|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Feels weird to me. It seems like a standard spell that most, if not all, arcane casters would have.
Witches are like specialised wizards. They don't get other general spells like magic missile either. They're primarily enchantment flavoured.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Presdigation seems like something even witches would have to take care of daily stuff though.
I don't know what to tell you, except "all spell lists are arbitrary." Perhaps the mysterious patrons don't want their mighty gifts used as parlor tricks. Or maybe they figure there's nothing prestidigitation can do that the witch couldn't do just as easily with a little physical labor (and maybe some cloth dye and ice cubes.)
I always thought it odd that wizards didn't get Sleight of Hand. Card tricks, misdirection, the odd gestures they have to use casting spells---it seems like a natural fit.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Marius Castille wrote: I always thought it odd that wizards didn't get Sleight of Hand. Card tricks, misdirection, the odd gestures they have to use casting spells---it seems like a natural fit. I think you are confusing stage magic with actual magic.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lincoln Hills wrote: I don't know what to tell you, except "all spell lists are arbitrary." Perhaps the mysterious patrons don't want their mighty gifts used as parlor tricks. Or maybe they figure there's nothing prestidigitation can do that the witch couldn't do just as easily with a little physical labor (and maybe some cloth dye and ice cubes.) Well actually, we all know the reason why witches dont get the spell is because paizo didnt give it to them. Im just wondering why...it seems like an odd design choice to make.
Heh, I took a trait so my witch and my inquisitor could take prestidigitation.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Question wrote: Feels weird to me. It seems like a standard spell that most, if not all, arcane casters would have. Prestidigitation's historical fluff is that it is a Sorcerer's Apprentice type spell. (back in the day when Sorcerer, Wizard, and Magic-User all meant the same class) It's the kind of spell you envisaged Mickey Mouse doing in Fantasia. Witches on the other hand are more of the cauldron and curse tropes.
And besides. When was the last time you saw a clean house that a witch lived in?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Personally, I think the Witch should have prestidigitation. It covers a lot of minor magical effects pretty much all arcane casters should have.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kirwyn wrote: And besides. When was the last time you saw a clean house that a witch lived in? Probably every witch who doesn't want to catch some disease and die early.
If I recall correctly, witches did have prestidigitation in the playtest of the class, but it was removed for the final product (the same was true for wall of thorns, which I thought was a very witch-y spell)
How bizarre.
Odder than not having it at all is REMOVING it.
I agree on Wall of Thorns -- though it is a very vicious spell.
I can see why Prestidigitation isn't on the list. In some ways, it represents a character practicing and honing her talents. Despite this, I'd be fine with adding both spells to the witch list. Prestidigitation is comparatively minor and Wall of Thorns is only on the druid list and very flavorful.
Kirwyn wrote: And besides. When was the last time you saw a clean house that a witch lived in? They seem to be about as clean as your standard wizards tower.
I think it would fit on the witch list.
Lift over some herbs, color code the poisons in use, heat vials of spiders tears and make the final foul brew taste sweet enough to children into drinking it
Well, most witches in stories are fairly dirty. I just finished reading the Earthsea books, and I think every witch in them was filthy in one way or another. They were also all physically, and domestically, handy--they knit clothing, raised animals, cooked, etc... So they would have set to cleaning themselves if that were important to them.
yeti1069 wrote: Well, most witches in stories are fairly dirty. ... and the rest kidnap little girls named Gretel to do the housework.
Most witches are evil. I'm not seeing the requirement.
Good witches are usually not dirty, btw.
Further, does Prestidigitation on someone's class spell list mean they can't be dirty? I think not.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Drachasor wrote: Most witches are evil. I'm not seeing the requirement.
Good witches are usually not dirty, btw.
Further, does Prestidigitation on someone's class spell list mean they can't be dirty? I think not.
Just as the lack of it doesn't mean they can't be clean.
Kthulhu wrote: Drachasor wrote: Most witches are evil. I'm not seeing the requirement.
Good witches are usually not dirty, btw.
Further, does Prestidigitation on someone's class spell list mean they can't be dirty? I think not.
Just as the lack of it doesn't mean they can't be clean. True, so we really are lacking any good argument against it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I believe Nanny Og had something to say on this matter. I will have to find the quote.
Something about not using magic for things you can do with your own two hands.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CalebTGordan wrote: I believe Nanny Og had something to say on this matter. I will have to find the quote.
Something about not using magic for things you can do with your own two hands.
But the witch has unseen servant on her spell list?
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drachasor wrote: Kthulhu wrote: Drachasor wrote: Most witches are evil. I'm not seeing the requirement.
Good witches are usually not dirty, btw.
Further, does Prestidigitation on someone's class spell list mean they can't be dirty? I think not.
Just as the lack of it doesn't mean they can't be clean. True, so we really are lacking any good argument against it. It's one of those omissions that make the witch's spell list a witch's list as opposed to a wizard's list.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: Drachasor wrote: Kthulhu wrote: Drachasor wrote: Most witches are evil. I'm not seeing the requirement.
Good witches are usually not dirty, btw.
Further, does Prestidigitation on someone's class spell list mean they can't be dirty? I think not.
Just as the lack of it doesn't mean they can't be clean. True, so we really are lacking any good argument against it. It's one of those omissions that make the witch's spell list a witch's list as opposed to a wizard's list. That's ad hoc justification.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drachasor wrote: LazarX wrote: Drachasor wrote: Kthulhu wrote: Drachasor wrote: Most witches are evil. I'm not seeing the requirement.
Good witches are usually not dirty, btw.
Further, does Prestidigitation on someone's class spell list mean they can't be dirty? I think not.
Just as the lack of it doesn't mean they can't be clean. True, so we really are lacking any good argument against it. It's one of those omissions that make the witch's spell list a witch's list as opposed to a wizard's list. That's ad hoc justification. All game construction is Ad hoc, all deliniations are arbitrary. The idea that witches, sorcerers, and wizards are separate classes is also adhoc. In First edition AD+D, they all would have translated to Magic-User.
Ad-hoc is a buzzword people put in to gaming constructs they don't like, but can't put up an argument against.
LazarX wrote: Drachasor wrote: LazarX wrote: Drachasor wrote: Kthulhu wrote: Drachasor wrote: Most witches are evil. I'm not seeing the requirement.
Good witches are usually not dirty, btw.
Further, does Prestidigitation on someone's class spell list mean they can't be dirty? I think not.
Just as the lack of it doesn't mean they can't be clean. True, so we really are lacking any good argument against it. It's one of those omissions that make the witch's spell list a witch's list as opposed to a wizard's list. That's ad hoc justification. All game construction is Ad hoc, all deliniations are arbitrary. The idea that witches, sorcerers, and wizards are separate classes is also adhoc. In First edition AD+D, they all would have translated to Magic-User.
Ad-hoc is a buzzword people put in to gaming constructs they don't like, but can't put up an argument against. It's not a buzzword. It means what you said has no explanatory power. Just like saying "Cure Light Wounds" not being on the Wizard list is part of what makes it the Wizard list. While true, it does nothing to explain WHY CLW is not on the Wizard list -- the actually explanation is because Wizards have very limited healing capabilities.
Drachasor wrote:
It's not a buzzword. It means what you said has no explanatory power. Just like saying "Cure Light Wounds" not being on the Wizard list is part of what makes it the Wizard list. While true, it does nothing to explain WHY CLW is not on the Wizard list -- the actually explanation is because Wizards have very limited healing capabilities. Which is essentially ad-hoc. Why do they have limited healing capabilities? Because the game designers said so.
It spoils the eye of newt.
yeti1069 wrote: Drachasor wrote:
It's not a buzzword. It means what you said has no explanatory power. Just like saying "Cure Light Wounds" not being on the Wizard list is part of what makes it the Wizard list. While true, it does nothing to explain WHY CLW is not on the Wizard list -- the actually explanation is because Wizards have very limited healing capabilities. Which is essentially ad-hoc. Why do they have limited healing capabilities? Because the game designers said so. "Ad hoc" means after-the-fact. Saying Prestidigitation isn't on the Witch list because that makes the list different is just an after-the-fact statement with no explanatory power.
Saying "Wizards are conceived as a class with great magic, but limited healing capabilities" explains why certain spells are not on their list. Yes, the theme for Wizards is arbitrary, but once selected it does explain many of the spells they do not get.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Drachasor wrote: "Ad hoc" means after-the-fact. Saying Prestidigitation isn't on the Witch list because that makes the list different is just an after-the-fact statement with no explanatory power. Ugh. No, guy, it doesn't. Post Hoc means after the fact. Ad Hoc translates to something along the lines of "To the fact", or "To this". It refers to a solution, ruling, or judgment that was made to address a specific issue or incident (and therefore not based upon some principle or framework of guidelines). The decision that Wizards and Sorcerers would (almost entirely) lack healing spells is, by definition, NOT Ad Hoc.
The game writers create the rules. While some of the reasoning and methodology behind said decisions have been expressed, a great deal of it has not. Because, for instance, that would take a prohibitive amount of printed space for very little benefit. The fact that you do not know or understand the principles behind a given ruling does NOT make that ruling Ad Hoc.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Shadowdweller wrote: Drachasor wrote: "Ad hoc" means after-the-fact. Saying Prestidigitation isn't on the Witch list because that makes the list different is just an after-the-fact statement with no explanatory power. Ugh. No, guy, it doesn't. Post Hoc means after the fact. Ad Hoc translates to something along the lines of "To the fact", or "To this". It refers to a solution, ruling, or judgment that was made to address a specific issue or incident (and therefore not based upon some principle or framework of guidelines). The decision that Wizards and Sorcerers would (almost entirely) lack healing spells is, by definition, NOT Ad Hoc.
The game writers create the rules. While some of the reasoning and methodology behind said decisions have been expressed, a great deal of it has not. Because, for instance, that would take a prohibitive amount of printed space for very little benefit. The fact that you do not know or understand the principles behind a given ruling does NOT make that ruling Ad Hoc. Yes, my mistake on "ad hoc," a slip of the mind. However, you could certainly say that Wizards having poor/non-standard healing is Ad Hoc, but that provides a general rule which means they don't get Cure Light Wounds. Because that decision is not based on a general principle. At a certain point when making a game, you do make things up.
Not that lack of wizard standard healing IS non-generalizable. It doesn't mean other arcane casters don't have healing. It doesn't mean the Wizard has no healing spells (infernal healing, heck even Clone). It doesn't mean other classes don't have healing. Etc, etc. So yes, Ad Hoc can fit for that -- something being ad hoc is not bad per se, it depends on the context.
All of that is irrelevant, to my argument, however. There certainly doesn't seem to be any driving principle as to why Witches don't have Prestidigitation. Nor have you or anyone else presented such a principle. So it does seem quite ad hoc in a bad way.
Saying there are mysterious reasons we can't know about is not a reason, it is a refusal to think.
Drachasor wrote: There certainly doesn't seem to be any driving principle as to why Witches don't have Prestidigitation. Its purely thematic. The classic prestidigitations are magician's sleight-of-hand tricks to entertain, which is part of what the spell sort of simulates.
It might be simpler to just make a witches version of the spell, which is used to clean, soil, flavor and warm, but leaves out the conjuring tricks bit.
Question wrote: Feels weird to me. It seems like a standard spell that most, if not all, arcane casters would have. Beacuse it did not fit the designers idea of the witch they wanted to portray. Rule 0 is there for exactly this reason, though.
Jeven wrote: Drachasor wrote: There certainly doesn't seem to be any driving principle as to why Witches don't have Prestidigitation. Its purely thematic. The classic prestidigitations are magician's sleight-of-hand tricks to entertain, which is part of what the spell sort of simulates.
It might be simpler to just make a witches version of the spell, which is used to clean, soil, flavor and warm, but leaves out the conjuring tricks bit. Yeah, creating things is definitely not something Witches should do. It isn't like they have Major or Minor Creation, right? Oh wait....
Gilfalas wrote: Question wrote: Feels weird to me. It seems like a standard spell that most, if not all, arcane casters would have. Beacuse it did not fit the designers idea of the witch they wanted to portray. Rule 0 is there for exactly this reason, though. And what is that principle?
It must allow Minor and Major Creation. It must allow Unseen Servant.
Drachasor wrote: Jeven wrote: Drachasor wrote: There certainly doesn't seem to be any driving principle as to why Witches don't have Prestidigitation. Its purely thematic. The classic prestidigitations are magician's sleight-of-hand tricks to entertain, which is part of what the spell sort of simulates.
It might be simpler to just make a witches version of the spell, which is used to clean, soil, flavor and warm, but leaves out the conjuring tricks bit. Yeah, creating things is definitely not something Witches should do. It isn't like they have Major or Minor Creation, right? Oh wait....
Gilfalas wrote: Question wrote: Feels weird to me. It seems like a standard spell that most, if not all, arcane casters would have. Beacuse it did not fit the designers idea of the witch they wanted to portray. Rule 0 is there for exactly this reason, though. And what is that principle?
It must allow Minor and Major Creation. It must allow Unseen Servant. I think he meant conjuring as in stage magic, legerdemain, rabbits-out-of-hats type stuff, not the actual conjuration school.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I think he meant conjuring as in stage magic, legerdemain, rabbits-out-of-hats type stuff, not the actual conjuration school.
And Prestidigitation does not allow you to conjure rabbits from hats. It does let you make minor trinkets that last an hour (so coins behind ears can be done).
Point is, there's nothing Prestidigitation does that doesn't seem to fit in with the Witch's spell list.
Drachasor wrote: And Prestidigitation does not allow you to conjure rabbits from hats. It does let you make minor trinkets that last an hour (so coins behind ears can be done).
Point is, there's nothing Prestidigitation does that doesn't seem to fit in with the Witch's spell list.
I'm sure he didn't mean literal rabbits out of hats, but that type of stuff - you know, a magician pulling objects out of an empty hat or sleeve, like ribbons and what not. This is the sort of stuff an apprentice wizard might learn, but the average witch wouldn't because the type of training they receive has a different focus.
The spell list for every class is mostly thematic, so each spell is decided on a case by case basis and not really according to any sense of logic.
So Clerics get all the stuff that Christian prophets in the Bible and Christian Saints of legend do, even though many of them are things that wizards should be able to simulate but can't for no reason except the thematic one.
Jeven wrote: Drachasor wrote: And Prestidigitation does not allow you to conjure rabbits from hats. It does let you make minor trinkets that last an hour (so coins behind ears can be done).
Point is, there's nothing Prestidigitation does that doesn't seem to fit in with the Witch's spell list.
I'm sure he didn't mean literal rabbits out of hats, but that type of stuff - you know, a magician pulling objects out of an empty hat or sleeve, like ribbons and what not. This is the sort of stuff an apprentice wizard might learn, but the average witch wouldn't because the type of training they receive has a different focus.
The spell list for every class is mostly thematic, so each spell is decided on a case by case basis and not really according to any sense of logic. Deciding things for thematic reasons IS applying logic as to whether a spell fits a theme or not.
And if witches can do Creation spells, then I don't see how making cheap, temporary goods doesn't fit into that. They wouldn't use it for pulling coins out of ears, of course, but most Wizards don't actually do that either. They might use it to make a temporary vial to hold a liquid, cloth to conceal something, etc.
Discussing odd spell choices for Clerics and Wizards is another topic (and one that would probably start with Animate Objects). Questionable choices elsewhere merely shows that questionable choices exist, so it really doesn't add to this discussion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Drachasor wrote: How bizarre.
Odder than not having it at all is REMOVING it.
I agree on Wall of Thorns -- though it is a very vicious spell.
I agree with you on the Wall of Thorns spell. That's the sort of thing witches in fairytale use - like the story of Rapunzel and some versions of Sleeping Beauty where the witch encircles the tower with thorns.
Is there any way to ask the devs?
While there may not have been any compelling reasons offered for the Witch not to have Prestidigitation... I fail to see any compelling reason why the Witch OUGHT TO have it, either. YMMV.
Cheeseweasel wrote: While there may not have been any compelling reasons offered for the Witch not to have Prestidigitation... I fail to see any compelling reason why the Witch OUGHT TO have it, either. YMMV. Changing taste, small tasks, creating small items, and all that Prestidigitation does are things that higher level Witch Spells or Witch Hexes can do. The largest complaint one could possibly have is that the name might not be perfect.
Drachasor wrote:
Changing taste, small tasks, creating small items, and all that Prestidigitation does are things that higher level Witch Spells or Witch Hexes can do. The largest complaint one could possibly have is that the name might not be perfect.
Um... meaning no offense here, but... still failing to find a compelling reason for them to have it.
Witches are not scholarly; their magic is not the result of study and practice. It is grafted onto them by their strange Patrons; the presence of magics that do things like Prestidigitation with stronger spells and hexes does not (imo) mean that that cantrip somehow "belongs" on their spell list. Witches do not learn magic in logical, rational steps: witch magic is far more a thing of passion and intuition, by all the "standard" witch thematics.
I don't know anyone who's actually passionate about the daily chores which Prestidigitation eases.
Cheeseweasel wrote: Drachasor wrote:
Changing taste, small tasks, creating small items, and all that Prestidigitation does are things that higher level Witch Spells or Witch Hexes can do. The largest complaint one could possibly have is that the name might not be perfect.
Um... meaning no offense here, but... still failing to find a compelling reason for them to have it.
Witches are not scholarly; their magic is not the result of study and practice. It is grafted onto them by their strange Patrons; the presence of magics that do things like Prestidigitation with stronger spells and hexes does not (imo) mean that that cantrip somehow "belongs" on their spell list. Witches do not learn magic in logical, rational steps: witch magic is far more a thing of passion and intuition, by all the "standard" witch thematics.
I don't know anyone who's actually passionate about the daily chores which Prestidigitation eases. By that "reasoning" you could argue anything could be on their list or not on their list. It's just an "ignore thematics, ignore what fits, ignore what's similar, etc, etc, there cannot be rhyme or reason to it!" This is ridiculous.
It's also rests on a fallacy that you cannot rationally examine arrational behavior or phenomenon. This is simply not true.
But if you want to exclude yourself from the conversation, because you don't believe there is any way to judge what spells should or should not be on the Witch's spell list, then please go ahead.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Cheeseweasel wrote: Drachasor wrote:
Changing taste, small tasks, creating small items, and all that Prestidigitation does are things that higher level Witch Spells or Witch Hexes can do. The largest complaint one could possibly have is that the name might not be perfect.
Um... meaning no offense here, but... still failing to find a compelling reason for them to have it.
Witches are not scholarly; their magic is not the result of study and practice. It is grafted onto them by their strange Patrons; the presence of magics that do things like Prestidigitation with stronger spells and hexes does not (imo) mean that that cantrip somehow "belongs" on their spell list. Witches do not learn magic in logical, rational steps: witch magic is far more a thing of passion and intuition, by all the "standard" witch thematics.
I don't know anyone who's actually passionate about the daily chores which Prestidigitation eases. Sorcerers are not scholarly; their magic is not the result of study and practice. It is grafted onto them by their strange bloodlines; the presence of magics that do things like Prestidigitation with stronger spells and bloodline abilities does not (imo) mean that that cantrip somehow "belongs" on their spell list. Sorcerers do not learn magic in logical, rational steps: Sorcerer magic is far more a thing of natural ability and bloodline powers, by all the "standard" sorcerer thematics.
Fixed.
Drachasor wrote:
By that "reasoning" you could argue anything could be on their list or not on their list. It's just an "ignore thematics, ignore what fits, ignore what's similar, etc, etc, there cannot be rhyme or reason to it!" This is ridiculous.
It's also rests on a fallacy that you cannot rationally examine arrational behavior or phenomenon. This is simply not true.
But if you want to exclude yourself from the conversation, because you don't believe there is any way to judge what spells should or should not be on the Witch's spell list, then please go ahead.
There's nothing "thematic" about the presence or absence of Prestidigitation, nor does the cantrip in question "fit" in such a manner as to be indispensible to the Witch. Similarities MIGHT suggest its inclusion, but in no way mandate it.
I'm not denying rhyme or reason to the spell list -- simply questioning your assertion that Prestidigitation "rhymes reasonably" with the Witch. Your hyperbole paints you as failing to be rational.
Finally, kindly stop attempting to dictate my beliefs on the methodology of spell list design to me. I've made no assertions about how one judges spell list design.
What I have said -- and to which you have completely failed to respond -- is that I don't see any compelling reason for the inclusion of Prestidigitation on the Witch spell list. This doesn't mean that I think there are compelling reasons for its absence. Simply that none of your posts, in my opinion, adequately support your assertions regarding the need for its inclusion.
Clear?
Cheeseweasel wrote: Drachasor wrote:
Changing taste, small tasks, creating small items, and all that Prestidigitation does are things that higher level Witch Spells or Witch Hexes can do. The largest complaint one could possibly have is that the name might not be perfect.
Um... meaning no offense here, but... still failing to find a compelling reason for them to have it.
Witches are not scholarly; their magic is not the result of study and practice. It is grafted onto them by their strange Patrons; the presence of magics that do things like Prestidigitation with stronger spells and hexes does not (imo) mean that that cantrip somehow "belongs" on their spell list. Witches do not learn magic in logical, rational steps: witch magic is far more a thing of passion and intuition, by all the "standard" witch thematics.
I don't know anyone who's actually passionate about the daily chores which Prestidigitation eases. Um no offense to you but Witches learn magic just like wizard...it is just from a different souce but they still learn it. That is why they are int based casters. They start learning about magic and how to cast spells via their patron through their familiars. So if wizards get because it is part of their learning process witches by the same logic should also. So it makes more sense to me for them to have prestidigation than say a sorcerer.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
How's this one?
A witch can have a crab for a familiar.
A witch can't cast create water, in order to keep her crab happy during adverse conditions.
A witch with the Water patron also can't cast create water.
Are there witchy stories where they create water out of nothing? No...except for all that ice magic. That's presumably water ice, right?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
