This might be a hot take, but I’m seeing people suggest making cackle a base class feature for witches and I don’t agree with that
Not every witch is the iconic cackling witch, witches vary a lot. Having cackle as part of the base class forces the stereotypical witch flavor onto every single witch, like how lawful alignment restrictions in 1e forced the archetypical “lawful wise monk” flavor into every single monk
Not all witches are the iconic cackling, black cauldron brewing black dress wearing type
For example, my witch is a fervor witch who made a pact with Apsu and is divinely flavored, but isn’t religious or devoted to Apsu like clerics are. Her relationship to Aspu is very much business-like. Cackling doesn’t fit her.
I’ve seen other people suggest this, but if cackle has to be part of the core class (I don’t think it has to), it could be changed to “Witch Hymn”, that way it isn’t just cackling but it could be heavenly chorus singing, child like giggling, or maybe any verbal sound or even any word.
But I think the best solution is to make the witch class better in ways that aren’t restrictive of or enforcing of flavor
I wouldn't worry about this. One of their big findings of the original Witch playtest was exactly this- lots of people didn't want Cackle as a mandatory class feature.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you feel better about it if it was renamed "Chant"? Being the best at Sustain spells is an obvious niche for the witch to fulfill with its existing toolkit, that's the main reason people want Cackle to be baked in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you feel better about it if it was renamed "Chant"? Being the best at Sustain spells is an obvious niche for the witch to fulfill with its existing toolkit, that's the main reason people want Cackle to be baked in.
Yeah, a renaming might be better
Maybe it could be called chant or “Witch Hymn”, and it’s description is “you cackle, hum, sing, chant or make any other verbal sound that fits you and your patron theme.”
Because cackle is way too flavor-restrictive
I would love that change cause I could put it on my fervor witch without it ruining her “vibe” lol
Ill admit, I thought it was strange seeing people complaining that witches should have Cackle as a default when that was the case in the playtest but it was removed because of the pushback that not all witch characters will want to cackle (regardless how powerful the mechanics tied to it).
It's not so strange especially in a class like witch that people would be attached to the flavour of things, and simply put not every witch cackles. If the mechanics of cackling are just that good, the flavour should be more open ended as per the chanting above. But ah this is already gone to the printer so we'll find out when we find out whether this is anything to talk about.
Ill admit, I thought it was strange seeing people complaining that witches should have Cackle as a default when that was the case in the playtest but it was removed because of the pushback that not all witch characters will want to cackle (regardless how powerful the mechanics tied to it).
It's not so strange especially in a class like witch that people would be attached to the flavour of things, and simply put not every witch cackles. If the mechanics of cackling are just that good, the flavour should be more open ended as per the chanting above. But ah this is already gone to the printer so we'll find out when we find out whether this is anything to talk about.
Already gone to the printer? I don’t think I’ve heard that phrase before, what’s it mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Already gone to the printer? I don’t think I’ve heard that phrase before, what’s it mean?Ill admit, I thought it was strange seeing people complaining that witches should have Cackle as a default when that was the case in the playtest but it was removed because of the pushback that not all witch characters will want to cackle (regardless how powerful the mechanics tied to it).
It's not so strange especially in a class like witch that people would be attached to the flavour of things, and simply put not every witch cackles. If the mechanics of cackling are just that good, the flavour should be more open ended as per the chanting above. But ah this is already gone to the printer so we'll find out when we find out whether this is anything to talk about.
At some point, the editing for a book is done, like, super done. That's when it has been sent to the printer, who starts printing copies of the book. It's many months in advance of the release date, because they need to print off copies, then send them to Paizo, with enough time for Paizo to ship them out. Practically speaking, the book probably has to be finalized even before that; last-minute changes are as likely to cause problems as they are to fix them. We're probably more or less at that point, so none of these suggestions are actually going to influence the outcome. We're just talking about this stuff for fun.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's true for everybody else, but I just know that Mr. Erik Mona himself is definitely going to fall out of his chair screaming "STOP THE PRESSES!" when he sees my latest take about kobolds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, at least it's not Cook People.
I have a fervor Witch as well, but mechanically, I love me some Cackle. I think renaming it to Chant is perfect honestly. I'd like to see it as a base feature for the Witch class.
Yeah. That’s the whole reason people didn’t want it as a class feature during the original playtest. The name for it, “cackle”.
People say “oh just reflavor it to not be a cackle.” But it’ll get tiring to say “oh I use cackle but my character doesn’t actually cackle” every. Single. Time.
Not to mention, I guarantee there are GMs out there who will say “it says cackle so your character has to cackle, they can’t chant or sing or hum.”
This is speaking from experience, as I’ve had GMs who have said: “you can’t reflavor Dragonborn to half dragon”, “you can’t make your green flame blade red or orange instead” and “your Dragonborn can’t have a tail” and even “your aasimar can’t have platinum dragon wings they have to have feathered wings.”
Granted, those are all examples from D&D, but those same GMs exist in PF2e
And I’ve actually seen a pathfinder GM say players aren’t allow to make purple green or other non-red tieflings
So changing the name isn’t just needed if it’s made a class feature to prevent confusion for those of us who don’t want our witch to actually cackle. But it’s also needed because some GMs don’t want to deal with flavor
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, I guarantee there are GMs out there who will say “it says cackle so your character has to cackle, they can’t chant or sing or hum.”
This is speaking from experience, as I’ve had GMs who have said: “you can’t reflavor Dragonborn to half dragon”, “you can’t make your green flame blade red or orange instead” and “your Dragonborn can’t have a tail” and even “your aasimar can’t have platinum dragon wings they have to have feathered wings.”
You can't fix bad players or GMs with better rules. That is a treadmill that never ends.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't fix bad players or GMs with better rules. That is a treadmill that never ends.Not to mention, I guarantee there are GMs out there who will say “it says cackle so your character has to cackle, they can’t chant or sing or hum.”
This is speaking from experience, as I’ve had GMs who have said: “you can’t reflavor Dragonborn to half dragon”, “you can’t make your green flame blade red or orange instead” and “your Dragonborn can’t have a tail” and even “your aasimar can’t have platinum dragon wings they have to have feathered wings.”
I don't know if that is really the scope of what is being asked for here. I agree that you can't design mechanics around avoiding what the worst-faith take, but what I think is being asked for is simply for more flavour options to be made explicit in the text.
I don't feel you have to be a 'bad' GM to look at an ability titled "Cackle" with flavour text that says, "A quick burst of laughter" and come to the conclusion, "I think it means you have to laugh in some way, mystic chanting is completely outside the wheelhouse of the descriptive flavour, maybe that's not intended?" and have to decide whether you want to cleave to the flavour that's actually written or water it down with a looser interpretation.
Not everybody inherently knows where to draw the line when it comes to matters of flavour, and if Cackle were to have been an pan-Witch class feature I would have appreciated making the flavour of one of their core abilities explicitly flexible rather than designating it as, "You laugh (or not, if your GM doesn't care about flavour text)".
And I say this as a GM, not as somebody trying to make a Witch character who doesn't cackle. Would I allow somebody to make a non-cackling witch at my table? Most likely, but I also would like to see a short list of a couple things that are also considered 'in flavour' for non-laughing witches to gauge expectations. Even just two more items would be more than enough; something to remind me of the witch in Inuyasha, perhaps, and I'd be completely sold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I’ve actually seen a pathfinder GM say players aren’t allow to make purple green or other non-red tieflings
This is funny to me, because no edition of pathfinder has said all tieflings are red or anything of the sort. There are rules in PF1 to give your tieflings crab claws like glabrezu, which are green in PF1 BTW. So clearly this is a moot point. If you called it "witch's hymn" those GMs would say you have to sing, because it is called a hymn. It's always been the case that it is assumed you can reflavor anything. I like to reflavor cackle to be ringing a bell like the bell maidens in Bloodborne
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem isn't what is being asked for in this particular case. I would agree that a more flavor-agnostic name for the Cackle spell would be useful.
The problem is the common theme of asking for rules changes in order to allow flavor changes. Prestidigitation doesn't really need an effect bullet point line saying that it can be cast for non-mechanical minor magic effects. Cackle doesn't necessarily need to list that the laughter can be replaced with other spellcasting flavor. A Thaumaturge Lantern Implement doesn't necessarily need to say that it is not required to be a lantern item. You don't have to literally say "That's Odd" in order to use the That's Odd Investigator feat. When using Rogue's Head Stomp feat, you don't have to use your foot to make the attack, and it doesn't have to be described as attacking the target's head - any unarmed attack against a prone target works.
In short, it would take way too much printing space and be way too exhausting to both write and read to have 'and other similar effects' listed for every single feat, feature, spell, and item in the game.
Following the strict letter of the rules for the game mechanics is a reasonable way of playing. But only allowing flavor of abilities if it is explicitly listed as an option is way too limiting - and for no good reason. The way to fix that is to teach the GM, not add more text to the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I do think Chant would be a better name if they're making it a stock class feature. They could change the flavor text to more like, "With a quick incantation or burst of cackling laughter, you prolong a magical effect you created." Cackle does feel unnecessarily narrowing. I more or less agree with you, though.
But ah this is already gone to the printer so we'll find out when we find out whether this is anything to talk about.
That certainly is not what I get out of the announcements that have been made. Do you actually know or are you making stuff up? Because if you do know then you probably shouldn't be saying. It is either inappropriate for you to say or your source.
Ill admit, I thought it was strange seeing people complaining that witches should have Cackle as a default when that was the case in the playtest but it was removed because of the pushback that not all witch characters will want to cackle (regardless how powerful the mechanics tied to it).
It's not so strange especially in a class like witch that people would be attached to the flavour of things, and simply put not every witch cackles. If the mechanics of cackling are just that good, the flavour should be more open ended as per the chanting above.
It is so easy to reimagine it as a slightly different flavour or catch cry. It works well with the witch hex cantrips. It leans into the flavour.
Why are people so inflexible in their thinking?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, that argument is kind of a tiny pet peeve of mine. I think that "people can just reflavor things they don't like" does a slight disservice to the importance of how the designers choose to flavor stuff to begin with.
The flavor of an RPG is every bit as important as the texture. Flavorful decisions deserve to be critiqued every bit as much as mechanical decisions do. When flavor doesn't feel like it's a good fit for the mechanics, or it feels unnecessarily limiting, that's worth examining critically.
Like, of course we can reflavor stuff. We can also critique the existing flavor, especially if it may inadvertently create more work for players and GMs. It's just like how a mechanical issue is worth critiquing even if it's easy to house rule away.
Personally, while I think the idea of cackling to draw out a spell is a really cool and evocative way to flavor it, it's also a fairly narrow flavor for an effect that is extremely broadly desirable. When close to a majority of players may want to reflavor it, maybe the original flavor ought to be tweaked.
EDIT: Also, Gortle, you may want to edit your post. I guess that word isn't covered by the censors, but I'm guessing mods will still consider it inappropriate language, and I'd hate for you to get deleted.
I don’t mind the feat being named Cackle, but would be happy to see the fluff include phrasing to make it clearer that it could manifest as ominous to mirthful cackles, giggles, whistle, humming or chanting.
I don’t think it needs a comprehensive list, but mentioning in the fluff it doesn’t have to be specifically a cackle/laugh should open it up for wider flavor.
But ah this is already gone to the printer so we'll find out when we find out whether this is anything to talk about.That certainly is not what I get out of the announcements that have been made. Do you actually know or are you making stuff up? Because if you do know then you probably shouldn't be saying. It is either inappropriate for you to say or your source.
Fair, I looked to find where I might have heard it and it seems to have been Ezekieru's response to Red Griffyn in the Remaster Project blog's comments from this morning. I didn't interrogate the new information because of what I've seen in the past of books needing to be ready many months in advance of their release. Since PC1 and GMC are both set for a November release, I took it for granted that scarcely 5 months was butting up against that window already.
The only thing I know is that they expect to have a proof ready for Gen Con, in roughly about 3 months' time, and that faster print options exist.
--
PS. Not to ignore the latter half of your post, but I feel my second post above and KC's own better illustrate my opinion than an additional response here reiterating those points would.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't fix bad players or GMs with better rules. That is a treadmill that never ends.Not to mention, I guarantee there are GMs out there who will say “it says cackle so your character has to cackle, they can’t chant or sing or hum.”
This is speaking from experience, as I’ve had GMs who have said: “you can’t reflavor Dragonborn to half dragon”, “you can’t make your green flame blade red or orange instead” and “your Dragonborn can’t have a tail” and even “your aasimar can’t have platinum dragon wings they have to have feathered wings.”
What about using duct tape?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, that argument is kind of a tiny pet peeve of mine. I think that "people can just reflavor things they don't like" does a slight disservice to the importance of how the designers choose to flavor stuff to begin with.
The flavor of an RPG is every bit as important as the texture. Flavorful decisions deserve to be critiqued every bit as much as mechanical decisions do. When flavor doesn't feel like it's a good fit for the mechanics, or it feels unnecessarily limiting, that's worth examining critically.
Like, of course we can reflavor stuff. We can also critique the existing flavor, especially if it may inadvertently create more work for players and GMs. It's just like how a mechanical issue is worth critiquing even if it's easy to house rule away.
Personally, while I think the idea of cackling to draw out a spell is a really cool and evocative way to flavor it, it's also a fairly narrow flavor for an effect that is extremely broadly desirable. When close to a majority of players may want to reflavor it, maybe the original flavor ought to be tweaked.
Sure. People have different images of what a Witch is. But it is very hard to get the full flavour in a one word title. I just want Paizo to double down on the flavour aspects of the witch. So it is not seen as just a different wizard.
Flavour is a easy thing to adjust on a table by table basis. Mechanics are not. Flavour is important for selling the players on a concept, but if the mechanics are terrible then no one will stay. So yes the flavour is very important. I never said otherwise.
I despair that you see Cackle as narrow. It is an attitude. Insert any catch phrase or expression of glee you like. I guess Pazio should make that a little clearer in the description.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Despair" feels like strong wording. To me, "Cackle" makes me think of a classic cackling Hocus Pocus-style witch, since that's clearly the vibe they're trying to get across. There are other witch tropes that don't involve cackling over a cauldron. Lots of witches lean more towards Kiki's Delivery Service and more "cottagecore" vibes.
Words have implicit meanings along with their explicit meanings. Explicitly, "cackle" just means "laugh". Implicitly, it describes a harsh, raucous laugh reminiscent of squawking poultry. That's pretty specific.
Honestly, that argument is kind of a tiny pet peeve of mine. I think that "people can just reflavor things they don't like" does a slight disservice to the importance of how the designers choose to flavor stuff to begin with.
The flavor of an RPG is every bit as important as the texture. Flavorful decisions deserve to be critiqued every bit as much as mechanical decisions do. When flavor doesn't feel like it's a good fit for the mechanics, or it feels unnecessarily limiting, that's worth examining critically.
Like, of course we can reflavor stuff. We can also critique the existing flavor, especially if it may inadvertently create more work for players and GMs. It's just like how a mechanical issue is worth critiquing even if it's easy to house rule away.
Personally, while I think the idea of cackling to draw out a spell is a really cool and evocative way to flavor it, it's also a fairly narrow flavor for an effect that is extremely broadly desirable. When close to a majority of players may want to reflavor it, maybe the original flavor ought to be tweaked.
Sure. People have different images of what a Witch is. But it is very hard to get the full flavour in a one word title. I just want Paizo to double down on the flavour aspects of the witch. So it is not seen as just a different wizard.
Flavour is a easy thing to adjust on a table by table basis. Mechanics are not. Flavour is important for selling the players on a concept, but if the mechanics are terrible then no one will stay. So yes the flavour is very important. I never said otherwise.
I despair that you see Cackle as narrow. It is an attitude. Insert any catch phrase or expression of glee you like. I guess Pazio should make that a little clearer in the description.
But as kobold stated, narrow flavor and little “freedom” leads to confusion. There are many GMs who will only allow for the flavor as stated in the book. “Flavor is free” is unfortunately not universally accepted.
Not to mention deviating from flavor can cause confusion, especially for new players or new GMs
A newbie GM who isn’t familiar with reflavoring is gonna question why the witch is using “cackle” by humming a hymn.
Not to mention there are many GMs who don’t believe in “flavor is free”, usually old school ones, because they are used to previous editions of PF and D&D in which there were severe flavor restrictions (such as lawful-only monk or lawful evil only kobold) and as such carried that mindset into newer editions and modern versions
And I’ve seen people outright say they can’t tell if something is flavor text or actual mechanics, such as with lizardfolk “bone magic” feat. Do we actually need an ancestor’s bone to cast the cantrip, or can we just cast the cantrip without it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that response is accurately summarizing either of our statements, Captain.
Kobolds have never been Lawful Evil locked, they’re not Devils.
A GM being a piece of crap is a GM issue, not a rule issue.
Pre-pathfinder kobolds were alignment locked, that being older editions of D&D
PF1e is another version of dnd whereas PF2e isn’t
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kobolds haven't been alignment-locked since, like, D&D 2nd Edition. Third edition had them as "Usually Lawful Evil". Many people read that as more of a cultural situation, a result of kobolds being the creations of Tiamat and Kurtulmak and thus naturally set against "goodly" gods by virtue of their creators' teachings and rivalries. This is another reason I don't personally like metallic kobolds, incidentally--I kind of liked that contrast of kobolds being ancestrally more tied to the iconic D&D BBEG, the Chromatic Dragon herself, and getting to deal with the challenges of moving away from that and unlearning their programming and oh my god KC please stop trying to derail threads into being about kobold lore
Also, if GMs dislike a particular flavor, rules aren't gonna stop them from banning it. If a GM doesn't like sparkling bards because they feel like it messes with their gritty low-fantasy tone, they'll just ban your version of prestidigitation, and that's their right.
Though what I will say is Paizo got racial freedom right long before WoTC. Kobolds could be any alignment in PF1e. It took till D&D TCoE in 5e for that to happen.
Also, if GMs dislike a particular flavor, rules aren't gonna stop them from banning it. If a GM doesn't like sparkling bards because they feel like it messes with their gritty low-fantasy tone, they'll just ban your version of prestidigitation, and that's their right.
That’s a better reason than “rules don’t support sparkles” because it’s about fitting the tone of the campaign and not being an amplified rules lawyer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Relyk's point, I think, was that they believe there's an established culture of grognardy old GMs who think kobolds should still be universally Lawful Evil, like the "good old days" of D&D and PF1, and that these GMs are in some way disruptive in modern PF2 games. Kobolds weren't universally evil in those games, though, so...
That's one thing I like about Savage Worlds players can rename and flavor any of a power's descriptive trates however they like.
Do you need a rule to tell you that? I mean I never surrender control of my gaming table to anyone who isn't part of the game. I have always considered it a basic tenant of tabletop gaming let alone RPGs. Tone and flavour can move around a lot.
Besides it is in the First Rule of Pathfinder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's one thing I like about Savage Worlds players can rename and flavor any of a power's descriptive trates however they like.Do you need a rule to tell you that? I mean I never surrender control of my gaming table to anyone who isn't part of the game. I have always considered it a basic tenant of tabletop gaming let alone RPGs. Tone and flavour can move around a lot.
Besides it is in the First Rule of Pathfinder.
I don't need a rule to tell me that, but it's getting debated so someone must.
The only difference is in Pathfinder says if the group agrees, in Savage's worlds, it's more built into character creation on an individual level. My only point is, what harm does it do if a player renames a feat or spell?
Relyk's point, I think, was that they believe there's an established culture of grognardy old GMs who think kobolds should still be universally Lawful Evil, like the "good old days" of D&D and PF1, and that these GMs are in some way disruptive in modern PF2 games. Kobolds weren't universally evil in those games, though, so...
Sort of?
I was saying, speaking from experience, grog west old GMs are more likely to not allow reflavoring.
I was in a D&D server that not who’s owner didn’t allow someone to reflavor Dragonborn to half dragon, or allow a Dragonborn to have a tail with his arguments being that rules don’t support it or that half dragons have stat blocks and thus can’t be reflavored from Dragonborn, but also enforced locked racial alignment, meaning orcs were forced to have that -2 to int
And low and behold, the owner was a very old D&D player
Words have implicit meanings along with their explicit meanings.
You forget we are not all part of exactly the same culture or generation. Meaning of words varies a lot. If you want to always assume a contrarian view or a particular undertone, well lets just say you need to be a bit more open minded to ideas and not leap to a particular conclusion when other meanings are posible.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
cack·le
verbmake a harsh, raucous sound when laughing.
"she cackled with laughter"
h
Similar:
laugh loudly
laugh uproariously
guffaw
crow
chortle
chuckle
giggle
tee-hee
laugh like a drain(of a bird, especially a hen or goose) give a raucous clucking cry.
verb: cackle; 3rd person present: cackles; past tense: cackled; past participle: cackled; gerund or present participle: cackling
"the hen was cackling as if demented"
h
Similar:
squawkcluck
clack
noun
a harsh laugh resembling the cry of a hen or goose.
"her delighted cackle"
I don't appreciate being labeled deliberately contrarian just because I don't wholly agree with either of you. It's not reading me in good faith. In this case, I was literally quoting the dictionary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I despair that you see Cackle as narrow. It is an attitude.
"Despair" feels like strong wording. To me, "Cackle" makes me think of a classic cackling Hocus Pocus-style witch,
It kind of feels like you're the one who wanted to interrogate how I, personally, saw Cackle. I told you how I saw it and why. I also mentioned the first couple dictionary definitions, but I assumed that was safely objective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure mechanics and flavor are immutably disparate in every case. A rogue can’t Headstomp a noheaded creature, nor could they perhaps reliably find another piece of their own anatomy apart from their foot-with-weight-on-downward-legthrust with appropriate leverage to also reliably target the noheaded one’s equally vulnerable anatomical appendage/organ/thing. So stomping a head is to me quite specific.
Then, Cackle, does seem to require vocalisation. I was thinking about the back and forth between Cackle and Chant etc, and reduced it to “Sustain”. Which is what the ability does. But as Cackle there is flavor of vocalisation. So. Can you Cackle to yourself - or does it need to be performative for others. Having hummed or chanted in my head, to myself IRL in various situations I can attest to the power of such inner sustaining techniques. And to the power of outward, external vocalisations. How does a vegepygmy (from PF1, at least) Cackle if it does not use vocal language? Does its expression of pheromones equate? Or only if at a high frequency akin to a guffaw?
A good GM will allow reflavpring, but there are necessary interrogations of the intent of the flavor, and where the mechanics lie. I might require the Rogue to use some Knowledge check to ascertain where to “Anatomically Unspecified Heavy Weight Assisted Attack” the Decapitroid.