Witch Dedication feat (page 222) explicitly states (paraphrased):
a) you don't get other effects from the patron
b) your familiar gets the normal number of familiar ability points vs. what a witch would normally get
c) explicitly covers how many cantrips received from this dedication
However, it doesn't make specific mention of whether a familiar received would have either the Learning Spells nor the Undying ability covered in the Witch's dedicated familiar section (page 181).
I have seen discussions online giving opinions ruling both for and against granting the above. I feel that since the Witch Dedication feat specifically mentions changes to the patron and both the number of cantrips and familiar abilities, but makes no mention of Learning Spells nor Undying that is covered by the Witch's Familiar section, that it is intended they have both. Unsure if this was answered more definitively elsewhere.
The above alone would not have prompted this post. Unless I am misreading something, one or both of these feats:
Basic Witchcraft (page 222)
Basic Lesson (page 186)
are broken. I can take these feats:
Witch Dedication (giving access to a few Cantrips) at level 2
Basic Witchcraft -> Basic Lesson at level 4
All of the Basic Lessons covered on page 185 give the familiar a 1st level spell, but the Witch has no way to cast the spell with only the above feats. I assume this is not intended.
It could be fixed by making Basic Witch Spellcasting a requirement of Basic Witchcraft, but that then only leaves one Witch Dedication feat at 4th.
Maybe a 4th level feat giving the Witch access to the hex spell and ability normally given by a Patron (but not the 1st level spell)? Or would that be too powerful?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Learning Spells and Undying are familiar features necessary for a witch to function as a prepared spellcaster, since a witch's familiar is their "spellbook." They are not familiar abilities, so I would not exclude them because of the Witch Dedication's line about familiar abilities
The dedication feats are not broken. Learning a spell is different from being able to prepare and cast that spell. Any spell of a higher rank than you can cast (such as the 1st level spell given by Basic Lessons) will be ready to use once you do take Basic Witch Spellcasting but will be unusable until then. It would be like if a wizard found a spellbook as loot which contained spells of a higher level than they can cast
Baarogue wrote: It would be like if a wizard found a spellbook as loot which contained spells of a higher level than they can cast I would argue the opposite with your example. The Wizard would have every expectation that eventually they will be able to access the higher level spell without having to do anything except gain levels.
My example character with Witch Dedication has no such expectation and thus part (half? a third?) of a feat is wasted unless the player creates a specific build.
Perhaps I am trying too hard to prevent my players from making a less than ideal build...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wizard Dedication then. Same difference
And taking Basic Lessons is no loss or "less than ideal build" for a Witch multiclass. They get the hex (a witch's focus spell) along with the bonus learned spell, while all the other dedication feats that give a focus spell only give the focus spell
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
For comparison, some Bard Archetype builds are broken.
level 2: Bard Dedication
level 4: Basic Muse's Whispers -> Martial Performance
You don't have the ability to cast Courageous Anthem, Rallying Anthem, or Song of Strength. So Martial Performance does absolutely nothing until you take Anthemic Performance at level 8, Advanced Muse's Whispers -> Rallying Anthem at level 8, or Advanced Muse's Whispers -> Song of Strength at level 6 (maybe level 4 if playing with Free Archetype and can double up on archetype feats at that level).
And Psychic Archetype is even more broken.
level 2: Psychic Dedication
level 4: Basic Thoughtform -> Psy Burst
Psy Burst has the Psyche trait. Since neither the Psychic Dedication or any Psychic Archetype feat ever gives you the Unleash Psyche ability, you can never use Psy Burst.
Inventor is in a similar place as Bard. You can get Inventor feats that use or improve Explode (such as Explosive Leap) before you can get the Inventor Archetype feat Explosion that lets you use Explode.
I think Summoner Archetype is the only one that plugs this type of loophole. It specifically says in the Summoner Dedication feat that you can't gain or use Tandem feats.
Are these things that are often fixed via house rules or do most GMs simply tell their players that if they take something that is broken like this that they just need to be aware of the limitations and perhaps execute a better feat purchase order?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Minethulhu wrote: Are these things that are often fixed via house rules or do most GMs simply tell their players that if they take something that is broken like this that they just need to be aware of the limitations and perhaps execute a better feat purchase order? What kind of house rules would you expect? Not everything is compatible with everything and not all feats work for every build. Just don't take things which don't work.
It's reasonable for GMs to warn novice players of problems and allow them to change their decisions though.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah, I wouldn't even make a player spend downtime retraining if they showed up at my table with a trap feat like that
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think it is just an inherent limitation on the concepts of Archetype characters. Not everything that is available to a base class character is available to the archetype character at the same level or sometimes at all.
It does present a bit of 'buyer beware' type of thing when taking a multiclass archetype. The feats are written for the base class. Getting them from the archetype does sometimes have gotcha's that the players need to be aware of.
I don't houserule away those limitations. Psy Burst is not usable from the Psychic Archetype. Martial Performance isn't usable by Archetype Bards until level 6 at the earliest (though you can retrain a lower level feat to start using it at level 6).
Just like I don't houserule Monk Archetype so that they get Flurry of Blows earlier than level 10. Or houserule Magus Archetype so that they get Arcane Cascade at all. Some things are just not intended to be gotten from the archetype at the same level or at all.
Minethulhu wrote: Unless I am misreading something, one or both of these feats:
Basic Witchcraft (page 222)
Basic Lesson (page 186)
are broken. I can take these feats:
Witch Dedication (giving access to a few Cantrips) at level 2
Basic Witchcraft -> Basic Lesson at level 4
All of the Basic Lessons covered on page 185 give the familiar a 1st level spell, but the Witch has no way to cast the spell with only the above feats. I assume this is not intended.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the complaint, but that seems to be a player error not a system error. Basic Witchcraft doesn't say you gain a lesson, it says you gain a feat. So if your PC takes Basic Witchcraft before they take Basic Witch Spellcasting, then they should select one of the level 1 or 2 witch feats that doesn't require rank 1 spellcasting. As I count it, that's 8 out of the 11 Level 1 and 2 feats - only Counterspell, Basic Lesson, and arguably Cackle can't be used by a character with only access to cantrips.
Because Archetype feats are available at certain levels and every level past that, sticking Basic Witchcraft at level 4 is actually a benefit. It lets the PCs who want to take it to get feats like Cantrip Expansion or Enhanced Faimiliar, get those feats at the earliest possible class feat after dedication, i.e. level 4. While PCs who want to take it for Basic Lesson can still take it at level 6 or higher.
Easl wrote: only Counterspell, Basic Lesson, and arguably Cackle can't be used by a character with only access to cantrips. I don't even list Basic Lesson in that list. Basic Lesson still gives you the Hex focus spell that is fully usable. It is only the learned Rank spell that is unusable at the time.
Finoan wrote: It does present a bit of 'buyer beware' type of thing when taking a multiclass archetype. The feats are written for the base class. Getting them from the archetype does sometimes have gotcha's that the players need to be aware of. Though some feats actually give me a distinct impression that they were written as multiclass feats. Like melee buff feats for cloth 6 hp casters. That's the only way for me to rationalize making such feats at all in this game.
Errenor wrote: Finoan wrote: It does present a bit of 'buyer beware' type of thing when taking a multiclass archetype. The feats are written for the base class. Getting them from the archetype does sometimes have gotcha's that the players need to be aware of. Though some feats actually give me a distinct impression that they were written as multiclass feats. Like melee buff feats for cloth 6 hp casters. That's the only way for me to rationalize making such feats at all in this game. Are you throwing shade specifically at Witch's Armaments?
... Because if you are, I fully approve and agree with your analysis.
But hey, at least with the release of Howl of the Wild, you can use Clawdancer archetype to add the Finesse trait to the Eldritch Nails attack.
Witch Archetype and Eldritch Nails even becomes a way of getting access to the Clawdancer archetype on any character (with enough INT to qualify for Witch Archetype).
Finoan wrote: Errenor wrote: Though some feats actually give me a distinct impression that they were written as multiclass feats. Like melee buff feats for cloth 6 hp casters. That's the only way for me to rationalize making such feats at all in this game. Are you throwing shade specifically at Witch's Armaments?
... Because if you are, I fully approve and agree with your analysis. I expect Witch's Armaments is in there mainly for thematic play, for games where combat is in 'easier' mode (i.e. threats are a level behind or so). I agree, it would be nice to have a bit of a buff for it.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Minethulhu wrote: However, it doesn't make specific mention of whether a familiar received would have either the Learning Spells nor the Undying ability covered in the Witch's dedicated familiar section (page 181). There is an official clarification from the designers for this in this Youtube video: Ask a Paizo Designer #9: Multiclass Witch's Familiar.
In short, they are a standard familiar, and don't get any of the Witch special familiar changes like Undying.
That is an old, outdated, pre-remaster video, and contradicted by the plain text of the dedication which says the familiar gains the multiclass witch's cantrips and the MC witch prepares their spells from the familiar. Basic Witch Spellcasting then repeats the point that when you gain spell slots from the witch archetype you add spells to the familiar. The familiar being the one who knows the witch's spells, and the witch preparing their spells from the familiar are functions of the "Spells" witch familiar feature, not ability, which is listed right alongside Learning Spells and Undying and NOT mentioned as a benefit in the Witch Dedication. We assume they have the feature because of course they do. They need it to function
But what happens to the spells a MC witch's familiar knew when they die? Does the new familiar need to learn them all from scratch via retraining feats or do they know the ones the old one did? Because that's a function of the Undying feature. Forcing the witch MC to be the only archetype who has to relearn their spells in that way is far too punitive
And the Learning Spells feature is necessary for a witch to function as a prepared spellcaster with the "spellbook" paradigm, otherwise they CANNOT learn new spells except via feats, a limitation no other spellcaster has - not even the MC ones
Attempting to nitpick and choose which parts of the witch familiar features a MC witch's familiar gets just causes confusion and delay. Those videos have sometimes served as a good insight into the dev's intentions, but in this case Logan Bonner was wrong
If you lose your spellbook (familiar), you can still cast spells, just not prepare others, correct?
Losing all the spells would be really harsh though, i would probably houserule it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Baarogue wrote: Attempting to nitpick and choose which parts of the witch familiar features a MC witch's familiar gets just causes confusion and delay. Those videos have sometimes served as a good insight into the dev's intentions, but in this case Logan Bonner was wrong I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks that.
Unofficial errata is, at its core, unofficial.
Minethulhu wrote: Are these things that are often fixed via house rules or do most GMs simply tell their players that if they take something that is broken like this that they just need to be aware of the limitations and perhaps execute a better feat purchase order? I think if a player is bothering to use archetypes rather than the much simpler path of staying "in class," they are probably savvy enough to figure this out themselves. Unless the game uses free archetype, but I think that's a terrible call for new players. Mandatory archetypes adds... I dunno, a hundred times as many options to pick from at 2nd level? And that choice has significant implications until like level 8, and comes from a really poorly balanced set of feats.
Finoan wrote: Errenor wrote: Finoan wrote: It does present a bit of 'buyer beware' type of thing when taking a multiclass archetype. The feats are written for the base class. Getting them from the archetype does sometimes have gotcha's that the players need to be aware of. Though some feats actually give me a distinct impression that they were written as multiclass feats. Like melee buff feats for cloth 6 hp casters. That's the only way for me to rationalize making such feats at all in this game. Are you throwing shade specifically at Witch's Armaments?
... Because if you are, I fully approve and agree with your analysis.
And Bespell Strikes I guess. It maybe is not that bad as it works for ranged weapons, 1d6 is not nothing and it seems to support that strategy 'spell+Strike' people mention. 'A non-cantrip spell' hurts but works for focus spells, including one-action spells. So I don't know. But it also looks like it won't scale well enough (it doesn't...)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Errenor wrote: And Bespell Strikes I guess. It maybe is not that bad as it works for ranged weapons, 1d6 is not nothing and it seems to support that strategy 'spell+Strike' people mention. 'A non-cantrip spell' hurts but works for focus spells, including one-action spells. So I don't know. But it also looks like it won't scale well enough (it doesn't...) I guess the design thought is that if you are regularly using your third action for a strike, you have your weapon (or unarmed) runed up appropriately already, so it's +1d6 on top of everything else, and not intended to replace everything else?
Easl wrote: Errenor wrote: And Bespell Strikes I guess. It maybe is not that bad as it works for ranged weapons, 1d6 is not nothing and it seems to support that strategy 'spell+Strike' people mention. 'A non-cantrip spell' hurts but works for focus spells, including one-action spells. So I don't know. But it also looks like it won't scale well enough (it doesn't...) I guess the design thought is that if you are regularly using your third action for a strike, you have your weapon (or unarmed) runed up appropriately already, so it's +1d6 on top of everything else, and not intended to replace everything else? And that really looks like multiclass caster, especially appropriately runed weapon. Which was the start of this little thread :)
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
