the one cantrip you *do* get a lot more meaningful. (And frankly Bard's composition cantrips should gain at least a small one but that's not only my opinion, but a whole other can of worms.) If we don't get the ability for more Hex Cantrips, then at least don't lock us out of the one if it fizzled the first time! Pathfinder 1 Evil Eye and most of the other hexes were good enough to justify having the cooldown because they were practically *all cantrips*.
Even if it were something like Evil Eye having a 1d4 round-per-target 'recharge' similar to a Breath Weapon, with the slight randomness allowing for a nice variation in turns. Some... probably shouldn't even have a cooldown at all (Looking at you, Discern Secrets and Wilding Word and Shroud of Night). It would be nice if we didn't have them at all, but sometimes part of me thinks that someone at Paizo is convinced that "the enemy wising up to your tricks" is also part of the core identity of Witch...
My primary take on the Witch is that it isn't suitable for every player, every table, or every campaign. Some people, some GM rulings, and some campaign types are going to make Witch unusable.If that is indeed the case, then the Witch is a complete failure as a class, since fitting multiple concepts and all kinds of campaigns is, very much likely, the main condition for it existing a class in the first place.
Otherwise, it would've been an archetype.
Imagine a campaign where social encounters, skill encounters, and RP are primarily all that happens. You only have an actual combat every few sessions and it is always against minor threat level enemies.
How good would Barbarian and Fighter look in those campaigns.
Does not working well in this type of campaign mean that Barbarian and Fighter were poorly designed and should have just been archetypes?
Now turn it around. If you have a campaign that is primarily combat and RP - where social encounters and skill encounters are rare and generally only against trivial level DCs. Witch doesn't look good in those campaigns. Does that really mean that Witch should have been printed as an archetype? Just because this scenario of this type of campaign is more common, doesn't mean that Witch is bad. It just means that your play-style isn't a good match for Witch. Yours isn't the only play-style that is played.
No class is going to shine in all types of campaigns and play-styles.
I don't know who your table does things, but in mine Barbarians or Fighters wouldn't be left out of the social part of the game at all. And they're also very much on the same playing field compared to most classes in terms of what they can do with skills (since very few of them get more skill feats and increases).
They may not be nowhere near close to skill-monkey classes, but the new skill system allows for all classes to enjoy out-of-combat spotlight as well, specially since Charisma has been significantly improved for all classes due to its combat utility (through intimidation, feint, Bon Mot, etc.)
The only different between the two proposed scenarios is that one is very much our reality, since Pathfinder 2e has a big focus in combat and most of its published adventures (one of the main ways of playing for most tables) feature it heavily, while purely social scenarios and sessions aren't solely reliant on having a good skill sheet.
I get what you mean, though, and it isn't entirely wrong, but I think that the Witch class should have more interesting things and deserves it.
Which is why I keep hammering on that Patron nail, because it's a unique mechanic of the Witch, instead of familiars. Hell, the entire concept of familiars, flavor-wise, is that they're just conduits between Patron and Witches, why the hell they warranted so damn much focus in the first place?
Ultimately, the classes that don't focus on their uniqueness always fall short compared to others, because class identity is what drives player to pick them. Generic features like Familiar, Spell Lists or store-bought items and cross-class feat should be just yet another kind of flavor within the class, not the main focus (imagine if Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers and Rogues have most of their feats equal and the minority unique? That's the same). Or at least, if it's the main focus, it better bring something very unique to the table, such as Summoners having their own kind of unique summon (disregarding the implementation).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason Witch's familiars are warranted so much Focus is because, in many cases, they're the primary modus of interaction between the Witch and their patron. There are lots of more reasons why a patron may not want to talk to their witch directly - they don't have all the time in the world, after all, and may be patron to more than one Witch, or cleric, or what have you - Hell, some patrons might not even be physically present, but are abstract concepts or coalescences of powerful energy like Ley Lines or something. For (the eventual) Outer God or Dark Tapestry witches out there, there's even the argument that the patron doesn't acknowledge the Witch at all.
Thusly, the Familiar is, for most intents and purposes, either a communication/teaching tool, or the direct teacher. That is why they are not only your spellbook, but also supposed to be 'better' and one of the primary foci of the class.
Familiars as a concept may not be unique to the Witch, but the idea is supposed to be they have the best and most complex relationships with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.It's conceptually powerful, but I think they overvalue it in some of these circumstances.
As rnphillips points out, compared to the wizard the rune witch has fewer spells per day and no arcane bond and picks up... a trained skill and +1 to recall knowledge. That's not a trade most wizards would make if given the opportunity.
It's a little muddier for other comparisons, but they're not great either, imo. The other 3-slot casters have much better chassis and druids and clerics know significantly more spells.
And phase familiar is definitely down toward the bottom in terms of starting focus spells.
I don't think those wizard players are analyzing very well. I would take the witch over the wizard every day for certain builds.
Occult spell list is better at debuffing. Evil Eye hex cantrip is a 1 action sustainable fear 1 time per minute per enemy. You can build a nice debuffer as a witch.
Stoke the Heart is a damage buff for any class using any weapon or spell. It's a flat +2 to 6 status bonus to damage for anything that does damage. If you want to make a good healer, you can make a good witch healer.
Clinging Ice is a 1 action sustainable cantrip that can be used 1 time per minute per target. It aligns with the Primal Spell list which is good nuking spell list.
I don't think a min-max player would overlook the power of these 1 action hex cantrips versus a wizard's extra spell slot which is resisted roughly 40 to 50% of the time and is a finite resource. Where as a hex cantrip is a virtually infinite resource that is castable in the same round as another spell.
An evocation wizard has to spend a focus point to cast a 1 action magic missile that maxes at 5d4+5 damage without chance of critical hits or misses. Whereas Clinging Ice does up to 10d4 damage with possible critical hits and misses and a sustainable movement slowing effect. That's a very comparable and useful 1 action cantrip.
I've seen a Fervor and an Evil Eye witch in action. Both performed better than the wizards I've seen due to the hex cantrips. Hex cantrips are an infinitely useable and useful action that matches the effect of most spells a wizard can cast to do something similar. And it uses only 1 action. Which leaves the witch to do other things like move, use a weapon, cast a spell, or the like.
I think more people would choose a witch over a wizard with an optimal build.
The power problem is mostly just that a lot of the Witch's hex cantrips aren't powerful enough to replace an entire spell slot like Inspire Courage is; if your patron cantrip is something you actually do want to cast every round like stoke the heart or evil eye then the witch is sitting in a much better place.That is what is Paizo values. And they are right to value it. A 1 action cantrip is very powerful in combination with regular spells and abilities.It's conceptually powerful, but I think they overvalue it in some of these circumstances.
As rnphillips points out, compared to the wizard the rune witch has fewer spells per day and no arcane bond and picks up... a trained skill and +1 to recall knowledge. That's not a trade most wizards would make if given the opportunity.
It's a little muddier for other comparisons, but they're not great either, imo. The other 3-slot casters have much better chassis and druids and clerics know significantly more spells.
And phase familiar is definitely down toward the bottom in terms of starting focus spells.
The druid and the bard are the only casters I consider on par with the best martials like a fighter or champion. Comparing a witch or any caster other than a druid to a bard is asking to be disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah I'd agree, if you actually compare 1:1 Inspire/Dirge are much better than Stoke - they fill the same design space of replacing a spell slot with something you can use reliably though, and I'd say Stoke is closer to "proper" balance tuning.
The power problem is mostly just that a lot of the Witch's hex cantrips aren't powerful enough to replace an entire spell slot like Inspire Courage is; if your patron cantrip is something you actually do want to cast every round like stoke the heart or evil eye then the witch is sitting in a much better place.The bard cantrips are sitting at the probably too good end of the spectrum especially Dirge of Doom (no save , effectively stacks with almost every thing)
Nothing will look good compared to them. But still the witch could use some fractionally better options.
You really underrate Stoke. Stoke is quite powerful and one of the better witch options. AoE spell? Stoke. Whirlwind attack? Stoke. Dual Slice? Stoke. Arrow volley? Stoke. Storm of Vengeance damage in a 1000 foot radius? Stoke damage bonus. Alchemist using bombs? Bonus stoke damage.
It's a flat damage bonus to any damage roll. Stoke the Heart is a very good spell, very, very good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, bards. Bards pay for their composition cantrips by having one less spell slot than Sorcerers do.
Bards.
Honestly that can’t be the case. The default number of slots in this edition is 3 and it eats a considerable amount of the “class budget” to get that extra slot.
The Bard is, IMO, the most powerful class mechanically by a considerable margin. To the point where I feel with a few tweaks to its martial performance that it could lose its Occult spellcasting entirely and still be considered strong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heyyy, looks like the Ruby Phoenix APs gave Witches a full Living Hair path to go down, so that's pretty cool. Don't know how good it is since it only goes up to 1d6 - seems mostly useful for attempting combat maneuvers and delivering hexes with reach... even though all the enemy-targeting hexes of 2 actions have 30 feet range. The Capstone is cool, too, making you quickened for one free hair Strike a round.
But, uh, that doesn't mean you can cast a spell and then deliver a 2 action hex each round because delivering the hex makes the Strike a part of the Cast a Spell action, not its own action... so you don't get to use the quickened action for it.
I mean you could cast a spell, sustain one, and then clobber someone for 1d6, but meh.
I mean I guess if you've got enough Dex hitting with finesse hair wouldn't be too bad, and damage is damage, but it's certainly no Int to hit like in PF1.
Honestly, could they not make delivering the hex part of the Strike and not the other way around? It just feels awkward. You can't even like upgrade the hair damage farther than 1d6, not even a clause for Handwraps like Kitsune's Foxfire gets.