The witch archetype in Pathfinder 2e is a spellcasting class that draws its power from dark magic and deals with curses, hexes, and other occult practices. **Witches are typically outsiders, shunned and feared due to their associations with the supernatural.** They often live on the outskirts of society, either as hermits or in small covens. **Witches have access to a unique spell list**, which includes spells focused on manipulating luck, cursing enemies, and controlling the minds of others. They also have the ability to craft and use magical potions and poisons. The primary ability score for witches is Intelligence, which reflects their affinity for arcane knowledge and the power of their spells.
All of which are extremely useful and extremely flavorful. And they would make for perfect feats in PF2.
cold and scaling resistance is actually already in the game via the Heritage that was basically made to replicate Winter Witches, Wintertouched Human. Plus, there is a 4th level Rogue feat that lets you combine Sneak Attack with spells, which was one of the biggest draws to the Arcane Trickster for magically-inclined Rogues.
The primary ability score for witches is Intelligence, which reflects their affinity for arcane knowledge and the power of their spells. **Their secondary ability score is often Charisma, as witches often rely on their force of personality to manipulate others or negotiate with otherworldly beings.** **Witches have a unique class feature called Hexes**, which are supernatural abilities tied to their connection with dark magic.
Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
What gives me some optimism about PF2 in comparison to PF1 on that front, IMHO, is that it looks like a more robust foundation for expanding new character options than what Paizo was previously using. PF1 had alternate class features (i.e., archetypes), prestige classes, multiclassing, and hybrid classes, but if PF2 is able to condense all of that into a singular Archetype system, that's potentially a huge step forward in design space that this opens. It's similar to what 5e achieved with its subclass system. PF2 may partially even achieve what some people had wanted for 5e: cross-class archetypes/subclasses.
This is exactly what I least like about PF2. By making archetypes, multi-classing, and prestige classing all a single universal silo, there is a great homogenized feeling of the game. The worst part is making all three custom options compete for the same resource (class feats). The designer's have created a customization bottle neck and even admitted so during the playtest process.
Perhaps its simply poor execution of a good idea? Im not sure, but I'll be curious to see what Paizo drops in August to address the issue.
log in or register to remove this adKurviak
Explorer
This is exactly what I least like about PF2. By making archetypes, multi-classing, and prestige classing all a single universal silo, there is a great homogenized feeling of the game. The worst part is making all three custom options compete for the same resource (class feats). The designer's have created a customization bottle neck and even admitted so during the playtest process.
Perhaps its simply poor execution of a good idea? Im not sure, but I'll be curious to see what Paizo drops in August to address the issue.
Different folks different strokes. this is one of the things I like the most about PF2.
In general the only thing so far I dislike about PF2 based on the little pieces of information I have is that magic items giving mathematical bonuses are still part of the game
payn
He'll flip ya. Flip ya for real.
Different folks different strokes. this is one of the things I like the most about PF2.Yeah I think a lot of folks do, or dont care enough to let it get in the way of them enjoying PF2. Im probably an outlier on this.
In general the only thing so far I dislike about PF2 based on the little pieces of information I have is that magic items giving mathematical bonuses are still part of the game
Yeap, I was pretty sad to see the "big six" turned into the essential three.
Aldarc
Legend
I think it is a glaring omission because: a) The witch is important in Golarion (the most common non-divine caster) and b) the witch is an obvious primary occult caster, by not having it the bard was square pegged into the tradition and as a primary caster at the expense of other stuff. (IMO primal or arcane fitted better for the bard)
I get that you have a zealous appreciation of the Witch class, but I don't think you can make a strong argument that the Alchemist doesn't have a more compelling case for most deserving of the coveted 12th class spot. This survey data from d20PFSRD, for example, has the Alchemist ranked 11th as the most played class, with the Druid coming in at 14th and the Witch coming in at 15th, with a whopping 1.2% difference between the Alchemist and Witch. (And yes, that is fairly large difference when you consider the sheer number of classes.) Plus, both the Oracle and the Magus outperform the Witch on this list too.
Also, I'm skeptical the changes made to the Bard that you mention are in anyway remotely connected to the absence of the Witch. The Bard (and other 6th level casters) was notoriously underpowered in 3e and almost a joke class. There was also a lot of positive feedback about the Mesmer, which was almost like an occult Bard, in their Occult Adventures lineup. And as it turns out, according to Paizo, their decision to switch the Bard to Occult magic was met with HUGE praise by playtesters. If people had been upset about this, then the Bard likely would have switched to Arcane.* So did it happen? Nope. And when I look through the Occult spell list, then it seems to fit well with the Bard. Will it fit well with the Witch too? Of course.
This is exactly what I least like about PF2. By making archetypes, multi-classing, and prestige classing all a single universal silo, there is a great homogenized feeling of the game. The worst part is making all three custom options compete for the same resource (class feats). The designer's have created a customization bottle neck and even admitted so during the playtest process.
I like what I have seen, though I understand that opinions will vary. I was a bit taken aback by this myself, but when I thought more deeply about it, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Do these things compete with class feats? Of course, but how is this necessarily all that different from the prior system apart from how it is structured? If you were multiclassing or going into a prestige class, for example, then you would be relinquishing a level from your primary class where you likely would have gained a class feature or more spells so that you could get another (PrC) class feature instead. (And you likely would have screwed up the progression of your saves, BAB, or spells too.) Here you are continuing with your class but opting to choose essentially alternate class features from another class or an archetype. It's basically a more streamlined, efficient way of doing the same thing but without costing as much of a huge dip or loss in your class efficiency.
You can even do some things better this way than you could with PF1. Let's say that you wanted to be a Rogue/Wizard hybrid. I don't know what's optimal, but let's say Rogue 10 / Wizard 10. You are looking at having BAB, 10d8+10d6 HD, and 5th level spells. If you start as a Rogue in PF2 and go full monty with wizard multiclassing, then you will still have 20d8 HD, probably more competitive class combat proficiencies, and up to 8th level spells. Plus, there is a 4th level Rogue feat that lets you combine Sneak Attack with spells, which was one of the biggest draws to the Arcane Trickster for magically-inclined Rogues.
payn
He'll flip ya. Flip ya for real.
I like what I have seen, though I understand that opinions will vary. I was a bit taken aback by this myself, but when I thought more deeply about it, I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Do these things compete with class feats? Of course, but how is this necessarily all that different from the prior system apart from how it is structured? If you were multiclassing or going into a prestige class, for example, then you would be relinquishing a level from your primary class where you likely would have gained a class feature or more spells so that you could get another (PrC) class feature instead. (And you likely would have screwed up the progression of your saves, BAB, or spells too.) Here you are continuing with your class but opting to choose essentially alternate class features from another class or an archetype. It's basically a more streamlined, efficient way of doing the same thing but without costing as much of a huge dip or loss in your class efficiency.
You can even do some things better this way than you could with PF1. Let's say that you wanted to be a Rogue/Wizard hybrid. I don't know what's optimal, but let's say Rogue 10 / Wizard 10. You are looking at having BAB, 10d8+10d6 HD, and 5th level spells. If you start as a Rogue in PF2 and go full monty with wizard multiclassing, then you will still have 20d8 HD, probably more competitive class combat proficiencies, and up to 8th level spells. Plus, there is a 4th level Rogue feat that lets you combine Sneak Attack with spells, which was one of the biggest draws to the Arcane Trickster for magically-inclined Rogues.
One thing to consider is that, yes they do now compete with one another. You cannot, for instance, choose an archetype and multiclass by level 2. Nor can you achieve a prestige class by level 6. The dedication system locks you into paths and limits choices. Dedication only works with class feats which come every even level. Also, this is more of hybrid/feat classing (4E) which isnt what most folks think of when they choose to multiclass (3E/PF). Its quite stifling from what came before.
Admittedly, this new system does make multiclassing caster classes possible, which was disastrous in 3E/PF. It is definitely different than what came before. Few like myself will not enjoy it, a few others will really enjoy it, and most folks wont care.
I disagree. The original Winter Witch prestige class had that very ability (aka to generate ice so utterly cold it freezes enemies normally immune to it).
They can use hexes to curse enemies, manipulate luck, or create illusions. They gain access to more hexes as they level up, allowing them to diversify their abilities and tactics. **The familiar is also a defining feature of the witch class**. Familiars are small creatures that form a bond with the witch, providing them with various benefits and acting as companions and confidants. **The familiar can deliver touch spells for the witch and help with skill checks and other tasks**. Witches have a range of options for their playstyle, with different feats and abilities allowing them to focus on different aspects of their class. **They can become master manipulators, using their hexes and curses to control enemies and allies alike**. Alternately, they can focus on their potion and poison crafting abilities, using their brews to boost their own abilities or hinder their enemies. In conclusion, **the witch archetype in Pathfinder 2e is a unique and versatile spellcasting class**, with a focus on dark magic, curses, and hexes. Witches are often outsiders, using their knowledge and abilities to manipulate and control others. They have access to a wide range of spells and class features that allow them to play a variety of roles in combat and social situations..
Reviews for "Bewitching Beauty: Embracing the Enchantress Witch in Pathfinder 2e"
1. John - 2/5 - As someone who has played Pathfinder for years, I found the Witch archetype in Pathfinder 2e to be lackluster and underwhelming. The spells and abilities that the Witch gains did not feel unique or powerful enough compared to other spellcasting classes in the game. The limited selection of patron spells and hexes also made the Witch feel less versatile and more one-dimensional in their abilities. Overall, I was disappointed with the implementation of the Witch archetype in Pathfinder 2e and would not recommend it to players looking for a strong spellcasting option.
2. Sarah - 3/5 - I was really excited to try out the Witch archetype in Pathfinder 2e, but unfortunately, it didn't live up to my expectations. While the concept of a witch with hexes and spellcasting is intriguing, I found that the execution fell flat. The limited spell selection, especially for the patron spells, made it difficult to customize my character the way I wanted. Additionally, the hexes felt underpowered and didn't have a significant impact in combat. Overall, I found the Witch archetype to be lacking in both versatility and power compared to other options in the game.
3. Michael - 2/5 - As a long-time fan of witches in fantasy literature and games, I was really disappointed with the witch archetype in Pathfinder 2e. The limited spell selection and lack of unique abilities left me feeling like I was just playing a watered-down version of a spellcaster. The hexes, which should have been the defining feature of the witch, felt weak and uninteresting. I was hoping for a more flavorful and dynamic spellcasting experience, but unfortunately, the witch archetype in Pathfinder 2e didn't deliver. I would recommend looking at other spellcasting options if you're interested in playing a witch in this system.