Witches do not actually receive magic from their patron... they are taught magic by their patron, and must commune with their familiar to prepare spells. The important difference is that witches "prepare" spells, they do not "receive" them.
The idea that witches made a pact with their patron is only fluff, nowhere in the rules text are the terms of the pact defined, they don't have a "code of conduct" or an "ex-witches" section like classes that can lose their powers. A witch doesn't lose their spellcasting ability if they flip-off their patron, forsake it, or even slay it. They remain just as proficient in the brand of arcane magic they were taught.
As for why the authors used the phrase they did instead of simply listing "Divine Caster" I imagine it is because "receiving spells from a deity" is actually more specific than simply being a divine caster.
For Example:
Under the base rules (excluding the oddities of PFS) you can be a cleric of a concept or ideal, and therefore wouldn't actually be receiving your spells from a diety.
Druids, Hunters, and Rangers do not have to worship a diety to receive spells, they simply have to revere nature (although druids and hunters can receive their spells from a deity if they worship one).
Shamans don't receive spells from a deity at all, but from communion with "spirits". Like the Witch, they lack a "Code of Conduct" or "Ex-Shaman" section. Further, they suffer no spellcasting restrictions based on the deity they worship.
Similarly, An Oracle's spells are granted by their Mystery, which is explicitly stated in the first sentence of the Mystery class feature, and not by any deities they might also worship. Like a Witch, they lack a "code of conduct" or "Ex-Oracle" section. Further, they suffer no spellcasting restrictions based on the deity they worship.
The Deific Obedience feat gives you spells granted by a deity once you earn the first boon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Deific Obedience feat gives you spells granted by a deity once you earn the first boon.
I would be on board with this but sadly SLAs cannot be used to satisfy spell prerequisites anymore (unless the prereq calls a specific spell)
The fact that they don't call them out as Deities, the Witch doesn't have a "fall" mechanism like the Cleric for going against their Patron, can worship a Deity unconnected to their Patron, not venerate but full on worship and that they're Arcane casters does more to point away from Patrons being Deities than towards.
Weapon of Chosen's writing is inferred, you have to receive Divine spells through worship of your Deity to access this feat. I can safely assume they didn't feel the need to call out Divine since Divine spells are the only ones gained that way. They saved word count rather than spell out something they believed to be obvious.
Witches have made a pact to receive their spells and powers from their patron. The only way there could be a "fall" mechanism is if there was a way to break the pact. I have not seen a way to break it.
As I mentioned earlier, a patron doesn't need to be a deity. It is possible that it is one of many options. That means the witch could have a patron and deity they worship. They could be one in the same. If a witch stops worshiping the deity, they are still bound by the pact. If Pathfinder wanted to save words the would have said "Divine Caster" rather than "receive spells from a deity" which feels like it might point to pocket cases casters who are not divine.
Once again, I'm not saying any of this is right, but your examples for why it is wrong are not very strong. So far the only point that is strong is that it is not PFS legal.
When I said "fall" mechanism I was pointing out that there's no way for a Patron to revoke the powers given, which leads me to think they are not Deity supplied. In your example if a Witch with a Deity as their Patron stops worshiping said Deity and even acts against them and there's nothing the Deity can do, they can't revoke the powers given or anything? That doesn't make any sense.
They didn't say Divine Caster, they said must worship a deity and receive spells from them to cut out...
It is not about me liking your argument or not. I have said that your version of witch is more in line with a character I would personally play. I'm talking about each of your arguments:
1. Word count:
"worshiper who receives divine spells from a deity" is the same word count as "must worship and receive spells from a deity." It is possible if they wanted to restrict the feat to divine casters that it could have been stated that way without increasing the word count. Not adding that restriction could have been for current or future cases where an arcane caster receives (given access to, granted or powered by) spells from a deity.
2. Arcane vs Divine
Since word count is not the issue, the writers could have easily called out divine casters if they didn't want there to be the possibility of current or future Arcane or Psychic casters to have access to the feat. While a witch's patron spells are arcane, they can't be taught to others, or learned from others, they are given by (i.e. received from) the patron.
3.Fall mechanism:
Neither the Witch or the Deity can break the pact currently. The Pact mechanic is separate from the worship mechanic. They function independently but can be connected to the same entity. Also interaction with deities doesn't require a fall mechanism. Oracles don't have them, nor do a most divine casters. Most aren't even required to worship, but when they do it is their deity that provides the spells.
4.Your reliance on an inference:
Yes some rules require a level of inference to understand the intent of the. However there is strong support in both directions with the writing of this feat. Neither reading creates problematic imbalance.
You may feel your reasoning is unimpeachable and my responses are based on my dislike of your conclusions, but that is not correct. The arguments you are putting forward and their rebuttals can easily be seen in two ways. YOUR WAY MIGHT BE CORRECT RAI, but the case that you have made doesn't prove it because each of your arguments has a clear counter argument pointing in the other direction.
Once again, YOU MAY BE RIGHT, but lets stop saying there is unambiguous, empirical evidence that your interpretation is the only correct one. Until there is an FAQ, the possibility that the patron could be a deity is valid.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think we have seen any Witch in Paizo products that has explicitly a Deity for her Patron.
I think the Patron mechanism relies on the fuzziness of the Patron's nature. In the end, it is the GM who will allow this to work or not.
Oracles would be far more likely to benefit from such feats, but AFAIK they are prevented by RAW from doing so. The Witch's case is even flimsier
TLDR, I am with Risky on this
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're simply in house rule territory if you're declaring that a witch's patron of Fate or Winter or Healing or whatever is really deity ___ and the witch is therefore being granted spells by a deity.
Also, a witch can actually put their patron spells onto scrolls and pass them on to wizards or magi or anyone else, as long the spell is actually on their spell list. The kicker with witches is that they have a relatively small spell list for a prepared caster, with an enormous number of spells locked behind the patrons.
Mechanically, all a patron actually does is teach a witch 9 spells that are not on the witch spell list (or a few cases, provide early access to spells that would come at a later level).
The patron's identity is completely irrelevant to the benefit. Though it can be fun to make the patron someone in particular (like I made the Fate patron of the witch of my RoW game a particular norn, who used the witch's Harrow deck to communicate with the party throughout the game) if you plan to use that for story purposes.
But otherwise, for game purposes it doesn't make any difference if your patron is really a god or a genius loci or a tree stump.
If you really want to be playing a witch with actual ties to a divine power, I'd suggest evangelist or mystery cultist or some other PrC that plays around with empyreal/divine obedience.
(I'd actually be pretty comfortable with saying an arcane caster who's bound accessing their abilities to performing a daily obedience counts as someone who's spells are granted by a deity. Though that's definitely house rule territory.)
I do not think we have seen any Witch in Paizo products that has explicitly a Deity for her Patron.
I think the Patron mechanism relies on the fuzziness of the Patron's nature. In the end, it is the GM who will allow this to work or not.
Oracles would be far more likely to benefit from such feats, but AFAIK they are prevented by RAW from doing so. The Witch's case is even flimsier
TLDR, I am with Risky on this
Patrons haven't been called out as specifically anything. They are unknowns. Unknowns that the witch can be introduced to as they grow in power. There is by no means a certainty that a witch patron can be a deity. I have said that throughout. However it is not cut an dry that they could not be as well.
If I told a GM that I want my witch patron to only be a concept like good or evil, I could see the same likelihood of the GM balking at that concept as another GM balking at the idea of a deity patron.
What this thread has done for me is convince me not to pick up a witch. Never liked classes that could have lots of table variation.
Of course, something that seems to have been forgotten:
If a Witch has a Deity as a patron, would they qualify for feats that require the character receive spells from a deity, such as Weapon of the Chosen?
Thoughts?
Do you have a better example than Weapon of the Chosen for this? That feat seems that even if it were allowed on a Witch, it would be rather bad . . . .
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think we have seen any Witch in Paizo products that has explicitly a Deity for her Patron.
I think the Patron mechanism relies on the fuzziness of the Patron's nature. In the end, it is the GM who will allow this to work or not.
Oracles would be far more likely to benefit from such feats, but AFAIK they are prevented by RAW from doing so. The Witch's case is even flimsier
TLDR, I am with Risky on this
Patrons haven't been called out as specifically anything. They are unknowns. Unknowns that the witch can be introduced to as they grow in power. There is by no means a certainty that a witch patron can be a deity. I have said that throughout. However it is not cut an dry that they could not be as well.
If I told a GM that I want my witch patron to only be a concept like good or evil, I could see the same likelihood of the GM balking at that concept as another GM balking at the idea of a deity patron.
What this thread has done for me is convince me not to pick up a witch. Never liked classes that could have lots of table variation.
What you need to take away from the thread is that Witches are arcane spell casters and will be treated as such.
Any table variation is in your head.
What you need to take away from the thread is that Witches are arcane spell casters and will be treated as such.
Any table variation is in your head.
why do people like you feel that there is any value to coming onto a forum in order to post comments like this? Seriously, why would you do that or think it is ok? It adds nothing to the conversation.
Of course, something that seems to have been forgotten:
If a Witch has a Deity as a patron, would they qualify for feats that require the character receive spells from a deity, such as Weapon of the Chosen?
Thoughts?
Do you have a better example than Weapon of the Chosen for this? That feat seems that even if it were allowed on a Witch, it would be rather bad . . . .
I came across the feat and while looking at the witch class just made me ask the question. It also made me question how Witches generally interacted with otherworldly beings that support mortals. Seemed like it would be a good question to pose to the community. Definitely not an optimization question or issue.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry if you are feeling persecuted, but what is nasty about reiterating that witches are arcane casters? Or stating that while your interpretation of Patrons might see table variation, it is not an inherent problem of the class? Most players won't have a problem choosing a Patron.
I don't feel persecuted. His comment served no purpose. I am stating fact about table variation because I have already seen it interpreted as Patrons being entities. Most often demons, but I have also seen one that was listed as a fey.
I haven't played one, it is simply what I have seen. I then looked on the boards during this discussion and most posts list patrons as entities. If it is an entity then why not a deity?
Saying that table variation is in my head had nothing to do with the conversation. Especially since it is counter to fact.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By default, a witch has no interaction with her patron beyond the spells learned at even levels.
Making your relationship more significant than that is house rules territory.
In short, this is ultimately a question for the GM, not the rules board. Because the rules answer is "no" but your GM may always exercise Rule 0.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that table variation is in my head had nothing to do with the conversation. Especially since it is counter to fact.
What you are calling table variation is a result of your desire to extend beyond the written rules. You are going to get a mixed response whenever you try to do that. In a sense, your ideas about gaining extra benefits from a Patron are all in your head, because their yours.
I'd be very interested in some rules giving witches a stronger connection with their Patrons, especially deity Patrons (my submission for Tonya's next character is a devout Sarenrite witch -vote tomorrow!), but they just don't exist yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one campaign I built a witch from the river kingdoms who worshiped Besmara as the party healer (she had a Coral Capuchin for a Valet Familiar, the Cauldron and Healing Hexes, and the Hedge Magician and Merchant Family traits).
I can't remember now what I selected as her Patron (probably Healing), but I ignored the fluff entirely of her patron entirely. She learned witchcraft from her mother, who learned it from her mother, etc...
At no point did I ever consider that she might be receiving her spells from her deity... that just isn't how arcane spellcasting works.
By default, a witch has no interaction with her patron beyond the spells learned at even levels.
Making your relationship more significant than that is house rules territory.
In short, this is ultimately a question for the GM, not the rules board. Because the rules answer is "no" but your GM may always exercise Rule 0.
That is counter to the text describing the Witch class. The witch communes with their patron regularly using their familiar as a conduit. Initially that source is unknown but at a higher level the witch can come to know the source of her power.
How is communing daily not interacting?
Saying that table variation is in my head had nothing to do with the conversation. Especially since it is counter to fact.What you are calling table variation is a result of your desire to extend beyond the written rules. You are going to get a mixed response whenever you try to do that. In a sense, your ideas about gaining extra benefits from a Patron are all in your head, because their yours.
I'd be very interested in some rules giving witches a stronger connection with their Patrons, especially deity Patrons (my submission for Tonya's next character is a devout Sarenrite witch -vote tomorrow!), but they just don't exist yet.
Nothing I have suggested is a variation in my head. I have not said that patrons are deities. I have said that it could be possible. I have said it is not clear what patrons are so many possibilities exist. That is all I have said.
Others have said that it is not possible because patrons are abstracts and can be nothing else. That is in their heads. There is no certain proof that says what is possible with patrons yet. One GM could say that patrons must be other worldly entities. Another can say that they must be abstract ideas. I say that it is unclear and they could be either. Do you see the difference?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... the basis of your point of view is "the rules don't say they're not deities"?
So... the basis of your point of view is "the rules don't say they're not deities"?
No. The basis of my point of view is the description of a patron solidly fits a number of different options. These options could include deities among other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... the basis of your point of view is "the rules don't say they're not deities"?No. The basis of my point of view is the description of a patron solidly fits a number of different options. These options could include deities among other things.
The point that Witches cast spells because os skill instead of granted power still stands.
Even if the patron is a deity the witch doesn't receive spells from them directly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I've waited about 50 posts for someone to post this James Jacobs quote about witch patrons, I guess I'll do it.
It's unfortunately very poorly defined. A witch's spells are arcane, so she doesn't depend on an outside source; she gains the power and manipulates it through her studies. A witch's patron is more akin to a college student's "major" in that way. It's the focus of her studies. A witch doesn't have to worry about losing her magic because her patron vanishes or dies or because she switches alignment; she always has that same patron.
The problem is that the word "patron" is really not the right word for this concept, and I wish we'd gone with something like "focus" or "inspiration" or a more accurate term.
Alternately, I wish we would have used the idea of a Faustian bargain more accurately, and have a witch's patron be ACTUAL things like Dagon or Nyarlahtotep or Mephistopheles, complete with ramifications if the witch betrays that bargain.
As it stands, it doesn't actually work that way, and the word "patron" is kinda just the wrong word for what it's actually doing.
Emphasis added by me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... the basis of your point of view is "the rules don't say they're not deities"?No. The basis of my point of view is the description of a patron solidly fits a number of different options. These options could include deities among other things.The point that Witches cast spells because os skill instead of granted power still stands.
Even if the patron is a deity the witch doesn't receive spells from them directly.
I guess the difference is in one case, you're being handed a weapon. In the other, you're being taught how to use a weapon that you already have.
Since I've waited about 50 posts for someone to post this James Jacobs quote about witch patrons, I guess I'll do it.
Emphasis added by me.It's unfortunately very poorly defined. A witch's spells are arcane, so she doesn't depend on an outside source; she gains the power and manipulates it through her studies. A witch's patron is more akin to a college student's "major" in that way. It's the focus of her studies. A witch doesn't have to worry about losing her magic because her patron vanishes or dies or because she switches alignment; she always has that same patron.
The problem is that the word "patron" is really not the right word for this concept, and I wish we'd gone with something like "focus" or "inspiration" or a more accurate term.
Alternately, I wish we would have used the idea of a Faustian bargain more accurately, and have a witch's patron be ACTUAL things like Dagon or Nyarlahtotep or Mephistopheles, complete with ramifications if the witch betrays that bargain.
As it stands, it doesn't actually work that way, and the word "patron" is kinda just the wrong word for what it's actually doing.
Thanks for finding this. Yes, this thinking deviates from the flavor text because the connotations of focus and patron are vastly different. If that is the case it makes sense that patrons are not entities at all... of any kind. It also then underlines that the class as written is not clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the way to square the circle is to consider a Witch "patron" as a sort of collective unconscious archetype universal symbolic concept. You "commune" with your patron by meditating on that concept.
Also looked at the quote and JJ calls out that patrons are not entities in any way. He also recognizes the unfortunate use of language in the flavor text. Most people who read the flavor of witches, as currently written, would see them as gaining their powers from entities. That is in fact the question that prompted JJ's response. So as originally stated, the text is ambiguous.
For future readers of this thread. James Jacobs statement that patrons are more like majors in college or focus of study, is in the link below:
James Jacobs quote
Thanks again Plausible Pseudonym for posting!
Also the familiars are agents of this conceptual entitities, but still work as teachers/instructors and source of knowledge rather than sources of magical energy
why do people like you feel that there is any value to coming onto a forum in order to post comments like this? Seriously, why would you do that or think it is ok? It adds nothing to the conversation.What you need to take away from the thread is that Witches are arcane spell casters and will be treated as such.
Any table variation is in your head.
Despite the "people like you" comment, you do have a point.
Instead of saying "in your head" I should've said any table variation is a matter of flavor and has no impact on the rules.
I didn't mean to imply your opinion was crazy or anything.
My apologies. :-)
|
|
I agree completely that a Patron can be a deity and vice versa
This will still not move me to read the RAW as allowing a Witch with such a Patron to take the aforementioned feat
The OP posted in the Rules forum. It is only natural that we answer with the RAW as we read them. That he reads them differently does not make his take the one and only RAW
And it could confuse people coming to this thread to get what the RAW says about this