We play with a real mean DM. That DM sees a soft target like a rogue, they focus fire the rogue, all attacks on the rogue until down.
Yes some GMs are very soft. But it is up to the players to respond.
The rogue also has to hang back until another martial engages.
No one walks alone. Choosing when and where to attack is bread and butter. I've dropped champions from full in one round in my game. A rogue should not hang back any more than anyone else. They tend to have initiative and qualify for sneak attack on the first round. They don't have to hang back. But they shouldn't be stupid.
I played several rogues in pf1, as I enjoyed making a bad class functional, but it's wild to me that you're missing out by far the biggest issue with the class when trying to talk it up as effective: it was a 3/4 BAB class that had no innate attack boosters. Debilitating Injury would let you lower their AC once you'd hit, but you really had to go out of your way on rogues to consistently get that accuracy there, especially in comparison to other classes. In addition to that, moving into a flank was more costly in PF1 than in PF2, given everyone had an AoO, so sneak attack was something you needed to make your whole build around triggering. Normally that meant either something like the Moonlight Stalker Feint, the Circling Mongoose line, or the Shatter Defences line - none of which are always effective, and all of which require effort that other PF1 classes didn't need to do. You could build functional rogues - I enjoyed doing so! - but they were undoubtedly a weak class. You've got an easy direct comparison to an Inquisitor there - the Inquisitor has almost as many skills as a rogue, has bonuses in useful skills unlike a rogue (who only got a disable device boost, and so was pretty mediocre at other skills in comparison to better skill-focused classes), has 6th-level casting to get a huge amount of utility, can drop bane to get +2 to hit on top of +2d6 (and later +4d6) damage...The rogue could get a very high AC in PF1, did up to 10d6 every attack, and had access to a lot of power feats like Dex-based power attack, more powerful magical weapons, and ability boosting devices.No one is as strong as before, casters or martials. PF2 is a game where you look like superhero, but you are definitely part of a superhero team versus a group of solo heroes who happen to be together.I disagree, since Fighters and Rogues are significantly more powerful in this edition compared to the previous one.
In our groups, that wasn't the big problem with the rogue. There are so many ways to boost attack bonus that even a 3/4 BAB wasn't going to miss too often. You could stack so many bonuses to hit in PF1. Since we operated with group optimization in PF1, everyone got the buffs they needed.
I can see someone having a problem if operating in a group where they had to ask for buffs from someone that would buff themselves. Our particular group was a group of friends, so it was pretty much a given they would get their buffs.
That being said, rogue was only played solo maybe a once or twice in PF1/3E. Most rogues were multiclass rogues. You dipped rogue for the sneak attack on a better class chassis.
For our group what made rogues and fighters undesirable was the saves. I had one guy quit playing a fighter after three 2 or 3 failed willed saves against hold spells. He threw up his hands and quit playing a fighter. He never went back to playing a solo fighter.
In PF1 missing saves sucked. If you didn't have a dedicated counter caster, it was a real pain. Only a few players knew how to play a dedicated counter caster/healer well. A class with weak saves and no counter caster made for a miserable time.
We always built characters to max out the saves on top of combat. Too brutal to miss saves even at low level.
I played several rogues in pf1, as I enjoyed making a bad class functional, but it's wild to me that you're missing out by far the biggest issue with the class when trying to talk it up as effective: it was a 3/4 BAB class that had no innate attack boosters. Debilitating Injury would let you lower their AC once you'd hit, but you really had to go out of your way on rogues to consistently get that accuracy there, especially in comparison to other classes. In addition to that, moving into a flank was more costly in PF1 than in PF2, given everyone had an AoO, so sneak attack was something you needed to make your whole build around triggering. Normally that meant either something like the Moonlight Stalker Feint, the Circling Mongoose line, or the Shatter Defences line - none of which are always effective, and all of which require effort that other PF1 classes didn't need to do. You could build functional rogues - I enjoyed doing so! - but they were undoubtedly a weak class. You've got an easy direct comparison to an Inquisitor there - the Inquisitor has almost as many skills as a rogue, has bonuses in useful skills unlike a rogue (who only got a disable device boost, and so was pretty mediocre at other skills in comparison to better skill-focused classes), has 6th-level casting to get a huge amount of utility, can drop bane to get +2 to hit on top of +2d6 (and later +4d6) damage...The rogue could get a very high AC in PF1, did up to 10d6 every attack, and had access to a lot of power feats like Dex-based power attack, more powerful magical weapons, and ability boosting devices.No one is as strong as before, casters or martials. PF2 is a game where you look like superhero, but you are definitely part of a superhero team versus a group of solo heroes who happen to be together.I disagree, since Fighters and Rogues are significantly more powerful in this edition compared to the previous one.
I have found the rogue to be a soft target in PF2 as well. Not as bad as PF1, but not the top tier some seem to have the rogue slotted into.
What makes it even worse for the rogue is they have arguably the best archetype. You can take rogue archetype for a ranger or monk and get the great skills, surprise attack, deny advantage, and one dice of sneak attack. You can even grab Outflank and Opportune Backstab at 12th and 16th level.
Instead of making a base rogue, you can make a ranger or monk or fighter and make a great rogue-type with 10 hit points, better armor choices, better weapons, and stronger saves while not having to rely on flank as much or running into creatures immune to precision damage.
I often use the rogue archetype with Skill mastery to buff my skills up. Works very nicely.
I'm not saying the rogue is a bad class. It's a class that that it's weaknesses and a lot of what makes it great can be taken with the Rogue Archetype feats.
Wasn’t the old adage
Fail a reflex save, you’re hurt
Fail a fort save, you’re dead
Fail a will save, you kill your party
That aside, if the argument is “they’re not good because my DM always focus fires anyone that plays one” then that seems like a table issue not a class design issue.
The game isn’t designed assuming every encounter is piloted like an experienced tactically minded adventuring party, with meta knowledge, because most encounters and most monsters aren’t that.
Also the whole “x class does a lot of damage in pf1” debate seems moot. Like half the classes in the game could do a pointlessly high amount of damage if you invested in it,
Most of the time it wasn’t actually a good idea to full tilt optimising damage because when you overkill something by 50-100 hit points you don’t get a special prize, but you probably spent class features and feats doing that extra damage that are essentially wasted.
How powerful a class is should be considered within the parameters of the system.
A pf2 rogue can’t reliably blend above CR enemies, and a pf1 rogue could, therefore the pf2 rogue is weak is an odd argument. Because nothing in pf2 reliably blends above Cr enemies and almost everything in PF1 could reliably blend above CR enemies.
We’re not playing on the same football pitch here.
The rogue is a well designed class. No issues with the class design. I don't consider a power class in PF2 like the fighter or druid. It's a good class, but not top of the food chain, more in the middle somewhere.
PF1 rogue was a bottom tier class. It did do a lot of damage and could really rip things apart when everything worked in ways no PF2 class can do. The original discussion started based on the idea that PF2 rogue and fighter are far superior to PF1 rogue and fighter. I still think a PF1 rogue or fighter would wallop a PF2 rogue or fighter if they were both built up and tricked out. PF1 rogue and fighter still hit like trucks and had interesting build options.
Everything in pf1 would would wallop everything in pf2 if built up and tricked out, whoever they exist in the world pf1 which is where they have to interact with other blocks of maths (what every character and monster is) where they’re at the bottom of the food chain.
That doesn’t mean that they’re stronger than Pf2 rogues and fighters, because pf2 rogues and fighters exists in and interact with Pf2 maths, where they’re not bottom of the food chain.
In a vacuume a pf1 character is gonna look stronger and have higher numbers
Within the confines of their own system the same isn’t necessarily true.
Everything in pf1 would would wallop everything in pf2 if built up and tricked out, whoever they exist in the world pf1 which is where they have to interact with other blocks of maths (what every character and monster is) where they’re at the bottom of the food chain.
That doesn’t mean that they’re stronger than Pf2 rogues and fighters, because pf2 rogues and fighters exists in and interact with Pf2 maths, where they’re not bottom of the food chain.
In a vacuume a pf1 character is gonna look stronger and have higher numbers
Within the confines of their own system the same isn’t necessarily true.
That was the point.
The original discussion was that every class was reduced in power, not just casters. Even though casters were king in PF1, every class could build to shift the math in their favor far more than they can do in PF2.
PF2 the fighter is still one of the strongest classes and yet they would not likely be able to solo even an even level mob or even two CR-2 creatures in this edition. A PF1 fighter or rogue could likely kill quite a few even level creatures or lower level creatures even solo depending on what those creatures can do. A lot of fighters or rogues could rip stuff apart with even moderate support.
It's a different game. Everything is harder and requires teamwork. No one in this game is strong alone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the term "everyone's power got reduced" isn't that useful.
Everyone's damage numbers got smaller. (ironically Spell DCs actually went up)
But the relative power within their own system changed is a more useful term.
A fighter and a rogue got more powerful relative to a wizard and a witch, which got weaker.
Druids and Sorcerer's and bards relative power didn't change that much, they're all still very powerful classes, but the classes that used to be considered as strong as them or stronger (Wizard) changed (fighter).
Whether it was for better or worse I'm not sure yet.
Yes a wizard was far too powerful relative to a fighter in PF1, but a fighter in pf1 could still do its job really really well, if supported properly. And if I'm a wizard, standing next to a fighter that can do 400 dpr a round, but has a weak will save, then best believe I'll be putting mind blank on that fella every morning.
In pf2 it feels like a couple classes really can't do their job that well, at least, they do it strictly worse than other classes. And because classes can't solo carry like they can PF1, being strictly worse feels like a real mark against them.
The fact a paladin couldn't do as much damage as an inquisitor in pf1 didn't really matter, because they both did more than they needed to. In pf2 classes can't do more than they need to, they can only ever contribute part of the puzzle.
So the fact a witch is pretty much strictly worse than bard is a much bigger deal in my opinion.
When every class is overpowered at their job, being the most overpowered isn't such a big deal.
When every class can only contribute a part of the puzzle, being the most underpowered might be more of an issue.
Yeah the bit about designing classes to have obviously weaker options has always been annoying and in pf2 more so.
Especially if you combine, a class that happens to be slightly behind the curve for whatever reason (witch) with their less powerful options and you end up in feels bad city.
Which ends up making if feel like very few options in certain classes are gonna be a good time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.
I also think they just need more in their toolkit. Bards get IC for free, but there are other focus cantrips in their feat selection. Psychics have three unique cantrips per conscious mind and can poach from another discipline too.
Witches being constrained by one singular cantrip for their entire career just feels kind of claustrophobic by comparison. Plus it feelsbad when tradition and cantrip are linked, which leads to things like players being SoL if they want to debuff but aren't occult, or want the arcane list but don't care about +1 to recall knowledge checks.
Re: Cackle, I agree it is a bit awkward. If I understand correctly you burn your focus point in order to sustain a spell for one additional round (and thereafter you have to spend an action if you want to sustain). It looks like the system pegs getting a free-action to sustain at level 16 or so. However, what if Cackle was 1) an integrated out-of-the-box class feature of the Witch and 2) instead of burning a focus point you sacrificed something else, like your reaction?
E.g.
Cackle (Reaction)
Trigger You begin your turn with one or more active spells that you could sustain.
Effect You sustain one of those spells.Hypothetically, you're sacrificing a different resource. However, it's not a resource Witches are likely to use frequently and so, in effect, you getting a free action to sustain a spell, something not normally available to you until level 16. The question is, is it so strong that the game breaks. If the witch had an ability like the above, does it instantly tip towards overpowered?
You start looking at the Witch as a class that can reliably sustain two spells every turn and still cast a slot spell, so... That is exceptionally powerful, yes.
I think the term "everyone's power got reduced" isn't that useful.
Everyone's damage numbers got smaller. (ironically Spell DCs actually went up)
But the relative power within their own system changed is a more useful term.
A fighter and a rogue got more powerful relative to a wizard and a witch, which got weaker.
Druids and Sorcerer's and bards relative power didn't change that much, they're all still very powerful classes, but the classes that used to be considered as strong as them or stronger (Wizard) changed (fighter).
Whether it was for better or worse I'm not sure yet.
Yes a wizard was far too powerful relative to a fighter in PF1, but a fighter in pf1 could still do its job really really well, if supported properly. And if I'm a wizard, standing next to a fighter that can do 400 dpr a round, but has a weak will save, then best believe I'll be putting mind blank on that fella every morning.
In pf2 it feels like a couple classes really can't do their job that well, at least, they do it strictly worse than other classes. And because classes can't solo carry like they can PF1, being strictly worse feels like a real mark against them.
The fact a paladin couldn't do as much damage as an inquisitor in pf1 didn't really matter, because they both did more than they needed to. In pf2 classes can't do more than they need to, they can only ever contribute part of the puzzle.
So the fact a witch is pretty much strictly worse than bard is a much bigger deal in my opinion.
When every class is overpowered at their job, being the most overpowered isn't such a big deal.
When every class can only contribute a part of the puzzle, being the most underpowered might be more of an issue.
That's balance in a game. Balance is a narrow range and that is what we have: a narrow range of power.
I've seen witches and wizards "do the job" as you call it. They aren't particularly fun and have a bad set of feats and base abilities which I think need some work, but in PF2 anyone can "do the job" because of how narrow the power band is.
A fighter, as good as that class is, can't carry a group like a PF1 caster could. The relative power difference between a fighter (one of the best classes in the game) and the witch or wizard (two of what I consider the worst classes in the game) is very small compared to PF1's power gap.
If being the most "overpowered" isn't such a big deal, then Paizo would have kept the relative power as it was. Martial players were not happy to have casters completely crush everything, especially at high level. Paizo did polls clearly showing the power level of casters, especially wizards, in PF1 was not viewed well. I remember all the complaints about the ridiculousness of caster power on the forums during 3E/PF1. Even 4E and 5E D&D acknowledged and made changes to greatly reduce caster power because the vast majority of players did not enjoy the God Casters of PF1.
Now you have a narrow power band. No class is too far ahead of any other class. Even the wizard and witch would be easily fixed with some better feats and base abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.
The base witch hexes wouldn't feel so bad if the hexes you can pick up later were good. My buddy tried over and over again to use them and they rarely had much impact on combat.
The witch and wizard really need some more design work with the idea of combat in mind. Witch has way too many NPC type of feats. Wizard needs to be built with schools designed as though the wizard is being taught how to use those powers in battle in an intelligent fashion. This standing in 30 feet and such is not how a wizard wants to operate as that is asking to die.
They both definitely need some work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You start looking at the Witch as a class that can reliably sustain two spells every turn and still cast a slot spell, so... That is exceptionally powerful, yes.
Sustained spell usually cost a slot, you don't have an infinity of slot in a day (especially at low level), so you can only "reliably" pull that off for a few encounter before you're out of gaz and must make due with focus and cantrip only. You may also cast sutained focus, but they eat the same ressource as cackle, meaning they're competing with each other. I suppose the power of cackle was supposed to be about extending the hex cantrip but those have rather... varied usefullness to say the least.
And they can't do that every turn at all, because cackle eat focus, and thus can only be cast once per encounter. Even if you manage to get more than one focus point early, you can only refocus to get 1 point, and can't refocus again until you spend it, and this until level 12. Getting more point before that level only allow you to cast two or three focus spell once, before goingg back to the strick one per encounter. So for more than half of the game, cackle only have the very limited effect of allowing you during one turn per encounter to cast a spell and sustain two other in one turn. and after the cackle turn, well you're gonna have to cut short one of your sustained spell, or simply abandon the idea of casting more spells, because you don't get to sustain for free anymore.
I think that either cackle should have given a free sustain to hex cantrip only and cost nothing, stay like it is now and cost something like a reaction instead of a focus point, or be a "cost one action, sustain two spells" (that still cost no focus). Observing our witch struggle with it, I'm pretty sure that any solution would have felt better than making it cost a focus, with all the trouble it brings.
Cackle isn't really good unless you want to be casting sustain spells a lot. A lot of casters don't have many spells like that and it would be pretty leading to make that the feature that witches get for free. I would think you wouldn't do that as a default errata without introducing more sustain spells of all the traditions that witches can be, perhaps even adding more sustained focus spells, and or cantrips at the same time. Even then it is a little strange to add that level of specific niche focus on a class at errata and not in class design.
No one is as strong as before, casters or martials. PF2 is a game where you look like superhero, but you are definitely part of a superhero team versus a group of solo heroes who happen to be together.I disagree, since Fighters and Rogues are significantly more powerful in this edition compared to the previous one.The rogue could get a very high AC in PF1, did up to 10d6 every attack, and had access to a lot of power feats like Dex-based power attack, more powerful magical weapons, and ability boosting devices.
I don't know if you've played any rogues in this edition, but they die real easy in PF2 and no one needs a martial in range to act as flanker more than a rogue. If the enemy focuses on a rogue, dead meat.
You do realize in PF2 the rogue has slow AC progression, low Fort save, and 8 hit points a level on top of it being hard to focus on boosting Con while being good with skills? Rogue in PF2 can be a sheet of paper.
Not sure what you did with fighters in PF1, but two-hander fighters did brutal damage in PF1. Their crits could one shot high level creatures. The biggest weaknesses of fighters was in their Will saves. They suffered every Will save effect and it sucked horrible as Will save spells were save or be neutralised spells ln PF1. Fighter damage was always a amazing. Two-hander fighters, two-weapon, and bow fighters did even more comparative damage in PF1.
Fighter is a power class in PF1, no doubt. But they even they get ripped apart by bosses. You can't build AC and hit points high enough to shrug off boss attacks. They still very much need caster help to stay alive. And they are not the most mobile class either.
I've played two fighters, both of them 2-hander fighters as that is the highest damage fighter in the game. Two-weapon fighters are not nearly as good in PF2 as they were in PF1. You are stuck doing the same Dual weapon strike 2 action feat over and over and over again. You often spend...
AC in PF1 doesn't matter as a PC stat past like 6th level, and a large amount of Rogue damage was largely conditional on triggering Sneak Attack, which is far less prevalent/likely to trigger in that edition (especially solo); Dex-based Power Attack doesn't keep pace with normal Power Attack, and Magic Weapons being stronger isn't true since those Magic Weapons only gave a bonus to hit (which was pretty commonplace and easy to stack) and a slight damage boost (again, pretty commonplace and easy to stack from other sources). Compared to these Magic Weapons, which gave both increases to hit and increases to Base Dice, I'm not convinced those Magic Weapons were particularly better.
Again, AC in PF1 was an irrelevant stat by 6th level because you're one-rounding everything that isn't twice your level, and a higher Initiative was more important than a higher AC, so saying they were able to tank in PF1 is like saying the Fighter is able to cast spells, but worse. In either case, using bad tactics is what gets you killed, not because you have bad AC and low HP and Saves; in PF1, you didn't need to have those values, because all that mattered was one-rounding everything before it could one-round you. Rocket Tag is not a fun game after a while.
Fighters still do brutal damage in PF2; they are more likely to hit and crit compared to anyone else, and they have some of the best combat-oriented feats in the game. The Fighter in our previous group would literally activate Disruptive Stance, run up, and Improved Knockdown every enemy in sight, Crit them for some insane damage, and be set up for double AoO auto-disruption at full bonus with the highest damaging weaponry in the game. You can argue that Fighters in PF1 didn't have to do that, but that's because there was no reason for them to do that in PF1, so it wasn't necessary for them to have those tactics. All PF2 did was actually make such tactics actually relevant. In my opinion, that puts the PF2 Fighter ahead, because they actually planned for more than one round of combat.
Fighter is hardly a power class in PF1. They were merely a passable class of simplicity that would have some semblance of parity to real power classes if optimized. Any full caster was far more of a power class compared to Fighter, and even if you stuck with Martial types, there's the Barbarian, Paladin, and basically any 2/3 spell progression character that outpaces them. At best, you can argue that the Fighter would fare the best in an Anti-Magic Zone, but that's like saying the Club is the best weapon because it costs no gold to acquire, in a game where you are rewarded with and go hunting for gold and other treasures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cackle isn't really good unless you want to be casting sustain spells a lot. A lot of casters don't have many spells like that and it would be pretty leading to make that the feature that witches get for free.
I mean, nearly every Witch is guaranteed to have a sustained spell at level 1, and all but one of your basic focus spells are sustained too.
You have to try fairly hard (and get GM permission to use rare options) to not have a sustainable spell as a Witch, so I'm not sure it'd be that leading.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the term "everyone's power got reduced" isn't that useful.
Everyone's damage numbers got smaller. (ironically Spell DCs actually went up)
But the relative power within their own system changed is a more useful term.
A fighter and a rogue got more powerful relative to a wizard and a witch, which got weaker.
Druids and Sorcerer's and bards relative power didn't change that much, they're all still very powerful classes, but the classes that used to be considered as strong as them or stronger (Wizard) changed (fighter).
Whether it was for better or worse I'm not sure yet.
Yes a wizard was far too powerful relative to a fighter in PF1, but a fighter in pf1 could still do its job really really well, if supported properly. And if I'm a wizard, standing next to a fighter that can do 400 dpr a round, but has a weak will save, then best believe I'll be putting mind blank on that fella every morning.
In pf2 it feels like a couple classes really can't do their job that well, at least, they do it strictly worse than other classes. And because classes can't solo carry like they can PF1, being strictly worse feels like a real mark against them.
The fact a paladin couldn't do as much damage as an inquisitor in pf1 didn't really matter, because they both did more than they needed to. In pf2 classes can't do more than they need to, they can only ever contribute part of the puzzle.
So the fact a witch is pretty much strictly worse than bard is a much bigger deal in my opinion.
When every class is overpowered at their job, being the most overpowered isn't such a big deal.
When every class can only contribute a part of the puzzle, being the most underpowered might be more of an issue.
That's balance in a game. Balance is a narrow range and that is what we have: a narrow range of power.
I've seen witches and wizards "do the job" as you call it. They aren't particularly fun and have a bad set of feats and base abilities which I think...
I would contest the suggestion that every class in PF2 can do it’s job. You literally just said your friend failed to make any real impact with their hexes, which means they weren’t doing their job. Or if they were they were doing it in spite of their class features, not because of them.
If the party succeeded it’s because the other 3 or 4 characters picked up the slack.
Nothing in pf2 can carry a party. Half the classes in pf1 can if built right, there’s no point getting hung up on what a pf2 fighter can do vs what a pf1 wizard can, they’re in different settings.
Being overpowered isnt such a big deal, in terms of the impact you can have in the game. An archer fighter can end an encounter 3 CR above in one full round if built properly. And fighters are bad by pf1 standards.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t feel bad when a wizard walks all over everything you can do, and teleports, and has a bajillion skills and can gate in solars and and and.
Feels bad isn’t the same as game impact.
I’m not sure what how easy it is to fix a class has to do with anything.
Slap 9th level casting on a pf1 fighter and boom, fixed. Making classes powerful is easy.
Making them exists satisfactorily within a narrow power range isn’t whilst remaining thematic isn’t as simple.
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.
Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.
Cackle isn't really good unless you want to be casting sustain spells a lot. A lot of casters don't have many spells like that and it would be pretty leading to make that the feature that witches get for free.I mean, nearly every Witch is guaranteed to have a sustained spell at level 1, and all but one of your basic focus spells are sustained too.
You have to try fairly hard (and get GM permission to use rare options) to not have a sustainable spell as a Witch, so I'm not sure it'd be that leading.
Isn’t the issue more than the spells you’ve got, to sustain aren’t very awe inspiring all things considered.
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.
As far as I know, no other classes get hexes, but a few get familiars.
So perhaps they should be the hex class, not the familiar class. Since most players seem a bit stumped about what to do with a familiar to get the most value anyway.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can stomp their feet and call it the familiar class all they want but that doesn't make it true. There is nothing about the familiar that informs how you play your character beyond simply being Good Stuff, the hex you start with is character defining as much as Inspire Courage is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the post-CRB classes probably need a tweak or two but not an incredible amount of work.
Like the Witch needs work, but not an incredible amount of work. You're clearly supposed to be the "best at sustaining spells" which is a fair niche. Basic Lesson (and maybe the other lessons) should be class features instead of feats, and there should be the ability to get more Hex Cantrips, and I think that would be good enough.
The Swashbuckler probably needs more ways to get panache in case it's tough to do it the traditional way. A talisman that gives you panache wouldn't go amiss. After You should probably also just be a class feature.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler should get auto-legendary in its two panache skills at a bare minimum. I think in a post-Thaumaturge world we can safely say that there's not really a need to throttle class's access to their thematic skills to make the Rogue feel better, the Rogue will be fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.
Barely anymore so than a familiar thesis wizard, so not really.
Feel like it might be better to describe the Witch as more of a generic spellcaster, since it doesn't really have any identity-defining class features, its flavor is very much a backseat component and can pick any tradition.
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.As far as I know, no other classes get hexes, but a few get familiars.
So perhaps they should be the hex class, not the familiar class. Since most players seem a bit stumped about what to do with a familiar to get the most value anyway.
I don't disagree, all I'm saying is Paizo does, since they made sure Witches have the best Familiar that no other class or ability can replicate, and turned it into the core identity of the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can stomp their feet and call it the familiar class all they want but that doesn't make it true. There is nothing about the familiar that informs how you play your character beyond simply being Good Stuff, the hex you start with is character defining as much as Inspire Courage is.
I wouldn't even call the Familiar "Good Stuff." I'd call it "Mediocre Stuff" at best, and "Deadweight" at worst. Problem is, as much as we devalue Familiars, Paizo has put a fair amount of class power weight into it, to the point that it made Hexes, the obviously far more appreciated feature, fall to the wayside (and also borderline useless as a consequence).
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.Barely anymore so than a familiar thesis wizard, so not really.
Feel like it might be better to describe the Witch as more of a generic spellcaster, since it doesn't really have any identity-defining class features, its flavor is very much a backseat component and can pick any tradition.
Kind of, but Familiar Thesis Wizard gets more spell slots and is locked to Arcane, which isn't that great of a tradition. Witch gets better Familiar stuff and has tradition flexibility, but has less spell slots to compensate.
Just as well, all this really boils down to is "Hexes are the main class feature, not Familiars," and Paizo has clearly shown that they find it to be the opposite.
...No one is as strong as before, casters or martials. PF2 is a game where you look like superhero, but you are definitely part of a superhero team versus a group of solo heroes who happen to be together.I disagree, since Fighters and Rogues are significantly more powerful in this edition compared to the previous one.The rogue could get a very high AC in PF1, did up to 10d6 every attack, and had access to a lot of power feats like Dex-based power attack, more powerful magical weapons, and ability boosting devices.
I don't know if you've played any rogues in this edition, but they die real easy in PF2 and no one needs a martial in range to act as flanker more than a rogue. If the enemy focuses on a rogue, dead meat.
You do realize in PF2 the rogue has slow AC progression, low Fort save, and 8 hit points a level on top of it being hard to focus on boosting Con while being good with skills? Rogue in PF2 can be a sheet of paper.
Not sure what you did with fighters in PF1, but two-hander fighters did brutal damage in PF1. Their crits could one shot high level creatures. The biggest weaknesses of fighters was in their Will saves. They suffered every Will save effect and it sucked horrible as Will save spells were save or be neutralised spells ln PF1. Fighter damage was always a amazing. Two-hander fighters, two-weapon, and bow fighters did even more comparative damage in PF1.
Fighter is a power class in PF1, no doubt. But they even they get ripped apart by bosses. You can't build AC and hit points high enough to shrug off boss attacks. They still very much need caster help to stay alive. And they are not the most mobile class either.
I've played two fighters, both of them 2-hander fighters as that is the highest damage fighter in the game. Two-weapon fighters are not nearly as good in PF2 as they were in PF1. You are stuck doing the same Dual weapon strike 2 action feat over and
Nothing you wrote now or before changes that all classes are weaker in PF2 and no one can carry a team in PF2 including the fighter. Every single class in this edition is weaker than it was in PF1.
The fighter, no matter how you build it, can survive alone or even do very well at all without support at high level. A caster like a druid would have a better chance of soloing an enemy in an open environment because they can operate at range and avoid being hit by not being in range to be hit. A PF2 fighter cannot do this.
Even a witch or wizard would have a better chance against monsters solo because they too can operate at range and erect powerful defenses to avoid detection in PF2.
The fighter is good at doing single target damage in a group as it has always been good at it. Casters are still more versatile than the fighter.
...I think the term "everyone's power got reduced" isn't that useful.
Everyone's damage numbers got smaller. (ironically Spell DCs actually went up)
But the relative power within their own system changed is a more useful term.
A fighter and a rogue got more powerful relative to a wizard and a witch, which got weaker.
Druids and Sorcerer's and bards relative power didn't change that much, they're all still very powerful classes, but the classes that used to be considered as strong as them or stronger (Wizard) changed (fighter).
Whether it was for better or worse I'm not sure yet.
Yes a wizard was far too powerful relative to a fighter in PF1, but a fighter in pf1 could still do its job really really well, if supported properly. And if I'm a wizard, standing next to a fighter that can do 400 dpr a round, but has a weak will save, then best believe I'll be putting mind blank on that fella every morning.
In pf2 it feels like a couple classes really can't do their job that well, at least, they do it strictly worse than other classes. And because classes can't solo carry like they can PF1, being strictly worse feels like a real mark against them.
The fact a paladin couldn't do as much damage as an inquisitor in pf1 didn't really matter, because they both did more than they needed to. In pf2 classes can't do more than they need to, they can only ever contribute part of the puzzle.
So the fact a witch is pretty much strictly worse than bard is a much bigger deal in my opinion.
When every class is overpowered at their job, being the most overpowered isn't such a big deal.
When every class can only contribute a part of the puzzle, being the most underpowered might be more of an issue.
That's balance in a game. Balance is a narrow range and that is what we have: a narrow range of power.
I've seen witches and wizards "do the job" as you call it. They aren't particularly fun and have a bad set of
The hexes aren't good. The witch class can still contribute to victory just fine. Not sure what you mean by "do the job." Boring hexes doesn't change they can help achieve victory with spells and actions.
My bigger problem with some of these classes are the boring class options. Wizard and witch having boring schools and base class options. Familiar is hard to make useful when the focus options that a familiar might help fuel aren't worth using.
In PF2 with a narrow power band where everyone can help achieve victory, focus should be on making sure class options feel fun. Some of these options don't feel fun at all. You look at them, compare them other classes, and they feel underwhelming and boring.
I feel like you’re agreeing with me whilst telling me I’m wrong at this point.
We’re just talking in circles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.Barely anymore so than a familiar thesis wizard, so not really.
Feel like it might be better to describe the Witch as more of a generic spellcaster, since it doesn't really have any identity-defining class features, its flavor is very much a backseat component and can pick any tradition.
Kind of, but Familiar Thesis Wizard gets more spell slots and is locked to Arcane, which isn't that great of a tradition. Witch gets better Familiar stuff and has tradition flexibility, but has less spell slots to compensate.
Just as well, all this really boils down to is "Hexes are the main class feature, not Familiars," and Paizo has clearly shown that they find it to be the opposite.
I think the disconnect is thematically the familiar is the core of the class. It just shouldn’t be mechanically.
It’d be like making everything a cleric does centre around the particular god they worship rather than just be part of the toolkit.
In pf1 the mechanical core was clearly hexes, the familiar was a weakness/ribbon as much as anything.
For some reason the Devs decided to ignore this and focus in on the familiar,
Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.Barely anymore so than a familiar thesis wizard, so not really.
Feel like it might be better to describe the Witch as more of a generic spellcaster, since it doesn't really have any identity-defining class features, its flavor is very much a backseat component and can pick any tradition.
Kind of, but Familiar Thesis Wizard gets more spell slots and is locked to Arcane, which isn't that great of a tradition. Witch gets better Familiar stuff and has tradition flexibility, but has less spell slots to compensate.
Just as well, all this really boils down to is "Hexes are the main class feature, not Familiars," and Paizo has clearly shown that they find it to be the opposite.
I think the disconnect is thematically the familiar is the core of the class. It just shouldn’t be mechanically.
It’d be like making everything a cleric does centre around the particular god they worship rather than just be part of the toolkit.
In pf1 the mechanical core was clearly hexes, the familiar was a weakness/ribbon as much as anything.
For some reason the Devs decided to ignore this and focus in on the familiar,
To a point. The issue is that it actually has mechanical implications, since the Familiar is both how you prepare/learn spells, as well as how you technically learn hexes as you gain levels (though really, the fact that it's a feat and not a feature should've been enough mechanical reason for it to either not work that way or not be that way), and PF1 wasn't really any different in this regard. It's just that PF1 Familiars weren't anywhere near as disposable or easy to kill, and had more use outside of being spell batteries or some other highly niche utility. The blatant lack of Familiar value and staying power plus pre-established lore function is precisely why the Witch has its own mechanics for Familiars separate from any other class, and why Familiars are the focus, and not Hexes. Since Familiars are their Spellcasting, and Spellcasting > Anything for a Spellcaster, I'm not surprised.
People always wanted it to be Hexes as the main feature because 1. They were the far more powerful feature in PF1 (show me a Familiar that had the capabilities of Slumber, Evil Eye, et. al. Because that didn't exist even back in PF1 days), and 2. You're probably using Hexes from Levels 1 to 20 (or however high of a level you played to), whereas a Familiar didn't have anywhere near as many options for customization or utility, or was used past 6th or 7th level. It's really only because of these things that Hexes were iconic to the class, the thematics could literally just treat Spells as Hexes instead and you'd get the same payoffs.
I feel like you’re agreeing with me whilst telling me I’m wrong at this point.
We’re just talking in circles.
Yeah. That's why I no longer argue with them about it.
The class is weaker than most, and has more trap options in its feats. But if you can avoid the traps you can find some good value in the characters that you build with a Witch base.
It could definitely use some errata rework though.
I feel like you’re agreeing with me whilst telling me I’m wrong at this point.
We’re just talking in circles.
I don't understand what "do the job" means.
Definitely don't agree people had no problem with the power divide between casters and martials in PF1. I think they had a big problem with it which is why both 4E, 5E, and PF2 are a big push in the direction of closing the power gap to create a more balanced game because it was a problem.
To me PF2 is a game where the power band is so narrow no one is particularly ineffective or can't "do the job" if by that you mean help win or do damage or have an effect on combat success.
What I find in PF2 is that some classes are fun to build with at least the feel of effective and interesting build options, while other classes are effective just because every class is but have boring build options that appear to have little effect on the game.
The witch and wizard fall into the category of "not fun to build with few feats or abilities that have much impact beyond what their standard casting abilities everyone else has provide."
If that's what you mean by "do the job", then I guess we agree on that part.
To a point. The issue is that it actually has mechanical implications, since the Familiar is both how you prepare/learn spells, as well as how you technically learn hexes as you gain levels (though really, the fact that it's a feat and not a feature should've been enough mechanical reason for it to either...Witches need their hexes to be more impactful and more of them to choose from in my opinion. Critically trap options like hair needed to be massively improved or removed in favour of something better.Unfortunately, Witches are the Familiar class, not the Hex class, so saying the Hexes need to be better doesn't really track, since I could say the same about Wizard School spells needing to be better.Barely anymore so than a familiar thesis wizard, so not really.
Feel like it might be better to describe the Witch as more of a generic spellcaster, since it doesn't really have any identity-defining class features, its flavor is very much a backseat component and can pick any tradition.
Kind of, but Familiar Thesis Wizard gets more spell slots and is locked to Arcane, which isn't that great of a tradition. Witch gets better Familiar stuff and has tradition flexibility, but has less spell slots to compensate.
Just as well, all this really boils down to is "Hexes are the main class feature, not Familiars," and Paizo has clearly shown that they find it to be the opposite.
I think the disconnect is thematically the familiar is the core of the class. It just shouldn’t be mechanically.
It’d be like making everything a cleric does centre around the particular god they worship rather than just be part of the toolkit.
In pf1 the mechanical core was clearly hexes, the familiar was a weakness/ribbon as much as anything.
For some reason the Devs decided to ignore this and focus in on the familiar,
I think the hexes from the patron are the primary feature of the Witch class in PF2. The familiar is an add on that is supposed to help with the hexes. But the hexes have so many limiters that they don't seem all that great.
The main advantage we've seen with the hexes is the one action casting cost for most. The target gaining immunity for 1 minute which is the duration of a combat often makes them seem very weak whereas you have a bard cantrip that just works for 1 action.
Imagine using evil eye as a one action cantrip with a save against a single target that becomes immune, then a bard shows up casts dirge of doom and does AOE fear with no save. No immunity to it. Can just keep using it and combine it with other cantrips.
You look at your hex and go, "Why did I bother?" Even the skill intimidate can be as effective as a witch hex for 1 action with the 1 minute immunity as well.
All the witch hex cantrips are mostly this way. Mildly ok, but so limited that can't even outclass a skill like intimidate and look like garbage compared to the 1 action support cantrip class the bard. A witch's cantrips should have been balanced similar to a bard's 1 action cantrips in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you’re agreeing with me whilst telling me I’m wrong at this point.
We’re just talking in circles.
I don't understand what "do the job" means.
Definitely don't agree people had no problem with the power divide between casters and martials in PF1. I think they had a big problem with it which is why both 4E, 5E, and PF2 are a big push in the direction of closing the power gap to create a more balanced game because it was a problem.
To me PF2 is a game where the power band is so narrow no one is particularly ineffective or can't "do the job" if by that you mean help win or do damage or have an effect on combat success.
What I find in PF2 is that some classes are fun to build with at least the feel of effective and interesting build options, while other classes are effective just because every class is but have boring build options that appear to have little effect on the game.
The witch and wizard fall into the category of "not fun to build with few feats or abilities that have much impact beyond what their standard casting abilities everyone else has provide."
If that's what you mean by "do the job", then I guess we agree on that part.
Use their class features to contribute to the party in and out of combat enough that you support your allies as much as your allies support you.
So far your answer to this has been "well witches can do this because spells are so good they compensate for their otherwise weak/useless class features".
then you say "but I think the class features are bad and need improving because all they've got is their spells."
So you disagree with me. then restate my point, you've done it like 3 times now.
Going into excruciating detail about why a bard functions like a witch but just better is my point, which I made and you decided to debate like 20 comments ago. Which leads me to realise you're more interested in arguing the toss than actually discussing anything with an open mind.
No-one has said that people didn't have a problem with the power divide thats a strawman of your own invention which I've explained twice already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the witch also suffered a lot from the Divine/arcane/primal/occult split as well
Cause the original witch was really a divine/primal/occult mish mash, in terms of what the spell list can do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Complaining about pick-a-list is missing the mark so badly on the Witch. Like the class has bad focus spells, bad feats, bad cantrips... but we wanna whinge about someone somewhere in the universe maybe playing a divine witch? Snap your fingers and delete whichever three traditions you don't want, the Witch isn't suddenly a good class.
Just as well, all this really boils down to is "Hexes are the main class feature, not Familiars," and Paizo has clearly shown that they find it to be the opposite.
I mean that's the line you keep repeating yeah, but it doesn't really bear out. The familiar is a pretty minor and forgettable feature for the Witch. It might give you an extra focus point once per day, or some low level utility, but that's it.
And again, your familiar is barely better in a practical sense than a familiar master wizard's... or for that matter, given the diminishing returns of familiar abilities, anyone else's.
If you want to build a familiar focused character, the Witch really isn't for you (mostly because PF2 isn't the game for you).
,.. On both these points it just feels like there's so many weird mental gymnastics being taken to somehow explain the Witch, as if just acknowledging that it's kind of weak and Paizo made some mistakes designing it is somehow not a satisfying enough answer, when really that's all there is to it. You don't need to try to reframe how you explain the whole class or hyperfixate on one feature as if it unlocks some hidden mystery of how we got here.
All four of the APG classes are misses, there's no secret sauce here.
Complaining about pick-a-list is missing the mark so badly on the Witch. Like the class has bad focus spells, bad feats, bad cantrips... but we wanna whinge about someone somewhere in the universe maybe playing a divine witch? Snap your fingers and delete whichever three traditions you don't want, the Witch isn't suddenly a good class.
Find this funny because Fervor is the only Witch Patron that does something remotely useful and yet I find people generally hating on it as if it were the cause of the Witch downfall. Witch sucks because it is mostly a vanilla caster and has nothing special going for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the witch also suffered a lot from the Divine/arcane/primal/occult split as well
Cause the original witch was really a divine/primal/occult mish mash, in terms of what the spell list can do.
They suffered in a worse way than the Sorcerer did. In PF1, the Witch had "bonus spells" granted from the Patron, not unlike a combination of what the Deity Spells and Bloodline Spells in PF2 do now, and it honestly wouldn't have been very difficult to implement that into the Witch chassis currently, since again, it's already been done partially in two separate classes (the Cleric and Sorcerer to be precise); combining the efforts into a class that's already down spell slots compared to these two classes shouldn't have been a bridge too far to cross.
Considering that back in PF1, Witches could acquire spells like Raise Dead from the Divine list as an Arcane spell thanks to Patrons (no, not even their base spell list had those spells), it shouldn't have been an issue to restrict a Witch to Arcane or Occult (as a separate character choice) and then consequently implement a "list" of poached spells available from the Patron selection.