So Patrons do nothing mechanically?


Witch Playtest

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

notXanathar wrote:
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).

What I was referring to was that Patrons -> Hexes/spells the same way that Deities -> focus spells. Via some keyword mechanic (and the 37 domains already exist, it wouldn't be too difficult to reuse them, just with a different result).

The intent was for things to be pretty broad, which could include overlaps (as an example, a witch with a weather-based patron could pick up Personal Blizzard, as could a witch with a cold-based patron).

Point is to sketch out an idea and see what folks find interesting (mechanically).


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

By thematic spells you mean like being able to receive fireball as extra spell for a devil patron ( or like extra spells granted to clerics depends their deity )?

If so it is basically the same.
Deciding to make a choice not because of the lore but for the reward ( I probably explained myself not in the proper way, and it looked like it was something linked only to favored weapon instead of weapon/bonus spells/extra skills/ etc... ).

If thematic was instead meant to add different effects ( Green flame fireball, blue waves fireball, etc ), would imo better.

Ps: I couldn't read the whole thread due to its length... but the fact Patrons give thematic stuff is something definitive or a possibility paizo is considering?

Thanks for the info.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don’t see someone choosing a devil/fire Patron to get fire magic that big of an issue, and it makes sense, since that’s probably one of the reasons that Witch went looking for that Patron.

For your last question I don’t know for certain but i hope so.

(I don’t think they would add different fireball effects because I think you can already do that, but I’m not sure. I’ll need to look around on whatever reflavoring rules we have atm)


Salamileg wrote:
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).

Fair. I don’t have experience in Society and won’t pretend I know how everything works there.

But would it be fair to say that say a cleric with deity X would interact differently with a scenario where deity X happens to be important/relevant? I’m not thinking of a GM doing extra work to incorporate a Witch’s Patron into a story, but rather having enough details written that they could recognize when a Witch’s Patron would happen to relate to story events and roleplay that appropriately. (i.e. if a Witch’s Patron is Baba Yaga and the scenario contained events/characters related to Baba Yaga, I imagine NPCs/etc might react a bit differently towards the Witch as a result.)

And ignoring society play – what would people think of such as a baseline amount of description for a Patron?

Rysky wrote:
If the Patron grants spells like a deity then why can’t they take them back? What happens if they die?

To focus on this part. “Like a deity” does not mean “the exact same as a deity.” Deities being able to take spellcasting back would seem to imply that they are somehow highly involved in the day to day requirements for a Cleric to cast spells (perhaps by providing a continual flow of power that can be shut off). That does not exclude there being other, more permanent, ways to “grant” magic for something like a Patron (i.e. making the magic part of the Witch themselves).

Rysky wrote:
Why can a random party member suddenly grant the Witch spells like deity because the Witch says so?

I assume this is related to Liz Liddell’s comment before? Because that’s the only one I saw which seemed to suggest something like this and the same comment seemed to make it clear that such a thing would be something exceptional which needed a good explanation. Afterwards both Set & I commented on how one way such a thing could be done is in a manner similar to a pyramid scheme, presumable with something else as the original “granter” and using their Witches to recruit other Witches on their behalf.

Draco18s wrote:

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

Just that I actually themed my eidolon.
[...]
So, no, not all eidolons are formless blobs of death.

Don't worry, I'm aware they're out there and am sure you aren't the only one to have actually themed your eidolon. But when the mechanics of the class seem to discourage theme & many tables I've played at seem to always include at least one optimizer... needless to say I never really got to see much of them.

Draco18s wrote:

Theme? Desert dragon.

Damn you that is adorable xD

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.

Personally, I wouldn’t find that satisfying. While I’m okay with “vague/mysterious” being an option of Patrons, I think it is detrimental to make that the baseline of the class and makes it more difficult to actually create impactful specific patrons later. Especially if everything is pushed off to only appearing in further products and not included in the first printing of the Witch class.

While I’d expect something like “feats with a patron prerequisite” to crop up sooner or later, I feel like the core defining feature of the class lore really needs to have some impact on its own. Otherwise, no matter what gets added later, it will just feel tacked on rather than actually being a part of the class.

Silver Crusade

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

"I assume this is related to Liz Liddell’s comment before?"

More me pointing out that as is currently there's ansolutely no rules on what is or can be a Patron and so hopefully that (and any loopholes or silliness it could create) is taken care of in the final.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I hope the concept of the Patron as the part of the Witch's subconscious that accesses the deepest truths and powers of reality will be doable in the final version, whatever that is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

"I assume this is related to Liz Liddell’s comment before?"

More me pointing out that as is currently there's ansolutely no rules on what is or can be a Patron and so hopefully that (and any loopholes or silliness it could create) is taken care of in the final.

A main-class witch becoming the patron of someone who multiclasses witch later on sounds awesome and flavorful.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BellyBeard wrote:
Rysky wrote:

"I assume this is related to Liz Liddell’s comment before?"

More me pointing out that as is currently there's ansolutely no rules on what is or can be a Patron and so hopefully that (and any loopholes or silliness it could create) is taken care of in the final.

A main-class witch becoming the patron of someone who multiclasses witch later on sounds awesome and flavorful.

That is the least silly interpretation to go off of that, and neat (Coven!)

It’s more “i declare the level 1 Fighter in the group we just started my Patron” that you veer into silliness. Or that random non magical tree stump. Or the lint in your pocket.


Rysky wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
Rysky wrote:

"I assume this is related to Liz Liddell’s comment before?"

More me pointing out that as is currently there's ansolutely no rules on what is or can be a Patron and so hopefully that (and any loopholes or silliness it could create) is taken care of in the final.

A main-class witch becoming the patron of someone who multiclasses witch later on sounds awesome and flavorful.

That is the least silly interpretation to go off of that, and neat (Coven!)

It’s more “i declare the level 1 Fighter in the group we just started my Patron” that you veer into silliness. Or that random non magical tree stump. Or the lint in your pocket.

While it's not necessarily a good idea to include this, "the power of friendship" is certainly a trope that exists.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Salamileg wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
Rysky wrote:

"I assume this is related to Liz Liddell’s comment before?"

More me pointing out that as is currently there's ansolutely no rules on what is or can be a Patron and so hopefully that (and any loopholes or silliness it could create) is taken care of in the final.

A main-class witch becoming the patron of someone who multiclasses witch later on sounds awesome and flavorful.

That is the least silly interpretation to go off of that, and neat (Coven!)

It’s more “i declare the level 1 Fighter in the group we just started my Patron” that you veer into silliness. Or that random non magical tree stump. Or the lint in your pocket.

While it's not necessarily a good idea to include this, "the power of friendship" is certainly a trope that exists.

Indeed.

Not really sure how to mechanize that though. Maybe something for Bards or Champions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Don't worry, I'm aware they're out there and am sure you aren't the only one to have actually themed your eidolon. But when the mechanics of the class seem to discourage theme & many tables I've played at seem to always include at least one optimizer... needless to say I never really got to see much of them.

My point was more that it is optimized and not a formless blob. It could be more optimized for raw damage output, but it would be relatively small. Eg. I could grow more arms and get more attacks, but those attacks would be weaker and the utility of things like Climb are still useful.

I still want really trying to optimize. Every evolution was made by looking at my options each level and saying "this one." Sure, I grabbed a lot of armor and damage, but I grabbed climb because vertically was important and it was cheaper than flight.

The eidolon practically solo'd a room full of zombies because they couldn't hit it and the eidolon one-or-two-shot each zombie (the zombies were dealing decent chunks of damage to the rest of the party, in comparison). The only thing that interrupted that plan was an invisible spell caster using silent spells that effected Will (cough, Fear). A thing that no amount of optimization could fix.

And yes, the pair is adorable. :)

Oh, and the eidolon's name is Vdri Vhir wer Inik. I'll let you figure out why. ;)

I definitely still agree that munchkin optimizers exist. I'm usually one. But my choices aren't always looking for doing the most damage. Got two other such power gamers in the group, too. But again, not always building to do the most damage[/b]. One of them tends to optimize for [i]defense: highest AC or other damage mitigation (depending on system).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
Rysky wrote:

"I assume this is related to Liz Liddell’s comment before?"

More me pointing out that as is currently there's ansolutely no rules on what is or can be a Patron and so hopefully that (and any loopholes or silliness it could create) is taken care of in the final.

A main-class witch becoming the patron of someone who multiclasses witch later on sounds awesome and flavorful.

That is the least silly interpretation to go off of that, and neat (Coven!)

It’s more “i declare the level 1 Fighter in the group we just started my Patron” that you veer into silliness. Or that random non magical tree stump. Or the lint in your pocket.

Yes, that would be silly. In practice I don't think it's really an issue though, in the same way that PF1 summoners didn't regularly flavor their eidolons as Barny the Dinosaur (maybe for the right kind of game) or other verisimilitude breaking characters despite that being something they definitely could have done.

Now for all the people to pop in thread and tell me about their silly eidolons. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with BellyBeard here. It's silly, but Patrons are already very much in a work with your GM territory, which means you'll only really see silliness like that crop up if the people at the table want to play the game that way, in which case more power to them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bare minimum I want Patrons to have a framework around how witches are built and played, even if the exact details are broad and fairly open. Using eidolons as an example, the base form did lay out some groundwork for which the evolutions built on (and while you could certainly end up with a faceless blob, there was at least a foundation).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Bare minimum I want Patrons to have a framework around how witches are built and played, even if the exact details are broad and fairly open. Using eidolons as an example, the base form did lay out some groundwork for which the evolutions built on (and while you could certainly end up with a faceless blob, there was at least a foundation).

Yeah, I get that. I'm personally not creative enough to come up with the categorization scheme that would be the patron equivalent of base forms though. I saw others suggest something to do with the patron's relationship to the witch, which would be an interesting route, but seems like there's only so much space in that for new concepts.

I don't really want it to be linked to the patron's true form though, like angel VS hag or something like that. It seems to cut out the chance for mystery if you are required to pick a specific form, while also restricting patrons to a list of whatever's been published so far.

251 to 265 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Witch Playtest / So Patrons do nothing mechanically? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.