I know there presently aren't any, but the question I'm asking is: Should there be? Maybe one that trades Int for Wis for specifically a Shaman? Or something more vague, like the way the Rogue has their rackets? I know there are the presently vague patrons and the lessons to determine your casting list, but it still feels like there's something... missing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its largely missing any sort of theme.
Be a primary spellcaster, but pick a spell list, slowly cludge together some random powers, always be starved for actions.
Plus as a bonus, constantly worry you're going to lose access to your abilities because you're saddled with a familiar.
Not much to the class beyond that. (And sadly I think its the most interesting of the four)
Not too keen on stat trading, and I wouldn't want to saddle the shaman with the bad chassis (bad HP, poor proficiencies).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more people ask for stat swapping (including with investigator) and other “x to y” things the more I am convinced the thief rogue racket was a mistake
The intent is clearly that “x to y” is not a thing anymore but opening that tiny precedent has opened the door for people to pile into that breach...
X to Y doesn’t seem like it will happen and the way new stat generation works it doesn’t seem like it should be necessary
And paizo are clearly unhappy with the 1E charisma to everything builds because you can tell if you read between the lines on comments (mainly about oracle popularity)
What the witch needs is more flavourful patrons. I was of the understanding that there would be things like “Baba Yaga” as a patron option ...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get why people want particular Patron flavor, but I really like the idea of working with your GM about your Patron and developing the flavor that way. If you want to not know who your Patron is, your GM can flavor the GM via good roleplaying and basing off of the Lessons selected. And if not, you can work with your GM on the Patron and, as the character, not know but as a player, know it all. Or hell, know who it is from the get-go and have more of a 5E Warlock relationship with your Patron.
There's a lot you can do flavor-wise for the Patron. It's just a much more open conversation with your GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get why people want particular Patron flavor, but I really like the idea of working with your GM about your Patron and developing the flavor that way. If you want to not know who your Patron is, your GM can flavor the GM via good roleplaying and basing off of the Lessons selected. And if not, you can work with your GM on the Patron and, as the character, not know but as a player, know it all. Or hell, know who it is from the get-go and have more of a 5E Warlock relationship with your Patron.
There's a lot you can do flavor-wise for the Patron. It's just a much more open conversation with your GM.
I think each Patron offering a broad themes (Fey, Abyssal, Demon, angelic, and all other types of outworldly beings) is better for the class and for the GM-Player relationship of creating the Patron.
The class should provide a framework for the GM-Player to tinker with, if the player and GM want to disregard everything and just look at the mechanical abilities and cherry pick, nothing is preventing it at all. But the baseline should be there for those that want to explore more that aspect of the official lore.
For example, if I would make a character with a Patron, it definitely would be a fey creature, probably the Unseelie Queen, because it's something that can create an interesting dynamic (and also because I really like Mab from The Dresden Files).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if I would make a character with a Patron, it definitely would be a fey creature, probably the Unseelie Queen, because it's something that can create an interesting dynamic (and also because I really like Mab from The Dresden Files).
But you can totally do that with the current patrons. And because they aren't confined into specific categories, the patrons are more mysterious (as an example, the sort of story where you though you worked with angels but actually work with devils is hard to tell if your patron is explicitly given as a devil from the start) and new categories don't have to be pushed out every time a new Bestiary comes out. If you want a Patron which is a specific kind of outsider just pick lessons that match that.
Yes. I can. But there will be no features in my character showcasing this connection. For example, if I was supposed to be representing or having a deep connection with such a being, one that cannot lie yet is very cunning, it could manifest in the form of not being able to lie or breaking my words and oaths so that I couldn't besmirch my Patron's reputation. As for benefits, I would be able to use fey-themed Hexes that aligns well with the type of Patron, in this case the Unseelie Queen leans more on the Winter side of things.
But if instead of choosing to know my patron, I would still pick the Fey Patronage and have within this theme some choices to represent more one of the possible aspects pertaining the theme.
This could go for each type of broad-themed patronage. You pick the broad category and within that you choose how to approach the Patron with your GM. The lessons we have right now don't fully showcases that and you basically cherry pick whatever you want because there's no depth behind it beyond just choosing a spell and hex.
This is but one example, mind you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if I was supposed to be representing or having a deep connection with such a being, one that cannot lie yet is very cunning, it could manifest in the form of not being able to lie or breaking my words and oaths so that I couldn't besmirch my Patron's reputation.
But the point to empowering a witch as opposed to a cleric is that no one else will know it was you who empowered them. So they are unable to besmirch your reputation by definition.
It sounds to me like you would like anathema or duties of some kind based on your patron/lessons. Does that sound accurate to you? If I'm at least close, I'd like to know how you feel about this bit from the playtest document:"As you gain more of your patron’s power, you might learn more about it—certain combinations of lessons suggest particular patrons or agendas—but patrons empower witches for their own secretive reasons, which they rarely reveal in full. After all, if an entity required a direct servitor, they could usually empower a cleric or a champion to pursue their agenda openly and require stricter adherence to their tenets."
It seems to me like the idea behind the witch is changing this edition (and I'm understanding people's feelings that PF1 oracle and witch flavor seems to be blended together here) as Paizo attempts to make it distinct from "a wizard with a furry spellbook and creepy spells".
What the witch needs is more flavourful patrons. I was of the understanding that there would be things like “Baba Yaga” as a patron option ...
It's a playtest. And the way the class is set up, 'patron options" are really open-ended. You just have to work with your GM. Is that so bad? :-)
What the witch needs is more flavourful patrons. I was of the understanding that there would be things like “Baba Yaga” as a patron option ...It's a playtest. And the way the class is set up, 'patron options" are really open-ended. You just have to work with your GM. Is that so bad? :-)
It can be. It can run a range from 'completely flavorless' to 'the right to rip away class abilities on a whim,' something traditionally shared with clerics and druids, and for some reason barbarians in this edition.
More reasonably its easy to come in with completely different expectations between player and DM- where one person expects part of the plot to revolve around the patron and the other doesn't think its of any particular importance, just a flavor filled mystery that is pure decorative atmosphere and nothing more.
What the witch needs is more flavourful patrons. I was of the understanding that there would be things like “Baba Yaga” as a patron option ...It's a playtest. And the way the class is set up, 'patron options" are really open-ended. You just have to work with your GM. Is that so bad? :-)
It is unsatisfying because Patrons end up as completely cosmetic skins which at best have zero impact on the PC, and at worst actively handicap them when a PC self-restricts to thematic options rather than the meta "best" options of the class. (Not to mention becomes a dead feature if the GM can't/won't spend the extra time to make it do anything.)
If the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe he shouldn't allow witches in his campaign.
If the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe he shouldn't allow witches in his campaign.
Pathfinder Society Play
If the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe he shouldn't allow witches in his campaign.
A DM isn't obligated to flesh out all the details of character backstories. Even if they were, that still doesn't actually _solve_ anything.
If the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe he shouldn't allow witches in his campaign.Pathfinder Society Play
Honest question as a person who has never played PFS. Even if the Witch has specific patrons baked in (let's say Baba Yaga) would a PFS GM actually do anything with that? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can work with in a public game no matter what.
Honest question as a person who has never played PFS. Even if the Witch has specific patrons baked in (let's say Baba Yaga) would a PFS GM actually do anything with that? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can work with in a public game no matter what.If the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe he shouldn't allow witches in his campaign.Pathfinder Society Play
Players in PFS have a lot of free reign on these sorts of things. A witch playing in PFS could have just about any Patron they wanted from Golarion. Other players and NPCs have no obligation to believe the witch, but PFS is ultimately much less restrictive than a home game in this regard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honest question as a person who has never played PFS. Even if the Witch has specific patrons baked in (let's say Baba Yaga) would a PFS GM actually do anything with that? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can work with in a public game no matter what.If the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe he shouldn't allow witches in his campaign.Pathfinder Society Play
But the idea here is that if the rules say "the GM does the work" then in PFS, which GM is that? All of them? None of them? As each GM sees fit?
PFS will default to "none of them" but also "not ban witches" (because why else would Paizo publish them).
So the notion that "if the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe witches shouldn't be allowed" is complete nonsense.
EITHER:
- The rules exist and the GM can follow them when needed
OR
- There are no rules and the GM is not obligated to make shit up
Currently witches sit at "there are no rules" and a lot of folks here don't like that (as both player and GM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM in PFS is Tonya. One person.
There are no rules, and the GM is not obligated to make stuff up. Why is that a problem? If the GM doesn't want to make stuff up, the player is more than welcome to. If the player doesn't want to make it up, why are they playing a witch?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that we can get into silly arguments on the forums.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if witches were to get subclasses for their patrons, rather than have them be indicative of who your patron is, I’d rather have it be defined by your relationship to your patron. Like, if you had a patron who hid their identity from you, your subclass would be “The Unknown” or something. Whereas if your patron was a force trying to influence you it could be “The Tempter”. That way the actual identity and abilities of your patron would still be defined by what lessons they can teach you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that idea of a witch subclass defined by your relationship to your patron. You could build up a line of feats based on forming a pact with a powerful entity versus one focused on discerning the mysteries surrounding the patron. Perhaps even one that is familiar focused for witches that try not to think about where their power ultimately comes from and focus on the messenger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be cool if the patrons had something akin to domains that helped govern their choices of lessons.
Or perhaps a witch picks five “patron traits” or something of that nature which describe her patron, and any lesson you learn has to have one of the patron traits you chose.
I suppose the first lesson could just be more involved to cover that, but it’d be cool if there was a baseline patron system that the lessons could build off of. Less rigid than say totems or orders, but more restrictive than currently (and with the restriction possibly a slight bump in versatility through a free skill or something of that nature).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if witches were to get subclasses for their patrons, rather than have them be indicative of who your patron is, I’d rather have it be defined by your relationship to your patron. Like, if you had a patron who hid their identity from you, your subclass would be “The Unknown” or something. Whereas if your patron was a force trying to influence you it could be “The Tempter”. That way the actual identity and abilities of your patron would still be defined by what lessons they can teach you.
That's a neat idea. Gives the GM a vague direction (and one that the player chose!) if they want to play up on it; or its just something the player has in the back of their mind if the GM isn't interested in that.
Also gives an RP direction for a witch familiar that would at least be somewhat consistent from gm to gm in something like PFS. Different GMs might decide how Queen Abrogail relates to the witches she inspires; a familiar who is the connection between a witch and the Authority, who expects the witch to follow orders because they're orders, is a little more consistent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know there presently aren't any, but the question I'm asking is: Should there be? Maybe one that trades Int for Wis for specifically a Shaman? Or something more vague, like the way the Rogue has their rackets? I know there are the presently vague patrons and the lessons to determine your casting list, but it still feels like there's something... missing.
I created something similar to what you are describing. See my "Revised Witch Playtest" thread for the file.
I made one each for an Arcane Patron, an Occult Patron, and a Primal Patron. Their key ability is Int, Chr, or Wis depending upon the patron, and the familiars have unique abilities.
|
|
The more people ask for stat swapping (including with investigator) and other “x to y” things the more I am convinced the thief rogue racket was a mistake
The intent is clearly that “x to y” is not a thing anymore but opening that tiny precedent has opened the door for people to pile into that breach...
X to Y doesn’t seem like it will happen and the way new stat generation works it doesn’t seem like it should be necessary
And paizo are clearly unhappy with the 1E charisma to everything builds because you can tell if you read between the lines on comments (mainly about oracle popularity)
What the witch needs is more flavourful patrons. I was of the understanding that there would be things like “Baba Yaga” as a patron option ...
There is a major difference between the Thief's "you can use Dex for damage with certain weapons" and "X stat is your class's key ability". The Ruffian thief allows Strength to be his key ability. Fighter, Monk, and Ranger allow you to choose between Str or Dex. Heck, every background gives a choice between 2 abilities to bump. I never head anyone complaining about any of that. Choices are a good thing, and are totally different than "you can use this stat in a unique way to replace the use of another stat."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a major difference between the Thief's "you can use Dex for damage with certain weapons" and "X stat is your class's key ability". The Ruffian thief allows Strength to be his key ability. Fighter, Monk, and Ranger allow you to choose between Str or Dex. Heck, every background gives a choice between 2 abilities to bump. I never head anyone complaining about any of that. Choices are a good thing, and are totally different than "you can use this stat in a unique way to replace the use of another stat."The more people ask for stat swapping (including with investigator) and other “x to y” things the more I am convinced the thief rogue racket was a mistake
The intent is clearly that “x to y” is not a thing anymore but opening that tiny precedent has opened the door for people to pile into that breach...
X to Y doesn’t seem like it will happen and the way new stat generation works it doesn’t seem like it should be necessary
And paizo are clearly unhappy with the 1E charisma to everything builds because you can tell if you read between the lines on comments (mainly about oracle popularity)
What the witch needs is more flavourful patrons. I was of the understanding that there would be things like “Baba Yaga” as a patron option ...
I think the difference between your ideas for the witch and existing alternative key abilities is what you give up to get it. For rogue, you might give up dex to damage if you don't pick thief, but you still get sneak attack. With your version of the witch, the casting stat affecting the spell list is a HUGE opportunity cost that cuts out a lot of character ideas, namely anyone who wants to cast occult or primal spells using intelligence which the witch is the only current option for. It's a choice to have to choose between casting stat and spell list, but it's not a very enjoyable one.
|
|
I think the difference between your ideas for the witch and existing alternative key abilities is what you give up to get it. For rogue, you might give up dex to damage if you don't pick thief, but you still get sneak attack. With your version of the witch, the casting stat affecting the spell list is a HUGE opportunity cost that cuts out a lot of character ideas, namely anyone who wants to cast occult or primal spells using intelligence which the witch is the only current option for. It's a choice to have to choose between casting stat and spell list, but it's not a very enjoyable one.
Well, you are in effect calling for more of "use this stat to do something it doesn't normally". Wisdom is the key ability for casting Primal spells and using the Nature skill. You want a class that uses Int for primal spells. Similarly, Charisma is the key ability for casting Occult spells. It is a lot of mind controlling and illusions, and appealing to dark powers. You want to do all that with Int. While a case could be made because the Occultism skill is Int-based, that is only the book study of occult practices and lore, not actually trying to use the spells, which IMHO, should require Charisma.
|
|
No Wisdom is the key stat for the Druid the prime Primal caster, and Cha is the key stat of the Bard the prime Occult caster.
The spell list themselves dont care what the key stat is. It could be a physical stat for all the spell lists care about.
And someone could also create a power, heck, a whole class (Barbarian?), that lets you add your Con bonus to melee strikes. That doesn't make it a good game design decision. The stats have definitions, and anything that breaks those definitions needs a good reason. A Thief using his speed and precision with finesse weapons to do more damage rather than the strength bonus is, IMO, a good enough reason. But I feel that each of the magical traditions has a key ability to access it, barring some other story reason to use another. The Sorcerer IMO has one, because Innate spells use Charisma (the inner force of personality) so a Sorcerer uses Charisma to access his spell list no matter which one it is, because they are all effectively innate spells to him.
I don't see a Witch having that kind of inner connection to her spells. They are not learned through book study and rote memorization like a Wizard. So, without that deep connections, I feel each type of Spell list should use its proper casting ability. There are Intelligent witches who use arcane magic and are better learning alchemical rotes, there are Charismatic witches who specialize in Occult Magic, and there are Wise witches witch a connection to nature and use primal magic. That just seems like common sense. Why do a bunch of stat swapping and pigeonhole witches as all smart studious types?
Well, you are in effect calling for more of "use this stat to do something it doesn't normally". Wisdom is the key ability for casting Primal spells and using the Nature skill. You want a class that uses Int for primal spells. Similarly, Charisma is the key ability for casting Occult spells. It is a lot of mind controlling and illusions, and appealing to dark powers. You want to do all that with Int. While a case could be made because the Occultism skill is Int-based, that is only the book study of occult practices and lore, not actually trying to use the spells, which IMHO, should require Charisma.
I think the difference between your ideas for the witch and existing alternative key abilities is what you give up to get it. For rogue, you might give up dex to damage if you don't pick thief, but you still get sneak attack. With your version of the witch, the casting stat affecting the spell list is a HUGE opportunity cost that cuts out a lot of character ideas, namely anyone who wants to cast occult or primal spells using intelligence which the witch is the only current option for. It's a choice to have to choose between casting stat and spell list, but it's not a very enjoyable one.
That isn't how the system is set up, however.
'Normal' is Clerics and Druids use Wisdom, Bards, Sorcerers and Oracles use Charisma, Wizards and Witches use Int. What the spell lists and associated skills are isn't relevant.Now you could house rule it to your way, but as it stands, mind control and illusions have nothing to do with Int, neither do dark powers. A wizard mind controls with intelligence, a bard mind controls with charisma, neither uses 'dark powers.' Clerics with the Sun domain can cast Shadow blast, Dark domain clerics can cast sunburst. The game simply isn't themed the way you're describing.
… a Sorcerer uses Charisma to access his spell list no matter which one it is, because they are all effectively innate spells to him.
I could almost go along with this, except that innate spells don't have spell slots. IMO, that's where the argument breaks down.
|
|
… a Sorcerer uses Charisma to access his spell list no matter which one it is, because they are all effectively innate spells to him.I could almost go along with this, except that innate spells don't have spell slots. IMO, that's where the argument breaks down.
It doesn't need spell slots to be valid. My argument it that the SOURCE of the power determines what stat you use to cast it. If a Wizard could learn Druid spells from a book, he should use Int to cast them, and that is the case where many spells appear on multiple lists. And that argument is supported by the Multiclass dedication feats. It doesn't say "If you already have the Cast a Spell ability, you can use your existing stat. If you don't, you get it and it uses this stat." It instead says that you must use the class's key ability to cast spells from that class. You could have a Wizard/Cleric/Bard character and need to use different stats to cast each of their spells.
So, the source of Wizard magic is study and memorization, thus Int. The source of Bard magic is performing, thus it is Chr based. The source of Clerics and Druids is appealing directly to a higher power, so it is Wis based. The Sorcerer is harnessing his innate powers. They can't create a class of all at-will powers, and most Innate powers are usually once per day anyway, so they kept them using spell slots, but still Chr no matter the spell list, because they are all innate-sourced.
The Witch is rather unique. She has multiple spell lists too, but she doesn't have a single unifying source like the sorcerer does. They are all coming from the familiar, and the familiar is getting the power from the patron. None of the ability scores seems perfect for all witches. There is the Charisma angle because she is appealing to a patron, but we already have a Charisma-based caster with multiple spell lists. There is the Wisdom angle, because witches are supposed to be the wise woman of a village. And there is the Intelligence angle because they were Int based in 1e, but that just seems like repeating what was done before with no solid reasons to back it up.
Given the above reasoning, I see no reason to not just use the stat most associated with the spell list. 3 spell lists means 3 types of witches. If a Ruffian Rogue can be Str based, and most martial characters can choose between Str and Dex, the precedent has already been set. A class may have 1 typical key stat, but it is not set in stone, and can be changed if there is reason to. I think there is reason to here. If they had to stick with just 1 key skill, I think Charisma or Wisdom is most appropriate, not Intelligence.
So the key attribute should be determined by which Basic Lesson (and hence which Tradition) the witch picks? I could live with that.
So the key attribute should be determined by which Basic Lesson (and hence which Tradition) the witch picks? I could live with that.
I could live with it too but I have no issue with Int for all 4 Traditions either. For me having a select list of learned spells to memorize from a day works for Int, being able to memorize a spell from your entire tradition works for Wis and spontaneous casting works for Chr.
|
|
So the key attribute should be determined by which Basic Lesson (and hence which Tradition) the witch picks? I could live with that.
Essentially, yes. However, I made each path/sub-class a basic first level decision for the class with unique familiar abilities as well, similar to most of the classes in the CRB, like Alchemist, Rogue, or Druid. Just have 1 paragraph for each one, stating what it's key attribute/casting stat is and what unique abilities it provides to the familiar/witch. This is from my revised witch playtest:
Arcane Patron: Your Key ability and casting stat is Intelligence. You become Trained in the Arcana skill and cast spells from the Arcane spell list. Your Familiar has 2 ability points to spend between the familiar and master at 1st level like usual. It also provides a +2 Perception bonus for the witch when it is nearby, keeping watch and reporting anything it senses. It gains another 2 familiar ability points to spend at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels. You gain either the Lesson of Protection or the Lesson of Deceit at 1st level
Occult Patron: Your Key ability and casting stat is Charisma. You are Trained in the Occult skill and cast spells from the Occult spell list. You receive a Tattoo Familiar. You can change the appearance of the tattoo during daily preparations, and it can change positions on your body with 1 action. Most of the time it remains attached to the witch, but for 1 minute per level of the witch per day it can detach itself to move about on it’s own. Your Familiar has 2 ability points to spend between the familiar and master at 1st level like usual. It also provides a +2 bonus on all Will saves for the witch while it is attached. It gains another 2 familiar ability points to spend at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels. You can choose between the Lesson of Curses, Lesson of Fate, and Lesson of the Night at 1st level.
Primal Patron: Your Key ability and casting stat is Wisdom. You are Trained in the Nature skill and cast spells from the Primal spell list. Your Familiar provides 2 familiar ability points to spend, and is also able to transform into a Young Animal Companion as a single action. The transformation lasts for 1 minute, and it may transform a number of times per day equal to the Witch’s level. It still provides all the effects of your Familiar whiler transformed, as well as the abilities of a Young Animal Companion. You may choose which animal it transforms into during your daily preparations each day. You gain the Heal Animal Druid spell, which can heal your Familiar while it is in animal form. At 6th level it becomes a Mature Animal, at 12th it can become an Incredible Companion (gains nimble or savage ability) and at 18th it becomes a Specialized Companion. You may choose between the Lesson of Snow and the Lesson of Life at 1st level.
|
|
Oh, and another benefit of this is how it helps the Witch Dedication feat. If all witch casting traditions use Int, then it makes it very easy for a high Int character like a Wizard to say "I always wanted to add Primal or Occult spells, but my Wisdom and Charisma are not high enough. Now the Witch Dedication will let me use my Int for everything!" Or conversely, using the actual casting stat for the list could help. For instance, consider a Fighter who wants to add spellcasting. His Int suck. He has a high enough Wisdom, but he doesn't want the Druid anathemas. If the Witch Dedication said Prerequisite: Int, Wis, or Chr 14 and required that you could only get the Familiar from the stat that meets the required 14+, the Fighter could take it and not have to worry about anathemas. And, as a bonus, he gets a part-time animal companion too!
I really like the idea of being able to be a primal caster who isn't reliant on wisdom, especially because it makes me not feel like a druid. Primal also covers some broad concepts that aren't necessarily about jiving with nature intuitively (fey alone can kind of throw a wrench in that.) The idea of an int based primal caster or (cha in the case of sorcerer) is just too cool. I definitely don't want to move everything that uses primal towards an animal companion/friend to nature model in any case.
Oh, and another benefit of this is how it helps the Witch Dedication feat. If all witch casting traditions use Int, then it makes it very easy for a high Int character like a Wizard to say "I always wanted to add Primal or Occult spells, but my Wisdom and Charisma are not high enough.
Never mind the bard can already do this with the sorcerer dedication.