| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I hear Witch I hear "spooky", when I hear Occult I hear "spooky".
They were spooky and occult in mmost fairytales that I know of.
Sorry, but this makes me cringe slightly. More than anything, I don’t want to see the class reduced to the cartoonish evil stereotype of many fairy tales, especially since Pathfinder already does that exact stereotype as a creature type (Hags). Witches shouldn’t just be the PC version of Hags, and I'd hate to see them end up as such.
With gaining thematic outside-Tradition spells through patrons/Lessons I'm not sure what concepts are being shut down.
Anything who’s core isn’t supported by the occult list. Gaining a few outside-Tradition spells can help, but you don’t get enough lessons/feats to give everything and shouldn’t have to spend all your feats to “buy back” the types of magic your patron would naturally teach you in the first place.
Why does Witch in particular need multiple Traditions and also the ability to pick up bonus spells and not just 1 Tradition plus bonus spells?
Because unlike other casters, the Witch's magic comes from something (whether granted, taught, etc.) that is both separate from the Witch and highly variable in a way that includes entities from every tradition.
Clerics also gets magic from a separate entity, but that entity is limited strictly to deities/demigods, which are divine beings that thus grant the divine tradition.
The only comparable class for this situation is the Sorcerer – whose magic is also the result of a separate entity (ancestor) that is highly variable and could be a magical being from any of the four traditions. So it'd make the most sense for the Witch to mimic the Sorcerer in how their magic traditions work, since they're the only 2 classes that have this situation as both part of their mechanics and lore.
---
Limiting to 1 Tradition also creates a large thematic disconnect. For example:
Basically, it is odd for your Patron to suddenly teach you Occult magic with only a handful of bonus spells actually related to them - rather than actually teach you the same tradition they know and maybe use any bonus spells for spells related to them that don't neatly fall into their primary tradition (like how a Green Dragon gets Entangle (primal) as an innate arcane spell).
Ultimately I guess it's really just a matter of preferences more than anything else, between people who like the highly flexible, robust Witch we have right now and people who'd rather have a much more specific and cleanly defined class instead (especially since a lot of the people here are also the ones asking for highly specific Patrons too).
Amusingly enough, I'm someone who support the flexible side when it comes to casting tradition, but more specific/defined for Patron.
There is no prepared occult option currently. There are spontaneous options for every other tradition. There's other arguments that the Oracle isn't doing enough to disambiguate from the Divine Sorcerer. The witch should probably be used to fill the very obvious gap rather than dancing around ones that definitely don't exist.
This doesn't really work as an argument considering 1) spontaneous options for every other tradition only exist because of the Sorcerer being pick-any, and 2) regardless if Witch is Occult-only or Pick-Any, they'd be filling the prepared occult option.
Also, if we look at it from a new player perspective, I wonder if having a player pick a spell list with a lesson is a good way to go.
With Sorcerers, your bloodline is an integral part of who your character is. It makes sense that if a new player decides "I have the blood of elementals in my veins" future spell choices restricted to the primal list makes quite a lot of sense. They don't necessarily need to know what is in the spell list.
This is why I'd argue traditions should be tied to Patron choices, similar to how the Sorcerer ties them to bloodlines. To a Witch, who their Patron is becomes an integral part of what theme the represent. Some classic ones of history/myth/fiction are fairy witches (primal), fairy tale villains (occult), and devil-contracted witches (divine).
Exactly. I'm only concerned that too much of the defining traits of the witch will just be "choose your own tradition." As long as they include enough to truly validate their existence in the spectrum of classes, I won't be upset if the actual witch flavor takes a back seat.
Personally, I'd argue that it's even more important for a "choose your own tradition" class to have strong defining traits to validate their existence. After all, if the only focus of the class is on being able to pick a different spell list, then every option just makes you a worse and less thematic version of whatever class shares the spell list you picked. I don't think anyone wants that to happen, and it's part of the reason I personally argue for Patrons to have more impact on the class rather than their current cosmetic design.
|
Witches and their archetypes were also spooky or around that vicinity in P1.
And again what concepts are shut down? “Anything who’s core isn’t supported by the occult list.“ isn’t really answering.
“Limiting to 1 Tradition also creates a large thematic disconnect. For example:”
Those issues are sidestepped entirely by the Witch learning their magic with their Patron the object of inspiration, rather than being granted it like a Cleric. The Witch is Occult, not the Patron.
|
I could actually see Occultist being pick-a-list, depending on what items they dive into.
(I'd also like them and the Arcanist to be renamed, if they stay Occult and Arcane respectively)
oh they could make them a full caster that has access to all spells of a school instead of a tradition. where they get to pick a school like every 6 levels.
they'd probably still cast spells as occult though.
*tilts head back and forth*
There's something, don't know how practical it would be though.
That's pretty much how the Occultist worked in PF1e. Cast spells from a certain school of magic using an Infused object. Each school of magic requires a different Infused object. If they figured out how to do it in 1e, there is no reason they can't do it in 2e too.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not a huge fan of primal for the witch. Primal magic uses the vital essence, which is based around a connection to and or faith in something (nature in the case of primal magic). Witches aren’t wisdom casters, and aren’t based around a faith in or instinctual connection to nature, they learn through lessons from their patrons, and are int based. So based on the essences, Witch should use a magical tradition that has the mental essence, either arcane, occult, or pick one of them. Of those two lists, I think occult fits the flavor of witch the best.But the nature witch is one of the most common tropes for witches in fiction.
Absolutely true, but 'nature witch' as shown in fiction and 'primal spellcaster' don't actually go together that well.
I mean, what does a 'nature witch' actually do that's not on the Occult spell list? Maybe transform people (or themselves) into animals? That's something that should be a Lesson or Lessons (and thus available to everyone) even if Primal Witch is a thing.
They certainly don't throw fireballs or lightning bolts very often.
I’m not a huge fan of primal for the witch. Primal magic uses the vital essence, which is based around a connection to and or faith in something (nature in the case of primal magic). Witches aren’t wisdom casters, and aren’t based around a faith in or instinctual connection to nature, they learn through lessons from their patrons, and are int based. So based on the essences, Witch should use a magical tradition that has the mental essence, either arcane, occult, or pick one of them. Of those two lists, I think occult fits the flavor of witch the best.But the nature witch is one of the most common tropes for witches in fiction.Absolutely true, but 'nature witch' as shown in fiction and 'primal spellcaster' don't actually go together that well.
I mean, what does a 'nature witch' actually do that's not on the Occult spell list? Maybe transform people (or themselves) into animals? That's something that should be a Lesson or Lessons (and thus available to everyone) even if Primal Witch is a thing.
They certainly don't throw fireballs or lightning bolts very often.
Summon storms, turn plants into twisted vines, control animals and command them.
And Elphaba, the wicked witch of the west, throws fireballs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the argument of "Occult + Patron spells would be fine, no Primal list required" is an unfair argument to make because it assumes a lot of things:
- It assumes that all concepts of a Primal Witch includes mostly Occult spells
- It assumes the spells that a Witch is "missing" for a given concept are covered in what would amount to be a small fraction of spells
- It assumes that Witches do not have more concepts than "spooky scary witch" and that Paizo wants to keep it that way for this edition
- It assumes that "Primal Witches" are the minority Witch compared to Occult, which in literature, is not the case
- It assumes that allowing the choice of the spell list makes the Witch class less "refined" because it isn't focused on being the "spooky scary witch" concept that some people want in favor of being "versatile", which is purely conjecture. The Witch can have multiple spell lists and still evoke strong concepts of the Witch.
and lastly, I find it assumes this:
- Any witch in pop culture that does not conform to the above ideals of an Occult Witch isn't "really a witch and is actually something else"
__________________________________________
Elphaba:
- Casts fireball
- She sets a horde of bees to attack people (in the books)
- She causes an icicle to fall and kill someone
- She commands animals
- She uses scrying with a crystal ball
....
_____________________________________________
Now there are only two real arguments I see against Elphaba being a Primal Witch:
- Patrons are so vast an widespread they can grant Animal control, ice manipulation, fireball, and scrying
- Elphaba is not really a Witch because it doesn't jive with the personal view of the Witch
Taking away Primal would be an absolute travesty, IMO, and extremely regressive.
And as Charon Onozuka said above, Witch shouldn't just be "PC version of Hag", which is exactly what an Occult Witch would be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She also lives in a castle, not the middle of the woods.
And also she’s a novel/movie character that has no connection to the Pathfinder rules. Trying to map her exactly to the rules isn’t to go work.
She lives in a castle surrounded by woods because she’s known to get attacked. You act as if witches in the wild have to be homeless or live in tiny huts. And she just sort of came into possession of the castle, she didn’t build it.
See aforementioned “she’s not really a witch” isn’t really fair. No ones an anything if you want to go by that attitude, but she’s an iconic literary witch that is much closer to primal than occult.
Even when she puts Dorothy and friends to sleep, she does so using the field of flowers they are crossing’s aromatics.
Isn't it tradition in D&D and Pathfinder to build popular characters as exercises in system mastery?
Almost no popular character I can recall from PF1 was a straight single classed character. Many could only be achieved with special rules like Mythic or Gestalt.
I don't know much about Elphaba, but does she learn her magic or is it granted to her by a patron, or is it an in-born ability? It seems like she could be represented by a multiclass between primal sorceress and witch or wizard.
I sincerely think the PF1 approach is the way to go. PF1's witch had some of the best archetypes in the game, in my opinion, with flavorful, thematic, specific goals. It would be a FAR better idea than trying to cram every possible definition of the Witch under the baseline class mechanics.
There could be an Elphaba archetype that removes the need for a patron, grants the specific spells and list she needs, and applies a skin curse. Or there could be a more generic Primal list trade-out archetype.
In the mean time, multiclassing could stand in for the mechanical representation of the character, as it's done for countless other character concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be a FAR better idea than trying to cram every possible definition of the Witch under the baseline class mechanics.
So I want to say, I hate this assertion, and it keeps getting said.
There is literally nothing that suggests including multiple lists by default is them "trying to cover every single witch" and thus some calamity is going to befall the Witch due to the "folly" of allowing multiple lists.
If you want spooky scary witch themes? Then why don't those that want this have to wait for the Archetype?
It's not "cramming" anything into the witch, the old Witch got far more than what is on the Occult spell list.
Trying to cram the PF1 Witch into this tiny box of "Occult only" is just quite frankly not as likely to work, nor is it as elegant a solution IMO.
If people want to keep stating that Occult only is their preferred, by all means, but stop making the false equivalence that opening up the spell lists = too broad. That might be what it means to you personally, but I've seen nothing to corroborate that and a WHOLE lot of evidence to suggest the contrary based on PF1 Witch and concepts that are inherently possible with the new design that are just not possible with Occult Only.
Also I'm also in the camp of more patron structure and multiple lists. Not sure where that basis was founded.
|
|
But it does feel too broad. With 1 list the designers can just build off it and the Witch’s relation to it, rather than having to accommodate multiple lists.
And Wizard, Cleric, Bard, and Druid function just fine being crammed into 1 single list as well.
the old Witch got far more than what is on the Occult spell list.
At what point? Starting out or near the end?
So I want to say, I hate this assertion, and it keeps getting said.
Well I don’t care that most of the arguments aren’t actually about the Pathfinder Witch but “I want to build these completely unrelated characters from different media that are called witchs”.
Being inspired by characters from other media is natural and even assumed, that’s kinda how imagination works. But trying to build them exactly as is has never really been a thing. In P1 you had to multiclass and archetype and grab feats from multiple different sources to emulate the character.
The more I see it the less of an argument I see basing the Witch’s worth on it’s ability to perfectly emulate witches from other media. If anything it’s a disservice.
No you can’t perfectly copy Ephalba or Merisa or Hermione Granger using the P2 Witch. And you shouldn’t, since they are all completely different things.
So is your argument that if I cannot build iconic Witches or concepts based on iconic witches that I am "doing it wrong"?
And it's not "I can't perfectly copy Elphaba", it's you can't make Elphaba at all really (or Morgana La Fey for that matter) and they happen to be one of the most iconic Witches.
If everyone you ever play with is super into Golarion and Golarion world and lore, then your attitude doesn't present problems, but I play with a lot of new people and bringing new people into a game and saying "Here is the Witch" and them going "Oh I want to be able to do X, like this Witch" and I have to go "well, you see, that's more like an X MCD into Y, and then maybe take this feat, but nothing close out of the gate sorry!" is a very unfun conversation to have.
I didn't say "you can't build X", I said "You can't make Elphaba, one of the most iconic witches, by this exclusitory 'Occult only' theology. That seems wrong."
Sorry, spooky scary witch isn't anymore a Class than the Thief Rogue. It's a subset ideology of a profession.
Pathfinder 1 Witch >> PF2 Occult Only Witch in terms of right now by a huge measure in terms of fulfilling concepts, and that's with APG only.
I never postulated Hermione as such, because HP universe is both new, completely different from DnD in terms of themes (its modern), and has a whole lot of it's own rules.
Morgana La Fey and Elphaba are seen across multiple presences of pop culture and are over 100 years old in terms of their conception. Discarding them in the discussion of what a Witch should be only indicates bias, IMO. They deserve a place in the discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want spooky scary witch themes? Then why don't those that want this have to wait for the Archetype?
I feel strongly enough that focusing up on one list + supporting class features is the better design choice that I would happily take a Primal only or Arcane only witch to start, and wait for Occult focused archetype.
The reasons I've given already explain why I think Occult would make for the best starter.
In any case, choosing one list will only work with a significant expansion of spell selection either through patrons or some other method.
There is literally nothing that suggests including multiple lists by default is them "trying to cover every single witch" and thus some calamity is going to befall the Witch due to the "folly" of allowing multiple lists
If the flavor and role differences between the multiple spell lists are to be preserved, they cannot be interchangeable on any class chassis. Class features must exist to support each list to get the most out of them, or they've failed as a concept. If they're perfectly equal in power and capability, they've failed as a concept.
If a class can choose any list, they should have significant class features supporting each choice. The sorcerer has bloodlines, which is the core identify of the class and allows for those tuning knobs. They've succeeded to some degree, but it's helped by the fact that Sorcerers are Spontaneous, the full differences between the four lists are obscured by limited spell selection.
Witches have Patrons, Familiars, and Hexes witch serve as the core mechanical identity of the class. Of those three, I strongly believe Hexes are the bread and butter of the PF1 witch and what I want to see expanded and core to the class. Patron could act as a Bloodline, but the amount of features and changes it can make are limited by the class's other features, page count, and number of choices Paizo wants a given character to make. Add weapon proficiency as consideration here, since the evidence of the bard, druid, and wizard indicate these may be a factor.
If hexes are meaningful, access to hexes should be modified based on which list you choose. Hexes have been proposed to be similar to Bard's compositions, access to which is significant enough to cost the bard spell slots. (Refer to the Playtest survey which makes this point)
Examples: If there was a debuffing hex that was particularly good when used on targets of blasting spells, would Primal and Arcane not benefit more from such a hex? If there were debuffing hexes that compete with the occult spell list's capabilities, would it be fair to Druids that a Witch could have full access to the Primal list AND have unlimited debuffing?
In summary:
1. Differences between spell lists should require more work to make other class features mesh with the spell list selection.
2. Witch has a lot of important class features, which may not be amenable to those adjustments. For example: There are supposed to be a wide array of potential mysterious patrons, but if you use Patrons as the method for selecting spell list and giving appropriate tuning like Bloodlines, you'd have to make a much smaller number of patrons.
3. Hexes (should) take up a large part of the class's design real-estate. It would be an incredible folly to design a class with a hex focus without playtesting how the various hexes interact with the different spell lists, and how that power balances with other classes.
4. If spell lists are considered interchangeable, then this all goes out the window and every class should just be able to select their spell list willy nilly because they can come up with a character from media that suits one spell list better than another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the flavor and role differences between the multiple spell lists are to be preserved, they cannot be interchangeable on any class chassis. Class features must exist to support each list to get the most out of them, or they've failed as a concept. If they're perfectly equal in power and capability, they've failed as a concept.
And while it's true, something that is not supported will fail, to say that a spell list needs support is what everyone has been saying. The Occult spell list has no support right now. The issue is lack of support, and has nothing to do with the list.
A spell list is not a baby that needs to be coddled, it's a vessel for the daily castings. Wizards/Sorcerers don't even have many direct interactions with the spells, and even those are handled entirely by Bloodlines/Study/School etc. Patrons can easily do that.
If a class can choose any list, they should have significant class features supporting each choice. The sorcerer has bloodlines, which is the core identify of the class and allows for those tuning knobs.
So like Patron, which everyone has asked fill a relatively similar role across both sides of this argument.
Witches have Patrons, Familiars, and Hexes witch serve as the core mechanical identity of the class. Of those three, I strongly believe Hexes are the bread and butter of the PF1 witch and what I want to see expanded and core to the class.
I completely agree. Familiars and Hexes do not change Spell list interactions at all.
Patron could act as a Bloodline, but the amount of features and changes it can make are limited by the class's other features, page count, and number of choices Paizo wants a given character to make. Add weapon proficiency as consideration here, since the evidence of the bard, druid, and wizard indicate these may be a factor.
This is true for any class. It's true for the Sorcerer. It's true for the Rogue, it's true for anyone with a meaningful subclass choice.
It is not proof of failure, in fact, it's proof that constructing a system that fosters those choices creates the most value in the class (all three Rogue Rackets play different but are intuitively all still "Rogue" feeling).
If hexes are meaningful, access to hexes should be modified based on which list you choose.
Pretty bold assumption. Why? Why can't Hexes be a function of the Patron itself. A Patron can foster narrowed choice without enforcing direct correlation.
They are not competing ideologies.
Hexes have been proposed to be similar to Bard's compositions, access to which is significant enough to cost the bard spell slots. (Refer to the Playtest survey which makes this point)
Examples: If there was a debuffing hex that was particularly good when used on targets of blasting spells, would Primal and Arcane not benefit more from such a hex? If there were debuffing hexes that compete with the occult spell list's capabilities, would it be fair to Druids that a Witch could have full access to the Primal list AND have unlimited debuffing?
There is no way to codify a hex to say "only blasting spells", but there is a way to codify "all reflex saves" or "all spells with this trait".
In which case, there's nothing preventing a person from selecting said Hex and employing tactics that can foster it.
There's also nothing that says that same Hex couldn't apply to other people's spells/actions
But most importantly, this is an issue with the way Hexes are written, which should be written to accommodate that. No Hex, ANY of them, are "non-functional" under any particular list currently. That is by design.
1. Differences between spell lists should require more work to make other class features mesh with the spell list selection.
Not really. As stated, Hexes currently function autonomous to the list they are attached to and are valuable regardless. Some builds might foster choices, but are never "bad" by design. Hexes always having value is something a Hex does, not what a spell list does.
Sorcerers also do not suffer from this, and function properly.
Witch has a lot of important class features, which may not be amenable to those adjustments. For example: There are supposed to be a wide array of potential mysterious patrons, but if you use Patrons as the method for selecting spell list and giving appropriate tuning like Bloodlines, you'd have to make a much smaller number of patrons
This depends entirely on how they are codified. If they were done identically to Bloodlines, sure, but no one has asked for that and there's been heavy discussion about the "how" of it.
Sorry, examples in this case are not "proof" and amount to anecdotal evidence without the real world anecdote.
Hexes (should) take up a large part of the class's design real-estate. It would be an incredible folly to design a class with a hex focus without playtesting how the various hexes interact with the different spell lists, and how that power balances with other classes.
Hexes being good and valuable and thematic, and picking a spell list are not at odds with each other.
Personal Blizzard retains its value on any spell list, as does the plethora of other available hexes.
If spell lists are considered interchangeable, then this all goes out the window and every class should just be able to select their spell list willy nilly because they can come up with a character from media that suits one spell list better than another.
This is a "slippery slope" with pretty much no bearing.
There are plenty of reasons this can work, and saying that it's "willy nilly" and using a fallacy to defend it is certainly not valid.
This is a "slippery slope" with pretty much no bearing.
There are plenty of reasons this can work, and saying that it's "willy nilly" and using a fallacy to defend it is certainly not valid.
I am dead serious though. If there is no mechanical reason why one class can't have access to any list, then I'm just going to allow my players to choose.
This is a "slippery slope" with pretty much no bearing.
There are plenty of reasons this can work, and saying that it's "willy nilly" and using a fallacy to defend it is certainly not valid.
I am dead serious though. If there is no mechanical reason why one class can't have access to any list, then I'm just going to allow my players to choose.
Did you do this when the Sorcerer was created?
If no, I would ask "Why not then?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think where our difference of opinion lies is that you believe it's trivial for the designers to adequately and effectively accommodate spell list selection in a satisfying way, and I don't.
The current playtest implementation of the Witch is unsatisfactory on many fronts, and how well supported the different lists are, and how they're mechanically tied into the class, is one of my gripes with it.
The other is the dismal state of hexes.
Asking the devs to both power up hexes and make sure all spell lists are flavorfully and robustly implemented, with adjustments of even greater impact than Bloodlines (on par with the differences between the current single list prepared spellcasters), is too big of an ask, from my perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Differences between spell lists should require more work to make other class features mesh with the spell list selection.
And there's no reason why the Witch can't do that. I agree that it currently doesn't, but with the proper changes and additions the witch can fully support multiple lists via patron mechanics, and possibly even familiar mechanics. An example regarding familiar mechanics, for a Divine witch, could be that enemies take extra alignment damage (corresponding to the alignment of your patron) when in a certain radius of your familiar.
2. Witch has a lot of important class features, which may not be amenable to those adjustments. For example: There are supposed to be a wide array of potential mysterious patrons, but if you use Patrons as the method for selecting spell list and giving appropriate tuning like Bloodlines, you'd have to make a much smaller number of patrons.
I mean, if Patrons are kept to wide topics rather than specific entities, this isn't the case. You'd have at least as much design space as their is for sorcerers (and honestly, all of the existing bloodlines would make good patron categories).
3. Hexes (should) take up a large part of the class's design real-estate. It would be an incredible folly to design a class with a hex focus without playtesting how the various hexes interact with the different spell lists, and how that power balances with other classes.
Again, not sure if I agree that spell list balance is so precarious that adding in some focus spells (or whatever they end up being) will topple that. Take the Primal list for example, it doesn't have a whole lot of debuffing spells compared to arcane and occult. But we can already see that giving them debuffing hexes doesn't break anything.
4. If spell lists are considered interchangeable, then this all goes out the window and every class should just be able to select their spell list willy nilly because they can come up with a character from media that suits one spell list better than another.
I mean, no one's talking about doing that, but while I wouldn't do that I also don't think it's inherently a bad idea. Primal clerics of nature deities makes perfect sense, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me what specifically the Sorcerer list picking "does right" that the Witch Spell list absolutely cannot do?
There are 4 Bloodline specific Class Feats, one per type of casting, on the Sorcerer. All of which provide a thematic benefit.
Outside that, there is literally nothing outside of the bonus spells added to their list and their domain powers to "support" their spell list choice.
So if you don't have a problem with the Sorcerer, then it doesn't make sense to have a problem for the Witch.
There are extremely few Feats that are directly correlated with specific spell types, or specific lists, so insisting that they it's somehow impossible to "get it right" when there's almost nothing to get right in that regard seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.
The Witch is easily in the worst spot out of all four playtest classes. It is in a bad spot because Hexes are bad, Patrons do nothing, and Familiars are bland.
None of those are in direct contention with the Spell list mechanics, nor would making them "occult only" solve any of the above mentioned problems.
So if making them occult only doesn't solve those problems, why is it being proposed as a "fix" to those problems?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a "slippery slope" with pretty much no bearing.
There are plenty of reasons this can work, and saying that it's "willy nilly" and using a fallacy to defend it is certainly not valid.
I am dead serious though. If there is no mechanical reason why one class can't have access to any list, then I'm just going to allow my players to choose.
Did you do this when the Sorcerer was created?
If no, I would ask "Why not then?"
Actually, I felt that Sorcerer didn't do enough to balance out the different bloodlines and Spell Lists, and Divine sorcerers felt pretty hard done by, since the Divine list felt much weaker for a full caster.
I let it slide based on the strong flavor of an angel blooded sorcerer being able to cast divine spells. Like I said, the bloodline is integral to the sorcerer character concept.
I also strongly believe that spontaneous casters, who pick the few best spells on their list that fit their concept, don't suffer as much from the differences between lists.
|
|
So is your argument that if I cannot build iconic Witches or concepts based on iconic witches that I am "doing it wrong"?
No?
And it's not "I can't perfectly copy Elphaba", it's you can't make Elphaba at all really (or Morgana La Fey for that matter) and they happen to be one of the most iconic Witches.
What does "can't make Elphaba at all really" mean then? You can make a spellcaster and pick thematic abilties to emulate her (assuming said abilties even exist).
"Oh I want to be able to do X, like this Witch" and I have to go "well, you see, that's more like an X MCD into Y, and then maybe take this feat, but nothing close out of the gate sorry!" is a very unfun conversation to have.
That's a conversation that's always been had, going all the way back to 1st edition DnD, copying characters from other Media has never been the design goal.
I never postulated Hermione as such, because HP universe is both new, completely different from DnD in terms of themes (its modern), and has a whole lot of it's own rules.
No no no no, if we exclude Witches from other media just because of personal preferences and biases then your whole argument falls flat (aka if you exclude the people you're arguing with can exclude by the same measure).
Also secondly (and hilariously) A Song of Ice and Fire only came out in 1996, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 1997, and A Clash of Kings (where Melisandre was introduced) 1998, so Hermione Granger has seniority over Melisandre :3
Morgana La Fey and Elphaba are seen across multiple presences of pop culture and are over 100 years old in terms of their conception. Discarding them in the discussion of what a Witch should be only indicates bias, IMO. They deserve a place in the discussion.
Why are they more important than other Witches from folklore and media? Why is Elphaba more important than Granny Weatherwax? The Wayward Sisters from Macbeth? Sabrina?
"Who'se the Witchiest Witch who ever witched" is a personal preference, not a fact.
(Not even getting into la Fey on account of her being a fey or an outright goddess depending on the source)
Actually, I felt that Sorcerer didn't do enough to balance out the different bloodlines and Spell Lists, and Divine sorcerers felt pretty hard done by, since the Divine list felt much weaker for a full caster.
I let it slide based on the strong flavor of an angel blooded sorcerer being able to cast divine spells. Like I said, the bloodline is integral to the sorcerer character concept.
I also strongly believe that spontaneous casters, who pick the few best spells on their list that fit their concept, don't suffer as much from the differences between lists.
It's anecdotal, but I have an Angel Blooded Sorceress in my group currently as the primary healer, and she's loving it a lot.
I've enjoyed the dialogue nonetheless, and I hope I don't come off as overly abrupt. I try to attack the "idea" and not the person, but sometimes it doesn't come off that way.
Much love friend
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing, in other media Witch is a title, not a class. They don't have spell lists or spellcasting Traditions.
A character that is established as a "Witch" in one setting might be perfectly modeled by the Bard or Champion class, because those other settings use titles, not classes and rulebooks. They don't have to be able to be made in the Witch Class, and the Witch class shouldn't exist soley to copy any random character that has the title of "witch".
Influence? Sure. Dictate? No.
Rysky, I'm gonna try, but I shouldn't:
Also secondly (and hilariously) A Song of Ice and Fire only came out in 1996, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 1997, and A Clash of Kings (where Melisandre was introduced) 1998, so Hermione Granger has seniority over Melisandre :3
The reason I didn't include her is for one very specific reason:
Everyone who is a woman and uses magic in HP is classified as a Witch, where it is used as a pronoun
So no it doesn't "devalue my whole argument" because in most other literature it isn't used that way, nor are these other "spellcasters" uniformly called one thing.
But hey, decent effort I guess. Include Hermione. I think it's pretty clear why she's harder to codify as a Witch, but if you think it means you "win" this exchange, by all means, I have no issues with it.
She has Crookshanks, a wand, and several other things. She's intelligent. Whatever you like.
Why are they more important than other Witches from folklore and media? Why is Elphaba more important than Granny Weatherwax? The Wayward Sisters from Macbeth? Sabrina?
Who said she was? I said she's over 100 years old and has been used across multiple universes (the original book, the movies, the Wicked Universe, and even a cartoon show)
Smearing Elphaba's good name doesn't really do anything for me. You don't like her as a witch? that's your decision. I like Elphaba a lot and she's a witch.
Ignoring Morgana La Fey plays well into your argument, so I'll just let you have it.
That's a conversation that's always been had, going all the way back to 1st edition DnD, copying characters from other Media has never been the design goal.
Making it easier for people to realize concepts is always a design goal.
Making it difficult and confusing has always been counter to those goals.
I'm going to call a spade a spade.
|
|
So no it doesn't "devalue my whole argument" because in most other literature it isn't used that way, nor are these other "spellcasters" uniformly called one thing.
Do you have access to Melisandre and Hermione's character sheets?
No? Then you're merely barring Hermione based on personal preferences on what is and is not a Witch, in which case I and anyone else can do so for any other Witch brought up, with Melisandre being a better fit for Oracle or even Cleric methinks, Witch is a title to her, as is Priestess. Which is she more known for?
Who said she was? I said she's over 100 years old and has been used across multiple universes (the original book, the movies, the Wicked Universe, and even a cartoon show)
Age is irrelevent, the only thing that matters is inspiration.
Smearing Elphaba's good name doesn't really do anything for me.
Where have I done that?
Ignoring Morgana La Fey plays well into your argument, so I'll just let you have it.
She's ancient with multiple stories and myths about her, in some she's a fey, in others a spellcaster. There's many versions that could be built many ways.
Making it easier for people to realize concepts is always a design goal
Yes, but that doesn't include perfectly copying characters from other media. Emulate and copy bits from for sure. But not whole cloth. The class would need to be designed from the ground up to perfectly copy a character, and then that would only allow for one such character. You can't have a class perfectly copy multiple completely different characters from different media, barring Archetypes.
Yes, but that doesn't include perfectly copying characters from other media. Emulate and copy bits from for sure. But not whole cloth.
I didn't state "whole cloth", and in fact emphasized that you can't really make Elphaba really at all.
If we say the cackling, broom-riding, cauldron using, crystal ball looking, and green spell caster that everyone calls a Witch and exemplifies most if not all Witch themes isn't a Witch because her spell list is comprised of entirely Primal spells, is that "good"?
I would call that a flaw with the "Occult only" concept, not an inherent flaw to all DnD systems ever that can never be overcome.
Especially, because if I select Primal Spell list in the current Witch ecosystem I just accomplished the concept I was going for and it currently exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish the conversation would just generally move away from discussing what witches look like in general and more what they look like in Pathfinder. I'm coming around to the all lists witch here (largely by force, haha), but do most npc witches in Golarion cackle and hex? Are they shown as clearly patron-bound?
I honestly don't know, as I'm new with this edition and all I know is hags.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm coming around to the all lists witch here (largely by force, haha)
Don't feel forced! I'm coming around to Occult + Primal only myself.
I honestly don't know, as I'm new with this edition and all I know is hags.
Their old spell list was diverse, but typically covered the following schools: Transmutation, Necromancy (some), Enchantment, Divination, Illusions (some), Abjuration, and Conjuration (some) with emphasis on "witch" feeling spells.
Hexes were all day, once per target, POWER HOUSES. Honestly, Hexes were basically too good, and one of the more common feats was to take additional hexes.
Cackle was a Feat that allowed you to extend your hexes, it was not default.
Patrons were bundles of keywords (Death, Protection, etc.) that granted 1 spell per level (very similar to a domain).
Familiars were more or less how they are now, a familiar that held all the Witch spells.
The rest is largely inconsequential nuances, but another thing of note is the Witch had (what I would consider to be the widest) a wide array of Archetypes that changed the flavor of the Witch vastly.
That's the spark notes version anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Witches and their archetypes were also spooky or around that vicinity in P1.
And I remember people complaining then that too much focus was put into "cartoon evil" rather than other Witch concepts.
+not all Witch archetypes were meant to be "spooky" even in PF1.“Limiting to 1 Tradition also creates a large thematic disconnect. For example:”
Those issues are sidestepped entirely by the Witch learning their magic with their Patron the object of inspiration, rather than being granted it like a Cleric. The Witch is Occult, not the Patron.
What you described is basically the Bardic Muse, not a Patron. Witches aren't just tone-deaf, spooky bards. Not to mention that doesn't really work with any of the other mechanics/fluff presented. Just because you're inspired by something doesn't mean it sends a familiar to you, replaces that familiar when it dies, reforges a connection with the new familiar to reteach it spells, etc. Patrons in PF1 mentioned giving power to the Witch, the devs have mentioned it being like a Student/Teacher relationship, and even the current playtest has lines like this, "This entity is mysterious and distant, revealing only fragments of its identity and motivations over time, but it grants you spells and other magical powers through a familiar, which serves as a conduit for its power" and "patrons empower witches for their own secretive reasons, which they rarely reveal in full."
So this idea doesn't really work for a Patron (or even the definition of the word Patron), and it certainly doesn't work as a default assumption for all Patrons.
And again what concepts are shut down? “Anything who’s core isn’t supported by the occult list.“ isn’t really answering.
From above, apparently actually learning magic from your Patron isn't supported. A Wyrmwitch is significantly less cool if they're just a wannabe fangirl rather than actually having a connection to a dragon (being granted magic or explicitly taught magic).
The old concept of a Witch gaining powers from consorting with fairies apparently doesn't get supported (primal) - despite possibly being part of the foundation of how we defined witches, even if this concept is less popular today. Historically, this was popular to the extent that some witch trials failed because the judge was looking for a "witch-as-devil-worshiper" while the accused openly admitted to being a "witch-as-consort-of-benevolent-fairies." In the end, such Witches tended to get let off due to being unable to prove they had any association with demons/devils.
And speaking of those witch trials... those certainly had a significant influence on how we define Witches today. Yet somehow a Witch whose magic originated with a divine being (demon/devil/etc.), doesn't actually get the magic those beings are associated with? As far as I can tell, this is possibly one of the most popular & widespread versions of a Witch in fiction - with variations of being devil worshippers, willing making a pact with a devil, being tricked into a contract with a devil, etc. [& none of these really work with Patrons being just inspiration.]
If the Witch class can't support some of the foundations shaping what we've come to describe as Witches, then I'd argue the class needs some work. & this is without mentioning that the occult spell list lacks the ability to turn someone into a newt ;P
-----
4. If spell lists are considered interchangeable, then this all goes out the window and every class should just be able to select their spell list willy nilly because they can come up with a character from media that suits one spell list better than another.
Again, I'll say that the Witch is in a unique situation with the Sorcerer, with their origin of power being defined as something both external and highly variable to the point that mentioned entities that include things from all 4 magical traditions. Said origin is also mechanically built into the class itself as a core part of its theme (Bloodlines, Patron). This does not make it so that suddenly every class should have all 4 lists, and part of why I personally don't support suggestions of something like an Arcanist becoming a pick-any class.
-----
I really wish the conversation would just generally move away from discussing what witches look like in general and more what they look like in Pathfinder. I'm coming around to the all lists witch here (largely by force, haha), but do most npc witches in Golarion cackle and hex? Are they shown as clearly patron-bound?
I honestly don't know, as I'm new with this edition and all I know is hags.
Going off this, I think some of the options from PF1 would also link Witches towards having a connection with all 4 traditions. (Not gonna bother listing any occult ones since almost no one is arguing against including them.)
Arcane:
Divine:
Primal:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going off this, I think some of the options from PF1 would also link Witches towards having a connection with all 4 traditions. (Not gonna bother listing any occult ones since almost no one is arguing against including them.)
Arcane:
Wyrmwitch Archetype, based on dragons. To be fair, only Chromatic/Metallic dragons are confirmed as being arcane casters in PF2, and I kinda imagine dragons are likely to eventually touch all traditions once we start getting stats for esoteric, imperial, outer, & primal dragons.
Divine:
Demon-Sworn archetype, classic witch who gets power from demons (divine creatures)
Pact Witch archetype, makes pacts directly with the aligned (divine) planes.
Celestial Agenda Patron, pact with good-aligned (divine) outsider who "sometimes invest white witches with celestial might to defend the weak and heal the sick"
Infernal Contract Patron, Witch whose "power was brokered from a powerful daemon, demon, or devil to speed the corruption and moral decay of mortals." Again, directly getting power from a divine tradition entity.
Primal:
Fey Gifts Patron, "A powerful fey or other entity has offered you magic." Gaining magic from primal tradition entity.
Green Whispers Patron, "Your witch powers are bestowed by a representative of natural forces, such as an ancient treant or nature spirit, who expects you to wield such gifts on its behalf." Again, magic being bestowed by primal entity.
Hexes: PF1 Witches had a number of hexes which would seem to fall into the Primal tradition, such as: Animal Servant, Animal Skin, Beast's Gift, Feral Speech, Leshy Summoning, Natural Disaster, Verdant Familiar, Weather Control...
It's almost as if, like the all of the reintroduced classes in PF2, that the new Witch is meant to encompass a lot of what had to be done due via Archetypes into the natural order of the Witch by default.
Thus allowing for ease of introducing lots of Witch concepts without having to roll out an Archetype or five every single book in order to satisfy all the different things a Witch could do in the previous edition.
Hmmmmmm
She has innate magic and sometimes learns from a book, with her magic being related to anger.
There are several places across literature and media where she is depicted, if you are speaking strictly off Wicked, then anger is certainly one way her magic comes out.
However, spellcasters using magic when they are angry has little or nothing to do with them being any particular Class. Fighters swing swords when they are angry. Spellcasters cast spells. There is no inherent caster with claim to emotions in magic.
The flying broom can just be a magic item (even fighters can use those)
How is dismissing this in any way fair? You get to say "nuh uh, it's a magic item" but I can't point at all of the PF1 witches with familiars and call them "quirky animals"?
Regardless, the broom actually has significance to her and she enchanted it herself.
Either recognize it is a common Witch theme and a common Witch item, that evokes a Witch or don't but dismissing one of the most iconic things Elphaba has that makes her a Witch because it "could be a magic item" doesn't change that.
same for crystal ball or mirror being used by any caster
It shows an innate draw to divination, a highlight that I thought was worth noting.
Cackling is a type of laugh that doesnt have to be magic.
Her laugh particularly evoked fear, often causing the Cowardly Lion to go into spurts of shaking.
This is not that far removed from Evil Eye and Cackle together.
And once again, this is a core witch theme of the cackling evil witch, to dismiss it is completely unfair.
And if you look at the original book, her title as "wicked witch" is due to the Wizard actively defaming her so people won't overthrow for being a fraud
Her being "wicked" yes, not her being a Witch. The distinction is obvious, because Glinda is also a Witch.
Her monkey if he was really a familiar, would had lost all of his abilities when she died so he is probably an awakened animal; But, it might also be a case of her awakening him and switching a different familiar (she did have lots of pets), still a wizard can have a familiar as well.
No, she had one dedicated familiar, and then she commanded several animals.
Her ability to awaken animals, and her fight against the animal plight (especially in the Wicked series) all evoke Primal Witch tones.
The spells I read she used sound a lot like Maangabyan Initiate.
Except for Control Weather, Fireball/Produce Flame, Commanding Bees to kill people, manipulating ice, and a slew of other things.
So she has no patron
Debatable, again, depending on the source. Her Patron is Oz itself, thus she is the Wicked Witch of the west, which indicates her loyalty and allegiances.
She also in the Wicked series felt the Wizard himself a Patron and others.
And so why should the default Pathfinder Witch which does have a patron, a familiar or item, and hexes model the primal like casting of a magic user that functions more like Primal Arcanist?
First of all, not what I asked for.
Second of all, attempting to immediately translate all of her direct abilities (off of quickly read wikipedia I'm sure) to abilities in DnD was not the point of bringing up Elphaba.
It was specifically to highlight the theme of a witch, which Elphaba undoubtedly provokes.
The fact that she evokes nearly all of the witch themes and she cannot cast any of her standard spell list if she is made into "Occult only" Witch is why saying Occult = Witch only is wrong.
Maleficent creates a wall of thorns, fire, and turns into a Dragon.
Morgan Le Fay has direct ties to the Fey.
Witches are known for their flavorful ties to the earth, herbalism, living in the woods, etc.
Again, even as Rysky said, nothing is a one to one conversion.
But this isn't a 1 to 1 conversion on mechanics alone, we're talking about major themes here and DMW made a post that said "Witches do not use Fireball often"
Which according to Elphaba is not true.
That's not wrong because Elphaba isn't a Witch, it's wrong because she is a Witch and they should be able to cast Fireball if they have a patron that supports that.
Not every Witch in literature has a familiar, a patron, or even a broomstick. That's the point. But when a Witch in literature exemplifies 90% of the concepts of a Witch and is satisfied with the current version of the Class in the playtest? Why on earth would we want to reverse that.
And on that note. I'm gonna check out of the thread for a bit. It's not my job to defend Elphaba as a Witch.
Elphaba is a Witch. The rules either support that Witch style or they don't.
Currently they do. I hope it stays that way.
|
|
And I remember people complaining then that too much focus was put into "cartoon evil" rather than other Witch concepts.
+not all Witch archetypes were meant to be "spooky" even in PF1.
Note that I said “in that vicinity”. The Seducer wasn’t spoiky, but was a thematic Witch Archetype.
What you described is basically the Bardic Muse, not a Patron.
What I described is how they worked in P1. A Bard’s Muse can be anything, it’s literally what inspires them. I did not mean for them to be exact thing when I said “inspiration”, more akin to their field of study with bread crumbs along the way.
Just because you're inspired by something doesn't mean it sends a familiar to you, replaces that familiar when it dies, reforges a connection with the new familiar to reteach it spells, etc. Patrons in PF1 mentioned giving power to the Witch, the devs have mentioned it being like a Student/Teacher relationship
Precisely.
and even the current playtest has lines like this, "This entity is mysterious and distant, revealing only fragments of its identity and motivations over time, but it grants you spells and other magical powers through a familiar, which serves as a conduit for its power" and "patrons empower witches for their own secretive reasons, which they rarely reveal in full."
I don’t want Witches turned into spooky secretive Clerics.
From above, apparently actually learning magic from your Patron isn't supported. A Wyrmwitch is significantly less cool if they're just a wannabe fangirl rather than actually having a connection to a dragon (being granted magic or explicitly taught magic).
What? They can be taught magic. And Wyrm Witchs main appeal was sleeping on a hoard of treasure.
The old concept of a Witch gaining powers from consorting with fairies apparently doesn't get supported (primal)
You’re assuming Fey Wizards, Clerics, and Bards don’t exist.
Historically, this was popular to the extent that some witch trials failed because the judge was looking for a "witch-as-devil-worshiper" while the accused openly admitted to being a "witch-as-consort-of-benevolent-fairies." In the end, such Witches tended to get let off due to being unable to prove they had any association with demons/devils.
And historically Devil meant Arcane, the opposite of Divine.
And speaking of those witch trials... those certainly had a significant influence on how we define Witches today. Yet somehow a Witch whose magic originated with a divine being (demon/devil/etc.), doesn't actually get the magic those beings are associated with? As far as I can tell, this is possibly one of the most popular & widespread versions of a Witch in fiction - with variations of being devil worshippers, willing making a pact with a devil, being tricked into a contract with a devil, etc. [& none of these really work with Patrons being just inspiration.]
Again, back then devil worship and arcane went hand in hand, insinuating that the devil was Divine or gave divine magics would have gotten you executed back then.
If the Witch class can't support some of the foundations shaping what we've come to describe as Witches, then I'd argue the class needs some work. & this is without mentioning that the occult spell list lacks the ability to turn someone into a newt ;P
It did so just fine in P1.
|
|
Going off this, I think some of the options from PF1 would also link Witches towards having a connection with all 4 traditions. (Not gonna bother listing any occult ones since almost no one is arguing against including them.)
Arcane:
Wyrmwitch Archetype, based on dragons. To be fair, only Chromatic/Metallic dragons are confirmed as being arcane casters in PF2, and I kinda imagine dragons are likely to eventually touch all traditions once we start getting stats for esoteric, imperial, outer, & primal dragons.
Divine:
Demon-Sworn archetype, classic witch who gets power from demons (divine creatures)
Pact Witch archetype, makes pacts directly with the aligned (divine) planes.
Celestial Agenda Patron, pact with good-aligned (divine) outsider who "sometimes invest white witches with celestial might to defend the weak and heal the sick"
Infernal Contract Patron, Witch whose "power was brokered from a powerful daemon, demon, or devil to speed the corruption and moral decay of mortals." Again, directly getting power from a divine tradition entity.
Primal:
Fey Gifts Patron, "A powerful fey or other entity has offered you magic." Gaining magic from primal tradition entity.
Green Whispers Patron, "Your witch powers are bestowed by a representative of natural forces, such as an ancient treant or nature spirit, who expects you to wield such gifts on its behalf." Again, magic being bestowed by primal entity.
Hexes: PF1 Witches had a number of hexes which would seem to fall into the Primal tradition, such as: Animal Servant, Animal Skin, Beast's Gift, Feral Speech, Leshy Summoning, Natural Disaster, Verdant Familiar, Weather Control...It's almost as if, like the all of the reintroduced classes in PF2, that the new Witch is meant to encompass a lot of what had to be done due via Archetypes into the natural order of the Witch by default.
Thus allowing for ease of introducing lots of Witch concepts without having to roll out an Archetype or five every single book in order to satisfy all the different things a Witch could do in the previous edition.
Hmmmmmm
None of those Archetypes traded out the Witch’s spell list.
None of those Archetypes traded out the Witch’s spell list.
But would it have been better if they would have?
Also, they can't exactly give them a different Spell List than the Witch Spell list in PF1, so it doesn't exactly translate.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish the conversation would just generally move away from discussing what witches look like in general and more what they look like in Pathfinder. I'm coming around to the all lists witch here (largely by force, haha), but do most npc witches in Golarion cackle and hex? Are they shown as clearly patron-bound?
I honestly don't know, as I'm new with this edition and all I know is hags.
Ironically the two are the same, this thread (and the divine witches thread that was closed, and the mechanical benefit to patron thread) have basically become a war for the soul of the class, and what the core idea of the class should be. This is a new edition, a new game, its a chance to *decide* how Witches in Golarion should be depicted- the designers have shown a willingness to do that by adding multiple traditions for the class, so we're hashing out arguments on what we want to see happen from here.
In one corner we have a handful of posters who think that the class should hunker down to focus on the particular flavor of the occult witch, under the assertion that it could use the thematic focus to fix a few of it's problems, and that multiple spell lists will confuse the class. They also assert that Witches outside of that dynamic should just be other (existing) classes such as the Wizard, Druid, or Cleric but flavored as a Witch.
In the other corner we have a handful of posters who want to see multiple lists because Witches in fiction cover a broad array of powers. It also follows the nature of having patrons that have wildly different kinds of magic to it's logical conclusion- that different types of patrons should be granting different kinds of magic- like a senior spellcaster could grant arcane, a hag or lovecraft entity might grant occult, a demon or angel or god might choose to grant divine, and a spirit of nature might grant primal.
The answer to your question, as far as the designers are concerned is "This is a playtest, you tell us"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically the two are the same, this thread (and the divine witches thread that was closed, and the mechanical benefit to patron thread) have basically become a war for the soul of the class
HAVE AT YEE THOSE WHO WOULD OPPOSE US!
WE WILL FIGHT ON THE ETERNAL FIELDS OF DEATH KNOWN UNTIL THE SOUL OF THE WITCH CAN REST IN ETERNAL PEACE AS THE ONCE TRUE PICK A LIST CASTER!
MAY YOU BRING YOUR COURAGE AND PROWESS, FOR WE HAVE BROUGHT OUR OWN!
The Wizard is a phony that's like saying a fighter is you patron.
And? A patron can be anything.
The Wizard isn't entirely a phony, nor is he the only Patron elphaba has over her lifetime.
Finally, my entire point is that you cant get hanged up on what the class name is as that doesnt always work, or something else might fit better.
It's not about the Class name, it's about the character.
Elphaba is a Witch.
It's not because she's called a Witch.
It's because a black wearing, broom riding, cauldron brewing, familiar having, cackling, spellcaster is a Witch
No one, on this earth, is going to convince me "Elphaba isn't really a Witch".
No more than you could convince me that Aragorn is a Barbarian.
It's not about what Feats Aragorn has, what weapon he uses, what armor he wears: It's because Aragorn doesn't act or evoke any Barbarian themes.
Conan, despite not being mechanically like a Barbarian necessarily, still evokes themes of a Barbarian, and is called a Barbarian.
That doesn't mean "Conan is not a Barbarian!" it means the game doesn't support Barbarians like Conan (and to be honest, I think the current rules support it besides how some want to define "rage").
But this shows me is that with the right hexes and a few key spells, you can change the entire flavor of the witch without needing to replace the entire spell list.
If the Occult spell list was identical to the old Witch list, you would have a point.
But it's not.
I had no problem with the Old Witch Spell list being the Witch, you wanna know why? Because it had a lot more than what's on the Occult list and Patrons granted a bunch more spells.
I would have liked it to cover more concepts as it can now, but I thought what was there was fine.
I really wish the conversation would just generally move away from discussing what witches look like in general and more what they look like in Pathfinder. I'm coming around to the all lists witch here (largely by force, haha), but do most npc witches in Golarion cackle and hex? Are they shown as clearly patron-bound?
I honestly don't know, as I'm new with this edition and all I know is hags.
Ironically the two are the same, this thread (and the divine witches thread that was closed, and the mechanical benefit to patron thread) have basically become a war for the soul of the class, and what the core idea of the class should be. This is a new edition, a new game, its a chance to *decide* how Witches in Golarion should be depicted- the designers have shown a willingness to do that by adding multiple traditions for the class, so we're hashing out arguments on what we want to see happen from here.
In one corner we have a handful of posters who think that the class should hunker down to focus on the particular flavor of the occult witch, under the assertion that it could use the thematic focus to fix a few of it's problems, and that multiple spell lists will confuse the class. They also assert that Witches outside of that dynamic should just be other (existing) classes such as the Wizard, Druid, or Cleric but flavored as a Witch.
In the other corner we have a handful of posters who want to see multiple lists because Witches in fiction cover a broad array of powers. It also follows the nature of having patrons that have wildly different kinds of magic to it's logical conclusion- that different types of patrons should be granting different kinds of magic- like a senior spellcaster could grant arcane, a hag or lovecraft entity might grant occult, a demon or angel or god might choose to grant divine, and a spirit of nature might grant primal.
The answer to your question, as far as the designers are concerned is "This is a playtest, you tell us"
The answer I'm getting is "Paizo isn't sure and the players can't agree."
I'm enjoying hashing it out, though! I don't want the class to lose its uniqueness from PF1, and I'm concerned the pick-a-list will end up soft on mechanical flavor. But I also get that pick-a-list is a very natural result of the patron mechanic. I probably have nothing more to add to this discussion at this point. Carry on, folks! Just not about Elphaba anymore. That's sailed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you described is basically the Bardic Muse, not a Patron.What I described is how they worked in P1. A Bard’s Muse can be anything, it’s literally what inspires them. I did not mean for them to be exact thing when I said “inspiration”, more akin to their field of study with bread crumbs along the way.
Those issues are sidestepped entirely by the Witch learning their magic with their Patron the object of inspiration, rather than being granted it like a Cleric. The Witch is Occult, not the Patron.
From PF1 Witch:
From Special Patrons:
...Yeah, inspired doesn't seem to work for any of these. Even the student/teacher method has trouble working for many of these. "Granted" actually seems to be the closest for most of what was actually written for the PF1 class. So no, that description didn't really match how Patrons worked in PF1.
I don’t want Witches turned into spooky secretive Clerics.
Clerics literally worship their deity, act as servants of their deity, and are completely stripped of their power if they ever break ranks with their deity.
None of that is necessarily true of a Witch with their Patron, even if their magic ended up being "granted." Both Clerics and Witches are more than just the methodology behind how another entity shared magic with them and a Witch doesn't become a Cleric variant if their Patron directly grants them stuff. Not to mention a Witch still allows for story arcs a Cleric can't tell under such a system (i.e. Witch got magic through a connection with their Patron, Witch wants to break away but their Patron would never willingly let them go).
From above, apparently actually learning magic from your Patron isn't supported. A Wyrmwitch is significantly less cool if they're just a wannabe fangirl rather than actually having a connection to a dragon (being granted magic or explicitly taught magic).What? They can be taught magic. And Wyrm Witchs main appeal was sleeping on a hoard of treasure.
Then we're back at the exact same problem you were responding to. Why is the teacher teaching a different magical tradition from the one they know? I picked a dragon type that uses Arcane magic both innately and prepared - so why would such a patron suddenly teach occult magic? The Patron is why the witch has magic in the first place, regardless of exact method (grant, teach, etc.), so why is something like a dragon somehow incapable of teaching the magical tradition they know and use just because they become a Patron?
And we'll have to disagree on the main appeal there. Sleeping on money is amusing, but the main appeal for me is that your patron is a dragon, teaching you dragon stuff, and you get to better emulate a dragon (such as by sleeping on your hoard). If the archetype had you carrying around a dragon's egg as your familiar and getting dragon magic/abilities as payment for your services to your dragon patron, I'd probably be just as happy with it.
You’re assuming Fey Wizards, Clerics, and Bards don’t exist.
I'm not. Wizards do not have a class feature linking them to another entity & do not gain their magic thus. Clerics could only worship Eldest/Fey Lords. And Bards would treat fey as an inspirational Muse.
None of those match up with a Witch making a contract with a fey as the Witch's Patron - and gaining their magic from that connection.
And historically Devil meant Arcane, the opposite of Divine.
...And? Devils in PF2 are divine. That is how Pathfinder has defined it's world. I've never seen the assertions you made there anywhere else, but it doesn't really matter. Representing such in PF2 would mean interacting with what the system defines as a being related to the divine tradition, not the arcane or occult traditions.
If the Witch class can't support some of the foundations shaping what we've come to describe as Witches, then I'd argue the class needs some work. & this is without mentioning that the occult spell list lacks the ability to turn someone into a newt ;PIt did so just fine in P1.
Turning people into newts was also on the witch's default spell list in PF1, without having to hope the devs would add a feat option later to gain such ability.
PF1 had class spell lists instead of 4 traditions, with the witch's particular spell list noticeable blending the 2 traditions that previously existed and included spells that have now been split across all 4 traditions. Not to mention that creatures of the bestiary went from just having "spell-like abilities" to having "[tradition] innate spells" and are now more closely tied to these 4 traditions as a result... which raises problems of why they'd suddenly going cross tradition with their magic the moment they become a patron.
On the Hex bit Temperans, I agree.
It’s frustrating to see everything as it is now in that they are a series of half measures. Which makes it really tough to see what would need to change if the whole measures were in place.
And I don’t fault paizo for that, they went bold, they just didn’t get bold enough in a few places with power, structure, definition. But the course ahead has a lot of avenues of success because of that.
I am terribly curious where they are landing as of surveys, and ironically I didn’t get to try a primal witch in the playtest. I now wish I had or at least attempted to use one as it might be my only hope.
|
|
...Yeah, inspired doesn't seem to work for any of these. Even the student/teacher method has trouble working for many of these. "Granted" actually seems to be the closest for most of what was actually written for the PF1 class. So no, that description didn't really match how Patrons worked in PF1.
From P1:
A witch must commune with her familiar each day to prepare her spells. Familiars store all of the spells that a witch knows, and a witch cannot prepare a spell that is not stored by her familiar. A witch’s familiar begins play storing all of the 0-level witch spells plus three 1st-level spells of the witch’s choice. The witch also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to her Intelligence modifier to store in her familiar. At each new witch level, she adds two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new witch level) to her familiar. A witch can also add additional spells to her familiar through a special ritual (see sidebar).
The fact that the Familiar functions as a spellbook that the Witch has to put spells into herself takes away from the Patron being the granter of spells.
Clerics literally worship their deity, act as servants of their deity, and are completely stripped of their power if they ever break ranks with their deity.
None of that is necessarily true of a Witch with their Patron, even if their magic ended up being "granted."
I decided to go read the entry in Blood of the Coven, and it seemed to side with the decision of Patron's being specifics entities that empower like a deity to a cleric (with their apparently being two opposed design thoughts in P1, Patrons being inspirations and Patrons being actual entities), a little too much like a deity:
While clerics’ deities are well documented by doctrine and myth, presenting prominent faces to the world at large, witch patrons are mysterious and secretive—so much so that even witches don’t know the identities of their patrons. Theirs is a relationship of bargains rather than blind devotion or faith, gaining power in exchange for esoteric prices, pushing their patrons’ worldly agendas, or their immortal souls. For many witches, the price is left vague at first: power is granted as a mysterious gift in time of need, and only once the mortal has grown dependent on such power does the patron reveal the cost of its continued use. Fair or foul, the price must be paid, or whatever power the patron invested is revoked, including hexes, spellcasting, and the familiar that serves as the bond between agent and master. Mortals relied on these bargains in the ages before arcane magic was codified and documented for those who were not blessed at birth with sorcerous blood. Even millennia later, the wheeling and dealing road to power still tempts many without the patience or mindset for arduous study.Many witches prefer to think of their patrons as a concept, rather than entities, to downplay their uncertainty regarding the ultimate sources of their power. Others make up identities for their patrons, either invented from whole cloth or chosen to be impressive and socially acceptable beings related to the patrons’ portfolios. For example, in Irrisen, many witches with the winter patron claim their patron is winter itself, or even Baba Yaga, despite the fact that the Queen of Witches herself has a fate patron. Usually this simply amuses patrons or serves to further their ends by increasing their anonymity. But rarely, a witch’s dissonant beliefs can open a tiny window to the bond between the witch and the patron, allowing something truly terrible to crawl through.
Witch patrons are enigmatic entities, sometimes fair minded and other times malevolent. Some are demigods or powerful spirits, such as those that grant shamans their spellcasting. Others are manifestations of cosmic forces, created by the certainty of mortals and the fundamental need for balance in much the same way aeons manifest. While kindly patrons are rare—attracting worshipers more readily than agents—the majority are high-minded and neutral figures. They dispense arcane power to those whose interests and mindsets align with their needs, and once a witch drifts from the cause or refuses to pay the price for such power, her patron divests the spellcaster of her powers and depart. Wicked patrons enjoy longer-lasting relationships, however, manipulating the witches’ minds and punishing disobedience in a manner far more personal than an evil god. The familiar of a wicked patron becomes equal parts power source and prison guard, forever studying its charge for disobedience.
The various published witch patron themes present a wide array of concepts and priorities to align with a large variety of supernatural beings. Some specific patrons, however, might offer variations within the spells they grant. Special patron categories listed on page 15 swap out the spells normally provided by a patron theme at specific levels, and grant a specific hex and drawback at 1st level. Once a specific patron has been selected, a witch cannot change her patron or raise a hand against that entity without losing her spellcasting, hexes, and familiar. These categories are limited in the patron themes they can provide; their witches must select from one of the four listed for each entry. These patrons are extraordinary examples of their kind, often invested with unique or mythic powers and pursuing long-term agendas measured in centuries or eons.
Note the bold.
And this from the Creative Director a year ago:
No. Witch patrons aren't things. They're ideas. They're fields of study. They aren't NPCs or gods or anything like that. A witch who wants to thematically align with Nocticula or Sorshen can take a patron like trickery or redemption or art or whatever (work with the GM to make up a new patron if needed), but the name of a person is never the same as a witch patron.
This is something I dearly hope we'll be able to fix when and if we do witches in 2nd edition—either adjust it so that their patrons ARE things (akin to how a cleric selects a deity), or pick a different word than "patron" that isn't so confusing if we really do want them to be focused on areas of study.
So again a division, one that is known and being considered (it was one of the questions in the Witch survey I believe).
So to reiterate, I do not want P2 Witches to be spooky secretive Occult Clerics whose Patrons are actual entities that can strip the Witch of granted power. Being a mix self-taught/learned caster is far more interesting than just being an Occult Cleric.
Then we're back at the exact same problem you were responding to. Why is the teacher teaching a different magical tradition from the one they know?
1) Why not? 2) How are you sure they don't know it?
I'm not. Wizards do not have a class feature linking them to another entity & do not gain their magic thus. Clerics could only worship Eldest/Fey Lords. And Bards would treat fey as an inspirational Muse.
None of those match up with a Witch making a contract with a fey as the Witch's Patron - and gaining their magic from that connection.
You completely misunderstood what I was saying.
Going along with your earlier comment I was pointing out that Fey Wizards exist (that is, a Fey who is a Wizard) and therefore a Fey Patron could teach the Arcane, or Bard for Occult.
And? Devils in PF2 are divine. That is how Pathfinder has defined it's world. I've never seen the assertions you made there anywhere else, but it doesn't really matter. Representing such in PF2 would mean interacting with what the system defines as a being related to the divine tradition, not the arcane or occult traditions.
I brought that up because you brought up Witch Hunts and the like.
In real life religions and folklore concerning this god = divine, devil = arcane. There wasn't any "good" arcane or divinity from the devil, arcane was his purview. It was evil.
Turning people into newts was also on the witch's default spell list in PF1, without having to hope the devs would add a feat option later to gain such ability.
PF1 had class spell lists instead of 4 traditions, with the witch's particular spell list noticeable blending the 2 traditions that previously existed and included spells that have now been split across all 4 traditions. Not to mention that creatures of the bestiary went from just having "spell-like abilities" to having "[tradition] innate spells" and are now more closely tied to these 4 traditions as a result... which raises problems of why they'd suddenly going cross tradition with their magic the moment they become a patron.
And the Occult Tradition will only grow as more spells are added, just as P1's Witch spell list did, and that's without getting into Lessons and the possibility that Patrons will add more thematic ones as well.
As for the last part you seem to sticking to the assumption that creatures are forever locked to their innate magic, that they can't gain or manually lean another set of magic, that you can't have immortals who study wizardy or become bards.