Why witches should have one spell list


Witch Playtest

1 to 50 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

25 people marked this as a favorite.

So we have a few threads discussing whether Witches should have access to the divine tradition. I’ve been alluding to wanting the class to go in the opposite direction, and so I figured I’d make a thread about some of the reasons I think so.

I think letting the sorcerer choose any list is quite interesting and lends a cool draw to that class. Sorcerers, however, are kind of built around this. They get a lot of feats that care about which care about their tradition, which makes it the mechanical throughline of the class. Witch doesn’t get anything like this, which makes the choice seem a little shallow and unnecessary to me.

Witches in fiction are known for casting specific spells and curses than for casting magic in general. Some witches turn you into frogs, or create wards around areas, or extend their lifespans by boiling babies. They rely much more on individual spells to realize their character concepts than Wizards. I think the current way the witch gets her spells goes counter to this aspect of the class.

To explain what I mean, occult witches don’t get access to Baleful Polymorph, and one of the occult lessons is the lesson of curses. The last witch I would ever expect to not be able to turn people into frogs is the one who’s all about curses. If you choose the lesson of protection, you never get access to the spell, protection. I think even if you swapped the lesson names around, you would still run into problems like these.

My suggestion would be to give witches one single list (I would argue occult is a good idea but I would be happy with any single one, really) and have them get 2-4 bonus spells from each lesson. That way you don’t lock yourself out of casting witchy spells and the class becomes even more customizable. It even mirrors the 1E witch a tiny bit (which had a spell list that cherry picked all the witchy-flavor spells) so that’s cool for legacy I guess?

So what do people think? Am I crazy for thinking witches should have one spell list? Is my solution missing something super important?

Liberty's Edge

18 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally in complete agreement (well, I'm more invested in it being the Occult list), for whatever that's worth.

This and making Hexes cantrips rather than Focus Spells both seem like good changes I'd be entirely behind.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm personally in complete agreement (well, I'm more invested in it being the Occult list), for whatever that's worth.

This and making Hexes cantrips rather than Focus Spells both seem like good changes I'd be entirely behind.

I completely concur, even about the preference for the Occult list.

1. I don't want to go down the road of handing out "choose your own spell list" to lots of new classes. It waters down the weight of the different spell lists.

2. If any class can be the champion of the occult spell list, it's the witch. If there's problems with the spell list, having a class tied to it will really show what's wrong.

3. It's easier to tweak spell lists if most classes only have one option. The divine spell list might need some more gishy-warrior-priest supporting spells that might not be ideal if it can get stuck on a witch chassis, for example.

4. Different spell list access can be bought back with class archetypes, so if you really did want another spell list, there would be a mechanism to make the appropriate trades if there are some balance issues between lists.

5. Having a single spell list at the Bard's spells per day, but with hex cantrips and key spells from other lists would give Witches a big caster flavor punch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With Patrons being split into multiple lessons, it could lead to an interesting mix of granted spells from each lesson.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Even though I’m one of the supporters of the divine witch, if the choice is 3 lists, I’d pick occult every time. If the concept of a pick a list doesn’t fit the witch (arcanist maybe), then don’t make them that class, other concepts can do it. Make patrons add whole schools of spells or domains, that’d give them structure anyways.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree. The multiple lists is a good approach because it allows the different flavors of Witch. The hex feats should make sure to cover important spells, like turning people into stuff or cursing people. But I can now play a primal nature witch, an arcane secrets witch, or a spooky occult witch. It’s much more straightforward now to toss fireballs, or play an ice witch.


Witch is a very broad concept. I think having multiple lists makes sense, because while Occult might fit one flavor of witch very well, it doesn't fit others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
I disagree. The multiple lists is a good approach because it allows the different flavors of Witch. The hex feats should make sure to cover important spells, like turning people into stuff or cursing people. But I can now play a primal nature witch, an arcane secrets witch, or a spooky occult witch. It’s much more straightforward now to toss fireballs, or play an ice witch.

I totally hear you on this, but do you think a patron that says “you gain every spell with the x trait on your spell list” would suffice for those concepts?

I also like the primal and arcane lists, but without divine I can’t help but feel that the pick a list prepared caster isn’t being fully realized without all four.

That’s just my personal take obviously; but I’m very all or nothing on this and patrons and lessons are rather flimsy at the moment, so a boat load of spells as reinforcement for a concept via traits might help that.


I feel class archetypes may be a good way to swap spell lists in the future (primal wizards anyone?) but that’s somewhat unrelated.

I totally understand wanting different types of witches, though. It’s kind of what I want in the end - if Paizo just removed the list choice without adding the ability to gain bonus spells somehow I wouldn’t like that at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
1. I don't want to go down the road of handing out "choose your own spell list" to lots of new classes. It waters down the weight of the different spell lists.

I wouldn't want that either, but I see the Witch as the only class other than Sorcerer that I support having access to this. Why? Because both classes have an intimate tie with some magical source that could easily be from any tradition (Bloodline/Patron). This type of lore doesn't exist for something like the Arcanist or Magus which have been brought up as possibilities for pick-a-list (not to mention they have even less ties compared to the Witch for the current divine tradition arguments).

WatersLethe wrote:
4. Different spell list access can be bought back with class archetypes, so if you really did want another spell list, there would be a mechanism to make the appropriate trades if there are some balance issues between lists.
Henro wrote:
I feel class archetypes may be a good way to swap spell lists in the future (primal wizards anyone?) but that’s somewhat unrelated.

Honestly, I get the idea that paizo may be trying to avoid making archetypes like that in the future. I know there was a comment about them trying to avoid all the stat swapping shenanigans that happened in PF1 and imagine swapping spell lists would fall under the same general concept.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I' can't agree. Witch supports arcane the strongest, however there are archetypes of witches that also fit occult and primal.
if I had to list in order of preference just based on general lore and history
1. arcane
2. occult
3. primal.

I do agree that divine does not the fit the witch.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree, restricting Witch to occult I think makes it an easy comparison to Wizard and shields it from some clutter/noise in design. We'd have a focused prepared caster for each spell list, and I think this would let Patrons and lessons actually be more meaningful by giving the Witch choice spells from other traditions to match a theme

For instance, a Patron that's all about primal blasting, or one that leans towards the "classic" Witch spell list by lending the class baleful polymorph. I think having fewer spell options would lead to Hexes (and Hex Cantrips) and Patrons being a much more interesting space to play with. Probably also makes balance considerations easier because Hexes and Patron lists aren't being weighed against three spell lists. I also think having specific, well-defined archetypes that give different spell lists (like Shaman) would be easier to make. Letting the Sorcerer be unique in its spell list options (at least in the opening salvo of classes) also feels like a good play

I can see some sort of paradigm focused on Patron enhancements to spell lists, Lessons that give Hex Cantrips and Hexes, and then a more complete/unique familiar. I like the idea, honestly, of the Witch feeling like an occult cross between a Wizard and a Cleric; the Patron gives access to/teaches unique powers, and the familiar supports the Witch with tutelage and spell tracking


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't often find myself disagreeing with Deadmanwalking, but I always wanted Witch to be multi-caster. When it first occurred to me I thought it would be the only way to do justice to the many and varied witchy aesthetics, and would only too easily fit the variety of patrons out there if they would teach all traditions of magic among them.

Contrary to what people say about not handing out multi-tradition casting to too many classes, I feel like Witch is the only class I would think would work for the multi-tradition casting aside from Sorcerer. I do not feel like it would take away the sorcerer's special thing any more than having two classes who cast the same (single) tradition necessary conflict with one another. I feel like it instead reflects their similarities--both receive their power from the supernatural creatures and forces of the cosmos, but one is innately gifted with this power by birthright (or alternative explanation) and the other strikes up a bargain with a powerful entity to teach them secret magic.

A witch taught by a powerful fey should probably cast Primal spells (perhaps with lessons to add in some enchantments). A witch who communes with the dark eldritch forces of the stars should learn Occult magic. A witch taught magic by an angel of course learns to channel divine spells. Arcane is the hardest sell not because I don't think witches should be arcane, but because there just aren't a huge number of entities out there associated with arcane magic. Dragons and mortal spellcasters are the only things off the top of my head, and even then I'm not very into the idea of wizards as patrons.

Truth be told I'm not terribly sure why people prefer Occult for their witches. Besides pure name association with the occult (in which case arcane also means strange, hidden, and mysterious, but I'm not here to put words in mouths, I'm sure folk have carefully considered their reasons!) I don't see a lot in the occult that screams Witch more than any other tradition. It has some good spiritual/mental magic (by definition!), but it has nothing in the way of shapeshifting or nature magic I associate most with witchcraft.

I do feel that witches should have mysterious magic and secret lore, but occult alone doesn't sell me that it's the magic of the hidden and mysterious, and I don't think it really works to say that Hexes/Lessons should fill in the gaps to provide for turning people into toads or trade in poisons and cures. I would just as easily take Primal as default and uses hexes to fill out whatever iconic enchantments I would be missing. Actually, that is exactly what I feel hexes represent--the mysterious secrets beyond what other spellcasters of any given tradition learn.

Of course at some point, if it takes combining two essentially opposed traditions to embody all the powers we collectively expect of witches, I feel like the eclectic mix of powers is better served by giving different styles of witches their own traditions of powers rather than expecting one witch to do it all.


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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So, Occult for the main Class and other lists through archetypes requiring minimum ability scores ala Multiclassing? Like WIS 14 to be a Primal Witch?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
A witch taught by a powerful fey should probably cast Primal spells (perhaps with lessons to add in some enchantments). A witch who communes with the dark eldritch forces of the stars should learn Occult magic. A witch taught magic by an angel of course learns to channel divine spells.

Interestingly, I more or less agree with this. Witches are heavily defined by their spells, so it makes sense for the class to have some kind of control over their list. I think mixing and watching via bonus spells could work out better though - I don't think the entire primal list is needed to make a primal witch.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Contrary to what people say about not handing out multi-tradition casting to too many classes, I feel like Witch is the only class I would think would work for the multi-tradition casting aside from Sorcerer. I do not feel like it would take away the sorcerer's special thing any more than having two classes who cast the same (single) tradition necessary conflict with one another. I feel like it instead reflects their similarities--both receive their power from the supernatural creatures and forces of the cosmos, but one is innately gifted with this power by birthright (or alternative explanation) and the other strikes up a bargain with a powerful entity to teach them secret magic.

Yeah, I can understand that position. Out of all the 1E classes, sorcerer and witch makes the most sense as the pick-a-list casters.

However, if the witch is going to be the pick-a-list prepared caster I think it should absolutely have a access to the divine list, as well as changing the class structure to reflect this (giving the witch feats that interact with the variable spell lists like the sorcerer has, for instance).

The witch right now does not feel like the pick-a-list prepared caster, it feels like a caster that happens to pick a list.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if letting an Int caster being able to use any tradition is more of a thematic problem than letting a Cha caster be able to use any tradition.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree, big time.

I think it was a mistake to tie an individual Witch to a single Tradition via their Patron choice.

I personally feel that the Paton bonus spells should simply be done away with completely, the Occult Patrons reworked and instead grant the Divine Tradition, and ALL Witches be given access to Occult as standard. Each Patron should then grant Arcane, Divine, or Primal Tradition Spellcasting.

The PF1 Witch Spell list is just WAY too diverse to even come close to replicating with a single Tradition + Bonus Spells, and it's not even CLOSE.

Enabling the Witch to source spells from two different Traditions is... well it's pretty much exactly what the 1E Witch did, except instead of pulling from Tradition lists, they had their own unique Spell list as per the norm of the edition.

If they lock Witch to using Occult only, then I would bet you my HAT and a side of ketchup that what will invariably happen is that the vast majority of all Witches take whatever Patron grants them additional Blasting/Evocation Bonus Spells from the Arcane or Primal Traditions. Allowing a Witch to pull 1 list that makes universal thematic sense (Occult), and another which is tied to their Patron (Arcane, Divine, Primal) suddenly creates a TON of variability from one Witch to the next and it also strengthens (A stated goal as expressed by the team working on the Witch) the Patron Ability mechanics instead of weakening it.

Doing this will also enable them to remove the Bonus Spells from the Lessons the Witch gets, and instead replace those with Feats or other even more interesting things such as perhaps the ability for your Familiar to cast your prepared Spells on their own without simply just delivering it as a Touch, have permanently enabled Familiar/Master Abilities, additional HP, gain a new "Outsider" Subtype and related defensive bonuses, more HP, increased size, or EVEN (For a major Primal Lesson) convert them into an Animal Companion.


I think part of the Witch list problem is that witches of lore (both in myth and in gaming) draw upon spells from opposite PF2 spell lists (generally Occult & Primal). I don't think the "any list" solution solves this, nor does one list necessarily cover enough. (Though if one is chosen it should definitely have curses & enchantments!)

How about if we broaden the Patron ability and/or bonus spells via feats, we could get something which works.
For this example let's assume Witches begin with Occult as the frame (though I admit many of the force effects seem off).

Then for example, there could be a chain of Winter Witch abilities that begins w/ "Frosty Magic" which gives them a basic themed hex (perhaps cold resistance 1/2 levels) as well as access to common low-level spells w/ the Cold trait from any tradition.
If the Witch takes more cold-themed feats/hexes, they also get access to higher level cold spells as a side bonus.
You could cover Mental, Fire, Plant, Animal, Darkness, etc., with each feat making the witch ever more connected, perhaps shifting her appearance (which is pretty standard lore).
Maybe they even have a higher proficiency than normal (and perhaps a lower proficiency for their general spells than other casters.)

And as secondary thought, one could even strip all spell lists away from witches so they are purely working from spell Traits & Patron spells, with their casting saves based on Class DC. They'd start with a set of spell traits for which they know all common spells, i.e. curses or fortune, and then choose a Patron which bestows more traits (and maybe clusters of specific spells), followed by having feat options (and maybe options w/ class advancement) that expand it even further.
Of course, this could be tweaked in many ways to fix patches or get key spells that fall between the cracks.

Oh, and no matter what changes occur, Witches should be able to summon fiends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed on just 1 list, but being able to expand it by adding spells from other lists with some souped up Lessons. Then you can still have different types of witches but the class has more identity and can be balanced better.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe Occult as the baseline, and your first level patron/lesson pick allows you to prepare a single spell per spell level from the Divine/Arcane/Primal lists, depending on which patron/lesson you picked. Seems simple enough to implement and you can treat the out of list spells as Occult spells for the purposes of proficiency so you don't have to give witches proficiency in two different traditions.


Occult spell list with Patron spefic spell types, So winterish patron give access to cold spells. Darkness type patron which likes of Zon kthon might be your secret patron could give darkness spells of any tradtion.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Agreed on just 1 list, but being able to expand it by adding spells from other lists with some souped up Lessons. Then you can still have different types of witches but the class has more identity and can be balanced better.

To be clear, this is also what I'm advocating. Witches who want to, say, turn people into toads should definitely be able to, but that can easily be part of a Lesson rather than them using the Primal or Arcane list, and likewise all the ice stuff could easily be part of one Lesson or another.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like if your patron can be like the Green Mother, an Angel, a Dragon, or a Hag then you should be able to access the Primal, Divine, Arcane, or Occult lists.

And I do want the patron fleshed out much more.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

When Witch was announced I hoped they would be the Occult prepared caster opposite the Bard’s spontaneous, so I’m definitely in favor of this.

Especially if they can get thematic spells from other Traditions through their Patrons/Lessons like in P1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tossing my vote in favor of multiple lists. A primal witch is the one thing I have always wanted for the game, and I don't think occult fits any kind of witch but one. It's a personal preference purely, but I couldn't sacrifice a favorite thing.

A polymorphing specialist witch becomes particularly possible under such a system, and patrons with random spells pulled from another list would never cover it so completely. Sure a patron could provide some, but I would never get ALL of them, otherwise. I imagine there's a lot of people who feel this way, just in different lanes (preference for arcane, etc.)

Oh, and I can't neglect to mention a winter witch who actually has all the options she needs now. That's one thing primal gives me that is simply too cool.


This whole spell list fiasco is one of a few reasons why I'm not fond of how spell lists work in PF2. If we used class based lists this wouldn't be a controversy and there'd be more focus on the balance issues the witch has.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I really like the 4 Tradtions rather than each caster getting their own spell list, doesn't eat up nearly as much wordcount for every single spell put in the game and when new classes are added and other headaches (like forgetting a spell or two when making lists for each class).

"[Class] uses X Tradition" done.


Rysky wrote:

When Witch was announced I hoped they would be the Occult prepared caster opposite the Bard’s spontaneous, so I’m definitely in favor of this.

Especially if they can get thematic spells from other Traditions through their Patrons/Lessons like in P1.

This is also what I expected. We even have feats for other classes that mimic how a prepared occult caster coukd potentially expand their list (Fey Caller for druid).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems like an I get mine and you don't get yours kind of scenario.

Occult only witch works great for people who'd rather play Occult witches, but shuts down a bunch of other concepts for no real reason. The flexibility works both mechanically and thematically and I don't really see a reason to take stuff away from anyone else.

You can still grant bonus spells either way.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Know you know how all the people pushing for Witch to have all four Traditions feel ^w^

Occult, to me, is the best fit and feel for the Witch, just like how Divine is for Cleric and Primal for Druid and Arcane for Wizard.

When I hear Witch I hear "spooky", when I hear Occult I hear "spooky".

With gaining thematic outside-Tradition spells through patrons/Lessons I'm not sure what concepts are being shut down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

See when I hear witch what I hear depends on the time of day. Sometimes it's actually spooky, but it's more often fairytales that come to my mind. Sometimes it's magical girls that come to mind, and not just the edgy ones. Every now and then a certain blonde kleptomaniac with the laserest laser to ever laser will cross my mind. And if you catch me on a nostalgia trip and sometimes my mind will go to the wicked, disgusting, green, rhyming, fat f--- of a rival to a bear and a bird that really needs a new game to come out, come on Microsoft!

Ahem. My point is witch means a lot of different things to different people. Your spooky could be another person's comedy, or mystic, or lewd.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

They were spooky and occult in mmost fairytales that I know of.

Magical Girls have a wide range of archetypes that play with and shake up the norm so there's no real rhyme or reason there (and I have no idea who the "blond klepto" is). They're a genre rather than an archetype, and an exception doesn't set the standard.

Also could have done without the fat shaming.

Quote:
Your spooky could be another person's comedy, or mystic, or lewd.

Comedy and lewd don't really have anything to do with spell lists the same way that spooky or mystic do. And just by what my mind immediately assocaites with the word "mystic" I get every Tradion save Arcane.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the choose your list group.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I thought it over a for a while, and not only am I pretty strongly in the occult-only camp by now, I'd like to see their spellcasting limited a bit more while their hexes get improved via cantrips and hexes. Give them a much bigger design space and a better identity among the other casters.

Allowing other spell lists feels more like loosening the core concept to encourage base class versatility. Which is cool and all, but I don't think the game needs a sorcerer-but-prepared with weak innate class options. If they are going to stay multi-tradition, I'd rather see it a spell list and a half or something unique. As in, full access to the occult list and partial to the primal, for example. Where the balance on that would land (without just being "you get a spell a level from potentially another tradition based on your patron") I don't know.

Sovereign Court

I am of two minds about this issue. On one hand, I absolutely agree, I wish Witch had a single spell list and the lessons provided far more spells added to your familiar (especially off-list spells). On the other, I definitely understand wanting to avoid a specific spell list with your concept (occult isn’t the best tradition for something like a medicine person who is receiving their magic from a guardian nature spirit.)

I think it would be best if we didn’t have to choose between those options. One of the main problems people have had with the patron is that it doesn’t have much theming going on, so wouldn’t that be greatly ameliorated by giving each of the lessons a group of spells added instead of just one? Or heck even just make your first lesson choice give you the backbone of your extra spells in addition to your list? I don’t know, but that kind of idea could kill two birds with one stone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be open to Witches pulling spells from two separate spell lists (perhaps each patron has a primary and secondary list, or something). I’m not sure how this would work or be balanced, but it would solve some (if not all) of my current problems with the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do believe it should be either 1 spell list that you can add free spells too; or pick a list with all four, but still being able to add spells.

Having 1 list would give a lot of space for hexes to gain more usability which they desperately need. But having multiple lists means more types of Witches are available.

I wonder how it could work if witches had 1 list and in the same book, there were witch archetypes for the remaining spell lists. I'm not sure how it would be balanced with archetypes costing a feat, maybe those archetypes are 2 feats for 1 making it a none issue?

How would you all balance it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MadMars wrote:
But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?

Soothe and Life Boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
MadMars wrote:
But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?
Soothe and Life Boost.

I think most of my concepts go a tad farther than that.


MadMars wrote:
But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?

I don't see the Occult list is "spooky" by default - bards aren't spooky by default either.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Henro wrote:
MadMars wrote:
But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?
I don't see the Occult list is "spooky" by default - bards aren't spooky by default either.

*nods*

To expand on my earlier comment, Occult lends itself to being spooky better than the others, it’s not all spooky or locked in to it.


Castilliano wrote:


And as secondary thought, one could even strip all spell lists away from witches so they are purely working from spell Traits & Patron spells, with their casting saves based on Class DC. They'd start with a set of spell traits for which they know all common spells, i.e. curses or fortune, and then choose a Patron which bestows more traits (and maybe clusters of specific spells), followed by having feat options (and maybe options w/ class advancement) that expand it even further.
Of course, this could be tweaked in many ways to fix patches or get key spells that fall between the cracks.

This!

No need to argue about what tradition a witch should start with, let them pick Lessons that deliver exactly what they want in terms of theme.
Give them plenty of Lessons at level one ,add more at the levels where casters learn new spells, salt those Lessons with Feats, Hexes, cantrip Hexes, etc.

You could allow witches to learn extra spells via the feed your familiar ability.
Or maybe we could use a Ritual as a way to allow ANY spell to be learned...

The Ritual could be Uncommon,and distinct for each class learning the spell as well as each spell.
The availability would be up to the GM, meaning anything could be possible, but nothing is given.

This Ritual could be made available to any caster.
The witch could get free access to the Ritual for any spell they know.
Further, allowing any Coven members to preform the Ritual among themselves for free encourages Covens without making them mandatory.
Otho, if the Ritual only worked between Coven members that would really make Coven shine.


Even though thematically and mechanically a list built only with spell traits would bring the best of all worlds, it would also be an absolute night mare to sift through spells in such a way.

It’s a good idea but it’s just really impractical to build a witch then unless you already have the concept in mind.

It’s basically the opposite of traditional builds of characters, which get you through the building relatively swiftly. A spell list built in this way would be overwhelming to a new player.

At least that’s my take.


Henro wrote:
MadMars wrote:
But what if I just don't want to be a *spooky* witch?
I don't see the Occult list is "spooky" by default - bards aren't spooky by default either.

But it's not so broad it works well with things like Winter Witch. Truthfully, the Witch Spell list didn't quite in PF1 either, even with additions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Winter Witches suffer the most from focusing on only occult. I love the idea of 3 lists because it let's people make the kind of witches they want. Sure, I was expecting them as a prepared occult caster, but the idea of witches of other spell lists is pretty cool. And if you dont think they work well with your idea of a witch, it would suck to invalidate everyone else's for the sake of those who think it should be more loose.

Occult Witch may be the most obvious, maybe even iconic, but that doesnt mean it should be the only way to play. Rogues can be strength based, barbarians can breath fire or grow huge, clerics can be men of the cloth without armor. Why not let people make the mind of witch they want to?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That’s not really comparable since those are sub classes (or whatever we’re calling those options), not casting Traditions.

No matter which you pick Cleric is still a Wisdom based Divine caster. Druid is a Wisdom based Primal caster. Wizard is an Intelligence based Arcane caster. Bard is a Charisma based Occult caster.

Sorcerer is the odd one out.

What you’re asking for “to make the Witch they want” is more relegated to and handled by Patron/Lessons and Class Feats.


How about they cast using the occult tradition (as in the skill), but can choose their spell list?

That way it can be similar to Sorcerer, but keep the feel of learning unusual spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

That’s not really comparable since those are sub classes (or whatever we’re calling those options), not casting Traditions.

No matter which you pick Cleric is still a Wisdom based Divine caster. Druid is a Wisdom based Primal caster. Wizard is an Intelligence based Arcane caster. Bard is a Charisma based Occult caster.

Sorcerer is the odd one out.

What you’re asking for “to make the Witch they want” is more relegated to and handled by Patron/Lessons and Class Feats.

What makes the differences between subclasses that much different than a variable spell list? Both things are going to in many cases drastically change your playstyle. A warpriest and cloistered cleric play very differently, as would an animal barbarian and dragon barbarian. To me, that difference is comparable to changing your spell list.

1 to 50 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Witch Playtest / Why witches should have one spell list All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.