So Patrons do nothing mechanically?


Witch Playtest

51 to 100 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I think Patrons made by the GM could be a lot more meaningful than anything I might find in a book. Yes, it could be really cool to have Baba Yaga as your patron - but what if I gave a player who wants to play a Witch in Reign of Winter a patron simply known as "the child", who manifests as the distant voice of a young girl? I could even nudge the lessons a bit - Snow, Protection, Dreams and Renewal could fit, and the magic the PC receives is truly the presence of [A. R.], otherwise nonmagical, trapped in a magical dimension and exposed to a mix of eldritch powers, who reaches for a saviour in her dreams.

Or, for War for the Crown, I could grant a player the patronage of the Kind One, a powerful entity that occasionally manifests as a calm, soothing voice, nudging the character in his life choices, leading him to some inscrutable destiny as he unknowingly heads for those who have found ways to hide from said patron's more official agents - the lessons of Fate, Life, Secrets and Death complement well [P.]'s subtle manipulation of the PC's destiny, until the day he will finally "break the circle" and fullfill his task.

Patrons have a great potential for being tailor-made. Meaning is already there.

*note: this post contains reverse spoilers, and works best if you already know the plot.


well, I am up with having baba Yaga or nocticula as a patron but I think we are trying pull shifter out of commoner and kinda want to lose the main idea just so we have our dreamed clone of caster class as cannon caster. and I agree patrons need expansion as I want my seducer witch as a viable but hard concept back.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I'd be fine with either named patrons (Baba Yaga, Cthulu, Razmir, Noticula), or "patron titles" (The First Witch, The Unspeakable Deep, The Golden Man, The Mistress). The latter keeps some patron anonymity and makes the class easier to adapt to the setting for the people who want that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

I think Patrons made by the GM could be a lot more meaningful than anything I might find in a book. Yes, it could be really cool to have Baba Yaga as your patron - but what if I gave a player who wants to play a Witch in Reign of Winter a patron simply known as "the child", who manifests as the distant voice of a young girl? I could even nudge the lessons a bit - Snow, Protection, Dreams and Renewal could fit, and the magic the PC receives is truly the presence of [A. R.], otherwise nonmagical, trapped in a magical dimension and exposed to a mix of eldritch powers, who reaches for a saviour in her dreams.

Or, for War for the Crown, I could grant a player the patronage of the Kind One, a powerful entity that occasionally manifests as a calm, soothing voice, nudging the character in his life choices, leading him to some inscrutable destiny as he unknowingly heads for those who have found ways to hide from said patron's more official agents - the lessons of Fate, Life, Secrets and Death complement well [P.]'s subtle manipulation of the PC's destiny, until the day he will finally "break the circle" and fullfill his task.

Patrons have a great potential for being tailor-made. Meaning is already there.

*note: this post contains reverse spoilers, and works best if you already know the plot.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about retaining the the ability to build out a mysterious patron exactly the way you describe. The Child or the Kind One are exactly the kinds of mysterious patrons that I've envisioned for Witches. I think that the broad patron categories in the Unique Patrons section of in Blood of the Coven is the way to go. The idea of them being powerful spell-casters or actual people is a little less exciting for me, but it'd be easy enough for one of them to fall into these.

Example Green Whispers, based on Blood of the Coven wrote:

Your witch powers are a manifestation of the Green Faith or bestowed by a representative of natural forces, such as an ancient treant or nature spirit, who expects you to wield such gifts on its behalf. A witch with a Green Whisper's patron must take a first lesson with a Primal tradition.

Spellcasting Tradition: Primal
Skill: Nature
Pact Price: You cannot abide the touch of iron or steel and become sickened for 1 round whenever you come into contact with metals either intentionally or unintentionally. You gain weakness to metal equal to half your level.
Suggested Lessons: snow, life, elements, life, death, renewal

Example Replacement for Cackle wrote:

INVOKE PACT [one-action] AUDITORY SONIC

Frequency once per day
Requirements You no available focus points or the target of your hex has already been affected by your hex once today
You gain a temporary focus point which can only be used to cast one of the Focus spells you've learned from your patron. The target of your hex can be affected as if this was the first time they were targeted by this hex today. You suffer the Pact Price associated with your patron until the next time you do your Daily Preparations.

I think a patron specification like the example above gives broad thematic categories for us to work in, while still anchoring the mechanics a bit by narrowing the scope of the first lesson and giving everyone a thematic price to pay tapping into their patron's power. "The Child" you're talking about could easily be in the Green Whispers example I outlined above as a benevolent dream-like nature spirit. It'd be able to teach all of the lessons you outlined. Other traditions might be more flexible: the Hag's Calling might be primal or arcane, Empath might be primal or occult, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another Thought: Since Patrons are specific entities, what happens if that entity decides they don't want to empower the witch anymore? Is that even a thing that can happen?

I really like the anathema structure, so some rules like that representing the deal you made with your Patron. May not even need to be especially rough (ex: Put milk out before you sleep at night, or else.) but still push the idea that your power is granted to you with purpose.

You could even tie the above in making different Patrons mechanically distinct, aside from the Lessons they provide. Have the "patron titles" suggestion above and then subclass-type benefits/drawbacks/whatever.

Henro wrote:
I think I'd be fine with either named patrons (Baba Yaga, Cthulu, Razmir, Noticula), or "patron titles" (The First Witch, The Unspeakable Deep, The Golden Man, The Mistress). The latter keeps some patron anonymity and makes the class easier to adapt to the setting for the people who want that.

EDIT: Semi-ninja'd by cavernshark with actual examples. Nice!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Saedar wrote:

Another Thought: Since Patrons are specific entities, what happens if that entity decides they don't want to empower the witch anymore? Is that even a thing that can happen?

I really like the anathema structure, so some rules like that representing the deal you made with your Patron. May not even need to be especially rough (ex: Put milk out before you sleep at night, or else.) but still push the idea that your power is granted to you with purpose.

Yeah, if the patrons are agents giving the witch her powers, it would be more satisfying to have some connection between the patron’s (possibly secret) goals and the mechanical benefits the witch receives.

To allow for the option of secret goals, it might be natural to make this something less drastic than losing her powers. Perhaps something like a bonus or penalty to acts requiring rolls that the GM deems particularly aligned/in conflict with the patron’s goal for the witch.

Then the witch can slowly try to puzzle out what the goal is as they occasionally get bonuses or penalties for doing certain things in certain situations.


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

I honestly still think a witch should not know who her patron is, the text written in the witch is what convinced me of this, if the patron doesn't care that you know it's identity, why use a witch?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A patron’s death or disfavor should also not affect a witch’s power. They hook you up and hope for the best.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
A patron’s death or disfavor should also not affect a witch’s power. They hook you up and hope for the best.

while i do think it complicates the familiar a bit, you've learned enough on your own to start learning your own lessons as well.


Yep Patron types should be given title, which also have boon and pact price. Are familar acting as middleman between the witch and patron which inparts the lessons on to us. So witch will likely never know who gave them their powers unless they figured it out or were told by patron.

The powers given are witchs as patron taking a chance with them, but in return we should likely get pact price that was forged when making the pact. So if witch ever goes against their patron or it dies the witch still has it powers.


I agree about Witches keeping their power. I feel like this is an important differentiation from Clerics, who channel power directly from their god. Witches instead work for their patrons, and the payment is the power and lessons they receive. If they turn on their patrons they won't lose that power, though their patron would obviously not sit idly in that situation.


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

Personally, I think I would rather keep the vagueness of patrons as the default for the Witch, and later on add options for specific entities important to Golarion. The lessons system I think is great for this end, though I agree that perhaps a little bit more mechanical connection would be nice. Anathema would be interesting, but I don't like being forced to lose my powers when I'm already vulnerable with my familiar as my spellbook (which is a topic for another thread).

Let's put it this way: I've always imagined the Witch in 1e is that, through one way or another, your patron has given you a familiar. This familiar contains a bunch of arcane puzzles and nonsense, and as you become stronger (increase in level) you unlock the ability to parse all the information (spells) during communion. This explains the fact that you were an Int-based caster, and also explains why when your familiar bites it you can no longer cast spells (you have learned how to use the magic, yes, but the magic is still going through a conduit you no longer have) but still use hexes (they are relatively small magical tricks that you have learned to harness yourself).
When explained that way, there's no necessity for patrons to be specific, concrete entities who are teaching you things. A familiar can either be given to you from an entity that 'exists' (gods, powerful casters, etc.) for a specific purpose, or a familiar could have been formed from a quasi-real concept or a powerful event.

I guess for an example, one of my go-to-characters in 1e was a Tian Xian witch, whose fox familiar I suggested came from the (totally only a rumor we swear) relationship between Daikitsu and Nalinivati, two gods, and the theme of the patron was Enchantment. She was never visited by either of these two and it's likely neither of them knew she existed, but she was driven by a desire to foster good feelings between people and in community, and she was incited to try and charm folks away from getting in the way of that. 'Share the warmth', as it were. Of course, she became a bartender/brewer to meet that end.

That kind of vagueness in the patron design allowed me to create that character, as it wouldn't be possible had the patrons be forced to be some kind of existing entity. It is frustrating to find ways to flesh out something that is completely vague like that, though, which was one of the reasons patrons were the least expanded-upon thing in 1e. The lesson system works, but perhaps if there was a separate thing that 'chooses' your patron and gave you your spellcasting tradition at 1st level? That might help bridge things a little, at least.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
A patron’s death or disfavor should also not affect a witch’s power. They hook you up and hope for the best.

I think that's at odds with the way familiars are currently set up and function, since you're dependent on your familiar, and your familiar answers to your patron.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the idea of their being specific patrons, adds to the difficulty of homebrew and just restrains player/gm creativity in general.

Now a section of golarion specific patrons and their common lessons? Excellent! Perhaps even part of the suggested builds sidebars we get littered about the class pages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont see why the patrons cant be concepts & titles with a side bar on creating your own patron. Because I agree having a specific entity as a patron would be very limiting, but then having absolutely no info besides "it's a demon" makes it a pain to create characters.

For example a Patron of Winter could be Baba Yaga, it could be an ice elemental, it could be another Winter Witch, or an Winter spirit, etc.

Specific patrons, like those in the Blood of Covens book, should indeed have a contract type connection. With the Witch accepting some condition to gain the power.

And again build your own patron should be a side bar, saying how you and your GM could work together to make something different.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Yes that does make them a bit similar to Bard's Muse, but that has more to do with Bard's Muses being able to be absolutely anything and everything, so everything is similar to the Bard's Muse. Having the Patrons be specific/semi-specific ideas/entities can help further and shape them. Which is much more appealing.

I think the thing that differentiates "a witch's patron" from "a bard's muse" thematically is that the muse can just be some dryad that the Bard met one time which inspired them, a Patron needs to be someone who is capable of contact the witch (or their familiar) from basically anywhere in the world, on any planet, or any plane. Since you have to be able to receive your lesson when you level up and gain it, even if you're on Eox or adrift in the Maelstron or visiting Arcadia.

That sort of restricts the Patron to "powerful, or at least well-connected" entities.

Silver Crusade

Yep.

The Bard’s Muse could also just be their favourite book. It’s not hyperbole when I say it can literally be anything.

Super specific patrons (like Baba Yaga) I could see as a few but I wouldn’t want them to be the only ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What happens when you outlevel the witch who is your patron. And if a less than level 20 witch can be a patron, at what point can you just start teaching yourself and not need them anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
What happens when you outlevel the witch who is your patron. And if a less than level 20 witch can be a patron, at what point can you just start teaching yourself and not need them anymore.

Honestly a high level feat that allows you to be a patron for another witch would be pretty cool.


In that case, you usurp them and become the pupil of their patron ;P


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

I don't mind patrons have more mechanical effect as long as options exist to minimize, alter, or ignore patrons.

I'm also highly in favor of patrons acting as teachers rather than power sources. The ability to grant spells and power to a follower should be reserved for deities and clerics. Giving someone a cheat code to access a different source of power is a different matter, and it's harder to trace back to you.

To me, witches are all about using esoteric, weird, poorly understood magic to enact their will. They only borrow power from outside sources (which can be a coven or a patron) when doing large scale rituals or trying to tackle really big threats.

A familiar is allied wholly with the witch, but retains a cosmic business card for the patron. There should never, ever be a case where the witch cannot rely on their familiar to follow their orders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Reading over the thread, I actually think the best way to handle it for everyone's tastes is that the patron mentioned in the base Witch is vague and abstract (with maybe something like my goal suggestion) but with no necessary differences between patrons besides what's implied by the tradition of your spell casting and your lessons.

Then, introduce specific class feats with access requirements that refer to having a specific patron- so something like this:

Class Feat Example wrote:


Baba Yaga's Revenge Class Feat 2
[Witch] [Occult]
Access: Must have Baba Yaga as a Patron
blah blah blah

This way, if Paizo would like to create feats for Witches that correspond to a specific Patron character like Baba Yaga, or the Runelord Sorshen, or one of the Eldest, and give them unique or specific playstyle they can do that without locking all Witches into a well defined patron.

It would require Occult tradition, but I don't know how to word the prereq off the top of my head, or whether either would be a prerequisite or an access requirement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

That's the thing for me—I don't see a patron as someone who gives anyone anything. They're not a source of power... they're an inspiration. If this were a real-world concept, a patron would be more like a teacher or an inspiring author or a politician or an activist—someone whose actions inspire you to take a specific route and to study and better yourself. Which means you can even have a dead person/deity as your patron.

I could see a mechanic whereby the patrons are listed not by name, but by role. Things like "Artist" or "Singer" or "Explorer" or "Teacher" or "Politician" or whatever. But with more flavorful names that make it sound like things a witch might be into, along with a few Golarion-flavored examples of patrons, before whatever else mechanical gets in there to do its thing. This way, the player could pick ANY NPC or whoever in any setting, potentially even for different roles. For example, a witch could pick Runelord Sorshen as a Teacher or a Politician and get different results....

Isn't that more akin to a muse? Being an inspiration an all that? If it goes that way, I think "patron" as a name should change.

Agreed. I have a hard time with that, especially with the familiar acting as a transfer point for actual powers, and power loss if the familiar gets killed. That's a lot more than just 'inspiration.'

Quote:
On the threads topic: I kinda like the lessons you can string together yourself but I agree they should have more mechanical impact. At least every lesson should have one edict and one anathema.

Definitely disagree on this though. Edicts/Anathema are ridiculous punishment tools for the DM that get in the way of role-playing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like Blood of the Coven might be a good model for a halfway point.

That is, leave Lessons nebulous, but create patrons packages that tie to specific entities or specific themes. So the framework of lessons stays the same, but there's a Baba Yaga patron whose valid first lessons include Lesson of Night but not Lesson of Protection (etc).

You can add some specific effects or patron specific feats to those packages so you can make them feel more interesting without necessarily pigeonholing players and GMs who aren't interested in highly defined patrons.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The patron in PF1 was pretty bland and uninteresting.

The patron in PF2 is non-existent. It's a two paragraph blurb in the class mechanics section that doesn't have any associated mechanics. If every instance of the word "patron" were removed and the class copy/edited, it'd play exactly the same.

From the Patron section: "You weren’t born with the power to cast spells, nor have you spent years in devotion to tomes or specific entities unlocking mystical secrets. Your power instead comes through an unknown being that has chosen you as its vessel to carry forth some equally unstated plan in the world. "

It's a cool write-up, genuinely. It's just a shame that it doesn't translate into anything mechanically.

I think it'd be fine if there were a standard list of patrons that lay out lesson plans, with a "You can work with your GM to determine a different patron with their own lessons" or something if there's a patron you'd like that isn't represented.
Heck, even if the listed patrons just have suggested lessons and familiar types and whatnot it'd be better than it is now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
I'm also on board with Patrons having a stronger mechanical-thematic role within the class. I prefer mechanics that reinforce a narrative and if the narrative is that a broader variety of things can be Patrons then the mechanics should support that.

Also it would be nice if at very least there was some patrons that also had prefered lessons. So if your patron is baba yaga you can generally guess your lessons may include ice/snow type powers. This way there is a bit more guidance for player and GM about what should be some expected offered lessons. Right now its so open that the patron either won't matter or the GM could be very strict and set you lessons you were never interested in so your character is not one that does what you wanted to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Let us know! That's the point of the playtest. Myself, I'll be pushing to make patrons more interesting and significant. It should mean something different if one witch has Baba Yaga as a patron, another has Nocticula, and another has Queen Abrogail.

To me, this is definitely something the current system supports, as each of those patrons would likely teach different lessons (though I could be wrong, I'm not as familiar with Nocticula), especially as more specific lessons are added. My worry is that if too much mechanical weight is put on patrons, it will restrict the "mix-and-match to fit your patron" style lessons give. But that really depends on how the extra mechanical weight is applied.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More than lessons, too, it'd be cool if different patrons gave different, exclusive abilities to the familiar. If the familiar is going to be such a big part of how the class operates then I think it should have more to differentiate it from another caster's familiar, and be useful as more than a walking spellbook


Is gods and magic coming out before the APG? If so thats a shame as it would be the perfect place to but Witch feats with heavy ties to Golarions lore that give benefits based on having specific Patrons.


Personally I'm still in favour of single progression patron themes. This allows both for witches who understand their patron, like if they made a deal with a devil, and for a distinct mystery patron. GM overhead lands neither too high or too low, and there is still room for making your own.
That said, the question of whether to have such strong patron types comes down to how you view the patron. On the one hand, the current system does make a lot of sense if you view the patron as a teacher, with a strong interest in the witches affairs. This could be really interesting, but it excludes ideas such as a witch who stole their powers from their patron (which makes more sense for entities like cthulhu), and such a relationship could be equally supported by a theme system. Also, it places the witch halfway between a bard and a wizard, where it might be much more it's own thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see the current mechanics working well for a witch who "steals" their power. You don't need to change any mechanics, just the "fluff" of your familiar relationship.

Stealing power from an ancient aberration? You bet I'm going to use a familiar as an intermediary between myself and the mind warping elder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


I think main problem I have with current version is that more lazy gms or players might just choose lessons and never really bother thinking about the patron. Because there is really no mechanical reason to think about the patron's flavor, since you can mix and match lesson options however you want. Its currently roleplaying only thing where if you are lucky, maybe your gm wants to roleplay the patron and how they interact with you. But if they don't, well, I guess its just some nebulous entity that gives you stuff but no requests. Or you can be like "I think my patron might be Asmodeus so I picked the lessons fitting for them" and GM is like "Okay cool" and leaves it at that.

So patrons are only important if your table wants them to be?

How is that bad?
Do we really need to punish "lazy gms or players" poor role playing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Let us know! That's the point of the playtest. Myself, I'll be pushing to make patrons more interesting and significant. It should mean something different if one witch has Baba Yaga as a patron, another has Nocticula, and another has Queen Abrogail.
To me, this is definitely something the current system supports, as each of those patrons would likely teach different lessons (though I could be wrong, I'm not as familiar with Nocticula), especially as more specific lessons are added. My worry is that if too much mechanical weight is put on patrons, it will restrict the "mix-and-match to fit your patron" style lessons give. But that really depends on how the extra mechanical weight is applied.

Hard disagree. Patrons are neither "interesting" or "significant" if the only thing they do is force specific lessons out of the same pool that every other Witch already had access to.

To me, that's the system punishing theme rather than supporting it. After all, ignoring your Patron as much as possible is always the optimal choice if you get all the same benefits without any of the limitations. It'd be like if Sorcerers had a Bloodline that let you individually pick out every mechanical component a bloodline gave from all of the existing bloodlines - there would never be a good reason to pick anything else.

While I'm fine with at least one of the Patron options allowing for the "vague/mysterious" route to satisfy players wishing for those kinds of stories/character arcs - I don't want it to come at the expense of allowing more thematic patrons who aren't a cosmetic skin and/or a downgrade by comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep dedicated patrons whether specific or themes should have more than the vague patron in exchange for their limits.

In terms of benefits for vagueness (more benefits first) it should be: Specific >= Theme > Vague. Even just signature lesson with no real power increase (compared to the rest) that no other patron can have might be nice. Ex Baba Yaga migh give access to a lesson granting access to a mobile home similar to the one she herself owns. While Noticula could give a lesson granting the ability to create darkness (of some type while not affecting you). And, a Patron of say Storms might grant a lesson to control weather.

Silver Crusade

The only issue I have with setting up specific people as Patrons is what is the bailiwick where one can be considered for the Patron position? Do they have to be Deities/deity level?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
The only issue I have with setting up specific people as Patrons is what is the bailiwick where one can be considered for the Patron position? Do they have to be Deities/deity level?

I'm calling you out. You just wanted to use the word bailiwick, didn't you?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The only issue I have with setting up specific people as Patrons is what is the bailiwick where one can be considered for the Patron position? Do they have to be Deities/deity level?
I'm calling you out. You just wanted to use the word bailiwick, didn't you?

Yep :3

(but that is a concern I'm genuinely curious about)


Rysky wrote:
The only issue I have with setting up specific people as Patrons is what is the bailiwick where one can be considered for the Patron position? Do they have to be Deities/deity level?

I'd hope not, otherwise I might actually agree with the people arguing that you may as well have a Cleric at that point xD (Though to be fair, I do think deities associated with witchcraft should be able to openly serve as a Witch's Patron.)

However, part of the appeal for Witch Patrons for me has always been that that the Patron doesn't have to be some godly force - merely mystical, often otherworldly, & (typically) more powerful than the Witch. For example, when I talk about wanting to make a Witch with a Devil as a patron, I'm not thinking of a great Archdevil in Hell - but rather a mid-ranked devil trying to guide/use the Witch as part of a scheme to help themselves get ahead in the infernal hierarchy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well in the case of themes you still can have any power level for the actual patron. In the case of specifics, I'm guessing it would have to be done in a case by case basis (probably following those given by Blood of Covens). But it also means you can have a variety of patrons with big requirement & power or weak requirements & power.

Having said that a fleshed out converted version of Blood of Covens could be:

* Vague patron let you choose from the list common lessons.

* Theme patrons let you choose from on theme common lessons and access to a few uncommon lessons.

* Specific patrons have a requirement and give specific lessons, but those lessons can be either mostly uncommon or include some rare lessons. (Ex the Baba Yaga house)

Silver Crusade

Charon Onozuka wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The only issue I have with setting up specific people as Patrons is what is the bailiwick where one can be considered for the Patron position? Do they have to be Deities/deity level?

I'd hope not, otherwise I might actually agree with the people arguing that you may as well have a Cleric at that point xD (Though to be fair, I do think deities associated with witchcraft should be able to openly serve as a Witch's Patron.)

However, part of the appeal for Witch Patrons for me has always been that that the Patron doesn't have to be some godly force - merely mystical, often otherworldly, & (typically) more powerful than the Witch. For example, when I talk about wanting to make a Witch with a Devil as a patron, I'm not thinking of a great Archdevil in Hell - but rather a mid-ranked devil trying to guide/use the Witch as part of a scheme to help themselves get ahead in the infernal hierarchy.

But how did they attain Patron status becomes the question. Is there a level requirement?

Can the (same level as your Witch) Wizard your friend is playing be your Patron?


Obtaining patron status would probably be extremely similar to becoming mythic in 1E. Such beings are powerful enough that a party couldn’t seriously challenge them until high levels.

Mythic characters in 1E could become pseudo-demigods and grant spells to worshippers.

Silver Crusade

Which was a whole ruleset onto itself, which we can’t really cram into the Patron section of the Witch writeup.


I don’t think that’s an issue. There are no codified rules for exactly how powerful deities are either. The point is that patrons are powerful enough that if they butt heads with the party, it will be at the end of the campaign - when the ramifications of the witch losing her patron don’t really matter anymore.

At some point I’m sure we’ll get rules supplements that deal with being ultra powerful, but I don’t think those rules are necessary for patrons to work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well as far as Patrons go, looking to Baba Yaga as both a witch and a patron.

The best examples come from the Reign of Winter adventure path.

In Maiden, Mother, Crone.

Baba Yaga was the patron to the NPC Jadrenka a level 11 witch with the Deception patron theme.

In The Witch Queen's Revenge.

Baba Yaga is a 20th Level Witch and 10th Tier Archmage, CR 30 NPC.
Her Patron theme is Fate and the Patron itself is the Divine Guardian Norn, Vigliv. A CR 19 Creature who is not a Mythic or Deific being.

In both scenarios Baba Yaga is far more powerful that both one to whom she is a patron and the the one who is her patron.

So based on this, I would say that the level of power of the patron is not a restriction, so long as the Patron fits the theme of power that they bestow or teach.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Prince Setehrael wrote:

Well as far as Patrons go, looking to Baba Yaga as both a witch and a patron.

The best examples come from the Reign of Winter adventure path.

In Maiden, Mother, Crone.

Baba Yaga was the patron to the NPC Jadrenka a level 11 witch with the Deception patron theme.

In The Witch Queen's Revenge.

Baba Yaga is a 20th Level Witch and 10th Tier Archmage, CR 30 NPC.
Her Patron theme is Fate and the Patron itself is the Divine Guardian Norn, Vigliv. A CR 19 Creature who is not a Mythic or Deific being.

In both scenarios Baba Yaga is far more powerful that both one to whom she is a patron and the the one who is her patron.

So based on this, I would say that the level of power of the patron is not a restriction, so long as the Patron fits the theme of power that they bestow or teach.

Yep.

(Which goes back to my question of just what/who all can be a Patron, sorry for beating a dead horse)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
Prince Setehrael wrote:

Well as far as Patrons go, looking to Baba Yaga as both a witch and a patron.

The best examples come from the Reign of Winter adventure path.

In Maiden, Mother, Crone.

Baba Yaga was the patron to the NPC Jadrenka a level 11 witch with the Deception patron theme.

In The Witch Queen's Revenge.

Baba Yaga is a 20th Level Witch and 10th Tier Archmage, CR 30 NPC.
Her Patron theme is Fate and the Patron itself is the Divine Guardian Norn, Vigliv. A CR 19 Creature who is not a Mythic or Deific being.

In both scenarios Baba Yaga is far more powerful that both one to whom she is a patron and the the one who is her patron.

So based on this, I would say that the level of power of the patron is not a restriction, so long as the Patron fits the theme of power that they bestow or teach.

Yep.

(Which goes back to my question of just what/who all can be a Patron, sorry for beating a dead horse)

That's fine. I mean if we wont to give feed back on the patrons, Would help to know the in game lore on what a patron is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

obviously to be a patron you need the patron trait on your stat block.

(this is a joke, and not to be taken seriously)


Any creature which is powerful enough can be a patron. Supplements can go more in-depth about various patrons and becoming a patron, but I don’t think we need more than that in the APG.


WatersLethe wrote:

I don't mind patrons have more mechanical effect as long as options exist to minimize, alter, or ignore patrons.

I'm also highly in favor of patrons acting as teachers rather than power sources. The ability to grant spells and power to a follower should be reserved for deities and clerics. Giving someone a cheat code to access a different source of power is a different matter, and it's harder to trace back to you.

To me, witches are all about using esoteric, weird, poorly understood magic to enact their will. They only borrow power from outside sources (which can be a coven or a patron) when doing large scale rituals or trying to tackle really big threats.

A familiar is allied wholly with the witch, but retains a cosmic business card for the patron. There should never, ever be a case where the witch cannot rely on their familiar to follow their orders.

Agree wholeheartedly!

Grand Lodge Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Prince Setehrael wrote:

*trim*

That's fine. I mean if we wont to give feed back on the patrons, Would help to know the in game lore on what a patron is.

We want it to be pretty broad, so that it can suit as many stories as possible. Could Baba Yaga be a patron? Heck yes. How about Mephistopheles? Sure! What about a fey queen? Sure! How about a powerful spirit, like one of the former Taldan emperors explored in War for the Crown? Sure! Empyreal lord? Heck yeah! A powerful hag? I could see it. An ancient dragon? Not out of the realm of possibility. A medusa who found an ancient artifact of great power? That could work, too.

So, could your buddy witch of the same level also be your patron? It's not at all impossible—but it raises great story questions of what's happening such that they have this power to provide to you. Are they themselves (knowingly or not) at the service of a much more powerful patron using them to get to you? Or is something else going on there?

Our hope is that players and GMs will work together to build the thematic or even specific patrons using the flexibility of lessons and patrons, and we want you to have the freedom to do that. But maybe we need to provide more guidance and examples, or establish some known themes/specific patrons to show how that would work.

51 to 100 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Witch Playtest / So Patrons do nothing mechanically? All Messageboards