| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw,
While some heroes speak to gods or consort with otherworldly muses, shamans commune with the spirits of the world and the energies that exist in every living thing. These divine adventurers draw upon their power to shape the world and expand the influence of their spiritual patrons.Shamans draw power from an external non-otherworldly spirit, who is their patron, and they cast divine magic. Yes they are a hybrid class (Oracle/Witch), but my point is that the "core lore" in PF2 seems to be messing with many classes. Specially when you try to force things into who can use a spell list.
Crucially, Shaman channel the power of the spirits. Witches use their own power after being instructed by their patron.
Shaman also cast with Wisdom, not Intelligence. In fact, Arcane Enlightenment was their means of accessing non-divine spells through their own cleverness.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many posts seem to be based on the idea that a patron would/could/should only provide the tradition closest to its concept. I think that is too restrictive.
This makes me wonder how a Patron is teaching something they don't themselves know. On our side, we see traditions as just being words & spell lists, but I imagine the difference is far greater in-setting. After all, a Wizard can't just buy a scroll of heal, study it, and then create an arcane version of the heal spell. The magic itself is somehow different enough that this doesn't work.
While you could make the case of someone like Nethys managing this (Deity, but was previously a mortal Wizard) - how would a mid-management devil accurately teach a magic system they don't know, which includes spells they themselves would never be able to cast?
Also note that while I keep harping of demons/devils in these threads - it's mostly because no one seems to have a problem with the idea that "a powerful (primal) Fey teaches Primal magic," or "Cthulhu would grant occult magic." It's only when the subject approaches divine magic that there seems to be this weird disconnect. Otherwise, I completely understand why a creature which only knows tradition X doesn't suddenly teach tradition Y instead, it'd be like asking your English teacher to teach you Calculus.
Shamans draw power from an external non-otherworldly spirit, who is their patron, and they cast divine magic. Yes they are a hybrid class (Oracle/Witch), but my point is that the "core lore" in PF2 seems to be messing with many classes. Specially when you try to force things into who can use a spell list.
To be fair - Undead seem to be associated with the divine tradition in PF2. After all, the Sorcerer's Undead bloodline grants the divine tradition and something like a Greater Shadow in the bestiary uses innate divine spells.
And for the Shaman itself - we have yet to see how (or if) it will turn out in PF2. Personally, I imagine they were Divine in the same way Druids were - and would fit best with the Primal tradition in PF2.
The theme of the Witch for me is that they access magic through a very personal relation to their Patron. And I do not see how barring them form the Divine tradition helps strengthening this theme.
I'd agree with this completely. Witch was my favorite class in PF1 & I always hoped to see some more emphasis put on the Patron when they returned in PF2. The biggest issues I see with the Playtest are that 1) Patrons are even less thematic/relevant than PF1 and 2) the weird pick-any-except-divine tradition thing when I see Witches as the only class other than Sorcerer which should really have access to a pick-any-list mechanic. (These are the 2 classes with a strong tie to a highly variable "other" entity which could originate from any tradition.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of the witch having access to divine magic, i like how it’s lack of presence in the playtest caused the lore explanation to come into being. In that yes witches can have a divine patron, but they don’t get divine magic because the god has to be secretive about the relationship.
I like how this means a good god might employ a witch to accomplish something underhand that they don’t want to be associated with.
People keep mentioning this, but I feel it ignores that deities are not the only source for divine magic now. I could possibly buy that deities would want that deniability, in some cases anyways, but why would a protean? Or a Lesser Death? Is an azata really going to care if one of their tools gets traced back to them, if that tool is operating towards greater good? A powerful demon may well *boast* about having witch followers; the fiend isn’t powerful enough to have clerics, but they can certainly teach others to follow in their footsteps. An aeon might do all that, and also insist on a dress code (archons definitely would, assuming the jock-outsiders thought to have spellcasters in the first place).
If you can’t tell, I really like how they expanded what divine magic means in this edition, and who uses it. So I’d hate to see it stuffed back into the cleric and cleric adjacent box, although I can see that many feel the opposite.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we'll have divine witches in the final product. I'm guessing the lack of a divine witch has more to do with giving the oracle some space for the playtest than anything else. It's not really that big of a deal to add the spell list in once the actual form of the witch is hammered out.
the fiend isn’t powerful enough to have clerics, but they can certainly teach others to follow in their footsteps.
I mean, maybe. Whether or not that's actually true seems like it's the crux of the question here.
If you can’t tell, I really like how they expanded what divine magic means in this edition, and who uses it. So I’d hate to see it stuffed back into the cleric and cleric adjacent box, although I can see that many feel the opposite.
Er, do they? I haven't seen anyone suggest it should go back to being Cleric only. Just that some people still want it to be different or for various reasons aren't particularly interested in divine witches or the thematic baggage that some people have been suggesting.
If you can’t tell, I really like how they expanded what divine magic means in this edition, and who uses it. So I’d hate to see it stuffed back into the cleric and cleric adjacent box, although I can see that many feel the opposite.Er, do they? I haven't seen anyone suggest it should go back to being Cleric only.
Okay, so it’s really hard to not respond with sarcasm when you’ve misquoted me. I didn’t say anyone wants cleric only; although a number have explicitly said
After reading the Patrons thread, I feel that we may already have our Divine Witches. They are called Clerics.
So you know, there’s that. By “cleric and cleric adjacent” I meant both clerics and those that access magic in a similar manner, like a champion or monk (or inquisitor once we have those again), or the direct inverse of the normal paradigm as oracles do.
And yes, certainly people have argued that only people connected in some way to deities should get divine magic. Such as:
Thinking of it in reverse this also cuts off an oddity from cropping up, that is Non-Divinities granting divine magic. A creature granting Divine magic is the bailiwick of the gods.
I’m not going to tell them they’re wrong in wanting that. I just want something different.
That seems more like the belief that a divine witch is too thematically similar to a Cleric than suggestion divine magic should be the domain of cleric and cleric like classes.
For me it's less about who should 'own' divinity and more about whether or not it's okay for divine magic to have different rules than arcane magic, or whether or not it's okay to have a pick-a-list caster that doesn't have access to every spell list.
Also there have been people in this thread suggesting that demonic patrons should specifically grant divine magic (coupled with the other thread about making patrons more specific) and personally I think that'd be terrible because the divine list is pretty terrible and I'd hate to see people end up shackled to it.
That said I don't think it's really ultimately a big deal either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also there have been people in this thread suggesting that demonic patrons should specifically grant divine magic (coupled with the other thread about making patrons more specific) and personally I think that'd be terrible because the divine list is pretty terrible and I'd hate to see people end up shackled to it.
Do you have a reason beyond the terribleness of the spell list demons shouldn’t grant divine magic? If patrons aren’t just going to grant occult, why would a demon HAVE to grant one of the other lists?
Or to phrase another way, what specifically would prevent a demon from teaching divine that fey and aberrations don’t have to deal with?
Edit: to be clear, I’m not trying to be snarky. Just trying to figure out why people think the way they do.
What would be really weird is having fey teach a witch divine magic. I don’t think that makes sense for the base class. A divine option sounds like a good premise for a class archetype.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would be really weird is having fey teach a witch divine magic. I don’t think that makes sense for the base class. A divine option sounds like a good premise for a class archetype.
The Eldest are feys that grew powerful enough to become deities. They grant divine magic too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really seems like Golarion lore includes divine witches.
It also seems that witches do not learn spells but are granted them.
That matches up with the play test document.
I was totally confused and wrong about this them learning spells.Makes me wonder why Intelligence is the casting stat.
If I have this right, no study or understanding is needed.This is all wrong.
Studying/understanding/learning is explicitly a major part of how Witches learn spells. They are not granted spells by a powerful patron, that's Clerics.
That's one of the biggest distinctions between the two of them and probably one of the main reasons there aren't divine witches, because the nature by which they learn magic is entirely different.
Obviously Paizo could change that tomorrow and personally if witches can be divine casters or not doesn't mater to me, but a lot of these justifications for divine witches are based on fundamental mischaracterizations of the whole class and I'm not a huge fan of that.
From the playtest document:
"This entity is mysterious and distant,
revealing only fragments of its identity and motivations
over time, but it grants you spells and other magical
powers through a familiar, which serves as a conduit
for its power."
Spells and other magical powers are granted.
It goes on to talk about spells being taught-to the familiar.
Some entries in the pf1 srd make it clear that once a witch chooses a specific patron, turning against that patron will strip them of their power.
That also suggests granted, not learned power.
It doesn't much matter to me, but it should be made clear in the lore,are the spells learned or granted,and is it the familiar or the witch that knows or has been granted the spell.
If not changing the lore is a priority, and pf1 Golarian witches could learn some spells that were normally Divine,but cast all spells as Arcane, why did the developers change that?
Why not declare that witches can cast from any tradition, or from a class specific list, but all spells cast are Arcane?
Instead they could cast from any of three traditions.
That is a change in the lore.
I don't believing that eliminating divine from the choice of traditions available to the witch is supported by claiming adherence to lore.
If adherence to lore is key, they should cast from the Arcane tradition and get lots of opportunity to add spells normally exclusive the Divine tradition to their spells known.
No casting Occult or Primal spells, unless they are added to spells known and cast as Arcane.
It seems that the developers interpretation of pf1 witches is more NOT Divine, and less IS arcane.
Here's a reason for witches to not have a divine spell list available to them, it might be easier to balance them in the same book as Oracle if they don't have access to the same spell list the Oracle has.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a reason for witches to not have a divine spell list available to them, it might be easier to balance them in the same book as Oracle if they don't have access to the same spell list the Oracle has.
While that was my original thought too, based on some of the feedback from the designers there was clear intent to not include Divine outside of just letting the Oracle shine.
From what I understand, what we have now is just the "starting place".
They could roll back all lists to Occult, add Divine, or any number of things. But it was deliberate to leave Divine off the lists for the playtest outside of just the Oracle being divine (though I'd be surprised if that wasn't at least a factor).
I think the lore adequately justifies the lack of access to the Divine tradition. I don't necessarily believe the patron even needs to have access to those abilities themselves, ignoring the fact that the deities are cosmic level beings. The way I see it, instead of providing the power from themselves, they are connecting their Witch to a source of power and perhaps that source of power is more an indication of how the patron expects the Witch to act on their behalf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the lore adequately justifies the lack of access to the Divine tradition.
I keep seeing this repeated.
Where does the lore itself give this indication? Omission isn’t proof to me.
It’s not meant to be snarky, I’m honestly asking what specifically says things like a learned caster like the witch getting access to the divine tradition is contrary to the lore.
Even then, lore has changed already. Lore changes every book. Is limiting a games progress with restrictions so minute that important to preserving lore? We’re not talking about something huge here, there’s a lot of reasonable ways this doesnt have to conflict lore.
Putting your foot down for big lore issues makes sense, is this a big lore thing or is it something stifling the growth of a class based on a few personal takes on how divine power works?
I’m always going to be an inclusive over exclusive when being inclusive means more concepts can be fulfilled. IMO iconic, well reasoned, concepts.
By the rest of your post I would have said you were in favor of a divine witch, because all of that logic can be used to accentuate why a patron can manifest whatever powers they want to a witch provided they have lessons to teach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lore: beings that grant you divine magic are Deities and you’re a Cleric. That’s how it works.
That’s how it works for clerics.
How does it work for sorcerers, oracles, and monks?
Yeah, the setting write up for the arcane and divine magic traditions makes it pretty clear.
I don’t consider a monk’s focus powers on the same level as spell list access.
|
Lore: beings that grant you divine magic are Deities and you’re a Cleric. That’s how it works.That’s how it works for clerics.
How does it work for sorcerers, oracles, and monks?
Sorcerers and Monks aren't granted their powers, as has been repeatedly said to you multiple times at this point.
And Oracles get their powers from Deities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll cite the core rule books description for the divine spell list:
The power of the divine is steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in a power source from beyond the Material Plane.
This is a direct call on the power of the divine. It doesn’t say where it comes from but it does state three things
1. It is steeped in faith
2. The unseen
3. Belief in a power source from beyond the Material plane.
Witches have faith in their lessons, which is why they learned them. Patrons are about as unseen as it gets, even more so than a deity, and demons angels archons are certainly powers from beyond the material plane.
It goes on to describe the three most common examples of getting divine power in the core Rulebook:
Clerics are the most iconic divine spellcasters, beseeching the gods to grant them their magic. Divine sorcerers can use the blood of their celestial or fiendish ancestors as a divine conduit, and champions call upon their gods to grant them martial prowess through divine guidance.
None of which function identically nor do they dictate that magic does not work in any other ways other than these three ways.
The monk Ki spells states:
By tapping into a supernatural inner reserve called ki, you can create magical effects. Certain feats grant you special spells called ki spells, which are a type of focus spell.
So a supernatural inner reserve that anyone that’s taught can access is possible to learn, through monastic discipline and faith, divine power.
You choose your casting tradition when you gain your focus pool, and can choose divine.
Let’s read a ki spell feat:
Ki Strike:
Your study of the flow of mystical energy allows you to harness it into your physical strikes
Now, I’m curious, how did the monk study mystical energy and thus learn divine power if it’s impossible?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never said it's impossible to learn, I have also never said the only way to gain divine magic is by it being granted.
There is zero point in continuing this if you absolutely refuse to actually read what others are saying.
Rysky I asked for an earnest citation in what was the hurdle in learning divine power, to which you responded with a one line Lore:
beings that grant you divine magic are Deities and you’re a Cleric. That’s how it works.
Which states pretty plainly that only deities can grant divine power, which was the comment following my comment about asking for a lore citation.
Also, and I maybe I’m over reading it, the statement “that’s how it works” came across very condescending.
I then said that’s how it works for non clerics, because you cited the cleric specifically after I literally asked for a something other than omission.
I said I was earnestly asking for what constitutes a failure for the witch with the current lore to have a divine list, I literally wanted to be educated.
You then follow with this gem:
Sorcerers and Monks aren't granted their powers, as has been repeatedly said to you multiple times at this point.
And Oracles get their powers from Deities.
Yeah. I’m the one not reading other people’s posts. Your attitude is palpable.
I then cite the actual book instead of letting your comments bug me, where I cite not only that deities aren’t the only method, some methods are unseen, and some come from supernatural inner forces and can be learned via study.
And your retort is I’m not reading your arguments well enough for us to discuss this when you inserted yourself to the argument where I was specifically stating I wanted to know a lore reason for this divine magic kerfuffle that people are using as reasoning for disallowing the Witch the divine spell list.
Consider the discussion over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may have been stated but just to make sure
...but it grants you spells and other magical
powers through a familiar, which serves as a conduit
for its power.
A patron might be a deity working outside their
official hierarchy,...I remember a lot of discussions about how a deity could just send a cleric or just make a cleric. But here is the witch playtest itself saying a deity could be the patron of a witch.
In which case the reason for not getting divine magic cant be "oh it's not being granted by a deity".
it's more like, if you're going to grant someone divine spells, you might as well just hook them up the normal way, and this also means they can't suddenly betray you and keep all their magic.
if they need to be super covert they'd not use divine magic, and hence why the witch exists as possible with deity patrons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
on the sorc and monk thing, i guess it was a different thread.
socerers use their blood as a conduit, they still don't cast the magic themselves.
Monks being divine or occult is probably because Ki is technichally your spirit and thus could be technically either. Also it was probably to keep from calling eastern atheistic religious traditions universally occult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument there was if something grants you divine magic you're a Cleric, not that a Deity can't be a Patron.
I'm not wholly following your argument either now.
I have two questions for clarification: 1) Do you see witches as being granted their power, or leaning their power? Some have argued for both, so I'm curious which you see.
2) Do you think Divine tradition magic can be learned, and specifically can it be learned by a witch should someone be willing to teach them (question obviously answered in the negative if you see witches as being granted power, of course)?
If you see witches as being granted their powers, then I can see why divine witches would thematically not work for you. I'm curious how you see the other patrons as able to grant powers, or the lore implications of, say, a Kyton being able to grant Occult magic but not the divine magic they innately cast, but that's a different discussion than this particular point.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When witches and wizards study, they use intelligence. For wizards, their learning is academic. For witches, their learning is more intuitive, but still fundamentally based on knowledge and lessons.
When clerics study, they use wisdom. For clerics, perceiving, intuiting, understanding their gods is the purpose. Memorizing holy texts doesn't grant a cleric power, it is by understanding and connecting to the nature of their deity via those texts, and communing through prayer.
Those differences are highly related to the traditions of magic each can cast. I don't see divine spells as ones you can learn. And so the witch, as a class that learns their spells shouldn't have access to the divine tradition.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument there was if something grants you divine magic you're a Cleric, not that a Deity can't be a Patron.I'm not wholly following your argument either now.
I have two questions for clarification: 1) Do you see witches as being granted their power, or leaning their power? Some have argued for both, so I'm curious which you see.
2) Do you think Divine tradition magic can be learned, and specifically can it be learned by a witch should someone be willing to teach them (question obviously answered in the negative if you see witches as being granted power, of course)?If you see witches as being granted their powers, then I can see why divine witches would thematically not work for you. I'm curious how you see the other patrons as able to grant powers, or the lore implications of, say, a Kyton being able to grant Occult magic but not the divine magic they innately cast, but that's a different discussion than this particular point.
1) I’m approaching it from both sides atm until it’s clarified, and I hope in the final version it is clarified that they learn their power (like a Wizard) rather than being granted it (like a Cleric).
2) Learning divine magic in and of itself isn’t strictly outside the realm of reason, and Clerics/Champions/Inquisitors have to have some amount of learning and training to use their magic (this is shown often in the novels).
3) Because going off Lore one of the things that make a Deity a Deity is the granting of spells (granting the Divine Tradition in P2). Baba Yaga hasn’t ascended to being a Deity yet since she refuses to grant spells (and doesn’t want to listen to people constantly whining to her).
A being “granting” the other Traditions has things to think about. Infusions? Pacts? Siphoning? But gifting a follower divine magic is uniquely a deity thing.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record I do not read Rysky as being condescending. In fact I do not think Rysky is ever condescending. I think we have a typical case of people being on the defensive and internet making it feel like they are aggressive when they are not (both sides actually).
That said I do not believe at all that Divine magic can only be granted by deities and that we could not find an explanation for Witches using the Divine tradition just as easily as we find explanations for why they cannot.
BTW Mythic characters in PF1 can grant spells to their worshippers IIRC, by way of accessing the source of divine power beyond the deities if I remember my Hierophant well.
|
|
What if the Patron is putting the Witch on the path to Divinity?Correct, that Mythic Path (which I think was general not specific) was turning you into a Divinity.
Granted there was also Beyond Morality...
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Creatures aren’t required to be Divine casters to ascend to divinity.
What if the Patron is putting the Witch on the path to Divinity?Correct, that Mythic Path (which I think was general not specific) was turning you into a Divinity.
Granted there was also Beyond Morality...
Only if it conforms with someone's personal view of the witch.
Because if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, but I hate ducks, then it is required to be a chicken.
Lore: beings that grant you divine magic are Deities and you’re a Cleric. That’s how it works.
Citation please.
PF1 CRB made a big point on how divine magic originated from a "divine source" and then went on to list deities along with other examples.
PF2 CRB also avoided implicating deities into the core description of the divine tradition, only mentioning a "power source from beyond the Material Plane" and then only mentioning deities in the specific context of Clerics & Champions.
Considering neither CRB supports this, I'm still wondering where this assertion actually comes from and would really like to know a source I could actually look at.
1) I’m approaching it from both sides atm until it’s clarified, and I hope in the final version it is clarified that they learn their power (like a Wizard) rather than being granted it (like a Cleric).
I have never said it's impossible to learn, I have also never said the only way to gain divine magic is by it being granted.
Following this, it should then be possible for a divine Patron to teach their Witch divine magic, yes? Otherwise, why not?
|
|
Because that’s too close to granting it, which is what makes someone a deity. That’s the pretty much only common thread about what makes a deity, not that they’re super powerful, but that they grant divine magic. If you grant magic to followers your a deity, that’s what makes you a deity.
This info is spread throughout books and designer posts, basically the first Core Rulebook, being setting neutral, had a lot of stuff that doesn’t jell with Golarion and P2. Clerics of ideas that give themselves superpowers being a big one.
The P2 Rulebook doesn’t hard code Deities into being involved in the Divine Tradition because they’re not. Sorcerers and Oracles can use it, but it’s innate (or a whole headache concerning the Oracle that is still being worked on).
So if I'm understanding you correctly... divine magic can be learned, but cannot be taught? Because I don't see how that makes any sense at all.
Considering demigods also grant magic to their followers, what is the difference between them and deities if the "only common thread about what makes a deity" is granting magic?
And the PF2 rulebook doesn't just leave it open for Sorcerers. If divine magic was "granted by deity OR innate," then why didn't the description actually say that? Instead it specifies "power source from beyond the Material Plane," which would apply to many more beings than just deities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually a pretty good description of a lot of takes on religious enlightenment. The mysteries of the divine can be learned, but cannot be taught.
|
|
Considering demigods also grant magic to their followers, what is the difference between them and deities if the "only common thread about what makes a deity" is granting magic?From a follower perspective? Absolutely nothing.
And the PF2 rulebook doesn't just leave it open for Sorcerers. If divine magic was "granted by deity OR innate," then why didn't the description actually say that? Instead it specifies "power source from beyond the Material Plane," which would apply to many more beings than just deities.
Why would it need to?
That line leaves it open, futureproofing for the now current Oracle.
Are there any Feats that give Divine spells or cantrips? That would be another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually a pretty good description of a lot of takes on religious enlightenment. The mysteries of the divine can be learned, but cannot be taught.
I wouldn't compare enlightenment to learning spells. And considering Irori became a deity by achieving enlightenment in Golarion lore, I don't think that really works as a comparison by lore either.
And if that was how divine magic worked throughout the tradition, then a Monk couldn't teach another monk how to use a divine focus spell like ki strike. Saying that a Monk couldn't share the secrets of punching really hard seems very wrong.
Considering demigods also grant magic to their followers, what is the difference between them and deities if the "only common thread about what makes a deity" is granting magic?From a follower perspective? Absolutely nothing.
No, not from a follower perspective. You said:
That’s the pretty much only common thread about what makes a deity, not that they’re super powerful, but that they grant divine magic. If you grant magic to followers your a deity, that’s what makes you a deity.
Demigods grant divine magic to followers. Demigods are not deities... So why is a not-deity able to grant magic when that is the definition you proposed for being a deity?
That line leaves it open, futureproofing for the now current Oracle.
Are there any Feats that give Divine spells or cantrips? That would be another.
If the divine tradition is specifically being left open for other options, then nothing prevents Patrons from moving into that opening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually a pretty good description of a lot of takes on religious enlightenment. The mysteries of the divine can be learned, but cannot be taught.I wouldn't compare enlightenment to learning spells. And considering Irori became a deity by achieving enlightenment in Golarion lore, I don't think that really works as a comparison by lore either.
I don't think that divine spellcasting is the same as achieving enlightenment, but it certainly informs my conception of divine magic. Anyone can pray to the gods, but only clerics have learned to connect to their deity and through them to the divine source. I think that connection is akin to a step on the path of enlightenment.
|
|
Demigods grant divine magic to followers. Demigods are not deities... So why is a not-deity able to grant magic when that is the definition you proposed for being a deity?
… demigods are indeed deities.
Demigod is basically a mechanical term meaning lower powered deity with stats that can be killed.
If the divine tradition is specifically being left open for other options, then nothing prevents Patrons from moving into that opening.
Other options for a class to utilize the Divine Tradtion, a being granting the Divine Tradition is still the purview of a deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i had an interesting thought.
what if witches could choose their list but always cast as an occult caster... they use occult casting spell for everything.