| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you could only use one or two scrolls an encounter and you had to pick them out in advance and have certain skills advanced to use them, scrolls would be terrible and we would have a real problem. If talismans worked like scrolls, I think way more players would use them.
Staves are interesting and offer options and have additional boons. I wish that is what would have been done with wands instead. Or at least wands had been left as a battery of spell charges. The math on wands really does not break in their favor over scrolls unless you are sure it is a spell you are going to want to cast 10 times without it easily being a spell slot. Even things like false life are tough to exploit as a wand because sometimes hiightening it when you have a spare slot will be better and your level 2 slots really do open up by the time you are casting 4th and 5th level spells.
Some special wands are pretty cool, but buying good wands is much harder than buying a good array of scrolls. It is those top level slots that really open the game up for casters.
The whole "the devs can't do wrong because if they do wrong they would have fixed it" is so bad.
They are not machines that will get everything right and in fact are very biased humans like the rest of us. Its why we get a ton of feats for some classes but hardly any for another. Why certain playstyles are outright banned when there should be no balance reason to be banned. Why every single playtest has been "we want to do X", met with "this feels bad", and responded with "well we disagree". Etc.
It doesn't help when you have a bunch of people saying "its okay because even though I do less I still had fun". Which is exactly what the whole "its okay I can just spend all my money on consumables" mentality is. If the game is "balanced" then no one but classes who make consumables should need them outside of exceptional circumstances. But the game is clearly not balanced because the response is always "well you are just playing wrong, I had fun".
You are the only one making a bad/wrongfun argument here. You are saying “using scrolls to increase top level spell slots is not how the game should be played.” I am not saying every caster has to use scrolls to have fun, only that it is an effective way to cast more high level spell slots in a day, which is a fun way to play a caster. Players who are feeling frustrated by number of spells slots should try it out because it fixes that problem.
|
They have made zero move to freely increase the number of slots, so I surmise that doing so would unbalance the game, and likely the rules for building encounters.I can understand some balance concern, but how exactly do the number of spell slot impact encounter building? It seems that right now, the guidelines for building encounter for your group is the same wether you're running your first combat of the day and your casters have all of their spells available, or the very last and they're down to focus and cantrip only.
Because your casters will not be using their high level spells on every encounter. They will assess when is the proper time to cast them.
The probabilities that underlie encounter building will be quite different with, for example, 2 more slots of each level.
Suddenly, your casters will be using game-changing spells far more often. Thereby stealing the spotlight BTW.
|
|
The whole "the devs can't do wrong because if they do wrong they would have fixed it" is so bad.
They are not machines that will get everything right and in fact are very biased humans like the rest of us. Its why we get a ton of feats for some classes but hardly any for another. Why certain playstyles are outright banned when there should be no balance reason to be banned. Why every single playtest has been "we want to do X", met with "this feels bad", and responded with "well we disagree". Etc.
It doesn't help when you have a bunch of people saying "its okay because even though I do less I still had fun". Which is exactly what the whole "its okay I can just spend all my money on consumables" mentality is. If the game is "balanced" then no one but classes who make consumables should need them outside of exceptional circumstances. But the game is clearly not balanced because the response is always "well you are just playing wrong, I had fun".
Consumables are a strong part of the game, especially for casters. Why should the game balance not take them into account ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We actually have a pretty good idea of what spell specialization looks like in a D20 RPG, which we can see in 3.x/PF1. What ends up happening, is the same thing that ends up happening with fighters in PF2, characters only use their specialized option. Anything that boosts your DC for specific spells (and do so with no element of tactical decision making in an encounter) will result in a meta-analysis of "casters only cast spells that they get this bonus to." There is no more trying to figure out defenses or weaknesses because in addition to figuring out which is best, you have to figure out if the difference is big enough to matter enough not to just spam your one spell or group of spells that inherently get a bonus.
Wizards who got even just a +1 to their DCs in their specialized school would pretty much never want to memorize anything else, and in PF2, this is as likely to hurt your whole party as it really would help. Enemy stat blocks are designed to be defeated by targeting their flaws. This is a source of frustration for some players, but the reason why general spell casting was pretty low power in PF1 was because there where so many options to specialize into more powerful options. The end result being general casting was legitimately terrible and specialized casting was over powered. Theoretically there was a median between that, but players almost always ended up starting at the one extreme and then quickly realizing that they could break the game by picking the right specialized options. All this accomplishes in de-emphasizing tactical choices in encounters, and prioritizing "getting your build right" at the beginning to trivialize any potential encounter you might have. PF2 has been intention in prioritizing tactical strength over strategic build strength, and it is unlikely developers try to reverse that. It will be interesting to see what the kineticists do.
I think, in retrospect having fear just be a flat -1 to everything, same as sickened, ends up removing the tactical ability to debuff enemies in a unique way to be valuable to different kinds of casters. It real simplified the game, so I don't think it was a mistake, but the ability to tactically debuff the save you want to target with one action skill actions would have been very cool design space to exploit. However, just debuffing everything with frightened or sickened is obviously the much better option so those kinds of abilities would be much trickier to introduce into the game.
As far as caster getting scroll support options, they do exist! The wizard even has a feat for it, and there is a general purpose Archetype for it. Their focus is on lower level support scrolls though. There really isn't a reason to make a scroll option for your highest level spell slots as that would essential just be "more spell slots" the feat, and those are dangerously close to just existing as feat taxes. The decision to use scrolls of a high level is a pretty intentional resource management decision point in PF2. It is an added complexity to the class, but it can be used to increase the power level of the class, so there is reason to be cautious with just handing them out as a free resource, which I think is the crux of this entire thread.
Do you believe casters can cast enough high level slots? What is fair for them to trade to get more?
Some players feel like the answer to the first question is so emphatically NO!!!! that the answer to the second question has to be: nothing. They need more power.
But there are a lot of folks playing casters and feeling like the answer to the first question is yes. And if in your games, you already see casters shining and solving problems for the whole party on a regular basis enough that the whole party treats spell slots like a valuable collective resource, then you realize that adding more to the mix for no draw back is just pushing back towards "the caster will fix everything, let's just sit around until it is time to protect the caster from harm and maybe get to smash some stuff if spells don't eliminate the threat before hand" which was the martial role of 1st edition.
So when a game has reached a pivot point between these two perspectives (we know it is somewhere, we don't really know where it is on a larger sample of players), the question for the developers is whether this is a valuable dial to keep tweaking? Or are there better ways to provide options for folks that are currently unsatisfied with there the dial is currently set? It is a tight rope to walk and there will always be some folks left disappointed. See spell hearts, the Shadow signet ring, Flexible spell casting, elemental spell lists, basically the whole Secrets of Magic book.
but the fact of the matter is that having choice (more accurately, meaningful choice) means the class is far more versatile in its build capacity, and versatility is definitely a price to pay in terms of power budget.But they don't. A rune witch isn't casting occult spells, a fervor witch isn't also getting primal spells (except for a couple they might be able to poach from feats, but then we're talking about feats which are another matter).
Picking your tradition is a singular, top level choice that happens before you ever even start playing the game. Yes, someone could choose to play a divine witch instead of an occult witch.. but they could also choose to play a cleric or druid instead.
When the option only exists at chargen, it's not really any form of versatility available to the class. You might as well be saying that wizards need to be balanced against the fact that someone might choose to play a bard instead, because that's also a choice you make at character creation. Categorically nonsensical.
This is a strawman. I never said they are getting spells from other lists, which is what makes them more powerful. I am saying that a class having the mere ability to pick their tradition is a benefit that is not shared among other classes, and that if this really isn't a power budget benefit that it doesn't make sense to impose this limitation on some classes and not others. Whether they get more or less benefits than other classes based on their tradition choice is irrelevant, the point is that they have a choice, and this gives them build variety that they otherwise didn't have if they were forced to a single tradition like some other classes.
I don't agree with you. The hexes are the main part of the class. That's why you get a free Hex from a patron and can accumulate several hexes. The familiar is an add on to help fuel hexes and spellcasting. Familiars are best as focus point batteries or extra spellcasting, which combines with hexes and spells. The familiar itself is only as useful as your class abilities that it fuels.
The hexes are weakly designed. That's what makes the witch not so great. They could improve the familiar a ton and no one would care if they didn't make the hexes better that the familiar fuels.
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, because that is how Paizo made the class. Quite frankly, most any poster on this forum could design a better Witch class than Paizo did, and it wouldn't even be a close contest. We could throw the task to an AI like ChatGPT and they'd probably do a better job. But really, it's low-hanging fruit, and it also doesn't change what is published, which is a Familiar-centric class with a spattering of bad Hexes and mandatory class feats. The factor that a lot of those Hex feats aren't just thrown into the base features of the class and instead just take up feat slots to feel closer to the original desired outcome proves that point.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing about this whole discourse around encounter quantity and resource management is that Paizo literally came up with the answer to this already: Focus Spells and scaling cantrips. Literally at-will and quickly rechargeable abilities right there.
It's just that they completely fumbled this for some classes and less so for others.
Most parties will occasionally run into encounters where their strengths cannot overpower the strengths of their enemies.
The problem from my experience, and I've said this before, is that this is mostly just true of spellcasters.
The number of encounters that the wizards and clerics and druids and witches in my parties have been inappropriately prepared for vastly exceed the number of encounters the barbarian is inappropriately prepared for. APs are mostly designed to make sure the latter almost never happens.
And this mismatch of expectations does more to make the caster player feel bad than feel exceptional and versatile.
Wizards who got even just a +1 to their DCs in their specialized school would pretty much never want to memorize anything else
I mean not really. PF1 Wizards largely suffered from the same problem of PF2 wizards in terms of being genericized omni-generalists, it was just considered less of a problem because they were overpowered.
and in PF2, this is as likely to hurt your whole party as it really would help. Enemy stat blocks are designed to be defeated by targeting their flaws.
So this is again another example of the toxic mindset directed at spellcasters. The wizard who chooses to specialize is "hurting the party" and not playing correctly because of how enemy statblocks are "designed" to be defeated.
Nobody is going to say this to the giant barbarian who picks a slightly different weapon than normal. You might have a couple people suggesting there are more optimal choices to make, but by and large these issues aren't really held to the same standard at all. The implicit surrendering of the caster's autonomy is simply an assumed feature of the game, not to be questioned or criticized.
And it's been so ingrained as a natural part of how we talk about spellcasters over decades that it's completely missed how genuinely mean-spirited this perspective is. Contempt for the spellcaster who makes the "wrong" choice is simply a natural state of affairs.
Nobody is going to say this to the giant barbarian who picks a slightly different weapon than normal. You might have a couple people suggesting there are more optimal choices to make, but by and large these issues aren't really held to the same standard at all. The implicit surrendering of the caster's autonomy is simply an assumed feature of the game, not to be questioned or criticized.
And it's been so ingrained as a natural part of how we talk about spellcasters over decades that it's completely missed how genuinely mean-spirited this perspective is. Contempt for the spellcaster who makes the "wrong" choice is simply a natural state of affairs.
The thing is... that is kind of true/warranted? I damn wish it wasn't, but the game is so designed around spellcasters playing perfectly that anything but that starts bordering on underperforming and hurting the party. The same doesn't happen to the Giant Barbarian because the game doesn't expect as much from them.
I'm not saying the community isn't at fault in any way, but this sort of thing didn't happen nearly as much in previous games, and there's a reason for that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
they lowered the ceiling of caster power, but lowered the floor at the same time
in same cases the floor was lowered too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether they get more or less benefits than other classes based on their tradition choice is irrelevant
When your whole point is that the class needs to be weaker than other classes because of that choice, it's anything but. After all, if there's no benefit then nerfing the class isn't balance, it's spite.
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, because that is how Paizo made the class.
I mean it's clearly not. Otherwise they would have made the familiar matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying the community isn't at fault in any way, but this sort of thing didn't happen nearly as much in previous games, and there's a reason for that.
Yeah, the reason was because back then optimal caster was so far above martial at latter levels that those played "wrong" actually felt balanced. On the other hand, a martial played "wrong" really felt bad, but it was less common because despite the very complicated math and system, building a martial "right" in PF1 was easier to do than playing a caster "right" is in PF2.
My main gripe with PF2 is that rather than nerfing the optimal "toolbox" caster while pushing the nonoptimal "specialised" one, they instead nerfed casting alltogether, and balanced it all around toolbox as the "normal power level". I really think the only possible toolbox wizard should be a universalist, and that school wizard should have big enought bonus in their school, and big enought malus in the others that they'd be incentives to actually fill most of their list with spells of their schools, instead of just reserving a few slot for them. It would make playing wizard much better for new players, who could now "tunnel vision" into their school and still feel usefull, and not like a liability.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether they get more or less benefits than other classes based on their tradition choice is irrelevantWhen your whole point is that the class needs to be weaker than other classes because of that choice, it's anything but. After all, if there's no benefit then nerfing the class isn't balance, it's spite.
I mean it's clearly not. Otherwise they would have made the familiar matter.
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, because that is how Paizo made the class.
I think the issue is, that they think they did make the familiar matter lol
What are you talking about? They have more Hex feats than familiar feats. The familiar feats are the standard familiar feats for any class that takes a familiar.
I've seen a player build three witches. They focus is way more on Hexes. It's just the hexes suck, but they don't suck as bad as the familiar or hair feats.
Hex Feats:
Cackle
Basic Lesson
Greater Lesson
Major Lesson (you can take this multiple times)
Hex Focus
Hex Wellspring
Split HexHex Master
The familiar feats are either the standard familiar feats or there to fuel spellcasting.
The hair is a pretty useless side list of feats. I've not seen anyone use them as the witch is a terrible melee combatant.
All three of the witches I've seen built: two fervor witches and one evil eye witch have all been focused on hexes because the familiar is only good for extra focus points and casting.
I guess someone could focus on the familiar or hair, but it would do even less than the hexes. Hexes are the witch's bread and butter during combat.
Players want to focus on hexes.
Paizo gave familiar and hair feats.There are 11 just familiar feat
There are 7 just hex feats.
There are 5 that are feat that are hex and familiar.The hex feats are just "get a 1st, 3rd, or 5th level Hex".
The familiar feats are basically substitution thesis but more narrow. Or giving you more master abilities (which are the only good things familiars have). Like I said most of the witch's feats are being worse than other classes, or best at the worst thing.Hexes are bad so the only thing you can rely on is the bad casting. Unless you are playing fervor with life boost, then you could just be replaced by a bard with cleric dedication or vice versa.
They are not. Why are you making this claim when you have never played a witch or seen one played?
The class uses hexes. The familiar does nothing. Barely gets noticed or used. The hexes were designed for combat use on a constant use and are the bread and butter of the witch.
Stop basing rubbish on number of feats rather than how they get used and how many different hexes exist.
The familiar is a singular addition. The feats are standard for any familiar advancement class. They do next to nothing.
The hexes add power and interact with focus points and are there for combat. Familiar is a non-combat add on that has no useful part because of how they are designed.
Hexes are the main basis for the witch class. Stop trying to make it seem otherwise when there is no proof of this in play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty easy to see what they have done with casting and how you are supposed to operate in PF2. Whether you like that or not is personal opinion or taste.
They reduced the spell slots, boosted the power of magic items to be equal to spells, focus spells, and created cantrips that do more substantial damage.
Between the following:
1. Spell slots
2. cantrips
3. Magic items
4. Focus spells
You should be able to sustain casting damage and effectiveness throughout an adventuring day. So extra slots or casting power is not an issue if you build and use all the options available to you.
The biggest problem with some classes are options that don't work with the style of play of the class. The wizard and witch fall heavily into this category and when compared to other classes built on a similar model.
For the wizard the focus spells don't operate well with the spell strategy of a given school. Conjuration as an example getting Augment Summoning with a single level of power for all of it's time and having a 1 action casting time. It takes 3 actions to cast a summon monster spell, so you Augment Summoning should have been a reaction to immediately give the summoned creature a boost. It should have scaled up to a +3 status bonus much like heroism since the gap in creature level increases substantially as you level.
And even something like the Advanced evocation spell should have operated at range or been something like an Empower Spell to give the evocation wizard some powerful blasting ability that fits with its school at range. Not an emanation where the wizard has to stand within 10 feet of the creature.
Ray of Sickening should have been a 1 action ray you can use to set up a spell attack. The necromancer sickens the enemy, then hits them with a vampiric touch or similar spell with a reduced save.
This kind of thoughtful development of school powers to work in conjunction with the play-style of the class would have been far more attractive. This is where 5E did a much better job of reducing the wizard in power and slots, while at the same time making schools feel legitimately powerful and interesting.
Witch hexes seemed to have ported over limiters like one hex per round or 1 minute immunity from PF1. This isn't necessary in PF2 due to the way it works. You should be able to cast these until they stick since the 1 action needed to sustain one will act as a further limiter to the number you can cast or keep active in given round. You also have focus point limiters which prevents more than focus point powered hexes in a given combat until very high level.
Since you already have these balance points without the 1 minute immunity or one hex per round limitation, you don't need them as they needlessly limit the power of hexes.
And the witch needs to be able to access more than one hex cantrip in the same way bards can access more than one cantrip. Not sure what made them limit witch cantrips with the bard class existing since the witch cantrips are weaker than bard cantrips.
Of the caster classes I've seen in play so far, the wizard and witch have the most undesirable feats and base class options. The casting is fine, but the feats and class options are extremely lackluster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really seems like they view the familiars and companions in general as some sort of ultimate power that just the idea of make those features stronger deserves you getting less power.I think the issue is, that they think they did make the familiar matter lolWhether they get more or less benefits than other classes based on their tradition choice is irrelevantWhen your whole point is that the class needs to be weaker than other classes because of that choice, it's anything but. After all, if there's no benefit then nerfing the class isn't balance, it's spite.
I mean it's clearly not. Otherwise they would have made the familiar matter.
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, because that is how Paizo made the class.
I have trouble believing this. The Paizo designers purposefully designed familiars to be next to useless in combat. They must know this as they are the ones that made the design decision.
Animal companion are designed for combat. They work well enough and provide sufficient action economy to still function in battle. Not sure why you are including them with familiars which were designed to be nearly useless in combat as other than a focus battery or a little more spellcasting.
Whether they get more or less benefits than other classes based on their tradition choice is irrelevantWhen your whole point is that the class needs to be weaker than other classes because of that choice, it's anything but. After all, if there's no benefit then nerfing the class isn't balance, it's spite.
I mean it's clearly not. Otherwise they would have made the familiar matter.
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, because that is how Paizo made the class.
My point is that build versatility has value, and treating it as if it doesn't calls into question a lot of design choices behind existing classes. If it's as worthless as you say it is, then there's no reason to restrict classes to only be able to cast certain traditions of spells, and not be able to cast other traditions. Where's my Occult Wizards and Divine Magi?
They kind of did when they gave it special mechanics that normal familiars wouldn't otherwise have, even compared to Familiar Master Wizard. With this being a new edition, they didn't have to do this, but they did because one of the design goals for the Witch was for them to, surprise surprise, be the "Familiar" class. If the Familiar didn't matter, it wouldn't be a staple class feature, and it wouldn't have feats and abilities associated with it that other classes couldn't otherwise acquire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really seems like they view the familiars and companions in general as some sort of ultimate power that just the idea of make those features stronger deserves you getting less power.I think the issue is, that they think they did make the familiar matter lolWhether they get more or less benefits than other classes based on their tradition choice is irrelevantWhen your whole point is that the class needs to be weaker than other classes because of that choice, it's anything but. After all, if there's no benefit then nerfing the class isn't balance, it's spite.
I mean it's clearly not. Otherwise they would have made the familiar matter.
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, because that is how Paizo made the class.I have trouble believing this. The Paizo designers purposefully designed familiars to be next to useless in combat. They must know this as they are the ones that made the design decision.
Animal companion are designed for combat. They work well enough and provide sufficient action economy to still function in battle. Not sure why you are including them with familiars which were designed to be nearly useless in combat as other than a focus battery or a little more spellcasting.
The idea becomes far less troublesome when you consider that Paizo poorly misrepresented what people liked out of the Witch class back in PF1, and hyperfocused on it to the point of severe neglect to the other, far more respected features.
The problem is that they wanted Familiars to do something more for a certain class, and the best they could come up with was to turn it into a spellbook that can be killed and targeted like a creature and give it daily regenerative reconstitution. Neither of which is particularly helpful or conveys the idea that Familiars are the source of their power (especially since the latter was done to counteract the negative consequences of the former).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that build versatility has value, and treating it as if it doesn't calls into question a lot of design choices behind existing classes. If it's as worthless as you say it is, then there's no reason to restrict classes to only be able to cast certain traditions of spells, and not be able to cast other traditions. Where's my Occult Wizards and Divine Magi?
Once again, this "versatility" only exist until you pick a patron, after which it completely dissapear. It's as "versatile" as your choice of class, should wizard be nerfed because they might had expert martial proficiency if they took a fighter instead? Should human be nerfed because had they chosen to play an anadi instead, they might have been able to turn into a giant spider?
There is no versatility in the game proper, only in the character building part of it. The witch class isn't more powerfull because you can pick your school, only more "open". Now this openness actually do bring one balance concern : if the witch was too powerfull, it had the risk of invalidating four classes at once (being better at being a primal caster than the druid, at being an arcane caster than the wizard, etc). On the other hand, it also mean that it ran the risk of being outclassed in every domain (as it is right now) for the exact same reason. Being a "pick a list" class don't mean that the class is more powerfull, but it do mean that balancing it is more important, because it could have a bigger impact if badly done.
I think that paizo was aware of the possible consequences and tried to balance the witch on the weaker side "just to make sure", which ended up simply making her worse at everything. There was something else they might have done if they wanted to prevent the witch from invalidating the other classes tho, which was to make her more special. Which they obviously failed at, as the definning "hex" of the witch appear as weaker version of the bards special cantrip, and the definning "familiar" of the witch appear barely more powerfull than what a wizard or druid taking a familiar could have.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real issue with making the Witch the "best at familiars" class is that it's not entirely clear what use you're supposed to be getting out of your familiar.
Like with an Eidolon or an Animal Companion you are at least entirely clear on their uses (and limitations) as a combat buddy, and familiars are clearly not for combat. But what they are for (besides the bonus focus point and maybe some extra cantrips) appears to be incredibly dependent on what the GM does and doesn't allow.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that build versatility has value
Versatility can only have value if you can leverage that versatility. Since you can't, it doesn't exist.
and treating it as if it doesn't calls into question a lot of design choices behind existing classes
I mean, does it though? You're missing the really obvious answer here that Paizo sometimes makes decisions based on design goals. Wizards and Magi are arcane because that's what Paizo wanted to make them. Witches are pick-a-list because that's what they decided would best fit the concept (indeed, during the playtest they commented on how they considered making it arcane only at first).
Since, as we just established, you can't balance around the existence of top level choices, these decisions are fine.
They kind of did when they gave it special mechanics that normal familiars wouldn't otherwise have, even compared to Familiar Master Wizard.
The only real extra feature it has is the ability to revive, which was added after the playtest to specifically address concerns about witches losing access to spells for long periods of time, rather than much to do with familiar mechanics themselves. It's still something you mostly just ignore in play and mostly interact with superficially.
I guess it's sort of like how you can technically say the Wizard is a spellbook class, because it's the cornerstone of their spellcasting and defines their magic system, but is slightly misleading in that the actual physical spellbook itself is only really superficially important.
Nobody is going to say this to the giant barbarian who picks a slightly different weapon than normal. You might have a couple people suggesting there are more optimal choices to make, but by and large these issues aren't really held to the same standard at all. The implicit surrendering of the caster's autonomy is simply an assumed feature of the game, not to be questioned or criticized.
And it's been so ingrained as a natural part of how we talk about spellcasters over decades that it's completely missed how genuinely mean-spirited this perspective is. Contempt for the spellcaster who makes the "wrong" choice is simply a natural state of affairs.
The thing is... that is kind of true/warranted? I damn wish it wasn't, but the game is so designed around spellcasters playing perfectly that anything but that starts bordering on underperforming and hurting the party. The same doesn't happen to the Giant Barbarian because the game doesn't expect as much from them.
I'm not saying the community isn't at fault in any way, but this sort of thing didn't happen nearly as much in previous games, and there's a reason for that.
And to be fair, Martials do get the whole party killed with a fair bit of regularity. They just usually do it by tactical decisions in an encounter rather than in how they come prepared to an encounter, however, bad tactical choices often do begin when the martial decides, "I don't need ranged weapons or consumables or the ability to anticipate what I am about to fight, I will leave all that for the caster and just expect to charge in and smash."
Just like casters, Martials can be rather flexible with their weapon choice and item selection as long as they play with the team and don't take actions in combat that actively draw the rest of the party into taking sub-optimal actions to cover for them. That is all the expectations really that should be riding on the player of the caster as well.
Of course, there is the secondary issue of casters targeting different saves vs Martials primarily targeting AC, and thus "solving" the encounter problem for martials is usually focused on action denial of the enemy and lower AC. But that still involves not wasting actions trying to intimidate the undead or trip a will-o-wisp. Encounters get a lot easier when martials and casters work together to identify and exploit weaknesses, rather than compete to see who can do the most damage.
My point is that build versatility has valueVersatility can only have value if you can leverage that versatility. Since you can't, it doesn't exist.
and treating it as if it doesn't calls into question a lot of design choices behind existing classesI mean, does it though? You're missing the really obvious answer here that Paizo sometimes makes decisions based on design goals. Wizards and Magi are arcane because that's what Paizo wanted to make them. Witches are pick-a-list because that's what they decided would best fit the concept (indeed, during the playtest they commented on how they considered making it arcane only at first).
Since, as we just established, you can't balance around the existence of top level choices, these decisions are fine.
They kind of did when they gave it special mechanics that normal familiars wouldn't otherwise have, even compared to Familiar Master Wizard.The only real extra feature it has is the ability to revive, which was added after the playtest to specifically address concerns about witches losing access to spells for long periods of time, rather than much to do with familiar mechanics themselves. It's still something you mostly just ignore in play and mostly interact with superficially.
I guess it's sort of like how you can technically say the Wizard is a spellbook class, because it's the cornerstone of their spellcasting and defines their magic system, but is slightly misleading in that the actual physical spellbook itself is only really superficially important.
So Wizards being able to cast Synesthesia instead of Fireball isn't versatility I can leverage by being able to cast Occult spells instead of Arcane spells? Just because it's defined at your character creation and can't be changed barring retraining doesn't mean it isn't versatile in regards to building a character.
How can I be missing an answer I've spouted as a reason for classes having or not having pick-a-list spellcasting? Yes, the answer provided is power budgeting, but power budget is still a design goal, even if it's not the entirety of design goals. I mean, it could be said that these decisions were made regardless of power budget, and I can accept that as an answer, largely because I have before with other aspects of the Witch, like the Familiar. But when you comprise an argument along the lines of "pick-a-list isn't a valid thing to complain about in regards to power budget because it doesn't impact it," it sounds hypocritical when I provide that same exact response (power budgeting) behind the explanation of "it's a Familiar class, not a Hex class," and you spout that it's BS that it wasn't a design goal due to poor power budgeting, when it was brought up and discussed and changed during the playtest, meaning that yes, it actually was. Otherwise, it wouldn't have even impacted the class as much as it did, as you claim.
Thanks for repeating the argument I already stated later on in the following sentence. This is why I dislike people taking small snippets and replying to them, because they lack the entire context being presented.
As for the Wizard being the "spellbook" class, it basically is, since it's also the only Core class (barring a Bard with a specific Muse selection) that uses a spellbook to prepare and learn spells. Good thing a Wizard doesn't have to worry about its spellbook the same way it has to worry about a creature like a Familiar, because that's where the real problems were with the Witch class' playtest implementations.
My point is that build versatility has value, and treating it as if it doesn't calls into question a lot of design choices behind existing classes. If it's as worthless as you say it is, then there's no reason to restrict classes to only be able to cast certain traditions of spells, and not be able to cast other traditions. Where's my Occult Wizards and Divine Magi?Once again, this "versatility" only exist until you pick a patron, after which it completely dissapear. It's as "versatile" as your choice of class, should wizard be nerfed because they might had expert martial proficiency if they took a fighter instead? Should human be nerfed because had they chosen to play an anadi instead, they might have been able to turn into a giant spider?
There is no versatility in the game proper, only in the character building part of it. The witch class isn't more powerfull because you can pick your school, only more "open". Now this openness actually do bring one balance concern : if the witch was too powerfull, it had the risk of invalidating four classes at once (being better at being a primal caster than the druid, at being an arcane caster than the wizard, etc). On the other hand, it also mean that it ran the risk of being outclassed in every domain (as it is right now) for the exact same reason. Being a "pick a list" class don't mean that the class is more powerfull, but it do mean that balancing it is more important, because it could have a bigger impact if badly done.
I think that paizo was aware of the possible consequences and tried to balance the witch on the weaker side "just to make sure", which ended up simply making her worse at everything. There was something else they might have done if they wanted to prevent the witch from invalidating the other classes tho, which was to make her more special. Which they obviously failed at, as the definning "hex" of the witch appear as weaker version of the bards special cantrip, and the definning "familiar" of the witch appear barely...
But it's not a matter of "This character is more versatile than any other character," it's "This class is more versatile than any other class." We are strictly talking class balance here. Can a Wizard cast Occult spells? What about a Druid, can they cast Divine spells? No? Then these classes aren't as versatile in their spellcasting choice as a Sorcerer is. Even if in practice, a given Sorcerer can only have 1 tradition to cast from at a given time, the fact of the matter is that I can make 4 Sorcerers, each able to cast from 4 different traditions, meaning in a party of 4 Sorcerers, as an example, I could encompass every spell list imaginable. Can I do that with a Wizard or Druid? Again, no, because they are restricted to one tradition (barring multiclassing). As for your other examples, they need to be apples to apples, and it's a matter of encroaching on class/ancestry niches. Wizards getting Expert in a small subset of weapons way later than a Fighter gets Master/Legendary in all weapons doesn't invalidate the Fighter, so it shouldn't need to be nerfed. As for Humans, they already have feats for being Demonic or Draconic, among other things (such as being a regular Human), which are a niche different than "giant spider person," so the idea that the Anadi encroaches on Humans existing, which is already quite eclectic enough, is absurd too.
I think that as well in regards to Paizo trying to play it safe, but it's been argued that "pick-a-list isn't a balance/power concern, so using it as an excuse to explain why a class is bad is invalid."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe that having different spell lists causes Paizo designers to somehow weaken a class. Otherwise the sorcerer wouldn't work fine.
What is happening is that paizo designers are doing this mishmash design where some classes like the witch and wizard have these holdover abilities that haven't been adapted well to PF2. Wizard schools and hexes. In PF1 certain hexes were way too powerful, now they are way too weak. Wizard schools had other innate abilities they removed that made them cool. It wasn't the extra little spell or rounds per day ability, but the base innate benefit of the class like the divination bonus to initiative or intense spells that made them good.
Some abilities like bard songs and key sorcerer abilities like cross-blooded were done well. Some features like wizard schools and witch hexes were done poorly.
It's just inconsistent design, not some magic power budget. Some of the ideas they came up with were excellent and make for some fun builds. Some do not. They need to revisit the design decisions and improve on them to get the classes up to par and make them relatively equal options to better designed classes.
You can see a lot of thought was put into witch design from a flavor perspective. But not a lot of thought in to how the class would play and if there were fun and effective builds that people would find desirable.
The wizard was pasted over with barely any thought put into schools other than the school powers turning into weak, mostly useless focus spells and the removal of the base bonus for a school.
I see less of a "power budget" issue and more of an inconsistent design issue that not enough time was spent on key aspects of the game like encounter mode aka combat for certain classes like witch hexes and feats and wizard schools.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, wizard schools are really lackluster. They have practically no scaling.
Like if as you leveled up you got additional focus spell options that were better, then maybe they could be salvageable. But no, most focus spells aren't even worth spending a focus point on at level 1, let alone as you increase in level (they don't have heightened effects).
Add some new focus spell options that you get automatically as you level, and/or add some scaling via heightened effects.
And maybe add some sort of flat bonus.
For example, divination wizard could get a bonus to initiative. Which perhaps could scale as they level up.
You compare the benefits the schools provide to just being a universalists. Sure the school wizard gets an extra slot, that can only be filled with a spell from that school. And it gets a (crappy) focus spell. The universalist can drain bonded item once per each spell level to cast again any spell they've already cast. It's very flexible! That flexibility is worth more than what the schools actually provide.
Heck, even tweaking the school spell slot to allow you to spontaneously cast any spell of that school you have in your spell book would be a good buff. Heck, what about losing a spell you have prepared to spontaneously cast any spell of that school? I don't think it's breaks anything and would actually be a really interesting option. To me that would much more give the feel of being a specialist of your school.
Heck, if giving that away for free is too much make it a couple feats.
School Apprentice - Level 2 -You have moved beyond a mere initiate in your magical school. You no longer need to prepare a spell in the extra slot granted by your school. Instead you may spontaneously cast from that slot any spell of the correct school in your spell book. Add an additional spell of each level from the school to your spell book. You have access to learn any uncommon or rare spells of your school.
School Expert - Requires Level 7 and School Apprentice - You have become an expert in your school of magic. You may now lose any prepared spell you have to spontaneously cast a spell from your school. This has the metamagic trait. You now have access to any rare spells of your school. You gain an additional spell to your repertoire of your school (2 total from this feat and Apprentice).
School Master - Requires Level 15 and School Experet - You have mastered the magic of your school, tapping into it unexpected ways. You may use a focus point to cast any spell from your school 1 level below your maximum spell slot available to you.
I really think this kind of flexibility could save the wizard class. And would amazing for blaster type characters. Imagine being able to on the fly choose a spell of the right energy type to blast with. Also possibly choosing between spell attack rolls and saves! It would be great, without being broken IMO.
But it's not a matter of "This character is more versatile than any other character," it's "This class is more versatile than any other class." We are strictly talking class balance here. Can a Wizard cast Occult spells? What about a Druid, can they cast Divine spells? No? Then these classes aren't as versatile in their spellcasting choice as a Sorcerer is. Even if in practice, a given Sorcerer can only have 1 tradition to cast from at a given time, the fact of the matter is that I can make 4 Sorcerers, each able to cast from 4 different traditions, meaning in a party of 4 Sorcerers, as an example, I could encompass every spell list imaginable. Can I do that with a Wizard or Druid? Again, no, because they are restricted to one tradition (barring multiclassing).
That party of sorcerers can only cover a handful of spells from each tradition though. A party of wizards may lose versatility in being limited to a single tradition, but more than make up for it by potentially having access to the entire tradition's spell list.
Using that as a guage, a party of witches could be argued as the most powerful (in terms of versatility) because they get the best of both worlds: potential access to every spell AND access to every tradition.
Ironic for a class that many consider subpar.
I think the problem with the, “the witch gave up too much of its budget to being a pick list” argument is that oracles and sorcerers are both pick list and ever other aspect of their tool box is still better than a witches. More spells, better focus spells, mysteries and bloodlines doing more than patrons.
So we know being a pickiest doesn’t automatically make paizo make your class wanky.
What the witch has that no other class has, is their (slightly) empowered familiar. That’s the dependant variable (if I’m remembering science coursework correctly).
Special unique cantrips can’t be the variable, lots of classes get those (and better ones too)
Being a pick list can’t be the variable, Oracles and Sorcs got that too.
Their uniquely empowered familiar is the dependant variable. Therefore they must have put some weight on that feature.
But all that aside, the other thing to remember is paizo is just a bunch of people, who’re falable, I think it’s worth remembering they almost certainly didn’t intend to make the witch lacklustre. It’s probably in no small part, a mistake.
But fixing the mistake is time consuming, expensive, sets a president and would mean a lot of peoples expensive hard back books, had a section called “witch” in it, which would be reduced to a load of worthless twaddle, we’re they to retcon the witch into a class more in line with its brothers and sisters.
I feel like what pf2 really needs is probably pathfinders 2 unchained, with the witch and the alchemist and maybe the gunslinger and swashbuckler getting some much needed attention in there.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not a matter of "This character is more versatile than any other character," it's "This class is more versatile than any other class." We are strictly talking class balance here. Can a Wizard cast Occult spells? What about a Druid, can they cast Divine spells? No? Then these classes aren't as versatile in their spellcasting choice as a Sorcerer is. Even if in practice, a given Sorcerer can only have 1 tradition to cast from at a given time, the fact of the matter is that I can make 4 Sorcerers, each able to cast from 4 different traditions, meaning in a party of 4 Sorcerers, as an example, I could encompass every spell list imaginable. Can I do that with a Wizard or Druid? Again, no, because they are restricted to one tradition (barring multiclassing).That party of sorcerers can only cover a handful of spells from each tradition though. A party of wizards may lose versatility in being limited to a single tradition, but more than make up for it by potentially having access to the entire tradition's spell list.
Using that as a guage, a party of witches could be argued as the most powerful (in terms of versatility) because they get the best of both worlds: potential access to every spell AND access to every tradition.
Ironic for a class that many consider subpar.
The trouble with this line of thought is 2 fold
1) in real practical terms a wizard won’t have his whole tradition, and the power level of spells have been lowered significantly (rightly) which means more often than not, they’re probably going to have to prepare a lot of staples the same everyday, otherwise they’re liable to have dead slots, which they absolutely can’t afford in pf2 with the aforementioned lowered spell system.
2) sorcerers have fairly easy access to their own spell book for somewhat enhanced versatility, and signature spells, which essentially represent knowing more than one spell per spell (it’s useful to know fear at level 1 and 3 for example.) Sorcs have a lot more versatility than they did formally, relative to a wizard.
All this adds upto the issue that, yes a wizard can in theory be more versatile, but in practice the difference in versatility isn’t gonna be that massive and in exchange the sorc never has to worry about dead slots, and they have more slots to cast with.
And that’s before we even touch on their better focus spells and cantrips.
I think less PF2 unchained and just some books with some class feats that would help to correct the power levels of the class.
Like it would kind of suck, because the feats would be practically must haves if they really fixed the class, but at the same time you wouldn't need a book dedicated to fixing those classes. I think something like what I proposed for wizard feats could be done for witch, expanding what patrons provide and resulting in a much better class overall.
Yeah as you say the problem with that solution is you end up homogenising all the witches that come after if you make a new batch of class feats that fix everything.
It would be better than what we have now but it still wouldn't be great.
The unchained wouldn't have to just be for the classes that it "fixes" it could also supply some other experimental types of rules for people to try (like stamina in pf1)
Like a framework for power point casting as an alternative to Vancian spell slots. Some sort of inbuilt scaling bonus to replace items for people who don't like the constant ruin upgrading thing.
I'm sure there are other alternative rules people could think of. I'm sure a fair few people would be interested in buying.
|
I was just doing a bit of brain storming on what a unchained Wizard could even look like, because, at least to me, its more the overall system which harms the Wizard.
So, throw a mechanic at them!
Arcane formulae
[>]
Frequency: Once a TurnYour mind fills with secret arcane formula derived from your personal research. You can apply these formula to a spell you cast from your spell slots this turn, modifying the spell.
Attempt an Arcana check. The DC is usually a standard-difficulty DC of a level equal to the highest-level Spell you know, but the GM can assign a different DC based on the circumstances. The effect depends on the result of your check.Critical Success: As Success, except you can apply an additional Formula of a level 2 or more levels lower than your highest-level wizard spell slot
Success: The next time you cast a spell from your spell slots this turn, you apply a formula to that spell whose level is equal to or lower than the spells level, and meets the requirements for that formula.
We'd then come up with some "formula". There would be a bunch of generic formula which you get access to at certain levels, but, each school would have School Formula which are more powerful / do school specific things.
Generic formula would do things like:
- Allow a recall knowledge with a bonus
- Increase the range a bit
- etc
More powerful ones would have conditions on them but give better effects. Like teleport a few feet when you successfully cast a conjuration spell.
School specific formula would only be accessible to those who chose that school. Evocations ones could apply a status bonus to damage, give a status bonus to spell attack rolls, etc.
Just get a whole list of things. Allow low level spells, you are likely to crit on, to have a couple of formula / do some interesting things.
Sounds a bit like some of the psychic amps in pf1
Like attaching a dispel effect to a blast or dimensional slide or whatever
If a class that has more (mutually exclusive) build options must be balanced to be weaker than a class with fewer build options, what does that say about printing new build options? Should (e.g.) champion have been retroactively nerfed with the post-CRB release of the evil causes?
Seems like classes that have more options printed for them in new books (which is mainly the core ones) would become more and more over-budget as time passes, relative to classes that see fewer new options.
Say you design a class with no class feats, but at even levels it gets one pre-set feature catering to a melee striker role. Would you then need to ratchet up its damage significantly higher than fighter or barbarian simply because it has less build versatility?
Kind of, but you have it backwards: New content can't outpace or come close to the Core Rulebook content, which is why anything printed post Core Rulebook is generally going to be weaker, or more complex/expensive just to reach the same baseline as a Core class/option. This is why, given your example, the Evil causes are worse than the Good causes. (That, and nobody plays Evil characters anyway; they really should have just nixed that option for players to take entirely, since they either nerf it to be objectively worse, or put it behind a rarity tag so GMs don't have to deal with it if they don't want to.)
To a point. If a new feat gets printed out that is superior to a previous feat, then I would agree, because that's basically how power creep works to a T. If it's a completely different option, but isn't necessarily more powerful, it doesn't really fit the definition of power creep, but I would say that it still is, simply because it makes the class more versatile, which makes it more powerful as a whole than if it simply wasn't there in the first place.
A "classless" class doesn't really fit the mold of PF2's design goal, which is that classes have choices and they need to be balanced against one another so that one choice doesn't obviously overtake another choice, or doesn't become what was previously dubbed a "must take" option. Granted, the APG classes failed at this mark as well (the Lesson feats for Witches, the mandatory skill increases of Swashbuckler, etc)., but those feel more like the exception, and not the norm. Just as well, it also wouldn't work with things like Free Archetype or even standard Multiclassing, because no class feats = no archetypes.
But to answer your question, if there were such a class that exists, then clearly their class niche is "be the best melee striker," because they offer nothing else to the party. They don't have skills, they don't have feats, they don't have any other sort of versatility. As such, it would stand to reason that they would get benefits to this role compared to any other class, because they can't possibly intrude on other class' niches by comparison. By the way, isn't this basically what the Fighter class is? Except Paizo actually decided to balance this delicately while still giving them class feats to expand upon their fighting style choice(s)?
But it's not a matter of "This character is more versatile than any other character," it's "This class is more versatile than any other class." We are strictly talking class balance here. Can a Wizard cast Occult spells? What about a Druid, can they cast Divine spells? No? Then these classes aren't as versatile in their spellcasting choice as a Sorcerer is. Even if in practice, a given Sorcerer can only have 1 tradition to cast from at a given time, the fact of the matter is that I can make 4 Sorcerers, each able to cast from 4 different traditions, meaning in a party of 4 Sorcerers, as an example, I could encompass every spell list imaginable. Can I do that with a Wizard or Druid? Again, no, because they are restricted to one tradition (barring multiclassing).That party of sorcerers can only cover a handful of spells from each tradition though. A party of wizards may lose versatility in being limited to a single tradition, but more than make up for it by potentially having access to the entire tradition's spell list.
Using that as a guage, a party of witches could be argued as the most powerful (in terms of versatility) because they get the best of both worlds: potential access to every spell AND access to every tradition.
Ironic for a class that many consider subpar.
I mean, isn't this why a Coven of Witches is truly feared? Because of all that raw, untapped power waiting to be expelled from their bony, lifeless fingtertips?
I do not believe that having different spell lists causes Paizo designers to somehow weaken a class. Otherwise the sorcerer wouldn't work fine.
What is happening is that paizo designers are doing this mishmash design where some classes like the witch and wizard have these holdover abilities that haven't been adapted well to PF2. Wizard schools and hexes. In PF1 certain hexes were way too powerful, now they are way too weak. Wizard schools had other innate abilities they removed that made them cool. It wasn't the extra little spell or rounds per day ability, but the base innate benefit of the class like the divination bonus to initiative or intense spells that made them good.
Some abilities like bard songs and key sorcerer abilities like cross-blooded were done well. Some features like wizard schools and witch hexes were done poorly.
It's just inconsistent design, not some magic power budget. Some of the ideas they came up with were excellent and make for some fun builds. Some do not. They need to revisit the design decisions and improve on them to get the classes up to par and make them relatively equal options to better designed classes.
You can see a lot of thought was put into witch design from a flavor perspective. But not a lot of thought in to how the class would play and if there were fun and effective builds that people would find desirable.
The wizard was pasted over with barely any thought put into schools other than the school powers turning into weak, mostly useless focus spells and the removal of the base bonus for a school.
I see less of a "power budget" issue and more of an inconsistent design issue that not enough time was spent on key aspects of the game like encounter mode aka combat for certain classes like witch hexes and feats and wizard schools.
Honestly, the only reason why I'd play a Wizard over a Sorcerer is because of the benefits of prepared spellcasting. Sorcerers otherwise have better proficiencies, way better feats, and way better focus spells, and exciting options that you can either build into (if they're good) or avoid (if they're bad). They can also pick a tradition, meaning if you want a certain set of spells to play with, you can do that. Compared to a Wizard, I'd be far more excited to build a Sorcerer than a Wizard, and the latter of which I've taken up to 20th level, and the most exciting thing I got was a multiclass Rogue feat that basically served as a Reactionary True Strike for my allies. A cool ability, to be sure, but it's not rooted within my class.
I would disagree that the holdover abilities can't be adapted to PF2, as speaking from experience, I have literally converted the Evil Eye hex from PF1 almost 1-for-1 over into PF2 in a balanced and fair way that a BBEG NPC used, and it made the combat both interesting and dangerous for the PCs (but not too dangerous). And honestly, doing the same thing for things like the Slumber hex, the Flight hex, and several other popular ones, isn't complicated to fit into the expected Pathfinder math. And PF1 had some really awesome school and subschool abilities. Like, I would kill for the Admixture subschool from PF1 to come back into PF2 as a cost of Focus points. It would make preparing spells like Lightning Bolt against Blue Dragons not so bad when being able to change the traits and damage types of spells you cast (from your spell slots, of course), and it makes your school choice(s) and spells far more meaningful.
I can agree that it's inconsistent design, but I would disagree that the Witch should have been completely pick-a-list. I would accept that the Witch should be either Arcane or Occult, and the Patron choices (or even feats) letting you cherry-pick certain spells from other traditions (most notably, Heal from Divine/Primal, for example) would have both made more sense from a balance perspective and stayed true to the lore set by PF1, which is that these abilities were granted by the Patron, not simply learned by performing Witchcraft.
Many would agree it's inconsistent design, since most every aspect of the Witch class and its pick-a-list set-up seems almost categorically compared to an Arcane Wizard with Familiar Master thesis, QoL adjustments, and fixed weapon proficiencies, which is not a metric that the Sorcerer class was balanced with when it was published. The issue becomes that the Witch class was designed to be Familiar-centric, and eliminating that completely changes the design goal, and if we're talking design goals, then balance and power most certainly comes into frame, and when it gets to the nitty gritty, they're practically hand-in-hand, because if a class is imbalanced, then it failed the expected design goal of being balanced.
Like, compared to the amount of buffing errata Alchemists got since their release in Core, the Witch has gotten little to nothing, and there have been countless threads complaining about how weak the Witch class is. And there are probably just as many threads about the Witch as there are the Alchemist. The other real issue is that the amount of changes that need to be done to the Witch class means that they might as well should have just changed it to another class entirely. That is, it's too much work and it's already hit the print, so going back to a Square 1 drawing board isn't really a viable plan.
But it's not a matter of "This character is more versatile than any other character," it's "This class is more versatile than any other class." We are strictly talking class balance here. Can a Wizard cast Occult spells? What about a Druid, can they cast Divine spells? No? Then these classes aren't as versatile in their spellcasting choice as a Sorcerer is. Even if in practice, a given Sorcerer can only have 1 tradition to cast from at a given time, the fact of the matter is that I can make 4 Sorcerers, each able to cast from 4 different traditions, meaning in a party of 4 Sorcerers, as an example, I could encompass every spell list imaginable. Can I do that with a Wizard or Druid? Again, no, because they are restricted to one tradition (barring multiclassing).That party of sorcerers can only cover a handful of spells from each tradition though. A party of wizards may lose versatility in being limited to a single tradition, but more than make up for it by potentially having access to the entire tradition's spell list.
Using that as a guage, a party of witches could be argued as the most powerful (in terms of versatility) because they get the best of both worlds: potential access to every spell AND access to every tradition.
Ironic for a class that many consider subpar.
Most versatile and most powerful two different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the only reason why I'd play a Wizard over a Sorcerer is because of the benefits of prepared spellcasting. Sorcerers otherwise have better proficiencies, way better feats, and...I do not believe that having different spell lists causes Paizo designers to somehow weaken a class. Otherwise the sorcerer wouldn't work fine.
What is happening is that paizo designers are doing this mishmash design where some classes like the witch and wizard have these holdover abilities that haven't been adapted well to PF2. Wizard schools and hexes. In PF1 certain hexes were way too powerful, now they are way too weak. Wizard schools had other innate abilities they removed that made them cool. It wasn't the extra little spell or rounds per day ability, but the base innate benefit of the class like the divination bonus to initiative or intense spells that made them good.
Some abilities like bard songs and key sorcerer abilities like cross-blooded were done well. Some features like wizard schools and witch hexes were done poorly.
It's just inconsistent design, not some magic power budget. Some of the ideas they came up with were excellent and make for some fun builds. Some do not. They need to revisit the design decisions and improve on them to get the classes up to par and make them relatively equal options to better designed classes.
You can see a lot of thought was put into witch design from a flavor perspective. But not a lot of thought in to how the class would play and if there were fun and effective builds that people would find desirable.
The wizard was pasted over with barely any thought put into schools other than the school powers turning into weak, mostly useless focus spells and the removal of the base bonus for a school.
I see less of a "power budget" issue and more of an inconsistent design issue that not enough time was spent on key aspects of the game like encounter mode aka combat for certain classes like witch hexes and feats and wizard schools.
Never said they can't be adapted. I said they weren't done very well.
I gauge this because I have players that used to love wizards. Played a ton of wizards in the old edition. Multiple characters they remember well. They tried in PF2 and hated the PF2 wizard. It had nothing to do with the watered down power, but the lack of good build options. The feats and schools were incredibly unattractive. You couple that with the standard 40% plus failure rate of spells and it makes the wizard not very fun to play.
Part of what makes the sorcerer and druid more interesting is the good focus options. Who cares if you have a 40% fail rate for a focus options you can use after a 10 minute rest. But when you blow a high level spell slot and it fails 40 percent of the time, who cares if you have one more slot from your arcane bond or a school spell. It means nothing because the druid or sorcerer have multiple powerful focus spells starting at once her 10 minute rest which with enough time equals many more max level slots per day because of automatic heightening.
So a druid with tempest surge ends up with 2 or 3 max level slots and a powerful focus spell they can use another usually 3 plus times per day for 5 to 6 max level slots with a very powerful single target attack spell which is almost always useful.
When I first played a druid compared to my evocation wizard, I felt like Tempest Surge was a way better attack blast spell that force missile and made me feel far more like a blaster caster than anything the evocation school provided.
It's the same thing with witches. My player who likes witches enjoys using the fervor hex. He felt like the evil eye hex was an intimidate you could sustain if you had the actions to spend. So barely better than a skill use. Witch cantrip should be clearly better than a skill use everyone can pick up in my opinion. As a game designer you should be able to discern when a key class feature like a hex isn't up to par when someone with a base level skill can equal what you do. That should signal a problem with that class ability.
It's little things like that that seemed to have been missed with wizard and witch design when compared with other classes using similar mechanics.
Sure, but the point is that such a poor option was created, reviewed, edited, and published by a multimillion dollar company whose sole job is to create a functional and fun game that's fairly balanced. Meanwhile, I took little thought to homebrew a hex that was both fairly balanced and fun to use. And this was before the Witch class hit playtesting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but the point is that such a poor option was created, reviewed, edited, and published by a multimillion dollar company whose sole job is to create a functional and fun game that's fairly balanced. Meanwhile, I took little thought to homebrew a hex that was both fairly balanced and fun to use. And this was before the Witch class hit playtesting.
I'd be ok if they acknowledge and fix it. These game rules are immense, so things get missed. I don't mind a miss on something they are trying. But once you know you've got a miss given the new environment with an updated SRD digital document and the ease of updating PDFs which more people are using nowadays, move to fix it. That is what I wish they would do faster.
I think at this point it is pretty clear wizard schools, witch hexes, and build options for the wizard and witch need a look. No use waiting forever for fixes like we're still in the print only time of yesteryear. They should have those classes and likely the alchemist slotted for some fixes to get them up to par.