Witch Revision Speculation


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 367 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

At a guess, I’d place money on a lot of the hex cantrip restrictions being eased or eliminated. That seems to be what they were hinting at.

I still would like the ability to have multiple hex cantrips, but being able to use the one I have as my default third action every round, rather than being hemmed in by 20 restrictions, is a start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh I really hope they look at the wild witch, either by giving it a completly different hex cantrip or at the very least make it more useful/ ites mechanics actually fitting in line with the flavor. That cantrip is both mechanically and tonally a mess.


Squiggit wrote:

Familiars are basically a ribbon feature as is... and I'm also not sure baseline cackle does much for them either. One action once per combat for a focus point is... idk, kind of lame? Useful in the strictest sense but a little niche and not very flavorful.

IMO any attempt to fix the witch or strengthen its identity should focus on hexes. Hex cantrips need to be more compelling and there should probably be room for more hex cantrips too.

In the context of why this was brought up it has to do with the hexes directly. Cackle extends the duration of all sustained spells at once for an action and a focus point. Making this the core feature by making it easier to use plays into what I said I want, which is for the witch to be very good at weakening opponents primarily but also protecting allies with spells. Making cackle a core feature and better is what I want to help make hexes better


AestheticDialectic wrote:
Cackle extends the duration of all sustained spells at once for an action and a focus point.

That is not accurate.

Cackle, by default, sustains one spell.

There is a level 20 upgrade feat, Hex Master that improves that to sustain all Hex spells at the same time.

But in no case does it sustain all active spells for one action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely want more focus on hexes, but if the familiar is going to remain a major component of the witch then I would like to see witch/patron specific familiar abilities that actually make it a meaningful tool. For example, you could have an ability that lets it take the sustain action for one of the witch's hexes.


Eoran wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Cackle extends the duration of all sustained spells at once for an action and a focus point.

That is not accurate.

Cackle, by default, sustains one spell.

There is a level 20 upgrade feat, Hex Master that improves that to sustain all Hex spells at the same time.

But in no case does it sustain all active spells for one action.

I must have gotten confused here between these, and maybe between these and the playtest, which I don't even remember what the playtest cackle did. Regardless that being level 20 is extremely mediocre compared to an extra 10th level slot, much like many 20th level caster feats


AestheticDialectic wrote:
Eoran wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Cackle extends the duration of all sustained spells at once for an action and a focus point.

That is not accurate.

Cackle, by default, sustains one spell.

There is a level 20 upgrade feat, Hex Master that improves that to sustain all Hex spells at the same time.

But in no case does it sustain all active spells for one action.

I must have gotten confused here between these, and maybe between these and the playtest, which I don't even remember what the playtest cackle did. Regardless that being level 20 is extremely mediocre compared to an extra 10th level slot, much like many 20th level caster feats

You were probably thinking of the PF1 cackle that by default extended all hexes from a specific list within 30 ft for a single move action (single action). That list was: Agony, Charm, Evil Eye, Fortune, and Misfortune.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

IMO, the witch hex cantrips should be revised to act like the psychic psi cantrips, but without the psi amps: a basic, greater, and major hex cantrip for each patron theme. The more powerful hex cantrips can probably have a "cooldown" (target is immune for 1 hour or 24 hours) to prevent them from being spammed; similar to the PF1 witch.

Then, modify the lesson feats to expand the hexes (probably a basic hex cantrip and a hex focus spell for each lesson) available for customizing a particular witch around desired capabilities.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

multiple layers of cantrips like the psychic would be really cool

In that scenario I'd also kill for parallel breakthrough on witches.

...

Feels kind of reductive to just list all the Psychic stuff I wish the Witch had but the Psychic kind of feels like a second stab at the Witch anyways, even if it has narrower flavor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

multiple layers of cantrips like the psychic would be really cool

In that scenario I'd also kill for parallel breakthrough on witches.

...

Feels kind of reductive to just list all the Psychic stuff I wish the Witch had but the Psychic kind of feels like a second stab at the Witch anyways, even if it has narrower flavor.

Dang, if only they had the person who did Psychic working on the Witch redesign.

Oh wait...

I'm looking forward to seeing what they do. Obviously, since Witch is rocking an extra spell per level as compared to Psychic, it's not going to be quite as much cantrip/focus spell stuff even if they head in that direction. But there's a lot of room between the two, and it's definitely reassuring to have the Psychic designer working on it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There are so many different directions one could go in a revision that it's hard to guess what will be done.

Chief problems I see are:

1. Not enough non-Occult Patron choices. People often say the Witch is a weaker Wizard, yet only one of the Patron's is Arcane.

2. The Occult spell list needs more. It's too tailored to the role a Bard will fill in a group. Social and Detective spells. Witch leans heavily on Occult as that conceptually seems to fit, but then you make one and find the spells seem less than ideal.

3. Too many class feats that lack class synergy. The various melee attacks for example, and the cauldron. A lot of things seem like an idea in one feat, that needs feats before and after it to boost it into a full concept.

4. The familiar lacks good uses. So many feats are for getting a special familiar that changes out your familiar for another - but the Witch as a concept feels like it should have a more special life long bond with the same familiar (that keeps coming back the next morning even when killed). There should be a line of special familiars (or special witch familiars) that keep the animal the same - but instead build out a theme tied to the patron.

The familiar should be as central to a Witch's roleplay as the Summoner's Eidolon is to them. Not in the same way of course - just equally important / frequently used. Instead the best thing to do with it is to take Tattoo Transformation and forget about it.

Not a "Problem" but a way to expand it out that would appeal to me:

Need some iconic things: broom, hat, fortune telling items (cards or crystal ball), etc. Some angles that go into crafting 'witch items' - no real difference needed from other Magic Item Crafting other than theming.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Agree with a lot of what arcady said but not the last point.

IMO, the fact that a witch can choose to almost completely ignore their familiar and lose next to nothing is a good thing.

Feats and options that expand your familiars capabilities are fine, but it would be disappointing to see big chunks of the power budget shifted in that direction, since it being more of a background feature increases the class' flexibility.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
arcady wrote:
The familiar should be as central to a Witch's roleplay as the Summoner's Eidolon is to them. Not in the same way of course - just equally important / frequently used. Instead the best thing to do with it is to take Tattoo Transformation and forget about it.

Please no.

The thematic purpose of the familiar is simply being a link between the Witch and the Patron. The Patron is the figure central to the Witch's class identity/roleplay, not the pet. PF1 had about half-a-dozen different Witch archetypes which traded the pet familiar for some sort of inanimate object (harrow deck, mask, mirror, poppet, etc.) and I personally see it as a huge loss that doing anything remotely similar is currently locked behind a single rare patron.


Temperans wrote:
You were probably thinking of the PF1 cackle that by default extended all hexes from a specific list within 30 ft for a single move action (single action). That list was: Agony, Charm, Evil Eye, Fortune, and Misfortune.

It wasn't this, because I was stunned to see cackle extends any kind of spell in PF2, I think I just got the level 20 feat wording confused with the actual wording

Feat:

Quote:
You can extend one of your spells with a quick burst of laughter. You learn the cackle hex. Increase the number of Focus Points in your focus pool by 1.

Spell:

Quote:
With a quick burst of laughter, you prolong a magical effect you created. You Sustain a Spell.

But the level 20 feat says it sustains all hexes? Which is a weird wording when the default spell sustains any spell


AestheticDialectic wrote:
Temperans wrote:
You were probably thinking of the PF1 cackle that by default extended all hexes from a specific list within 30 ft for a single move action (single action). That list was: Agony, Charm, Evil Eye, Fortune, and Misfortune.

It wasn't this, because I was stunned to see cackle extends any kind of spell in PF2, I think I just got the level 20 feat wording confused with the actual wording

Feat:

Quote:
You can extend one of your spells with a quick burst of laughter. You learn the cackle hex. Increase the number of Focus Points in your focus pool by 1.

Spell:

Quote:
With a quick burst of laughter, you prolong a magical effect you created. You Sustain a Spell.
But the level 20 feat says it sustains all hexes? Which is a weird wording when the default spell sustains any spell

Yeah the whole thing is weird...

Liberty's Edge

There are so many good suggestions in the Witch playtest threads ...

BTW, love my PFS Baba Yaga Witch who speaks and listens to his erudite stylus that no one else hears and who animates books that fight on his behalf.

Hope I can still play him after Remastered.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AestheticDialectic wrote:
CaptainRelyk wrote:
Eoran wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
Honestly my main worry (and I know I'm not the norm) is that eldritch nails will be changed.

Wait, you don't want Eldritch Nails changed? I struggle to find a way that they could possibly be changed for the worse.

Because strength-based melee-range Witch that makes multiple Strike actions during their turn - really doesn't work. At all.

And the Hex delivery is a downgrade. It changes the Hex to be melee range only and gated by a Strength-based attack roll with minimum proficiency - and still allows the target to make a save against the effect.

Gaulin wrote:
As of now it's really the only way to have weapon runes be part of your character instead of just being another item they wield, which I really like.
Automatic Bonus Progression.
Bare minimum, the nails should be made into finesse. Bare minimum, but it should have more changes
Even making them use your spell attack proficiency is fine since you will still be a 6hp caster with awful armor in most cases. That already balances itself and becomes a sometimes treat

That would be great and I'd love it if they could do that for, say, the Draconic sorcerer too. Their first focus spell being relegated to "a thing for martials with a multiclass archetype" feels awful!

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
arcady wrote:
The familiar should be as central to a Witch's roleplay as the Summoner's Eidolon is to them. Not in the same way of course - just equally important / frequently used. Instead the best thing to do with it is to take Tattoo Transformation and forget about it.

Please no.

The thematic purpose of the familiar is simply being a link between the Witch and the Patron. The Patron is the figure central to the Witch's class identity/roleplay, not the pet. PF1 had about half-a-dozen different Witch archetypes which traded the pet familiar for some sort of inanimate object (harrow deck, mask, mirror, poppet, etc.) and I personally see it as a huge loss that doing anything remotely similar is currently locked behind a single rare patron.

I wish to be able to prepare spells by sleeping atop my bonded treasure horde again.


I would really like to see more unique options for the witch's familiar. Mechanically powerful and fun options.
Something that would make the familiar unique and special.
It would be interesting to see some options for the witch who doesn't want a familiar. But I really think the way is to make the familiar more special and make the hexes impactful.


Ectar wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
arcady wrote:
The familiar should be as central to a Witch's roleplay as the Summoner's Eidolon is to them. Not in the same way of course - just equally important / frequently used. Instead the best thing to do with it is to take Tattoo Transformation and forget about it.

Please no.

The thematic purpose of the familiar is simply being a link between the Witch and the Patron. The Patron is the figure central to the Witch's class identity/roleplay, not the pet. PF1 had about half-a-dozen different Witch archetypes which traded the pet familiar for some sort of inanimate object (harrow deck, mask, mirror, poppet, etc.) and I personally see it as a huge loss that doing anything remotely similar is currently locked behind a single rare patron.

I wish to be able to prepare spells by sleeping atop my bonded treasure horde again.

Wait what! This would be amazing, I would love this

Would be great for a witch who made a pact with a super powerful dragon

Verdant Wheel

Maybe the families can use items?


CaptainRelyk wrote:
Ectar wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
arcady wrote:
The familiar should be as central to a Witch's roleplay as the Summoner's Eidolon is to them. Not in the same way of course - just equally important / frequently used. Instead the best thing to do with it is to take Tattoo Transformation and forget about it.

Please no.

The thematic purpose of the familiar is simply being a link between the Witch and the Patron. The Patron is the figure central to the Witch's class identity/roleplay, not the pet. PF1 had about half-a-dozen different Witch archetypes which traded the pet familiar for some sort of inanimate object (harrow deck, mask, mirror, poppet, etc.) and I personally see it as a huge loss that doing anything remotely similar is currently locked behind a single rare patron.

I wish to be able to prepare spells by sleeping atop my bonded treasure horde again.

Wait what! This would be amazing, I would love this

Would be great for a witch who made a pact with a super powerful dragon

You are going to love this, too bad its not in PF2: Wyrm Witch.

Also of note is the ability to learn spells by simply sleeping a top your hoard.


Temperans wrote:
CaptainRelyk wrote:
Ectar wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
arcady wrote:
The familiar should be as central to a Witch's roleplay as the Summoner's Eidolon is to them. Not in the same way of course - just equally important / frequently used. Instead the best thing to do with it is to take Tattoo Transformation and forget about it.

Please no.

The thematic purpose of the familiar is simply being a link between the Witch and the Patron. The Patron is the figure central to the Witch's class identity/roleplay, not the pet. PF1 had about half-a-dozen different Witch archetypes which traded the pet familiar for some sort of inanimate object (harrow deck, mask, mirror, poppet, etc.) and I personally see it as a huge loss that doing anything remotely similar is currently locked behind a single rare patron.

I wish to be able to prepare spells by sleeping atop my bonded treasure horde again.

Wait what! This would be amazing, I would love this

Would be great for a witch who made a pact with a super powerful dragon

You are going to love this, too bad its not in PF2: Wyrm Witch.

Also of note is the ability to learn spells by simply sleeping a top your hoard.

WHAAAAAAAAT

A PATRON STRIAFHT UP FOR WYRMS YESSSSS!!!!

I WANT THIS IN 2E RIGHT NOW!!!!!


I want to make a witch whose patron is a brass boi

Thanks to his patron, this witch has the power of “talking too much”

Dark Archive

CaptainRelyk wrote:

I want to make a witch whose patron is a brass boi

Thanks to his patron, this witch has the power of “talking too much”

With PF2R on the horizon, I've got some bad new for ya regarding dragons in the transition......


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ectar wrote:
CaptainRelyk wrote:

I want to make a witch whose patron is a brass boi

Thanks to his patron, this witch has the power of “talking too much”

With PF2R on the horizon, I've got some bad new for ya regarding dragons in the transition......

There isn't any bad news there. Chromatic and metallic dragons aren't actually going away or being retconned out of existence. Paizo is focusing on new dragons for the remaster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering Witches are slotted for Core 1 - I doubt any of the Witch rework will include dragon-specific stuff. Consensus seems to be that the most likely reason for Barbarians/Sorcerers being pushed off to Core 2 is because they have dragon-themed subclasses and paizo want to have the new dragons released in Monster Core prior to remastering those classes.

So any Witch interactions with Dragons in PF2 is likely a long long way off. The best bet for something like a bonded treasure hoard in PF2 would be the Witch rework allowing fairly open options for Witches to select an inanimate object familiar and a generous GM allowing a treasure hoard as opposed to a singular object.


A thing that I hope with great desire. The Witch will not lose her Witch's Hut. Firstly, this is a tribute to the tradition of Baba Yaga from Slavic mythology. Secondly, this is a chic thing in the original use. In one of our campaigns, we put together a party of Inventor, Gunslinger, Wizard and Witch. Even if the Hut itself can be a small house, however, in our case, the Hut turned into a mobile fortified point with artillery on the roof.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see any reason that Witch Hut would need to go away.

For your party in particular, an interesting idea is for the Inventor to have a size large construct companion in the shape of a gazebo. So enemies will actually have to fight the gazebo when they want to attack the party.

Horizon Hunters

I guess we gonna see witches' feats and hexes with more harmony than the poor version that we have right now. I'M LOOKING AT YOU Witch's Bottle!! (>.O) I Also expect more amphasis on the familiar, which is a level up in flavor/roleplay and in actual mechanic!

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's it, my position has hardened after looking over my old PF1 game notes... The Witch as it exists now needs to be completely rewritten and if there is anything of value in what exists now to be kept it is simply the pick-a-tradition prepared caster idea, that's just about it.

The fact that they have to pay CLASS FEATS to get Hexes in the first unforgivable sin of the Class design and this does a huge disservice to the Class as it existed before and the Class as a whole is greatly suffering from the "tax" that Wizard similarly suffers from in that they weren't afforded enough room in their Chassis after the number of prepared Spells they get per day which is a resource that was estimated to be far more impactful and powerful than it actually is.

The various Lesson Feats need to be either done away with entirely and given for free with level advancement or they need to be converted into Feats that work like Order Explorer/Multifarious Muse that grants benefits to other Patrons that weren't chosen at level 1.

And more than anything else, Hexes need to be like Composition Cantrips, that's the biggest thing that makes them depart from how they worked in PF1, they lost their all-day Hexes. That and the Hexes they DO have are pitifully weak and ineffectual compared to the game-changingingly and iconic things they got beforehand. As it stands there is almost no way to rebuild a Witch PC from PF1 in PF2 unless they are made into a different Class and likely also made as an NPC, custom by the GM with a number of unlimited Innate Spells that work to sort of reproduce the effects they had access to in PF1.

Last piece- If I had my wish here for the Witch Revision/Remaster it would be as follows: Logan Bonner and Adam Daigle, they're two of the most talented creators and creative minds in the entire industry from design and creativity standpoint as well. Lock both of them in a room with all of the PF1 Witch content, mechanics, and lore. Make Daigle bring his record player, vinyl collection, Bonner a Solid State Hard Drive with every movie in his collection, and enough food/drink/drugs to last them a month and take whatever they come up with to the best editor the company has on offer, grab that output and email it to Owen, pay him twice as much as he deserves to tweak it for another month, and then just print whatever comes out the other end. It will be 10x the Class we currently have.

Scarab Sages

Themetricsystem wrote:
That's it, my position has hardened after looking over my old PF1 game notes... The Witch as it exists now needs to be completely rewritten and if there is anything of value in what exists now to be kept it is simply the pick-a-tradition prepared caster idea, that's just about it.

If it were me, I would have witch be the occult spellcasting class in the base player book (CRB, Player Core), rather than pick-a-list.

The bard feels like it should have been a gish, an occult version of a magus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Occult only witch kills so many builds and fails to live up to the legacy of the original class and doesn't really give you anything positive in return. Hard pass.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Occult that can snipe spells from other schools works best for the Witch I believe, making it into the all 4 Pick-a-List that people clamored for because they all wanted their favourite "Witch" from various media to be copied by the the class with the name "Witch" basically ruined it since witch in other media means absolutely anything and everything as needed by that media.

Instead of versatile we got dabbler master of none. It should be it's own thing rather than trying to copy everything from elsewhere.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Occult only witch kills so many builds and fails to live up to the legacy of the original class and doesn't really give you anything positive in return. Hard pass.

It's about giving the witch its own identity. I don't see a lot of builds that use the witch class (and you didn't menion any), TBH, and "living up to the legacy of the original class" doesn't mean anything with regards to 2E's magic traditions.

The witch needs decent hex cantrips as a USP. I think it will get more familiar abilities instead, which are a lot of mental overhead for very little benefit, IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Occult only witch kills so many builds and fails to live up to the legacy of the original class and doesn't really give you anything positive in return. Hard pass.

It's about giving the witch its own identity. I don't see a lot of builds that use the witch class (and you didn't menion any), TBH, and "living up to the legacy of the original class" doesn't mean anything with regards to 2E's magic traditions.

The witch needs decent hex cantrips as a USP. I think it will get more familiar abilities instead, which are a lot of mental overhead for very little benefit, IMHO.

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.

You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

For witches, it's because witches are something people dress up as during Halloween. They're meant to be spooky, not throw fireballs or summon holy avatars. That idea represents the occult tradition better than the bard does, IMO.

I do like the like the idea of a witch getting spells from other traditions and a patron could provide that in addition to hex cantrips and focus spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.

You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

With clerics there's a built in answer that's pretty simple to understand. Both the divine list and clerics are tied to worship in a way the other spell lists and classes are not.

But there's nothing specifically tying witches to the occult list, and I don't see how tying it to that would give it more identity in and of itself like you're suggesting.

It could. Depending on how it was done. But they could also give witch it's own identity while retaining the pick a list aspect.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.

You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

With clerics there's a built in answer that's pretty simple to understand. Both the divine list and clerics are tied to worship in a way the other spell lists and classes are not.

Oracles, divine sorcerers, and divine witches don't need to follow a deity, but they cast spells from the divine tradition.

I think that limiting classes, such as wizard or druid, to a single traditions help give them their own identity, which witches lack. The question of why witches are occult could be answered with flavor text from a book like Secrets of Magic.


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

But patrons are so varied. Why would every single one provide access to only the occult list? Why would a patron who's, say... A kami not give the primal spell list?

It makes more sense to me as a pick a list.

You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

With clerics there's a built in answer that's pretty simple to understand. Both the divine list and clerics are tied to worship in a way the other spell lists and classes are not.
Oracles, divine sorcerers, and divine witches don't need to follow a deity, but they cast spells from the divine tradition.

Never said they did, and RAW I think they'd even be perfectly legal as atheists. But that doesn't mean it's intended for them to commonly be atheists, or even ever be atheists at all. It just means they didn't put a rule in forbidding it.

Quote:
I think that limiting classes, such as wizard or druid, to a single traditions help give them their own identity, which witches lack. The question of why witches are occult could be answered with flavor text from a book like Secrets of Magic.

I don't see how it's helping the wizard any, it has a still really vague class identity as "scholar of arcane magic." One that could theoretically be changed to just "scholar of magic," without changing its flavor very much.

Not that I'm advocating for wizards to be pick a list, mind you, but I think pick a list fits the witch.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I was, and still am, definitely of the opinion that Occult + Spell Poaching is the way the Witch should have gone. The weird and unique spell list from PF1 was one of the reasons I like them so much, and Occult definitely best aligns with that incarnation. I don't particularly care what the Patron's deal is, since I've always thought the Patron is not the heart of the class, being Weird is, which is supported by hexes and a funky spell list.

I'd actually be okay with both Patrons and Familiars being opt-in, or shoving all of the "you get special powers from an unknown entity for an unknown price" into an archetype.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll be a contrarian here- pick-a-list patron-focused Witch does a lot of heavy lifting to make PF2's approach to magic lists work. Why can't an archdevil or the god of magic give you arcane magic? Witch covers that. Why can't the god of secrets or an Eldest give you occult magic? Witch covers that. Why can't somebody receive primal power for the purpose of despoiling nature, say from an evil elemental lord or a demon lord of rot? Witch covers that. Why can't a god play favorites and give power without worrying over little details of anathema, enabling things like Urgathoans in Geb campaigns? Witch covers that.

Off the top of my head, three witches come to mind: the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz (movie version), the White Witch from the Chronicles of Narnia, and the generic witch of fairy tales and Halloween. The first slings fireballs, flies, and has hybrid animal minions. Solid fit for Arcane. The second has ice/weather and petrification magic, a shoe-in for Primal- with a whole country more or less themed around winter witches. The third curses people and is responsible for half the non-Lovecraftian flavor of Occult. That was the initial playtest, and leaving out just Divine felt off to folks.

Completely lacking flavorful stuff for the patron means Witch as it stands right now doesn't do a good job of living up to that. "Power through unofficial channels, but always with someone to keep an eye on you" isn't a bad tagline for the class to have; the class just needs to have the option of leaning into it more if they want, as well as a solid enough base that picking something like Arcane isn't just a downgrade on Wizard. Getting unique familiar effects is more or less the "permission" I needed to be fine actually taking advantage of their daily respawn, patron abilities are what I needed to have more relevant flavor than Wizard, and a tune-up of the feats and hexes is what I needed to not feel bad taking the class mechanically.

Yeah, occult-only would work fine for Witch, at least with something to support Winter Witch like PF1 had. But it wouldn't really be much better, and something else would need to handle the role Witch does for the non-occult lists.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Give Witches occult + 1 other spell list.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Occult brings a very specific flavor to the Witch. Not everyone who wants to play a Witch will want this flavor.

And I say this as a PFS player of a Baba Yaga Witch (and thus Occult list).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:


The fact that they have to pay CLASS FEATS to get Hexes in the first unforgivable sin of the Class design and this does a huge disservice to the Class as it existed before and the Class as a whole is greatly suffering from the "tax" that Wizard similarly suffers from in that they weren't afforded enough room in their Chassis after the number of prepared Spells they get per day which is a resource that was estimated to be far more impactful and powerful than it actually is.

I agree with many of your complaints, but you lost me here. PF1 hexes were class feats already. You got one at level 1 and every even level. Thematically they covered very similar ground as class feats do now. The biggest difference is that A) they are generally weaker, especially given only one is a cantrip, and B) in PF1 you could spend your general feats to get more class feats. Both of those are problems, but the problem isn't that hexes are class feats. I'd love if we got more at will powers, more class feats, or more abilities given out as features. But hexes being class feats is consistent with both PF1 and PF2 design philosophy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pick-a-List isn't something that harmed the Witch, lacking a strong central mechanic is what harmed the Witch. Most spellcasters have something notable in addition to their spellcasting. Pick-a-List without that is what made the Witch a worse version of whatever class shared their chosen tradition.

Summoner is probably the best example of a class that did pick-a-list well, since they have enough meat to not be mistaken for another class of the tradition they select. Currently Patrons, hexes, and a slightly better familiar are severely lacking in this regard. Even Sorcerer Bloodlines do more for them, and I'd argue those also deserve some tune up.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:
You may as well say, "Deities are so varied. Why does every single one provide access to only the divine list? Why would a nature deity such as Gozreh not give the primal spell list?"

Deities are also the apex of divine beings - making them all divine entities regardless of any other aspects. Divine Casting + Selection of non-divine spells makes more sense here. Plus Deities also generally expect to have more worshippers than just clerics, and it is not strange to expect that a deity like Gozreh may have a number of druid followers in addition to their clerics.

The same is not true for Patrons, which are far more varied than deities by default (nothing says a specific patron should have anything to do with occult), and rarely matter to anyone outside of Witches. This makes more sense to have pick-a-list + options that allow certain spells highly thematic to Witches regardless of tradition (i.e. Baleful Polymorph spell currently available under Rites of Transfiguration Feat). Pick-a-list also matches up with the other classes which source their magic from a variety of creature categories (Sorcerer Bloodlines & Summoner Eidolons).

WatersLethe wrote:
I'd actually be okay with both Patrons and Familiars being opt-in, or shoving all of the "you get special powers from an unknown entity for an unknown price" into an archetype.

Issue in that sectioning off Patrons would remove the entire theme of "how class gets their magic" from the Witch. This theming is kinda essential for every spellcaster - if only to help provide why they are different class option instead of just being archetype/feats/subclass of another caster. "Weird/Spooky Caster" isn't really enough to be a class in my opinion - a couple feats under druid/psychic/etc. would satisfy this, as would an archetype.


Captain Morgan wrote:
PF1 hexes were class feats already.

Yes. The closest PF2 equivalent of the PF1 Hex list, and how often you chose them is the PF2 class feats. Especially considering that things like Cauldron, Murksight, and Nails were Hexes in PF1.

Captain Morgan wrote:
in PF1 you could spend your general feats to get more class feats.

Now I am curious how you did that. I didn't play PF1 very much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
PF1 hexes were class feats already.

Yes. The closest PF2 equivalent of the PF1 Hex list, and how often you chose them is the PF2 class feats. Especially considering that things like Cauldron, Murksight, and Nails were Hexes in PF1.

Captain Morgan wrote:
in PF1 you could spend your general feats to get more class feats.
Now I am curious how you did that. I didn't play PF1 very much.

The Extra Hex feat, which witches had a strong tendency to grab a couple times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
PF1 hexes were class feats already.

Yes. The closest PF2 equivalent of the PF1 Hex list, and how often you chose them is the PF2 class feats. Especially considering that things like Cauldron, Murksight, and Nails were Hexes in PF1.

Captain Morgan wrote:
in PF1 you could spend your general feats to get more class feats.
Now I am curious how you did that. I didn't play PF1 very much.

There was a feat called Extra Hex that you could take as many times as you want.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It would be understated to say that Extra Hex was anything less than mandatory to grab at least 2-4 times over the course of the 20-level career of any given Witch, ESPECIALLY if they weren't trying to do something weird like multiclassing into a Martial Class.

It is not at all uncommon for a level 20 Witch to have Extra Hex selected 5 or more times by the time they retire, that's effectively like an extra Class Feat on top of what they get in PF2 every four levels, not to mention the Hexes were ASTRONOMICALLY more functional, useful, and better than they are now.

Also, it doesn't track to me 100% that they're "just Class Feats" in PF1 because they also were able to spend "General Feats" to get Metamagic Feats, replicate things that were merely mid-range Spells like Familiar's Eyes/Share Senses, COUNTERSPELL, or get an Improved Familiar which was by all accounts FAR more powerful in PF1 than even the best and most invested fully Archetype invested Familiar in PF2 can ever get just from taking a single "General Feat." Witch got the stick when it came to Caster tweaks but they forgot the carrot at the feed store.

51 to 100 of 367 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Witch Revision Speculation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.