| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Witch that wants to excel at using their Familiar invests in the Familiar Master dedication.
Given that the Witch has been advertised as being the Familiar class, the fact that they should invest in a dedication that emphasizes their primary feature instead of it being hardbaked into their class (either through features or class feats) is a failure of design.
This is like saying a Fighter should take Mauler/Dual Weapon Warrior/Archer dedication if they want to excel at those types of weapons.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Witch that wants to excel at using their Familiar invests in the Familiar Master dedication.Given that the Witch has been advertised as being the Familiar class, the fact that they should invest in a dedication that emphasizes their primary feature instead of it being hardbaked into their class (either through features or class feats) is a failure of design.
This is like saying a Fighter should take Mauler/Dual Weapon Warrior/Archer dedication if they want to excel at those types of weapons.
Actually both the Witch class and the archetype bring different things that boost using your familiar. They work together pretty well.
But you do not need to be a Witch to take the archetype.
And a Witch does not need to take the archetype.
Perfect IMO.
I mean, those examples do add something to those builds even if they're mostly redundant. Running reload and flensing slice are pretty handy for some specific fighter builds.The Witch that wants to excel at using their Familiar invests in the Familiar Master dedication.Given that the Witch has been advertised as being the Familiar class, the fact that they should invest in a dedication that emphasizes their primary feature instead of it being hardbaked into their class (either through features or class feats) is a failure of design.
This is like saying a Fighter should take Mauler/Dual Weapon Warrior/Archer dedication if they want to excel at those types of weapons.
Running Reload is pretty bad for any Fighter, since they have the best to-hit, crippling themselves on potential Strikes is a poor decision. They should be at-worst relegated to a Longbow and pick up Point Blank Shot if they want to run ranged, but even that is pretty bad because you have to raise Dexterity, and running heavy armor makes that largely pointless on a defensive end. Quick Shot might be the only good feat here, but at that point you'd be better off taking Ranger dedication instead.
Flensing Slice is also pretty terrible by nature of Double Slice being a poor use of actions, and requiring a flawless Double Slice to take place. Sure, Fighter is most likely to have it happen, but there are better dual wield options out there that don't involve or require successful strikes to operate.
Just as well, most of the good feats from those options are already replicated in the Fighter class, which was ultimately my point.
|
|
I mean, those examples do add something to those builds even if they're mostly redundant. Running reload and flensing slice are pretty handy for some specific fighter builds.The Witch that wants to excel at using their Familiar invests in the Familiar Master dedication.Given that the Witch has been advertised as being the Familiar class, the fact that they should invest in a dedication that emphasizes their primary feature instead of it being hardbaked into their class (either through features or class feats) is a failure of design.
This is like saying a Fighter should take Mauler/Dual Weapon Warrior/Archer dedication if they want to excel at those types of weapons.
Running Reload is pretty bad for any Fighter, since they have the best to-hit, crippling themselves on potential Strikes is a poor decision. They should be at-worst relegated to a Longbow and pick up Point Blank Shot if they want to run ranged, but even that is pretty bad because you have to raise Dexterity, and running heavy armor makes that largely pointless on a defensive end. Quick Shot might be the only good feat here, but at that point you'd be better off taking Ranger dedication instead.
Flensing Slice is also pretty terrible by nature of Double Slice being a poor use of actions, and requiring a flawless Double Slice to take place. Sure, Fighter is most likely to have it happen, but there are better dual wield options out there that don't involve or require successful strikes to operate.
Just as well, most of the good feats from those options are already replicated in the Fighter class, which was ultimately my point.
Just so you know, people have raised a ruckus in the past because the Sentinel dedication feat brought no benefit to the Champion...
The Witch that wants to excel at using their Familiar invests in the Familiar Master dedication.Given that the Witch has been advertised as being the Familiar class, the fact that they should invest in a dedication that emphasizes their primary feature instead of it being hardbaked into their class (either through features or class feats) is a failure of design.
This is like saying a Fighter should take Mauler/Dual Weapon Warrior/Archer dedication if they want to excel at those types of weapons.
Actually both the Witch class and the archetype bring different things that boost using your familiar. They work together pretty well.
But you do not need to be a Witch to take the archetype.
And a Witch does not need to take the archetype.
Perfect IMO.
Such as?
Looking at Familiar Master, the only things it gives unique to the archetype is Familiar Conduit, Familiar Mascot, and Mutable Familiar. The former gives a slight boost in tactics (though it's very action-intensive for very minor gains, and risky for the Familiar), the median just lets you transfer certain Master Abilities to other characters, which, short of Focus Point cheese, spell slot manipulation, or other minor healing chicanery, it's not very potent, and Mutable Familiar just lets you treat your Familiar Abilities as retrainable for 10 minutes outside of combat, which, at the level you acquire this, isn't very feasible due to lack of scaling with Familiars and their options. The other feats Witches can also take, and at earlier levels too.
Meanwhile, Witch has Familiar's Language, Familiar's Eyes, and Siphon Power. The former is so niche that it's almost terrible (seriously, how would this work if you have the Baba Yaga patron, and you have a pet rock?), and the median isn't very potent either, given that again, Familiars don't scale. Really, Siphon Power is the only one that sounds pretty good, but given how late-game it is and how confusing it appears to work (looks like a free non-top unprepared spell slot or focus spell, but could be wrong though), as well as how weak Witch focus spells are to begin with, I'm not convinced this is something that extremely tips the scales in the Witch's favor.
Honestly, the only major benefit to this sort of thing is that you can select Familiar Feats as Archetype feats instead of Class feats, thereby letting you take other Class feats instead, which I suppose isn't a bad thing. But given that you are delaying Familiar progression (which isn't a wise decision for a class that has a Familiar as a defining feature), as well as Free Archetype/Multiclass games not being the standard, it's by no means an automatic guarantee.
Just so you know, people have raised a ruckus in the past because the Sentinel dedication feat brought no benefit to the Champion...
I don't necessarily blame them. Since the only reason for a Champion to invest in this would be to pick up Mighty Bulwark and/or Iron Skin, the rest is either already done with features or is just plain bad to use in place of what the Champion already has as part of its chassis.
But I would say that the Sentinel case has a bit more going for it in terms of useful feats compared to Witch and Familiar Master.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, those examples do add something to those builds even if they're mostly redundant. Running reload and flensing slice are pretty handy for some specific fighter builds.The Witch that wants to excel at using their Familiar invests in the Familiar Master dedication.Given that the Witch has been advertised as being the Familiar class, the fact that they should invest in a dedication that emphasizes their primary feature instead of it being hardbaked into their class (either through features or class feats) is a failure of design.
This is like saying a Fighter should take Mauler/Dual Weapon Warrior/Archer dedication if they want to excel at those types of weapons.
Running Reload is pretty bad for any Fighter, since they have the best to-hit, crippling themselves on potential Strikes is a poor decision. They should be at-worst relegated to a Longbow and pick up Point Blank Shot if they want to run ranged, but even that is pretty bad because you have to raise Dexterity, and running heavy armor makes that largely pointless on a defensive end. Quick Shot might be the only good feat here, but at that point you'd be better off taking Ranger dedication instead.
Flensing Slice is also pretty terrible by nature of Double Slice being a poor use of actions, and requiring a flawless Double Slice to take place. Sure, Fighter is most likely to have it happen, but there are better dual wield options out there that don't involve or require successful strikes to operate.
Just as well, most of the good feats from those options are already replicated in the Fighter class, which was ultimately my point.
*Sees Double Slice is a bad use of actions. Shakes head, walks out of thread.*
The point I was making was that your example was poor since these examples are in the same boat as a witch taking familiar master for further specialization. Reload weapons being bad for fighter is irrelevant when we're talking about these specific builds. Archer is the fastest way to get running reload so that is the niche. Also, double slice builds are widely considered to be pretty good.
We seem to be talking over one another, because the bolded part was precisely what I was getting at, which I did explore at length, and you just agreed with me there, after disagreeing with me previously. They can't be poor examples if they're being used for precisely the reason I'm using them for, which is that they don't provide much unique power to themselves that the base class doesn't already possess.
I'm just also of the opinion that doing so is basically a bad implementation of a dedication, unless the plan was to "double-up" on feat selections, such as from Free Archetype. But again, Free Archetype is not the default, so I don't understand why we're acting like it is and using it as justification for characters to take redundant dedications.
Let me clarify then. Familiar master has some redundancies with the witch like archer would be for bow fighters. Dual weapon warrior though is surprisingly not that redundant for double slice fighters. There are some further specialization you can get from familiar master though if you really wanted it. The Raven black's point still stands.The point I was making was that your example was poor since these examples are in the same boat as a witch taking familiar master for further specialization. Reload weapons being bad for fighter is irrelevant when we're talking about these specific builds. Archer is the fastest way to get running reload so that is the niche. Also, double slice builds are widely considered to be pretty good.We seem to be talking over one another, because the bolded part was precisely what I was getting at, which I did explore at length, and you just agreed with me there, after disagreeing with me previously. They can't be poor examples if they're being used for precisely the reason I'm using them for, which is that they don't provide much unique power to themselves that the base class doesn't already possess.
I'm just also of the opinion that doing so is basically a bad implementation of a dedication, unless the plan was to "double-up" on feat selections, such as from Free Archetype. But again, Free Archetype is not the default, so I don't understand why we're acting like it is and using it as justification for characters to take redundant dedications.
I mean, there are a couple feats that going Fighter doesn't provide, but honestly, it's about as niche as Sentinel for Champions. There's one feat that enables you to be a throwing build (which is bad unless you go straight Finesse, but at that point you are losing a fair amount of damage), there's another that enables you to reload with your hands full (which seems more relevant for Sword + Firearm Gunslingers than Fighters), and there's another that turns your bad rolls into at least one success, which is definitely good in retaining consistent action economy, but still requires burning a dedication and a feat for it. Yes, Fighters have plenty, but honestly, given that you have to burn a 2nd level feat (because you want/need the Double Slice from it), then wait until 14th to take it, I'm not convinced it's fully worth it, even for Free Archetype, since you have all those dead feats in there.
**EDIT** Oops, I forgot the Dual Weapon Blitz feat, which is basically a Dual Wield version of Sudden Charge. Which is good and unique. But it murders your MAP for the turn if you wanted to follow up with Dual Weapon Blitz, covers less ground than a Sudden Charge, and isn't available until 10th level, which is basically the second half of the game. Meanwhile, Sudden Charge is available by 1st level, and Monks can already basically do this with Flurry of Blows (and technically Rangers with Twin Takedown if they're already hunted).
Compared to Sentinel for Champions, which gives one niche Skill Feat and one slightly beneficial Class feat, it's a little better, but it's barely justifiable in this case, because you need the initial benefit, and then two significantly later benefits; the rest is niche or redundant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dual Weapon Warrior is a great pick on fighters, and arguably better on non-free archetype builds (or builds that don't want another archetype, specifically) so I don't know why you keep talking about free archetypes. The dedication gets you a feat you would be taking anyway. Flensing Slice, Dual Weapon Blitz, and Dual Onslaught are all great picks on any build. And dual thrower and reload are both good for niche builds. Comparing it to a Champion with Sentinel is silly.
Dual Weapon Warrior is a great pick on fighters, and arguably better on non-free archetype builds (or builds that don't want another archetype, specifically) so I don't know why you keep talking about free archetypes. The dedication gets you a feat you would be taking anyway. Flensing Slice, Dual Weapon Blitz, and Dual Onslaught are all great picks on any build. And dual thrower and reload are both good for niche builds. Comparing it to a Champion with Sentinel is silly.
Dual Weapon Warrior is a good pick.
Flensing Slice isn't that great. Between movement and missing, it rarely gets activated. Blitz and Onslaught seem decent. I do prefer Dual Weapon warrior on a rogue myself.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it was this thread or another but I really wish they'd change Witch's to be Occult casters with Patrons just allowing them to learn some thematic spells that fit their Patron from other lists. I also feel Witch would work as a better poster child for the Occult spell list from a flavor perspective than the Bard
Occult is A LOT about tales. It suits the Bard nigh perfectly.
Dual Weapon Warrior is a great pick on fighters, and arguably better on non-free archetype builds (or builds that don't want another archetype, specifically) so I don't know why you keep talking about free archetypes. The dedication gets you a feat you would be taking anyway. Flensing Slice, Dual Weapon Blitz, and Dual Onslaught are all great picks on any build. And dual thrower and reload are both good for niche builds. Comparing it to a Champion with Sentinel is silly.
I did say that it's a little better, but not by much. Flensing Slice isn't very strong or practical with the action economy, and requires sacrificing Two Weapon Flurry to do so. Blitz is just a different form of Sudden Charge, which makes it even more situational (such as if they are two Strides away) and Onslaught is just there to ensure you don't get completely screwed by bad rolls.
I just think Shield, Two-Hand, and Free-Hand Fighters are better, and don't require archetyping to be effective, since a large amount of their feats are either baked in, or can archetype into something else to add versatility.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flensing Slice isn't very strong or practical with the action economy,
All Flensing Slice requires is that you start your turn next to an opponent, which usually happens a couple times a combat. Landing both hits isn't always reliable but with Double Slice and fighter accuracy you have pretty solid odds of triggering it once a fight or so, and the pay off is significant.
and requires sacrificing Two Weapon Flurry to do so.
Flensing Slice is 8th level and Two Weapon Flurry is 14th. You aren't sacrificing something if you didn't have it yet in the first place. Besides, against a high AC boss target, you're probably better off using Flensing Slice if the opportunity arises than swinging twice at -8 or -10. Maybe if you have Agile Grace that shifts things, but honestly 3d8 bleed plus flat-footed for your whole party for a round is REALLY good and likely a better idea. Two Weapon Flurry is there if you can't or have already Flensed or if you're hitting a lower AC/HP target.
Blitz is just a different form of Sudden Charge, which makes it even more situational (such as if they are two Strides away)
No, it isn't. Sudden Charge is basically incompatible with the Dual Weapon style. Blitz is good when the enemy is two strides away because you can get still get two Strikes off and still have the option to backpeddle if you have movement left. It is actually a great skirmishing tool for a fighting style that otherwise isn't very mobile. When used within one stride, you can do things like stride in >> strike twice >> stride out >> twin parry.
and Onslaught is just there to ensure you don't get completely screwed by bad rolls.
You've simultaneously complained about Flensing Slice requiring too much good luck to be practical and downplayed Onslaught because it relies on bad luck. Your argument is nonsensical, and it is obvious to most people in this thread that the various feats of Dual Weapon Warrior gives the Fighter a diverse and comprehensive toolkit which otherwise fixes the stale action economy of Dual Slice.
I just think Shield, Two-Hand, and Free-Hand Fighters are better, and don't require archetyping to be effective, since a large amount of their feats are either baked in, or can archetype into something else to add versatility.
What are you even saying right now? Your argument was that Dual Weapon Warrior was a bad pick for fighters, now you're arguing these other styles are better because they don't need an archetype? Or because they can archetype into something else? You're all over the place. The Dual Slice fighter needs like 3 native feats and can function just fine. Dual Weapon Warrior just adds versatility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, dual weapon blitz is great. Not even a flourish so you can combine it with 2 weapon flurry to get a stride and 4 attacks off per turn lol.
It's awesome took to have in the belt. Honestly, I'd only really be interested in playing a Double Slice fighter around these levels. Not that it isn't strong at early levels. It just feels a little boring to me.
Flensing Slice isn't very strong or practical with the action economy,All Flensing Slice requires is that you start your turn next to an opponent, which usually happens a couple times a combat. Landing both hits isn't always reliable but with Double Slice and fighter accuracy you have pretty solid odds of triggering it once a fight or so, and the pay off is significant.
and requires sacrificing Two Weapon Flurry to do so.Flensing Slice is 8th level and Two Weapon Flurry is 14th. You aren't sacrificing something if you didn't have it yet in the first place. Besides, against a high AC boss target, you're probably better off using Flensing Slice if the opportunity arises than swinging twice at -8 or -10. Maybe if you have Agile Grace that shifts things, but honestly 3d8 bleed plus flat-footed for your whole party for a round is REALLY good and likely a better idea. Two Weapon Flurry is there if you can't or have already Flensed or if you're hitting a lower AC/HP target.
Blitz is just a different form of Sudden Charge, which makes it even more situational (such as if they are two Strides away)No, it isn't. Sudden Charge is basically incompatible with the Dual Weapon style. Blitz is good when the enemy is two strides away because you can get still get two Strikes off and still have the option to backpeddle if you have movement left. It is actually a great skirmishing tool for a fighting style that otherwise isn't very mobile. When used within one stride, you can do things like stride in >> strike twice >> stride out >> twin parry.
and Onslaught is just there to ensure you don't get completely screwed by bad rolls.You've simultaneously complained about Flensing Slice requiring too much good luck to be practical and downplayed Onslaught because it relies on bad luck. Your argument is nonsensical, and it is obvious to most people in this thread that the various feats of Dual Weapon Warrior gives...
I would say not even then, since you can just Stride -> Double Slice -> Flensing. Granted, it'd be best used at the start of combat so you get the most out of your persistent damage and debuff(s), but persistent usually lasts until either the fight ends or after it takes the initial damage, so it's relatively unreliable in that case. Also, flat-footed is not all that valuable unless we're fighting Gargantuan-sized enemies, and/or we're trying to cheese range for the backline, which doesn't mean much when the enemy is already within one action from reaching the backline anyway.
I was speaking from an endgame standpoint, if we're limiting the characters to PF1S levels of power (which is 12th), then sure, I suppose acting like Two Weapon Flurry is a valuable opportunity cost doesn't track because well, it's not even there to utilize. But when both options become available, you can't tell me that it's not a sacrifice when you have Graceful Poise and Agile Grace running around, since it becomes 0/0/-3/-6, instead of just 0/0 with some bleed. Given that you're sacrificing a non-Fighter primary and a Fighter secondary, which still have relatively decent odds of hitting (unless we're fighting some boss creature), it's at-least questionable to say that it's worthwhile.
Sudden Charge is also a good skirmishing tool, since you can Sudden Charge, then Stride back out in the same way. And is available at 1st level. Having to wait 9 additional levels just to have it be enabled for Dual-Wield builds is ultimately a feelsbad feat by comparison. Heck, you could Sudden Charge and then Two Weapon Flurry, giving you 3 attacks with an additional Stride, or 4 attacks with Haste. It really only pulls ahead if you only need one Stride, but only gives another -6 attack at-best.
Flensing requires both attacks from a feat to hit. Even with full bonus, you can easily roll bad on just one of these rolls, making Flensing unavailable. This is like saying Rend on a creature is amazing, because it's basically the same thing. It's neat when it actually takes place. But it's by no means the end-all ability we make it out to be, because bad rolls/streaks do happen. And I haven't downplayed Onslaught whatsoever. Onslaught is good by comparison because it turns bad rolls/streaks into something, not unlike a reduced effect on a successful saving throw, and isn't predicated on two not-bad rolls taking place. Which can happen. But isn't guaranteed as you make it out to be, even with Fighter proficiencies.
If the archetype is required to "fix" the bad/stale gameplay of the Two Weapon Fighter, then it's a demonstration of how bad the build truly is. You don't see Shield Fighters taking Bastion dedication because they don't have enough feat support, or Archer Fighters taking Archer dedication, or Two-Hand Fighters taking Mauler dedication for the same thing, which is basically the same thing as Witches taking Familiar Master. Archetypes shouldn't be required to play the class in an obviously intended fashion, nor should they be used as in-class crutches. And you saying that the archetype adds versatility to the build when it provides a lot of overlap just tells me that those feats should have just become Fighter feats in a later rulebook installment, which I'm surprised hasn't been done yet.
Also, various? 3-4 feats is not various. A few, perhaps, and the rest is just overlap. But it's nowhere near double-digits for Fighters, stop overhyping the archetype more than what it is, a few added feats that give either niche options or an added failsafe (that probably should have also been a Fighter feat).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say not even then, since you can just Stride -> Double Slice -> Flensing.
Not without Haste. Double Slice is two actions.
but persistent usually lasts until either the fight ends or after it takes the initial damage, so it's relatively unreliable in that case.
This feels simultaneously wrong and meaningless. Persistent damage has a 70% chance to persist across any given round, so you're usually getting mileage out of it as long as you aren't one rounding the enemy.
Also, flat-footed is not all that valuable unless we're fighting Gargantuan-sized enemies, and/or we're trying to cheese range for the backline, which doesn't mean much when the enemy is already within one action from reaching the backline anyway.
Or if you don't have a flanking buddy, or terrain prevents flanking, or your allies are shooting from 100 feet away because it is an outdoor map, or one of a dozen other scenarios where you can't easily set up flat-footed. Options are good, even if you don't need them all the time.
I was speaking from an endgame standpoint, if we're limiting the characters to PF1S levels of power (which is 12th), then sure, I suppose acting like Two Weapon Flurry is a valuable opportunity cost doesn't track because well, it's not even there to utilize.
Speaking from an endgame perspective is silly when it is the end of the game. You shouldn't ignore the majority of time people actually play.
But when both options become available, you can't tell me that it's not a sacrifice when you have Graceful Poise and Agile Grace running around, since it becomes 0/0/-3/-6, instead of just 0/0 with some bleed. Given that you're sacrificing a non-Fighter primary and a Fighter secondary, which still have relatively decent odds of hitting (unless we're fighting some boss creature), it's at-least questionable to say that it's worthwhile.
Bolded bit was what I said. Boss monsters are important threats to deal with. Weird move to pretend like APL + 2 or 3 is an afterthought that barely occurs.
Sudden Charge is also a good skirmishing tool, since you can Sudden Charge, then Stride back out in the same way.
And you get one strike, congrats. It is bad for dual wielding.
And is available at 1st level. Having to wait 9 additional levels just to have it be enabled for Dual-Wield builds is ultimately a feelsbad feat by comparison. Heck, you could Sudden Charge and then Two Weapon Flurry
Complains about a feat being too high level, then cites a higher level feat to "support" it.
Flensing requires both attacks from a feat to hit. Even with full bonus, you can easily roll bad on just one of these rolls, making Flensing unavailable. This is like saying Rend on a creature is amazing, because it's basically the same thing. It's neat when it actually takes place. But it's by no means the end-all ability we make it out to be, because bad rolls/streaks do happen. And I haven't downplayed Onslaught whatsoever. Onslaught is good by comparison because it turns bad rolls/streaks into something, not unlike a reduced effect on a successful saving throw, and isn't predicated on two not-bad rolls taking place. Which can happen. But isn't guaranteed as you make it out to be, even with Fighter proficiencies.
We all get how dice work, Darksoul. It doesn't change the fact that Dual Slice builds are lacking in attractive 3rd actions until level 14, so being able to Flense when they roll well is attractive. A feat doesn't need to be used every turn to be worth the investment. You'll use Flensing more often than Blind-Fight, and people love that 8th level feat.
If the archetype is required to "fix" the bad/stale gameplay of the Two Weapon Fighter, then it's a demonstration of how bad the build truly is.
Bad and stale are not synonyms, nor does that idea hold up. If a build is good with an archetype, then it is good. With an archetype. Keep in mind I'm not saying a FREE archetype. Dual Slice fighters, again, arguably work better without free archetype.
You don't see Shield Fighters taking Bastion dedication because they don't have enough feat support,
I have seen that, actually. Nimble Shield Hand is a solid feat fighters otherwise can't get, and the only opportunity cost is access to another archetype because (much like Dual-Weapon Warrior) you want the dedication feat anyway. Granted, you don't need much else there, but you can still take in class feats to get out of the archetype if you want to.
Archetypes shouldn't be required to play the class in an obviously intended fashion, nor should they be used as in-class crutches.
Being useful and varied is not the same as required.
Also, various? 3-4 feats is not various. A few, perhaps, and the rest is just overlap. But it's nowhere near double-digits for Fighters,
Fighters only get 11 class feats, not counting flexibility or free archetype. An archetype doesn't need double digit feats you want UNLESS you're playing free archetype or need to break out early. DWW has 4 feats any dual wield build will like to have in their tool kit, and two more that enable specific builds. The fighter can then spend the rest of those feats on their in-class options, which seems to be what you want them doing anyway.
-snip-
If we're talking 8th level, Haste is going to be a relatively common buff that only becomes more common as you gain levels, and if we're going to be in fights that have mobility as a theme, then you're either going to require Haste to pull this off, or realize that instead of Flensing, you have to Stride to pull off Double Slice, in which case you aren't benefitting from the feat.
Yes, that's what the statistics say. That's not what my play experience has demonstrated, though. Far too often are persistent effects basically until the end of the fight or immediately gone, with the in-betweens far less frequent.
Players not flanking or facing enemies in purposefully disadvantaged areas is just bad tactics. And ranged characters aren't realistically meant to take advantage of flat-footed as reliably since their advantage is they can safely strike enemies from a distance; such characters also usually have means to set this up for themselves (such as Dread Striker from Rogues, for example), so the idea that they need this feat in particular for this debuff is absurd. Heck, if the Fighter is using Swords and gets a critical, that also applies the same debuff.
I'm not, but even in those levels you won't always want/be able to use Flensing Slice because you may want to use Twin Parry instead for added defense. Meanwhile, the minority of gameplay is fine to completely disregard because well, nobody plays it. Remember when people complained about how PF1's system broke down in the higher levels and people tuned out as a result, so Paizo put forth efforts to fix that problem? Yeah, seems like it was pointless to fix the math in the higher levels if people didn't like/play it to begin with, since it seems that's not an actual issue anymore. Or we could have just changed the level capacity to a level that is more commonly reached, like 10, so we don't have this stupid issue of "Well, the game takes too long to reach a level nobody plays at, so who cares what happens at those levels!"
Sure, but every encounter isn't a boss encounter. Even if it is, you're already the strongest class against bosses in the game by nature of having the best to-hit and a solid combination of defenses and countermeasures against said boss, ironically of which, Dual-Wield doesn't really have to work with, so that's why it's considered an "afterthought," and also why I consider Dual-Wield Fighters bad.
Okay, let's say an enemy is 2 strides away. What difference does Sudden Charge + Strike make in comparison to Stride + Two-Weapon Blitz? In both cases, you are getting 2 Strides and 2 Strikes in, which can be done with either weapon as you see fit. The only time Two-Weapon Blitz pulls ahead is when you only need to make 1 Stride, at which point then you get an additional MAP-influenced attack.
I mean, they have Twin Parry which sets them up for Twin Riposte, and they can do things like Intimidate, Feint, etc. Saying Fighters don't have attractive third actions at their disposal is laughable when that is mostly a caster issue, not a martial issue. And people love Blind-Fight because it's opt-in (thanks to their flex feats) and shores up a significant weakness of the Fighter, because we all know that if the Fighter can't hit, they're basically deadweight.
How does it not? You basically said that the playstyle is stale without the archetype, which means it has poor support in-class for the playstyle, and in my opinion, if it's designed that way, it's a failure of game design. It's different if the idea is that the archetype enables the playstyle that a class is otherwise not defaulted to having, but given that there are Dual-Weapon feats for Fighters, the idea that they need the archetype to stand out only further cements that every Dual-Weapon Warrior feat should have been a Fighter feat, but wasn't because [reasons].
This falls more to the "I'm taking this archetype for the niche feats," thing, and not the "I'm taking this archetype because it enables this playstyle I otherwise couldn't have," thing. Again, it's not like Shield Fighters are bad to the point they absolutely need Bastion dedication to fully function at their peak.
Okay, but if the Fighter is so feat-starved, how can they justify taking the archetype, then? I am being sarcastic of course, since Fighters have the most class feat slots in the game, but my point is more that "3-4" niche feats isn't the same as several or various mandatory feats that enables a playstyle.
Which, circling back to my original point that I was making, Witch class isn't out anything by not taking Familiar Master in that same prospect, so acting like they are when I already broke down that to not really be the case is absurd.
Dual Weapon Warrior isn't a bad archetype for a fighter. It's a little boring because Double Slice is 2 actions and you move and do that over and over and over again for the early levels. It gets a bit better as haste becomes more common and you open up some of the better two-weapon feats.
I do prefer the ranger or rogue for a two-weapon fighter myself.
Dual Weapon Warrior is a great pick on fighters, and arguably better on non-free archetype builds (or builds that don't want another archetype, specifically) so I don't know why you keep talking about free archetypes. The dedication gets you a feat you would be taking anyway. Flensing Slice, Dual Weapon Blitz, and Dual Onslaught are all great picks on any build. And dual thrower and reload are both good for niche builds. Comparing it to a Champion with Sentinel is silly.I did say that it's a little better, but not by much.
It is a judgement call. But I'm with Darksol here. There is too much overlap for it to be worth it for Fighters. Dual Weapon Warrior does have its uses but I prefer it on non Fighters. Normally my builds are limited early by archetype limits and there are just more interesting things I want to do.
Flensing Slice isn't very strong or practical with the action economy, and requires sacrificing Two Weapon Flurry to do so. Blitz is just a different form of Sudden Charge, which makes it even more situational (such as if they are two Strides away) and Onslaught is just there to ensure you don't get completely screwed by bad rolls.
Agreed, you can use them and they are OK but I don't find them compelling.
I just think Shield, Two-Hand, and Free-Hand Fighters are better, and don't require archetyping to be effective, since a large amount of their feats are either baked in, or can archetype into something else to add versatility.
I tend to overlap many of my shield ideas with two weapon fighting.
I only like shields on monks and champions. Fighters don't seem to get the same bang for the buck out of shields. Better to go heavy offense on a fighter to get the most out of the class in my opinion.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this was a Witch Revision Speculation thread? How did it end up talking about fighters and dual weapon warriors? Can we stay on topic?
I am sad they seem to be leaning into familiars when familiars are only really good as a low level versatility option. The higher level familiar abilities are like low level ancestry feats.
I like they are trying to make familiars more useful in combat but unless they massively bump the survivability and get rid of super specific requirements to get them to work (eg forcing a specific action like casting hex - just make it cast a spell or use a focus point) then they will still be forgotten. If the class fantasy is familiar than they need the familiar to be key to their effectiveness in encounter and exploration mode else they will be this bandaid that gets forgotten.
Witch should get things for familiars like getting a second action for exploration mode (like investigators have an option for) that their familiar takes (scout, investigate and search are all appropriate).
Combat - familiar can act as the source of spell or hex - when it does so it (provides flanking/causes a distraction, puts down a small AoE difficult terrain, provides cover etc) and gain 2x spell level temporary hitpoints for the round or improved AC and Saves. Hell make it a metamagic option or use the witch's reaction or a focus point spend (and if they do make it stronger).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the reason Fighters are getting brought up is because they are one of the ideal models for which all Classes are compared against and the other Class which stands head and shoulders, the Bard, had its river of discussion sucked dry some pages ago.
It's a kind of comparison thing you know, folks chatting about what is desirable, much like:
-Child- "Mom, I want Bard!"
-Mother- "We have Bard at home."
-Screenshot of "Bard at home" = Witch-
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this was a Witch Revision Speculation thread? How did it end up talking about fighters and dual weapon warriors? Can we stay on topic?
Some people were talking about witches taking familiar master and then that got compared to fighters taking dual weapon warrior/mauler/archer/etc. and then- I guess that just became the conversation.
I like they are trying to make familiars more useful in combat but unless they massively bump the survivability and get rid of super specific requirements to get them to work (eg forcing a specific action like casting hex - just make it cast a spell or use a focus point) then they will still be forgotten.
Honestly like, if "moving your familiar adjacent to enemies so they can flank" is really for realsies what Paizo thinks is a good ability then maybe PF2r is just making familiars unkillable outright. I feel like that's the only circumstance where such an ability makes sense to me and since we don't really know all the changes familiars are getting... maybe.
The flanking rat is pretty funny though. Sounds like it could just be a familiar ability. It would be lame if it's a subclass specific thing.
It's been specifically teased as the patron magic ability for rune witches. You cast a hex, now your familiar provides flanking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adam mentioned in another interview that it would trigger off of casting a spell or sustaining a hex, so it at least should be easy to trigger if he's correct.
I thought this was a Witch Revision Speculation thread? How did it end up talking about fighters and dual weapon warriors? Can we stay on topic?
It got brought up as a comparative example that apparently triggered people more than I would have expected, hence why it spiraled as much as it did. I still stand by most of my criticisms, because either way it is dumb and consequently paradoxical if argued one way or the other. If it's so useful it should be done, then it means the class failed to deliver on that aspect when it probably shouldn't fail, being as it is a defining feature of the class. Such as Witch being bad at Familiars to the point they need Familiar Master Archetype, or Fighters being bad at dual-wield to the point they need Dual-Weapon Warrior Archetype. Conversely, if it's not useful, then it's difficult to justify the feat expenditure compared to other class feats or dedications that can do more/better things for you than, well, the feats and abilities you otherwise already have access to.
|
|
Bummer. That's kinda lame and not really on theme for the rune patron.The flanking rat is pretty funny though. Sounds like it could just be a familiar ability. It would be lame if it's a subclass specific thing.It's been specifically teased as the patron magic ability for rune witches. You cast a hex, now your familiar provides flanking.
The flanking is provided by the familiar emitting flying shiny runes around the foe.
It should be called distraction really, but the effect is the same as flanking.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal problem with Occult lore is that they are trying to make Occult fit the Bard flavor when Witch is a much more natural fit for the OccultI don't know if it was this thread or another but I really wish they'd change Witch's to be Occult casters with Patrons just allowing them to learn some thematic spells that fit their Patron from other lists. I also feel Witch would work as a better poster child for the Occult spell list from a flavor perspective than the BardOccult is A LOT about tales. It suits the Bard nigh perfectly.
The debates about the Witch's tradition during the playtest showed that this opinion was far from shared by everyone.
Actually the playtest version was pick a tradition between Occult, Primal and Arcane. All of which can make excellent sense for a Witch.
And then some posters gave examples that showed Witches should not be banned from Divine. And it made enough sense to get us the full Tradition choice for the class.
I fully hope and expect this not to change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal problem with Occult lore is that they are trying to make Occult fit the Bard flavor when Witch is a much more natural fit for the OccultI don't know if it was this thread or another but I really wish they'd change Witch's to be Occult casters with Patrons just allowing them to learn some thematic spells that fit their Patron from other lists. I also feel Witch would work as a better poster child for the Occult spell list from a flavor perspective than the BardOccult is A LOT about tales. It suits the Bard nigh perfectly.The debates about the Witch's tradition during the playtest showed that this opinion was far from shared by everyone.
Actually the playtest version was pick a tradition between Occult, Primal and Arcane. All of which can make excellent sense for a Witch.
And then some posters gave examples that showed Witches should not be banned from Divine. And it made enough sense to get us the full Tradition choice for the class.
I fully hope and expect this not to change.
With the changes they made to the traditions, Areelu Vorlesh only made sense as a Divine witch. I don't see that changing either, and I also hope it doesn't.
|
With the changes they made to the traditions, Areelu Vorlesh only made sense as a Divine witch. I don't see that changing either, and I also hope it doesn't.My personal problem with Occult lore is that they are trying to make Occult fit the Bard flavor when Witch is a much more natural fit for the OccultI don't know if it was this thread or another but I really wish they'd change Witch's to be Occult casters with Patrons just allowing them to learn some thematic spells that fit their Patron from other lists. I also feel Witch would work as a better poster child for the Occult spell list from a flavor perspective than the BardOccult is A LOT about tales. It suits the Bard nigh perfectly.The debates about the Witch's tradition during the playtest showed that this opinion was far from shared by everyone.
Actually the playtest version was pick a tradition between Occult, Primal and Arcane. All of which can make excellent sense for a Witch.
And then some posters gave examples that showed Witches should not be banned from Divine. And it made enough sense to get us the full Tradition choice for the class.
I fully hope and expect this not to change.
That's kinda a moot point since Areelu is, ya'know, dead
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal problem with Occult lore is that they are trying to make Occult fit the Bard flavor when Witch is a much more natural fit for the OccultI don't know if it was this thread or another but I really wish they'd change Witch's to be Occult casters with Patrons just allowing them to learn some thematic spells that fit their Patron from other lists. I also feel Witch would work as a better poster child for the Occult spell list from a flavor perspective than the BardOccult is A LOT about tales. It suits the Bard nigh perfectly.The debates about the Witch's tradition during the playtest showed that this opinion was far from shared by everyone.
Actually the playtest version was pick a tradition between Occult, Primal and Arcane. All of which can make excellent sense for a Witch.
And then some posters gave examples that showed Witches should not be banned from Divine. And it made enough sense to get us the full Tradition choice for the class.
I fully hope and expect this not to change.
They've even mentioned patrons of all four traditions (rune, fervor, winter, and curse) as still being around in the remaster.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kinda a moot point since Areelu is, ya'know, deadWith the changes they made to the traditions, Areelu Vorlesh only made sense as a Divine witch. I don't see that changing either, and I also hope it doesn't.My personal problem with Occult lore is that they are trying to make Occult fit the Bard flavor when Witch is a much more natural fit for the OccultI don't know if it was this thread or another but I really wish they'd change Witch's to be Occult casters with Patrons just allowing them to learn some thematic spells that fit their Patron from other lists. I also feel Witch would work as a better poster child for the Occult spell list from a flavor perspective than the BardOccult is A LOT about tales. It suits the Bard nigh perfectly.The debates about the Witch's tradition during the playtest showed that this opinion was far from shared by everyone.
Actually the playtest version was pick a tradition between Occult, Primal and Arcane. All of which can make excellent sense for a Witch.
And then some posters gave examples that showed Witches should not be banned from Divine. And it made enough sense to get us the full Tradition choice for the class.
I fully hope and expect this not to change.
Like Xanderghul...
So was Tar-Baphon TBT but he got better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kinda a moot point since Areelu is, ya'know, deadWith the changes they made to the traditions, Areelu Vorlesh only made sense as a Divine witch. I don't see that changing either, and I also hope it doesn't.My personal problem with Occult lore is that they are trying to make Occult fit the Bard flavor when Witch is a much more natural fit for the OccultI don't know if it was this thread or another but I really wish they'd change Witch's to be Occult casters with Patrons just allowing them to learn some thematic spells that fit their Patron from other lists. I also feel Witch would work as a better poster child for the Occult spell list from a flavor perspective than the BardOccult is A LOT about tales. It suits the Bard nigh perfectly.The debates about the Witch's tradition during the playtest showed that this opinion was far from shared by everyone.
Actually the playtest version was pick a tradition between Occult, Primal and Arcane. All of which can make excellent sense for a Witch.
And then some posters gave examples that showed Witches should not be banned from Divine. And it made enough sense to get us the full Tradition choice for the class.
I fully hope and expect this not to change.
Like Xanderghul...
So was Tar-Baphon TBT but he got better.
That would be an interesting turn of events, curious what they could do with that, especially if you take into account the Owlcat game.
That said if they keep bringing back Antagonists that’s not gonna sit right with people (I would totally be all for Areelu coming back instead of Tar Baphon).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are for things that benefit more than a class, even if it's very thematic for a given class, so that it is opened to more builds.
Feature, not bug.
Enabling different builds is one thing. Shoring up a class' weakness that shouldn't be there to begin with is another.
I'll call it a bug because there should be no reason for a Witch to require Familiar Master when they are basically a Familiar Master class, because calling it a feature is a mockery to Paizo and their ability to design classes.
With the changes they made to the traditions, Areelu Vorlesh only made sense as a Divine witch. I don't see that changing either, and I also hope it doesn't.
There must be a pretty big difference between her in the AP and in the video game then because I would have pinned her as arcane fs without question and even would say she could easily be a wizard instead of a witch