Can't they be? Genuinely wondering.A witch isn't a divine caster. :-)Agreed, but the feat doesn't require the user to be a divine caster. They simply must worship a deity and receive spells from the deity.Which Witches do not.
Patrons are not Deities.
Not really. The Witch descriptions refers to them as the unknown and a vague and mysterious force.
They're abstract concepts, not beings.
And again, they give Arcane spells.
So Norgober could be a Witch patron then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Patrons are not necessarily, but can be, Deities.
For example, the Stargazer PrC in Paths of the Righteous has a sidebar dealing with Witches who choose Pulura as their Patron.
That would do it then, Patrons aren't beings and have never been shown as such in games I've played or materials from Paizo that I've read. They're concepts like Time and Healing and Destruction, not beings that represent those concepts. They're closer to an area of study/universal force than a deity.
I haven't played a witch yet for the same reason I usually don't play clerics. I just don't like the idea of my character being at the beck and call of some other creature, so I like your interpretation of the class more, but I don't think the text supports solely your interpretation of Patrons.
As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magic, but some remain blissfully unaware. Some are even afraid of that source, fearful of what it might be or where its true purposes lie.
The text alludes to an entity as the power has purpose. Abstract concepts can be said to exist, but once it has purpose it must be a sentient entity.
|
Patrons are not necessarily, but can be, Deities.
For example, the Stargazer PrC in Paths of the Righteous has a sidebar dealing with Witches who choose Pulura as their Patron.
Actually not, the text calls out multiple Patrons her Followers might pick and introduces the Aurora Patron, but it does not call Pulura a Patron.
Abstract concepts can be said to exist, but once it has purpose it must be a sentient entity.No it doesn't. The Destruction Patron's purpose is destruction, the Healing Patron's purpose is healing. Purpose does not equal sentience.
Weapons have a purpose, it doesn't make them sentient.
Well played sir. However what is the Destruction Patron's true purpose that the witch is fearful of discovering? More destruction. :)
The text seems to imply the likelihood sentience. I'm not saying Patrons must be sentient, I'm saying the text opens that door wide. It is the way I have seen most interpret it, and GM's use it as a plot device. Like I said, I like your interpretation. It is the first time I'm hearing it, so it can't be as cut and dry as you feel it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually not, the text calls out multiple Patrons her Followers might pick and introduces the Aurora Patron, but it does not call Pulura a Patron.Patrons are not necessarily, but can be, Deities.
For example, the Stargazer PrC in Paths of the Righteous has a sidebar dealing with Witches who choose Pulura as their Patron.
As the author of the aurora patron, I can confirm that it was not meant to represent Pulura as a patron - rather, it's a patron (as vague and undefined as they are) highly appropriate for witches that worship Pulura.
As far as I'm concerned, you could be a neutral evil atheist witch and still choose the aurora patron. Maybe you just really like auroras. ^_^
*nods*
Fair enough ^w^
Yeah Destruction probably doesn't have any twists... but Time on the other hand...
I will point out that power and sentience also does not a deity make.
Agreed. However I hope that you can now see how others could read that (as well as devils, demons, etc...) as possibilities, even if you disagree.
Oracles do NOT get spells from their Deities.
Um...
oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals
An Oracle do get their spells from deities. The Oracle simply has no idea WHICH deity or deities has given them their powers. It could be any of them. An Oracle can choose to an atheist, but she still gets her powers from a deity or deities.
Edit: Also, while the APG says that, there are several times in Pathfinder Adventure Paths when a single deity grants an oracle her powers. Casandalee from Iron Gods for one, who got her oracle powers exclusively from Unity.
|
Personally, by the very definition of what a "patron" means, I argued that it can generally be assumed that a witch's patron is an actual being with personality and intelligence. Remembering that patron is one who provides support to another, and thus implies some entity being involved.
More, part of the concept of a Witch is one who receives power from some entity who gives abilities beyond themselves. Honestly I find it confusing why anyone would not first think of an actually entity or being as a witch's patron instead of merely some concept or path followed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oracles do NOT get spells from their Deities.Um...
oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their idealsAn Oracle do get their spells from deities. The Oracle simply has no idea WHICH deity or deities has given them their powers. It could be any of them. An Oracle can choose to an atheist, but she still gets her powers from a deity or deities.
Edit: Also, while the APG says that, there are several times in Pathfinder Adventure Paths when a single deity grants an oracle her powers. Casandalee from Iron Gods for one, who got her oracle powers exclusively from Unity.
Or they can get them from no deity, the point is they do not get them from worship.
And your edit is flat out wrong. When she was alive Cas got her abilities as an Oracle from being able to remember all 112 of her past lives, the background information even calls out the Ancestors Mystery. Unity had absolutely nothing to do with Cas' powers.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm playing in Iron Gods so I was hesitant at first about reading ahead about parts and NPCs of the AP.
|
|
Personally, by the very definition of what a "patron" means, I argued that it can generally be assumed that a witch's patron is an actual being with personality and intelligence. Remembering that patron is one who provides support to another, and thus implies some entity being involved.
More, part of the concept of a Witch is one who receives power from some entity who gives abilities beyond themselves. Honestly I find it confusing why anyone would not first think of an actually entity or being as a witch's patron instead of merely some concept or path followed.
Because the Witch entry describes the Patrons as an "Unknown", deities are "known" so that's kinda at odds.
Or they can get them from no deity, the point is they do not get them from worship.
Worship has nothing to do with anything I just said. The text I quoted was that the power is granted by a deity or deities - and nothing else, according to the APG. Worship has nothing to do with it - hence my comment about an atheist Oracle being viable.
And your edit is flat out wrong. When she was alive Cas got her abilities as an Oracle from being able to remember all 112 of her past lives, the background information even calls out the Ancestors Mystery.
The background calls out that her CURSE was that she could remember all 112 of her past lives and does indeed mention the Ancestors Mystery - but never states for a fact where her Oracle powers came from. However, there is an implication that Unity was responsible since Cas's story parallels Meyanda being claimed Hellion. Now, Unity may have only been partly responsible - certainly there are other gods that could have also aided Cas who didn't send her personal visions - but there's no way to no (and that certainly wasn't my interpretation of the text).
I think that's what this comes down to - how different people interpret the same vague information. You seem certain that Oracles don't get their powers from deities. Having read the exact same information, I am equally certain that they do. This may need to be a live and let live situation - particularly since even the creators of Pathfinder don't seem to agree on this point.
|
|
Correct, it doesn't explicitly state where her Oracle powers come from, no Oracle powers does. Unity is not repsosnsible for Cass being an Oracle, if he was he would have probably done something about her powers when she fled.
But the Curse and Mystery are what make an Oracle, it's where they get their powers.
Seeing as how her Mystery is Ancestors it's probably a good reason that all those past lives are what is empowering her.
But the Curse and Mystery are what make an Oracle, it's where they get their powers.
... no, those are class features granted by whatever power grants the Oracle her spells.
The Oracles of Delphi (to use an archetypal example) weren't granted their powers by their curse - they were granted their powers and their curse BY their gods. The Curse and Mystery aren't the source of an Oracle's power - just another expression of it.
Unity is not repsosnsible for Cass being an Oracle, if he was he would have probably done something about her powers when she fled.
... but that's exactly what happened. In the Aurora, Cass took a critical hit, reducing her to 0 HP. She then took a move action to retreat to a room where she was safe from attack.
You can't take move actions if you are below 0 HP (unless you have diehard, but that is proven not to be the case as well). However, you don't drop below 0 HP unless you take a Standard action.
If Cass had a standard action once she was safe, she could have cast a cure spell on herself. However, if she tried to cast and couldn't, because her deity had withdrawn her spells, then she would have attempted a standard action, failed to cast the spell, and gone to -1 HP, bleeding out.
That was actually one of the reasons why I assumed that only Unity had granted her spells - because, in the end, she could not have had spells or she would have survived.
|
|
WTF are you talking about?
The Oracles of Delphi have absolutely nothing to do with Pathfinder Oracles so trying to use them to justify that Oracles directly receive power from A God is meaningless.
Secondly what happened to Cas occurred as history, not an encounter to play out so you're just making shit up now to try and justify your point.
WTF are you talking about?
The Oracles of Delphi have absolutely nothing to do with Pathfinder Oracles so trying to use them to justify that Oracles directly receive power from A God is meaningless.
Except that the Oracle class was inspired by the Oracles of Delphi. Why do you think Oracles get curses? Why do you think the class is called "Oracle" when the word "Oracle" usually refers to people who use divination magic (which only one mystery does). The Oracles of Greek legend were cursed by the gods to have mystical powers... exactly like Pathfinder Oracles.
Edit: Also, I didn't use that to justify Oracles receiving powers from gods - just to disabuse the concept that the Curse is the source of an Oracle's power.
Secondly what happened to Cas occurred as history, not an encounter to play out so you're just making s%$* up now to try and justify your point.
You're saying the rules of the game don't apply to anyone but the PCs? That is certainly one philosophy, but there are many others who would say that the rules should apply to all aspects of the game, even backstory.
Also, you are pushing the bounds of civility. This is a friendly discussion about how certain classes get their powers - which is a topic that is very much open to interpretation. As noted previously, even the creators of Pathfinder don't have just one interpretation. You can argue in support of your position all you like, but when you start attacking people for their positions, you've moved beyond any kind of discussion that I want to participate in.
|
|
Because the Witch entry describes the Patrons as an "Unknown", deities are "known" so that's kinda at odds.
The deities themselves may generally be "known", at least to a few mortals, but their motives or intentations may still otherwise be unknown.
-----------------------"Some gain power through study, some through devotion, others through blood, but the witch gains power from her communion with the unknown. Generally feared and misunderstood, the witch draws her magic from a pact made with an otherworldly power.
Communing with that source, using her familiar as a conduit, the witch gains not only a host of spells, but a number of strange abilities known as hexes. As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magic, but some remain blissfully unaware. Some are even afraid of that source, fearful of what it might be or where its true purposes lie."
Now I will admit, the general consideration would probably be that the patron and which which forms a pact with will probably not be a deity... but if a player wanted there character there which the former bond or pact with a deity, I would say there was no reason why not to allow such.
I could see that expecially working for at least a few days, but typically those or more secretive or with unknowable plans for the mortal they give power too.
---------
---------
Also, I thought it was generally understood that one of the big differences between Clerics and Oracles was that one chooses who they worship while the other has power thrust or forced upon them without necessarily their agreement.
|
|
"Except that the Oracle class was inspired by the Oracles of Delphi."
And that's where it ends, it was inspired by them, that's all, it doesn't dictate how the class functions.
"You're saying the rules of the game don't apply to anyone but the PCs?"
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying, or to be more precise, they don't apply when you're telling stories, especially backstories of NPCs. Secondly, they definitely don't apply when they're not real. You fabricated how that entire encounter went down in order to support you're entire argument. All the backstory tells us is that she was killed, there's no play by play, no last thoughts, no round by round breakdown anywhere. There is NOTHING to support the play out of the encounter you made up.
"That is certainly one philosophy, but there are many others who would say that the rules should apply to all aspects of the game, even backstory."
Well thankfully they don't write the game.
"Also, you are pushing the bounds of civility. This is a friendly discussion about how certain classes get their powers - which is a topic that is very much open to interpretation. As noted previously, even the creators of Pathfinder don't have just one interpretation. You can argue in support of your position all you like, but when you start attacking people for their positions, you've moved beyond any kind of discussion that I want to participate in."
You're the one using non-canon (I.e. RL mythological examples not dictated by game rules) and making stuff up in order to justify your argument, that kinda annoys people.
|
|
Because the Witch entry describes the Patrons as an "Unknown", deities are "known" so that's kinda at odds.The deities themselves may generally be "known", at least to a few mortals, but their motives or intentations may still otherwise be unknown.
-----------------------"Some gain power through study, some through devotion, others through blood, but the witch gains power from her communion with the unknown. Generally feared and misunderstood, the witch draws her magic from a pact made with an otherworldly power.
Communing with that source, using her familiar as a conduit, the witch gains not only a host of spells, but a number of strange abilities known as hexes. As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magic, but some remain blissfully unaware. Some are even afraid of that source, fearful of what it might be or where its true purposes lie."
Now I will admit, the general consideration would probably be that the patron and which which forms a pact with will probably not be a deity... but if a player wanted there character there which the former bond or pact with a deity, I would say there was no reason why not to allow such.
I could see that expecially working for at least a few days, but typically those or more secretive or with unknowable plans for the mortal they give power too.
---------
---------Also, I thought it was generally understood that one of the big differences between Clerics and Oracles was that one chooses who they worship while the other has power thrust or forced upon them without necessarily their agreement.
If that's something a player and GM want to work out that's fine, but by RAW Patrons are not Deities.
That's my understanding of the difference between Clerics and Oracles as well.
By RAW, Patrons are whatever you want them to be. Until you can point to a sentence that says 'a Patron is not a God', you cannot say that the RAW forbids it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are Permissive, not the other way around.
By RAW, unless there is a passage explicitly stating that Patrons count as deities for the purposes of rules and effects which relate to deities, or that a witch worshiping a deity receives their spells from the deity they worship, than witch's do not meet the prerequisites of the feat (or any other game element like it).
|
|
The rules are Permissive, not the other way around.
By RAW, unless there is a passage explicitly stating that Patrons count as deities for the purposes of rules and effects which relate to deities, or that a witch worshiping a deity receives their spells from the deity they worship, than witch's do not meet the prerequisites of the feat (or any other game element like it).
^ This
And that's where it ends, it was inspired by them, that's all, it doesn't dictate how the class functions.
And I didn't say that it did. You are the one who claimed that Oracles get their powers from their curse. I was specifically poking holes in that unfounded statement.
Edit:
I went through the Choking Tower pulling quotes that did indeed support much of my scenario, but then I realized that this had gotten silly.
You have misinterpreted my goal, as noted above. I am not trying to definitively prove that Oracles get their abilities from gods - I'm trying to prove that there is no official stance. Which, based on comments from the creators of Pathfinder, is indeed the case.
As there is no official stance, then neither of us can be right - and neither of us can be wrong. How Oracles get their powers is open to the interpretation of GMs, and being granted those powers by a deity is certainly a possibility.
And that is what I'm trying to prove - that the Oracle class is open to interpretation and does not follow the iron clad power origins that you seem to claim (particularly your strange idea that the Oracle Curse is the source of an Oracle's power). I have never heard anyone argue that before, and the fact that you are present it as indisputable is odd, to say the least.
^ ThisThe rules are Permissive, not the other way around.
WAIT. If you are arguing that... and I am arguing that... then we've been arguing the same damn thing (that the rules are permissive and EITHER SIDE is fine depending on the setting and situation).
Edit2: Fixed my quote screw up. It doesn't help that I thought you'd replied to a different post than the one you actually did. That quote addition was written in haste on my part, obviously.
|
|
And I didn't say that it did. You are the one who claimed that Oracles get their powers from their curse. I was specifically poking holes in that unfounded statement.
But you can't do that with real world mythological sources since they don't have anything to do with the Pathfinder class. How RW Oracles functioned are completely meaningless. If you want to know how the Pathfinder Oracle works you don't go get a text on Greek Mythology, you go get the Advanced Player's Guide.
Edit:
I went through the Choking Tower pulling quotes that did indeed support much of my scenario, but then I realized that this had gotten silly.You have misinterpreted my goal, as noted above. I am not trying to definitively prove that Oracles get their abilities from gods - I'm trying to prove that there is no official stance. Which, based on comments from the creators of Pathfinder, is indeed the case.
As there is no official stance, then neither of us can be right - and neither of us can be wrong. How Oracles get their powers is open to the interpretation of GMs, and being granted those powers by a deity is certainly a possibility.
And that is what I'm trying to prove - that the Oracle class is open to interpretation and does not follow the iron clad power origins that you seem to claim (particularly your strange idea that the Oracle Curse is the source of an Oracle's power). I have never heard anyone argue that before, and the fact that you are present it as indisputable is odd, to say the least.
You're previous statements leaned more to a Deity being responsible for an Oracle rather than trying to disprove both.
^ ThisThe rules are Permissive, not the other way around.
By RAW, unless there is a passage explicitly stating that Patrons count as deities for the purposes of rules and effects which relate to deities, or that a witch worshiping a deity receives their spells from the deity they worship, than witch's do not meet the prerequisites of the feat (or any other game element like it).WAIT. If you are arguing that... and I am arguing that... then we've been arguing the same damn thing (that the rules are permissive and EITHER SIDE is fine depending on the setting and situation).
**BANGS HEAD ON WALL**
That's not what I've been arguing. In a homegame if the player and the GM want to have the Witch's/Oracle's power come directly from a Deity go ahead, but in PFS (and therefore by RAW) they don't.
The rules are Permissive, not the other way around.
By RAW, unless there is a passage explicitly stating that Patrons count as deities for the purposes of rules and effects which relate to deities, or that a witch worshiping a deity receives their spells from the deity they worship, than witch's do not meet the prerequisites of the feat (or any other game element like it).
Never said anything about meeting prerequisites. If I wanted Weapon of the Chosen, that would certainly require special GM dispensation. But if I want my familiar sent by Nethys, there are no rules against that.
|
|
Never said anything about meeting prerequisites. If I wanted Weapon of the Chosen, that would certainly require special GM dispensation. But if I want my familiar sent by Nethys, there are no rules against that.The rules are Permissive, not the other way around.
By RAW, unless there is a passage explicitly stating that Patrons count as deities for the purposes of rules and effects which relate to deities, or that a witch worshiping a deity receives their spells from the deity they worship, than witch's do not meet the prerequisites of the feat (or any other game element like it).
Uh, your previous post it looked like you were arguing about meeting prerequisites by saying that your Patron was a deity if you wanted.
That's not what I've been arguing. In a homegame if the player and the GM want to have the Witch's/Oracle's power come directly from a Deity go ahead, but in PFS (and therefore by RAW) they don't.
First off, since when has this been about PFS? We aren't in the PFS part of the forum (I just checked to make sure) and the OP said nothing about that. The OP simply said "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?"
Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus with deity’s favored weapon, must worship and receive spells from a deity.
The answer to that question is "Yes" because the question pre-supposed deities as patrons, and witches are granted spells from their patron. And, by that same logic, only witches with a deity as a patron would qualify for that feat.
However, others have argued that a deity could never be a patron - and others still argued that Oracles can't have a deity as a patron.
They CAN. Or they can have any number of other things. If they have those other things, then they don't qualify, but if they have a deity as a patron, they do.
I took your original comment to mean that deities could never grant Oracles powers, which seemed absurd since the description of Oracle says their powers are granted by deities (or other things).
I have only ever been arguing that an Oracle powers by one or more deities is a possibility, not that it was a certainty. I've been providing examples to show that there are some situations where that most certainly would be the case, not to prove that all are, but to prove that at least some are.
So we are both arguing that deities may or may not be involved in Oracles or Witches. That's where we agree.
We do appear to disagree about the rules interpretation for that feat (because, as noted above, I believe that Oracles and Witches who fulfill that requirement do qualify), but that is another matter entirely, and not what we've been going back and forth about.
Uh, your previous post it looked like you were arguing about meeting prerequisites by saying that your Patron was a deity if you wanted.Never said anything about meeting prerequisites. If I wanted Weapon of the Chosen, that would certainly require special GM dispensation. But if I want my familiar sent by Nethys, there are no rules against that.The rules are Permissive, not the other way around.
By RAW, unless there is a passage explicitly stating that Patrons count as deities for the purposes of rules and effects which relate to deities, or that a witch worshiping a deity receives their spells from the deity they worship, than witch's do not meet the prerequisites of the feat (or any other game element like it).
That's because I screwed up my quote. Whoops!
Yeah, looking back, that quote made no sense in context.
Edit: All I meant to say was that you were not saying that deities COULDN'T be patrons to Oracles or Witches. You were just saying that other things could be too. And all I was saying that deities COULD be patrons to Oracles (and Witches, but I didn't bring that up).
Edit2: Okay, so, we both agree that a Witch or Oracle CAN get their powers form a deity, but not all do, and other Witches and Oracles get their powers from things that are not deities.
Yes? That's correct, right?
I think a player can choose "Shadow" as a patron, but can't pick a particular God or entity to undertake that role. It's not a divine class and determination of what a patron involves beyond a spell list and a generic theme name seems pretty solidly in the GM's purvey.
You can think Zon-Kuthon is your patron and worship him, but you can't force him to be your actual patron "granting " your arcane spells that you would keep even if you switched worship to Sarenrae.
|
|
@Zel
4th post on the 1st page, OP asked if there had been any rulings in PFS, that made me believe this was under the guise of PFS legality.
In a homegame a GM can declare Patrons and the sources of an Oracle's power to be whatever they want and the characters can be eligible for the Feat, but by RAW they are not a single deity and any evidence otherwise is tenuous, thus by RAW Oracles and Witches cannot take Weapon of the Chosen.
And to your other post Correct, more or less. I don't really believe a deity can work for an Oracle the same the way it functions for the Cleric, but there's also empowerment from a grouping or pantheon of deities as well.
By RAW, Patrons are whatever you want them to be. Until you can point to a sentence that says 'a Patron is not a God', you cannot say that the RAW forbids it.I just check the rules, it doesn't say 'a Patron is not a God'. I also didn't find anything that said 'Rub-Eta's characters are not Gods' - with the absence of evidence, I think it's safe to say that I have the best characters on these boards.
I know you intended this to be sarcastic, but here's the thing - in a world that includes the Starstone, yes, any of your characters could become a god.
So yes, the fact that any of your characters could touch the Starstone and ascend to godhood is part of the RAW.
By RAW, Patrons are whatever you want them to be. Until you can point to a sentence that says 'a Patron is not a God', you cannot say that the RAW forbids it.I just check the rules, it doesn't say 'a Patron is not a God'. I also didn't find anything that said 'Rub-Eta's characters are not Gods' - with the absence of evidence, I think it's safe to say that I have the best characters on these boards.I know you intended this to be sarcastic, but here's the thing - in a world that includes the Starstone, yes, any of your characters could become a god.
So yes, the fact that any of your characters could touch the Starstone and ascend to godhood is part of the RAW.
Cool, what are the rules?
@Zel
4th post on the 1st page, OP asked if there had been any rulings in PFS, that made me believe this was under the guise of PFS legality.
Crap, I missed that.
Welp, this is about PFS, so I am outta here. Consider all my points conceded. While I will argue that RAW supports the use of that feat in the given situation, and would rule such as my table, I have no flippin' clue about PFS, so I do not feel qualified to answer or argue on that point or any point relating to PFS.
**bows**
Good day to you all and my apologies. Had I realized this was about use in PFS, I would have never posted in the first place.
Cool, what are the rules?
Starstone rules are in Mythic Origins, I believe.
However, since we just determined that this is PFS, I have no idea if that book even applies.
Anyway, I am outta here.
|
|
Putting inside the Witch, as that will not be my focus is the next argument, I would like to offer this.
"Although the gods work through many agents, perhaps none is more mysterious than the oracle. These divine vessels are granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand. Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals. Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs. While some see the powers of the oracle as a gift, others view them as a curse, changing the life of the chosen in unforeseen ways."
-----------------------------
Oracles are chosen by deities, they are given power by a god or goddess. They are what they are because a deity decided they wanted to select the Oracle for some purpose or motive, whether or not they want to or not. Through such it is by this deity, whoever that might be, that an Oracle has access to the spells they gain access to as well their Mystery.
Given the undefined nature of a Patron, a Witch could choose a Deity as a Patron
But the witch still would be an Arcane caster, and thus it doesn't receive spells from said entity, rather it's instructed on how to perform magic
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked a question that hit on this point before: as a part of the class, the Patron feature is more akin to a Wizard's choice in school than it is a Cleric's choice in deity. So, while you could worship a deity and have a Patron that fits that deity's portfolio, none of your class features have anything to do with said deity. You don't receive spells from said deity (in fact, you don't "receive" spells at all as an arcane caster), so anything with that specific requirement can't be taken. However, anything that simply requires you to worship that deity is legal, as it would be for any other character that worshipped that deity.
However, it's not unreasonable to have that be a part of a home-brew world. It's just not really "legal" in a RAW sense.
Because the Witch entry describes the Patrons as an "Unknown", deities are "known" so that's kinda at odds.
As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magic
The source may start out as unknown, but that is not to say the source is unknowable. It has been agreed that the source is powerful, sentient and the above quote shows the source of their spells are also knowable by the witch. All of these things could be a deity. I'm not saying it must be a deity, but nothing in the flavor text removes the possibility. In fact it points to it being one of several likely possibilities.
As for Weapon of the Chosen, if granted spells were limited to divine then I would imagine the writers would have simply said divine spells. It seems likely that the wording was used for pocket cases of Arcane casters who receive spell access from deities, like Witches, and to exclude atheist divine casters.
I wasn't specifically asking about this for PFS, but I lean towards their rulings when determining RAW and RAI.
The supplemental material done by Isabelle Lee, the author of the aurora patron, seem to point away from patrons possibly being deities (or even entities from their comment on this thread...thx btw). This does seem VERY ODD to me, but until there is an FAQ, I will assume that is the current intent.
|
|
Because the Witch entry describes the Patrons as an "Unknown", deities are "known" so that's kinda at odds.As a witch grows in power, she might learn about the source of her magicThe source may start out as unknown, but that is not to say the source is unknowable. It has been agreed that the source is powerful, sentient and the above quote shows the source of their spells are also knowable by the witch. All of these things could be a deity. I'm not saying it must be a deity, but nothing in the flavor text removes the possibility. In fact it points to it being one of several likely possibilities.
As for Weapon of the Chosen, if granted spells were limited to divine then I would imagine the writers would have simply said divine spells. It seems likely that the wording was used for pocket cases of Arcane casters who receive spell access from deities, like Witches, and to exclude atheist divine casters.
I wasn't specifically asking about this for PFS, but I lean towards their rulings when determining RAW and RAI.
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.
|
|
I've asked a question that hit on this point before: as a part of the class, the Patron feature is more akin to a Wizard's choice in school than it is a Cleric's choice in deity. So, while you could worship a deity and have a Patron that fits that deity's portfolio, none of your class features have anything to do with said deity. You don't receive spells from said deity (in fact, you don't "receive" spells at all as an arcane caster), so anything with that specific requirement can't be taken. However, anything that simply requires you to worship that deity is legal, as it would be for any other character that worshipped that deity.
However, it's not unreasonable to have that be a part of a home-brew world. It's just not really "legal" in a RAW sense.
*nods*
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.
|
|
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 Divine Classes that don't get spells from Deities. There are absolutely no casters who receive spells from worship that are not Divine. The witch is an Arcane caster, they get their spells from their Pact, not a Deity that apparently can't take away that power when they can easily do the same with the Cleric.
All the points I and others have laid out are very solid, you just don't like them. A Witch does not receive spells from a Deity, a Witch does not receive spells from Worship. Witches are Arcane casters, not Divine, they can't have their powers taken away from going against any deity.
Yeah, I'm getting off the Merry Go Round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Rather it's because there are divine casters that do not require a deity such as Druids, Hunters, Rangers, Shamans and Paladins who cannot take it unless they also worship a deity
Witches aren't divine but arcane, so their spells are directly granted from an external entity
They didn't say Divine Caster, they said must worship a deity and receive spells from them to cut out Divine Classes that don't get spells from Deities. There are absolutely no casters who receive spells from worship that are not Divine. The witch is an Arcane caster, they get their spells from their Pact, not a Deity that apparently can't take away that power when they can easily do the same with the Cleric.
I second this