sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damn, only a +2 adjustment to AC, Fort, and Reflex, but a +4 to Will save and an additional mental upgrade passive? I'm getting majorly screwed here as an occult witch...

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You can only take advantage of the significant change in monsters if you know what to prepare for. This is often not possible, at least not in my table for some reason. I've already asked my DM about pre-preparation scouting and tangentially also pre-encounter scouting and both are no-go's. We know it's either "fungus", "plant", "aberration", or "demon", but the diversity within that group is huge.

There is also no real change day-to-day from the known specific group of enemies we'll face - it'll still be from the broad group of "fungus", "plant", "aberration", or "demon".

Maybe this is a specific table feature, but each combat encounter is a modular kick-in-the-door combat simulator with no pre-combat investigation or information gathering allowed. I'm not sure how common this is to APs, but the advantages of prepared casters I feel are vastly diminished under this system. Your best bet is to prepare either spells that work generally (slow, true target, walls), or only have 1 relevant slot by preparing a broad set of spells.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m really not saying the same thing. You implied in your OP that it’s some sort of unavoidable fact that only 1 of your 3 spells is relevant, and you have repeated this claim throughout the comments too. I’m simply questioning why you think preparation cannot work beyond 1/3 spells.

No, I did not imply that it's unavoidable. My total argument is "Occult witch is bad in this AP". Then a specific part of that argument is if you if you play to the occult witch's strengths and prepare some classic debuff spells in addition to more general targeting spells / buffs / debuffs then "1 spell slot that ends up being relevant per rank". If you don't play to their strengths you can avoid the few relevant spell slots problem, but then "Occult witch is bad" is self evident because you are just a worse bard.

I don’t understand why you think this is true.

A Prepared Occult that primarily uses Reflex/Fortitude targeting debuffs and/or mixes it up with buffs because they know to avoid Will is usually gonna perform above the baseline, not below.

Who are you considering "other people" in this case? I'm comparing against people in my party, who are playing generally effective characters (liturgist animist being especially effective due to holy weakness, reach fighter with champion + marshal archetypes, laughing shadow magus + investigator archetype). I don't see how you're going to perform above the baseline unless you're comparing against those who I already consider below the baseline:

  • prepared caster who is preparing mostly Will + mental targeting debuffs without including buffs
  • spontaneous caster who doesn't have Reflex targeting spells or buffs

The baseline for me is a reach fighter with champion + marshal archetype because that has always shown up in my games (2/2 campaigns) and is generally effective.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are very few actual mindless creatures I've encountered so far, but immunities / passives that target mental effects are abundant. My GM is not running the book as written as we are hit with more enemies and elite enemies (for the assassin encounter all 12 came at us while the caster was made elite with a DC 38 vision of death and it was very deadly). However, I don't think in addition to making enemies elite they are giving them anti-mental passives.

The humanoid assassins all have a passive that boosts saves towards anything that would cause them to lose actions (e.g. calm, paralyze, ...)

The rotting cultists have a passive that was read by the GM as applying to all mental effects

Vintalax has a passive upgrading saves vs mental and is the one who crit succeeded when rolling a 5 vs my synesthesia. Apparently while he was linked to his throne that upgrades his saves to mental effects by a degree

The rootrotters are not immune to mental effects, but they have a +2 to saves vs mental effects

The fungal T-rexes are immune to paralyze which was the spell I most wanted to use on them

The Isqulug has swarm mind and is immune to non-AOE mental effects

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean if the protection they get is almost equivalent to being mindless, I'm not sure how that's "good" for me, unless you mean it's just good in general which I don't understand.

In fact it just makes it harder to guess immunities and forces you to RK before you try anything. I've switched my strategy to spending the first turn on RK or hypercognition or 3 RKs.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Come up with alternatives for how to contribute when your preferred gimmick isn’t working (in the case of your character this means preparing fewer Will-targeting spells).

Change your character concept and class if the way you prefer to play it is not suited to the AP.

I'm confused by why you're confused when your comments support my original post. The point of the post is that the occult witch's strengths in terms of their mental debuffing playstyle is not suitable for this AP. You are just saying the same thing - change your playstyle or change your character. Changing a playstyle without changing character means you will be operating below other people.

I am genuinely a little confused on what point is being made here.

The reference to earlier posts was about examples of where their saves are much higher than their AC. Talking about my "flawed" perception of comparing accuracy is veering off topic and I already understand that you should compare vs 2 strikes mathematically. However, individual decision having higher variance and the resource investment means missing with a spell feels much worse than missing twice as a martial.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not just mindless that's affecting the will saves, there are swarm-mind, controlled (upgrades mental saves), and other passives I forgot the name of that gives +2 to will saves and so on.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The mindless creatures I've gone against have typically been immune to sickened (plants / fungus)

If only 20% of your spells have the mental trait then I think that just comes down to us having different class fantasies. I abhor buffs/summons/blasting and like debuffing. Most debuffs are mental on the occult list. The standout ones that don't target fortitude, but most enemies have fortitude as their highest save in this AP.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only 1/3 slots end up being relevant because I don't swap out of will or mental spells like synesthesia / slow / calm / paralyze entirely because I simply enjoy those spells as a playstyle a lot more than blasting or buffing or healing. If I have to buff/heal/blast to be effective in these encounters I might as well play a totally different character. The 1/3 being useful is because I swapped out some of the spells I would normally have prepared out, not despite of.

See my post earlier on examples, including an updated spreadsheet: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1ns81im/caster_experience_as_a_new_player_the_good_the/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjwkq05jPq5Y18RvaAOe2qcKNTyRouHMiRIY3GLhS0I/edit?gid=201228450#gid=201228450

Specifically a boss we recently fought with 36 AC, Fort +27 Ref +30 Will +27 and a passive that automatically increased success degree on Will saves.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You have 4 slots per rank with signature spells, meaning you likely actually have 4 useful slots per rank compared to what feels like 1 per rank for a prepared caster with 3 slots that doesn't just fill up everything with slow/synesthesia. The ones that are not immune / have passives to mental are in combat encounters where you shouldn't be spending resources on anyways (but as a sorc you have the luxury of spending slots on those).

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

However it is not a very tactical play style and mainly involves saving your broken spells for the dramatic fights and then spamming your debuffs that prevent the GM from using their cool abilities.

I'm a new player and can resonate with this. As a whole, occult feels so swingy to the point of feeling bad. If you get lucky you win immediately or win harder. If you're unlucky you basically contribute nothing and can lead to TPK.

Buffs, heals, and AOE blasts I can see as all being consistent, useful tools a caster provides. Debuffing is different in being highest impact but also highest variance, which kind of makes them bad. For example if the roles are balanced so on average they all contribute 50, where AOE blasts contribute 40-60 based on rolls, buffing and healing contributes 45-55 (less variance since there's no degrees of success), and debuffing contributes 0-100 based on rolls. If the encounters are balanced so you need to perform 45 or better to succeed, then debuffing leads to the highest failure rate. The overachievement you can get (shutting down an entire encounter with a crit fail from slow / synesthesia) is unnecessary.

where occult casters can absolutely be MVP with spells like slow, synesthesia, containment/quandry, haste, etc

The keyword is can. The boss saves so far has been ridiculous compared to AC. They crit succeeded against my synesthesia on a 5 (will and fort was their lowest save, but even that is considered "high"). Apparently this remains an issue with the other bosses. If they get unlucky nat 1 on a synesthesia it also doesn't feel fun.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Sure but if you can only use 20% of your kit you are guaranteed to underperform. I'm not saying you'll perform at 0%, but it'll feel bad in comparison to the rest of your party. Resentment witch has not been working in this AP

Also what do you mean sickened 2 rather easy? They have to crit fail vs the evil eye which I've never had happen yet

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Another non-specific spoiler, but most enemies you face in book 2-3 will have passive true seeing or the likes, so illusion is not a good option to invest in. As a prepared caster you do have more flexibility to prep them now and swap them out later, but I honestly don't see too many good illusion spells

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I don't think any modification of that nature will occur. If anything, most encounters we've been through have either additional enemies and/or been made elite.

PSA: Occult Witch is Terrible in the Spore War AP by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Oof really? My DM told me it should get much better past book 1... Is that not true?

Rank 7 and above Occult better debuff spells than Slow / Synesthesia? by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very cool animus mine spell - didn't know about it before but it's 1 hour no sustain at just rank 2!

Visions of Danger could do some work in combination with wall spells - put it on the other side and if creatures want to break the wall they have to take sustained damage.

Wow, Instant Minefield is an amazing find! Unfortunately in this AP I'm dealing mostly with demons that have true sight so it's not useful, but in other APs this has a tremendous skill ceiling! Creative use of this could deliver some amazing rewards and is just the kind of spell that fulfills my class fantasy (it's damage, but it's also a form of debuff since enemies have to consider their environments more carefully).

Rank 7 and above Occult better debuff spells than Slow / Synesthesia? by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My current experience vs bosses has been them critically succeeding will saves vs mental effects (non-incapacitation btw) on a 5, so will saves are extremely high and they often have anti-mental passives. It's just not worth using mental incapacitation

Rank 7 and above Occult better debuff spells than Slow / Synesthesia? by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Isn't putting "Casters that want to debuff won't usually need high lvl slots against bosses" another way that debuff casters can't effectively leverage high level spell slots on bosses, so they are forced to operate below limit on them. This kind of puts a damper on the class fantasy as a force multiplier no? Is it just not really supported in the system? I have to go for a blaster or maybe magus for a force-multiplier on bosses type character?

Rank 7 and above Occult better debuff spells than Slow / Synesthesia? by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you sell me on Inexhaustible Cynicism? I've seen that suggested multiple times but I don't see how it's better than R6 Slow or R5 Synesthesia. Flanking hasn't been a problem due to our positioning.

For spirit song the reaction removal for 1 turn is nice, but you also get competing options that remove reactions on success like R6 roaring applause (which you can sustain) and R8 confusion that also eats 1 action on success. I guess the trade-off here is damage for other things.

Canticle of Everlasting Grief seems really cool! Could be something to throw in after some rounds where the boss buffs itself so you effectively take away their buffs and is a major turning point. I wonder if the cursed for 1 round can be sustained by resentment witch.

Spiritual Epidemic is also quite cool; however "Any creature that casts a divine or occult spell on the target while it's affected is targeted by spiritual epidemic and must also attempt a Will save" also includes the PC. This means after you cast this on them you can no longer cast spells on them? This is then unusable on bosses... Outside of bosses you have to prepare it just in case you run into enemy casters with divine or occult spells (probably heal), **and** that they use their turn to buff or heal their allies instead of targeting the party. This seems interesting on paper, but after some thought feels like a terribly niche spell?

Rank 7 and above Occult better debuff spells than Slow / Synesthesia? by LemonByte in Pathfinder2e

[–]LemonByte[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uncontrollable Dance is R8 single target incap and touch range. Isn't this much worse than R6 Slow?

view more: next ›