| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) not gonna lie that is odd*
2) Divine sorcerers aren’t granted their magic, they inherited it cause one of their parents went and f&@&ed an immortal.
*okay double checking on this and you get to choose whether they’re Occult or Divine. Occult makes sense, and I would have probably went with Primal instead of Divine.
i believe they're occult or divine because of the spirit essence being integral to ki.
tbh, it's probably to side step calling eastern atheistic religious practices occult.
To be perhaps unnecessarily technical, many eastern religious practices are non-theistic rather than atheistic. This makes divine the best choice in a lot of cases I think.
To be perhaps unnecessarily technical, many eastern religious practices are non-theistic rather than atheistic. This makes divine the best choice in a lot of cases I think.1) not gonna lie that is odd*
2) Divine sorcerers aren’t granted their magic, they inherited it cause one of their parents went and f&@&ed an immortal.
*okay double checking on this and you get to choose whether they’re Occult or Divine. Occult makes sense, and I would have probably went with Primal instead of Divine.
i believe they're occult or divine because of the spirit essence being integral to ki.
tbh, it's probably to side step calling eastern atheistic religious practices occult.
non-theistic and atheistic are the same thing, non = not, a- = not.
atheist just means not a theist, and thusly a religion that isn't centered around god figures, and instead focuses on reforming the self for yourself.
to be clear atheistic religions are just religions without a god. (and there are plenty of theistic eastern religions)
atheism does not preclude the supernatural, it's purely a position on the belief on god or a god. belief in no supernatural entities or abilities is materialism(i believe, it's been a while since i looked into that specific portion of atheism).
This is something I mentioned in the other witch & divine spells thread.
But according to the playtest. Deities can in fact be the patron of Witches, which further brings into question why is it that witches cannot get divine casting.
And all divine power does not come from deities:
By tapping into a supernatural inner reserve called ki, you can create magical effects.And also Divine power can be studied and manipulated per the Monk Ki Strike:
Your study of the flow of mystical energy allows you to harness it into your physical strikes.Per the Core Rulebook.
I don't really consider Ki spells, the same sort of magic as everything else. they can only be obtained by a monk and nothing about the monk lets you get spells from the divine list, just a bunch of spells that are divine or occult, but not both. the fact that they're the only focus spells that i believe have this issue of potentially being multiple traditions in the CRB i think puts them in this weird place.
I'm not sure if whether all the divine tradition ones come from some sort of god, via inspiration or some sort, or if it's merely divine in practice and then effect.
You can say what you want about monks and how weird it is, but the argument that divine power is restricted from being learned and that it is only provided by deities is completely debunked by those facts of the lore.
If you want to call monk an exception, or monk spells, do so, but then I’ll just say “why not the witch?”
The “lore” defense in the above regard is no longer a valid argument for the witch not to get a divine list.
It doesn’t have to be ki for a witch, ki just demonstrates how the divine only paradigm is not restricted and that another method to learn and harness divine power is possible.
And that’s true because that’s exactly what the monk ki spells and ki strike say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can say what you want about monks and how weird it is, but the argument that divine power is restricted from being learned and that it is only provided by deities is completely debunked by those facts of the lore.
If you want to call monk an exception, or monk spells, do so, but then I’ll just say “why not the witch?”
The “lore” defense in the above regard is no longer a valid argument for the witch not to get a divine list.
It doesn’t have to be ki for a witch, ki just demonstrates how the divine only paradigm is not restricted and that another method to learn and harness divine power is possible.
And that’s true because that’s exactly what the monk ki spells and ki strike say.
Tbc, I don't believe they ARE Divine spells in the strictest sense. They use the same proficiency, but aren't technically "Divine spells" in the sense we've been discussing. They are basically spirit essence spells.
To be perfectly clear, 100% they don't have access to a Divine list.
Monks use spiritual energy, and either Vital or Mental. Witches use either Mental or Material for their spells.
Witches can utilize every essence.
So that's not true.
Tbc, I don't believe they ARE Divine spells in the strictest sense.
The Divine Spell List specifically calls out Champions, which also do not cast Divine Spells, only focus powers, specifically there.
So, if the Divine Spell list is so different from Divine Focus powers, why does it specifically mention Champions under the preamble text for the Divine Spell List?
Because they are from the same power source, Divine Power.
You can not like it. Go ahead. You don't want witches to get Divine? go ahead.
Stop using the lore defense, it's not a valid one.
There is no lore restriction on Divine Spells to non Clerics, no lore restrictions on Deities being the only ones to grant divine magic, and no restrictions on learning how to manipulate Divine Magic.
I cited the book entries that state as much.
I do believe champions cast Divine spells though... It's not a focus thing.
It's just monk ki spells aren't Divine in the strictest sense.
I do believe champions cast Divine spells though... It's not a focus thing.
From the Core Rulebook:
When you first gain a ki spell, decide whether your ki spells are divine spells or occult spells.
It's clear as crystal. Ki Spells are Divine Spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do believe champions cast Divine spells though... It's not a focus thing.From the Core Rulebook:
When you first gain a ki spell, decide whether your ki spells are divine spells or occult spells.It's clear as crystal. Ki Spells are Divine Spells.
Sure, but they can also be occult. Reading into background of spells in the spell section and what ki actually represents. It's clear Divine or occult is an analog for spirit spells.
Imo, of course
Maybe to further explain myself.
I don't personally think witches being able to cast Divine spells, would likely lead to a big lore upset. I just don't see much evidence that the current lore state has people gaining Divine spells outside of a specific paradigm.
Like I could easily justify a witch with a Divine list as someone who has access to magic specifically that alters a person's vitality or spirit, through specific lessons.
However, as most people seem to insinuate, a deity granting Divine in this sense goes counter to every reason to make a witch. And the Divine spell list doesn't seem set up currently to accurately describes a manipulator of vitality and spirit with no connection to a godly being.
And so I feel most reasoning for a Divine list to ultimately fall short on their arguments and so I pick those arguments apart from my perspective, to hopefully find something convincing, which over much thought have occurred yet.
If quoting the Core Rulebook for Lore snippets isn't good enough for you, when you are making your argument solely on personal conjecture of what you personally believe a Ki Spell represents, then I don't think anything will.
There's no point having a "discussion" if you made up your mind before anything was even printed (and in this case, after it was printed).
And so I feel most reasoning for a Divine list to ultimately fall short on their arguments and so I pick those arguments apart from my perspective, to hopefully find something convincing, which over much thought have occurred yet.
You wanna know what I think falls short of the argument against?
Literally a bunch of comments that do not cite any part of the book what so ever to back up claims about lore reasons for Witches not getting Divine Spells.
let's quote things based on your personal opinion with no book backing:
a deity granting Divine in this sense goes counter to every reason to make a witch.
Counter based on what? Don't see anything backing this up. Literally is just an opinion.
Reading into background of spells in the spell section and what ki actually represents. It's clear Divine or occult is an analog for spirit spells.
Excellent find. Where can I read this in a book published by Paizo?
Would LOVE to read where it clearly defines these spells as "not Divine" and "analog of spirit spells" when the book literally states:
When you first gain a ki spell, decide whether your ki spells are divine spells or occult spells.
Divine. Spells.
Not "Sorta divine spells but not really"
Not "Spirit spells but you cast them as Divine"
Divine Spells.
And the Divine spell list doesn't seem set up currently to accurately describes a manipulator of vitality and spirit with no connection to a godly being.
Oh really? How about directly under the Divine Spell List where it refers to Divine Power as:
Power steeped in faith, the unknown, and belief in something beyond the material plane.
The initial description of the Divine Spell List doesn't even mention the gods.
Nothing in the book backs up your claims, and if you're response is going to be anything outside of something with substance from a book, I'm not gonna continue.
I implore you to find anything in the actual book that backs them up. Would love to have an earnest discussion about what actually conflicts with the lore and not "personal head-canon" that some people want to tote as "100% HoW It WoRkS"
hey can utilize any essence. But, they also must include either Mental or Material.
That's strange, I don't see any restrictions on the following spells, which are ONLY on the Occult List but not on the Arcane List:
- Bane***
- Bless***
- Protection***
- Object Reading (which literally ONLY comes on the Occult List)
and that's just the level 1 spells.
Oh and the stars are Divine and Occult Only, meaning it must be the shared essence of Vital and NOT the Mental essence.
I can do the Primal list next, if you'd like.
Here, I'll save you the time *holds out straw*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I don't have the book with me, but I'll spend the time transcribing it when I do later today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I don't have the book with me, but I'll spend the time transcribing it when I do later today.
Thanks.
Looking forward to a meaningful discussion rooted in actual published content.
|
That's strange, I don't see any restrictions on the following spells, which are ONLY on the Occult List but not on the Arcane List:
- Bane***
- Bless***
- Protection***
- Object Reading (which literally ONLY comes on the Occult List)
Bane and Bless are specifically tagged as Mental, and Protection is uncommon. Please keep trying.
Bane and Bless are specifically tagged as Mental, and Protection is uncommon. Please keep trying.That's strange, I don't see any restrictions on the following spells, which are ONLY on the Occult List but not on the Arcane List:
- Bane***
- Bless***
- Protection***
- Object Reading (which literally ONLY comes on the Occult List)
I’m sorry but that means clerics have something that shouldn’t be on their list! Better take it away, they can’t access the mental essence! It’s against your proposed strict guidelines of not allowing essences.
Protection being uncommon doesn’t change anything. It is specifically a Vital essence spell that a Witch would have access to.
How about the Cantrip Disrupt Undead? Common enough for you?
Primal and Divine only with a positive spell descriptor, no material descriptor at all and of the necromancy school which coincides quite nicely with the Spiritual Essence it represents, wouldn’t you say?
Oooo I know, what about Sanctuary! The clearly spiritual essence spell that’s also only on Primal and divine with no descriptors besides abjuration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be perhaps unnecessarily technical, many eastern religious practices are non-theistic rather than atheistic. This makes divine the best choice in a lot of cases I think.1) not gonna lie that is odd*
2) Divine sorcerers aren’t granted their magic, they inherited it cause one of their parents went and f&@&ed an immortal.
*okay double checking on this and you get to choose whether they’re Occult or Divine. Occult makes sense, and I would have probably went with Primal instead of Divine.
i believe they're occult or divine because of the spirit essence being integral to ki.
tbh, it's probably to side step calling eastern atheistic religious practices occult.
non-theistic and atheistic are the same thing, non = not, a- = not.
atheist just means not a theist, and thusly a religion that isn't centered around god figures, and instead focuses on reforming the self for yourself.
to be clear atheistic religions are just religions without a god. (and there are plenty of theistic eastern religions)
atheism does not preclude the supernatural, it's purely a position on the belief on god or a god. belief in no supernatural entities or abilities is materialism(i believe, it's been a while since i looked into that specific portion of atheism).
...This is something I mentioned in the other witch & divine spells thread.
But according to the playtest. Deities can in fact be the patron of Witches, which further brings into question why is it that witches cannot get divine casting.
And all divine power does not come from deities:
By tapping into a supernatural inner reserve called ki, you can create magical effects.And also Divine power can be studied and manipulated per the Monk Ki Strike:
Your study of the flow of mystical energy allows you to harness it into your physical strikes.Per the Core
Not in theology or religious studies, no. Non-theistic simply involves a lack of concern, atheism is active rejection. This is a common misconception in the west outside of academia due to lack of non-theistic religions sharing a portion of the cultural spot light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not in theology or religious studies, no. Non-theistic simply involves a lack of concern, atheism is active rejection. This is a common misconception in the west outside of academia due to lack of non-theistic religions sharing a portion of the cultural spot light.
no that's just a gross over exaggeration by most theists. theism has to do with the belief in god, you can either believe something or not believe something. in relation to theism, you either believe a god exists or do not. there isn't a middle ground with beliefs, maybe fervor.
I come from an epistemological heavy background though, and so you maybe referring to a Jargon from a different field, and thus we just differ merely due to what is useful in our philosophical circles.
needless to say, what I meant by the first comment was that religious practices without gods from the east likely shouldn't be portrayed as universally occult in nature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn’t seem unusual to me to have a witch with summon fiend.
Relegating it to an archetype when it could easily exist in the initial launch, even if it was one lesson, seems a waste.
If you want to foster the concept further, add more lessons, but one lesson at level 1 “lesson of heresy” “lesson of divinity” “lesson of spiritual tapestry”, whatever.
Clerics have deities, favored weapons, armor, domain powers, channel, anathema, that all set then apart from the witch in both theme and mechanics. It’s not the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
okay, my belief is that
1. divine magic is sourced from divinities
2. Witches are given power from their patrons.
3. there is little to no benefit to a god or divine being creating a witch with a divine spell list over a cleric, or a witch of another list. (due to anathema/loyalty, or the other lists coming with non-normal utilities)
4. at least 90% of patrons that would give a divine list by players would be divinities.
thus
there is a contradiction in, in general, allowing for a divine list. that imo, would be narratively cleaner or nicer to do without.
I have a few presuppositions before continuing.
1. Mechanics and clear writing are more important for the book, and thus when mechanics are involved, they are not entirely accurate to the lore.
2. The intent of the writing is more correctly lore than as written.
as these are suppositions I'm not interested in arguing these points, you may or may not consider them to be true, but personally i'd find debating them boring. just assume that whenever i'm making a point, i hold these to be true. if you think these make the arguing to wishywashy, well, we're arguing over the finer details of a fictional lore, for a TTRPG.
1. divine magic is sourced from divinities. (note: not spell, magic)
this more or less, means that all divine magic must come from a god or be influenced by a god. I make a distinction between spells and magic as to overcome any difficulties that involve spells being on multiple lists or borrowed onto a list via a class ability such as bloodlines.
"Your deity bestows on you the power to cast divine spells."(CRBpg118)
clear as day, a cleric at the least is bestowed their power, this of course is the prima example, and thus I expect no objections.
"Your deity’s power grants you special divine spells called devotion spells"(CRB108)
the champions focus spells seem to definitely be divinely empowered.
###
next sorcerers, something that's somewhat controversial.
"Angelic: Holy grace bestows divine spells upon you.
Demonic: A sinful corruption gives you divine spells.
Diabolic: A bond with devils gives you divine spells...
...Undead: The touch of death gives you divine spells."(CRB192)
that last one is sure to swivel some heads, Urgothoa was of course the first undead(google urgothoa), a mortal turned divine. All supernatural vampire abilities have the divine trait(Bes318) as well as all of the undead i looked at(Bes349), but as far as i can tell vampires originate from the shadow plane('Blood of the Night'pg4-5), this is honestly a mess. I'm not sure if this is a gray area due to switching to pathfinder2e.
2e seems to have everything relating to undead be everything but primal, but all undead abilities with the spell type traits have divine added to them and not others. So do all undead gain their abilities in thanks to Urgothoa, or perhaps whatever power once turned her undead. At the very least all undead are in some way connected to Urgothoa.
honestly i think this whole undead thing has thrown everything out the window. "The Grim Reaper is the unflinching personification of death. Silent as the grave and as inevitable as time itself, this legendary being hunts down and finishes creatures that have evaded death for far too long. Sometimes the Grim Reaper comes without warning, while at others it comes to finish the work that other creatures could not. The Grim Reaper serves no god, fiend, or aeon. It is both despised and feared by psychopomps and celestials, but few—if any—dare to stand in its way."(Bes196)
and it casts divine spells. so either the Grim Reaper is itself a god, a divine force, or i have to change divine magic to also be everything relating to gods and undead. which lets face it, that isn't a very good rule. (i'm very interested now to discuss how undead tie into this whole divinity thing)
###
"though arcane sorcerers study the secrets of their blood to unlock the power within themselves"
"Divine sorcerers can use the blood of their celestial or fiendish ancestors as a divine conduit"
"occult sorcerers strive to understand the mysterious power in their blood"
"primal sorcerers call upon their fey or beast blood to harness the same natural energies"(CRB299)
out of all of these, divine seems the least... well, 'the power is in me' of all the bloods. occult and arcane speak directly of power in the blood, and primal however seems to also be portrayed as faith and to it's credit also talks about your blood not being used directly.
as for looking into how outsiders casts spells? I can't find anything on it, just they all have divine lists and tend to be associated with specific deities. probably will need a book specifically tied to it. I've read portions of the book of the damned and inner sea gods, but i don't recall anything specifically on that, and since the tenuous relationship of being a pf1e book, I won't go looking.
###
"Ki Spells:... When you first gain a ki spell, decide whether your ki spells are divine spells or occult spells. You become trained in spell attacks and spell DCs of that tradition."(CRB 157)
this with what Ki is generally considered to be outside of pathfinder, and the 4 essences (CRB300) this places the essences Mind, Spirit and Life. I believe it uses the divine and occult traditions not due to their relevance to other types of magic, but because of the essences at play here. all 3 can easily be considered, and the only traditions not included are the 2 that include matter. it's not hard to see the symbolism.
basically, i think ki spells can be mechanically divine spells, but have no real connection to other forms of divine casting.
2. i'm pretty sure this is clear.
"You weren’t born with the power to cast spells, nor have you spent years in devotion to tomes or specific entities unlocking mystical secrets. Your power instead comes through an unknown being that has chosen you as its vessel to carry forth some equally unstated plan in the world... it grants you spells and other magical powers through a familiar, which serves as a conduit for its power"(PZO2105pg35)
Intelligence is used, and interestingly enough a witch can prepare from another familiar. (PZO2105pg36) this seems to mean that witches have a consistent method among themselves of preparing spells, at least among traditions. this likely means that the methods are empiral in some way and do not know who is using the magic to cast a spell.
3.
given 1 and 2, the ways in which someone gains power is exceedingly similar, except you no longer need a divine focus and instead have a familiar. there isn't much tactical benefit, nor reasonable approach to use a witch that can't also be done with a more loyal cleric. Clerics have anathema and thus can lose their powers on the moment of betrayal. you can keep your eyes of a cleric, but your witch may even be giving spells out to other people.
4. i mean i can't prove this one, only give anecdotal evidence of everyone posting in favor of divine lists on this forum. this whole debacle i think started because someone said they wanted a devil as their patron, and thought they couldn't even though the patron section explicitly lists archfiends as possible patrons.
Thusly
Because of the above and the inverse of 1. (non-divinities cannot give out divine spells) being especially problematic, I don't think witches having a divine tradition is very narrative or lore friendly.
that's more or less my reasoning on a lot of issues. at least in my reading i learned that the inverse of archdukes of hell are Empyreal lords.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will try to give a more thorough response once I’m able, but I did read all of your points and thank you for the thorough and cited response :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will try to give a more thorough response once I’m able, but I did read all of your points and thank you for the thorough and cited response :)
it took so long, and undead really make everything confusing.
I think the question around to have divine or not lies a lot in patrons and the core concept of a witches source of power. Generically, witches make some kind of deal of service in exchange for knowledge/power.
Here are some questions the questions I have been considering when pondering the points raised in this thread and maybe clarify what for me as some logical grey points. Not that the game needs to make complete logical sense, it is after all just a game.
1) If my patron was a fiend or celestial (neither being a deity) and the concept for witches is 'teaching' magic rather than 'granting' magic what tradition would I teach my witch?
2) Can a fiend teach magic which they themselves do not know? I would assume a patron must have knowledge of a kind of magic to teach it.
3) Witches 'learn' spells/magic so why do familiars matter so much for daily preparations? Why can't a which write down what they have learned or use it to scribe scrolls?
4) Is a Hex a granted power? Or is it something else? It doesn't come from the witches blood. It seems that it is tied to the familiar and thus the patron which again leads me more to the concept that it is granted.
I think fundamentally I am trying to reconcile how a witch gets their power. It seems to be some mix between 'teaching' and 'granting.' If magic is taught (as implied ala lessons) then surely a witch should be to transfer that knowledge from 1 patron to another or perhaps from other sources. For instance is a familiar little more than a kind of spell book? A witch cannot prepare spells without their familiar (similar to a spell book) but it is clear that the familiar does not 'grant' spells, so why can't a witch learn spells from a different familiar, scrolls or spellbooks?
There has to be something special beyond just learning between a witch and a patron, which leads me to conclude it is as much granted power. Which again comes back to, can a patron grant/teach a type of magic they themselves do not have access to or knowledge of? If not then it removes fiends and celestials for the most part from being able to be patrons.
I think ultimately to answer this Paizo need to work more on the logic of what a patron is (and isn't) and how they transfer power. Otherwise access to particular traditions and not others is a purely arbitrary choice on their part (I am fine with that also) and thus this all the points in this thread working on logic are moot and it becomes more about:
1) whether having potential to choose any tradition is a sorcerer's bailiwick. I personally don't see this, blood arcana, innate inborn magic from the blood and unique bloodline spells feels more like their thing rather than 'having access to all traditions.' Its a poor bailiwick and could stifle design decisions later.
2) Whether a witch should be the 'prepared' occult caster (with non-occult spells being based on patron). I am ok with this. Particularly as it could allow witches to have an occult spellbook and only rely on their familiar for non occult spells and hexes. It protects a witch from being neutered completely by familiar death, allows a nice mix between 'learned' and 'granted' which feels about right for a witches flavour. It ticks a lot of boxes for me while also helping with the 'what are patrons really mechanically' problem from the other thread. Also makes them feel more distinct compared to other classes and the regular comparisons with bard, oracle etc I have read on this.
3) What makes the most sense from a balance/fun/interesting perspective? What impact should choices have for witch? What will meet the longer term class design goals and open up the most interesting play experience for the witch (but also for other classes without feeling like 3 or 4 classes are basically the same).
1) If my patron was a fiend or celestial (neither being a deity) and the concept for witches is 'teaching' magic rather than 'granting' magic what tradition would I teach my witch?2) Can a fiend teach magic which they themselves do not know? I would assume a patron must have knowledge of a kind of magic to teach it.
3) Witches 'learn' spells/magic so why do familiars matter so much for daily preparations? Why can't a which write down what they have learned or use it to scribe scrolls?
4) Is a Hex a granted power? Or is it something else? It doesn't come from the witches blood. It seems that it is tied to the familiar and thus the patron which again leads me more to the concept that it is granted.
so there was talk from one of the designers that you could have 2 witches in the same party at the same level and one of them could be their patron. they didn't go into specifics but said for instance one of the characters could be in possession of some artifact that allows for them to be a patron or some such other rub.
1. it seems like that specific patron would need something that specifically allows them to be a patron, maybe for that specific school of magic, whether this is arcane knowledge, artifact, or just raw talent, not every fiend or deva can grant a witch spells i would assume.
2.see above, but yes and no
3. vancian casting seems to be more or less where you write the spell in your head, and then cast it from your head later. thus why there's hard limits to the casting. so the witch doesn't fuller remember any given spell after its been cast and must reput it in their brain. maybe thats just how the original vancian casting worked, i don't particularly remember.
I don't particularly remember, but that's why prepared casters can't keep casting spells they prepared nor use other methods to prepare spells, imo.
4. the hexes, and other spells are originate from the familiar(refocusing requires a familiar for the witch). the first line of the witch's patron entry specifically states they do not delving into arcane study nor do they have the innate ability to cast spells and instead it was granted to them, by their patron.
so while they're taught to use their spells, the power all comes from the familiar.
All of which lends itself to:
If the source of being able to grant spells could be an artifact than why can that not be divine power?
I will add that Paizo have been deliberately vague in what can make someone a patron or not and not attached (and deliberately avoided it seems) attaching rules to what allows something to be a patron.
With Vancian magic, knowledge of the exact spell disappears but not the knowledge of casting or understanding magic in general. Which is why Wizards could learn spells from other places.
Also Vancian has evolved a long way and was broken by spontaneous casters so kind of not as relevant.
That the power is granted is at odds with the paizo comments in one of the other threads (I forget one) that patrons are nebulous and inspire and teach magic so a patron could be as much being inspired by a long dead legendary figure. Seems too close to bard for me and not sure how the familiar works in. I think have a better definition of patrons and their some mechanics about how spell granting/teaching works might be a better place to start for a framework of deciding how the class operates. I feel what makes a witch unique is the patron mechanic. Deciding whether it is an inspiration and something more about how the relationship works is super important to the current and future understanding of the class. Right now it is a class with 'hexes and spells from a familiar' with very little other substance other than the classic swamp hag underpinning (as demonstrated by cackle).
I feel that in not setting a bit more of a framework in how patrons work and more beef to the relationship to the witch then that is going to limit the class to being 'hexes and familiar wizard.'
For starters - what allows a being to be able to be a patron?
Do patrons have to be 'alive/conscious' or can it be inspiration from a legendary but dead figure?
Can a witch steal power without the patron knowing about it?
Why can/can't a patron give divine/occult/arcane/primal spells? What limits what tradition they can 'grant/teach'?
The defining feature of the witch is the relationship with the patron. It is their source of their power. For it to be woefully under defined makes the creative space challenging beyond a few carried over concepts. Individual patrons probably don't need to be 100% defined but the framework around patrons needs to be. This is obvious by this thread, the other divine witch thread, and patron mechanics thread. I would argue the cackle threads come in too ultimately. So like the Oracle and I would say Investigator from what I have read, the Witch needs a bit more defining.
I love that we have these classes I just think they need a bit more treatment around their core to really separate them and understand them and the design space they occupy.
I am going to group like pointed things together so I can keep this as short as possible.
There are certain liberties of belief that if taken, are not going to be overcome through argument if you're unwilling to entertain it now.
With that said, I want to emphasize:
Thank you for working so hard on this, I respect your ability to defend your position and your position as it relates to you.
But lastly, I disagree on a lot of points.
1. divine magic is sourced from divinities1. divine magic is sourced from divinities. (note: not spell, magic)
this more or less, means that all divine magic must come from a god or be influenced by a god. I make a distinction between spells and magic as to overcome any difficulties that involve spells being on multiple lists or borrowed onto a list via a class ability such as bloodlines."Your deity bestows on you the power to cast divine spells."(CRBpg118)
I feel like making the statement "All Magic is sourced from Divinities" and then specifically using the cleric, who MUST use Gods (the job title literally translates to "Priest") is super disingenuous.
All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.
"Your deity’s power grants you special divine spells called devotion spells"(CRB108)
the champions focus spells seem to definitely be divinely empowered.
I would never have argued otherwise, although, I would be shocked if Champions did not receive an "agnostic" archetype somewhere down the line.
With that said, this is another must have a deity situation, so of course they are going to use their Deity for Divine power. That's just accepted.
next sorcerers, something that's somewhat controversial.
"Angelic: Holy grace bestows divine spells upon you.
Demonic: A sinful corruption gives you divine spells.
Diabolic: A bond with devils gives you divine spells...
...Undead: The touch of death gives you divine spells."(CRB192)that last one is sure to swivel some heads, Urgothoa was of course the first undead(google urgothoa), a mortal turned divine. All supernatural vampire abilities have the divine trait(Bes318) as well as all of the undead i looked at(Bes349), but as far as i can tell vampires originate from the shadow plane('Blood of the Night'pg4-5), this is honestly a mess. I'm not sure if this is a gray area due to switching to pathfinder2e.
Well, as we both probably know, this really hurts the case. If anything in respect to the Undead and death itself directly translates to Divine power, then I think show is over.
Witches raising the dead is extremely common (heck it's even in the kids movie Hocus Pocus), so the theme is on point.
Confusion should not equal exclusion. If it's thematically on point, why restrict it.
2e seems to have everything relating to undead be everything but primal, but all undead abilities with the spell type traits have divine added to them and not others. So do all undead gain their abilities in thanks to Urgothoa, or perhaps whatever power once turned her undead. At the very least all undead are in some way connected to Urgothoa.
Undead are likely tied to the "Spiritual" essence, since it's directly manipulating that essence.
honestly i think this whole undead thing has thrown everything out the window.
We agree here.
"The Grim Reaper is the unflinching personification of death. Silent as the grave and as inevitable as time itself, this legendary being hunts down and finishes creatures that have evaded death for far too long. Sometimes the Grim Reaper comes without warning, while at others it comes to finish the work that other creatures could not. The Grim Reaper serves no god, fiend, or aeon. It is both despised and feared by psychopomps and celestials, but few—if any—dare to stand in its way."(Bes196) and it casts divine spells. so either the Grim Reaper is itself a god, a divine force, or i have to change divine magic to also be everything relating to gods and undead. which lets face it, that isn't a very good rule. (i'm very interested now to discuss how undead tie into this whole divinity thing)
Playing a Witch whose patron is the Grim Reaper would be hella cool.
In regards to grouping everything with the undead and gods, we're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Golarion Lore doesn't need to explain every intricacy of the afterlife on the plane to function or even be good story telling. There are unknowns in just about every fantasy setting (what the hell is Tom Bombadil).
I think it's completely fair to say "Divine Magic is complicated" and leave it at that. But that's not a reason to exclude the witch from access.
out of all of these, divine seems the least... well, 'the power is in me' of all the bloods. occult and arcane speak directly of power in the blood, and primal however seems to also be portrayed as faith and to it's credit also talks about your blood not being used directly.
Seems like it's complicated. It's their blood, but it doesn't require Faith (nor is it "steeped" in it), or belief in something beyond the material plane.
In this case, the Divine magic rests solely on "the unknown".
Unknown being one of the first descriptors of the Divine Spell List is telling to me. It implies "we just don't know what's out there. The Golarion Universe, like any universe, is complicated".
as for looking into how outsiders casts spells? I can't find anything on it, just they all have divine lists and tend to be associated with specific deities.
I would say they cast spells because they believe in themselves and they are from beyond the material plane! (mostly kidding)
But again, here we see some things do and don't follow the rules of "gods only" divine magic.
Demons presumably would draw their power from the plane itself. As for how they acquire it, that has yet to be explained.
this with what Ki is generally considered to be outside of pathfinder, and the 4 essences (CRB300) this places the essences Mind, Spirit and Life. I believe it uses the divine and occult traditions not due to their relevance to other types of magic, but because of the essences at play here. all 3 can easily be considered, and the only traditions not included are the 2 that include matter. it's not hard to see the symbolism.
This is dubious at best to me. you're making a lot of assumptions that I just don't see there. "Ki is generally considered to be outside of pathfinder" is just a really bold statement that I think lacks a lot of concern.
As for the essences aspect, I could see that argument, but then I would make the same points I have before on Witches having access to all four essences already, so they should get to choose Divine just as the Monk gets to choose Divine.
basically, i think ki spells can be mechanically divine spells, but have no real connection to other forms of divine casting.
While that does conveniently work for the talking point of no divine spells for the witch, stating they are the "exception to the rule" doesn't hold much weight if I say "why no exceptions, even 1, for the Witch?"
2. i'm pretty sure this is clear.
"You weren’t born with the power to cast spells, nor have you spent years in devotion to tomes or specific entities unlocking mystical secrets. Your power instead comes through an unknown being that has chosen you as its vessel to carry forth some equally unstated plan in the world... it grants you spells and other magical powers through a familiar, which serves as a conduit for its power"(PZO2105pg35)
So firstly, I want to say, using initial Lore for a Class that has yet to be finalized is not going to be amazingly convincing to me (since it's not set in stone yet), but let's consider it at least for intent purposes:
The intent seems to be that a being, who chooses to remain unknown, grants you spells and other magical powers through a familiar.
So the Witch isn't even necessarily required necessary to learn the spells, the familiar serves that purposes and the Witch gets that from the Familiar.
This second hand delivery kind of admonishes the Witches needs of being "forced" into some Divine box while also giving the God-Patron in this case "plausible deniability".
Intelligence is used, and interestingly enough a witch can prepare from another familiar. (PZO2105pg36) this seems to mean that witches have a consistent method among themselves of preparing spells, at least among traditions. this likely means that the methods are empiral in some way and do not know who is using the magic to cast a spell.
This is an interesting piece, but the way they learn spells from another familiar would be to have the familiars interact with each other, and certainly a patron could step in if they disagree.
I don't really think it adds to either point, just interesting for the witch.
there isn't much tactical benefit, nor reasonable approach to use a witch that can't also be done with a more loyal cleric.
Sure there is.
Mercenaries have been a thing for years. Contractors and freelancers operate this way today.
- they need to send a Witch into a warded area against their priests
- they don't want the Witch blowing their covert operation against Demon Lords they don't like by walking around with their divine weapon and emblazoned shield
- they want to trick someone into doing something that no one would ever want to do, even a faithful cleric
- maybe they don't have god status, but they are close, and want to undermine an existing god
- maybe they are the grim reaper, and they need help harvesting souls but lack clerics
- maybe the god has become "unpopular" or their current clerics aren't getting the job done
etc. etc.
i mean i can't prove this one, only give anecdotal evidence of everyone posting in favor of divine lists on this forum. this whole debacle i think started because someone said they wanted a devil as their patron, and thought they couldn't even though the patron section explicitly lists archfiends as possible patrons.
It started because the pick a list class that doesn't mirror the sorcerer is weird, and not having the divine spell list meant you couldn't access spells like Summon Fiend.
It's not a confusion issue, it's a direct conflict with playing concepts people had imagined.
And if Devils can be patrons, and they use divine magic, but they somehow teach a Witch to use Primal/Occult magic, how does that make sense in the lore?
That's one bad game of telephone if I've ever heard it.
Because of the above and the inverse of 1. (non-divinities cannot give out divine spells) being especially problematic, I don't think witches having a divine tradition is very narrative or lore friendly.
that's more or less my reasoning on a lot of issues. at least in my reading i learned that the inverse of archdukes of hell are Empyreal lords.
And while I respect, and once again thank you, for your position.
I also respectfully disagree for the above reasons. <3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding "4. The problem started when someone said they wanted a devil as a patron...", the problem started when the Sorcerers spell list was determined by the creature type. Combined with Summon X spells being distributed between the lists.
As soon as Sorcerer with Devil blood became Divine casters and Summon Fiends was set as Divine only, the entire theme of "Devil-Bound witch who may or may not Summons Fiends was placed in limbo".
***************
You also mention Divine magic is granted by Deities.But those same deities are listed as potential Witch patrons, compare them to the list of Demigods.
As for why a Witch and not a Cleric? Remember that gods dont work on the same scale as humans. It might very well be that what they dont always need a devout follower name dropping them every where constantly. And if the patron can really grant any list, then I can some patrons deliberately granting a different list to fool the Witch into their plans (so many mind games).
There is a lot of potential for a divine witch lore wise.
right, so it's more or less, if a deities is granting divine magic, they're probably a cleric. sorcerers probably cast divine magic in the same way undead and outsiders do, and they're all heavily associated with gods, so it's likely their power source.
and thus a witch casting divine spells is a cleric.
Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, everyone! Thanks for stepping back from the heated back-and-forth there and letting it cool down. Y'all are so passionate about this topic, and there are some really interesting perspectives coming to the table. I'm seeing that and we'll be considering them for the final class.
I feel like making the statement "All Magic is sourced from Divinities" and then specifically using the cleric, who MUST use Gods (the job title literally translates to "Priest") is super disingenuous.
All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.
I would never have argued otherwise, although, I would be shocked if Champions did not receive an "agnostic" archetype somewhere down the line.
With that said, this is another must have a deity situation, so of course they are going to use their Deity for Divine power. That's just accepted.
right, i wanted to be comprehensive and get everything that casts magic and (I FORGOT THE ORACLE!) is a player character, it's why i said that i doubt anyone disagrees, and left both as simple one sentence quotes. I'm making this argument without any supposed specific opponent, so i'd need to be comprehensive as possible.
Well, as we both probably know, this really hurts the case. If anything in respect to the Undead and death itself directly translates to Divine power, then I think show is over.
Witches raising the dead is extremely common (heck it's even in the kids movie Hocus Pocus), so the theme is on point.
Confusion should not equal exclusion. If it's thematically on point, why restrict it.
well, here's the thing, they're, in Golarion, POSSIBLY divine entities close to the same way outsiders are(due to Urgothoa). I will say they have the uncanny relation of both being created from dead things, and that they both are highly connected to a god or gods.
Undead are likely tied to the "Spiritual" essence, since it's directly manipulating that essence.
so, this doesn't exactly work with arcane, who have the ability to control undead(spell lists, CRB) same as the other 2 traditions. the create undead ritual requires any 3 of the skills (not traditions) relating to those 3.
so, it's not exactly clear with the creation or manipulation of undead, why they're allowed in so many traditions, but all undead themselves still use divine only abilities.
to me, this is at least an important distinction, as undead themselves still seem to be fueled by divine power even if they're creation was arcane. mind you, lich's don't seem to follow this trend, where they're assumed created by an arcane user and thus all their abilities are arcane(Bes220).
while the creating a lich section, says any spellcaster can become a lich they must be capable of performing the ritual of undeath as the primary caster. which I cannot find anywhere in the CRB or Bestiary. there is no mention of changing the ability's traits to that matching the spell casting tradition of the type that cast the ritual, so it seems to be possible to actually have undead, intelligent undead even, powered by arcane magic.
undead are annoying, because now after further reading, it may be possible for undead to be either arcane or divine, and perhaps the difference is how much they're getting their power from Urgothoa or just arcane magics.
The Thing with undead of course, is if you read any entry, many undead seem to be capable of coming about without any outside intervention. like look at the Skulltaker (Bes300), it's a manifestation of lost climbers who died lost in the mountains. that's a very powerful undead to just come about on its own.
to me, this seems evidence that some outside entity must be empowering or creating these undead. probably Urgothoa but potentially just planar forces.
Playing a Witch whose patron is the Grim Reaper would be hella cool.In regards to grouping everything with the undead and gods, we're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Golarion Lore doesn't need to explain every intricacy of the afterlife on the plane to function or even be good story telling. There are unknowns in just about every fantasy setting (what the hell is Tom Bombadil).
I think it's completely fair to say "Divine Magic is complicated" and leave it at that. But that's not a reason to exclude the witch from access.
Seems like it's complicated. It's their blood, but it doesn't require Faith (nor is it "steeped" in it), or belief in something beyond the material plane.
In this case, the Divine magic rests solely on "the unknown".
Unknown being one of the first descriptors of the Divine Spell List is telling to me. It implies "we just don't know what's out there. The Golarion Universe, like any universe, is complicated".
so, for me after the undead thing, i'd more simply put divine as "power source from beyond the Material Plane."(CRB299)
and see here's the thing, is generally i'd be fine with witches having a divine tradition tied to the shadow plane or something. but lets face it most witches with a divine list will be clerics that don't need to worry about anathema. which is why i think #4 is important to my discussion. they won't be people sapping energy from one of the planes or some such.
This is dubious at best to me. you're making a lot of assumptions that I just don't see there. "Ki is generally considered to be outside of pathfinder" is just a really bold statement that I think lacks a lot of concern.
As for the essences aspect, I could see that argument, but then I would make the same points I have before on Witches having access to all four essences already, so they should get to choose Divine just as the Monk gets to choose Divine.
I could go more into what Ki is, what I really don't want to. big thing when going into a religious belief in a highly syncretized area that spans a continent, there's more than a handful of beliefs on the subject.
so honestly, i think it's basis is in pulp fiction's view on it, which is more or less DBZ. (spirit energy that lets you do crazy things)
also the monk doesn't get the divine list, it just gets proficiency, this is entirely useless except to cast ki spells.
While that does conveniently work for the talking point of no divine spells for the witch, stating they are the "exception to the rule" doesn't hold much weight if I say "why no exceptions, even 1, for the Witch?"
it's not really an exception to the rule though, if they had the ability to casts their spells as divine spells from another list, for some reason, i don't think I would care that much. as they would be mechanically divine spells, but something else(like spells pulled from the shadow plane).
So firstly, I want to say, using initial Lore for a Class that has yet to be finalized is not going to be amazingly convincing to me (since it's not set in stone yet), but let's consider it at least for intent purposes:
you wanted me to quote stuff, i can either quote nothing or quote this.
The intent seems to be that a being, who chooses to remain unknown, grants you spells and other magical powers through a familiar.
So the Witch isn't even necessarily required necessary to learn the spells, the familiar serves that purposes and the Witch gets that from the Familiar.
This second hand delivery kind of admonishes the Witches needs of being "forced" into some Divine box while also giving the God-Patron in this case "plausible deniability".
I don't understand the distinction, rephrase perhaps.
This is an interesting piece, but the way they learn spells from another familiar would be to have the familiars interact with each other, and certainly a patron could step in if they disagree.
I don't really think it adds to either point, just interesting for the witch.
you're misunderstanding, not a familiar learning spells(and thus saving them for later), it specifically says a witch can prepare using another witches familiar.
"You can attempt to prepare spells from another witch’s familiar, but only if that familiar and their witch are willing and the spell appears on your tradition’s spell list. This uses the Borrow an Arcane Spell activity but isn’t limited to arcane spells; it instead uses the skill and tradition associated with your witch
spellcasting."(PZO2105pg36)
Sure there is.
Mercenaries have been a thing for years. Contractors and freelancers operate this way today.
historically speaking, and i feel like a god would be aware of this. Mercenaries have the unusual habit in history of turning on the people who were paying them, when they stop paying them. the pirates in the caribbean? they were all originally privateers who just stopped getting paid when the war between the big players all stopped. the first sacking of constantinople was done by mercs who were defaulted on when the emperor paying them was deposed. you end up with a lot of heavily armed people, without a job, they tend to either swap sides or become bandits. and i don't really want to go into this, so lets pretend i didn't make this comment.
- they need to send a Witch into a warded area against their priests- they don't want the Witch blowing their covert operation against Demon Lords they don't like by walking around with their divine weapon and emblazoned shield
- they want to trick someone into doing something that no one would ever want to do, even a faithful cleric
- maybe they don't have god status, but they are close, and want to undermine an existing god
- maybe they are the grim reaper, and they need help harvesting souls but lack clerics
- maybe the god has become "unpopular" or their current clerics aren't getting the job done
first, none of these require a divine witch, once again, i only have a problem with a deity having a divine witch.
1. just break the ward, liek if it's an issue, you just didn't send a powerful enough cleric. also do these types of wards even exist?
2. cool, get a disguise kit and a cleric thats good at doing specifically this. you can use a witch, or a person specifically trained for this situation.
3. such as? this is so vague it might as well be doing task that requires a witch and no one else could possibly do this for me.
4. like the Empyreal lords? or those right below them. you don't even need a witch for this.
5. Grim reaper from what i read doesn't need anyone to help him, XD.
like, i'm still not sure about the nature of this guy.
6. and you need the witch to be a spin doctor?
none of these justify something a cleric needs to do, but a witch should do instead.
It started because the pick a list class that doesn't mirror the sorcerer is weird, and not having the divine spell list meant you couldn't access spells like Summon Fiend.
just an fyi, planar binding is a thing that anyone can do, if they're skilled enough.
planar ally summons specifically a outsider that is associated with your god to help you. i really think that's antithesis to the witch.
honestly though, they should have the ability to access some rituals like create undead or planar binding.
And if Devils can be patrons, and they use divine magic, but they somehow teach a Witch to use Primal/Occult magic, how does that make sense in the lore?
well, i'm sure it depends on the abilities of the specific fiend or deva, not all fiends or devas can be patrons i assume, so whatever lets them teach those kinds of lessons, requires them to be unusual in some capacity. (whether they be corrupted, or just overly scholarly to things outside their normal sphere.)
so yeah, i still more or less hold my current position, but only because the majority of divine list users are going to come from fiends or devas and that's not something i think a witch chassis should support.
like a divine witch should be someone using planar energies but not getting direct power from a patron, which is not how most of them should be played, because that's how a cleric works, not how a witch works. (i'd like to say everything in the outer sphere is divine and everything in the inner sphere is primal, but unfortunately the shadow plane is inner sphere, and everything from there uses divine magic, so it's all a mess.)
to be clear, in pf1 at least empyreal lords and archdukes of hell all could grant spells, so it's not the big primary list that i consider gods, but most of their direct subordinates as well.
](Ignoring Essences cause those don’t make any sense to me) Anywho! Granting divine magic is what makes you a deity.
Great, but any random bard has access to roughly half the divine list to throw around through the occult list, so that kind of tautology isn't helpful or indeed accurate.
Sorcerers aren’t granted their magic in any capacity so that’s moot, it’s innate.
So... having divine magic isn't a matter of granting access to something restricted. Its just something people can 'just have.'
Neither is a good reason for not having divine list witches.
So, in whatever case the Witch exists, I agree carte blanche on Divine Deities choices is not exactly what I (or I assume others) want, just the ability to access the Divine Spell list.
A Shadow Plane (or any plane really) Witch caster makes perfect sense to me.
However, I want to highlight something that keeps getting said and illustrate the reasons I disagree with that piece specifically because it keeps getting brought up:
"Witch with a Divine Patron is basically a Cleric"
I disagree for the following reasons
Mechanical Differences
Mechanically, the two differ significantly:
- Witches get Hexes, Clerics get Divine Font
- Witches get Familiars, Clerics have domains
- Witches do not get Doctrine Benefits, Clerics have Doctrine and Anathema
- Witches prepare spells that they have to learn and use INT, Clerics are granted their entire list to prepare from and use Wisdom
- Witches can choose a spell list, Clerics cannot
- Clerics have better HP scaling than Witches and typically faster progression of Fortitude saves
So mechanically we have a LOT of differences here, the major one that I think fosters a lot of things is the main dependent ability.
Int vs. Wis.
Now while each has strong benefits, which everyone is aware of, they both foster completely different styles of play.
Not having an Anathema doesn't mean "cheating"
This has never been plainly said, but I feel as if people think that if a Witch gets a Divine Spell list that somehow they are "cheating the gods" out of what a relationship with a Cleric would require.
And I just don't believe that to be true.
For starters, one of the things people on the forums have been critical about is the complete lack of mechanical influence the Patron has on the Witch.
Secondly, the Sorcerer Class also does not bow to an Anathema of any kind, and I doubt anyone would argue the Sorcerer is "cheating" the Cleric (at least in terms of power). The Oracle is in the same boat, though they suffer curses for such flagrant use of abilities (but not with casting Divine Spells only Revelation Spells)
Third, the Cleric has a lot going on in its kit besides Divine Spells and Anathema. They have doctrine proficiencies that a Witch, quite frankly, doesn't have a comparable comparison. Witch lessons only grant more Hexes and additional spells. Clerics also get Divine Font and Divine Weapon, both of which are pretty strong abilities in their own right, but when coupled with their kit and role on a team is invaluable.
Thematic Differences
I've outlined a few thematic differences before, but just like relationships in real life are nuanced, so too are relationships between the giver and the receiver.
A Witch comes across as ambitious, some might even call it "power" hungry, or just down right curious. This is implied through many means, but the most direct being Intelligence dependency itself. Those that are Intelligent show an apt for learning, and learning more spells is certainly learning more power.
A Cleric is granted power after exemplifying the traditions and values of their God. The devotion and faith they show towards that relationship is directly what fosters their power.
A Witch would approach a problem and a relationship with a Deity in a vastly different way from a Cleric, whether that Patron was a Deity or just an Arch Devil or the Grim Reaper. They might "broker" an agreement, sign a contract, make a pact, trade valuables, etc.
A Cleric serves the deity at the Deities convenience, which of course is valuable to the deity, but that doesn't mean allegiances are strictly measured as the sole value in the relationship.
A mercenary for an army, while potentially less devoted than a citizen fighting in that army, might have abilities that the citizen otherwise might lack (either from background or just being different). Mercenaries throughout history have been factors in defeats and victories across both sides they fight for.
A Divine Witch, in this case, could be an ally to a deity, but not necessarily strictly devoted. Does that deteriorate the value that a Divine Witch can provide a Deity? Not particularly IMO.
A Witch might be intelligent enough to figure out something a Cleric cannot, pass into a realm or through a ward a Cleric cannot, might be more offensively apt to deal with the enemy (through other lessons) that a Cleric could not.
There are a multitude of reasons for someone to employ a "freelancer" to suit their needs, sometimes for lengths of time, sometimes indefinitely. This disconnect of the relationship just provides completely different fundamentals to how it works.
To summarize:
A Divine Witch and a Cleric vary across so many levels. Mechanically and thematically.
In this same playtest, the Swashbuckler has been introduced, which when it was first announced (I had not seen the mechanics) I protested as an overlap with the Fighter (as the current Fighter had most if not all the mechanics of the previous Swashbuckler) and the Rogue.
Currently, thematically, I would argue the Swashbuckler differs far less to the Fighter than the Divine Witch would to a Cleric.
Mechanically, of course they encourage vastly different styles of play (despite a Dex based fighter being completely viable) due to the panache mechanic.
I believe the Divine Witch and a Cleric would hold the same mechanical differences that I have illustrated above as what the Swashbuckler holds now in regards to the Fighter.
So if we're going to pull the trigger on a concept like Swashbuckler but deter people from playing a Divine Witch on the premise that it "overlaps with the Cleric" I would point to the above.
Divine Witches, like my dear Glinda the Good Witch, deserve a place at the core of the game and are not carbon copies of Clerics!
To be clear, I am not arguing to an "INT Divine", I was illustrating how an INT Divine Prepared caster would vary greatly from a standard Cleric.
So much so, that calling them the same, is IMO, disingenuous.
In the rest of the regard of spells that "do not belong thematically", I would argue that it depends on the theme.
Righteous Might, Divine Wrath, and Divine Decree are all things I could certainly see Glinda the Good Witch casting, in fact, she sort of does this against her counterpart (Elphaba) in binding shoes to Dorothy's feet (if that were a specific spell, I'd call it a "decree").
Personally, I don't find the casting of those spells any less weird than a Sorcerer with Angelic Blood or Demonic Blood casting them, but that's ultimately up to the person what fits thematically.
A lot of people might have issues with Primal Witches, but it depends on the Witch, once again, such as Morgan La Fey, who is most definitely heavily rooted in the Primal Spell list.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occult spell list has 'bless' and 'enthrall' which I think are not-witch.
Hol' up. How are those two not witchy? Good witches be giving out blessings left and right, and evil witches don't get out of bed without enthralling someone!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of disagree. Divine and Occult are the 2 spell lists that make the most sense thematically for witches. There are loads of witch tropes in media and lore about making deals with devils and demons for power.
Witches in these shows often buff themselves or their minions (Righteous might) and cast spells that hurt those whose ideals are opposed (decree) without hurting their minions.
With the new magic paradigm the questions around which class gets what traditions is a lot more flexible than 1e. In 1e we had specific spell lists for pretty much every caster class, PF2e has neatly tied this into 4 options. Divine witches make sense, the earliest European witch tales are about deals with the devil with black cat familiars. In history a lot of witches were just herbalists or healers that used alternate methods, or basically just women who interfered or learned skills that some felt should only be the work of men. There is very little reason lore wise to remove divine as an option.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
… wut? The spells themselves are irrelevant, Bards aren't Divine Casters, they're Occult.Great, but any random bard has access to roughly half the divine list to throw around through the occult list, so that kind of tautology isn't helpful or indeed accurate.](Ignoring Essences cause those don’t make any sense to me) Anywho! Granting divine magic is what makes you a deity.
Sorcerers aren’t granted their magic in any capacity so that’s moot, it’s innate.So... having divine magic isn't a matter of granting access to something restricted. Its just something people can 'just have.'
Neither is a good reason for not having divine list witches.
People like Sorcerers, ya'know, whose parents went and f%#+ed an immortal. Their magic is innate.
As for why we don't have Divine Traditions for WItches that's been gone over. Going off the Patrons grant option: Deities can grant Divine Magic to their followers, Patrons can be anything, ergo we have an issue if we declare that random wizard in the party can grant divine magic to someone, because he isn't a deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanical DifferencesMechanically, the two differ significantly:
- Witches get Hexes, Clerics get Divine Font
- Witches get Familiars, Clerics have domains
- Witches do not get Doctrine Benefits, Clerics have Doctrine and Anathema
- Witches prepare spells that they have to learn and use INT, Clerics are granted their entire list to prepare from and use Wisdom
- Witches can choose a spell list, Clerics cannot
- Clerics have better HP scaling than Witches and typically faster progression of Fortitude saves
i may or may not get to the rest later as i'm currently really tired.
firstly we're comparing a divine witch to a cleric, not any other witch. so...
it's more accurate to say witches get hexes and clerics get domain spells, which are both just choices of specific focus spells. also, doctrine aside, a cloistered cleric is more or less what i'd compare to a witch, a warpriest is a thing that exists, but it's a subclass of cleric and isn't that mechanically similar.
to be clear i'm not saying every cleric is every witch, but a cloistered cleric is exceptionally like a divine witch.
so the + for witches is a familiar that's super charged, and + for cleric is better HP, and have the entire divine list at any time, but have to deal with anathema.
neither of those i feel dramatically change gameplay.
i however, don't really think this justifies not having a witch, i just think it's not really as true as you make it out to be.
also, unrelated summon fiend and the like is a REALLY bad spell for witches imo. planar binding makes much more sense which is a ritual.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a little disingenuous to say that the problem is that Wizards can teach divine magic to Witches as if the nebulous nature of the patron by necessity means that all beings that could plausibly be a patron are equally capable of teaching any tradition of magic. If I have understood what you mean there.
To summarize my personal feelings, since I've been meaning to chime in but the debate is making my head spin:
To me it seems perfectly intuitive that the many mysterious entities that exist out there in the cosmos can among them teach a prospective Witch any one of the four traditions (albeit not many of them could offer said Witch the selection from all four traditions out of a single entity or group of entities... Nethys probably could... but few others). I see a Witch as a student being taught magical secrets personally by an supernatural entity who possesses unknown secrets about magic. The Witch must still learn and memorize each spell every bit the same as a Wizard would, but in a personalized pupil-and-master relationship.
It doesn't seem so strange to believe that a given deity might have reasons for recruiting isolated followings of witches which operate outside of their normal church hierarchy. After all, we assume similar of Oracles who draw on divine power from one or more deities but who are not also beholden to that deity's anathema. Likewise, it is none too difficult for me, especially in light of how common a patron goddess is among real-world witchcraft circles is, to imagine a Witch being devoted to a deity, but takes their own path and enters into a pact with their deity to be taught magic in a way that benefits their keen and analytical mind, as opposed to relying on their (possibly lacking) intuition and awareness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of disagree. Divine and Occult are the 2 spell lists that make the most sense thematically for witches. There are loads of witch tropes in media and lore about making deals with devils and demons for power.
sure, but at the same time those same witches getting power from demons don't tend to be what you'd call generically divine spells.
i went and looked through the divine spell lists of all the devils.
only 1 devil, the erinys, which are former angels, cast spells that are unique to the divine spell list, and most casts spells that aren't on the divine spell list at all.
no wait, pit demons have a few as well, but most of their spells aren't normally divine spells.
like i've said, i wouldn't really have an issue with them getting a divine tradition using another list, but the divine list itself is really not witchy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a little disingenuous to say that the problem is that Wizards can teach divine magic to Witches as if the nebulous nature of the patron by necessity means that all beings that could plausibly be a patron are equally capable of teaching any tradition of magic. If I have understood what you mean there.That's is precisely the concern, their utmost nebulous, which at this point does seem to include anything and everything with no restrictions stated thus far.
It doesn't seem so strange to believe that a given deity might have reasons for recruiting isolated followings of witches which operate outside of their normal church hierarchy.
Deities aren't constrained by their organized followers, which can have plenty of different sects and religions. They can empower whatever follower they want. If the church doesn't like it they can get over it.
Churches are made by mortals, not gods. They don't tell the deity what to do or what is allowed.
A part of Paizo not allowing divine might be to get away from the "Salem Witch Trial" conception of Witches as Devil worshipers getting their power from the Devil. It's an ugly part of history that I don't think anyone wants to echo. Asmodeus worshiping clerics don't evoke the same imagery thankfully.