PF Witch vs. 3.5 Wizard

[leden]

Short question: Which is better, the Pathfinder Witch or the 3.5 Wizard?
Please explain why you think one is better or in which circumstances it is.


Long Question: My group and I have been playing 3.5 for aroun 6-7 years now (note that we usually play low powered campaigns) and we've been checking PF recently and thinking of using some elements of it (namely, I convinced our DM to let our Paladin change into a PF paladin). We're not planning to switch completely, at least not for now.

Well, looking at the PF classes I noticed the Witch and I thought it was pretty cool, so I asked the DM if he'd let me play one. I told him before hand that it had a hex (the sleep one) that could be a bit OP for our usual optimization level and that I wouldn't take it if he felt it may be too powerful.

Well he read the class and dictated that i couldn't play one, as it was much more powerful than a wizard (3.5) as it had the same number of spells, more HP, and at-will abilities. I tried to tell him that the witch wasn't as powerful as the Wizard but he wouldn't listen. Maybe if he saw what an "objective observer" had to say, he would let me play one (or not).

So... What does the playground think?? :smallbiggrin:


Note: While I'm the most skilled at the system, I'm the least powergamey, i usually play what's fun, never going for a warrior that does crazy damage or a wizard who justs blows everything up or wins fights by his lonesome.

[avr]

A relatively poor spell list, which is why they gave the Witch such nice class features. The Wizard is more abusable by a long shot, the Witch would be better for a less skilled player.

[JellyPooga]

A relatively poor spell list, which is why they gave the Witch such nice class features. The Wizard is more abusable by a long shot, the Witch would be better for a less skilled player.

This. The Witch has a gimped spell list compared to the Wizard. More comparable to the Bard, really. The Hexes are nice, but don't come even near to making up the difference. Did your DM even look at the spell list, or just assume it used the same one? (honest question, btw)

[Kudaku]

The witch is solidly tier 1 and on par with the PF-wizard, which is quite the step up from the 3.5 wizard. I find that the main drawback of the witch if you compare the two is the spell lists... The witch list is missing a great deal of the spells wizards take for granted. Picking the right patron will help a little, but it's still a significant downside.

It would be interesting to know what the rest of your party is playing? If its a shield fighter, healing cleric and a dualwielding rogue I'd probably say no if I was the DM in question.

If its a warblade, a crusader and an incantatrix... Well, that's different.

[Urpriest]

Well he read the class and dictated that i couldn't play one, as it was much more powerful than a wizard (3.5) as it had the same number of spells, more HP, and at-will abilities. I tried to tell him that the witch wasn't as powerful as the Wizard but he wouldn't listen. Maybe if he saw what an "objective observer" had to say, he would let me play one (or not).


The Witch doesn't have more hp. It has the same hp as the Wizard in PF. If you want to use it in 3.5 you have to reduce its hp, just like you have to change the way its class skills work in order to compensate for the change between the editions.

Beyond that, you've got the at-will abilities compared to the Wizard's better spell list. The spell list is more powerful when optimized, while the at-will abilities are more powerful for a low-op player. But since class features and worse spell lists are the main way that every non-Wizard or Sorceror arcane caster is differentiated from the Wizard and Sorceror, this is something the DM accepted when they chose to play 3.5.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The Witch isn't better than the PF or 3E wizard. Spells are what matter the most, and its list is incredibly lacking and narrowly focused. Also, less spells/day (specialization, yo). The offensive hexes basically boil down to spamming against will save and hoping the foe is not immune to mind-affecting. Wizard can do that and a lot more. I suppose witch can do it for more combats/foes per day, but that's not a major benefit especially past the first few levels.

[Saidoro]

The witch is weaker than the wizard because its spell list is inferior. However, the witch has less access to buffs and crowd control than the wizard which means it must rely more on debuffs and removal, forcing the player into a playstyle potentially more disruptive to a low-op group. It will probably be fine so long as you are careful, though.

The witch is solidly tier 1 and on par with the PF-wizard, which is quite the step up from the 3.5 wizard.
No. No it is not.

[Kudaku]

No. No it is not.

You think the pathfinder wizard are on the same level or a step down from 3.5 wizard? The 3.5 wizard is identical to the PF wizard except the PF wizard gets better benefits from specialization, has an easier time casting spells from his barred schools, he has the option of a bonded item instead of a familiar, a d6 hit die... I have a hard time seeing how the PF wizard is not a solid step up compared to the 3.5 wizard.

[Saidoro]

You think the pathfinder wizard are on the same level or a step down from 3.5 wizard? The 3.5 wizard is identical to the PF wizard except the PF wizard gets better benefits from specialization, has an easier time casting spells from his barred schools, he has the option of a bonded item instead of a familiar, a d6 hit die... I have a hard time seeing how the PF wizard is not a solid step up compared to the 3.5 wizard.
I don't deny it's a step up, just that it's a major one. The strength of a wizard is and always has been in their spells.

[Yahya]

You think the pathfinder wizard are on the same level or a step down from 3.5 wizard? The 3.5 wizard is identical to the PF wizard except the PF wizard gets better benefits from specialization, has an easier time casting spells from his barred schools, he has the option of a bonded item instead of a familiar, a d6 hit die... I have a hard time seeing how the PF wizard is not a solid step up compared to the 3.5 wizard.

I think the change isn't in the class itself but in the spells, which Pathfinder nerfed quite a bit, making the Pathfinder wizard a little less abusable than the 3.5 wizard.

OP, I don't think the witch would be too powerful, or even more powerful than a 3.5 wizard, cleric, or druid, so as long as you didn't spam the sleep, and maybe as Urpriest suggested, convert the class to 3.5, which should bring it down even more.

[Saidoro]

I think the change isn't in the class itself but in the spells, which Pathfinder nerfed quite a bit, making the Pathfinder wizard a little less abusable than the 3.5 wizard.
Honestly, the spells aren't all that nerfed either, with the exception a a few things such as polymorph. Paizo talks big about how they fixed the game but they really didn't.

[Eslin]

You think the pathfinder wizard are on the same level or a step down from 3.5 wizard? The 3.5 wizard is identical to the PF wizard except the PF wizard gets better benefits from specialization, has an easier time casting spells from his barred schools, he has the option of a bonded item instead of a familiar, a d6 hit die... I have a hard time seeing how the PF wizard is not a solid step up compared to the 3.5 wizard.

He's less likely to have access to 3.5 splats =P

[Kudaku]

I don't deny it's a step up, just that it's a major one. The strength of a wizard is and always has been in their spells.

Considering this is a PF character being played in a 3.5 campaign, odds are that the witch would use the 3.5 version of his/her spells when available. So there's that.

[137beth]

Has no one pointed out prestige classes yet?

The 3.5 wizard and sorcerer get almost no class features aside from spells. Unfortunately, this means that it is almost always better to go into prestige classes, which give you the same spells and new class features. The PF wizard/sorcerer was NOT a buff to the 3.5 versions, it was an attempt to make staying with the base classes comparable in power to prestige classes.

3.5 has more abuseable prestige classes for wizards than pf does, so that is what your DM should be comparing the witch to.

[Kudaku]

@Ben
That is actually a very good point - in 3.5 wizard is essentially a 5 level class. I'd forgotten about that (haven't played 3.5 in a few years now). If you prestige away from the witch then the hexes wouldn't progress, so there's strong incentive present to stay in the class.

Keeping that in mind, if you tweaked the witch a bit (d4 hit dice instead of d6 etc) I would probably allow it.

[Spuddles]

You think the pathfinder wizard are on the same level or a step down from 3.5 wizard? The 3.5 wizard is identical to the PF wizard except the PF wizard gets better benefits from specialization, has an easier time casting spells from his barred schools, he has the option of a bonded item instead of a familiar, a d6 hit die... I have a hard time seeing how the PF wizard is not a solid step up compared to the 3.5 wizard.

PF spells are generally weaker (web* and glitterdust are good examples), some of the really baller spells don't exist, and persistent spell+metamagic reducers dot exist.

PF wizard has a slightly higher optimization floor but a MUCH lower ceiling.

*web

3.5 web, an ogre has to roll a 14 or better to break free with a str check. A PF ogre has to roll a 7 or better on a CMB roll. See also how nerfed solid fog line of spells became. Battlefield control in genral is much weaker than 3.5.

[3WhiteFox3]

PF spells are generally weaker (web* and glitterdust are good examples), some of the really baller spells don't exist, and persistent spell+metamagic reducers dot exist.

PF wizard has a slightly higher optimization floor but a MUCH lower ceiling.

*web

3.5 web, an ogre has to roll a 14 or better to break free with a str check. A PF ogre has to roll a 7 or better on a CMB roll. See also how nerfed solid fog line of spells became. Battlefield control in genral is much weaker than 3.5.

Yeah, but Grease got buffed. The other aspects of web are still solid. Spells like Silent Image, Mirror Image and the Wall Spells are still around.

They may have nerfed some good spells, but they also gave casters things like Create Pit, Stone Call, Ear-Piercing Scream, Spell Gauge, Unnatural Lust, the list goes on and on. Not to mention things like the Conjuration (Teleporation) Sudden Shift ability or Dazing Spell, or the three ways Wizards can cast spells spontaneously, Spell Perfection, Etc...

Really, while a full-splat 3.5 wizard is still probably better than the PF Wizard, all of the non-casting classes also lost a lot of what made them viable choices. So in terms of balance, the PF Wizard is relatively better.

[Svata]

Yeah, but Grease got buffed.

Well, for most people anyway. PF completely nerfed grease as a way of giving your rogue sneak attacks.

My opinion is that the 3.5 wizard is MUCH stronger than the PF witch. The sheer number of spells available to the wizard in 3.5 outdoes any possible boosts the witch could have had. I prefer Sorcerer for ease of management and spells per day, anyway, even if they aren't quite as powerful... Unless you find a DM who allows Dragon Magazine #333, a.k.a. "Paizo Gives Sorcerers Wizard-level spell selection"

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, for most people anyway. PF completely nerfed grease as a way of giving your rogue sneak attacks.

My opinion is that the 3.5 wizard is MUCH stronger than the PF witch. The sheer number of spells available to the wizard in 3.5 outdoes any possible boosts the witch could have had. I prefer Sorcerer for ease of management and spells per day, anyway, even if they aren't quite as powerful... Unless you find a DM who allows Dragon Magazine #333, a.k.a. "Paizo Gives Sorcerers Wizard-level spell selection"

Paizo already gave Sorcerers (better than) Wizard spell selection, right in PF. It's called the Paragon Surge spell, and you use it to gain the feat that adds spells known to a spont. caster to on-the-spot gain access to any wizard spell you're high enough level to cast.

As for Witch, I don't know... If you include absolutely everything from 3E, Pun Pun happens. If you ban the TO bs, Witch might have a chance, simply because Dazing Spell + Persistent Spell (the PF feat, not the 3E one) really is that damn good. You'd want Samsaran to gain spells on your list worth using with the combo, of course. But with that, you can customize it so that you have a save or lose to target all 3 saves, and possibly not allowing SR if you pick such spells. On top of the save or lose hexes that are Su and thus also ignore SR, for foes that aren't immune to them. You can build a Witch to just plain auto-win most any encounter.

[Svata]

Meant spells known, not selection, sorry.

[Spuddles]

Yeah, but Grease got buffed. The other aspects of web are still solid. Spells like Silent Image, Mirror Image and the Wall Spells are still around.

They may have nerfed some good spells, but they also gave casters things like Create Pit, Stone Call, Ear-Piercing Scream, Spell Gauge, Unnatural Lust, the list goes on and on. Not to mention things like the Conjuration (Teleporation) Sudden Shift ability or Dazing Spell, or the three ways Wizards can cast spells spontaneously, Spell Perfection, Etc...

Really, while a full-splat 3.5 wizard is still probably better than the PF Wizard, all of the non-casting classes also lost a lot of what made them viable choices. So in terms of balance, the PF Wizard is relatively better.

PF grease is nerfed IMO, as it doesnt force balance checks.

There's also no 24 hour incorporeal subtype at level 8 in PF. Yet. But then it depends on how much you consider wizard prcs to matter in terms of wizard power.

[The Boz]

The Wizard is more abusable by a long shot, the Witch would be better for a less skilled player.

...and this kind of mentality is exactly what's wrong with players today.
Since when has it been the point of the game to break it?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

...and this kind of mentality is exactly what's wrong with players today.
Since when has it been the point of the game to break it?This mentality is what's wrong with game designers today. Since when were we supposed to ignore the mechanical flaws of a game in favor of denigrating people who merely point them out?

[gooddragon1]

3.5 wizard > all of PF in terms of power.

Chain Gating
Pun-Pun

[StreamOfTheSky]

EVERY class got nerfed from 3E to PF by losing the huge wealth of awesome splat material and power creep.

The difference is that a wizard can still end encounters with the wave of his hand, obsolete skills with utility spells, teleport around the world, and break physics on a whim. The noncasters on the other hand, lost basically everything they could do aside from dish out damage in the conversion to PF.

Saying wizard is weaker because he lost some stuff from 3E matters diddly squat for class balance; everyone did.

Saying the wizard is weaker because of a lack of pun pun, infinite loops, or other crap that actual games never would allow anyway is downright comical.

[gooddragon1]

EVERY class got nerfed from 3E to PF by losing the huge wealth of awesome splat material and power creep.

The difference is that a wizard can still end encounters with the wave of his hand, obsolete skills with utility spells, teleport around the world, and break physics on a whim. The noncasters on the other hand, lost basically everything they could do aside from dish out damage in the conversion to PF.

Saying wizard is weaker because he lost some stuff from 3E matters diddly squat for class balance; everyone did.

Saying the wizard is weaker because of a lack of pun pun, infinite loops, or other crap that actual games never would allow anyway is downright comical.

I'm just saying that 3.5 has more potential power than 3.PF. :/

[3WhiteFox3]

PF grease is nerfed IMO, as it doesnt force balance checks.

There's also no 24 hour incorporeal subtype at level 8 in PF. Yet. But then it depends on how much you consider wizard prcs to matter in terms of wizard power.

That one hurts the rogue far more than the wizard. I should know, I'm playing a Conjuration (Teleportation) Wizard in Pathfinder Society. Grease is the only spell that I will always prepare at least once and so far, I've had no reasons not to prepare it twice. It's that good. The buff to 1 minute/level is such a big one for low level fights.

At level 3, I get to basically set down a area of the map that few want to walk over. I get to essentially decide how the fight goes down in many cases thanks to one spell. Now, as monsters are getting better and better Reflex saves as I climb levels, it's losing a bit of it's potency, but it's still one of the Wizard's best options for level one Battlefield control. In fact, I'd wager that it will stay a staple spell until most of the opponents start flying everywhere.

I realize that anecdotal evidence only goes so far, but there you go. In my opinion, it's a fantastic spell and far more useful at the important low levels than it's 3.5 counterpart. And honestly, I care much more about what happens at level 1-4 than after that. Those levels are still kind of dicey for anyone, including Wizards. So having it be awesome at those levels is a big buff.

[137beth]

EVERY class got nerfed from 3E to PF by losing the huge wealth of awesome splat material and power creep.

The difference is that a wizard can still end encounters with the wave of his hand, obsolete skills with utility spells, teleport around the world, and break physics on a whim. The noncasters on the other hand, lost basically everything they could do aside from dish out damage in the conversion to PF.

Saying wizard is weaker because he lost some stuff from 3E matters diddly squat for class balance; everyone did.

Saying the wizard is weaker because of a lack of pun pun, infinite loops, or other crap that actual games never would allow anyway is downright comical.
There are official rules for converting 3.5 material to PF, so 3.5 splats are still useable by RAW. PF splatbooks, on the other hand, are not useable in 3.5 by RAW. Of course, any reasonable DM should be able to reverse the conversion process, but that would not be RAW.

(and if we are talking about actual games, which you haven't been, based on your previous complaints, then it would be easy to house-rule-reverse the negative changes PF made, in which case there isn't really any meaning in a PF vs 3.5 debate, as they are essentially the same in practice).

[StreamOfTheSky]

That one hurts the rogue far more than the wizard. I should know, I'm playing a Conjuration (Teleportation) Wizard in Pathfinder Society. Grease is the only spell that I will always prepare at least once and so far, I've had no reasons not to prepare it twice. It's that good. The buff to 1 minute/level is such a big one for low level fights.

At level 3, I get to basically set down a area of the map that few want to walk over. I get to essentially decide how the fight goes down in many cases thanks to one spell. Now, as monsters are getting better and better Reflex saves as I climb levels, it's losing a bit of it's potency, but it's still one of the Wizard's best options for level one Battlefield control. In fact, I'd wager that it will stay a staple spell until most of the opponents start flying everywhere.

I realize that anecdotal evidence only goes so far, but there you go. In my opinion, it's a fantastic spell and far more useful at the important low levels than it's 3.5 counterpart. And honestly, I care much more about what happens at level 1-4 than after that. Those levels are still kind of dicey for anyone, including Wizards. So having it be awesome at those levels is a big buff.

Yes, this is exactly what I have been saying all along. It's much more useful at low levels, which is what matters for a low level offensive spell. I used to almost never take grease at level 1, 1 round just wasn't worth it. Now in PF, it's difficult to *not* pick it up immediately.

[avr]

...and this kind of mentality is exactly what's wrong with players today.
Since when has it been the point of the game to break it?
The question asked was which of the two options was more powerful. Specifically, leden wanted an argument to be allowed the witch. Pointing out that a wizard is more abusable seemed reasonable. Context is all.

[Spuddles]

That one hurts the rogue far more than the wizard. I should know, I'm playing a Conjuration (Teleportation) Wizard in Pathfinder Society. Grease is the only spell that I will always prepare at least once and so far, I've had no reasons not to prepare it twice. It's that good. The buff to 1 minute/level is such a big one for low level fights.

At level 3, I get to basically set down a area of the map that few want to walk over. I get to essentially decide how the fight goes down in many cases thanks to one spell. Now, as monsters are getting better and better Reflex saves as I climb levels, it's losing a bit of it's potency, but it's still one of the Wizard's best options for level one Battlefield control. In fact, I'd wager that it will stay a staple spell until most of the opponents start flying everywhere.

I realize that anecdotal evidence only goes so far, but there you go. In my opinion, it's a fantastic spell and far more useful at the important low levels than it's 3.5 counterpart. And honestly, I care much more about what happens at level 1-4 than after that. Those levels are still kind of dicey for anyone, including Wizards. So having it be awesome at those levels is a big buff.

It was the same way in 3.5, but glitterdust and web were even better, as was alter self. Furthermore, grease only forces one reflex save vs fall down per casting. I am honestly not sure why people think PF grease is better in any way over 3.5. It lasts longer, so I guess it's better at disarming people at low levels.

With the skill changes, acrobatics checks are MUCH easier to come
By if you're a fighter or a frost giant or whatever. Cross class ranks in balance while in heavy amror meant you were falling all over yourself until like 10+ HD.

[Psyren]

Wizards are better overall. Witches can come closer to them if you have a lot more encounters/day than normal, or monsters that are resistant to magic but not supernatural abilities, but even in cases like those the Wizard has more options - better buffs, better summons, better shapeshifting etc.

The Witch also tends to suffer pitted against foes with mind-affecting defenses due to how focused her list is (e.g. undead, though there are archetypes/feats/etc. to help out there.)


Paizo talks big about how they fixed the game but they really didn't.

Where did they say they "fixed the game?" Especially "talking big" about doing so.

[Gnaeus]

Witches are slightly more powerful, Wizards are more versatile.

The wizard spell list is better. The chances that he will have the unique ability that will short circuit a plot are much higher. Especially at high levels, just using their spells as they seem to be intended pretty much destroys game balance.

Witches hexes are SUs. That means they do not provoke, and they ignore SR, and therefore magic immunity (they are very good against golems, for example). The concern about creatures immune to mind affecting is overstated. Misfortune is a non mind-affecting at will hex, extendable with Cackle, and it pretty much gimps most enemies from being very effective, and it sets them up for a second save or suck (or just evil eye or slumber if they are vulnerable to mind affecting). At level 10 they get their choice of Agony, Hoarfrost, and Retribution, none of which are mind-affecting. A witch with decent Opti-fu just plans her spell selection around the hexes, so after getting slumber, Misfortune, Cackle and Evil Eye, she just picks spells that do not give will saves (preferably fort or reflex SoLs like Stinking Cloud, that will benefit from Misfortune, or after level 10 when they get Fort SoL Hexes they just take reflex save spells, or no save just suck spells like Enervation).

[Spuddles]

Witches are slightly more powerful, Wizards are more versatile.

The wizard spell list is better. The chances that he will have the unique ability that will short circuit a plot are much higher. Especially at high levels, just using their spells as they seem to be intended pretty much destroys game balance.

Witches hexes are SUs. That means they do not provoke, and they ignore SR, and therefore magic immunity (they are very good against golems, for example). The concern about creatures immune to mind affecting is overstated. Misfortune is a non mind-affecting at will hex, extendable with Cackle, and it pretty much gimps most enemies from being very effective, and it sets them up for a second save or suck (or just evil eye or slumber if they are vulnerable to mind affecting). At level 10 they get their choice of Agony, Hoarfrost, and Retribution, none of which are mind-affecting. A witch with decent Opti-fu just plans her spell selection around the hexes, so after getting slumber, Misfortune, Cackle and Evil Eye, she just picks spells that do not give will saves (preferably fort or reflex SoLs like Stinking Cloud, that will benefit from Misfortune, or after level 10 when they get Fort SoL Hexes they just take reflex save spells, or no save just suck spells like Enervation).

I remember the first time our group fought a witch in PF. Two of our party are exalted, so we took her alive, but we had no idea how to deal with her and her hexes, which involved flying and puking bugs or something. It was a pretty good play on the part of our DM, using our fear of the unknown against us.


The druid quietly killed the witch a few days later. Took her down to the river and slit her throat while the party was busy with a necromancer attack.

[The Boz]

This mentality is what's wrong with game designers today. Since when were we supposed to ignore the mechanical flaws of a game in favor of denigrating people who merely point them out?

Good job getting a natural 1 on Sense Motive.


The question asked was which of the two options was more powerful. Specifically, leden wanted an argument to be allowed the witch. Pointing out that a wizard is more abusable seemed reasonable. Context is all.

You basically said "wizard is for better players because the wizard can be made more broken", implying that the quality of a class is measured by the brokenness of it. Your statement "the Witch would be better for a less skilled player" proves it. This kind of attitude, to me, is disgusting.
The idea was that the better class is obviously the more broken one. What other reason for that statement could there be? If it's a complexity issue, I'd say the witch is more complex, and thus requires a more skilled player because of the different active class features in addition to the non-standard spell list. It literally has no ease-of-use improvements that would make it harder to do badly with when compared to a wizard.

[Gnaeus]

I'd say the witch is more complex, and thus requires a more skilled player because of the different active class features in addition to the non-standard spell list. It literally has no ease-of-use improvements that would make it harder to do badly with when compared to a wizard.

Disagree. I think that there is a much lower game mastery threshhold to realize that Witches might want to pick up cursing powers, and therefore get Evil Eye, Misfortune, and Cackle (3 of the most thematic witch abilities) than is needed to realize that being an evoker focusing on blasting is not playing a strong wizard.

[The Boz]

But the witch suffers from a unique problem that the wizard does not: permanent choice. Wizards get to change their spells whenever they want to, but witches don't get to change their curses, and their spell selection is, though different and with some small versatility added that the wizard does not have access to, much more limited.

[olentu]

But the witch suffers from a unique problem that the wizard does not: permanent choice. Wizards get to change their spells whenever they want to, but witches don't get to change their curses, and their spell selection is, though different and with some small versatility added that the wizard does not have access to, much more limited.

Let's say that a witch never used a hex, would it still be a viable choice of class.

[The Boz]

Since it's a 9th level spellcaster with access to several usual suspects from the game-breaker spell list, yes, it would still be a tier one choice.

[thethird]

No. The witch learns spells. She cannot have any spell she wants. A witch isn't tier 1.

[The Boz]

No. The witch learns spells. She cannot have any spell she wants. A witch isn't tier 1.

...Huh?
So your definition of T1 are clerics and druids alone?

[137beth]

No. The witch learns spells. She cannot have any spell she wants. A witch isn't tier 1.

Huh. The witch can get every spell on their list, as long as they take the time to learn it...
On the other hand, a wizard can get every spell on their list, as long as they take the time to learn it...

So you conclude that the witch has a more restricted process for learning spells than the wizard:smallconfused:

[olentu]

Since it's a 9th level spellcaster with access to several usual suspects from the game-breaker spell list, yes, it would still be a tier one choice.

Now then, barring any hexes that can be actively detrimental to the character and can not be turned off the hex ability seems like a fine thing for the unskilled player. Unlike school specialization, which can hurt the character, hexes are free bonuses while not being sufficiently important as to make the character weak if badly chosen. Of course, there are concerns about relative proportions of good, mediocre, and bad spells on the two lists that come into play, but it does not seem impossible that the witch class is better for the less skilled.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

1) Metamagic feats like Twin, Energy Admixture, Split Ray and Persistent Spell don't exist in Pathfinder.
2) There are no blanket metamagic reducers or easy/cheap automatic metamagic effects.
3) There are far fewer spells that ignore Spell Resistance or saves that are nearly as powerful. I.e. no orb spells or killer ray spells.
4) There are not spells that significantly improve your caster level or SR checks like Assay Resistance, Truecasting and Lower Resistance thus spell resistance actually matters.
5) Archmage, Hierophant, IotSF, Incantatrix and classes just as powerful don't exist.
6) Polymorph-line spells have been entirely rebalanced to not be any stronger than most spells of their level. Shapechange is now a balanced spell that can be weaker than some other buff spells.
7) Immunity-type spells have been significantly rebalanced or entirely removed. Mind Blank, Sheltered Vitality, Shroud of Undeath, Energy Immunity now either don't exist or give a save bonus instead of immunity. This includes shapeshifting no longer giving a type's immunities either.




All the above mean that, while casters have more class features, they are significantly weaker than they used to be and their optimization cap is an order of magnitude less than it used to be. The Pathfinder casters not only lost the 3.5 "splats" but have also lost some PHB abuses that used to exist as well.

[The Boz]

Now then, barring any hexes that can be actively detrimental to the character and can not be turned off the hex ability seems like a fine thing for the unskilled player. Unlike school specialization, which can hurt the character, hexes are free bonuses while not being sufficiently important as to make the character weak if badly chosen. Of course, there are concerns about relative proportions of good, mediocre, and bad spells on the two lists that come into play, but it does not seem impossible that the witch class is better for the less skilled.

The spell list is still weaker than the wizard's. You're making assumptions that you shouldn't be making.
Also, the fact that a player has to make class feature selections in addition to the spell selections is, to me, a clear sign of a class not being designed for the less skilled player.

[Infernalbargain]

It was the same way in 3.5, but glitterdust and web were even better, as was alter self. Furthermore, grease only forces one reflex save vs fall down per casting. I am honestly not sure why people think PF grease is better in any way over 3.5. It lasts longer, so I guess it's better at disarming people at low levels.

With the skill changes, acrobatics checks are MUCH easier to come
By if you're a fighter or a frost giant or whatever. Cross class ranks in balance while in heavy amror meant you were falling all over yourself until like 10+ HD.

As a disarm, grease is stronger than in 3.x. However, as a trip it is weaker. The DC 10 acrobatics is really easy. Granted, it can beat things like giants pretty well.

[thethird]

...Huh?
So your definition of T1 are clerics and druids alone?


Huh. The witch can get every spell on their list, as long as they take the time to learn it...
On the other hand, a wizard can get every spell on their list, as long as they take the time to learn it...

So you conclude that the witch has a more restricted process for learning spells than the wizard:smallconfused:

Don't mind me, I was misremembering and thought that they learned like sorcerers :smallredface:

[olentu]

The spell list is still weaker than the wizard's. You're making assumptions that you shouldn't be making.
Also, the fact that a player has to make class feature selections in addition to the spell selections is, to me, a clear sign of a class not being designed for the less skilled player.

While the spell list may be weaker it is not maximum power that is generally a concern when talking about the inexperienced. But if you are saying that the witch spell list has a proportionally larger amount of worthless spells when compared to the wizard list that may have merit.

[The Boz]

You are now, I fear intentionally, muddying the waters. The original argument isn't "witches are for less skilled players because the class is more forgiving", but "witches are for less skilled players because the wizard is more abusable by a long shot". That kind of lopsided thinking cannot end well.
Imagine if a DM asked his players this question when the players were rolling their characters.
DM: Can you outline the entire Pun-Pun build?
P1: Err... the what?
DM: Here, you get to play a fighter. You there! Can you outline the entire Pun-Pun build?
P2: The first iteration or the second?
DM: Brilliant! Here, have a go at a wizard! Have fun breaking the game, the campaign, the other players, and the dining room table.
That's exactly what the "Wizard is more abusable by a long shot, the Witch would be better for a less skilled player" mentality is leading to, and is what I initially noticed.

[StreamOfTheSky]

But when you try to point out that Theoretical Optimization crap like Pun Pun isn't relevant in a serious discussion about game balance, Spuddles throws a hissy fit that you're commiting the "oberoni fallacy"! You don't want to incur his wrath!

[olentu]

You are now, I fear intentionally, muddying the waters. The original argument isn't "witches are for less skilled players because the class is more forgiving", but "witches are for less skilled players because the wizard is more abusable by a long shot". That kind of lopsided thinking cannot end well.
Imagine if a DM asked his players this question when the players were rolling their characters.
DM: Can you outline the entire Pun-Pun build?
P1: Err... the what?
DM: Here, you get to play a fighter. You there! Can you outline the entire Pun-Pun build?
P2: The first iteration or the second?
DM: Brilliant! Here, have a go at a wizard! Have fun breaking the game, the campaign, the other players, and the dining room table.
That's exactly what the "Wizard is more abusable by a long shot, the Witch would be better for a less skilled player" mentality is leading to, and is what I initially noticed.

Leaving aside the question of if that really was the argument, I take it you object to the position that "witches are for less skilled players because the wizard is more abusable by a long shot". If that is the case then I see no reason to dismiss my claim. The claim that maximum power is generally not that important when considering what class is good for less skilled players runs counter to the position that "witches are for less skilled players because the wizard is more abusable by a long shot" since the latter is concerned only with maximum power. Sure they both end with the witch being better for less skilled players but the mentalities behind the two are not really compatible. And it was the mentality that you are supposedly objecting to, not the end result.

[Larkas]

A couple of people here seem to be ignoring a simple fact: the Witch is to be used in a 3.5 campaign. This means that saying that feat X, Y or Z doesn't exist in PF and hence that the PF Witch is weaker than the 3.5 Wizard is moot; we can probably assume that this Witch does have access to those feats.

The points regarding the spell list, however, still stand.

[Gnaeus]

But the witch suffers from a unique problem that the wizard does not: permanent choice. Wizards get to change their spells whenever they want to, but witches don't get to change their curses, and their spell selection is, though different and with some small versatility added that the wizard does not have access to, much more limited.

True, but it levels up nicely, and it is pretty much universally applicable. Misfortune + Cackle, for example, should be usable in pretty much every combat a Witch enters from level 2 through level 20. It hits mind immune. It penetrates magic resistance or SR. It gimps virtually any enemy to a very low level of effectiveness. It is party friendly, since it doesn't end combats but it helps the fighters win in melee or the wizard land a SoL. The save scales well with level. THEN, the witch can pick spells around the knowledge that he will have useful contributions in pretty much every combat already. It may not always be the BEST option, but it is almost always a GOOD option. And it is thematically appropriate to the class, so even a low op player is reasonably likely to stumble onto it by accident. I can't think of any wizard option that is remotely as universally applicable.

[The Boz]

Leaving aside the question of if that really was the argument
...because I, the one that started the argument, have no idea what I started the argument about.

I take it you object to the position that "witches are for less skilled players because the wizard is more abusable by a long shot". If that is the case then I see no reason to dismiss my claim.
Yes, that is the position that I object to. Not the aim of which, but the state of mind that caused it.

The claim that maximum power is generally not that important when considering what class is good for less skilled players runs counter to the position that "witches are for less skilled players because the wizard is more abusable by a long shot" since the latter is concerned only with maximum power.
Firstly, I fail to see how these two claims are mutually exclusive.
Secondly, to what latter are you referring to? Wizard, less skilled player, witches, or claim?

Sure they both end with the witch being better for less skilled players but the mentalities behind the two are not really compatible. And it was the mentality that you are supposedly objecting to, not the end result.
No, they don't end up with the witch being better for less skilled players. I think that the witch is more complex and, as a result, less "newbie-friendly" than the wizard.

[Akal Saris]

Well, there you have it - a pretty solid consensus that if your DM allows wizard PCs, then a witch PC should be fine as well.

I'm curious what the DM would think about the beguiler or the warmage, since like the witch, those are classes with more limited spell lists but more class abilities to partly compensate for that.

[TuggyNE]

...because I, the one that started the argument, have no idea what I started the argument about.

Death of the Author, man. :smallyuk:

[olentu]

...because I, the one that started the argument, have no idea what I started the argument about.

Yes, that is the position that I object to. Not the aim of which, but the state of mind that caused it.

Firstly, I fail to see how these two claims are mutually exclusive.
Secondly, to what latter are you referring to? Wizard, less skilled player, witches, or claim?

No, they don't end up with the witch being better for less skilled players. I think that the witch is more complex and, as a result, less "newbie-friendly" than the wizard.

One assumes that you started the argument about something someone said. The question is if that is what they meant, or if they were misunderstood. If I am mistaken in my assumption and you are just complaining about something that was never expressed that is a different matter altogether.

Take the position that the potential maximum power is not really important when ranking how good classes are for the less skilled. When holding that position a ranking based on maximum power is not of much use. Perhaps they are not technically mutually exclusive, but one is claiming that the other is rather useless and well those don't really coexist very well.

No. The two positions, being the one I express and the one that you are purportedly arguing against both would seem to end with the claim that the witch is better for the inexperienced. Your position is a third one that argues differently. However, as you said, the matter at had is the state of mind and not the conclusion. Please stop muddling the issue by pretending that the conclusion is of any importance.

[eggynack]

I think that the point can be expressed in a rather simple manner that takes optimization into account without diving into TO. Witches have a higher optimization floor than wizards do. The two classes could pick the same spells, and the witch would be more powerful because of their other class features. Wizards have a higher optimization ceiling. This seems pretty obvious as well, because they're more capable of using the most powerful thing in the game. It's what makes wizards better at high levels than druids in 3.5, despite the fact that druids have crazy non-spell abilities.

Neither of these facts really tell us that much though. There aren't many games out there with an absolute zero level of optimization, and there similarly aren't many games that play at the absolute maximum level of optimization. The real question, is what the marginal benefit of optimization is. If an amount of wizard optimization that could be considered reasonable in most games brings the wizard above a witch with the same optimization level, then the wizard can be generally considered more powerful than the witch.

I personally think that the marginal benefit from wizard optimization likely brings it above the witch in power level, but it's a pretty subjective thing. Some people's reasonable expectation for optimization is pretty low, which is the likely cause for the ToB classes being viewed as overpowered at some tables. Their marginal benefit from optimization is low while their optimization floor is high, which means that high-op folks view them as balanced while low-op folks don't. Anyway, that's what I think that people mean when they refer to the witch as better for less skilled players. It might not be the best way of putting it, but it's reasonably accurate even at non-TO tables. Wizards derive most of their power from several highly powerful spells, not from crazy combos. Crazy combos certainly help, but I think that wizards can exceed witch power without ever touching them. This is especially true in 3.5, where the gulf between the witch spell list and the wizard spell list is much greater than in PF alone.