Why witches should have one spell list

[Rysky]

I think they've [the Designers] talked before about considering if a spell that thematically fits really well with something, in that case a Deity granting spells to a Cleric, is introduced then they would put a sidebar saying you could add the spell to the given list or swap it out. Similar to how any caster worshippers got spells added to their lists in P1.

I could see the same applying to Patrons. Or even a Feat that lets you pick a spell(s) from a different Tradition if it fits [Class Feature criteria].

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I?

Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them.

[Rysky]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I?

Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them.

Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Rysky wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I?

Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them.

Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way.

I agree it would certainly be more valuable in the long run if you found patron spells that were not from your own tradition (whether that's Occult-only or pick-your-flavour). That said, the comparison with deity bonus spells isn't quite 1-to-1. A cleric automatically knows all their common divine spells, so a deity granting a spell like Faerie Fire is effectively doing nothing, whereas a Witch has a finite list of spells stored in their familiar. A patron granting a spell which is already in your tradition still saves you from spending resources to go find and learn that spell yourself.

Nevertheless, it remains true that it is technically more advantageous in terms of sheer breadth to choose options which grant you bonus spells not already in your tradition, because you could have spent resources to learn all spells from your tradition on your own. At least assuming in this scenario that picking your Patron and picking your spell tradition are different things and your Patron doesn't directly determine spell list, thereby removing the question of whether to stick with the theme or aim for desirable non-traditional patron spells.

[Vali Nepjarson]

Count me as fervently in the "Witches should be Occult casters and only Occult casters" group.

I understand the fear that doing this is removing options from people who want to play Primal or Arcane Witches, but in the end I actually feel like making the Witch only Occult opens up the door for more variability and going forward while still keeping within the themes of what makes a Witch a Witch.

See, when it comes to Pathfinder classes, we basically have two sub-varieties along with some that fall into the grey area in-between. Those whose name has cultural and historical relevance and those whose name can mean anything depending on the fantasy setting in general.

Sorcerer, Fighter, Wizard, Champion. These terms can mean basically anything. We CHOSE to assign something specific to them in the context of Pathfinder or any other specific fantasy setting. A Fighter can mean literally any person who engages in combat, martial or otherwise. A Wizard in Golarian means a person who studies the mechanics of magic scientifically, but in Harry Potter a Wizard is also born specially gifted with magical blood and in Lord of the Rings a Wizard is a celestial who has been sent to the mortal plane in order to accomplish some task from the creator deity of that world. A Sorcerer is literally just another term for someone who could also be a Wizard.

But then we have Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Alchemist.

Take a Druid for example. If you read a fantasy novel where Druids were depicted as science mages living in iron towers and creating mechanized magical weapons of war...well that would feel extremely weird because Druid is a much more specific term than Wizard is. Depending on the setting a Druid may be more or less magic in nature (depending on if the setting is low or high magic), they may be priestly, they may live in solitude or be the pillar of a community, but they will ALWAYS be men of nature who understands the wild and natural world and the mystical forces therein.

Barbarian may or may not refer to someone who flies into a blind rage on the regular, but it will always refer to someone who is uncivilized by the standards of the setting. Wild and powerful.

But then there are classes like Monk, Ranger, Cleric, which have either multiple different versions of what the term may invoke OR they have the specificity but it would not feel out of place or weird if someone decided to change it up and make the term mean something else. A Ranger may be a hunter out in the wild who lives off the land (the non mystic version of the Druid in a sense) or it may be a bounty hunter who travels from town to town. A Monk may be a master of Martial Arts who seems nearly supernatural in their abilities or it may be a priest who reads all day and has never thrown a punch in his life.

Witches fall into this third category. Being a Witch can mean a few different things to different people. The female version of a Wizard or Warlock. A terrifying hag who eats children in the forest. Hermione Granger, Elphaba, the White Queen, Granny Weatherwax. Spooky Halloween Witches, kindly Hedge Witches, Wiccans, Devil Worshippers, and everything inbtween.

But the thing is, Pathfinder Witches can't really be all of these things at the same time. So you need to find commonality. What are the elements of Witches that are specific to them and set them apart from other types of spellcasters, Wizards and Druids and the like. The answer, I think is a certain sense of unknown and uncertainty. Sure, not all of these Witch types have this, but those that don't are usually much more easily replicated with a different class. In Pathfinder terminology, Hermione Granger would be a Sorc or Wizard, not a Witch.

Witches live on the borderlines of society. Not well understood. Sometimes feared, other times revered for their ability to walk both in the world we know and the world we cannot know. In Pathfinder specifically they make pacts with beings who exist very distinctly in that which is outside, and this helps further to cement this idea that Witches are beings that live as part of this mystery and unknown.

And that links up with the Occult spell list. This doesn't mean that you can't be a kindly Hedge Witch. Pick a patron that connects you to the spirit of the forest or your garden and let it give you Heal, Summon Fey, Summon Animal, Wall of Thorns, and so on and so forth. As a Witch you should still have the ability to scry, probe the minds of your enemies and curse them, discern lies and enthrall people. If you don't want to have these things and would prefer to have ONLY the primal spells having all of your powers come from the wild itself, then there is really no reason to not be a Druid, since that is their focus. If you still want SOME of the Witch stuff, some hexes and whatnot, then that is what we have Muticlass archetypes for.

For Arcane espeically, what really is the difference between a Wizard and an Arcane Witch from the APG playtest? Very little. Druids and Bards are more different, Bards especially, but Wizards? They're so similar as to feel redundant.

And this makes a more interesting and nuanced class that can be more diverse than you could get by shoehorning the whole, multiple lists thing. I already touched on how a Hedge Witch who used Occult spells but also had a bunch of Hedge Witch abilities from bonus spells and Lessons and Patron abilities is very distinct from a Druid. But also a Winter Witch, my favorite archetype in all of Pathfinder basically, right now feels like it just doesn't work. Either you pick the Primal or Arcane spell lists to get the Cold spells you need, thus making you feel not at all like a Witch and much more like something that plays and acts like either the Elemental Sorcerer with an Ice veneer or a White/Silver Dragon Sorcerer, OR you pick the Occult spell list in order to feel like a Witch and then wait until a later level to get any Cold ANYTHING and then get one spell, one cantrip, and two hexes.

So right now my options are pick Winter or pick Witch, you cannot have both.

For an actual Winter Witch, who has all the hidden and fringe powers that a Witch should have while also being a master of the Winter, gaining the Occult spell list as the base, plus bonus spells from your Winter Patron, other winter themed powers (Ice Glide can be awesome if you know how to make it work for you), some Winter abilities for your familiar (they can add a lot more variety and customization into the patrons of the class itself if so much of the potential customization isn't tied to what spell list you want). That if what a Winter Witch is, not just a blaster-caster like the Sorc is and what an Ice themed Druid Order might be if they ever added that in.

Could I see options for a Primal Witch in the future? Yeah, sure. But that should be a class archetype that would also give it other things that make it distinct from the Druid and Primal Sorcs, which would be much easier if the class already HAD more robust choices and abilities in the class itself rather than just letting you pick a spell list from the start.

[cavernshark]

It would be really cool if witches were Occult base, but got a feature called "Patron Spells" that worked a little bit like the signature spell class ability for sorcerers and bards. They could, at each spell level, pick a single spell off of an alternate list chosen at first level (primal, divine, arcane) that represents the unique magic of their patron. This way you could retain all the flexibility of an amorphous patron and future proof against the addition of future spells. This way your winter witch won't miss out if new ice spells get added, you just retrain your patron spells. It'd also open up some design space for feats entirely based around those additional spells known (e.g. commune with your familiar for 10 minutes once a day to convert a prepared spell into one of your patron spells).

[Orithilaen]

cavernshark wrote:

It would be really cool if witches were Occult base, but got a feature called "Patron Spells" that worked a little bit like the signature spell class ability for sorcerers and bards. They could, at each spell level, pick a single spell off of an alternate list chosen at first level (primal, divine, arcane) that represents the unique magic of their patron. This way you could retain all the flexibility of an amorphous patron and future proof against the addition of future spells. This way your winter witch won't miss out if new ice spells get added, you just retrain your patron spells. It'd also open up some design space for feats entirely based around those additional spells known (e.g. commune with your familiar for 10 minutes once a day to convert a prepared spell into one of your patron spells).

I really like this idea. You could customize the lists further, too: "you can pick patron spells from the arcane list or from any spell with the healing trait" or something like that.

[Henro]

cavernshark wrote:

It would be really cool if witches were Occult base, but got a feature called "Patron Spells" that worked a little bit like the signature spell class ability for sorcerers and bards. They could, at each spell level, pick a single spell off of an alternate list chosen at first level (primal, divine, arcane) that represents the unique magic of their patron. This way you could retain all the flexibility of an amorphous patron and future proof against the addition of future spells. This way your winter witch won't miss out if new ice spells get added, you just retrain your patron spells. It'd also open up some design space for feats entirely based around those additional spells known (e.g. commune with your familiar for 10 minutes once a day to convert a prepared spell into one of your patron spells).

I think this is a very cool idea! It makes the Witch even more customizable compared to my suggestion, and it’s automatically future-proof since you’ll never run into a situation where a new spell is printed but witches can’t access it yet. It’s possible that level of spell selection makes the class hard balance but I would really like this assuming there’s a way to make it work.

[Puna'chong]

I can see it going multiple ways:

Patron as Bonus Tradition:
- Most flexible in terms of future-proofing, because the Witch essentially has access to two full traditions rather than a selection of spells
- Less thematic. A Winter Witch and a Hedge Witch could both have the Primal Patron list, rather than specific spells that match their patron
- Makes a Witch that takes a MCD potentially a three-list caster, which could make for added proficiency/balance concerns

Patron Spells Selected by Trait
- Potentially most flexible in terms of "making it happen"; selecting based on trait could let the Witch take the spells they need from any tradition
- Less future-proof, if only because it means Paizo would have to be extra careful about spell traits. A new spell (or existing spell) could be otherwise a perfect fit but might lack a necessary trait
- Thematic, if each Patron gets to have a few traits to pick from, and if there's a hard and fast rule--like Patrons get three traits--then it'd be easy for DMs and players to make their own. Patrons could come with their own preferred list, for newer players or those who can't be bothered
- Traits are a somewhat hidden mechanic, and hunting for traits could get more tedious over time

Patron Spells Predetermined
- Least flexible in terms of player options, but potentially still flexible because spells could be of any tradition
- Thematic, but the theme might not be exactly what someone envisions and would be very specific to that Patron, rather than to that Patron's relationship to the Witch
- Pre-selected spell lists sometimes have some major duds, and that sucks
- Easy for new or casual players, and new Patrons can be released over time to expand on options

I think any of these could work, especially with class feats that let Witches further expand their ability to reach (but not own) other traditions. If a Witch really really wants a particular spell, I think it's fair and cool and thematic to have that be a Lesson they can pick as a feat--although, maybe not just a 1:1 feat:spell, maybe a Hex too. Who knows

I lean in favor of the second set, because even though it's more tedious it also gives huge flexibility and makes spell traits a legitimate mechanical ability

[Midnightoker]

If they did go "add all spells with the X trait" that would at least take advantage of the trait system in a way we haven't seen before.

And, curiously, if there were methods/feats that could add traits to spells (such as "changing all spells with elemental damage to fire spells and they gain the fire trait") that would further allow concepts that might not have been possible with a strict trait system.

I hope it's easier to consume for new players, but to be honest, all of the APG classes are a little more complex than the standard 12 anyways, so maybe it's a non-issue.

[Puna'chong]

Adding traits or adjusting traits should be pretty straightforward for an archetype or a class feat, yeah. A class feat that lets you take something with any elemental trait and change it to a trait that matches your Patron (a Mental fireball?!). You could get real weird with it, and I like that

This route being a major part of a class could also open the door for Paizo to play with traits more, because right now there isn't a ton that interacts with them. Witch could be the paragon for spell traits and get players accustomed to looking at and thinking about them

Further, a focus on traits could let Cackle (or whatever, an Aura of Malevolence or something) be changed to let the Witch sustain any and all spells with their Patron's traits or any Hex within X feet. Class feats could let the Witch duplicate effects within their range if they match their Patron's traits, or if an effect ends because a creature dies they could swap it over to another one. A Hedge Witch could move fast healing effects between party members within their aura...

But I digress. Traits sound fun

[Lyz Liddell]

I'm digging these suggestions! There's a design space here that's aligning really well with mechanically weighted patrons that still allows lots of space for home-group players and GMs to create something unique, without making that aspect of the class unusable for Pathfinder Society and less experienced players.

[Chief Cook and Bottlewasher]

You'd have to watch out for over specializing, so you don't end up with a fire witch and everything having fire resistance, or a cold-based witch and everything having cold resistance. Was this a problem with elemental based wizards and if not, how did they get round it?

[rainzax]

Base list + Trait system:

If this route is adopted, I think a "helper" sidebar which lists, from the CRB + APG, which spells have which traits, would really help people who haven't yet, or would be reluctant to, scour these books/pdfs spell by spell to identify traits. It'd allow a casual glance to give the player all the initial information they need to make their choice.

Cheers.

[Henro]

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

You'd have to watch out for over specializing, so you don't end up with a fire witch and everything having fire resistance, or a cold-based witch and everything having cold resistance. Was this a problem with elemental based wizards and if not, how did they get round it?

Most people's suggestion include some kind of spell list as a "base" (this includes most pick-a-list suggestions I've seen), so you would always have that as a fallback to avoid overspecialization.

[Orithilaen]

rainzax wrote:

Base list + Trait system:

If this route is adopted, I think a "helper" sidebar which lists, from the CRB + APG, which spells have which traits, would really help people who haven't yet, or would be reluctant to, scour these books/pdfs spell by spell to identify traits. It'd allow a casual glance to give the player all the initial information they need to make their choice.

Cheers.

This shouldn't be the only way to conveniently get the information, but note that Archives of Nethys has a very nice function that lets you search by trait. (Just go to a rules element with the trait and click on the trait.)

[WatersLethe]

I wonder if the enhanced spell access is deemed too powerful compared to other spellcasters, maybe a trait trade mechanism could be implemented.

Like, gain access to spells with XYZ traits but lose access to spells with IJK traits?

I don't know, it might help bring out the "full of holes" feel of the PF1 spell list.

[Puna'chong]

I think the flexibility of bonus Patron trait spells could be easily balanced with a lower total slots/day like Druid, or only being prepared in bonus slots. Especially if Witch Hexes are a bit more powerful, and/or there are Hex Cantrips as well. I don't think being heavy-handed with restrictions would make it feel quite as fun, or doing more "old school" prohibitions. Probably would also make multiclassing difficult...

Personally, I'm in favor of fewer daily slots, full freedom to put Patron spells or Occult spells in any slot, with Hex Cantrips and full Hexes. Let spell volume be the Wizard's domain, let tradition flexibility and Hexes be the Witch's

[Bandw2]

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

you retain them after a lost familiar and don't have to spend resources learning them if they happen to already be on your list.

Rysky wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I?

Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them.

Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way.

that's because a cleric has access to the entire divine list

[Bandw2]

separately on the trait system, are we sure spells are traited with enough vigor to make sense?

like looking at baleful polymorph, it's a [incap][polymorph][transmutation] spell.

I don't think any of these traits should particularly be used to say grab all curses...

most of the elemental and attack spells have decent traits, but nothing else really does...

like if we give all polymorph or transmutation spells, you also allow a witch to access the 10th level avatar spell from the divine list... which doesn't feel particularly correct if you're trying to give a witch baleful polymorph.

[Puna'chong]

Well I don't think a Patron could have only one trait if that's the route that's taken. Three would probably be pretty reasonable

A "curse"-focused patron might have Incapacitation, Enchantment, and Necromancy if Polymorph is too broad but you want baleful polymorph. If two schools are also too broad, then you could limit it to Incapacitation, Enchantment, and Emotion, or Sleep, or something else a bit more narrow. A cold-focused patron could have Cold, Darkness, and Mental, etc.

An argument for all Witches getting baleful polymorph is pretty strong though

[Midnightoker]

Idk, Zatana enters an avatar state in the justice league movie! In Harry Potter the diviner witch teacher (trelawnwey?) goes white eyes and enters an avatar like state for her prophecy (but that could just be something else).

The theme isn’t necessarily out of place is all I’m saying, at least to me, and polymorph definitely seems like it would be a cool trait to get. They’d halve to amend the spell a bit so it worked with patrons or just put text that gives GMs the opportunity to adjudicate.

That’s my take, not to debate them as witches, just the idea of an arcane person entering an avatar like state.

[Temperans]

A curse patron would probably give the Curse, Charm/Enchantment, and Polymorph traits.
While a deception patron might give the "Glamour", Charm, and 1 other trait (maybe polymorph?).

Also there could be feats to add traits to spells that normally lack it while changing the way they work. Ex: Giving a/some spell the Curse trait and improving the duration to permanent on a crit fail. Or giving a/some spell the Cold trait and making it do bonus cold damage on a crit fail.

The system would be pretty flexible and everything just needs to be balanced correctly. Although it opens up a can of worm of potential multi stacking, if done incorrectly. Ex: Winter Witch/Hexcrafter Magus.

[Rysky]

Bandw2 wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

you retain them after a lost familiar and don't have to spend resources learning them if they happen to already be on your list.

Rysky wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I?

Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them.

Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way.

that's because a cleric has access to the entire divine list

And the Witch has access to their entire list(s) as well. Clerics can't trade out spells on the fly.

[Bandw2]

Rysky wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

you retain them after a lost familiar and don't have to spend resources learning them if they happen to already be on your list.

Rysky wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I?

Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them.

Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way.

that's because a cleric has access to the entire divine list

And the Witch has access to their entire list(s) as well. Clerics can't trade out spells on the fly.

no.. they gain spells like a wizard.

like a cleric doesn't get anything from a diety giving you a divine spell, because you already can prepare all spells on the divine list at any time... right?

a witch has to get a scroll and have their familiar eat it.

[Bandw2]

Puna'chong wrote:

Well I don't think a Patron could have only one trait if that's the route that's taken. Three would probably be pretty reasonable

A "curse"-focused patron might have Incapacitation, Enchantment, and Necromancy if Polymorph is too broad but you want baleful polymorph. If two schools are also too broad, then you could limit it to Incapacitation, Enchantment, and Emotion, or Sleep, or something else a bit more narrow. A cold-focused patron could have Cold, Darkness, and Mental, etc.

An argument for all Witches getting baleful polymorph is pretty strong though

thats a LOT of spells... not something like gaining a spell for every level or anything, that's like half of all lists...

it's not particularly thematic either, you just gain a ton of spells that are someway involved with a trait...

like imagine having access to ALL incapacitation spells...

[Rysky]

Bandw2 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

you retain them after a lost familiar and don't have to spend resources learning them if they happen to already be on your list.

Rysky wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I want to add that if Patrons give spells and Witches can choose any spell list, then it's of little benefit to choose a Patron which suits your theme if it's not going to add anything to your spell list.

If I can get all my ice & cold spells from the Primal list, then why would I want an ice & cold Patron?
Wait, of course I want such a Patron for my Winter Witch, don't I?

Because if your patron teaches you those spells, you are free to pick any other spell you want from the Primal list (I kind of assume Winter Witch would be Arcane, but I've never been deep in their lore). Just because all the cold spells your Winter patron grants you were already on your list doesn't mean you already knew them.

Seeing as how Deities only grant bonus spells from the non-Divine lists (and they even have Errata for the one case where it was a Divine spell) I don’t think this would be the way they go. It makes the bonus spells from the Class Feature valuable that way.

that's because a cleric has access to the entire divine list

And the Witch has access to their entire list(s) as well. Clerics can't trade out spells on the fly.

no.. they gain spells like a wizard.

like a cleric doesn't get anything from a diety giving you a divine spell, because you already can prepare all spells on the divine list at any time... right?

a witch has to get a scroll and have their familiar eat it.

Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when they're doing their preparations. They can't swap out spells any time they want.

[rainzax]

Orithilaen wrote:

rainzax wrote:

Base list + Trait system:

If this route is adopted, I think a "helper" sidebar which lists, from the CRB + APG, which spells have which traits, would really help people who haven't yet, or would be reluctant to, scour these books/pdfs spell by spell to identify traits. It'd allow a casual glance to give the player all the initial information they need to make their choice.

Cheers.

This shouldn't be the only way to conveniently get the information, but note that Archives of Nethys has a very nice function that lets you search by trait. (Just go to a rules element with the trait and click on the trait.)

I'm going to bet that the typical beginner doesn't wander off to Archives to deck out their first character.

Just piping in to say that Visual Organization matters.

[Midnightoker]

Eh I’m thinking traits as spell lists just isn’t a viable solution due to complexity of learning and too many unintended consequences.

[Rysky]

Or just leave it at one Trait (that makes sense) since they're going to keep adding spells so those specified lists are still gonna keep getting bigger and bigger.

[Samurai]

What about folding the Occultist into the Witch? She casts spells using Infused magical objects, a different object for each school of magic? There are already traits for the schools of magic, so nothin new to add. The witch starts off knowing 2 schools of magic, but can pull from the Arcane, Primal, and Occult spell traditions. As she levels up, she gets more schools of magic. Each magic school’s spells must be cast using an Infused object. The Infused object must be either held or worn, and that material component can take the place of a somatic component. (This swapping of a material for a somatic component is basically the opposite of Eschew Materials) The Witch can learn to use more Infused objects as she increases in level, each new Infused object being connected to and required for 1 additional school of magic. No object can be used for more than one school. The Witch gets a third Infused object and school at 5th level, a fourth at 9th level, a fifth at 13th level, and a sixth at 17th level. At least 1 new spell that is gained at those levels must be from the new school the witch learned.

[Vali Nepjarson]

Agreed. I'm not sold on the trait idea. Sure, it works for a Winter Witch, and a few others. But some, like the Hedge Witch, require a few spells of such variance that trying to find a trait to encompass them seems an effort in futility.

Like, a proper Hedge Witch, IMO, needs Summon Fey (or possibly animal), Heal, Circle of Protection, Wall of Thorns, ect. What trait would encompass all of that without throwing in a bunch of other superfluous stuff?

Perhaps instead of traits, we do like what the Sorc does with it's bonus spells. So Witches are always Occult, but then they get a bonus spells from another spell list every spell level based on the patron, and occasionally you can have an option to pick between two or more. So the so for level 2 spells the Hedge Witch can pick between Summon Fey and Summon Animal. The level 1 could be a choice between Heal and Protection.

Then as new spells are added, every so often add an Errata for Witch, Sorcerer, and any other spellcaster that functions this way that adds alternate choices for their bonus spells.

[Castilliano]

Vali Nepjarson wrote:

Agreed. I'm not sold on the trait idea. Sure, it works for a Winter Witch, and a few others. But some, like the Hedge Witch, require a few spells of such variance that trying to find a trait to encompass them seems an effort in futility.

Like, a proper Hedge Witch, IMO, needs Summon Fey (or possibly animal), Heal, Circle of Protection, Wall of Thorns, ect. What trait would encompass all of that without throwing in a bunch of other superfluous stuff?

Perhaps instead of traits, we do like what the Sorc does with it's bonus spells. So Witches are always Occult, but then they get a bonus spells from another spell list every spell level based on the patron, and occasionally you can have an option to pick between two or more. So the so for level 2 spells the Hedge Witch can pick between Summon Fey and Summon Animal. The level 1 could be a choice between Heal and Protection.

Then as new spells are added, every so often add an Errata for Witch, Sorcerer, and any other spellcaster that functions this way that adds alternate choices for their bonus spells.

Occult already has Summon Fey & Circle of Protection. Soothe mirrors Heal (and feels slightly witchier to me) so that leaves Wall of Thorns which should be on a Plant or Nature Patron's list (as well as Summon Animal for the latter).

Also, simply because one has a Patron as a source of expanded spells doesn't mean feats can't add more facets to the Patron or simply specific spell sets to the list.

[ikarinokami]

Patrons and a single list creates internal contradictions in the class. Why is a Dragon patron teaching you occult magic? or a fey patron teaching you occult magic. Why is Baba Yaga teaching you occult magic?

Every culture has witches that you would say are occult, primal or arcane caster, I think that should remain so primal/arcane/occult depending on the patron should be kept.

The real issue for the class are the hexes. Currently the spell list are probably more important that the hexes right now which to me is the real issue, to me Witch is hex first and spells second.

I played a PF1 witch from 1 to level 17 in the reign of winter campaign, The spells are great, but it was the hexes that made you feel like a witch.

honestly the hexes as focus spells just does not work. I understand why they made them focus spells, but it doesn't work. I should be able to do 10 rounds of combat just using various hexes at high level . which I have done at high level once I knew enough hexes, you cant really do that under the new system.

[Rysky]

Why is a Dragon teaching you Primal Magic? Or a Fey Arcane?

Occult is for the Witch, with outside-Tradition spells the territory of that specific Patron.

[Puna'chong]

What is the Witch's throughline? What is its identity? What ties every "witch" together? If the class is expected to cover every casting archetype out of the box then I'm not sure why we would still have Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Having some limits lets it be something because then it can't be everything. Three traits might be too many, one too few, or traits might not work as a casting list mechanic! But at the very least it offers the class some interesting choices and makes Patrons kind of a cool, twisted deity for the Witch. If the only thing that really differentiates a Primal Witch from a Druid is Hexes, then I don't think that's enough to justify an entire class instead of just letting other casters pick up Hexes as class feats through an archetype

And as for the Occult list, isn't the point that it's full of esoterica and the sort of magic that lives in the space between the other three traditions? In my mind it was Arcane magic before Arcane discipline (the "science" of Arcane) existed, or the cults that try to raise a new being to godhood, or magic that twists and makes a mockery of the natural order--for better or worse

A Dragon could totally teach Occult magic, because the dragon could themselves be a master of that type of magic; it's not like dragons are strictly arcane, always. The fae and faerie tales are archetypically a mix of Occult and Primal; eating children isn't Primal, or Arcane, or Divine, Changelings are pretty Occult. Occult is Hellboy and Hellboy's Baba Yaga, and old school faerie tales, the Weird Sisters or the Moirai, weird magic, the Necronomicon, Hellrazer, whatever they're trying to appease in Cabin in the Woods, World of Warcraft's Bwonsamdi. Among other things, like psychic magic or ectoplasm or tarot or the magic of pure inspiration

Having a class that represents that and gets to champion the Occult list sounds cool to me

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Rysky wrote:

Why is a Dragon teaching you Primal Magic? Or a Fey Arcane?

Occult is for the Witch, with outside-Tradition spells the territory of that specific Patron.

It feels like the obvious answer to this is a simple stipulation that your patron can only teach you whatever kind of magic it knows. We don't wonder why draconic sorcerers cast primal spells because the draconic bloodline doesn't give primal spells. There is no reason to assume that if witches end up as a multi-tradition caster (whether out of all traditions or only few) that all potential patrons are equally likely to teach you all available traditions.

I'm not very convinced that retraining witches to Occult + extras will necessarily produce a class with a more unified identity than a multi-tradition caster. After all, Sorcerer already exists as a multi-tradition class and it seems to pull it off with aplomb. To me witches are an incredibly diverse group, as defined by their relationship with their teacher as they are by their identity as a witch. There is no reason to assume two different witches with two different patrons are learning roughly the same magic.

I absolutely believe Occult is an excellent spell list for a given witch, but I'm not remotely convinced that it is enough to cover every diverse witch character concept. There are only so many patches you can add on to the Occult list with patron or lesson bonus spells before you hit a point where it becomes too much versatility--not that such a versatile class would be bad conceptually, but versatility is a type of power around which classes are balanced.

If I am a hedge witch living in a cottage and learning magic from the powerful ancient dryad who lives in the heart of the forest, it makes sense for me to have a good selection of nature themed spells. I want to be able to transform myself and others, I want to conjure woodland spirits and creatures to my aid and manipulate plants, I want to heal wounds and ailments of those who come seeking my help, I want to charm or terrify those who intrude into my domain, and I want to have the elemental forces of nature at my fingertips when I need them. Those things all come with the Primal list.

I can have some of those things with the Occult list (I can summon fey, but not animals or plans, I can charm and beguile foes quite adeptly, I can do a passable job soothing wounds and removing ailments) but where I wanted shapeshifting and elemental prowess I got illusions and attacks that strike at the spirit of my foes. Those are excellent things that some witches should definitely be able to do, but I am not that witch, so I'm stuck with a spell list I only wanted half of, looking for patron options which can supplement me the things I did when I'd rather be tossing in a few fey illusion onto my Primal list.

I could give up and become a druid, strapping on some armour and go live with a druid circle and abide by their anathemas, but I'm not a nature priest, I'm a fairy witch who lives in a cottage and studies the secret lore of the forest. To say that this concept is really just a druid with a witch label slapped on top doesn't really hold up. It's like taking an Oracle concept and saying that their mysterious powers are really just in their bloodline or clerical faith.

Finally (did not mean to compose a post this long when I started... apologies if I started to ramble), because I've seen quite some debate about what the Occult tradition means to people and what the word signifies in their mind, but with little reference to Occult magic's place in the lore, I wanted to dig into that a touch. I assume most people are aware that all four traditions embody two of the four fundamental essences of the world (even if I understand some people express their disinterest in learning what these are). I don't think it works to say that Occult magic is the magic between other essences because it has its place in its own corner of the system.

Each magical tradition combines one of the two what I think of as substantial essences, material and spiritual. The two physical traditions, Arcane and Primal, deal with tangible reality of the physical realm. The two spiritual traditions, Divine and Occult, deal with the ephemeral realm of ideals and soul.

Likewise each tradition combines one of the two conceptual essences (again, group name is my own, these groups really exist in lore just not labelled as such), the vital and mental. Vital essence is a being's life force and instinct, encompassing gut-feel emotions like faith, love, and rage. Mental essence is a being's higher brain functions, complex emotions and rational mind. Vital traditions deal with instinct and life, Mental traditions work in reason and thought.

Occult is the mental-spiritual tradition, which makes it the tradition that combines thought and rationality with the irrational and self-contradictory world of spirits, which is befitting both the Bards who collect and study esoteric knowledge, and the sorcerers with a touch of the alien in their blood.

Does this sound like a good list for witches? I agree 100%! Is this base the one that every witch must build their foundation on regardless who their patron or what their circumstances? This I am less convinced.

TL;DR - I can sort of see why people want Occult-only and establish a firm unified identity that define witches as the occult caster (with Bard pantomiming in the background). However, I remain unconvinced that the identity of an Occult-only witch is necessarily better, no matter how unified it is, than the identity of the witch defined by their breadth and eclectic and diverse magics. Certainly a witch must be something but to me that something is a bizarre collection of different things, unified by their access to power--the patron/student relationship communing with forces beyond their ken. No different than sorcerers are already a diverse group of wildly distinct magical traditions and styles, unified only by the source of their power, their magical bloodlines.

[notXanathar]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I absolutely believe Occult is an excellent spell list for a given witch, but I'm not remotely convinced that it is enough to cover every diverse witch character concept. There are only so many patches you can add on to the Occult list with patron or lesson bonus spells before you hit a point where it becomes too much versatility--not that such a versatile class would be bad conceptually, but versatility is a type of power around which classes are balanced.

Equally, there is no way that you could pull off every wizard character concept with just the wizard we've got. That would also have to include the sorcerer and witch (As the flavour has it), as well as virtually any other spellcaster that is even vaguely arcane. Part of class design is taking a word that hasn't much inherent meaning beyond magic user and giving it that. There is no reason that primal witches couldn't be catered for with another class that uses the primal spell list in a fundamentally different way to the druid, in the same way that the Oracle is so different to the cleric. It might have a similar feel, but would use a different spell list to the witch.

[Rysky]

“ It feels like the obvious answer to this is a simple stipulation that your patron can only teach you whatever kind of magic it knows.”

And why can’t a Dragon know Primal magic?

Again, Occult would be the Witch themselves. If they had a Nature Patron (Dryad) and bonus spells the bonus spells would be nature themed.

As for Sorcerer they’re (in my opinion) ehh, and also unique. You start adding more and more pick-a-lists and that wears off real quick. Also since their lists are tied to their Bloodlines it’s more innate to the class.

The current version of the Witch has no ties to any of the 3 lists.

[Rysky]

Quote:

I can have some of those things with the Occult list (I can summon fey, but not animals or plans, I can charm and beguile foes quite adeptly, I can do a passable job soothing wounds and removing ailments) but where I wanted shapeshifting and elemental prowess I got illusions and attacks that strike at the spirit of my foes. Those are excellent things that some witches should definitely be able to do, but I am not that witch, so I'm stuck with a spell list I only wanted half of, looking for patron options which can supplement me the things I did when I'd rather be tossing in a few fey illusion onto my Primal list.

That sounds like a Fey inspired Druid more than anything.

Quote:

I could give up and become a druid, strapping on some armour and go live with a druid circle and abide by their anathemas, but I'm not a nature priest, I'm a fairy witch who lives in a cottage and studies the secret lore of the forest. To say that this concept is really just a druid with a witch label slapped on top doesn't really hold up.

It kinda does, since there’s not really anything that makes that concept uniquely Witchy over a Druid. If you compare a Primal Tradition Witch and a Druid the Druid fits your concept better. You don’t have to attend Druid meetings as a Druid, you just have to serve Nature.

Quote:

It's like taking an Oracle concept and saying that their mysterious powers are really just in their bloodline or clerical faith.

Not even remotely the same situation.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Rysky wrote:

“ It feels like the obvious answer to this is a simple stipulation that your patron can only teach you whatever kind of magic it knows.”

And why can’t a Dragon know Primal magic?

Again, Occult would be the Witch themselves. If they had a Nature Patron (Dryad) and bonus spells the bonus spells would be nature themed.

I didn't say dragons couldn't learn Primal magic. That's why I said that the patron can only teach you magic it knows. You were asking why would they teach primal magic, which is what I was responding to. I see your Occult list + Nature themed bonus spells but I don't see any way there would be enough bonus spells to provide the kind of coverage I'm looking for short of just giving two entire spell lists to one class.

Again, the concept I'm talking about is not a druid. They study magic from their fey patron, they have a familiar. Perhaps they brew beneficial potions in their cauldron and of course know a variety of hexes to cast upon those who cross them. They use their cunning to study magic, and the cycles of nature, they do not venerate them. I mean, not by intent but I very nearly described Baba Yaga learning magic at the tutelage of the fey who taught her--but then Baba Yaga canonically studied divine magic and created arcane versions of many of those spells because she could so I would hardly dare pin her down with my idle analysis.

People have argued there should be no need for Oracle because a spontaneous Divine caster already exists in the Sorcerer. I do not agree that there is not enough to differentiate two classes that happen to use the same spell list that they shouldn't. Again, I agree that multi-tradition casting shouldn't be commonplace. Witch is the only class I believe should have multi-tradition casting because eclectic magic cobbled-together out of scraps of mystical lore learned at the foot of your mysterious patron should be what the witch is about. I understand if you feel that the Occult list includes spells that every witch should know and that anything not there can fit on a themed patron spell list, but that's not the witch I envision.

If we get an Occult-only Witch, I would probably play it, because it would be good, but sight unseen I rather believe I would never shake the feeling that it was only half the witch it could have been.

[Vali Nepjarson]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

If we get an Occult-only Witch, I would probably play it, because it would be good, but sight unseen I rather believe I would never shake the feeling that it was only half the witch it could have been.

And yet this is exactly my problem with the multi-school Witch, that it is only half of a Witch at any point unless you go Occult.

My all time favorite Witch Archetype is the Winter Witch. Both for the Golarian lore and for just the Winter feel itself. The fact that Winter Witches are currently made to be Primal has me feeling so frustrated with the playtest version of the class that I have made 6 versions of the same character and scrapped ALL of them because they just don't work.

Because the nature of what makes a Witch has always been the fact that they are the fringe casters, walking half in our world and half in a world that others don't understand. They have hexes and curses and they are mysterious and otherworldly and they scry and feel the spirit of the world around them and delve into the realm of the mysterious and esoteric.

Winter Witches, as well as all others, should do all this too. I love the Winter Witch because the idea of seeing the cold unknown of Winter and how it connects with this is compelling to me. And tapping into the ancient and unknowable cold to freeze the spirit or command the Winter itself to freeze the body is important to the concept. A Winter Witch should be able to do both.

As I said in an earlier post, I feel like I can currently be Winter or I can be Witch. I cannot be both. And it has me tearing my hair out.

The same is true of the forest Witch who learns from an ancient Fey. They are still a Witch and should still have all hexes and esoteric mystery as any other Witch. AND they should also have some of the druidic type of magic to show how the lessons and mysteries of their patron deals with this stuff, but they should not have the full Primal Spell list because while they may be druidish, they don't go full ham "I am part of nature itself". Instead they connect to the spirits of the woods to enthrall and ensnare and go deeper down the unseen path than any Druid would.

I do still feel like there are some things that should be staples of all Witches that Occult doesn't have, such as Baleful Polymorph. It's not Occult but all Witches should have it as an option just because it's so iconic. These things can be solved with Lessons or otherwise in Class Feats though.

[Midnightoker]

I don’t see why you can’t just pick a lesson that’s occult if you want the occult list and then class feats/additional lessons can stills solve the missing spells issue.

Like what’s the problem with just picking an occult lesson? Just because “winter/frost/ice” is in the lesson name?

Maybe the issue then isn’t that you have to select the primal list but that the primal list and the frost hex/lesson are tied together.

If they divided the list picking to specifically be tethered to the patron itself and let the lessons stand on their own, would that suffice?

[Henro]

Midnightoker wrote:

I don’t see why you can’t just pick a lesson that’s occult if you want the occult list and then class feats/additional lessons can stills solve the missing spells issue.

Like what’s the problem with just picking an occult lesson? Just because “winter/frost/ice” is in the lesson name?

Maybe the issue then isn’t that you have to select the primal list but that the primal list and the frost hex/lesson are tied together.

If they divided the list picking to specifically be tethered to the patron itself and let the lessons stand on their own, would that suffice?

It's not just an optics problem.

If you pick an occult starting lesson, you will end up extremely starved for ice spells - you would have none to start and only ever get two later (wall of ice and arguably summon elemental). You could mitigate this issue by printing an occult starting lesson that gave an ice spell, but that's still only three for the entirety of your career.

[Midnightoker]

Henro wrote:

It's not just an optics problem.

If you pick an occult starting lesson, you will end up extremely starved for ice spells - you would have none to start and only ever get two later (wall of ice and arguably summon elemental). You could mitigate this issue by printing an occult starting lesson that gave an ice spell, but that's still only three for the entirety of your career.

But how does that get solved by making a Witch strictly Occult?

That still requires that a bunch of spells be added to the list. I Would argue, more spells, by going strictly occult.

This whole notion that all Witches should have X spell is personal opinion.

And not to say I don't like or want the Winter Witch in the release, but the Winter Witch was not in the APG release if I remember correctly (and it had a Prestige and an Archetype to help accentuate that).

- Patron grants X Spell list.

- The first lesson grants X spells to emphasize the value of the first lesson

- An appropriate Hex for that lesson (in this case Snow is probably the closest)

This accomplishes the same thing, except the Patron can be any spell list thus offering different flavors of Winter Witch.

So while "optics" might be an issue, saying roll it back to one spell list is going to solve that problem is just not true. It still requires a bunch of rewrites and additional abilities to even function.

[Mechagamera]

Puna'chong wrote:

What is the Witch's throughline? What is its identity? What ties every "witch" together? If the class is expected to cover every casting archetype out of the box then I'm not sure why we would still have Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Having some limits lets it be something because then it can't be everything. Three traits might be too many, one too few, or traits might not work as a casting list mechanic! But at the very least it offers the class some interesting choices and makes Patrons kind of a cool, twisted deity for the Witch. If the only thing that really differentiates a Primal Witch from a Druid is Hexes, then I don't think that's enough to justify an entire class instead of just letting other casters pick up Hexes as class feats through an archetype

And as for the Occult list, isn't the point that it's full of esoterica and the sort of magic that lives in the space between the other three traditions? In my mind it was Arcane magic before Arcane discipline (the "science" of Arcane) existed, or the cults that try to raise a new being to godhood, or magic that twists and makes a mockery of the natural order--for better or worse

A Dragon could totally teach Occult magic, because the dragon could themselves be a master of that type of magic; it's not like dragons are strictly arcane, always. The fae and faerie tales are archetypically a mix of Occult and Primal; eating children isn't Primal, or Arcane, or Divine, Changelings are pretty Occult. Occult is Hellboy and Hellboy's Baba Yaga, and old school faerie tales, the Weird Sisters or the Moirai, weird magic, the Necronomicon, Hellrazer, whatever they're trying to appease in Cabin in the Woods, World of Warcraft's Bwonsamdi. Among other things, like psychic magic or ectoplasm or tarot or the magic of pure inspiration

Having a class that represents that and gets to champion the Occult list sounds cool to me

Doesn't the bard already champion occult?

[Henro]

Midnightoker wrote:

But how does that get solved by making a Witch strictly Occult?

It doesn't. The point of my OP was not to imply that being pick-a-list was the only problem with the playtest Witch. I feel witches are more likely to be granted as many bonus spells as I think they require if they become single-list, however. Turning the witch into a single-list caster would be the starting point, not a goal in and of itself.

Midnightoker wrote:

And not to say I don't like or want the Winter Witch in the release, but the Winter Witch was not in the APG release if I remember correctly (and it had a Prestige and an Archetype to help accentuate that).

Winter Witch in particular has been used as an example since it seems like an archetype a lot of people like (including myself). However, I have similar problems creating many other witch archetypes.

Midnightoker wrote:

- Patron grants X Spell list.

- The first lesson grants X spells to emphasize the value of the first lesson

- An appropriate Hex for that lesson (in this case Snow is probably the closest)

This accomplishes the same thing, except the Patron can be any spell list thus offering different flavors of Winter Witch.

Sure. This solution would address some of the most important issues with the witch right now. It doesn't address every problem I have with the playtest witch, but it would be a big improvement for me.

Midnightoker wrote:

This whole notion that all Witches should have X spell is personal opinion.

Personal opinion is what most of this discussion is going to boil down to, yes. I personally don't believe all witches need to have any particular spell, but I do believe every witch needs easy access to certain spells.

[Midnightoker]

It'd be easy access to any spell if they could choose any list. This seems like a case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it to.

If you think Occult List is central to your witch, then pick the occult list, but many probably would find some of those spells unnecessary or unneeded, or just downright against their patron/style.

Lessons currently grant hexes and a few spells, if Lessons add new sets of spells to a list, then people have a lot less to complain about.

I do not want every witch to be able to turn things into frogs, nor should they all be able to cook potions in a cauldron (which is why Cauldron is optional).

I guess the more I'm looking at the complaints people have with the witch, the more I'm seeing it doesn't really have anything to do with the "pick a spell list" feature, they've just closely associated that to be the issue because the first lesson is tied to that directly.

Right now, the first lesson only gives you one spell, and of varying levels across each lesson. If the first lesson granted you 9 levels of spells or some variability in choice, then the issue sort of goes away.

[Henro]

I mean, sure. I think what this boils down to is that we both agree on one problem with the playtest witch (does not get nearly enough bonus spells, and the ones you can get are too limited). However, that is not the only reason I want a single-list witch.

[Bandw2]

Rysky wrote:

Witches and Wizard have access to their whole list to learn from, Clerics can just change to any when...

right, a cleric can prepare anyspell, a wizard or witch needs to get access first.