3 Design Paths for Patrons

[Charon Onozuka]

While thinking about how I’d like to see Patrons implemented in PF2 and looking through the current Playtest and threads – I am starting to feel like there are three very different ideas about how Patrons should be represented in the game and wanted to try to elaborate on them a bit in a thread without getting lost as just a comment elsewhere. While I feel like all of these are legitimate options and contribute to interesting stories/character arcs – each has their own benefits and flaws.

1) Patrons as Vague/Mysterious
Leaves Patrons open to be just about anything with the Witch having little to no information about them. Currently seems to be how the Playtest is treating them.

Pros:

Ultimate Flexibility. Patrons can be nearly anything the Player desires.

Promote story arcs about a Witch figuring out who/what their Patron is.

Easily ignored by players who don’t care about Patrons.
Cons:

Lack substance for players who want their Patron to be influential on the character.

Can’t really make unique Patron mechanics if every Patron is vague/interchangeable.

Requires large amount of GM effort to work. Becomes near meaningless if GM can’t/won’t do so.

PCs become similar mechanically, no reason not to just pick the “best” mechanical options without paying attention to any theme. (Chained Eidolon problem)

2) Patrons as Broad Thematic Categories/Concepts
Represents Patrons as semi-vague, while granting each option with some sort of connecting theme. The low end of this would be PF1’s default patrons (single word concepts and nothing more), while the mid/upper end would be the Special Patrons from Blood of the Coven (category of entities Patron is from along with vague goals behind supporting Witches).

Pros:

Flexible enough to allow Players to create wide variety of Patrons.

Provides a base for Players/GMs to work off of when deciding Patron’s specifics.

Provides a base for a variety of story arcs based on the Patron’s concept.

Able to have more specific/influential mechanics related to the Patron’s base concept.
Cons:

Still requires extra GM work to incorporate well.

Requires more source material to represent various concepts

3) Patrons as Specific Beings
Represents Patrons as a single named being with clearly defined motives. Similar to how they are presented in the third party Otherworldly Invocations for PF1.

Pros:

Little extra GM work needed to incorporate, most major details already included.

Provides Witch with a greater connection to the setting. (“My patron isn’t just some random powerful Witch/Hag – it’s Baba Yaga.”)

Able to have very specific/influential/unique mechanics related to the particular Patron. Easier to make very different PCs based on Patron.

Provides built-in story arcs related to the Patron’s motives and methods.
Cons:

Doesn’t satisfy players who want more mystery/distant connection to Patron.

Inflexible. Can’t cover a large variety of concepts as each Patron is fairly narrow.

Each Patron requires more design time due to their greater emphasis/impact on details/mechanics.

---

While the ideal implementation would probably include all of these as being possible to accomplish in some fashion, there needs to be a base for the class to work off of. Personally, I find #1 to be too lacking to be satisfying and #3 too restrictive to establish as the default (even if it is my favorite). Thus, I’m inclined to think that #2 would be the best option for the Witch Class as a whole – something like a bit more fleshed out, detailed, and mechanically relevant version of the Special Patrons from Blood of the Coven. Plus, #2 would also be the easiest version to use if trying to make both Patron options that are vague/mysterious and still have some mechanical meat to use when trying to make specific Patrons.

---

But what does everyone else think? Are there broad design paths or pros/cons I missed? What do you think would be the best path for the standard Witch Patron to take? How much mechanical influence should the Patron have on a Witch PC?

[Grenn the scarred]

I think that number two would strike a good balance as well, with one maybe as a side bar, three could come out with the list omens books or other supplemental guides even perhaps in an adventure path to best describe how these Patrons fit into the world.

[notXanathar]

I like number 2 best, though maybe it's just my background in 5e. I think then, with appropriate tables for rolling up patron traits like edicts and anathema and goals though their witches you could fairly easily get to number three, and equally you could have a 'mystery' patron, that supports number 1. By having that middle ground it could be fairly easy to build either way.

[Henro]

I would be happy with option two or three. I view patrons as one of the defining cores of the class so I want a strong mechanical effect from picking a patron.

EDIT: Though, is option 3 really that limiting? Clerics worship specific named gods, but it's pretty easy to reflavor these gods or create new ones for non-Golarion settings.

[Temperans]

I agree that option number 2 is the best choice. It Grant's all the Flexibility of a mystery patron with none (or very little) of the negatives and still allows for the creation of very specific patrons as needed by the GM or Paizo.

Kind of like the background system. The few choices they gave give a base, but a GM can create new ones for their game and Paizo can make specific ones (for example as part of the world guides or campaigns).

[NemoNoName]

You can easily make a document creating specific Patrons, defining which Lessons they grant (or which subselection of lesson), and if you really want specific mechanics, have them substitute a few of the things.

I mean, if I had a Witch player that wanted to really play into the Patron thing, when they leveled up and gained a new lesson, I'd create a short narrative side section where they confer with their patron and have presented options which they choose what to learn.

[Charon Onozuka]

Henro wrote:

I would be happy with option two or three. I view patrons as one of the defining cores of the class so I want a strong mechanical effect from picking a patron.

EDIT: Though, is option 3 really that limiting? Clerics worship specific named gods, but it's pretty easy to reflavor these gods or create new ones for non-Golarion settings.

I say option 3 is limiting because the more mechanical relevance and specifics a Patron has, the more effort has to be put into making each one and a single Patron covers a narrower range of concepts (requiring more in order to make everyone happy).

When you talk about Cleric deities, they had an entire book (Inner Sea Gods) to help give them more contextual details to fit into the world. Even a 3rd party book like Otherworldly Invocations took about 40 pages to detail 10 named patrons giving them all backgrounds, goals, unique mechanical boons (+pact prices), and detailing a bit about what their familiars/followers (including non-witches) are like.

Overall, even if they end up pretty easy to create - specific patrons would still demand having to put some work into creating a new one every time a player needs a different concept. By comparison, option 1 is a cosmetic skin that takes zero effort and option 2 covers more ground with less total mechanics needed.

[StarMartyr365]

#2 is where I really wanted to see the witch go. I really do want the patron to be fleshed out a little better so a little more detail than we got on 1E with the possibility of specific special patrons would be absolutely perfect.

[Lightning Raven]

2# is by far the best option because it makes a compromise between both extremes.It also have the added benefit of creating design space for feats, focus spells, familiars and everything that could customize a Witch in PF2e. It's way easier to create stuff for well defined concepts that are open enough to have nuance that to create for the class as a whole without considering any new guidelines.

[Samurai]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

While thinking about how I’d like to see Patrons implemented in PF2 and looking through the current Playtest and threads – I am starting to feel like there are three very different ideas about how Patrons should be represented in the game and wanted to try to elaborate on them a bit in a thread without getting lost as just a comment elsewhere. While I feel like all of these are legitimate options and contribute to interesting stories/character arcs – each has their own benefits and flaws.

1) Patrons as Vague/Mysterious
Leaves Patrons open to be just about anything with the Witch having little to no information about them. Currently seems to be how the Playtest is treating them.

Pros:

Ultimate Flexibility. Patrons can be nearly anything the Player desires.

Promote story arcs about a Witch figuring out who/what their Patron is.

Easily ignored by players who don’t care about Patrons.
Cons:

Lack substance for players who want their Patron to be influential on the character.

Can’t really make unique Patron mechanics if every Patron is vague/interchangeable.

Requires large amount of GM effort to work. Becomes near meaningless if GM can’t/won’t do so.

PCs become similar mechanically, no reason not to just pick the “best” mechanical options without paying attention to any theme. (Chained Eidolon problem)

2) Patrons as Broad Thematic Categories/Concepts
Represents Patrons as semi-vague, while granting each option with some sort of connecting theme. The low end of this would be PF1’s default patrons (single word concepts and nothing more), while the mid/upper end would be the Special Patrons from Blood of the Coven (category of entities Patron is from along with vague goals behind supporting Witches).

Pros:

Flexible enough to allow Players to create wide variety of Patrons.

Provides a base for Players/GMs to work off of when deciding Patron’s specifics.

Provides a base for a variety of story arcs based on the Patron’s concept....

Number 2 is what I chose in my revised Witch playtest document that I posted. You get a choice between an Arcane Patron, Occult Patron, or Primal Patron. The choice determines the Witch's Key Ability for spell casting/class bonus, and gives the familiar unique abilities compared to the other 2 kinds of patron's familiars. The player and GM are then free to further decide on an exact patron for their character and game if they wish ("you chose an Occult Patron, we'll say you eventually find out it is Baba Yaga!"). If they don't want to do that, it at least has a different flavor than the other patrons.

[Jedi Maester]

I like the idea of not knowing your patron and can appreciate the versatility of option one. I think the issue isn't so much that the patron isn't strongly cohesive, but that option one doesn't include patron motivations. This is of course partly solved by options 2 and 3 where the specificity of the patron creates a motivation. I think option one could work if patron goals were also selected or part of the lessons. Maybe like the anathema of the cleric, but new requirements are imposed as more lessons are taken.

I also think more emphasis should be placed on the familiar in this regard. They are the link between the witch and the patron. If the familiar feels like the witch isn't acting as the patron prefers, maybe the familiar doesn't commune with the witch that morning until an agreement can be made. I'd like to see mechanics that encourage some form of relationship between the witch and familiar as a pair that need each other. Not to mention the role play value as a with realizes their patron may not align with their morals and how the witch handles that.