I'm never sure where to report possible bugs in Paizo's Products, but here goes: While implementing the Witch, I noticed that the APG lists the 'Confusion' spell to be part of the Deception Patron (at 8th level) on page 70.
Yet on page 71, the 4th Level Witch Spells list already has the Confusion spell as part of the 4th level spells!!
Seems something is incorrect here... right?
That isn't an error. The patron spells are numbered by the class level (1-20) you get them. The spell list is numbered in the actual spell level (1-9). You would get access to confusion on the regular spell list at level 7.
That isn't an error. The patron spells are numbered by the class level (1-20) you get them. The spell list is numbered in the actual spell level (1-9). You would get access to confusion on the regular spell list at level 7.
I don't fully understand what you mean. The rule is clear:
At 2nd level, and every two levels thereafter, a witch’s patron adds new spells to a witch’s list of spells known. These spells are also automatically added to the list of spells stored by
the familiar.
So a Patron would give a NEW spell, not an existing one, as that would be pointless!
In any case, I also found that "phantasmal killer" suffers from the same issue: The Trickery Patron grants it, but that spell is ALREADY in the Witch's Spell list!!
I don't fully understand what you mean. The rule is clear:
So a Patron would give a NEW spell, not an existing one, as that would be pointless!At 2nd level, and every two levels thereafter, a witch’s patron adds new spells to a witch’s list of spells known. These spells are also automatically added to the list of spells stored by
the familiar.
Well, semi-pointless. They still learn the spell for free. At any rate, this should presumably be posted in the APG errata thread.
Oh, I see. I misunderstood the issue. That does seem like an oversight.
It's not an oversight.
She learns the spell for free... which means she doesn't have to spend one of her "add two spells from the witch spell list" at each level on that spell, nor does she need to buy or find a scroll with that spell to teach it to her familiar.
To put it in wizard terms, it's like saying "at level 8, a wizard of this school automatically adds confusion to his spellbook as a 4th-level spell." Confusion is already a wiz4 spell, and a wizard could have selected that at 7th level or 8th level, but it would cost him one of his "two new spells learned at each character level." If he waits until level 8, he gets it for free.
You get it for free.
No cost.
No scroll needed.
No familiar-teaching needed.
No use of your two free spells learned at each level.
If the deception-patron witch really wanted to learn confusion at level 7 (when she first gets 4th-level spells), she could, but that would mean her 8th-level free spell from her patron was redundant and a wasted benefit.
Compare it to the sorcerer bloodline bonus spells. The Arcane bloodline lists identify as a spell the sorcerer learns for free at 3rd level; that spell is already on the sorcerer spell list, and the sorcerer could have taken that spell at 1st level, but if she just waits until 3rd level she gets it for free, which means she could use one of her starting spells known on a spell other than identify.
Or you could have a 1st-level ranger who takes the Endurance feat... even though he gets it for free at 3rd level.
Clear now?
It's not an oversight.
[...]
Clear now?
If you say so. But it does seem a little odd that, out of 108 possible patron spells, roughly 2 of them are on the witch's spell list, and that it's intentional rather than accidental.
If you say so. But it does seem a little odd that, out of 108 possible patron spells, roughly 2 of them are on the witch's spell list, and that it's intentional rather than accidental.
Does it seem odd that, of 90 possible sorcerer bloodline spells, 84 are already on the sorcerer spell list? How many domain spells are already on the cleric spell list? Sometimes you're given choices that are sub-optimal.
If you say so. But it does seem a little odd that, out of 108 possible patron spells, roughly 2 of them are on the witch's spell list, and that it's intentional rather than accidental.Does it seem odd that, of 90 possible sorcerer bloodline spells, 84 are already on the sorcerer spell list?
No, not at all. It's completely unsurprising that the 6 exceptions in the case of the sorcerer are unusual (i.e. off-list) spells. Whereas it's surprising that the exceptions in the case of the witch are mundane spells.
No one would blink an eye if the off-list spells were the vast minority (as you astutely noticed is the case with the sorcerer and cleric).
No one would blink an eye if the off-list spells were the vast minority (as you astutely noticed is the case with the sorcerer and cleric).
I sincerely doubt that - if two spells were off-list, I strongly feel there would be posts asking why those patrons got them and others didn't.
Apparently those spells fit the theme too well to leave off only because they were already on the spell list.
No one would blink an eye if the off-list spells were the vast minority (as you astutely noticed is the case with the sorcerer and cleric).I sincerely doubt that - if two spells were off-list, I strongly feel there would be posts asking why those patrons got them and others didn't.
I've never seen such a thread for sorcerers or clerics, so I don't know why you think witches would be any different.
On the other hand, I do remember folks complaining during the Alpha playtest that one of the cleric domain powers was the ability to cast Detect Magic X/day (even though Detect Magic is a 0-level spell and it potentially could be used as many times per day as the cleric likes). They changed it in the Beta.