here was however some mention that the way the Witch Acquires Spells was an argument for Intelligence, as the Witch must learn new spells, as opposed to having instant access to the full spell list like the rest of the Wisdom based casters. The idea being, not having a limit on the number of spells you can know, but needing to seek out and learn these spells is the trademark of an Intelligence caster, whereas instant acquisition of one's entire spell list is the trademark of a Wisdom based one.
The argument that 'wis works like X, and int works like X' is getting a bit tiresome. The whole point of new classes is that we can play with the way different abilities wok. Besides, Paizo added a memorized cha caster to the game, so all bets are off for how stats have to work.
Further, if a Cleric is cut off from their deity, they lose all spellcasting, thus losing the ability to use scrolls. When a Witch is cut off from their 'otherworldly source' (ie through Familiar Death), they still know their spells and can continue to use scrolls.
That has nothing to do with int or wis. If anything, it shows that the witch works too much like classes that already exist, so should be changed to add variety.
Thus: the mechanics bear out the idea that the Witch does not receive spells like a cleric, asking some far off source for them and being entirely dependent on outside forces to act through her. The Witch is receiving knowledge of spellcasting, which she is fully capable of putting to use by herself (via her hexes and scrolls).
No, the witch has the power to use the spells. The familiar has the knowledge. This is a type of spellcasting that doesn't already exist in d20. If it already existed, there'd be no point making it. You keep trying to define it according to existing classes, which cheapens it. In fact, it's new and different, and some of us feel that the new, different spellcasting concept they're describing doesn't make sense based on intelligence.
2. I just plain like Intelligence better for flavor reasons. Kevin Andrew Murphy had a good point earlier:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:I really like the idea of clever witches rather than priestesses calling themselves witches, which is where wisdom-based witches inevitably lead.
Actually, this wasn't a very good point he made earlier, so let's address it. Wisdom and holiness are not inherently mixed. Wisdom merely represents a different kind of mental prowess from intelligence. The rules define it as such. Now, if your character prattles on about her deity and acts like a holy woman all the time, that's an in-character choice, and it's one that both a wizard and sorcerer are capable of making (hell, they could call themselves witches OR priestesses. The common folk don't know the difference). I don't think wisdom-based arcane casting will lead to priestesses because most players I've played with are capable of understanding the distinction. Hell, look at the ranger. It's casting is wisdom based AND divine and I've still never seen a ranger act like a priest.
Actually, this wasn't a very good point he made earlier, so let's address it. Wisdom and holiness are not inherently mixed. Wisdom merely represents a different kind of mental prowess from intelligence. The rules define it as such. Now, if your character prattles on about her deity and acts like a holy woman all the time, that's an in-character choice, and it's one that both a wizard and sorcerer are capable of making (hell, they could call themselves witches OR priestesses. The common folk don't know the difference). I don't think wisdom-based arcane casting will lead to priestesses because most players I've played with are capable of understanding the distinction. Hell, look at the ranger. It's casting is wisdom based AND divine and I've still never seen a ranger act like a priest.
That's generally because a ranger already has another shtick and because the ranger's magic is little bits of Natty Bumpo woodcraft and such that they add at higher levels, not something they have from square one.
The trouble with witches is that we have two definitions.
Definition A:
Women (and occasionally men) who fly around on broomsticks in pointy hats with black cats on their shoulders who like to cackle a lot, turn people into toads, throw curses on butter churns or anything else that annoys them, brew potions in their cauldrons, and occasionally form covens. May or may not live in a gingerbread house or kiss the devil's butt for extra power, depending on the version.
Definition B:
Women (and occasionally men) who are Wiccan priestesses of some stripe of Gardnerian tradition who worship the Great Mother Goddess (usually pictured as some relatively work-safe image like the Venus of Willendorf, rather than Sheela na Gig) and the Horned God (usually some depiction of Cernunnos with the goddess put in front to make it work-safe and the antlers rather than the horns so as to not upset or confuse Christians more than usual) and are operating in the modern neo-pagan tradition, reclaiming "witch" as their own, and are generally annoyed at both fundamentalist Christians who say that witches worship the devil (they don't) and modern Satanists who do worship the devil (but not the way the Christians think) and call themselves witches too.
I think that's where we're coming from, and what Paizo is trying to do with the class is make it the more of Definition A, that being the secular witch whose only real use for otherworldly powers is if they give her kewl powerz. Devils, Fairie Queens, Angels, Spirits, etc. are all extradimensional mob bosses so far as this sort of witch is concerned, and while she may trade favors with them, or even like them and join their organization, the "worship" thing is going a little bit far.
Now as for what a witch's main casting stat should be, Wisdom is common sense, Intelligence is cleverness, and Charisma is force of personality. Wisdom has been traditionally tied in D&D to clerics because for some reason the gods like common sense and give better spells to people who have more of it. My assumption has always been that the prayers are common and well known and common sense is what you use to say them in just the right way.
This has bearing on the witch's cauldron, however, because there's a question of why the stuff in it is magical. Is it common ingredients put together in exactly the right proportions for some magical effect guided by common sense? Is the same stuff guided by meticulous knowledge of what the alchemical reaction should be and the cleverness to know what to do? Or is it just random stuff thrown in the cauldron that works because the witch says it works by the force of her will?
I realize I am making part of the arguments for wisdom, but personally, I like cleverness better if just because I think that witches should be able to talk shop with wizards and be on the same page rather than talk shop with clerics, because that inevitably leads to worship and Definition B starting to reflavor Definition A.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The argument that 'wis works like X, and int works like X' is getting a bit tiresome. The whole point of new classes is that we can play with the way different abilities wok. Besides, Paizo added a memorized cha caster to the game, so all bets are off for how stats have to work.
I actually agree on that point, I just thought it worth bringing up in case that was what they were talking about when they mentioned Memorize Spells. I was at this point in my post trying to clarify previous arguments that had been made, and that was one of them.
Personally, I feel Paizo should feel free to break the rules when making new classes, I just don't think they should be required to do so.
Further, if a Cleric is cut off from their deity, they lose all spellcasting, thus losing the ability to use scrolls. When a Witch is cut off from their 'otherworldly source' (ie through Familiar Death), they still know their spells and can continue to use scrolls.That has nothing to do with int or wis. If anything, it shows that the witch works too much like classes that already exist, so should be changed to add variety.
Its setting up the next paragraph, that's what it has to do with int or wis. As to working too much like current classes, how would you suggest they change that. Change how the Witch uses scrolls? Introduce an "Ex-Witch" mechanic? Wouldn't that be like current classes as well?
No, the witch has the power to use the spells. The familiar has the knowledge. This is a type of spellcasting that doesn't already exist in d20. If it already existed, there'd be no point making it. You keep trying to define it according to existing classes, which cheapens it. In fact, it's new and different, and some of us feel that the new, different spellcasting concept they're describing doesn't make sense based on intelligence.
Thus: the mechanics bear out the idea that the Witch does not receive spells like a cleric, asking some far off source for them and being entirely dependent on outside forces to act through her. The Witch is receiving knowledge of spellcasting, which she is fully capable of putting to use by herself (via her hexes and scrolls).
Where does the power come from? Understanding the knowledge contained in the Familiar is my view, and when it comes to understanding complex arcana, I see Intelligence as a better fit.
I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to cheapen the class, that isn't my intention. I think the idea of a casting class based around the familiar whispering secrets and lore into the Caster's ear is just as novel and interesting as the familiar channeling power into the caster, but of course that's just my opinion and I get why everyone doesn't share it.
Hey LadyRabbit, I may not agree with all of your post, but it was well thought out and well presented. Please ignore certain jerks who can't post without trying to degrade you.
There are people who, when presented with someone who doesn't agree with them, feel horribly threatened. This has to do with them having a very harsh and minimal self image, so they lash out with anger and sarcasm, trying to tear down anyone that they perceive as trying to minimize them in any way. The problem is they cannot handle someone who disagrees with them, because they see this as further proof of their lack of worth.
Fortunately there aren't many of them around here, so just ignore the ones you come across and welcome to the boards.
No worries, my panties aren't usually pulled into a knot over internet debates. :)
I realize I am making part of the arguments for wisdom, but personally, I like cleverness better if just because I think that witches should be able to talk shop with wizards and be on the same page rather than talk shop with clerics, because that inevitably leads to worship and Definition B starting to reflavor Definition A.
That's certainly a well-thought out explanation of your point (I'm just quoting a snippet). And, to an extent, I agree. We certainly don't want people associating the witch class with either wicca or new age mysticism (something better represented by Clerics or Druids, respectively).
My concern is that the witch already has the potential to turn into a variant wizard. I mean, if you considered the familiar-as-spellbook a spellbook variant, all the witch would really have going for her specifically is hexes. Once she starts talking shop with the wizard, and understanding her magic in the same way, I'm afraid she's going to just look like a specialist wizard, which isn't something I want for the class.
Where does the power come from? Understanding the knowledge contained in the Familiar is my view, and when it comes to understanding complex arcana, I see Intelligence as a better fit.
I sort of see it the same way I do a sorcerer. A sorcerer wiggles his finger, spouts off the same words as the wizard, and the same things happen. He's got no real idea what the mechanics or linguists of the spell actually mean, they sort of just pop into his head.
That's the way I view a witch. She doesn't understand the physics behind the spell. That's what her familiar is for. The witch has the raw power to contain these spells by force of will (wisdom, though charisma could be argued). The familiar, who has an understanding of magic, but no capacity to hold his understanding, so he whispers arcane secrets into the witch's ear. They synthesize into a complete caster that way.
Also remember that a big theme of the witch is mystery and 'communion with the unknown.' That feels, to me, like a bit of willful ignorance. The witch doesn't necessarily study every minute aspect of the force she pacts with. Instead, she communes with big otherworldly forces, something arcane, but something that has more to do with her instinct and will than it does with study and understanding.
I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to cheapen the class, that isn't my intention. I think the idea of a casting class based around the familiar whispering secrets and lore into the Caster's ear is just as novel and interesting as the familiar channeling power into the caster, but of course that's just my opinion and I get why everyone doesn't share it.
Yeah, sorry about that. I'm sure you don't. I really didn't mean that as dramatically as it read. I just want everything new and different to feel new and different.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, sorry about that. I'm sure you don't. I really didn't mean that as dramatically as it read. I just want everything new and different to feel new and different.
Hey, no biggy, I was frothing a bit at the mouth myself. We both want the same thing, a totally awesome class that feels new and different, I just feel we're pretty close to that as is.
I realize I am making part of the arguments for wisdom, but personally, I like cleverness better if just because I think that witches should be able to talk shop with wizards and be on the same page rather than talk shop with clerics, because that inevitably leads to worship and Definition B starting to reflavor Definition A.That's certainly a well-thought out explanation of your point (I'm just quoting a snippet). And, to an extent, I agree. We certainly don't want people associating the witch class with either wicca or new age mysticism (something better represented by Clerics or Druids, respectively).
My concern is that the witch already has the potential to turn into a variant wizard. I mean, if you considered the familiar-as-spellbook a spellbook variant, all the witch would really have going for her specifically is hexes. Once she starts talking shop with the wizard, and understanding her magic in the same way, I'm afraid she's going to just look like a specialist wizard, which isn't something I want for the class.
The trouble is, if she can't talk shop with the wizard, the witch is either stuck in the same boat with the sorcerer--"I don't understand what I do; I just do it! Tee hee!"--or is in the same boat with the clerics and druids: "We cannot explain what we do, as it is a great mystery and part of our communion with the divine. To understand it, you must experience it as we do."
Rather, I think the witches and the wizards both know exactly what they're doing but are using different jargon and methodologies. The witch is like the old granny who always wins first prize at the county fair whereas the wizard is like the molecular gastronomist who approaches cooking as an exact science. They may butt heads and argue, but will mostly be in violent agreement in that they both believe that magic is explicable, their explanations just differ in style and presentation. The wizard memorizes his spells by studying his spellbooks. The witch memorizes spells by getting helpful hints from her cat. The witch's potions are probably made with imprecise measures whereas the wizard's are made with fussy scientific precision, but both will agree that when X potion turns Y color, that's the time to take it off the heat. And while they may annoy each other, they also probably admire each other too, because they're on the same page even if they're approaching the problem from different angles, and they have more in common than they have different. Both witches and wizards likely have little patience for silly giggling sorcerers or priests who blather on about "inexplicable mysteries" and "ineffability" rather than cold brass tacks like how to brew a particular potion.
"I don't understand what I do; I just do it! Tee hee!"
For that line alone, I now demand a charisma-based witch (or even strength).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Rather, I think the witches and the wizards both know exactly what they're doing but are using different jargon and methodologies. The witch is like the old granny who always wins first prize at the county fair whereas the wizard is like the molecular gastronomist who approaches cooking as an exact science. They may butt heads and argue, but will mostly be in violent agreement in that they both believe that magic is explicable, their explanations just differ in style and presentation. The wizard memorizes his spells by studying his...
This is an awesome explanation.
I disagree with Kevin's explanation. The Pathfinder witch is no such thing. The familiar does all the theorizing in the relationship; the witch instead has the insight to figure out how to coax eldritch forces into giving her access to this magic through the familiar. Thinking of it as communion with otherworldly forces likewise suggests Wisdom.
Wisdom-based absolutely makes the most sense.
I would think charisma or wisdom makes more sense to me
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I disagree with Kevin's explanation. The Pathfinder witch is no such thing. The familiar does all the theorizing in the relationship; the witch instead has the insight to figure out how to coax eldritch forces into giving her access to this magic through the familiar. Thinking of it as communion with otherworldly forces likewise suggests Wisdom.
Wisdom-based absolutely makes the most sense.
That's one interpretation of how the Witch is getting spells, others have been made which are entirely viable.
I personally like the idea that by communing with eldritch forces, the Witch learns magic as a skill or craft (hence Witchcraft), thus making Intelligence-based the ideal choice.
1) Wisdom gives the witch a niche. As it stands, not too much separates the witch from the wizard. As another intelligence-based arcane spellcaster, the witch runs the risk of stepping on the wizard's toes if in the same party. Using wisdom would differentiate game play, especially when it comes to skills, between the two classes. Also, the secondary ability score of the witch, as it is for most spellcasters who don't want to die, is dexterity, and, currently, there are few Wis/Dex character classes.
The Witch already has a nitch as an INT-based healing spellcaster. Using INT differentiates it from divine caster. While being important for Wizards, DEX is not a defining characteristic of the Wizard, and there isn't an abundance of INT/DEX classes, anyway.
2)Wisdom is atmospheric. I can really imagine the witch being better at skills like sense motive and perception, than he is at spellcraft. It lets the witch be more spooky.
INT is atmospheric. I can really imagine the Witch being better at spellcraft than inter-personal and sensory skills.
3)Intelligence implies that the witch studied their craft thoroughly like a wizard. However, under the current description of the class, the witch does not have a solid understanding of where his power comes from. Indeed, some witches apparently have no idea. A wisdom-based caster derives his power from the belief that something else is granted him power, which seems more in line with the current description of the witch class.
The description of the Witch states several ways in which they approach their craft. If their description says anything about what their spellcasting stat should be, it would be that the stat is up to each individual witch, not that it should be WIS. "Some gain their power through study..." and "Some witches travel about, seeking greater knowledge and understanding of the mysterious powers that guide them," are explicity stated descriptions that don't align with the notion that WIS is *the* stat that the Witch's spellcasting should be based on.