So Patrons do nothing mechanically?


Witch Playtest

201 to 250 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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

Sorry, saying "trait keyword" still had me a bit confused.

… what's with the hang up with keywords?

like really, wouldn't the keywords just be called lessons or hexes?

whats with all this double speak?

Silver Crusade

Bandw2 wrote:
on the muse thing, i don't quite get how you could get an equivalent for witches. aren't they just the bardic subclass system? i don't see how this would map well to somnething like a patron, as they only every seem to come in groups of 3.

They're not technically, and you can take stuff from the ones you don't pick so it's not like Barbarian Instinct or the different Champions.

Silver Crusade

Bandw2 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Sorry, saying "trait keyword" still had me a bit confused.

… what's with the hang up with keywords?

like really, wouldn't the keywords just be called lessons or hexes?

whats with all this double speak?

*nods*


Samurai wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:

would it work, if instead of/in addition to choosing the patron, the player chose the style of relationship?

E.g. is the witches relationship to the patron:
Voluntarily entered contract
Quid pro quo (a series of trades)
Enforced (e.g. blackmail, or there is a hostage of some sort)
Mysterious
Temptations
Stolen (The witch somehow takes the power against the patrons will or knowledge)

To me this seems potentially just as impactful, sometimes perhaps even more so, than who the patron is.

I really love this. What an amazing way to characterize the relationship and enforce an abstract integration of the concept.

Heck they need to take this a step further and have the relationship with the patron directly dictate your familiar relationship too.

I, on the other hand, hate the idea. Choosing between arcane, primal, or occult is a real choice with real consequences for the witch. Having them choose between tempted, stolen, and enforced tells you nothing about the witch or her abilities, and most any consequences they create based on them would be artificial and meaningless.

I say offer those choices as part of the character creation backstory, but leave them entirely story driven, not a way to create paths/sub-classes for the witch.

Paladin style Sub class is probably too strong an effect.

While they have a big impact on story, and story should be supported by mechanics, it is not immediately clear to me that they would/should have as big an impact on the powers available to the witch as say having a patron associated with ice, vs a patron associated with poison would make.


Well okay then sorry for using trait.

The thing is that 10 keywords would either be really general and as such wouldn't offer very good distinctions of too limited and not provide enough options.

I get why it's being recommended, and if this was a computer game I wouldn't mind it. But as is the better choice to add more of either would be to say "this lesson can be taken by these patrons" or "this patron can take these lessons" and skip the keywords.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just, ignore the keywords. Why are we talking about keywords? Push that aside for right now, they’re irrelevant.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lyz Liddell wrote:
I'm hearing this. And while I was really surprised to see the demand for mechanical weight to patrons (especially given how very little they originally had in First Edition), it seems like the lore around witches, combined with some of the options introduced later in the game's lifecycle, has really given them a function that y'all want to see borne out in the Second Edition rules set. So that's 100% something we'll be working on for the final class.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I see the notion of more mechanical significance to the Patron as being a 'would be nice' thing like the upgrade to the Clerics deity to include an Anathema, giving some actual mechanical 'weight' to the Clerics deity choice (beyond the deity choice being, more or less, cherry picking your favorite two domains and an alignment you don't mind).


Bandw2 wrote:
on the muse thing, i don't quite get how you could get an equivalent for witches. aren't they just the bardic subclass system? i don't see how this would map well to somnething like a patron, as they only every seem to come in groups of 3.

Aren't Deities the Clericy subclass system?

Aren't Bloodlines the Sorcerery subclass system?

I was trying to take a blend of existing, well-liked mechanics, and presenting a new twist that fits the witch theme so that Patrons become the witch subclass system that (a) every other class has and that (b) witches don't.

Is there really an objection here?

Bandw2 wrote:

like really, wouldn't the keywords just be called lessons or hexes?

whats with all this double speak?

Aren't domains devotions? Why do clerics get both a deity and domains, and then also devotions? Aren't they the same thing? Where's the line?

Seriously, I laid out the one-to-one correspondence and you folks still think its more complicated than it actually is.

Patron == Deity
[Keyword] == Domain
Lesson == Devotion
Hex == Domain Spell

("Devotion" is the name of the feat that grants the "Domain Spell", so the Lesson is the name of the category of feats that grants a given Hex. [Keyword] is the only thing that does not currently have a name).

Is there really an objection here?

Temperans wrote:
The thing is that 10 keywords would either be really general and as such wouldn't offer very good distinctions of too limited and not provide enough options.

So, ten is too few (a number, that I will remind you, was sufficient enough to give 50 or so different pairs, matching the existing number of 1E witch patrons, a number you said was too big). That's why I offered up an existing numer of 37 (the number of existing domains). Those 37 domains could be utilized for witches too, they'd just grant different things. There's no need to invent new ones, there's 37 perfectly valid ones already. We'd just need to wire up different operational bits (hexes) based on them.

Is there really an issue here?

Quote:
I get why it's being recommended, and if this was a computer game I wouldn't mind it. But as is the better choice to add more of either would be to say "this lesson can be taken by these patrons" or "this patron can take these lessons" and skip the keywords.

So clerics and paladins are too complicated for you. You've got to look at page 441 to pick a deity, then scroll down to 448ish to figure out what domain spells that deity's domains grant, then cross reference with the anathema. Maybe decide if the deity's chosen weapon is worth using, go find the equipment chapter to see if the crit-spec is as good as that other deity's chosen weapon and whether or not its worth going with this guy vs. that guy because you'd have to spend a feat for the increased weapon die... Huge pain in the ass and takes like four spreadsheets.

Got it.

Is there really an objection here?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I like that the witch leaves a lot of choices open. Your first lesson is going to determine a lot about how the character plays, and I don't think an additional choice is necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never said they were complicated. Just think keywords are bad and would just complicate everything for little benefits.


Temperans wrote:
I never said they were complicated. Just think keywords are bad and would just complicate everything for little benefits.

Ok one, you just said it "complicates" things right after saying that you didn't think it was complicated. Irony of word choice here that really weakens your argument.

Two, there are 37 cleric Domains. They already exist. Are those "bad and complicate things for too little benefit"?


....I'm sorry that I didnt specifically say "I think that domains are not that complicated because they are straight forward "X deity can use Y domains".".I really cant believe that I have to explain my phrasing for that, I guess I need to write better.....

-_-


Temperans wrote:

....I'm sorry that I didnt specifically say "I think that domains are not that complicated because they are straight forward "X deity can use Y domains".".I really cant believe that I have to explain my phrasing for that, I guess I need to write better.....

-_-

"X Patton can use Y [Keywords]"

I'm trying to figure out what it is I sketched out is somehow too radical and every objection has either been contradictory, false, or otherwise seemingly not an objection to what I wrote.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*sigh*

Can we just drop the Keyword tangent since we're just going in circles and everyone is apparently talking about something different. Also it's off topic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The way this discussion is going, I just really hope the end implementation isn't too restrictive.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
on the muse thing, i don't quite get how you could get an equivalent for witches. aren't they just the bardic subclass system? i don't see how this would map well to somnething like a patron, as they only every seem to come in groups of 3.

Aren't Deities the Clericy subclass system?

Aren't Bloodlines the Sorcerery subclass system?

no....

muse you get a first level feat and some stuff and then later can only pick feats that have this first choice picked.

bloodlines and such are just kinda like packages with a bunch of goodies inside, that maybe you take a feat later to get a higher level portion of the thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

no....

bloodlines and such are just kinda like packages with a bunch of goodies inside, that maybe you take a feat later to get a higher level portion of the thing.

How is that not a subclass?


I personally see the sorcerers tradition as being like their subclass, and their bloodline as like a... Subsubclass? But the classes aren't really divided at the same levels, that's what allows them to feel different (compared to, for example, 4e, where every class had the same number of specialties and further specialized at higher levels in the same ways).

Grand Lodge Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
The way this discussion is going, I just really hope the end implementation isn't too restrictive.

We also don't want something that's overly restrictive. It doesn't really fit with the concept of witch that we have within Golarion, and it would block a lot of play styles. You can always set additional restrictions on yourself if you want something more controlled, and ideally the design team can figure out a way to support that mechanically without forcing everyone into that narrower window.

Dark Archive

Random thought on Patrons, which may suck, and could probably be hugely improved by someone with actual game design skills. :)

.

The Witch player, at 1st level, gets three stated 'objectives' which are vague and open-ended one sentence descriptions of choices to be made or events to engineer, like 'let a specific defeated enemy survive' or 'resolves a potentially hostile encounter without bloodshed' or whatever.
(Carefully including a bunch of options that play well with good, evil, neutral, etc. witches.)

She holds onto the cards, and at any time can pick one and play it, saying that her mysterious patron has decreed that she is to do X, for inscrutable reasons of it's own, and then if she successfully does X, she gains something as a reward from said patron (such as access to a new spell, or, if the GM determines that she has gone above and beyond (forged a lasting peace, or convinced a bandit gang to renounce crime and take up a lawful career in 'resolve an encounter without bloodshed' case, for example), perhaps even access to an uncommon spell).

Every time she gains a witch level, she gets another objective card *and* she can turn in a card she already has for another. (Allowing a good witch to get rid of any with evil objectives that she wasn't going to be able to do anyway.) This is her primary level based means of spell acquisition (although she can learn them in other ways, such as from other witches or from scrolls or whatever means are available to witches already).

This gives the patron a series of goals, but they remain inscrutable and, to the witch, kind of random seeming, because she can't 'see the big picture' of why this patron wanted no bloodshed on this ground or at this special time, or that specific NPC to survive, or whatever.

By linking the patron objectives to spell acquisition, the witch is more mechanically 'making deals for power' to advance the goals of her patron.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since there was some talk about how "specific" to make Patrons - I'd like to chime in and say I'd hope the default for an average Patron would have enough meat on it that a player could sit down with a new Pathfinder Society GM and at least have a basic understanding conveyed by just looking at the Patron description. Something like Blood of the Coven with a bit more mechanical meat attached. While I haven't played Society myself - I can imagine how frustrating it would be when your core class feature can't function because it relies on working with your GM in a setting with rotating GMs.

While my personal preference is for highly specific Patrons (which I know I will end up homebrewing), I can see how that doesn't really work well for a class default - especially one that needs to cover a wide variety of concepts out of the gate.

Rysky wrote:
Regardless of that, I would like the connection between Witch and Patron being much more explicit in how it functions. Is the Patron granting the Witch spells like a Deity does for a Cleric, or do they serve as inspiration with the Witch learning their spells themselves on a guided path, similar to Wizard.

This is probably one of the areas I'd actually be okay with the rules being a bit more vague. I could see both those methods (among others) as being valid ways that different Patrons interact with their respective Witches. Trying to define things too much in that area would likely just limit concepts rather than providing much value to the class. (Though I could see something like a sidebar elaborating on some of the ways a Patron could relate to a Witch and their spellcasting.)

WatersLethe wrote:

For what it's worth, no matter what happens to Patrons mechanically I'm going to ignore them for the most part. The way it is now makes them super easy to ignore which is nice for me.

If they go toward requiring a specific patron to get access to specific lists of lessons, or introduce anathema or alignment requirements, I'd be pretty unhappy without an unlocked/patronless option.

I really don't need the whole patron concept for witches at all.

Honest question, would you be alright with the idea that among various Patrons was an option for a "Mystery" Patron that gave the Occult tradition + few mechanical abilities, but otherwise came with a vague theme that was easy to ignore? I could see the value in such an option (+maybe one for the primal tradition) while still allowing other Patrons to have enough meat to satisfy those of us who wanted something more than what was offered in PF1.

BellyBeard wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are people who don't like the free-form method concerned for example that a witch who talks with the GM at level 1 and says they have a patron who by lore only does cold and nothing else could opt for a lesson of fire (assuming such existed) at a later point and totally screw the lore?

Part of my issue is the same as what I had with the Chained Summoner's Eidolon. It sounds really nice to say the mechanics can support any theme, but when options have mechanical impact - there is a strong motivation to toss theme out the window and just pick the optimal mechanical benefits. I never really saw a thematic Eidolon in PF1, only formless blobs of the best options. By trying to make the class vague enough in a way that could support every theme, the rules ended up actively discouraging players from using any theme at all.

There is also the problem of Patrons not really having anything to play off of or interact with as written. They're an empty void that doesn't actually connect with anything else. Sure you can say whatever you want for them - but if it doesn't actually mean anything then what's the point? Other classes have meaningful choices at their core (deity, bloodline, muses, etc.), so I find it highly disappointing that the origin of a Witch's concept is essentially meaningless to the class.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll be honest and say Patron roleplaying in PFS should not be a factor. PFS while great, is not the place to expect GMs to tailor story elements to your character at all.


Malk_Content wrote:
I'll be honest and say Patron roleplaying in PFS should not be a factor. PFS while great, is not the place to expect GMs to tailor story elements to your character at all.

I agree with this. I have zero experience with PFS, but I do have experience with 5e's Adventurer's League, and I can say that I've never seen or heard of a patron actually coming into play there either, at least on the GM's side (the player can shout about how they carry the mark of Titivilus all they want).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Regardless of that, I would like the connection between Witch and Patron being much more explicit in how it functions. Is the Patron granting the Witch spells like a Deity does for a Cleric, or do they serve as inspiration with the Witch learning their spells themselves on a guided path, similar to Wizard.
This is probably one of the areas I'd actually be okay with the rules being a bit more vague. I could see both those methods (among others) as being valid ways that different Patrons interact with their respective Witches. Trying to define things too much in that area would likely just limit concepts rather than providing much value to the class. (Though I could see something like a sidebar elaborating on some of the ways a Patron could relate to a Witch and their spellcasting.)

I strongly disagree on this one.

These two options are not interchangeable and come with a whole slew of consequences depending on the choice.

If the Patron grants spells like a deity then why can’t they take them back? What happens if they die? Why can a random party member suddenly grant the Witch spells like deity because the Witch says so?


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Part of my issue is the same as what I had with the Chained Summoner's Eidolon. It sounds really nice to say the mechanics can support any theme, but when options have mechanical impact - there is a strong motivation to toss theme out the window and just pick the optimal mechanical benefits. I never really saw a thematic Eidolon in PF1, only formless blobs of the best options. By trying to make the class vague enough in a way that could support every theme, the rules ended up actively discouraging players from using any theme at all.

I agree with the point you're making, 100%.

Just that I actually themed my eidolon. Mind, I was still building a pretty well optimized eidolon, but there did reach a point where I said, "Yes, I could spend this evolution point growing more limbs so that next level I could put attacks on them because my max number of attacks goes up, but I'm not doing that. I'm going to pick up this ability instead."

*Pops open character sheet*

[Resist Elect 10, Bite, Cold Resist 10, Sonic Resist 10], Claws, Mount, Climb, Energy Attacks, Imp. Natural Armor, Tail, Rend

That first group is from the base form, the last one in italics was my next planned purchase. So at level 6 I had an eidolon that could make 3 attacks a round, had combat reflexes, an AC of twenty five, a melee attack bonus (total) of +10, and dealt 1dn+1d6(elec)+7 damage (n = 4 for claws, 6 for bite).

I could practically solo some encounters because nothing could hit it and it hit back like a truck.

Theme? Desert dragon.

Sure, some of the resistances don't quite work, but they're all things I didn't actually choose myself, they were gained from the base form and agatheon made the most sense. Wings are planned, but expensive and its not worth sacrificing any current abilities to pay for.

So, no, not all eidolons are formless blobs of death.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

Part of my issue is the same as what I had with the Chained Summoner's Eidolon. It sounds really nice to say the mechanics can support any theme, but when options have mechanical impact - there is a strong motivation to toss theme out the window and just pick the optimal mechanical benefits. I never really saw a thematic Eidolon in PF1, only formless blobs of the best options. By trying to make the class vague enough in a way that could support every theme, the rules ended up actively discouraging players from using any theme at all.

There is also the problem of Patrons not really having anything to play off of or interact with as written. They're an empty void that doesn't actually connect with anything else. Sure you can say whatever you want for them - but if it doesn't actually mean anything then what's the point? Other classes have meaningful choices at their core (deity, bloodline, muses, etc.), so I find it highly disappointing that the origin of a Witch's concept is essentially meaningless to the class.

Thanks for the reply, that explains it perfectly for me. I can agree with the sentiment, hopefully there is some way patrons can be made meaningful to gameplay while still allowing them to cover a wide range of concepts.


about eidolons:
I also agree that not all eidolons were shapeless blobs, for a U. Summoner I built my Eidolon using the Ancestor so I could get a humanoid I gave it nat armor (cause it just better) but also gave it mock armor to sell the Illusion of, "an ancient relative bound as a guarding spirit". (Was trying to model Saber from Fate/Stay).
For a C. Summoner, I theory crafted a Synthesist to model the eidolon as a suit of "bio-armor" to effectively make Guyver or Tatsumi from Akame ga Kill.

So how thematic a vague ability ends being used depends on the player

(To summarize for those that didnt read the spoiler) Abilities specially when vague are misused on a player by player basis. In any case (too vague or specific), when you ignore or change the fluff people will call you a "power gamer" or something. An extremely vague ability has the benefit of being able to take any shape, but it's also the easiest to ignore; A moderately vague ability (ex PF1 witches) can fit fewer stories, but even when ignored there is something behind it; A non vague ability doesnt fit many stories, but it cannot be easily ignored.


Also want to note that I've seen far less optimization over character choice in pf2 (even from my heavy optimisation player) because the reward for doing so is orders of magnitude lower than in pf1. So i doubt the eidolon problem is going to be an issue due as picking mathematics pretty much just works, unlike pf1 where doing so may leave you with a near wasted class feature.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i'll just throw in my opinion on this.

TTRPGs when classed should have really open ended and really constricting narrative classes and everything in between.

as just having many options of narrative concreteness over the whole system allows for greater and lesser mechanical roleplaying as suits the roleplayer.

I feel we already have a high one from the cleric and could do for a really lax one that has a "higher power"


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

So- let me ask a question and I'm hoping people give their opinion, because I'd love for the dev team to know if this is an acceptable compromise:

How would you feel about the weight of the Patron if it worked the way it does now in the base class (so no specific patron is necessary), but they also had Class Feat chains that require a specific being as a patron (in the same way some ancestry feats require specific ethnicity) to be able to take?

These would presumably come in adventures and lost omens products like other setting specific options.

Silver Crusade

Hmm, not sure how that would play out or how best to adjudicate it off the top of my head.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:

So- let me ask a question and I'm hoping people give their opinion, because I'd love for the dev team to know if this is an acceptable compromise:

How would you feel about the weight of the Patron if it worked the way it does now in the base class (so no specific patron is necessary), but they also had Class Feat chains that require a specific being as a patron (in the same way some ancestry feats require specific ethnicity) to be able to take?

These would presumably come in adventures and lost omens products like other setting specific options.

I think that's just meaning you need to print more content with a marginally smaller audience. I'd much rather see it along the lines of "you have a Primal patron" or "you have an Occult patron," which starts to look a lot more like Muses for Bards or the categories of Patrons from Blood of the Coven.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer types of Patron (Winter Patron, Darkness Patron, Wisdom Patron) with associated hexes or lessons and familiar abilities. As a base feature of the class, with the option of a mysterious Patron that has no special affinity, and written in a way that makes it easy for GM and player to create a custom Patron. Like Backgrounds are. The Patron could provide Trained in a relevant lore BTW.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

So- let me ask a question and I'm hoping people give their opinion, because I'd love for the dev team to know if this is an acceptable compromise:

How would you feel about the weight of the Patron if it worked the way it does now in the base class (so no specific patron is necessary), but they also had Class Feat chains that require a specific being as a patron (in the same way some ancestry feats require specific ethnicity) to be able to take?

These would presumably come in adventures and lost omens products like other setting specific options.

i don't feel it would be very cost effective page wise. most people will either ignore it, and if having those entities as your patron has no mechanics still, there's no narrative concreteness to it anyway.

Grand Lodge Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still listening!

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm honestly not that interested in 1e patron theme naming(e.g. winter, rainbow, fate, destiny, rot, etc) returning unless they actually have flavor and lore this time around and not just the name and bonus spells. If there are patron themes with mechanical effects, I'd prefer them to be more concrete like "fiend", "celestial", "mentor", "inspiration", etc


CorvusMask wrote:
I'm honestly not that interested in 1e patron theme naming(e.g. winter, rainbow, fate, destiny, rot, etc) returning unless they actually have flavor and lore this time around and not just the name and bonus spells. If there are patron themes with mechanical effects, I'd prefer them to be more concrete like "fiend", "celestial", "mentor", "inspiration", etc

FWIW: PF1 was written to be generally setting-neutral. With PF2s setting-first perspective, I think the chances of having integrated flavor is much higher in this edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

So- let me ask a question and I'm hoping people give their opinion, because I'd love for the dev team to know if this is an acceptable compromise:

How would you feel about the weight of the Patron if it worked the way it does now in the base class (so no specific patron is necessary), but they also had Class Feat chains that require a specific being as a patron (in the same way some ancestry feats require specific ethnicity) to be able to take?

These would presumably come in adventures and lost omens products like other setting specific options.

i don't feel it would be very cost effective page wise. most people will either ignore it, and if having those entities as your patron has no mechanics still, there's no narrative concreteness to it anyway.

People likely won't ignore it if those class feats confer flavor / mechanics that they want. I don't know how narrative completeness plays into it, but class feats that require Baba Yaga as a Patron would, by definition, be a mechanical effect of having Baba Yaga as a patron (and most notably, without GM intervention, silo those mechanics off from the feats offered by other Patrons) different from the mechanical affect of having Runelord Sorshen, or Pharasma, as patrons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind each Adventure Path having a Patron chosen for maximum applicability, along with some class feats to go with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I had a thought about the whole traits idea and the conflicting desires to maintain high openness versus patron mechanical weight. What if we went something like the Solarion in Star finder who is heavily encouraged to take balanced powers but can ignore that if they want.

So we rename the lessons to just be Minor/Greater/Major lesson of blah. For every lesson past the first that isn't of Blah your Refocus time is increased by ten minutes as you have a harder time processing lessons that aren't drawing on the same esoterics. Specific Patrons then give you freebies to avoid this.

For example your Patron is Baba Yaga. You start with the Minor Lesson of Curses and then later on take the Greater Lesson of Cold. Normally this would increase your refocus time, but Baba Yagas Patron Affinity is Cold, so you get to take one of those lessons without causing any issues. If you start with Cold instead, you get one freebie of any other lesson type.


Malk_Content wrote:

So I had a thought about the whole traits idea and the conflicting desires to maintain high openness versus patron mechanical weight. What if we went something like the Solarion in Star finder who is heavily encouraged to take balanced powers but can ignore that if they want.

So we rename the lessons to just be Minor/Greater/Major lesson of blah. For every lesson past the first that isn't of Blah your Refocus time is increased by ten minutes as you have a harder time processing lessons that aren't drawing on the same esoterics. Specific Patrons then give you freebies to avoid this.

For example your Patron is Baba Yaga. You start with the Minor Lesson of Curses and then later on take the Greater Lesson of Cold. Normally this would increase your refocus time, but Baba Yagas Patron Affinity is Cold, so you get to take one of those lessons without causing any issues. If you start with Cold instead, you get one freebie of any other lesson type.

As someone with no reference of Solarion, I do not follow. :( I'm sorry

Perhaps as if you had to explain it to a new player with the Baba Yaga example again? If you'd rather not I understand, I just wanted to understand how it works. I have an inkling but not the full idea.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

So I had a thought about the whole traits idea and the conflicting desires to maintain high openness versus patron mechanical weight. What if we went something like the Solarion in Star finder who is heavily encouraged to take balanced powers but can ignore that if they want.

So we rename the lessons to just be Minor/Greater/Major lesson of blah. For every lesson past the first that isn't of Blah your Refocus time is increased by ten minutes as you have a harder time processing lessons that aren't drawing on the same esoterics. Specific Patrons then give you freebies to avoid this.

For example your Patron is Baba Yaga. You start with the Minor Lesson of Curses and then later on take the Greater Lesson of Cold. Normally this would increase your refocus time, but Baba Yagas Patron Affinity is Cold, so you get to take one of those lessons without causing any issues. If you start with Cold instead, you get one freebie of any other lesson type.

As someone with no reference of Solarion, I do not follow. :( I'm sorry

Perhaps as if you had to explain it to a new player with the Baba Yaga example again? If you'd rather not I understand, I just wanted to understand how it works. I have an inkling but not the full idea.

Re: Solarian

The Solarian selects revelations which are keyed to either Graviton combat mode(battlefield control/utility) or Photon combat mode(damage/mobility). If you select too many revelations of one type or the other it takes an extra round to become fully attuned to one mode (4 rounds instead of 3). Becoming fully attuned has some benefits, like unlocking a strong ability that drops you out of the mode.

In practice, it's quite common to build solarians that ignore the balance theme and just stay in one mode, and load up on revelations that are useful in that mode.

Re: Baba Yaga example

I think the idea is that there is a Minor/Greater/Major lesson for each main theme. Cold or Curses, for example. Patrons would let you select your lessons from a list without penalty, but if you go outside that list you have to deal with a 20 minute refocus rather than everyone else's 10 minutes.

I don't think that would work particularly well, considering multiclass refocusing would be a quick way around it, and 20 minutes would just put you out of sync with the rest of the party.


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

So- let me ask a question and I'm hoping people give their opinion, because I'd love for the dev team to know if this is an acceptable compromise:

How would you feel about the weight of the Patron if it worked the way it does now in the base class (so no specific patron is necessary), but they also had Class Feat chains that require a specific being as a patron (in the same way some ancestry feats require specific ethnicity) to be able to take?

These would presumably come in adventures and lost omens products like other setting specific options.

i don't feel it would be very cost effective page wise. most people will either ignore it, and if having those entities as your patron has no mechanics still, there's no narrative concreteness to it anyway.
People likely won't ignore it if those class feats confer flavor / mechanics that they want. I don't know how narrative completeness plays into it, but class feats that require Baba Yaga as a Patron would, by definition, be a mechanical effect of having Baba Yaga as a patron (and most notably, without GM intervention, silo those mechanics off from the feats offered by other Patrons) different from the mechanical affect of having Runelord Sorshen, or Pharasma, as patrons.

no i meant people will probably ignore the required patron requirement.

people might like having baba yaga as a patron but not the feats, and people might like the feats but not baba yaga, and it's one of those things i see getting easily house ruled a lot.


WatersLethe wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

So I had a thought about the whole traits idea and the conflicting desires to maintain high openness versus patron mechanical weight. What if we went something like the Solarion in Star finder who is heavily encouraged to take balanced powers but can ignore that if they want.

So we rename the lessons to just be Minor/Greater/Major lesson of blah. For every lesson past the first that isn't of Blah your Refocus time is increased by ten minutes as you have a harder time processing lessons that aren't drawing on the same esoterics. Specific Patrons then give you freebies to avoid this.

For example your Patron is Baba Yaga. You start with the Minor Lesson of Curses and then later on take the Greater Lesson of Cold. Normally this would increase your refocus time, but Baba Yagas Patron Affinity is Cold, so you get to take one of those lessons without causing any issues. If you start with Cold instead, you get one freebie of any other lesson type.

As someone with no reference of Solarion, I do not follow. :( I'm sorry

Perhaps as if you had to explain it to a new player with the Baba Yaga example again? If you'd rather not I understand, I just wanted to understand how it works. I have an inkling but not the full idea.

Re: Solarian

The Solarian selects revelations which are keyed to either Graviton combat mode(battlefield control/utility) or Photon combat mode(damage/mobility). If you select too many revelations of one type or the other it takes an extra round to become fully attuned to one mode (4 rounds instead of 3). Becoming fully attuned has some benefits, like unlocking a strong ability that drops you out of the mode.

In practice, it's quite common to build solarians that ignore the balance theme and just stay in one mode, and load up on revelations that are useful in that mode.

Re: Baba Yaga example

I think the idea is that there is a Minor/Greater/Major lesson for each main theme. Cold or Curses, for example. Patrons...

yeah you are right about the refocus time. Perhaps have it be the other way around. Your familiar constantly whispers secrets in your ear, letting you refocus every 10 minutes without having to do the activity. If you've broken your lesson affinity limit you instead have to actually do the activity as you need to focus on the more difficult to understand array of lessons


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To say my piece, I can't really get along with the idea of trait keywords. The problem with it is that traits act as descriptors for what the spell does, not thematic groups, so that rules in the world can refer to them. For example: the hypothetical spell 'purifying flames'. This acts as the atonement ritual, but skips over the ritualness of it by dealing the willing target a bunch of fire damage as a sacrifice. It kind of makes sense for an effect relating to fire to be relevant, but it seems nonsensical for a fire witch to get it. Traits are looked at in specific cases, as in 'is this an auditory effect', but not as a whole.


notXanathar wrote:
To say my piece, I can't really get along with the idea of trait keywords.

1) Please stop using the word "trait"

Quote:
The problem with it is that traits act as descriptors for what the spell does, not thematic groups, so that rules in the world can refer to them.

2) There's plenty of room to add an additional keyword or two, where needed. "Fire" is probably a bad choice as it already does Things.

I will point out that "indulgence" appears 3 times in the CRB: twice under specific gods and once on page 441. It does not appear under a spell or ritual listing.

Quote:
For example: the hypothetical spell 'purifying flames'. This acts as the atonement ritual, but skips over the ritualness of it by dealing the willing target a bunch of fire damage as a sacrifice. It kind of makes sense for an effect relating to fire to be relevant, but it seems nonsensical for a fire witch to get it. Traits are looked at in specific cases, as in 'is this an auditory effect', but not as a whole.

3) Take a look at pge 441, why can't we do something like this for witches?


Perhaps I've been getting this wrong: are you talking about getting a grab bag of all spells with a certain trait, or a more tailored set of a few spells related to a key idea, similar to deity granted spells or divine domains (though not focus spells).


It depends on the goal and what they decide for balance vs versatility.

If they go for a select list of thematic spells we get PF1 patrons.

If they go for a grab bag of spells with a thematic trait/descriptor, name, or something else it would allow for really versatile spell list construction. For example: Oracles used to get every spell with "cure" or "inflict" in its name for free, while Hexcrafters used to get every spell with the curse descriptor.

In either case these would be bonus spells known with no limit to any specific spell slot.


Isn't it better this way?

Being free to choose the patron we like just because of the lore.

Not being forced to make a choice like a warpriest, for weapon proficiency.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Patrons won’t give armor/weapon proficiencies, they would give thematic spells. You aren’t “forced” to take one over the other.

201 to 250 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