Joking aside, the familiar is their signature thing.
Is it though as there are plenty of other familiars around and multiple classes and ancestries that give them. Is a wizards Improved Familiar Attunement arcane thesis any less signature?
Joking aside, the familiar is their signature thing.
Their book is something they only pull out when switching spells: Arcane Bond is something you see then carrying around all the time, and for the Improved Familiar Attunement that's a familiar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to Raving Dork it's the DM's fault they don't allow familiars to do whatever they want without having to make rolls to do it. Familiars are better scouts than PC rogues or rangers with maxed out Stealth and Deception skills because they don't have to roll to scout or listen or burn forts down by knocking over torches or even be in range to command or anything. In his games familiars are extremely powerful. So the best way to use your familiar is find a DM that let's you use them far outside the rules. Then familiars will seem great in PF2.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to Raving Dork it's the DM's fault they don't allow familiars to do whatever they want without having to make rolls to do it. Familiars are better scouts than PC rogues or rangers with maxed out Stealth and Deception skills because they don't have to roll to scout or listen or burn forts down by knocking over torches or even be in range to command or anything. In his games familiars are extremely powerful. So the best way to use your familiar is find a DM that let's you use them far outside the rules. Then familiars will seem great in PF2.
I think you are distorting his position.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So coming to this a bit late, but if you wanted to make some quick and dirty house rules, most people could get behind this?
- Give Basic Lesson as a free class feature at level 1
- Be pretty supportive about familiars doing stuff and being a lively junior character
My Witch houserules are:
* Basic Lesson as a level 1 class feature.
* Move Phase Familiar to be a level 1 class feat.
* Add a separate level 4 archetype feat to Witch archetype to gain Basic Lesson. It also counts as removing the 'one less than normal' familiar ability.
* Add in the non-duplicate feats from Familiar Master at 2 levels lower than printed for the archetype to the Witch class feats.
This gives them their choice of level 1 Hex at 1st level while still keeping them at 1 focus point to start with. It also means that they actually have the best familiars in the game. You can poach that exceptional familiar through the Familiar Master archetype, but it will be delayed by a couple of levels.
In practice that is a huge difference in how willing a player is to send it into danger.
This has not really been my experience in play. People get pretty attached to their pets, I mostly see people treat the resurrection clause as insurance, not as a reason to make their familiar suicidal.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
* Basic Lesson as a level 1 class feature.
* Move Phase Familiar to be a level 1 class feat.
I was actually thinking this could be a legitimate errata contender, potentially with keeping basic lesson as a level 2 feat allowing a person to gain another basic lesson at that level.
But I think even the drop of pet cache and swap to a level 1 class feat is a pretty solid power distribution change.
That and the familiar expansion i've been working on.
Joking aside, the familiar is their signature thing.Is it though as there are plenty of other familiars around and multiple classes and ancestries that give them. Is a wizards Improved Familiar Attunement arcane thesis any less signature?
The thesis class feature is indeed a signature ability for wizards, albeit less so than familiars are for witches. Not sure what point you're making here?
This has not really been my experience in play. People get pretty attached to their pets, I mostly see people treat the resurrection clause as insurance, not as a reason to make their familiar suicidal.
I don't tend to think of a witch's familiar as a pet but as a partner. It literally teaches you spells. There's an implication of intelligence and agency that isn't present with, say, an animal companion. It becomes less icky if you don't think of it as a dumb animal and instead a fellow party member. And being willing to take risks for your friends is not the same as suicidal. Scouting is not the same as Final Sacrifice.
I'm sorry but to me that's an incredibly weak hill to plant your flag for the witch's existence in its current state. Being more gung-ho with your familiar is not a big selling point for a class.
*shrug.* It's working preeeetty great for me so far. The intel gathering has been clutch, and by comparison the sorcerer in our AoA campaign never let their familiar do anything.
The thesis class feature is indeed a signature ability for wizards, albeit less so than familiars are for witches. Not sure what point you're making here?
The point is that witches aren't special and their familiars don't provide a unique niche: lots of classes/builds/ancestries can get familiars so I'm the one not getting the witches "super solid niche" as it's pretty common, IMO, and it's not niche anymore when literally any PC can do it: they get some bonuses [like 1 day return from death] but get penalties [like no refocus or prepare spells without it] so it's pretty much a push IMO. Having a food source that replenishes everyday is more of a niche [being serious], as that's something unique.
I don't tend to think of a witch's familiar as a pet but as a partner. It literally teaches you spells. There's an implication of intelligence and agency that isn't present with, say, an animal companion. It becomes less icky if you don't think of it as a dumb animal and instead a fellow party member. And being willing to take risks for your friends is not the same as suicidal. Scouting is not the same as Final Sacrifice.
Myself, I don't agree: the familiar is a conduit and it's the patron that passes on the spells. There is no implication/indication of any more intelligence or agency than any other familiar: it's just a walking spellbook the patron can add spells to. In fact, the witch can Learn a Spell and add it to the familiar. As to less "icky", well that's up to the PC and group. I know someone that quite literally used their witch familiar [a chicken] as a food source.
Now, you can ascribe whatever intelligence and agency you wish as far as roleplay but I can't see any difference from other familiars that they are "more powerful" [bonus abilities] and quicker revival. For that matter you can roleplay any non-witch familiar that way too.
*shrug.* It's working preeeetty great for me so far. The intel gathering has been clutch, and by comparison the sorcerer in our AoA campaign never let their familiar do anything.
Familiar scouting is pretty hit or miss depending on how the DM runs minions out of combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
they get some bonuses [like 1 day return from death] but get penalties [like no refocus or prepare spells without it] so it's pretty much a push IMO.
Really feels like you're underselling the returning from death thing to me.
Myself, I don't agree: the familiar is a conduit and it's the patron that passes on the spells. There is no implication/indication of any more intelligence or agency than any other familiar:
From the APG: Your patron has sent you a familiar, a mystical creature that teaches you and facilitates your spells. Teaches implies there's a teacher/student relationship there, directly with the familiar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teaches implies there's a teacher/student relationship there, directly with the familiar.
I wish someone would write up some guidelines and light mechanics to help flesh out that kind of relationship between familiar and witch. Possibly with a set of familiar archetypes that help solidify a familiar into a more defined creature or being so it doesn't feel so nebulous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really feels like you're underselling the returning from death thing to me.
No, I'm balancing it out with the lose of Refocus until it revives. IMO, it feels like you're overselling the return from death or ignoring what you lose when it's dead.
From the APG: Your patron has sent you a familiar, a mystical creature that teaches you and facilitates your spells. Teaches implies there's a teacher/student relationship there, directly with the familiar.
Sure, it says teach once... Then you read the rules only to find out it doesn't teach you anything. "your patron teaches your familiar" and "Your familiar is the source and repository of the spells your patron has bestowed upon you, and you must commune with your familiar to prepare your spells each day using your witch spellcasting." Sure SOUNDS like it's a walking spellbook and it's just a mystic walkie-talkie.
And it you want to be pedantic, that favor text never says what it teaches you: It sure never say it's spells. Even if we make the leap that it teaches you spells, inanimate things can teach you things: for instance, you can learn from a book. As such, it's jumping to conclusions that it's smarter than any other familiar. If I learned Italian from Babble [like use the app and watch podcasts], it doesn't make my computer smarter than someone else's or give me a special relationship to it.
PS: you also note that the sentence right after the one with "teach" in it says it follows the normal rules for familiars. "This familiar follows the rules here, though as it's a direct conduit between you and your patron, it's more powerful than other familiars. "This familiar follows the rules beginning on page 217 of the Core Rulebook, though as it’s a direct conduit between you and your patron, it’s more powerful than other familiars." Nothing in the core rulebook mention anything about witch familiars being special. Again, it you want to roleplay it's special, then do so but it's not mandated to do so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally wanted hexes to be the big thing. The single target counterpoint to bard songs, with great unique buffs and debuffs. I would have been happy to forgo the familiar and just use a spellbook (which plenty of witches have in media). I like familiars to be opt-in.
Also given how few times I target a player's spellbook I would have been fine with a dead witch familiar existing as a spectral entity until it can be replaced.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted the familiar to be a bigger part of things they really needed to do a better job of connecting it with a Witch's patron and making each patron unique and interesting. As it is Witch's can basically forget which patron they picked after their first level for how much it matters mechanically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted the familiar to be a bigger part of things they really needed to do a better job of connecting it with a Witch's patron and making each patron unique and interesting. As it is Witch's can basically forget which patron they picked after their first level for how much it matters mechanically.
Yes, the rules could be more defined on what exactly the Patron and the Familiar mean to the Witch character.
But on the other hand, that is more of a flavor and character backstory thing. Personally I like that there are no hard and fast rules specifying what that relationship has to be.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping for a kind of serious reevaluation of the base Witch Class starting abilities on par with what was done for Alchemist because they are VERY much in the same kind of situation the Alchemist initially was in terms of MANDATORY Feat selection as well as a serious lack of actual benefits from their "Role" much like how the Alch was.
Truth be told, I'd also love to see the Basic Lesson benefits granted right away and ALSO made into 0 Focus Point cost Spells, they can go ahead and reimpose the legacy 1/day per target limitation for all I care but as it stands the various Hexes fall flat on their face if they can only be used a handful of times a day compared to the much more powerful Focus Spells other classes get, much less the Bard who has the BEST Focus Spells (hands down) which also happen to cost them 0 Focus Points to cast.
Again, I'd also like to see the wording on the MCA cleared up as far as the number of Familiar/Master Abilities they are supposed to get. They call the Familiar that is granted a Witch Familiar which tells us that it is used like a Spellbook without actually spelling that out but it leaves it very ambiguous if the Master/Familiar Abilities are supposed to be -1 or a regular Familiar or that amount the Witch Familiar normally gets. I don't really care which of the two shakes out but as it stands nobody can make an authoritative assertion that one interpretation or the other is correct.
Yes, the rules could be more defined on what exactly the Patron and the Familiar mean to the Witch character.
But on the other hand, that is more of a flavor and character backstory thing. Personally I like that there are no hard and fast rules specifying what that relationship has to be.
It should have rules, but I'd honestly take more fluff too.
I feel like PF1 and 3.5, because they used fixed class features instead of feats, could go more in-depth with how your relationship to your class changes at higher levels. Some classes could reshape you into an entirely new creature type, others asked for some interesting entry requirements that could build flavor when played at an actual table instead of just being a forum build. PF2 has to lack this because each character can, theoretically, be built with any combination of class feats available to them.
I'd like a PF3 to add more back onto each class's chassis or go to a fully feat-based class-less system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s really just the casters that lack features though. They only get 3-4, and most of them are their baseline focus spell, whatever adds to their spell list, and their 10th level slot.
Martials, including wave casters, get up to 10 class features depending on how you count them, which is almost as many class feats, and mostly stronger than class feats of the same level (albeit often only slightly).
It’s really just the casters that lack features though. They only get 3-4, and most of them are their baseline focus spell, whatever adds to their spell list, and their 10th level slot.
Martials, including wave casters, get up to 10 class features depending on how you count them, which is almost as many class feats, and mostly stronger than class feats of the same level (albeit often only slightly).
The Ranger gets 7 unique class features, everything else is a number booster that would have lived on a table in PF1. Rangers in PF1 had 10 class features plus spellcasting.
However, the issue isn't just comparing feature to feature. It's that a PF2 character could be built with any combination of class feats so you can't devote a lot of page space to any given feat and can't assume as many things about what a member of a given class will look like as you could in PF1. This naturally makes it hard to get deep into each mechanic and makes lore writing even tougher.
Those archetypes never got as much love as the base classes in terms of lore so I have no idea what this is supposed to be saying.
The core class got plenty of lore. While the archetypes got just enough to tie in the new abilities.
Unlike PF2 that has almost no real lore in the core or the feats.
Okay, so we agree on that then. I was saying that PF1 had more ability to give classes lore due to more fixed class features and thus class identities.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes we agree on that. But I think that the problem is how they decided to write the class in PF2. They had plenty of ways to write lore for the core. But it would mean cutting into all the "play suggestions" and all the other wasted space.The CRB could probably be at least 10 pages shorter if they just reviewed the terribly unhelpful layout and arrange things in a useable fashion. Then they could add back in the lore with pages to spare.
Personally, I don't know so much about the layout being the core of the problem so much as the mixture of mechanical and casual writing mixed together.
I would have personally much preferred a FAR more mechanically refined and codified set of RULES for all of the RULES sections of the books that omit pretty much 100% of the "fluff/flavor" from them while preserving that writing and information to instead present it later on in the Setting and Lore sections of the book where they include ZERO mechanical/rules content. Alas, that isn't what we got and I'm sure others would disagree that doing it this way would be wise too but... idk /shrug
Personally, I don't know so much about the layout being the core of the problem so much as the mixture of mechanical and casual writing mixed together.
That could be the case. I haven't peered over the CRB recently as PF2 has been on the back burner for other games of late.
Other editions have done mixed rules and fluff too, but they generally had a more strictly codified system so you could tell the two bits apart. PF2 just does a poor job with ensuring they don't use mechanical terms in their fluff and has a habit of just leaving bits out where we expect clarification. I suspect that they don't have a large proofreading and editing team nor a large staff of internal playtesters to help spot things like this.
Yes we agree on that. But I think that the problem is how they decided to write the class in PF2. They had plenty of ways to write lore for the core. But it would mean cutting into all the "play suggestions" and all the other wasted space.The CRB could probably be at least 10 pages shorter if they just reviewed the terribly unhelpful layout and arrange things in a useable fashion. Then they could add back in the lore with pages to spare.Personally, I don't know so much about the layout being the core of the problem so much as the mixture of mechanical and casual writing mixed together.
I would have personally much preferred a FAR more mechanically refined and codified set of RULES for all of the RULES sections of the books that omit pretty much 100% of the "fluff/flavor" from them while preserving that writing and information to instead present it later on in the Setting and Lore sections of the book where they include ZERO mechanical/rules content. Alas, that isn't what we got and I'm sure others would disagree that doing it this way would be wise too but... idk /shrug
That’s how D&D 4e’s powers were laid out, but as everyone knows 4e bad and every idea it had needs to be thrown into the dustbin of history.
That’s how D&D 4e’s powers were laid out, but as everyone knows 4e bad and every idea it had needs to be thrown into the dustbin of history.Yes we agree on that. But I think that the problem is how they decided to write the class in PF2. They had plenty of ways to write lore for the core. But it would mean cutting into all the "play suggestions" and all the other wasted space.The CRB could probably be at least 10 pages shorter if they just reviewed the terribly unhelpful layout and arrange things in a useable fashion. Then they could add back in the lore with pages to spare.Personally, I don't know so much about the layout being the core of the problem so much as the mixture of mechanical and casual writing mixed together.
I would have personally much preferred a FAR more mechanically refined and codified set of RULES for all of the RULES sections of the books that omit pretty much 100% of the "fluff/flavor" from them while preserving that writing and information to instead present it later on in the Setting and Lore sections of the book where they include ZERO mechanical/rules content. Alas, that isn't what we got and I'm sure others would disagree that doing it this way would be wise too but... idk /shrug
In all seriousness, I think it is safe to say that PF2 incorporated some stuff from 4e. Didn't both games share designers?
But at the same time divorcing the mechanics from the flavor feels consident with the biggest criticism I'm aware of: abilities between classes didn't feel different than each other.
Which is also something to keep in mind when we talk about Fighters being better or witches being worse. PF2 did a lot to improve the game balance but there is a point where too much symmetry is bad. Some folks think PF2 isn't balanced enough, and others think it is too balanced.
|
|
Some folks think PF2 isn't balanced enough, and others think it is too balanced.
I think, if anything, that's a great sign that the system struck a balance (heh heh) between allowing differentiation between characters while making sure that trap options and obviously OP stuff were dramatically cut down on.
There is a good amount of value in the edition, truth be told, but at least for me, I wasn't even willing to give it the time of day because it felt like a betrayal of my dollar to even flirt with the idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is also something to keep in mind when we talk about Fighters being better or witches being worse. PF2 did a lot to improve the game balance but there is a point where too much symmetry is bad. Some folks think PF2 isn't balanced enough, and others think it is too balanced.
I don't think I've ever heard someone claim PF2 is too balanced (setting aside that the whole concept of 'too balanced' suggests some zero-sum component that seems antithetical to the nature of the game).
I think you can argue that some aspects of PF2's design are too symmetrical though, which is where I think the witch struggles since spellcasters have so many defining features.
But that's an example of symmetry hurting balance, not enhancing it, so we need to be careful just treating the two as synonyms.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that most of the time, when somebody says that PF2e (or some other system) is "too balanced," what they mean is that they want some option that excites them to be mechanically stronger, and they're told that it shouldn't be for the sake of balance. That makes balance look like a design problem to that player. Some players want the things they're doing to be a little unfair (in their favor), and that's not necessarily a bad desire to have (one of the appeals of a TTRPG is that it can serve as a power fantasy). Few people are willing to say something like "wizards should be stronger than everybody else because they're wizards," at least nowadays, but they might chafe at the idea that win-the-game spells are carefully controlled for the sake of balance, because they like the idea of having and using win-the-game spells.
I think that most of the time, when somebody says that PF2e (or some other system) is "too balanced," what they mean is that they want some option that excites them to be mechanically stronger, and they're told that it shouldn't be for the sake of balance. That makes balance look like a design problem to that player. Some players want the things they're doing to be a little unfair (in their favor), and that's not necessarily a bad desire to have (one of the appeals of a TTRPG is that it can serve as a power fantasy). Few people are willing to say something like "wizards should be stronger than everybody else because they're wizards," at least nowadays, but they might chafe at the idea that win-the-game spells are carefully controlled for the sake of balance, because they like the idea of having and using win-the-game spells.
That might be the case, but for me I want everybody to have a couple of those aces up their sleeves, especially at high levels. I might go so far as to design something that gives each class a unique action that costs a hero point and can only be used when they're below 1/4 HP. Get that limit break, desperate act feel into the game in a fun way.
I'd also give certain bosses similar actions.
Yes we agree on that. But I think that the problem is how they decided to write the class in PF2. They had plenty of ways to write lore for the core. But it would mean cutting into all the "play suggestions" and all the other wasted space.The CRB could probably be at least 10 pages shorter if they just reviewed the terribly unhelpful layout and arrange things in a useable fashion. Then they could add back in the lore with pages to spare.Personally, I don't know so much about the layout being the core of the problem so much as the mixture of mechanical and casual writing mixed together.
I would have personally much preferred a FAR more mechanically refined and codified set of RULES for all of the RULES sections of the books that omit pretty much 100% of the "fluff/flavor" from them while preserving that writing and information to instead present it later on in the Setting and Lore sections of the book where they include ZERO mechanical/rules content. Alas, that isn't what we got and I'm sure others would disagree that doing it this way would be wise too but... idk /shrug
This came up in playtest and was universally hated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in playtest and was universally hated.
It might have been more popular but it wasn't universal [ie, 100% agreed]. It wasn't my preferred writing layout for instance.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Information dense technical writing is all well and good when you're looking at a rule, feat, spell, etc. in isolation, sure. But when you're working through like 40 pages of spells, it makes that stuff totally unreadable.
|
|
I can certainly say that I really didn't enjoy having the flavour texts removed from most of the rules sections - reading through the Playtest CRB cover to cover was a real struggle, everything felt generic and I often caught myself having to read a page several times to actually process everything it was saying, because it just wasn't keeping my attention. Obviously how much it impacted me varied over the course of the book, but there were at least sections where it was a substantial effect.
Information dense technical writing is all well and good when you're looking at a rule, feat, spell, etc. in isolation, sure. But when you're working through like 40 pages of spells, it makes that stuff totally unreadable.
It also came across as incredibly hard to parse in general when people were looking at class feat lists as well, I recall, which is deadly when people are looking at those to figure out what class to play.
But when you're working through like 40 pages of spells, it makes that stuff totally unreadable.
I personally have no issue with its readability. For instance, unlike Arcaian, the Playtest CRB was a breeze to read and much better for parse that the actual one as there weren't any flavor speedbumps.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested to see the witch in the apg reprint. I won't get my hopes up just in case they don't change it at all, but the thought of possibly getting a lesson or maybe cackle instead of phase familiar at lvl 1 brightens the witch for me considerably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested to see the witch in the apg reprint. I won't get my hopes up just in case they don't change it at all, but the thought of possibly getting a lesson or maybe cackle instead of phase familiar at lvl 1 brightens the witch for me considerably.
Considering one of the complaints from the playtest was that Cackle was to be moved from being a permanent class fixture (it used to be), I would say the Lesson is the best bet if anything happens.
Honestly, I feel like Phase Familiar could literally just be deleted and you give the Witch Pet Cache as a free spell known. Having Phase Familiar when your familiar is already immortal just feels redundant anyways.
That might be the case, but for me I want everybody to have a couple of those aces up their sleeves, especially at high levels. I might go so far as to design something that gives each class a unique action that costs a hero point and can only be used when they're below 1/4 HP. Get that limit break, desperate act feel into the game in a fun way.The stumbling block I could see with that specific approach is that it may end up distorting the game in a direction that is less fun. I imagine most players' response to being told that they have a potent, clutch ability they can activate is to wonder "How can I get this thing to activate as often as possible?" The sidelines of this thought would be that intentional injuries can become more common as the players try to chase that ability and use it. Cool if they get the sweet spot of getting it to work, but not so great if they were banking on getting to, and then get knocked out or killed before they get to. I think it'd also mess with the Hero Point system a bit, depending on how alluring that special action is.
I'd also give certain bosses similar actions.I'd argue these kinds of abilities are more fitting for bosses than players. A boss doesn't care if it doesn't get to use its big, special thing, it's a boss. Likewise its health pool going down to the point where it can trigger such an ability is not only expected, but encouraged, since it's supposed to, hopefully, die anyway.
If that's not restrictive enough, you could always add more conditions. I'm looking to make for cool moments that have a risk attached to using them, not something to be cheesed every fight.
Like, maybe it activates with you at 1/4 HP and at least one party member downed. That shouldn't happen every fight and I doubt many parties would try to intentionally set it up, but it would be cool.
|
Mutants and Masterminds
Wow, that takes me back.
I remember playing a character called THE COMET, who could only speak in all-caps.
His signature move was flying into orbit and then just letting himself fall back to earth. However he was incredibly dense, being several tons, and nigh-indestructible.
Fun system.
|
|
The witch still desperately needs fixing. Secrets of magic and dark archive was really lacking in further witch abilities, and it's there to would expect it. I hope treasures and elements will fix it but I doubt it.
I'd temper these expectations. Neither of these books will address what has generally been discussed in this thread.