Hi everyone,
I'm playing a witch and I'm having a blast.
I've always loved this class from PF1 and I find it cool in this edition too but every time i level up i can not notice that the whole 'Patron' thing seems to be really under developed from a design (and even more mechanical) perspective.
Not counting the rare patrons there are actually 7 common that a player can choice from level 1:
Winter
Wild
Night
Rune
Curse
Fate
Fervor
What bothers me is that other than the hex cantrip..the only thing that patrons gives are a bonus skill and a bonus spell.
I can't find any kind of feats or archetype that expands the 'Patron' theme.
I can overcome this with roleplay, ok...but in my opinion is not so cool to see the other players taking feats and abilities that expands their character and to watch mine (that is really focused on the Patron i've chosen) that is limited to roleplay because all the feats are based on other mechanics (like familiar).
I hope my point is clear and I'll like to read your opinion on the matter.
Do you think Witch Patrons need to be expanded in some way?
Thank you for your answer,
Marco.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What bothers me is that other than the hex cantrip..the only thing that patrons gives are a bonus skill and a bonus spell.
It is less than that even. The skill always matches the tradition of the spell list.
Sorcerer bloodline gives two skills - one that matches the tradition list and a second one thematically matched to the bloodline. So Witch is more flexible since you get the same number of trained skills, but you get to choose one more of them than the Sorcerer does. But it does mean that you have to do the work of picking one that is in line with your character.
I do understand where you are coming from. It would be great if there was more meaning to the choice of patron than there currently is. Maybe more spells given at higher levels. Something like that.
On the other hand, the flexibility is fantastic. Any lesson can be chosen. Compare that to Cleric for their limited choice of domain focus spells or divine access spell slot spells. Or Sorcerer bloodline - which is completely fixed for both focus spells and spell slot spells granted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What bothers me is that other than the hex cantrip..the only thing that patrons gives are a bonus skill and a bonus spell.
Yup, you get a hex cantrip, a spell that's usually already on your spell list, and the skill associated with your tradition. Even worse, the multiclass witch dedication reduces your Patron to just the tradition skill and nothing else.
---
Otherwise, Paizo wanted Patrons to be vague so that players/GMs could use "any" concept with them. As a result, patrons became so vague that they're nearly insubstantial.
They also really hyped up the idea of Wiches having the best familiars - which I don't think is what many were expecting/hoping from the class (I still want a class archetype that trades out extra familiar abilities for nearly anything else).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Patron theme is just one part of your patron, though. Your patron can be expressed more fully through the lessons it teaches you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thaumaturges have better Witch Patrons than Witches and it grinds my gears.
The Dark Archive can't come soon enough and hopefully we get some pact feats available to everyone (not just Thaumaturges) so that I can finally have the kind of patron/witch dynamic that I want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thaumaturges have better Witch Patrons than Witches and it grinds my gears.
Well, we don't know yet if they will or not in a month and a half.
The Dark Archive can't come soon enough
Yes, I agree. I just hope that the classes improved quite a bit. It would be cool if witches could poach some of the pact feats like a Pact Witch archetype or something.
Thaumaturges have better Witch Patrons than Witches and it grinds my gears.Well, we don't know yet if they will or not in a month and a half.
The Dark Archive can't come soon enoughYes, I agree. I just hope that the classes improved quite a bit. It would be cool if witches could poach some of the pact feats like a Pact Witch archetype or something.
Playtest feedback mentioned breaking out the pact feats from Thaum and making them available for everyone
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imo, the patron/lessons combo would have been a really solid way to express the patrons if:
1) we had more lessons and patrons
2) there werent so many hyper niche hexes
Like, honestly, Pick-a-list is a great way to express the witch's patron right out the gate, but when you only one arcane and one divine patron, you're already going to get a lot of samey feel witches right from the start in those traditions. Additionally, a number of the cantrip hexes are either hyper niche or weak (wilding word or to a lesser extent, Shroud of Night), or pointlessly complicated (nudge fate). Most people are going to pick a hex thats easy to use and applicable frequently, so you're going to see a lot of winter or curse witches, and every arcane and divine witch will have the exact same starting flavor.
Lessons dont make it any better when we have such obvious standouts in Life Boost and Elemental Betrayal. Blood Ward is cool, but pretty specific, Veil of Dreams would be nice, except theres literally one offensive spell with the sleep tag, and the people you want to have the flat check for concentration rolls are practically garanteed to pass; so this whole hex can basically be replaced with bon mot to much better effect. Needle of Vengence, from my experience, doesn't really work well; the damage isn't really enough of a deterrent, especially with a single target; this spell could easily be balanced as a 1d6/level (roughly half the power of a blast) and still be balanced. Generally speaking, an damage spell that is opt in should hurt more than just a blast or have some sort of other benefit. Stumbling curse is probably the worst of the lot though, since it doesn't even have a failure effect that's likely to matter in most cases; they could at least throw in a "treat the first square as difficult terrain" effect
The later hexes are even worse in that you only get 3 choices for greater and major; and one of the major ones is rare, and two of the major options are blasts DoT blasts with a chance of death. Because of this, most witches later in level will start converging on the same powers pretty quickly
The only reason patron don't feel impactful is because we have a severe lack of options to express our patrons, and the options are not very well balanced against each other. Further distinction between the patrons could also be made by having tradition and/or essense based feats like the sorc does, which would help, say, a primal witch with life boost, malicious shadow, and curse of death feel different than an occult witch whos patron grants the same hexes
Patron theme is just one part of your patron, though. Your patron can be expressed more fully through the lessons it teaches you.
I'd be more willing to believe this IF lessons had a prerequisite limiting them to specific patrons or at least a limited set of patrons.
While I understand Paizo wanting to make content as open as possible to apply to a number of things - many class paths really need some exclusive options to feel different/special compared to others. When the only mechanical difference between a Curse Patron Witch, a Fate Patron Witch, and a Night Patron Witch is a single hex that you might not even use that much - then the Patron itself really doesn't seem to matter. [Same issue I have with so-called "specialist" Wizards.]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even the Fighter and Monks have mutually exclusive paths that make each build feel unique even though they're the pathless classes. Each Monk Style have more flavor attached to them than all the patrons. They completely inform the kind of character you want to play despite just being level 1 feats.
I don't see why Witches couldn't get a inherent Patron benefit and a cantrip to go with it. Just the cantrip feels lackluster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games I've started using cackle as a copy of lingering composition for cantrip hexes and enabling multi faceted patron which allows you to get a hex from a different patron.
Already it's making the witch a much nicer class all around.
Even the Fighter and Monks have mutually exclusive paths that make each build feel unique even though they're the pathless classes.
Which parts are mutually exclusive? Fighter's weapon type choice is all that I can think of. Not sure which part of Monk is mutually exclusive though.
They also really hyped up the idea of Wiches having the best familiars - which I don't think is what many were expecting/hoping from the class
And if that was what the point was, they failed at it. Wizard with Familiar Thesis is just as powerful. Familiar Master gives a strictly more powerful familiar since there are unique abilities that you can get from feats from that archetype. Even Druid has Leshy Familiar Secrets that unlocks unique familiar abilities and is therefore more powerful than the Witch familiar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be more willing to believe this IF lessons had a prerequisite limiting them to specific patrons or at least a limited set of patrons.
That sounds terrible though. Why would you want to lock people out of hexes?
Even the Fighter and Monks have mutually exclusive paths that make each build feel unique even though they're the pathless classes.Which parts are mutually exclusive? Fighter's weapon type choice is all that I can think of. Not sure which part of Monk is mutually exclusive though.
They also really hyped up the idea of Wiches having the best familiars - which I don't think is what many were expecting/hoping from the classAnd if that was what the point was, they failed at it. Wizard with Familiar Thesis is just as powerful. Familiar Master gives a strictly more powerful familiar since there are unique abilities that you can get from feats from that archetype. Even Druid has Leshy Familiar Secrets that unlocks unique familiar abilities and is therefore more powerful than the Witch familiar.
It's, of course, not a hard-coded thing, but you'll be actively gimping yourself if you try to pick more than one style early on. Some of them even completely define your stat spread (Mountain Stance). The same goes for weapons of choice for Fighters. There are many feats that work with various weapons, but some of them are not even though they don't explicitly say (the reposition feats, for example, are more useful for reach weapons).
What I'm trying to say that even though Monk and Fighters (or Bards) don't have Class-Paths baked into the class, they actually offer pretty distinct experiences with just their feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be more willing to believe this IF lessons had a prerequisite limiting them to specific patrons or at least a limited set of patrons.That sounds terrible though. Why would you want to lock people out of hexes?
You ignored the part I quoted and was replying to.
Patron theme is just one part of your patron, though. Your patron can be expressed more fully through the lessons it teaches you.
Being open to any Witch means Lessons do nothing to develop the design space of Patrons. In order to do that, they'd have to be limited, since the biggest missing part of Patrons at the moment is having enough unique mechanical aspects to call their own. It is like saying the existence of [insert school] spells develops the design space of a [School] Specialist Wizard, when any other wizard can freely pick up the exact same spell and cast it exactly as well.
Otherwise, Lessons being open to any Witch is a decision I'm largely in favor of - as I partially see it as a way of allowing a Witch to access thematic "witch-like" spells regardless of their tradition. (Which is why I am surprised we still don't have a major lesson that grants baleful polymorph as a spell so an occult witch could turn townsfolk into newts.)
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some lessons/hexes limited to specific Patrons as something to help make them unique compared other Witches. Without owning the sourcebook, I assume this is how Lesson of the Frozen Queen [Rare] is meant to work (being from the same book of the [Rare] Patron Baba Yaga) - but Nethys stripped out the context that [rare] feat is meant to be linked to [rare] Patron.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted to stick with the familiar power of the class, the patrons could have given specific unique familiar abilities. Would make sense as the familiar is your link to your patron.
Oh my God this a million times. I can accept the familiar focus for witches if they gave build shaping familiar abilities that other classes can't have. Otherwise it feels like a familiar thesis wizard with fewer spell slots, decent focus powers, and punitive composition cantrips. At that point I'd rather play a wizard or bard
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being open to any Witch means Lessons do nothing to develop the design space of Patrons. In order to do that, they'd have to be limited
Limiting them does nothing except make certain builds not possible. It's not a positive.
It doesn't somehow improve design space or flavor. It reduces it.
The flavor comes from how you fit those pieces together, not from walling someone off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being open to any Witch means Lessons do nothing to develop the design space of Patrons. In order to do that, they'd have to be limitedLimiting them does nothing except make certain builds not possible. It's not a positive.
It doesn't somehow improve design space or flavor. It reduces it.
Once again, this is isn't an argument to limit Lessons as a general practice. This is saying the unlimited lessons do nothing to change the issues with Patrons or expand the space of Patrons.
Also, PF2 is a class-based system. Tons of options have various sorts of restrictions which makes certain builds not possible. If you want to argue that limitations are never a positive - then I don't know why you're playing PF2 when you want a completely different game system.
As far as flavor goes, I'd argue part of what gives different classes different flavor is they have different options which are unique to each class. Even within a class, most classes have a variety of selectable feats/options past first level which are limited based on an initial class path choice. These all make those initial choices have more impact, meaning, and flavor as those selections allow options which aren't open to every other character. [i.e. A Giant Instinct Barbarian can select a feat at level 6 which allows them to grow Large while raging. This is flavorful to Giant Instinct Barbarians, and that flavor would be diminished if every other Barbarian (or worse, every other martial/character) could select the exact same option at the same time. Meanwhile, the Dragon Instinct Barbarian might be restricted from selecting that feat, but they get their own flavorful option with a feat for Dragon's Rage Breath at level 6 which isn't selectable by other barbarians/classes.]
Patrons, compared to other similar class path-style options, are notably anemic when it comes to anything mechanically unique related to them. 1 hex cantrip, many of which are situational at best. Also, a single rare patron allows inanimate familiars, and a single rare lesson that may or may not be linked to that rare patron option. Currently, that's it. If you want to make them more mechanically meaningful, they need something that is limited based on the initial Patron choice since the current 1 hex cantrip doesn't seem to be enough to fill that role.
Again, patron themes are not the same as patrons. Patrons are a roleplaying choice that should be mediated with your GM.
Many patrons can share a theme and express their individual identity through shape of familiar and lessons they offer the witch. You and your GM should absolutely collaborate on which lessons are appropriate for your patron.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know entire reason why people wanted a witch class in PF2 in the first place.
There are several reasons depending on who you ask and you might have seen me in multiple threads during the playtest arguing which ones should have been part of the final Witch.
I'd say "Patrons & Hexes" were my biggest takeaways from the PF1 Witch, and I was a particular fan of Blood of the Coven for expanding Patrons to be more than what the default Patron options did in PF1. The fact that PF2 Patrons are even less mechanically influential than PF1 is probably my biggest complaint with the class, as that's been something I wanted more focus on since my very first Witch character in PF1.
If you look at some of Paizo's views between the playtest & SoM, it looks like their biggest takeaway was "Familiars." I'd argue this is a consistent issue with Paizo seeing a familiar associated with a character theme and overestimating how important it actually is the theme (looks at Magical Child).
So no, it has nothing to do with PF2 being a "class-based system" and having unique class options does not at any point require that class options are limited based on your initial choice (Case and point see Fighter, Monk, Bard, Druid, etc.)
I'd note that a class-based system instantly limits your choices based on which class you select at the start, and makes certain builds impossible. Which was part of the argument in the post I was responding to.
But okay, lets take a quick look at the CRB classes and their CRB feats.
Alchemist: Class Path in Research Fields. No feats seem to have research field as a prerequisite.
Barbarian: Class Path in Instincts. Count 11 which have a specific instinct as a prerequisite to select.
Bard: Class Path in Muses. Count 17 feats which have a specific muse as a prerequisite to select.
Champion: Class Path in Cause. Count 7 feats requiring a specific cause, not counting those that require "tenants of good." Has sort of a secondary class path in Divine Ally - where I count 11 feats requiring a specific divine ally. Has the ability to expand to a second divine ally with the limitation of spending a feat to do so.
Cleric: Class Path in Deities/Domains, and type of divine font. Count 7 feats requiring a specific font, not counting feats requiring either. All Domain feats are limited by deity in which domains you can pick and which associated spells/abilities can be gained. More feats are limited by your alignment and/or deity or provide specific effects based on your deity which limits you from selecting others.
Druid: Class Path in Druidic Orders. Count 11 feats which have a specific Order as a prerequisite to select, not counting feats which require Wild Shape, which itself requires the Wild Order. Has the ability to expand into other orders, but requires spending 1-2 feat(s) each time in order to do so, providing a limitation.
Fighter: No real class path. Instead many feats have a requirement bases on what type of weapon you are holding in order to be able to use them, or one of those feats as a prerequisite in order to use.
Monk: No real class path.
Ranger: Class Path in Hunter's Edge. No feats with prerequisite of a specific Hunter's edge.
Rogue: Class Path in Rogue's Racket. Count 6 feats which have a specific Racket as a prerequisite to select.
Sorcerer: Class Path in Bloodline. Count 6 feats limited to the tradition provided by your bloodline. 2 more feats have different effects based on which bloodline you selected, limiting you from other bloodline options.
Wizard: Class Path(s) in Arcane School & Arcane Thesis. Count 2 feats requiring a specific arcane school (universalist), and 1 feat which changes based on the which arcane school is chosen, limiting you from other school options.
So out of 12 classes, only 4 classes don't have feats limited based on an initial choice, all of which are non-casters. Out of the casters, I'd note the Wizard is noticeably lacking compared to the others, and was was also the one most criticized during initial playtesting for not having enough flavor compared to other casters. Comparatively, the Witch somehow provides even less unique path options than Wizards get, and also receives criticism from playtest to present for Patrons lacking flavor. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Again, patron themes are not the same as patrons. Patrons are a roleplaying choice that should be mediated with your GM.
Many patrons can share a theme and express their individual identity through shape of familiar and lessons they offer the witch. You and your GM should absolutely collaborate on which lessons are appropriate for your patron.
This is the same as saying Patrons are pure RP to the point of being meaningless.
I can RP a Swashbuckler as learning their martial techniques from an influential Fey and collaborate with the GM on which feats are appropriate for such RP. A class feature doesn't to be written into the class in order to do that.
The big issue is that Patrons are written as being a major part of being a Witch, but the actual mechanics say Patrons are largely inconsequential. This is a big disconnect. Unless Patrons get something more to call their own - this will always remain a problem.
I can't really wrap my head around Barbarian instincts being held up as a huge deal with Patrons being too inconsequential.
Most barbarians I see in play, regardless of instinct, follow broadly the same play patterns, almost irrespective of feat choice.
A fervor witch and a rune witch on the other hand end up feeling radically different from seeing both in play, even moreso when you start taking into account variations in what lessons they pick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that is a response to saying limited options are bad - and pointing out that many classes have limited options within them which helps those options have a distinct flavor. Every Barbarian need not lean into that specific flavor of their instinct, but it an option for those who do and helps those options feel unique because others can't easily be copied by others.
I'd also note, Barbarians have a niche of "gets really mad and hits things" as a fallback with the whole rage mechanic to help separate them from other martial characters even if they completely ignore anything related to their instinct.
A Witch's fallback is being a spellcaster, which makes them just 1 out of 7 casting classes (or 9 if you want to count the wave casters) with more to come. What separates them from other spellcasters? Patrons don't do enough, familiars aren't difficult to obtain, and hexes aren't nearly as impressive (or even useful) as many hoped. Those are the 3 main points Witches have to establish a unique identity - and I'd argue Patrons are the part that are best suited to receiving more attention.
How different do a curse, fate, and night witch feel from each other? When you pick fervor and rune - you're really just saying that a divine and arcane Witch feel different, which is a result of the tradition, not the Patron. I'd also note that both feel like inferior versions of the Cleric and Wizard - which is the same issue that Sorcerers were frequently accused of. (Personally, I see Summoner as the first really successful pick-a-list caster, because they devoted enough page space to eidolons to give a meaty mechanic that firmly separates them from casters of whatever tradition they select.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always preferred that Patrons take a hike, familiars take a back seat, and hexes come to the forefront. In PF1 Witches, it was apparent what kind of Witch you were based on your hex selection. Healing, fortune, ameliorating vs child scent, evil eye, misfortune.
They could have leaned into hexes, and built flavor around them as the core witch class mechanic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The underwhelming design of Patrons and the emphasis on (pretty disappointing) Familiars have both put Witch at the bottom of the heap for me. I’m not sure there’s a class I want to play less, and it’s a shame, because the class fantasy of being bound to some otherworldly power is awesome… but the class mechanics feel like “off-brand Wizard.”
The underwhelming design of Patrons and the emphasis on (pretty disappointing) Familiars have both put Witch at the bottom of the heap for me. I’m not sure there’s a class I want to play less, and it’s a shame, because the class fantasy of being bound to some otherworldly power is awesome… but the class mechanics feel like “off-brand Wizard.”
It's on the bottom of my spellcaster priority list for sure, but the Alchemist still sits comfortably on the "i won't touch it even with a 10ft pole" category. Witche's base chassis can be as bad as it can be, but it's still a spellcaster that only gets more powerful with levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The underwhelming design of Patrons and the emphasis on (pretty disappointing) Familiars have both put Witch at the bottom of the heap for me. I’m not sure there’s a class I want to play less, and it’s a shame, because the class fantasy of being bound to some otherworldly power is awesome… but the class mechanics feel like “off-brand Wizard.”
Yeah, it's annoying to me that witch is so heavily tied to familiars, yet gets basically nothing that improves them in any unique way. Like, if they got something that let familiars activate potions or help you cast rituals (and actually be good at it, Skilled aint gonna cut it), got patron specific abilities, and stuff like that, then I'd be okay with the familiar focus, because then they'd actually be pretty cool. Right now, the druids leshy familiar and the shadowcaster abilities actually add more uniqueness to the familiar than the witch, who, at level 12, can get basically a buffed Share Senses and thats it.
Atm, witch is basically that multiclass I take if I want to be able to slot in a couple extra focus spells onto my wizard, and at that point it may as well just be considered an archetype