Why can't witches choose the divine tradition?


Witch Playtest

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Is it a playtest thing? Because I find it strange that the flavor text of the patrons mention deities, demigods and archdevils but you can't choose the divine tradition.

I would really like to have the option of playing the historic witch with a 'pact with the devil'.


The patron class feature specifically mentions deities and demigods using witches as a way to act outside their normal sphere of influence. So it makes sense they aren't divinely empowered in the traditional sense and instead draw on another form of magic.

A deal with the devil witch could easily work with Occult or Arcane, imo.


Luigi Lizza wrote:

Is it a playtest thing? Because I find it strange that the flavor text of the patrons mention deities, demigods and archdevils but you can't choose the divine tradition.

I would really like to have the option of playing the historic witch with a 'pact with the devil'.

Thematically, I'm glad they don't. Occult can cover the devil pact with more ambiguity where the witch thinks they have (or can gain) the upper hand.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In the fullness of time, I am sure there will be a divine option (may not be in the APG), but I suspect they didn't want people comparing the divine oracle to the divine witch in the playtest or be in a huff because "they have two divine things in the playtest and only 1 arcane thing" (and let's not pretend that wouldn't have happened).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the text, I assume that if it gave you divine spells the jig would be up. The whole point of the witch seems to be about patron anonymity, if they gave you divine spells, they really wouldn't be anonymous anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure, or like Nethys is a Deity but didn't really lose any of his Arcane powers, right?
Imagining that Deities are somehow kept in the Divine only box seems limiting for most powerful beings in universe.
And of course, there already is a way to be divine caster serving divine patron, it's called a Cleric.


Thematically dunno, but I think it would be nice if Witches were able to cast Heal. They could be strong healers in PF1 and able to cast all cure wounds and get the healing hex.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Thematically dunno, but I think it would be nice if Witches were able to cast Heal. They could be strong healers in PF1 and able to cast all cure wounds and get the healing hex.

Witches of the Primal tradition can cast Heal, so yeah, they can! :)


Soothe is there as well for occult witches. But prepared heal spells isn't a great way to go.

The Concordance

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say the advanced guide will have more. For example, Oracles are quite limited right now with only 3 mysteries I think. In 2e's original playtest, the sorcerers only had a handful of options as well and they were greatly expanded on in full release.

I'd say rest well knowing there will most likely be more hexes, patron templates, and the like in full release.

Failing that, DM homebrew is always an option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Soothe is there as well for occult witches. But prepared heal spells isn't a great way to go.

Sure, but Primal/Occult having them on list also enables scrolls/wands/staves usage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chester Dorn wrote:

I would say the advanced guide will have more. For example, Oracles are quite limited right now with only 3 mysteries I think. In 2e's original playtest, the sorcerers only had a handful of options as well and they were greatly expanded on in full release.

I'd say rest well knowing there will most likely be more hexes, patron templates, and the like in full release.

Failing that, DM homebrew is always an option.

Indeed. Here I'll just make a couple real quick, using focus spells from the CRB:

Lesson of Withering (divine) You learn the call of the grave hex, and your familiar learns ray of enfeeblment.

Lesson of Authority (divine) You learn the forced quiet hex, and your familiar learns command.

I wish Ghoul's cravings was a 1st level spell, because a lesson of hunger with Glutton's Jaws and Ghoul's cravings sounds neat, but alas.

Well, someone pointed out one of the Basic lessons gives a 2nd level spells, so here we go.

Lesson of Ghouls (divine) You learn the glutton's jaws hex, and your familiar learns ghoulish cravings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Chester Dorn wrote:

I would say the advanced guide will have more. For example, Oracles are quite limited right now with only 3 mysteries I think. In 2e's original playtest, the sorcerers only had a handful of options as well and they were greatly expanded on in full release.

I'd say rest well knowing there will most likely be more hexes, patron templates, and the like in full release.

Failing that, DM homebrew is always an option.

Indeed. Here I'll just make a couple real quick, using focus spells from the CRB:

Lesson of Withering (divine) You learn the call of the grave hex, and your familiar learns ray of enfeeblment.

Lesson of Authority (divine) You learn the forced quiet hex, and your familiar learns command.

I wish Ghoul's cravings was a 1st level spell, because a lesson of hunger with Glutton's Jaws and Ghoul's cravings sounds neat, but alas.

Well, someone pointed out one of the Basic lessons gives a 2nd level spells, so here we go.

Lesson of Ghouls (divine) You learn the glutton's jaws hex, and your familiar learns ghoulish cravings.

I like the Lesson of Withering, makes me think I'm a henchmen of Dracula or some other grand undead being, which is another source of power that's "divine" and isn't a god (undead bloodline is divine afterall)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they grant divine power outside their normal avenue, wouldn't we just have an oracle?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If they grant divine power outside their normal avenue, wouldn't we just have an oracle?

Right now, the oracle is a group effort (possibly even an unintentional one) rather than a single god's work. Besides for a lot of witch patrons it would make more sense to have a curse trigger if you don't use a particular power instead of if you do, as it is for oracles: Why wasn't that orc that just died under a hex? I need souls. I guess it's time for you to not be able to heal until you curse and kill some humanoid, so you know not to let souls go to waste.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I would appreciate the option to have a divine witch- in addition to a god, we could have such patrons be be fiends and celestials, among others.

If we're gonna go multi tradition, I don't see the point in leaving any out, and I'd love the Witch to fully step into the niche of the prepared counterpart to the Sorcerer.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a demon Lord that makes a pact gives occult magic (magic that comes from hidden knowledge, superstition and weird pacts) while a demon Lord that is worshipped gives divine magic (magic that comes from belief and devotion).

A witch isn't generally worshipping her patron (that would be a cleric) as you don't generally make bargains with the object of your worship (you instead just do what they want and have faith that you will be rewarded in the afterlife).

One is a negotiated exchange of service for power based on mutual gain, the other is an offering of service expecting nothing in return based on faith and devotion that sometimes grants you power (and the power isn't a reward, it is your deity giving you additional responsibilities and the power to carry them out)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luigi Lizza wrote:

Is it a playtest thing? Because I find it strange that the flavor text of the patrons mention deities, demigods and archdevils but you can't choose the divine tradition.

I would really like to have the option of playing the historic witch with a 'pact with the devil'.

That Divine list isn't a big loss.


I think not having divine witches is fine. We have clerics and sorcerers and oracles, each of which seems capable of filling that role. I'm not even totally sold on witches gaining the arcane spell list


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tender Tendrils wrote:
I think a demon Lord that makes a pact gives occult magic (magic that comes from hidden knowledge, superstition and weird pacts) while a demon Lord that is worshipped gives divine magic (magic that comes from belief and devotion).

If that was the case, wouldn’t Summon Fiend be on the Occult list?

The way I understood it, fiends, celestials, and monitors are associated with the divine list because that’s the magic of the outer planes and various spirit planes. Same reason clerics get divine magic actually; they get it because their primary source for magic are creatures that are fundamentally made up divine magic, not because they access magic through worship. Sorcerers too; they certainly don’t worship their own blood, but get divine magic all the same.

I think we’ll eventually get a couple class archetypes for the cleric that changes what spell list they get based on some of their non-deity worship options like Old Ones and Eldest.


I think they would need to have a sidebar or something about how a demon (or devil) can teach somebody how to cast spells off a different list than the one demon's (and devil's) use. Not a big deal, really, just "there are a lot of occult caster souls in the Abyss (or Hell), and the fiend can access their knowledge (even if the petitioner can't access it themselves)."


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i feel any patron can give pretty much any lesson, it's not a direct source of power from the patron to the witch. so a demonlord patron could give any of the lessons. the reason to not give divine, is that kind of power, tends to need a source and that could easily give them away.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Witches with devil and demon patrons are a stereotype, so divine patrons seem appropriate (more appropriate than arcane patrons).


It seems like Witches are not divine so there is plausible deniability. Have you ever watched a movie or TV show with a terrorist cell? Each person only needs to know what they need to do so if they're caught it can't bring down the whole cell.

Patrons are hiding both from gods and from the witch themselves. What if a good witch had an evil patron and she discovered who it was. The witch might reveal that to the good gods and tell them what her evil patron wanted her to do. Don't forget the Witch is not loyal to her patron like a Cleric to a God.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And if they did talk.... then what? The Evil deity would get a stern talking to from the Good ones?

Witches/Patrons are not pivotal to the universe in that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

And if they did talk.... then what? The Evil deity would get a stern talking to from the Good ones?

Witches/Patrons are not pivotal to the universe in that way.

no... though his plans would be foiled, depending on how much instruction the witch received, a good deal of what the entity is after could be revealed and prevented.

S. J. Digriz wrote:

Witches with devil and demon patrons are a stereotype, so divine patrons seem appropriate (more appropriate than arcane patrons).

you can they just don't give you a divine spell list...

like i assume in general devils and devas are teaching you magic and not giving you a divine conduit. like the witch does magic on their own terms through the lessons they learn not via their patron.

if the patron dies you retain your lessons. that's how i imagine how it all works.

divine magic comes from divine entities and so i can't see this working with keeping anonymity.

I really don't understand how the community goes from "oh there's no divine spell list" to "guess we can't have devils or devas as patrons".

Patrons wrote:

A patron might be a deity working outside their official hierarchy, a coven of powerful hags, a demigod seeking to avoid divine notice, a fey lord, an archdevil, or any similarly powerful entity, or perhaps multiple such figures working in tandem.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hmm, you know what? I'm kind of in agreement with the person that mentioned they weren't entirely sold on Witches getting the Arcane list, if we're going to limit them, limiting them to Occult or Primal would be most flavorful.

It also matches the possible paths the Changelings in the Bestiary refer to- that Changelings tend to either become Hags (an Occult Path) or Druid types (a Primal Path)

It would also solve some of the issues people are seeing about the wizard vs. the witch


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Hmm, you know what? I'm kind of in agreement with the person that mentioned they weren't entirely sold on Witches getting the Arcane list, if we're going to limit them, limiting them to Occult or Primal would be most flavorful.

It also matches the possible paths the Changelings in the Bestiary refer to- that Changelings tend to either become Hags (an Occult Path) or Druid types (a Primal Path)

It would also solve some of the issues people are seeing about the wizard vs. the witch

but arcane is the only one that can get stuff like baleful polymorph and dominate at the same time.

Imo, arcane is the most accurate to a witch.

(i hope i'm not coming off as contrarian, i just really like how witch turned out, need a bit more flavor on lessons and more generic feats but i like their base abilities a lot)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Hmm, you know what? I'm kind of in agreement with the person that mentioned they weren't entirely sold on Witches getting the Arcane list, if we're going to limit them, limiting them to Occult or Primal would be most flavorful.

It also matches the possible paths the Changelings in the Bestiary refer to- that Changelings tend to either become Hags (an Occult Path) or Druid types (a Primal Path)

It would also solve some of the issues people are seeing about the wizard vs. the witch

but arcane is the only one that can get stuff like baleful polymorph and dominate at the same time.

Imo, arcane is the most accurate to a witch.

(i hope i'm not coming off as contrarian, i just really like how witch turned out, need a bit more flavor on lessons and more generic feats but i like their base abilities a lot)

That's absolutely a good point, it could technically be handled via feats like the Sorcerer gets for their Primal Evolution, but its still a good point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

divine magic comes from divine entities and so i can't see this working with keeping anonymity.

I really don't understand how the community goes from "oh there's no divine spell list" to "guess we can't have devils or devas as patrons".

Devils and devas are divine entities now. Did you mean deities?

Not trying to pick a fight, but I can tell this is going to be as much of a stumbling block for people as “focus powers are spells.” Although I do agree that a divine entity can teach or inspire someone to cast magic of a different tradition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
I really don't understand how the community goes from "oh there's no divine spell list" to "guess we can't have devils or devas as patrons".

I'm the opposite in I don't see why some people get hung up with the idea that "divine must equal god/goddess, no exceptions."

The definition of divine magic in the CRB mentions it being related to power sources from beyond the Material plane. Looking through the bestiary, anything associated with aligned/afterlife planes seems to get divine magic by default - including aeons, angels, fiends, proteans, psychopomps, and even the Grim Reaper who is noted to serve "no god, fiend, or aeon."

Sorcerers can then get divine magic simply for having the blood of such creatures within them - no need for belief/worship and the power can't be taken away. I don't see why a Witch with a fiendish/etc. patron should be any different. Not only would it be consistent with with how Clerics & Sorcerers work (magic from being of tradition X is also tradition X), but it seems like you have to jump through hoops to justify why magic from such a being is suddenly a different tradition.

---

On another note, am I the only one who kinda dislikes the implication that deities would never be openly connected to Witches? Real-world myths/religions have had deities who are patrons of Witchcraft, so I don't see why that would be discouraged in a fantasy setting (even if such deities might prefer followers who multiclass Witch/Cleric).

Honestly, I'd imagine that any complete pantheon would have at least a few deities who'd be highly representative of nearly every class in the game. I'd hate to see deities limited to Clerics/Champions & in Golarion at least it seems like it'd be easy/natural for many Druids to worship Gozreh, Bards worship Desna, etc.


Given the existence of divine sorcerers and oracles, a witch weilding divine magic is hardly a dead giveaway about the source.

If witches learn magic rather than being granted magic and divine magic cannot be taught, then witches shouldn't get access to the divine tradition.
Three assumptions make this work, and any of the three can be changed, because they are just lore


The Ronyon wrote:

Given the existence of divine sorcerers and oracles, a witch weilding divine magic is hardly a dead giveaway about the source.

If witches learn magic rather than being granted magic and divine magic cannot be taught, then witches shouldn't get access to the divine tradition.
Three assumptions make this work, and any of the three can be changed, because they are just lore

one of the main goals and was stated numerous times, is that the lore of the game would not change in the new edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
The Ronyon wrote:

Given the existence of divine sorcerers and oracles, a witch weilding divine magic is hardly a dead giveaway about the source.

If witches learn magic rather than being granted magic and divine magic cannot be taught, then witches shouldn't get access to the divine tradition.
Three assumptions make this work, and any of the three can be changed, because they are just lore

one of the main goals and was stated numerous times, is that the lore of the game would not change in the new edition.

Didn't the first edition allow clerics to not worship god's?

"While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)"

Are godless clerics allowed in pf2?
If not, isn't this a change in lore, one that specifically affects the nature of the divine?

Is there a reason that the not changing lore standard shouldn't apply in one case, but should in another?

I have played clerics in every edition of dnd and also in pathfinder, yet pf2's lack of interesting(to me) god's or the option to be godless has stopped me from even exploring the class further.

If they are willing to change divine lore in one case ,but decline to change divine lore in another case,that is an editorial choice, not adherence to a design principle.

They have changed divine lore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
one of the main goals and was stated numerous times, is that the lore of the game would not change in the new edition.

The lore has already had to change to compensate for Divine Sorcerers, a new spell list entirely, the removal of several magic items, etc.

This isn't an earth shattering change to lore to allow witches to learn a lesson from a divine patron that translates to a divine spell list.

Adding new lore that corroborates a Witch with a Divine lesson does not harm existing lore. It amends it. Amending lore is the natural progression of any game. After all, the Witch didn't exist until PF1 APG. That means the Lore was amended to include witches.

Nothing has to be rewritten to compensate for a Divine witch, only added to explain the how, and I think we can all agree that Paizo is certainly creative enough to find a reasonable, creative, and appropriate "how" if they so choose (see the Oracle).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Ronyon wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
The Ronyon wrote:

Given the existence of divine sorcerers and oracles, a witch weilding divine magic is hardly a dead giveaway about the source.

If witches learn magic rather than being granted magic and divine magic cannot be taught, then witches shouldn't get access to the divine tradition.
Three assumptions make this work, and any of the three can be changed, because they are just lore

one of the main goals and was stated numerous times, is that the lore of the game would not change in the new edition.

Didn't the first edition allow clerics to not worship god's?

"While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)"

Are godless clerics allowed in pf2?
If not, isn't this a change in lore, one that specifically affects the nature of the divine?

Is there a reason that the not changing lore standard shouldn't apply in one case, but should in another?

I have played clerics in every edition of dnd and also in pathfinder, yet pf2's lack of interesting(to me) god's or the option to be godless has stopped me from even exploring the class further.

If they are willing to change divine lore in one case ,but decline to change divine lore in another case,that is an editorial choice, not adherence to a design principle.

They have changed divine lore.

Goddless Clerics were allowed in the Setting Neutral Core Rulebook, they were not allowed in Lore.


The lore didn’t change for Divine sorcerers, the rules changed to better match the lore.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The real question is why did the devs open this can of worms in the playtest?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That seems like the best place really. They can test the waters without making irrevocable changes to the lore or class here.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
That seems like the best place really. They can test the waters without making irrevocable changes to the lore or class here.

Agreed. But what are they really testing here ?

Is it about the Witch ?

Is it about having access to several traditions but not all 4 ?

What insights are we really providing here that would not have appeared if they had opened all traditions to the Witch ?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
What insights are we really providing here that would not have appeared if they had opened all traditions to the Witch ?

Probably, "How would the community react to this kind of change?"

After all, wanting to try something different which is likely to (& has been) greatly disliked by the community is much better to do in a playtest rather than the real thing. In another thread this was given as an explanation:
Lyz Liddell wrote:

Take a look at the intersection of magical traditions and essences (Core Rulebook 299-300). The witch in P1 was an arcane caster, so that suggests witches are tapping into primarily mind and matter. They can then access any tradition that uses one of those two essences: arcane, occult, and primal—but not divine.

Now, that's how we got where we are. If that's not where it seems like we should go, we can absolutely revisit that, and I've seen some really interesting suggestions as to why we might want to. But as far as "why was this decided?", there you go.


Goddless Clerics were allowed in the Setting Neutral Core Rulebook, they were not allowed in Lore.

I see. I didn't know that.

Thank you for setting me strait.

Making the setting part of the core rules,is a change that might be part of the confusion.
Since I'm clearly not up on Golarion lore and where it diverges from pf1 core rules, do witches "learn" magic in Golarion lore?
The PF1 core rules on nethys say they are granted power.
The Blood of the Coven entry says it's intended for use with the pathfinder campaign setting,and it has a few patron choices that involve divine or infernal creatures.
The Paths of the Righteous entry also says it is intended for use with the pathfinder campaign setting and it seems to have provisions for divine witches.

All of that confuses me.
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.

I can't find where the original lore prevents divine witches.
It is mentioned that they cast arcane spells, but they also had their own spell list which includes spells like cure light wounds.
They also have some divine patrons.
I don't think the primal and occult traditions had been established.
If witches being arcane casters in pf1 is lore that means they cannot cast divine spells now, then they shouldn't be casting primal or occult spells either.

If this is the crux of the matter,then let them loose to choose from all the spell lists, but no matter what spells they chose, declare that they are cast as arcane.
I don't think that would make anyone happy, but, if witches casting arcane spells exclusively is lore, and changing lore is to be avoided, then witches shouldn't be casting primal or occult spells.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Patrons didn’t beam spells into the Witch’s head like a Deity does a Cleric in P1, it was more a student/teacher relationship.

In P1 they were Arcane with a heavy dose of normally Divine spells mixed in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

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.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Blood of the Coven is more Golarian specific lore. I would argue based on that Divine witches make as much sense as any other tradition besides occult, but ymmv. And not because deities are patrons; but it because it seems silly to me that divine innate casters wouldn’t teach their witches divine casting. Possible, but a little silly (unless ALL witches are occult casters, then it all makes sense again).

But, I clearly see divine magic differently than many, so how much my opinion is actually supported by the lore is an interesting conversation. I do like that Paizo opened the possibility of 2-3 traditions instead of all 4. Even if I disagree with it in this specific case, I enjoy the possibilities it opens.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Charon Onozuka wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
What insights are we really providing here that would not have appeared if they had opened all traditions to the Witch ?

Probably, "How would the community react to this kind of change?"

After all, wanting to try something different which is likely to (& has been) greatly disliked by the community is much better to do in a playtest rather than the real thing. In another thread this was given as an explanation:
Lyz Liddell wrote:

Take a look at the intersection of magical traditions and essences (Core Rulebook 299-300). The witch in P1 was an arcane caster, so that suggests witches are tapping into primarily mind and matter. They can then access any tradition that uses one of those two essences: arcane, occult, and primal—but not divine.

Now, that's how we got where we are. If that's not where it seems like we should go, we can absolutely revisit that, and I've seen some really interesting suggestions as to why we might want to. But as far as "why was this decided?", there you go.

Indeed I had missed that. Thank you for sharing.

So, basically, they barred the Witch in the playtest from the tradition opposing Arcane. First problem I see with this is that it is a negative, rather than positive, way to strengthen the link to Arcane that the Witch had in PF1.

The positive way would be to give a bonus to Witches using a tradition that shares en essence with Arcane, and a bigger bonus for using Arcane.

But even this feels unduly punishing for non-Arcane Witches and worse for the Divine Witches. Do Witches really need to be married to Arcane (or divorced from Divine) ? I see no good reason for this.

Also, because Essences are not really a part of the PF2 mechanics but rather of the setting's metaphysics, them having mechanical impact ends up feeling contrived.

If we really want to have a choice of 3 traditions rather than all 4, I would envision getting early access to one you pick, later access to a second you also pick and top-levels access to a third one, thereby excluding a fourth. This way you give more freedom to players in their builds and open more concepts.
But isn't this already possible in some ways in the game, even if only through multiclassing for example ? And in the end, I do not think the Witch is the thematic class for this.

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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Blood of the Coven is more Golarian specific lore. I would argue based on that Divine witches make as much sense as any other tradition besides occult, but ymmv. And not because deities are patrons; but it because it seems silly to me that divine innate casters wouldn’t teach their witches divine casting. Possible, but a little silly (unless ALL witches are occult casters, then it all makes sense again).

But, I clearly see divine magic differently than many, so how much my opinion is actually supported by the lore is an interesting conversation.

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.

Especially if Patrons can be role-models rather than direct sources for the Witch's power. Which is an idea given in the Patrons thread and that I feel opens up a whole lot of possibilities for Witches in addition to all those we already had before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
them having mechanical impact ends up feeling contrived.

No more contrived than this insistence that every pick-a-list caster MUST have all four.

Again, not that divine witches would necessarily be bad, but every position here is contrived, by definition.


I feel like I don’t have too much of a horse in this particular race, but in terms of lore skipping Divine makes sense to me.

Powerful beings who use divine magic presumably channel their own divinity, which is something that’d be pretty hard to teach to someone else.


Btw,

Shaman AONPRD wrote:
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.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Witch Playtest / Why can't witches choose the divine tradition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.