Arcane is a weak tie to witch flavour. Suggest dropping and empahasing witch duality


Witch Playtest

51 to 75 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Voss wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Voss wrote:
Not sure where duality would be coming from in respect to this class (or the PF1) version. Neither Halloween or Wicca are particularly relevant (and its weird to see them together, let alone juxtaposed with a D&D-clone class that has jack to do with either).

Well the cackling definitely calls the Halloween witch, as does the cauldron feat. A Primal witch can sort of be considered to reference wicca, if only because wicca has been heavily conflated with eclectic neopaganism.

What flavor do you want the witch to be if not those though? I'm fine with it encompassing both of those as well as other things we would call a witch so long as it doesn't step on the toes of other classes too much.

Pathfinder flavored. It doesn't need to be themed toward Wicca (and primal is a real stretch there, Wicca doesn't involve changing into animals or throwing energy blasts around), and certainly not commercialized modern holidays.

Pf1 witch hexes: cauldron, cackle, cook people, child scent, coven, nails, poison steep. Come on, Let's be honest here, so many 1e witch hexes are extremely Halloween witch flavored.

Likely because the Halloween witch is based on fairy tale/folklore witches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you’re going to exclude a list on the sole premise that “the gods would never allow that!” When clearly the Oracle gets to cast divine and not report to any god, then I wish they had just made them straight occult.

A prepared list “pick a list” that doesn’t mirror the sorcerers ability to choose all four lists, IMO, is a mistake.

All it does is makes it ripe for a third party set of class feats anyways and I’d rather have something paizo written.

The only reason not to do it is Golarion Lore, and as many people in this thread have pointed out there’s a lot of plausible ways for a witch to serve a patron that would grant divine power. Saying “nun uh they’re divine beings that grant occult/arcane!” Isn’t exactly to me a good rebuttal because it assumes these beings can’t give divine powers.

It’s weird to me that in a game where’s it’s technically possible to even become a god through the test of the Star stone that somehow the gods are so all powerful, all knowing, and ever omnipotent that not a single cat got loose of the bag to delve out some divine power.

It requires a lot of mental acrobatics imo to prevent such list from existing than it does to just say “yeah the occasional rogue demon is handing out divine powers” or “an ultra powerful extra planar Oracle is granting lessons to a good witch”.

And that’s from the lore side. Mechanically there’s literally no reason for it not to exist, I disagree that it’s anything like a cleric at all which has different powers, different thematics, can’t dabble in other lessons for different spells, doesn’t use hexes or have a familiar, etc, etc.

Like how is it honestly arguable to say Swashbuckler is unique enough to not overlap on the finesse fighting niche, but a divine witch is somehow over the line? It’s one or the other to me and I’ve accepted he Swashbuckler is a good design and a fresh take on a finesse daring fighter.


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

so possibly to move this away from exclusitory speaking.

how could someone that is not a divine entity teach someone the divine list? is it possible to use divine magic without a connection to divine powers whether hooked up legit or otherwise?

because it seems obvious with the lack of divine, that divine entities can teach other lessons, so i would assume other entities can likewise teach whatever list suits them.

so how would say a hag go about teaching divine?

this is a legit question and if answered believably I'd be for a divine list.


Bandw2 wrote:

so possibly to move this away from exclusitory speaking.

how could someone that is not a divine entity teach someone the divine list? is it possible to use divine magic without a connection to divine powers whether hooked up legit or otherwise?

because it seems obvious with the lack of divine, that divine entities can teach other lessons, so i would assume other entities can likewise teach whatever list suits them.

so how would say a hag go about teaching divine?

this is a legit question and if answered believably I'd be for a divine list.

I am not an expert on how the gods of Golarion gain their power.

Presumably, at least some of the gods, did not already have this power. Presumably, the power of gods must come from somewhere or it comes from the God itself or by extension through their granted powers.

A hag may not be a great patron for a Divine power, but let's say the Hag worships a god/demon/devil/arch-demon/whatever that is functionally empowered by the "divine", why can they not "teach" that power?

In the case of a sorcerer with "divine" blood, why can they not invest their powers in others or teach them?

Basically, you can come up with any number of reasons why "X is not allowed because Gods said no", because that's easy. It's easy to just say the gods said no, because, well, they are gods.

In the Greek Pantheon, there are plenty of different descendents of gods with Godlike power, minor gods, etc. that can all bless their patrons.

Some gods lose interest in their patrons, move on to other things, or just quite frankly get bored or stop caring about them.

I feel like the take on why witches cannot have divine lessons is strictly based on a monotheistic view point of Gods being "all powerful, without flaw, always omnipotent of their powers".

So basically, if it is deemed "divine power is off limits to anyone that doesn't explicitly ask a god for direct permission"

There's nothing to be discussed. I don't like that stance, I don't really think it makes sense in a polytheistic religion (how do the gods disagree then if all of them are aware of every time every power gets used among any of their patrons?) but it's indefensible.

Or you could just say "Divine power works in mysterious ways, and even the gods don't have full omnipotence of everything" which is pretty common in polytheistic religions.

In the case of the latter, the Hag petitions a demon for a "divine lesson" in exchange for her soul.

Or, a Divine blooded angelic sorcerer teaches the divine lessons of "good".

Or any number of things that realistically require creative and nuanced (and IMO fun concepts) ideas for lessons.

Or you can just say "sorry the gods said no", and we have a pick a list spellcaster with one less list than a sorcerer.

No one can argue against the second, because it's not really up for debate. The designers decide what the gods will and won't allow and how much they know and how divine powers function. Those are entirely narrative based things.

You only need to figure out one way for it to work and make sense to make it work. It is my belief that making it work with the current lore is not impossible, and therefore, it should exist.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ultimately you can make anything work if you want it to. Lore is very malleable like that, but as it stands...

It's worth noting that you keep asking "Why can't X just teach someone?"

Right now, Divine magic is conspicuously unique in that it appears that it can't be taught.

Clerics have powers that are invested in them directly by gods, Sorcerers are born with it innately and Oracles either draw on their power like clerics, are cursed with it, or attempt to tap into/steal power directly and their bodies suffer for it.

Obviously that's only true as long as Paizo wants it to be true, but it seems to stand out to me.


Quote:
Right now, Divine magic is conspicuously unique in that it appears that it can't be taught.

And therein is the crux of the issue.

If someone can attain godhood via the test of the starstone, if someone can attain innate god like power, why is it impossible to teach?

A "lesson" could just as easily be a Witch who injects herself with Divine sorcerer blood every day in order to gain these powers.

What does it mean to "teach" Divine power? Surely a Cleric wouldn't be able to use Divine power if they had not learned the tenets of their god, right? Surely a Cleric must learn how to invoke their god?

The power of the divine either exists outside the gods or it exists solely with the gods, but the gods themselves have "learned" how to use those powers of the divine, and how to bestow them.

Quote:
Obviously that's only true as long as Paizo wants it to be true, but it seems to stand out to me.

How is that a valid defense though?

Like logistically speaking, how is "because I said so" valid as a retort?

I mean sure, you can say that to children and there might be legitimate reasoning behind that statement, but "because I said so" is not inherently valid as a defense, it's just sidestepping an explanation.

Tomorrow, someone from Paizo could state the whole material plane rests on the backs of four elephants standing on a floating tortoise, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't evoke tons of questions as to the "why".

Is it impossible to utilize divine power without explicit permission from a god? Demons/angels seem to do so.

Why then is it so hard to believe that a Witch could learn how said Demons/angels tap into said power?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Quote:
Right now, Divine magic is conspicuously unique in that it appears that it can't be taught.

And therein is the crux of the issue.

If someone can attain godhood via the test of the starstone, if someone can attain innate god like power, why is it impossible to teach?

A "lesson" could just as easily be a Witch who injects herself with Divine sorcerer blood every day in order to gain these powers.

What does it mean to "teach" Divine power? Surely a Cleric wouldn't be able to use Divine power if they had not learned the tenets of their god, right? Surely a Cleric must learn how to invoke their god?

The power of the divine either exists outside the gods or it exists solely with the gods, but the gods themselves have "learned" how to use those powers of the divine, and how to bestow them.

Quote:
Obviously that's only true as long as Paizo wants it to be true, but it seems to stand out to me.

Because arbitrary patterns and distinctions are what give the lore and story of this world texture, divine that can be taught, and divine that cannot be taught are fundamentally two different narratives, you can't get the feel of one by using the other.

How is that a valid defense though?

Like logistically speaking, how is "because I said so" valid as a retort?

I mean sure, you can say that to children and there might be legitimate reasoning behind that statement, but "because I said so" is not inherently valid as a defense, it's just sidestepping an explanation.

Tomorrow, someone from Paizo could state the whole material plane rests on the backs of four elephants standing on a floating tortoise, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't evoke tons of questions as to the "why".

Is it impossible to utilize divine power without explicit permission from a god? Demons/angels seem to do so.

Why then is it so hard to believe that a Witch could learn how said Demons/angels tap into said power?


Midnightoker wrote:
Quote:
Right now, Divine magic is conspicuously unique in that it appears that it can't be taught.

And therein is the crux of the issue.

If someone can attain godhood via the test of the starstone, if someone can attain innate god like power, why is it impossible to teach?

See you say that like "it is possible to teach divine magic," is a completely logical conclusion to draw from "there's an ancient, ludicrously powerful occult artifact that makes you a god if you touch it." I don't follow your logic at all.

Quote:
What does it mean to "teach" Divine power? Surely a Cleric wouldn't be able to use Divine power if they had not learned the tenets of their god, right? Surely a Cleric must learn how to invoke their god?

What I gather is that divine magic is either inherent(sorcerer) comes from faith in deities(cleric) or comes from faith in what the deity's get their powers from(Oracle.) It requires devotion, not study.

And yeah, a witch could theoretically be devoted enough to gain divine magic from a patron, but that would likely mean nailing down the precise nature of the patron/witch relationship and, aggravatingly imo, saddling the class with anathema.
I'd rather not nail down the precise nature of the patron/witch relationship either, come to think of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:


Like logistically speaking, how is "because I said so" valid as a retort?

I mean, that's kind of the underlying principle behind fiction in general. Someone says something is and uh, it is, because that's how making up ideas works.

Paizo deciding tomorrow that Divine magic can be taught and harnessed in the same way as Arcane magic is no more or less arbitrary than them deciding it can't be.


Corwin Icewolf wrote:


See you say that like "it is possible to teach divine magic," is a completely logical conclusion to draw from "there's an ancient, ludicrously powerful occult artifact that makes you a god if you touch it." I don't follow your logic at all.

Let me be explicit then:

If an "insanely powerful artifact" can grant Divine power, then Gods are not needed to grant Divine power.

Therefore, we've established precedence already that divine power is not strictly limited to Gods that currently exist.

That already means that "gods said no" is not necessarily the case, because people (players even) can become gods.

Quote:


What I gather is that divine magic is either inherent(sorcerer) comes from faith in deities(cleric) or comes from faith in what the deity's get their powers from(Oracle.) It requires devotion, not study.

Sure, in the context of them, that is the case.

But that's an arbitrary distinction that is literally rooted in the lore of "gods said no" and "divine power doesn't work that way".

To my response would be: "why? Why does it functionally have to work that way?"

The answer is it doesn't. There are plenty of reasons to say something works a certain way or it doesn't, but to say that it has to in order to work at all? I would question that highly.

There are plenty of polytheistic pantheons that do not follow the paradigm of divine power being inherently controlled in such a way to limit any and all access to its usage.

After all gods are dependent on domains. A domain is inherently something a god draws its powers from, because a domain does not belong to any one god, it belongs to many.

So in that sense, why can a witch not draw power from what provides the domains their power?

And more aptly, why can a witch not draw power from the essences that Divine Magic is derived from itself?

Quote:
And yeah, a witch could theoretically be devoted enough to gain divine magic from a patron

I am not asking for a witch to be "devoted", I'm stating the opposite:

"A witch does not need to be devoted to any god in order to use divine power."

This is evident in Sorcerer's, Demons, Angels, Oracles, etc.

They do not devote themselves and yet they have these powers.

Who is to say a Witch can't steal the ability to use these powers by say "tapping a divine vein" or something of that nature?

Are we saying that unraveling the mystery of where divine power comes from is inherently impossible? Are there no patrons that would seek to expose this power?

Quote:
but that would likely mean nailing down the precise nature of the patron/witch relationship and, aggravatingly imo, saddling the class with anathema.

Not really. Your patron could be many entities. It could be the spirit/power/essence of a domain itself. It could be any number of things.

If literally the only way we can conceive of Divine magic even existing is through the direct delivery of said power, but then breaking those rules explicitly for the case of "born" powers is a bit exclusive just for the purpose of being exclusive.

But alas if people can't conceive of a way for a Witch to "steal" "borrow" or "learn" how to use the powers of the divine despite not having a devoted God, then I fault that to the imagination.

What about "dead" gods? What about rogue entities that used to have Divine powers?

It's easy to say "no because...", and every proposal a person on my side of the fence is going to make could easily be met with "no because..."

If that is the only discussion people want to have about the situation, then perhaps its best not to have it.

I am not nearly as equipped to argue the logistics of the Golarion pantheon to the extent that I can say for certain that something should be explicitly allowed under "X" context.

Heck, anyone besides a developer can't really say that, it's a setting decision.

But mechanically there is no reason to exclude it, so all that really needs to happen is one realistic scenario where a Witch can have Divine spell list in Golarion Lore, and boom, it's not a problem.

You either want that to exist, or you don't. If the idea of a divine Witch ruins Golarion Lore for you, then I guess you're in the anti-Divine Witch camp.

I do not believe that it would ruin it for me, but then religion is not a focal point of my games.

YMMV but I would stake a lot of money on a 3rd party making a Divine witch lesson anyways if Paizo does not.


Squiggit wrote:
Paizo deciding tomorrow that Divine magic can be taught and harnessed in the same way as Arcane magic is no more or less arbitrary than them deciding it can't be.

When an "arbitrary" decision one way leads to the exclusion of a symmetrical Class design to the Sorcerer, and it does nothing the other direction, I don't really consider it "arbitrary".

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think a witch is fundamentally Arcane. That's what they were in PF1. But because their study is less restricted than wizards, they can end up learning more about the Mental essence and end up Occult (headology), or more about the Material essence and end up Primal (hedge witch). But being fundamentally Arcane casters, they can't set out to study the Vital or Spiritual essences that make up Divine magic.

That's how I see it, at least.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:


When an "arbitrary" decision one way leads to the exclusion of a symmetrical Class design to the Sorcerer, and it does nothing the other direction, I don't really consider it "arbitrary".

Only if you consider symmetry with the Sorcerer to be necessary or important in and of itself.


Midnightoker wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:


See you say that like "it is possible to teach divine magic," is a completely logical conclusion to draw from "there's an ancient, ludicrously powerful occult artifact that makes you a god if you touch it." I don't follow your logic at all.

Let me be explicit then:

If an "insanely powerful artifact" can grant Divine power, then Gods are not needed to grant Divine power.

Therefore, we've established precedence already that divine power is not strictly limited to Gods that currently exist.

That already means that "gods said no" is not necessarily the case, because people (players even) can become gods.

We have absolutely no clue what the starstone even is beyond "thing that came from the stars that makes people deities," it could have been made by a god to distribute godhood freely. That god would likely have been killed by other gods for making it, so we wouldn't know. Gods are jerks like that. The point is, an odd corner case that we don't know the precise mechanism of can't be taken as the rule.

Quote:
Quote:


What I gather is that divine magic is either inherent(sorcerer) comes from faith in deities(cleric) or comes from faith in what the deity's get their powers from(Oracle.) It requires devotion, not study.

Sure, in the context of them, that is the case.

But that's an arbitrary distinction that is literally rooted in the lore of "gods said no" and "divine power doesn't work that way".

To my response would be: "why? Why does it functionally have to work that way?"

The answer is it doesn't. There are plenty of reasons to say something works a certain way or it doesn't, but to say that it has to in order to work at all? I would question that highly.

In pf1 the only rough equivalent to the 3.5 archivist is an inquisitor archetype that still requires faith in something.

This leads me to believe paizo wants to keep divine magic tied to faith. You are fourselves Congrats fail against that decision, of course.

Quote:

There are plenty of polytheistic pantheons that do not follow the paradigm of divine power being inherently controlled in such a way to limit any and all access to its usage.

After all gods are dependent on domains. A domain is inherently something a god draws its powers from, because a domain does not belong to any one god, it belongs to many.

So in that sense, why can a witch not draw power from what provides the domains their power?

What makes you think something provides power to domains, rather than domains just being fundamental building blocks of the universe.

Quote:
And more aptly, why can a witch not draw power from the essences that Divine Magic is derived from itself?

Because... that's the Oracle's schtick?

Quote:

This is evident in Sorcerer's, Demons, Angels, Oracles, etc.

They do not devote themselves and yet they have these powers.

Oracles are either devoted to the things deities get their magic from, or something is devoted to them. Devotion is involved either way.

Quote:

Who is to say a Witch can't steal the ability to use these powers by say "tapping a divine vein" or something of that nature?

Are we saying that unraveling the mystery of where divine power comes from is inherently impossible? Are there no patrons that would seek to expose this power?

Maybe they can't. Maybe there are such patrons, but tbh they would be rare. Odd corner cases that would be better served by a class archetype in the final book or elsewhere.

Btw I went ahead and made a separate thread for this discussion at https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42uep?The-great-divine-witch-debateso as to keep from further derailing this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

so possibly to move this away from exclusitory speaking.

how could someone that is not a divine entity teach someone the divine list? is it possible to use divine magic without a connection to divine powers whether hooked up legit or otherwise?

because it seems obvious with the lack of divine, that divine entities can teach other lessons, so i would assume other entities can likewise teach whatever list suits them.

so how would say a hag go about teaching divine?

this is a legit question and if answered believably I'd be for a divine list.

I am not an expert on how the gods of Golarion gain their power.

Presumably, at least some of the gods, did not already have this power. Presumably, the power of gods must come from somewhere or it comes from the God itself or by extension through their granted powers.

A hag may not be a great patron for a Divine power, but let's say the Hag worships a god/demon/devil/arch-demon/whatever that is functionally empowered by the "divine", why can they not "teach" that power?

In the case of a sorcerer with "divine" blood, why can they not invest their powers in others or teach them?

Basically, you can come up with any number of reasons why "X is not allowed because Gods said no", because that's easy. It's easy to just say the gods said no, because, well, they are gods.

In the Greek Pantheon, there are plenty of different descendents of gods with Godlike power, minor gods, etc. that can all bless their patrons.

Some gods lose interest in their patrons, move on to other things, or just quite frankly get bored or stop caring about them.

I feel like the take on why witches cannot have divine lessons is strictly based on a monotheistic view point of Gods being "all powerful, without flaw, always omnipotent of their powers".

So basically, if it is deemed "divine power is off limits to anyone that doesn't explicitly ask a god for direct permission"

There's nothing to be discussed. I don't like...

good enough for me


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


Quote:
Obviously that's only true as long as Paizo wants it to be true, but it seems to stand out to me.

How is that a valid defense though?

Like logistically speaking, how is "because I said so" valid as a retort?

all fictions have a degree of arbitrariness that is inherent from being written from the perspective of an arbiter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get the 4 spell lists as an organizing principle, but tying all gods and all demons/devils to a singular divine list seems pointlessly limiting.

The idea that divine spell casting has to be granted via worship is dubious at best, given the sorcerers who cast from the divine list.
How divine spellcasting is acquired is a creative decision that is evolving.
Enter the Oracle and maybe the Witch.
That remains to be seen.
3.5 had the Archivist.
I don't expect to see them again.

The Lessons provide a great opportunity for the witch to be unique.
Open them up wide to be built from any list,divine included, and grant them frequently.
We could eliminate new spells known from leveling,and replace them with a Lesson at every level!
Let witches pull from any tradition, while giving them none to call their own!
Maybe make knowledge of Tradition a gateway.
Lessons could require Trained, Expert, Master or Legendary skill in the Lore of their Tradition.
Or reward intelligence bonuses and such by setting numerical goals instead.
This would require a lot of Lessons,and thus a lot of Hexes, but the witch would be truly unique, and it would encourage witch players to seek out magical writings to widen their scope.
This would still require skill, and that would encourage witches to specialize and/or cooperate with others.

The idea of what a witch should be is as varied as what a vampire or werecreature should be.
To satisfy the many different visions of the witch, the class should offer the largest possible variety of class feats, familiars and Lessons.

Cackle? Mostly pointless.
But so is the bards ability to substitute instrument play for spell components.
Heck, that might be more pointless,because playing an instrument might require concentration.
I might flavor Cackle as a chant, or throat singing, or whistling...
Cackle is looking better and better to me.
Now I want it to be a feat, so it could be picked up as part of the Witch Devotion Archetype.
Maybe it would be the base ability.
Clearly a Familiar would be way better, too good perhaps, but needed for the Archetype to really make sense.

A Demoralize attempt flavored as a cackle is a tasty option to me, so if Cackle needs a boost, maybe allow it to do both.
The "one time" nature of Demoralize fits nicely with Hexes.
Probably best as a Class Feat.

There have been some complaints about the vulnerability of the familiar.
As a spell book, they can at least run away.
As a Familiar, they have extra abilities.
Since most tiny animals have at least a special movement and often a special sense that must be accounted for , even a single extra Familiar ability is great.
Remove the requirement if a familiar from the class altogether, what have you then?
A wizard perhaps?
I like Familiars as the signature of what a witch is as a class.
If you want Glenda, a sorcerer might be a better choice.
Class does not equal profession or title, after all.

Patrons are as significant as your table makes them.
This is great to me.
Oracles have to pay for their power, mechanically.
Witches deal with their power source via RP.
Good lanes to stay in, I think.

If we want a witch that has mechanical effects from their patron, maybe an Archetype would fill that role.
An Oracle Dedication Archetype or maybe a witch subclass Archetype, or a Sell Soul Archetype that any class could use.


I think if you’re unwilling to entertain a concept of what a witch that has a divine list would look like then I don’t think you’re being fair to what’s creatively possible while following the lore. They found a way to thread the needle on Oracle, why is it so hard to believe another way exists?

And considering the original concept of the witch as described in the DMG was a mix of the divine list and the arcane list in 3.5 (and followed a similar list in PF1), which was relatively close to the PF1 spell list, I don’t really see the issue.

I think a divine witch is possible creatively.

I’m not so invested in the concept I can’t stomach them not doing it, but if they don’t, I’ll make my own if a player shows want for the concept. Since this is the time for feedback, that’s my take. To each their own.

EDIT: what if the familiar is just the vessel of a patron using it as anonymity and it actually does all the casting the witch just releases and invokes the magic by proxy? I’ll keep throwing and see what sticks

Sovereign Court

WatersLethe wrote:

What about this:

Arcane - The Maiden represents enchantment, inception, expansion, the promise of new beginnings, birth, youth and youthful enthusiasm, represented by the waxing moon;

Primal - The Mother represents ripeness, fertility, sexuality, fulfilment, stability, power and life represented by the full moon;

Occult - The Crone represents wisdom, repose, death, and endings represented by the waning moon.

This is a completely AWESOME and thematic take on the witch's Patrons! I'm going to snag it for my game, though I might swap the Maiden and the Mother:

Primal: Maiden represents enchantment, birth, youth, fertility, young enthusiasm

Arcane: Mother represents maturity, intelligence, stability, experience


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

so possibly to move this away from exclusitory speaking.

how could someone that is not a divine entity teach someone the divine list? is it possible to use divine magic without a connection to divine powers whether hooked up legit or otherwise?

because it seems obvious with the lack of divine, that divine entities can teach other lessons, so i would assume other entities can likewise teach whatever list suits them.

so how would say a hag go about teaching divine?

this is a legit question and if answered believably I'd be for a divine list.

Same way they teach anything else. If we're going with the default explanation for magic, the spell lists are made up of various essences combined in different ways. They've already got a handle on some of the essences regardless of which casting list they use, so working out the one other combination is far more likely than being unable to.

This is particularly true if you've got a coven of hags, and they each use a different tradition. Collectively they've already got all the pieces to divine magic, so they could teach someone the relevant bits and help them put it together in a working whole.

Divine magic isn't any more or less special than any other type of magic.


Approaching Occult and Primal from the Arcane perspective might make it difficult to comprehend the Divine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure it's intentional that the way magic works "under the hood" is left unstated and vague, including divine magic. Attempting to apply logic that divine magic must be equally learnable as the others is pointless, because logic need not apply to magic, that's kind of the whole point.


BellyBeard wrote:
Pretty sure it's intentional that the way magic works "under the hood" is left unstated and vague, including divine magic. Attempting to apply logic that divine magic must be equally learnable as the others is pointless, because logic need not apply to magic, that's kind of the whole point.

shrug

I mean I didn't really care about the in-game explanation for pretty much the reasons you stated, but it seemed to be a major concern of a few people here and one of the designers said the following:

Quote:
The thought on excluding the divine tradition is that if a patron entity is directly granting you divine spellcasting power, you're basically a cleric. If you have a deific or otherwise divine patron, it's because they're playing it under the table (Why? That's between you and your GM).

I don't really agree that Cleric = Witch with Divine lesson

Nor do I agree that a Divine being needs to directly grant power or even that Divine power has to be done in such a way, but if that's their immutable rules that apply to Divine magic, then there you go.

A Divine being "playing it under the table" is not only completely plausible, I wouldn't even call it "rare" or "funky", especially in the case of Demons and Devils.

It was then followed by this:

Quote:
Now that doesnt' mean that we might introduce some funky lessons down the road that might let you tap into the divine list (a patron who has themselves managed to tap into divine power and is passing it out to pose as a deity?), but that's an exception to the broader witch concept, and for this playtest and this book, we need to nail down the broad basics first.

Why they consider it an "exception to the broader witch concept" when the original witch concept had a mix of Divine spells on their list seems like their personal interpretation.

It's not outlandish or even out of place with the functions of the class (Gods literally curse people all the time, see 90% of anyone that makes a God in the greek pantheon angry).

It is what it is.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My post messed up, I was *trying* to say that arbitrary patterns are what add texture to storytelling, because adding reasons is part of what creates nuance to the worldbuilding, so if divine has to be granted and can't be taught, it doesn't need to be justified in some side way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
My post messed up, I was *trying* to say that arbitrary patterns are what add texture to storytelling, because adding reasons is part of what creates nuance to the worldbuilding, so if divine has to be granted and can't be taught, it doesn't need to be justified in some side way.

I agree to some extent, I just fail to see the value here in making a restriction. I’ve seen a lot of “divine magic” taught in a lot of different pop culture references (some even in monotheistic), so it’s strange to draw the line to me personally.

51 to 75 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Witch Playtest / Arcane is a weak tie to witch flavour. Suggest dropping and empahasing witch duality All Messageboards
Recent threads in Witch Playtest