| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So on the excellent Youtube channel How it's Played we have a question about the Witch familiar.
The clarification from Logan Bonner is that the familiar referenced in the Witch Archetype Dedication is the stock-standard familiar, not the Witch specific familiar. That means that it would have only 1 ability to start with and would not increase by level alone.
He also says that if the familiar dies that it does not return at the next daily preparations.
Now, the first one I am fine with. It seems perfectly reasonable.
The second one I see as borderline unplayable. That means that a multiclass Witch that has their familiar die would not be able to prepare Witch spells or refocus (without some other means of refocus) until they end their current adventure and can spend a week of downtime replacing their familiar.
Thoughts?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It being terrible to lose access to your magic for an extended period of time was exactly why they gave witches respawning familiars.
Adding that same downside right back into the game for multiclass witches seems a bit mean.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well that all sounds REALLY awful, so I'll ignore it until it's actual errata.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would make the witch archetype unplayable. They need to think about that and do some clarifying.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to watch videos to see errata :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to watch videos to see errata :(
Neither do I. Maybe if we think of it more like an errata playtest that will make it more palatable.
I don't want to watch videos to see errata :(Neither do I. Maybe if we think of it more like an errata playtest that will make it more palatable.
Thinking about it...
Nope. :(
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Official things shouldn't come through YouTube.
It should come through official web sites, in the same medium that the original document was provided in.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a text version that is easy to find is always better.Official things shouldn't come through YouTube.
It should come through official web sites, in the same medium that the original document was provided in.
Having a version that has been peer reviewed by some of the other game developers would be even better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How often do you people have your familiars be in danger? Familiars don't do anything in combat, are you throwing them in to fights? I run 2 different parties that have familiar users and in none of them (lvl 9 and lvl 5 currently) have those familiars been so much as scratched. The players keep them out of harm's way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How often do you people have your familiars be in danger? Familiars don't do anything in combat, are you throwing them in to fights? I run 2 different parties that have familiar users and in none of them (lvl 9 and lvl 5 currently) have those familiars been so much as scratched. The players keep them out of harm's way.
My Necrowizard's dead crow (not mechanically undead, just flavor) with skeletal baby hands for feet was always perched on my shoulder or flying overhead. It had speech, manual dexterity, flight, and some spell battery thing (I think the cantrip one). Outside of the cantrip he was purely there for rp and a horrible french accent to go along with my PCs horrible Russian accent. My GM houseruled one day resurrection so it wasn't an issue. Otherwise, I would have never chosen to have a familiar. The familiar was there to be a present and memorable portion of my PCs identity, not a stat stick tucked away in my backpack for fear of dying to a fireball and essentially being gone forever unless the campaign screeches to a halt (not really an option in Malevolence). Having any class feature non functional to a time frame beyond the scope of the next daily preparation is just kind of miserable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Necrowizard's dead crow (not mechanically undead, just flavor) with skeletal baby hands for feet...
"skeletal baby hands for feet"
That is awesomely disturbing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How often do you people have your familiars be in danger? Familiars don't do anything in combat, are you throwing them in to fights? I run 2 different parties that have familiar users and in none of them (lvl 9 and lvl 5 currently) have those familiars been so much as scratched. The players keep them out of harm's way.
Spell Delivery, Valet, and Threat Display, are really hard to use without putting your familiar in danger.
Sure, you can spend your 1 familiar ability on Tattoo Transformation to keep it safe, but that means that you are missing a cantrip slot with no compensation.
Your familiar is supposed to exist on the battle mat. So if you don't spend some of your actions moving it out of danger, then it is going to get taken out by AOE damage or an enemy that can't conveniently reach anyone else.
And if you are houseruling that the familiar doesn't exist on the battle mat, then why not just rule that the Witch Archetype familiar returns during the next daily preparations?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My assessment was the same as yours, breithauptclan. Before the video, I had decided that getting the full number of Witch Familiar abilities for one feat was too good to be true, but that losing the familiar for a week was too bad to be true. I was half right.
Still, we do have a lot of ways to protect a familiar now. I'd just keep it packed safely away most of the time the way someone with Wizard MC would do with their spellbook.
I like the tattoo options. Investing 60 gp for a Familiar Tattoo would be worth the cost for a character with Witch MC. Before that's affordable there's the Tattoo Transformation master ability.
Witch MC is still advantageous in that it's the only multiclass option to use INT for the non-arcane spell lists. For Wizards, Investigators, or Rogues (with the Mastermind or Eldritch Trickster rackets) that can be nice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Necrowizard's dead crow (not mechanically undead, just flavor) with skeletal baby hands for feet..."skeletal baby hands for feet"
That is awesomely disturbing.
Thank you! As a player, I generally strive to get my DM to do a spit take on his rum cocktail most sessions. Gotta have goals.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of you might have some misconceptions on these videos.
1. They are NOT errata. They specifically clarify stuff that does NOT go into errata. The witch archetype always said "you get a familar", never mentioning it had any special abilities like a witch's familiar does. It always seemed a bit weird as RAW (hence the frequent discussions), but it still has been RAW all along.
2. The videos are not spontaneous "unofficial errata" by Logan alone. The questions have been prepared and presented to paizo in advance and the designers have discussed the matters before one of them had a nice little video chat with How it's played and presented the results.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are NOT errata.
This sort of feels like quibbling. The difference between making an official declaration on a vague/unclear/contested bit of rules text and 'true' errata is fairly slim in terms of how it actually effects things.
It's especially fuzzy since sometimes Paizo likes to refer to actual errata as "clarifications" even when they're fundamentally altering rules text in the process.
1. They are NOT errata. They specifically clarify stuff that does NOT go into errata. The witch archetype always said "you get a familar", never mentioning it had any special abilities like a witch's familiar does. It always seemed a bit weird as RAW (hence the frequent discussions), but it still has been RAW all along.
The current errata section has FAQ type answers so I'm not sure there is a distinction here. It's been a frequently asked question here so I don't see why it's WOULDN'T show up in the errata.
2. The videos are not spontaneous "unofficial errata" by Logan alone. The questions have been prepared and presented to paizo in advance and the designers have discussed the matters before one of them had a nice little video chat with How it's played and presented the results.
I wish that there was some mechanism that we could do that too. Unfortunately, I keep hearing about other sites and videos where answers are answered but don't seem to be collected into the actual errata section. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a frequently asked question here so I don't see why it's WOULDN'T show up in the errata.
How it's played collected community questions on reddit and other sources to present to paizo. He even mentions in the video that issues that don't show up in the videos can be part of a future errata.
That doesn't necessarily mean the stuff from the questions won't show up in errata of course, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think that kind of clarification is similar to the old "No need for FAQ" flag they used back in PF1 when an issue wasn't unclear in their opinion. It's kinda their way of saying "You're overthinking. The rules are clear. Just do what the book says."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
kinda their way of saying "You're overthinking. The rules are clear. Just do what the book says."
Sure, but in this case I came to the conclusion that a witch multiclass would give a witch familiar... That's about the most straightforward answer IMO. If it's NOT a witch familiar, how does it have spells in it for you to prepare? Only witch familiars do that... In this case, I'm thinking "maybe they underthought it" instead of us overthinking it. What, is it only a witch familiar when I want a spell or focus point back but morphs back when I pick daily abilities and that is somehow an expected read? :(
And secondly, I know I'm not the only one that doesn't check out every video, reddit, or other random site: even if the entire message WAS "you're overthinking it", it seems like a bad idea to make a clarification and then NOT clarify it in the place people go for that exact thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record: I'm not saying I agree with that way of distributing information. I'm just trying to point out what these videos were intended to do. To the best of my understanding and knowledge, anyway.
I'm still baffled by the fact that the errata for the APG was done like 3-4 months ago (if not sooner) and hasn't been released yet. But the fact that they went and clarified the witch dedication familiar in a video that was probably recorded in the last week or two most likely means that the upcoming errata will not cover it.
2. The videos are not spontaneous "unofficial errata" by Logan alone. The questions have been prepared and presented to paizo in advance and the designers have discussed the matters before one of them had a nice little video chat with How it's played and presented the results.
My gut instinct from watching the video was that the question of 'how many abilities does the familiar get' may have been discussed by the Paizo team, but the question of 'does it return during next daily preparations' was an on-the-spot surprise question.
But maybe I am wrong about that and the Paizo dev's just hate Witch class and multiclass.
That's possible. Didn't really pay close attention to Logan's reaction so maybe that part of the question did in fact surprise him.
If the one week without familiar was indeed a spur of the moment mistake I just hope we get a correction before long.
I'll definitely homebrew this familiar to come back the next day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish like PF1, they make it easy to compare the currrent printing of a book to whatever previous version it differs with (like 1st or 2nd primting to the "current" 7th, for example).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's literally unplayable. Going to ignore that unless it goes to the FAQ or oficial errata.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a big issue at all. You lose the ability to prepare spells from your archetype, which at most is like, 1 slot per class level? (14 slots at level 20 if you take all the dedication casting stuff) Your main class is completely unaffected, also any prepared spells stay prepared so cantrips won't go away or anything. Just have your familiar sit back in a satchel or something if you're really concerned about the limited spells the archetype gives.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
People thought it was anything but this? As for familiar death, likely only a big issue if people are throwing lots of AoEs out and you weren't aware of it in the first place.
But is an archetype, people are overstating how much impact it would have if the familiar died even if the PC couldn't prepare more spells. It isn't like a familiar naster familiar gets their full archetype worth if their familiar dies in combat either.
If I was into running low risk campaigns I would just have the PC be stuck with their last prepped spells for a week.
That's literally unplayable. Going to ignore that unless it goes to the FAQ or oficial errata.
Literally untrue.
The first was already the consensus on the rules.
The second is a little harsh, but there are ways to protect your familiar. Sorry, no familiar bombs MC witches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW they actually do stay until "you cast them or until you prepare spells again." If you don't have a familiar you can't prepare spells, so you would keep them until you get a new familiar. You can technically also choose to not prepare spells for some reason.
That's debatable. The component parts of daily preparations don't appear to be optional.
But is an archetype, people are overstating how much impact it would have if the familiar died even if the PC couldn't prepare more spells. It isn't like a familiar naster familiar gets their full archetype worth if their familiar dies in combat either.
Familiar Master would lose their familiar, but wouldn't also lose their spells and focus spells. Same with a Wizard that invested in Familiar Thesis, Improved Familiar, and Enhanced Familiar. They could lose their familiar for an unbounded amount of time, but they wouldn't also lose their spell slots and focus spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, no familiar bombs MC witches.
Using Final Sacrifice on your Familiar is an overvalued tactic even for full class Witches. Being unable to refocus for the rest of the day is a fairly steep cost.
Having a text version that is easy to find is always better.Official things shouldn't come through YouTube.
It should come through official web sites, in the same medium that the original document was provided in.
Any searchable, fixed-format format will be fine.
Youtube might be okay if the videos were well-tagged and well-labeled. I frequently listen to classical music on Youtube and they have helpful bookmarks to find the beginning of different movements, etc.
Even a table of contents like the following would be helpful:
0:00 Intro
0:47 Witch Archetype Familiar Clarifications
6:25 Mage Hand while Levitating Clarification
11:21 Shoony Clarification
14:55 Wrap up
But is an archetype, people are overstating how much impact it would have if the familiar died even if the PC couldn't prepare more spells. It isn't like a familiar naster familiar gets their full archetype worth if their familiar dies in combat either.Familiar Master would lose their familiar, but wouldn't also lose their spells and focus spells. Same with a Wizard that invested in Familiar Thesis, Improved Familiar, and Enhanced Familiar. They could lose their familiar for an unbounded amount of time, but they wouldn't also lose their spell slots and focus spells.
Grapes to grapefruit comparison. I am talking archetype to archetype here, not full classes.
A wizard archetype won't lose their ability to prep sure, but they simply won't have a familiar without investing a feat... now sure the witch archetype can also invest a familiar feat to get it up to normal familiar levels, but that also gives a level 1-2 witch feat ontop of this.
The witch archetype will never be the core power of a class, it will be supplemental. And it makes sense that the near free familiar has a downside otherwise it would be the default option to take over a wizard multiclass (and honestly, it probably still is even if you only stick with one familiar ability).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grapes to grapefruit comparison. I am talking archetype to archetype here, not full classes.
A wizard archetype won't lose their ability to prep sure, but they simply won't have a familiar without investing a feat... now sure the witch archetype can also invest a familiar feat to get it up to normal familiar levels, but that also gives a level 1-2 witch feat ontop of this.
The witch archetype will never be the core power of a class, it will be supplemental. And it makes sense that the near free familiar has a downside otherwise it would be the default option to take over a wizard multiclass (and honestly, it probably still is even if you only stick with one familiar ability).
Perhaps. After investing 4-5 feats into the archetype in order to get master archetype spellcasting and a Hex, that is going to be about half of the characters class feats (unless using free archetype variant). Losing all of that because of a familiar death seems rather punishing.
And for what reason? What is the benefit of ruling the Witch archetype this way? To prevent the gimmick of using Final Sacrifice once per day? Is there anything other than that trick that would justify this ruling? Anything at all?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would make the witch archetype unplayable. They need to think about that and do some clarifying.
Only if you take witch archetype specifically for the spell slots. Okay, you also potentially have an issue if you took it for the focus spells and don't have any other source of focus spells. So... get some other source for focus spells? Oh, and even with that it's only unplayable if your campaign doesn't have a lot of downtime and also has a DM who like murdering familiars.
There's a very particular set of circumstances where it becomes effectively unplayable. It's possible that those circumstances have high overlap with your preferred playstyle... but that doesn't make it fundamentally unplayable in and of itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. So don't take the Witch multiclass for the spell slots. Or the Hex spells. Or the familiar abilities.
So the Witch multiclass is used for ... what, exactly?
OK. So don't take the Witch multiclass for the spell slots. Or the Hex spells. Or the familiar abilities.
So the Witch multiclass is used for ... what, exactly?
Eldritch Nails, obviously!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still better than the summoner archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Props to the commenter on the youtube video for this one:
Remembering all of the spells known after being resurrected is also a feature of a Witch familiar. A generic familiar doesn't have that ability by strict RAW.
So in addition to the downtime of replacing the familiar, you would also have to re-learn all of your spells and cauldron recipes.
Still better than the summoner archetype.
...
Actually, that's a fair point. Though somewhat vacuous.
So giving the Witch archetype a familiar up front is part and parcel to making it work like a Witch, much like how the Barbarian archetype gives you an instinct that gives you nothing but anathema. But the barbarian archetype has a later feat down the line that gives you the instinct ability as well. Could something like this work for the Witch archetype? A second feat later on that makes your familiar work more in line with how a non-archetype Witch's familiar works? Is this something that's worth a feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but that doesn't make it fundamentally unplayable in and of itself.
I have to agree unplayable is too strong a phrase.
But at the same time... what you're describing sounds kind of miserable to me.
Don't rely on the stuff you get from the archetype. Don't expect it to be dependable. Hope your GM either handwaves threats to your familiar or hide it in a bag somewhere and just don't bother interacting with it, hope you have reasonable access to downtime so you can replace your familiar whenever it gets offed with a new one.
IDK, I feel like if I was a player who was attracted to the idea of multiclassing witch and getting a familiar, being presented with those requirements/solutions would feel kind of soul crushing.
The only good solution there seems to be hoping you have a GM who largely handwaves risks to familiars, which is something I see a lot of groups do anyways, even in society play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should just make it a witch familiar.
Is it strictly better than a basic familiar? Sure. Do I care that much? Not especially.
So giving the Witch archetype a familiar up front is part and parcel to making it work like a Witch, much like how the Barbarian archetype gives you an instinct that gives you nothing but anathema. But the barbarian archetype has a later feat down the line that gives you the instinct ability as well. Could something like this work for the Witch archetype? A second feat later on that makes your familiar work more in line with how a non-archetype Witch's familiar works? Is this something that's worth a feat?
That is actually not a bad idea for some things. Notably the number of abilities that the familiar has.
And having the familiar need to be manually replaced is actually fine too as long as the multiclass Witch is allowed to prepare spells and refocus without the familiar.
But if a low level character has only the Witch dedication, losing out on everything still makes the archetype not work well. And that is also when the 60 gp for a Familiar Tattoo or a Wand of Pet Cache is the biggest hit to the budget.
For comparison it would be like stripping the multiclass Barbarian of the ability to rage for a week if they are ever disarmed in combat. Sure it has a low probability of happening - but that doesn't make it feel any better or make it make any more logical sense from a game balance perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would much rather have to adjust the archetype to be more forgiving as a GM than have to reign in players looking for a quick familiar bomb. As a principle, it is better to error on the side of too strict.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would much rather have to adjust the archetype to be more forgiving as a GM than have to reign in players looking for a quick familiar bomb. As a principle, it is better to error on the side of too strict.
Reasonable.
So how about if they made Final Sacrifice uncommon or rare? Where is the exploit then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would make the witch archetype unplayable. They need to think about that and do some clarifying.Only if you take witch archetype specifically for the spell slots. Okay, you also potentially have an issue if you took it for the focus spells and don't have any other source of focus spells. So... get some other source for focus spells? Oh, and even with that it's only unplayable if your campaign doesn't have a lot of downtime and also has a DM who like murdering familiars.
There's a very particular set of circumstances where it becomes effectively unplayable. It's possible that those circumstances have high overlap with your preferred playstyle... but that doesn't make it fundamentally unplayable in and of itself.
Not being able to cast with a casting archetype makes it unplayable.
No one is going to take this with this limitation. Even DMs won't want to do deal with it trying to figure out if the witch needs to have its familiar to refocus, use familiar abilities, or regain spell slots to cast since preparing spells is how a prepared caster recovers spells.
It makes it unplayable. Not sure why some on here are arguing otherwise. No one takes this archetype if the familiar is killed and they suddenly lose the ability to prepare spells and cast.
And yes. I have zero problem murdering familiars. If you use them for scouting or take them close enough to a creature to be gazed on or attack, then I will make the familiar roll unless the player never really uses the familiar. Then I just forget about it as familiars are pretty forgettable.
It won't have a huge effect on my campaign, but doesn't change that losing your familiar for a week when you try to use it for something useful and it gets killed when it is the source of your power is a bad idea.