| 1 person 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.
Right now, Investigators with MC Witch can get better use out of the hair than full witches can. They can use Int for attack rolls (and get Strategic Strike damage) or for trip and disarm (via Athletic Strategist). It's especially good as a melee weapon for archery-focused Investigators.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just at the half way mark for catching up with this thread (200 of 400), but a Search didn't turn up Unchained, so:
I wouldn't mind see a rework in this class. I'm not familiar with how paizo handles these issues and if there's ever been a rework on classes before. {. . .}
In Pathfinder 1st Edition, we had Pathfinder Unchained, and that released reworks of the Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner. The Barbarian was already pretty good, but I get the impression they wanted to make it more user-friendly (and maybe nerf it slightly). The pre-Unchained Monk was pretty bad, but some of the archetypes for it (back when ALL archetypes were class archetypes) had upgraded it to be decent, so the Unchained Monk was made incompatible with all of them. The pre-Unchained Rogue was pretty bad (along with many of its Rogue Talents), but the Unchained Rogue was left compatible with all of the pre-Unchained archetypes (but not all of the pre-Unchained Rogue Talents), except that PFS had the specific ban of the combination of the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype with Unchained Rogue (at least for a while -- not sure if they ever changed that). The pre-Unchained Summoner was overpowered, although I would say not as overpowered as some made it out to be, and Pathfinder Unchained hit it with a nerfsledgehammer, both in power and in flavor.
So from the 1st half of this thread, it sounds like what's needed is a Pathfinder 2nd Edition Unchained, which would include a Witch Unchained. I am not yet sufficiently Trained in Pathfinder 2nd Edition to have a guess which other classes need a Pathfinder 2nd Edition Unchained treatment on a power basis. But on a flavor/versatility basis, I did note that of all the classes out as of early July 2021, only Fighter and Monk don't have any equivalent of a Dogma/Muse/Racket/Order/School/Thesis/etc., whereas every other class has one of these, except for Wizard which has two of them. So my (semi-informed) vote would be for Pathfinder 2nd Edition Unchained treatment of Fighter, Monk, and Witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The arcane witch, which is what was being talked about, gets neither of these things.
So... doesn't really help much.
| 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.
More importantly: They are really cool. With ton of unique feats, good chassis and despite the Muses being the "smallest" class path (just a name and a feat), they somehow feel unique in their concepts and playstyles.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't even like upgrade the hair damage farther than 1d6, not even a clause for Handwraps like Kitsune's Foxfire gets.
The clause is reminder text. Both can be upgraded by Handwraps just fine, because they're both unarmed attacks.
So from the 1st half of this thread, it sounds like what's needed is a Pathfinder 2nd Edition Unchained, which would include a Witch Unchained. I am not yet sufficiently Trained in Pathfinder 2nd Edition to have a guess which other classes need a Pathfinder 2nd Edition Unchained treatment on a power basis. But on a flavor/versatility basis, I did note that of all the classes out as of early July 2021, only Fighter and Monk don't have any equivalent of a Dogma/Muse/Racket/Order/School/Thesis/etc., whereas every other class has one of these, except for Wizard which has two of them. So my (semi-informed) vote would be for Pathfinder 2nd Edition Unchained treatment of Fighter, Monk, and Witch.
It isn't a problem to not have a subclass/class path, necessarily; the lack was called out during and after the playtest as being due to the huge versatility of the two classes' feats and playstyles, and this has largely been borne out. Fighter is very strong, and Monk is very flexible; they don't need the help, but they're also not in need of nerfs.
Witch would be a good candidate for an Unchained-style book, if Paizo were to develop any interest in such a thing, as would Alchemist. They have their fans, like all of the other classes, but both seemed to be victims of big attempted mechanical changes clashing with time and resource crunch, and both have perceived issues with their chassis and necessary feats.
People can and do quibble about other classes, but not in as widespread or consistent a way, other than Wizard — and I don't think Wizard would need much more than better feats over time, a more obviously competitive spell list, a Barbarian-style chassis tweak, or a Fighter-style soft-buff (something more effective than Combat Stamina) to win more people over. A lighter touch, in other words, and some of that is potentially already arriving in Secrets of Magic soonish via new spells and class archetypes it can take advantage of.
My surprise candidate for revision would be Cleric. I think the doctrine structure is fundamentally kind of broken and difficult to make new things with, Warpriest is unsatisfying at the chassis level, and it overall got a big change after the playtest which has landed pretty awkwardly and limited its capacity for growth, even if it remains a pretty strong class.
But, like I said, people can quibble about classes forever. I think it would mostly only be Alchemist and Witch who would need Unchained-style revisions, Wizard (and Rogue's weird weapon proficiencies) also being there to a lesser extent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The arcane witch, which is what was being talked about, gets neither of these things.
So... doesn't really help much.
Would this mean that, apart from the arcane witch, the witch is fine and a viable choice?
What I mean to say is that 1 tradition out of 4 ( or even better, 1 patron out of 7 ) which doesn't shine ( or to put it simply is underpower compared to alternatives ) seems not a big deal.
The original comparison was limiting both the Witch class and the Wizard class to the specific subtypes that most resemble each other. So Wizard with Familiar Thesis, and Witch with Arcane tradition (Rune patron specifically since that is all that is printed so far).
The other comparison that gets made a lot is Witch vs Bard because both classes have Focus point Cantrips and both can (almost have to in Bard's case) be built around buffing the party.
For the Wizard comparison vs Rune Witch, at level 1 the Witch gets one more trained skill, more weapons to be proficient with, and their familiar revives every morning (all other choices being equal). The Wizard gets one more spell slot (which applies to all other levels above 1st as well), Drain Bonded Item, and a focus spell that is more useful than Phase Familiar.
So for being a powerful magic caster, Wizard is already ahead by quite a bit. The Witch is never going to be a better Wizard than the Wizard is.
But the Witch can be a better Bard than the Wizard is. Even that Rune Witch can be. Other patrons even more so.
Similar results happen when comparing Bard to Witch (typically Curse patron) Evil Eye doesn't compare well to Inspire Courage, and Bard gets more HP, better armor, more weapons, and better focus spells.
Witch also isn't a better Bard than a Bard is.
And really it shouldn't be. If Witch was more powerful than one of the other spellcasting classes, then it would completely replace that class. That's not good.
And yes, Witch is a bit on the low end of the power curve. Probably enough that it deserves some buffs at some point. And it isn't going to appeal to all players. There are (and really, always should be) more powerful options to pick for a particular purpose. For party healer spellcaster, Cleric is more powerful. For party buffs and enemy debuffs, Bard. For blaster caster, Sorcerer (or Druid possibly).
For me personally, one of the meta problems that I have with being a player is that I can get bored with a character. Doing the same thing every encounter gets repetitive and I lose interest. I can't stand playing Bard. But being able to change up my character every morning to adapt to the current needs of the campaign - or even just on a whim to see what new combinations I can make use of - that is valuable to me. And that is something that I don't get from any of Cleric, Oracle, Bard, Sorcerer, Druid, or even Wizard (though Wizard does come close).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For party buffs and enemy debuffs, Bard.
This bolded isn't really true.
Bards don't even have get a Composition Debuff until level 6 (Dirge of Doom), and when they are using DoD, they cannot be buffing the party. And that costs a Class Feat.
The fact that a Witch can have access to multiple debuffing hexes before a Bard even gets its first one and a Witch can buff and debuff at the same time (no multiple hex sustain limitation) is reasonable.
The flexibility to be able to do both (buff/debuff) favors the witch IMO.
I don't care how much you value Dirge of Doom, it's not available for 25% of the Bards levels, costs a feat, and locks them out of Inspire Courage. Calling Bards "best debuffers" is a stretch. Without Dirge of Doom, it'd be hard to argue they are even a debuffer at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would this mean that, apart from the arcane witch, the witch is fine and a viable choice?What I mean to say is that 1 tradition out of 4 ( or even better, 1 patron out of 7 ) which doesn't shine ( or to put it simply is underpower compared to alternatives ) seems not a big deal.
I think the issue that I and others are finding with the witch is that regardless of tradition, it is inferior to the existing primary caster of that tradition. Wizard gets pointed out most since it's the other int caster and it's very easy to see the disparity.
The cleric has a bunch of extra spell slots for healing, knows all spells by default and has better class feats.
The druid has better feats, knows all spells and has good or better focus spells.
The bard has the best focus spells in the game and excellent class feats as well.
Follow that with the cleric and bard also going into cha which has the better skill based actions/feats and druid's martial flexibility. I suppose the druid can also go into cha since its primary stat is wis unlike the witch which can't without sacrificing one of its saves.
The thing witch has over these is some slight crossover with its focus spells letting you dip outside the normal confines of your tradition, but it doesn't get much mileage there. Even then, the sorc has crossblood so it isn't as good at crossing over as the other pick-a-list caster either (plus the advantage sorc has being cha based).
I think the issue that I and others are finding with the witch is that regardless of tradition, it is inferior to the existing primary caster of that tradition. Wizard gets pointed out most since it's the other int caster and it's very easy to see the disparity.
Which is why classes need to focus on unique aspects. Having varied generic options that everyone else can get is not going to cut it. If the Witch's core premise and unique flavor isn't satisfying, then it isn't justifying itself as a class. Again, one of the primary aspects that takes for it to have a class.
Cavaliers, Ninjas, Samurais, Inquisitors and many other PF1e classes won't ever become PF2e classes, the same goes for the many archetypes in the game that are mainly playstyle enablers (focusing on specific weapons and whatnot) and won't even appear at all.
My view on the class is that it isn't fully realizing its potential and in my opinion it would've had a much better chance of doing so if its main focus was on the Patron, instead of the familiar.
For example, the fact that you don't have any inherent feature baked into the class to talk with the Patron just doesn't sit right with me. I mean, Clerics can commune with their deities, which is a far less personal relationship compared to Witches (which justifies them requiring using Commune spells), but Witches, given their close relationship with their patrons (vague entities status notwithstanding) would be a perfect benefit for them to have at higher levels (which could be approached as a negotiation or coercion depending on how your character engaged with the patron).
The thing that makes Witches different from other casters is not that they have fancy familiars (Everyone can have a fancy one, even if it requires more effort), it's the fact that they're entangled with their Patrons, which is a fundamentally different relationship that a Cleric has with their deities. Even if in PF1e they were vaguely bad, given the example of other classes (Alchemists and Oracles), we can be certain that major overhauls weren't off the table.
Imagine if Patrons gave a way to commune with them for more bargains, special rituals tied to their motif, physical/mental benefits associated with their nature, at will hexes like we have right now and more hexes directly tied to their themes instead of being largely flavorless? That would be a lot cooler, in my opinion. We already have feats that give plenty choice (some of those feats could act as bloodline evolution, for those that want more out of their patrons), nothing wrong with Patrons being a more complete package.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Patrons and familiars are whatever, let me focus up on hexes and hex cantrips!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
inherent feature baked into the class to talk with the Patron just doesn't sit right with me.
The familiar is the inherent featured baked into the class. It literally states that both in Familiar and Patron.
I feel like this is PF1 Familiar baggage being carried over. PF1 familiars and PF2 familiars have very different levels of engagement both mechanically and narratively.
"Let Witch familiars actually do what their text says they do" I guess is my response. It's not like this is ambiguous at all. It outright says exactly what the familiars' relationship to the caster and patron should be in plain text.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One issue with these threads I'm noticing is the number of people who are like "Yes, and the Witch, which everyone accepts is weak..." or "It's clear they value multiple lists..."
None of these things are 'clear' forum feedback is notoriously unreliable and there are people in the threads with as much or more system mastery disagreeing with you, we should not be appealing to consensus we don't have in our arguments.
Patrons and familiars are whatever, let me focus up on hexes and hex cantrips!
While I didn't make it clear, my whole idea about the Patrons being better defined and a treated as the core focus of the class [u]would definitely[/u] enable a lot more Hex Cantrips and Hexes, and given that they would have to be constrained to each Patron, they would be more flavorful, interesting and, hopefully, more powerful as well.
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.
The arcane witch, which is what was being talked about, gets neither of these things.
So... doesn't really help much.
Would this mean that, apart from the arcane witch, the witch is fine and a viable choice?
What I mean to say is that 1 tradition out of 4 ( or even better, 1 patron out of 7 ) which doesn't shine ( or to put it simply is underpower compared to alternatives ) seems not a big deal.
Not especially. It's just that the Rune Witch and the Wizard are the two options most readily comparable to each other. Cherry picking examples from mutually exclusive options that end up drifting further and further apart muddies that particular point of discussion.
It makes more sense to compare primal witches to, say, druids instead. I don't think that particular comparison is all too favorable for the Witch either though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One issue with these threads I'm noticing is the number of people who are like "Yes, and the Witch, which everyone accepts is weak..." or "It's clear they value multiple lists..."
None of these things are 'clear' forum feedback is notoriously unreliable and there are people in the threads with as much or more system mastery disagreeing with you, we should not be appealing to consensus we don't have in our arguments.
I think Witch and Alchemist have as close to a consensus as you're gonna get without them being truly undeniably terrible. There are always going to be defenders of subpar options (even ones with system mastery, because they're the ones most likely to get closer to par with optimisation, like 1e Monk), so if you use that as a metric for what you should or shouldn't discuss Errata/buffs for then you won't be discussing it much at all. I'll concede there are always going to be critics of fine options as well.
I'm not saying Witch/Alchemist are certainly subpar (though I do personally think they are), just that any option having defenders doesn't mean that they shouldn't be discussed in the context of Errata/updates, as that kind of widespread opinion is at least indicative of an issue with the option's reception and expectations.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Witch and Alchemist have as close to a consensus as you're gonna get without them being truly undeniably terrible.One issue with these threads I'm noticing is the number of people who are like "Yes, and the Witch, which everyone accepts is weak..." or "It's clear they value multiple lists..."
None of these things are 'clear' forum feedback is notoriously unreliable and there are people in the threads with as much or more system mastery disagreeing with you, we should not be appealing to consensus we don't have in our arguments.
First of all, grouping alchemists and witches in the same space is not even remotely equal. That to me comes off as deliberately framing the argument to suit what you personally believe. Alchemists have clear numerical issues that are evident. Every Witch argument is based on the value of abstracts (how good hexes are, how good familiars are, etc.)
Secondly, you don't even have a consensus on this thread let alone the whole forums. Not to mention the PT feedback and Reddit do not have the same "consensus" that you seem to believe exists here.
In fact, I don't even think all the dissenters in this thread agree on what's the issue. Up thread, someone is quoted as saying that 3 free Class Feats wouldn't solve any of the problems they have with the Class. Three free class feats that would put them considerably above the Wizard.
That tells me already that it isn't even really a power issue for some people, it's a "I don't like the Witch, I don't care if it has mechanical viability" issue.
That's hardly a "consensus".
I'm not saying Witch/Alchemist are certainly subpar (though I do personally think they are), just that any option having defenders doesn't mean that they shouldn't be discussed in the context of Errata/updates, as that kind of widespread opinion is at least indicative of an issue with the option's reception and expectations.
I mean should we just ignore all the detractors from all the other Classes?
"Swashbucklers are terrible because most of the game is against above level encounters, and Swashbucklers can never trigger panache"
"Investigators are terrible because we don't focus on narrative and only combat so over half my class features are useless"
"Wizards are terrible because all of the focus school powers are bad"
Ad naseum.
______________________________
There is no consensus and acting like there is one to support personal qualms with a class is a logical fallacy. Thirty passionate people on a forum don't make for a rigid representation of fact.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't necessarily think the Witch is weak - especially when you take the fact that party dynamics allow for one Witch to be able to fill almost any non-martial hole imaginable, its versatility is great and as I said, I do *like* the current iteration.
I do think, however, that we have to invest a lot more than other classes to get to what the class advertises.
From the APG Witch blurb: "Through a special familiar, your patron grants you versatile spells and powerful hexes to use as you see fit..."
We do get an inherently better familiar numbers-wise (though I just wish we got more interesting unique abilities to pick for those familiars, which in the current system is possible and might come in the future, but for now it's lackluster). And we do partially get the 'versatile spells' in the pick-a-list dynamic.
However, the other part of the 'versatile spells' and the 'powerful hexes to use as you see fit' are locked behind Lesson feats - meaning in reality not every Witch does in fact have versatile spells or enough hexes to use as they please.
I was curious how much two baked-in Lessons would change my Witch's build, so I hopped into Pathbuilder and gave her a free feat at 4th and 8th level, which had to be spent on a Basic and a Greater Lesson. And I gotta say I felt much more happy even considering the other feat options without the burden of losing out on the feeling of 'being a Witch' during encounters. Sure, I still took Major Lesson I and II - but that was because I felt like they fit the character's theme, not because I didn't feel like I had enough hexes. I was even allowed to push a couple feats earlier and even took Conceal Spell (which I couldn't fit in the build before because Basic Lesson was in the way, even though I knew my character would want to do that real bad).
Does this really prove anything? Not really - nothing other than "If you give someone free feats they get more freedom to choose more feats". But honestly, considering most of the other Witch class feats (at the moment, anyhow) are either Metamagic, alternate playstyles, or 'get familiar more better', it didn't feel like I was becoming more 'vertically' powerful, if that makes sense. If anyone would be willing to try this in a game and say if it felt 'too versatile' or not that'd be great, but obviously that's easier said than done, and it doesn't fix the flavor disconnects that some people still have that aren't me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a decent argument that can be made for the following:
- Lesson Feats should not be a choice, they should be built into the class because they dwarf their competing options and the competing options don't necessarily create a higher power ceiling
- Witch Familiars deserve their own abilities they could access to separate them from others besides bonus abilities and so all witches don't need Specific Familiars to compete mechanically
- Some Hex cantrips and Class Feats are under-tuned and limited list options means themes compete with selections
Now I don't necessarily think the witch needs that much of anything or much at all in terms of general power.
The issue happens with a Witch that goes Wildling Word in a city campaign because it fits thematically, never picks the Lesson featsin favor of Eldritch Nails and Hair, and is in a campaign where the GM is restrictive on familiars to the point where they become cardboard cutouts.
The player made narrative choices that fit their concept that ultimately resulted in a much weaker powerpoint than most Classes (and most Witches).
But a player that picks Evil Eye, Basic Lesson, Enhanced Familiar, Greater Lesson, Faerie Dragon? I have a hard time seeing how that caster isn't extremely effective.
If there is a problem to me, it's the differential not the Class as a whole.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say more 'okayish' than 'extremely effective' but otherwise mostly agree with Midnightoker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Midnightoker as well - and personally I think the biggest problem lay in the fact that the Witch, like Oracle, had expectations of a theme going into it. Yet, unlike Oracle, the major themes that bind the chassis of the class together can be skipped altogether by someone, completely unbeknownst to them.
Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Bards all either don't have a pervasive defining theme to their class (Like Wizard, the generic smarty boy) or their defining themes are given to them naturally with *extras* they can decide to lean into later. (This, of course, brings back the topic of Wizard probably needing a look-over to actually gain a theme of their own but that's a topic for another thread).
Sorcerers have a similar style of the Witch, being super flexible background-based caster, but while they can skip their bloodline Focus Spells, they can't skip the extra spells known through bloodline nor the signature spells that come with being a spontaneous caster, which still helps them feel unique.
If you look at martials, it's a similar story - everyone that isn't Fighter gets special baked-in feats that help progress the idea of the class without having to spend extra feats for it - you still *can*, you just aren't forced to. Fighter makes up for this lack of 'progression' by just kinda being able to do whatever they want since they always get Attack of Opportunity and Combat Flexibility, letting them just kinda vibe with whatever hodgepodge you pick.
It makes more sense to compare primal witches to, say, druids instead. I don't think that particular comparison is all too favorable for the Witch either though.
Agreed. A primal Witch is not going to be as good of a Druid as a Druid will.
Witch could kinda look similar with Wild patron and Wortwitch feat. Get Rites of Convocation with Summon Animal too.
Druid still has better HP, much better armor, nice focus spells, knows all of the primal spells automatically, and can either transform into an animal, has an animal bodyguard, has an even better blasting focus spell, or has an even better healing focus spell.
Primal Witch ... can be an absolute **** and counterspell Heal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look at witch and see a reskinned wizard.
It is also a reskinned Bard, a reskinned Druid, and a reskinned ... well Oracle actually. Patron is similar to Mystery and lack of Divine Font make Witch much closer to Oracle than to Cleric.
Anyway, the point is that the Witch is all of them at the same time. Mix and match your Witch build rather than comparing the limited features of Witch that look the-same-but-worse to the class you are comparing against.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I know based not on opinion, but because of game performance and player sentiment.
1. The witch is more fun to play and build than wizards by my player who enjoys them due to hex cantrip providing a 1 action class ability that provides more than what a wizard school provides.
I would say wizard and witch feats are about on par. Both suck and players generally take multiclass feats in place of lame class feats with a few exceptions.
2. Stoke the Heart, Evil Eye, and Clinging Ice are the best hex cantrips as far as optimizing around.
3. A witch healer is a very good healer. Access to the Divine Spell list with Lesson of Life provides substantial healing and can carry the load in a group while providing a very potent damage buff that can be set up for use with AoE attacks and on any party member that makes a damage roll. It adds a lot of damage over a combat and is a great hex cantrip.
4. The wizard went from the most popular caster in my group in PF1 to the least popular caster in PF2. Every attempt to play a wizard in my group has failed due to the boring builds available to the class and a lack of effectiveness other than a lucky missed save on a key spell which any spellcasting class can do with better build options.
Even the witch has better build options with hex cantrips than the wizard which is why at least one player has fun making witches. He has made 2 witch healers and 1 occult witch, both he enjoyed and the 1 action hex cantrip was the main reason why. It felt so much better than raise a shield cantrip option the wizard used endlessly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reach + Grapple is kinda neat, even if it is kinda feat intensive.
Reach + Grapple is kinda neat, even if it is kinda feat intensive.
Funny, because before the Finesse errata, the one thing I thought would be problematic was DEX grapples if a Grapple Finesse every did come out.
But even with Reach Finesse Grapple I'm not sure if that's really abusable, especially on a witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you successfully cast a hex focus spell that requires 2 or more actions to cast and that doesn't require a spell attack roll, if your target is within your reach, as part of the spellcasting activity you can make a hair Strike against the foe before applying any effects of the hex. If this Strike misses, the hex has no effect.
Sigh
Hexes that cost two actions: Malicious Shadow, Curse of Death, Restorative Momemnt, Glacial Heart (Rare).
Three of them are Major Lessons, and Malicious Shadow you literally save one action get a Shadow that still increase your MAP.
That's the thing that bugs me. Like Elemental Betrayal would be awesome. Get yourself some Flaming Handwraps, and you've got Grapple Flaming Reach hair with Elemental Betrayal hex cast through your hair.
But Elemental Betrayal is only 1 action and thus doesn't qualify.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you successfully cast a hex focus spell that requires 2 or more actions to cast and that doesn't require a spell attack roll, if your target is within your reach, as part of the spellcasting activity you can make a hair Strike against the foe before applying any effects of the hex. If this Strike misses, the hex has no effect.Sigh
Hexes that cost two actions: Malicious Shadow, Curse of Death, Restorative Momemnt, Glacial Heart (Rare).
Three of them are Major Lessons, and Malicious Shadow you literally save one action get a Shadow that still increase your MAP.
That's the thing that bugs me. Like Elemental Betrayal would be awesome. Get yourself some Flaming Handwraps, and you've got Grapple Flaming Reach hair with Elemental Betrayal hex cast through your hair.
But Elemental Betrayal is only 1 action and thus doesn't qualify.
Yeah, that was kinda my problem with it, too. Like I get it - getting a spell for the equivalent of a whole action less is pretty powerful - if not for numbers, then for sheer economy and versatility.
But, like, did it *really* have to be restricted to two-action hexes? You already have to make an attack roll to hit someone or else the hex is completely lost regardless, and all the hex cantrips have a per-target cooldown anyways! And even if you *do* hit they still have to, you know, roll their regular saves anyways? It's basically just a feat that says "When you cast a two-action hex on an enemy that's within your hair's reach, you may perform a Strike against them as a free action."
Actually, that would be better - you don't waste the spell if you miss!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, all caught up!
Seems like in Pathfinder 2nd Edition in general, including the Witch, the diversity of options has taken a huge dive since 1st Edition, and it's going to take a LONG time to get back. (And yes, I know 1st Edition had plenty of trap options, but at least based upon what the guide writers have been saying so far, so does 2nd Edition.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can't really fairly compare the two - Pathfinder 1st edition had *ten years'* worth of content added to it, even more if you want to count things that could port over from 3.5e.
Pathfinder 2e has been out for a year and some time now, and the designers are doing their best to get 'caught-up' so-to-speak on the most wanted carry-overs while still maintaining quality.
And I'll say that 2e has a *lot* less "trap" feats than 1st edition, even relatively. This is due to the game being designed around 'vertical' growth (that is, your character getting 'better' at something numerically) being mostly automatic, and the feats you pick are designed more towards 'horizontal' progression (as in, the amount of options your character has at any given point in time). Sure, not every feat in every class is perfect (else we wouldn't have this thread, of course) but the main theme of the character-building part of the game seems to be in the direction of "flavor by feats, get better with time". There are still some feat "trees" of course, which allow you to get better at a theme you picked before, but they usually don't give you hard numerical advantage, rather giving you things like Extra Focus Spells or augmenting an action you have.
For an example pertaining explicitly to Witch characters, the new Ruby Pheonix adventure path's hair feats are a great point to look at. You take the Living Hair feat because you like the idea of a witch whose hair can beat the crap outta people and just generally be a threat. The later feats don't increase that damage (that can be augmented with just Handwraps, as somebody confirmed above), but they augment the hair with extra traits, like reach and the ability to channel certain Hexes through them. And yes, while they aren't the 'optimal' choice per se, and I think they could be better, that's not relevant to the argument - that being Pathfinder 2e's design is made such that "trap" feats typically only come about due to balancing, rather than the ideas of the feats. In an ideal world, you aren't missing core character progression when you pick any feat in the class.
...Which, of course, is why the Witch feels so out-of-place for me, and for a few others that agree with that consensus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And even things that are considered 'trap' options are typically only less powerful rather than actually bad. And even then, they are only less powerful in some types of campaigns and adventures.
For a standard dungeon delving adventure, Elemental bloodline Sorcerer is fairly powerful while Diabolic bloodline is less so.
But in a campaign where a Duke is trying to undermine the rightful king and bring the country into civil war and the party needs to rally political forces and expose the machinations of this Duke, but coming out in direct opposition to or even killing the Duke is out of the question... Diabolic bloodline would probably be more effective than Elemental.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And even things that are considered 'trap' options are typically only less powerful rather than actually bad. And even then, they are only less powerful in some types of campaigns and adventures.
For a standard dungeon delving adventure, Elemental bloodline Sorcerer is fairly powerful while Diabolic bloodline is less so.
But in a campaign where a Duke is trying to undermine the rightful king and bring the country into civil war and the party needs to rally political forces and expose the machinations of this Duke, but coming out in direct opposition to or even killing the Duke is out of the question... Diabolic bloodline would probably be more effective than Elemental.
This is more an issue between Primal and Divine than particular bloodlines. Skills wise you can build the Elemental Sorc just like the Diabolic sorc. The blood magic and focus spell are likely to be a bit more useful but its not a big deal. The real point of difference is the spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And even things that are considered 'trap' options are typically only less powerful rather than actually bad. And even then, they are only less powerful in some types of campaigns and adventures.
For a standard dungeon delving adventure, Elemental bloodline Sorcerer is fairly powerful while Diabolic bloodline is less so.
But in a campaign where a Duke is trying to undermine the rightful king and bring the country into civil war and the party needs to rally political forces and expose the machinations of this Duke, but coming out in direct opposition to or even killing the Duke is out of the question... Diabolic bloodline would probably be more effective than Elemental.
This is more an issue between Primal and Divine than particular bloodlines. Skills wise you can build the Elemental Sorc just like the Diabolic sorc. The blood magic and focus spell are likely to be a bit more useful but its not a big deal. The real point of difference is the spell list.
Which is kinda my point. Even things that some people (such as those making guides) look at and consider sub-par aren't actually terrible.
Dungeon delving with a Diabolic bloodline sorcerer wouldn't be terrible. They get Produce Flame as a cantrip and a couple other good fire damage spells from bloodline. And social-heavy campaigns with an Elemental bloodline sorcerer would also work fine. High CHA and good skill picks and you should be good to go.
I know 1st Edition had plenty of trap options, but at least based upon what the guide writers have been saying so far, so does 2nd Edition.
There are very few things that I would actually call trap options.
Playing Bomber Alchemist and expecting to throw two bombs per round all day.
Sorcerer's Shadow bloodline: The initial bloodline focus spell Dim The Light is fairly non-functional until much higher level.
That is about all that I can think of off-hand that is actually unexpectedly bad rather than just niche or designed for a different type of campaign.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, read the entire threat a couple times and I've put a lot of thought on this and here is my own worthless opinion.
I see a lot of people making comparisons between the Witch, the Wizard, the Bard, and the Druid in order to try and focus in on exactly what makes the Witch worse or be perceived as worse than these spellcasters by other players.
I think the primary problem with the Witch, besides a few options feeling very poorly optimized such as Wilding Word, is that regardless of how good or bad the Familiar is or how useful single action cantrips are, the Witch still just gets less stuff as a whole than their chassis suggests.
Just comparing the Witch and the Wizard, for example. The Witch gets the Familiar (which is almost identical to the Familiar Thesis and this is equivalent to the Thesis) and the Cantrip Hex. The Wizard gets his Thesis, the Drain Arcane Bond feature and the Arcane School which gives a Focus Spell. I'm not counting Phase Familiar because that is less a power and more there to cover the potential danger of loosing your familiar and not being able to cast spells. That leaves the Wizard with more extra things to do than the Witch fundamentally, but the Witch's thing is a cantrip and thus can be done more often, so which one is better is ultimately a matter of taste.
But the Witch still has one less spell slot per level, and even if you think the Witches extra abilities are better than the Wizard's, it's unlikely that they are going to be so much better as to justify that.
We can do the same think when looking at the Witch and comparing it to a 3-slot caster like the Druid or Bard. The Bard is probably the better comparison because it also has focus cantrips.
So we know the Witch has the Familiar and the Hex Cantrip.
The Bard has a Composition Cantrip, as well as a Composition Focus Spell out the gate that is meant to be a direct power increase and not something that just covers for a major vulnerability. They also get their Muse which gives a free level 1 feat and free spell (which is more of a power bonus for a spontaneous caster than a prepared caster). That's already more things than the Witch has, albeit not by much.
The bigger difference between the Witch and Bard is in the core chassis. 6 hit points vs 8, and much MUCH better saves (including up to Legendary in Will Saves), Perception, and Light Armor. Better weapons too, but those aren't really as big of a factor for a caster.
Same thing with the Druid. Slightly more extra features, the Order feat, the Order Focus spell (which may or may not be better than most other Focus spells, but again that's a matter of preference, your specific build, and more options on both sides can always change this balance for any class in the future), Wild Empathy, Shield Block. And a much better chassis, albeit not as good as the Bard but you still get 8 HP per level, your saves at an earlier level, and Medium armor.
Every single 3-slot caster has a much better chassis than a 4-slot caster and generally has more extra things than 4-slot casters. The Witch however has a chassis identical to the Sorc and Wizard and generally has as many extra things as the Sorc and Wizard. Are they better things? Worse? Possibly, but unlikely so much so that it changes how much it feels like you get extra things to do.
And when looking at all current casters in the game, they all follow this suit. 3-slot casters have a better chassis, ALWAYS including 8 HP per level, and more extra things as class bonuses than 4-slot casters. Cleric doesn't get as many extra things, but I'm willing to break my metric for Cleric because Cha+1 extra top level castings of Heal or Harm is just...easily way better than pretty much any other class feature except for spellcasting itself. Better than two or even three class features in some cases.
So to me, Witches do need a rewrite. There is a mold that every other spellcaster follows that is broken by the Witch by being a 3-slot caster that is in every other way built like a 4-slot caster.
To this end, I have thrown together my own Witch Unchained, which much more closely follows the Bard specifically for all of it's features. I chose the Bard because with a Focus Cantrip and Focus Spell at level 1, the Witch is far more similar to the Bard than any other caster. I tried not to write up my own new features or anything, but only worked within things already written by Paizo.
Chassis is 8 HP per level. Fort has Expert at 3 and Master at 17, Reflexes gets Expert at 7, same as before. Will gets Master at 9. Everything else in the chassis is the same.
As for extra features, I'll be honest, most of what the Witch has already is fine. I don't think that giving you the Lessons automatically is actually a good idea for the most part, since no other class does that. The Sorc doesn't get it's Bloodline Spells, the Wizard doesn't get the Greater School Spell, the Oracle doesn't get it's Revelation Spells, ext. as it levels up. While I do think the Witch needs better options for feats that can compete with the Lessons, I don't think that getting them automatically is going to happen.
But the Witch should get a Basic Lesson at level 1. Every other caster DOES get their basic level 1 Focus spell, including the Bard. I thought at first this would be predetermined by your patron, but I don't think that is actually needed. The Witch's whole shtick is flexibility. I would give the Witch this instead of Phase Familiar, and make Phase Familiar a level 1 feat. It works better this way, IMO, and gives the level 1 Witch more extra things that actually feel like an extra thing, even if it does leave the Familiar vulnerable.
I had considered giving the Witch a free level 1 feat based on their Magical tradition, Counterspell for Arcane, Wortwitch for Primal, Cackle for Occult, and Phase Familiar for Divine. But to be honest, I don't think this is necessary.
Comparing the Bard and the Witch now, the Bard still has a slightly better chassis with better perception all the way though, better armor and weapon proficiencies. They both have a Focus Spell and Focus Cantrip at level 1. The Witch gets a Familiar that is slightly better than a level 1 feat but also more of a liability and the Bard gets a level 1 feat. An extra level 1 feat would probably make the Witch a bit too good.
As a final bit, there should be a level 2 feat that lets the Witch pick up an extra Hex Cantrip from a different Patron. There is no real reason not to have this. The Bard can get plenty of extra hex cantrips. I personally would like to also see some higher level Hex Cantrips like Dirge of Doom or Allegro, but that is honestly probably not important and more mechanically unique other feats for the Witch would probably be better.
And...yeah. I think that's a good fix for the Witch. Other things could be tweaked. Some of the bad Hex Cantrips could do with some buffing. Wilding Word and Nudge Fate are just bad and Shroud of Night should heighten to magical advanced Darkness at some point, but again, all classes will have options that are suboptimal (those few I mentioned are just particularly egregious examples). And of course better feats in the future are a must-have. I feel like a lot of the Witch feats are kind of uninteresting and flavorless like the Wizard's, which is probably a relic of once being a 4-slot caster like the Wizard. As more feats are made (like the new cadre of hair feats which are really cool, if not the strongest), I feel like this problem will fix itself.
The witch gets a spell and a hex cantrip, similar to a bard muse and a skill.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much don't need the Witch to get 8HP and all that jazz. It's fine to have a 3 spell slot class with a caster chassis, you just have to *actually deliver* on the bonus features, which in this case was supposed to be useful and versatile hex cantrips. The cantrips we got aren't nearly as powerful as they should be, more niche than they should be, or both.
Give more hex cantrips and you'd see this class skyrocket in both player satisfaction and power.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the more hex cantrips is not really do a good difference here specially if these cantrip aren't good enough as the composition cantrips are for the bards. And even so I still thinks that's isn't enogth.
As you said few moths ago Temperans:
How it got here, well its best to look at the playtest forum and see the discussion being had back then and compare to what was released.
The four biggest points of debate:
1) Pick a list vs a single list, and how much power budget does pick a list take.
2) Hexes focus spells vs focus cantrips, and are focus cantrips worth losing 1 spell slot.
3) Lessons are weird.
4) Familiars are too frail for something that holds your spells, and a 1 week penalty for it dying is too much.
In the end the focus cantrips we have don't worth the losing of 1 spell slot per lvl. Currently if we simply add again this spellslot in the current chassis even keeping the current focus spells and cantrips the Witch become way more balanced compared to other spellcasters and no better than them. That's why I still don't imagine even better cantrips compensating the currently class drawbacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Witch should get a Basic Lesson at level 1. Every other caster DOES get their basic level 1 Focus spell, including the Bard. I thought at first this would be predetermined by your patron, but I don't think that is actually needed. The Witch's whole shtick is flexibility. I would give the Witch this instead of Phase Familiar, and make Phase Familiar a level 1 feat. It works better this way, IMO, and gives the level 1 Witch more extra things that actually feel like an extra thing, even if it does leave the Familiar vulnerable.
I actually think this might be enough on its own.
For one, it means the Witch can cast two focus point hexes besides Phase Familiar in a combat at level 1, takes the worst differential Class Feat option (Basic Lesson is a much worse offender than Greater/Major in my mind), and gives a good boost to their early game (I actually think their mid-late game is fine due to how they can build their action economy).
I mean if you can cast Life Boost twice per encounter at level 1, that's a pretty darn viable healer and actually opens up your level 2 Class Feat (for an archetype even).
Makes a lot of sense too considering how Druidic orders are done.
Not sure I agree with the "Class needs a rewrite", I'd say at worst it needs tuning in certain spots, but this particular suggestion seems to hit a lot of different complaint targets people have made in one shot, which is rather elegant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very much don't need the Witch to get 8HP and all that jazz. It's fine to have a 3 spell slot class with a caster chassis, you just have to *actually deliver* on the bonus features, which in this case was supposed to be useful and versatile hex cantrips. The cantrips we got aren't nearly as powerful as they should be, more niche than they should be, or both.
Give more hex cantrips and you'd see this class skyrocket in both player satisfaction and power.
The problem with that is that what actually delivers is going to be entirely subjective. Some people really place a ton of value on the single action cantrips and feel that the Witch is totally fine despite this.
My rambling, unfocused post was an attempt to quantify whether or not the Witch was actually missing anything and then if so to bring the Witch in line with other classes.
What I PERSONALLY would want? A 2-slot caster that has a chassis similar to a Bard, minimum 2 Hex cantrips that scale better than they currently do, a Basic, Advanced, and Greater Lesson built into the class without the need for feats, and to be the only class that can get up to 5 Focus points.
Would that be mechanically balanced? Possibly. But I wanted to create a suggestion more in-line with an existing framework.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the class needs a rewrtie, but it definitely feels like it's missing a little something. Being given a wizard chassis but cleric casting isn't the end of the world, but it does leave a little bitter aftertaste, especially when it's not necessarily clear what Big Thing is supposed to be so strong it justifies that worst-of-both-worlds chassis. The class isn't terrible, it isn't even that bad, but you pay a lot for what you get and it doesn't always feel like a good trade.
Even the defenses of the witch in this thread I've noticed tend to point more toward specific confluences of character options that are mechanically compelling, rather than overarching class mechanics or themes.
None of that is even addressing the more subjective complaints I've heard from players, like the hex limitation making it feel like the class ramps up really slowly, or the character feeling kind of one-note since they lean so much on a single cantrip for life, or that the class feels really flat against solos because you only get one shot to even land your cantrip and that if you can't leverage that then you really just sort of turn into a "generic spellcaster" (their words) more than a witch.
I mean if you can cast Life Boost twice per encounter at level 1, that's a pretty darn viable healer and actually opens up your level 2 Class Feat (for an archetype even).
Agree with your general point but minor correction, it's once per encounter and one additional time per day. You'd still be limited by refocusing conditions.