| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've kind of thrown a version of an answer to this in another thread I don't specifically remember, but for compilation's sake, no harm reiterating.
I suppose there's sort of two possible angles here. The question of what kind of entities are patrons and what their relationship with Witches in their employ, and the question of what their mechanical relevance to the witch. I assume your interest is mostly directed toward the former, but I feel like both angles are bound to come up sooner or later, so it's probably worth addressing.
Mechanically, I’m not very invested in the exact way patrons manifest. If I had to say what I’d prefer, it would be that are at least deeper than Muses, but also fluid enough that you are relatively free to do what you want with them. I actually really like the execution of bard muses for bards, since what inspires or drives a bard could really be anything and might change over time, so there’s no onus to be specific, and the bard’s abilities largely come from themselves or their study, so it the muse doesn’t need to carry much mechanical impact. For Patrons, I see them as possibly somewhere between deity and bloodline—something which you’re not likely to change suddenly, but which definitely colours the kind of magical abilities you have in some way and can be an interesting source of roleplaying hooks as the player desires.
Narratively, I’m very much in the teacher/student boat, but also like to leave it open enough that any given witch might have a different relationship. For me there is a huge variety of possibilities with the nature of patrons and the patron-witch dynamic, and any two may be vastly different, so it’s hard to make sweeping generalizations. I suppose the bare minimum entry qualifications for me are that the patron cannot be like a bard’s muse—they are an active force in the witch’s growth and cannot be merely inspire them.
“What is a Patron?”
I mistakenly said in the other thread that I thought patrons had to be living supernatural entities, but on reflection this is a bad descriptor of what I meant. The default image that comes to mind when I think of the ‘standard’ patron is a powerful supernatural, and often otherworldly creature with innate magical ability. This includes the creature types formerly grouped as Outsiders (celestials, fiends, monitors, elementals, possibly a few of the old native outsiders) as well as powerful fey, Elder Mythos entities, all gods and demigods (if they so deem), and plausibly the vague and loosely touched-on nature spirits mentioned but not given statblocks.
These aside, I feel like a patron doesn’t necessarily have to be a singular entity. It could be a discrete host of entities, perhaps individually not strong enough to serve as a patron, but working together toward a common goal. A good example of this might be the spirits of the Harrow mentioned in the Cartomancer (depending on specific lore details) or maybe the spirits of one’s ancestors, or the spirits that live within a Gravewalker’s poppet familiar.
So far these things all strike me as relatively uncontroversial choices for familiars—mysterious spirits, entities, and supernatural beings of substantial personal or collective power. The line gets blurrier when you come to things such as the witch who channels the power of the ley-lines, the witch whose patron is a manifestation of the collective consciousness of all living beings, and other such cosmic forces. These, to me, strike me as possible candidates, with the provision that there is implied to be some collective will or consciousness behind the force, whether that consciousness is a gestalt or hivemind with hardly any identity of its own, or an alien intelligence expressed in the calculation of impossible geometries and eldritch mathematical formulae.
For me the hardest sell for patrons is anything I would describe as ‘mortal’. I don’t really feel like any humanoid ancestry should be able to serve as a witch patron, whether they are a spellcaster or not. If it had to be, I would say at minimum the individual has to be a Master of the tradition they teach or higher. The one major exception to this is hags, which I only bring up here because I still forget that they are not actually fey or another supernatural monster type. (and incidentally, since it would appear that Baba Yaga fits in this category as a human witch; in my personal opinion her power and immortality are such that she more readily qualifies in the ranks of demigods than humans.
“What is the Patron-Witch Relationship?”
To set some basic groundwork: my basic image of patrons is as an entity (or collective, or cosmic force, see above) which agrees to teach a prospective student how to use magic and teach them secret magical lore and tricks not openly known, in exchange for that witch’s aid as an agent in the patron’s mysterious agenda. This agreement may, but doesn’t necessarily, take the form of an explicit pact, and the terms and conditions are rarely spelled out for the witch in advance, but fundamentally the arrangement is mutual, if often rather coercive.
Blood of the Coven seems to suggest that the most common witch-patron relationship is one in which the witch has somewhere between little and no clue as to the true nature of their patron. Personally, I think I would prefer a baseline with a little more to go on for roleplaying purposes, but I think it is useful to remember this, as it tells us a lot about the variety of ways witches view their patrons (besides there is little stopping a nefarious patron from lying about their identity even if they share). Different witches fill in this gap of information in different ways. Some witches do regard this mysterious entity teaching them magic with devotion or blind faith, while others maintain a more arrangement or even fear what agenda they have signed up for. This leads some to invent a persona which they find appealing or socially acceptable, while others even downplay their fears by choosing to think of their patron as an impersonal concept and not an entity at all.
I should note that my interpretation of witch spellcasting is decidedly intelligence- and study-based. Contrary to comparisons with D&D’s Warlock class, I’m not keen on the image of witches striking bargains for easy power. What they are given is esoteric knowledge, magical training, and a personal guide/mentor to help them along the way—and possibly to watch them for signs of misbehaviour. If the patron dislikes how the witch carries out their agenda, it cannot revoke the knowledge and training already given, though it can take back the familiar, which is near enough to the same thing (although, it would be a pretty cool story moment if a witch gained the love and trust of their familiar such that when they turned against their patron, the familiar broke from the patron and stayed with the witch).
Finally, on the note of the patron’s agenda. While I don’t really feel like a patron’s agenda should necessarily interfere with the witch’s quest (after all, as long as clerics abide by their deity’s anathema, they can be largely self-directed short of an individual command), I feel it is too easy to gloss over the patron’s agenda as an unknown that happens to coincide wherever the plot is going. Not to say I don’t think there shouldn’t be patrons whose agenda is relatively simple and uninvolved, or trivial in the course of adventure—cosmic forces for example likely want to further simple causes like perhaps promoting cosmic balance, or alleviating suffering in the world—but I feel like guidelines might be useful for patrons with specific demands. Guidelines for what kind of things various types of patrons might reasonably want from their witches, whether in terms of completing objectives toward a specific goal, performing some kind of service, or even something more esoteric and transactional, like trading their soul or something else of value for power.
To be sure, not all or even most witches know what their patron wants out of them, or even if they’re doing a good job, but even if it’s something simple I feel like there must be something the patron wants out the arrangement which as the witch grows more powerful should become relevant, if not necessarily obvious or apparent.
(Phew, this one got away from me again. I wanted to be as thorough as possible in my answer this time, I hope it at least brought some insight or interest to some. I’ve added headers to make it a little easier to compartmentalize. Note that despite the prodigious length of the above text, this is not necessarily my final word on what I think about patrons--it's happened before and it's likely to happen again that somebody adds something that tickles me as very appropriate and in need of inclusion)
Personally, I see Patrons as a somewhat irritating parasite on an otherwise cool class. I'll live with them, and ignore them whenever possible, but the class would be fine without them.
In lore, I definitely see them more as troublemakers who want to cause mischief with as little blowback as possible. They teach some spells nice and easy, the rest you have to figure out on your own, but they don't supply any of their own power or stand behind you in any way. They could be anyone with enough mojo to rub together to create a familiar who can teach you some spells and pick up more along the way.
I think Patrons generally use the familiar as a pipeline to ask for future favors, which would be from a primarily RP or GM driven narrative rather than an in-class mechanic. They're like drug dealers, and the first one is free.
Examples might necessarily be primarily non-deities. Creatures with enough power to make deals, but not enough power and foresight to be able to empower oracles who will fulfill their wishes knowingly or not.
A Patron, in the strictest sense to me, is someone that provides incentive in an exchange.
More specifically, a patron is someone who solicits another party with an incentive with the intent for that other party to provide something in exchange.
And personally, given how Witches gain lessons, hexes, familiars, and most of their powers through the Patron, the Patron is exchanging these for some kind of service or goal, sometimes without the reason being known to the Witch. This can be selling their soul, making a pact for sacrifices, spreading good fortune, pressing the scales of destiny by proxy, etc. By nature, a Patron to me is non-permanent outside of the confines of the exchange, as in, outside of what was agreed upon between the two parties, the two are non-bound, they may even disagree or become enemies.
And that's about as far as I'd label it, at least in terms of the Witch. A Patron is someone that provides boons, and a Witch is someone that accepts those boons, and usually there's some logistics behind that exchange.
slightly off topic, but What show? When I Googled kyubei I found sushi websites.Going along with what has been said.
I see the patron as an investor (Think Shark Tank or Kyubei). They offer and provide the witch with knowledge and power (the familiar) with the hope that one day they can reap the rewards, whatever that might be.
Just like investors, the actual terms are uncountable. Everything from the witch making payments for continued knowledge, to the patron giving everything for free treating the witch's life as a TV show, to every 3rd Sunday you must jump on 1 leg for 1 hour while singing like a chicken. In any case, the Witch might have no idea what the patron is thinking or what it's true goals are.
***********
Kyubei is pretty much my definition of what a Witch's Patron is.I suggest watching the show as it does a better job at showing what Kyubei is than I can.
I just realized I don't remember the full title besides Puella and Madoka, but PMMM is usually called Madoka anyway. It's an especially dark deconstruction of the magical girl genre of anime which inverts the standard empowerment theme by taking the protagonist's agency away.
Kyuubei is rather famously the smug familiar entity which offers the girls powers but has a terrible dark secret. Worth noting that the early conflict includes the girls fighting witches. I don't know if this is spoilers so forewarned, but I believe it is established that the witches are actually fallen magical girls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I messed up the spelling as Sibelius reminded me. But yes the show is called Puella Magi: Madoka Magica. I will neither confirm or deny what Sibelius said regarding the plot.
*Fun fact Puella Magi is Latin for magical girl.
********
Btw Sibelius you should put things you think are spoilers inside a spoiler. That way people arent accidentally spoiled.
For what it's worth, I also spelled it wrong: Kyubey is the official transliteration. As for the spoilers, I hadn't considered the threat of spoiler very serious, but valid point.
Meanwhile as a small side note back on the main topic:
I'm rather fond of the notion (presented in Blood of the Coven) that, for periods of mortal history particularly early-on, witchcraft represented the most reliable avenue to gain access to arcane magic before the development of wizardry. Of course, with 2e the dichotomy of Arcane and Divine has been opened up into the four traditions, of which arcane is simply one, this dynamic would need a bit of a touch-up to reflect that, but nevertheless I think it has interesting potential.
When the world was young, if you were not born with innate magical talent (sorcery), the next two most likely means of acquiring magic would have been to find faith and either enter into the service of a deity or the cycles of nature (devotion or druidry), barring whatever bardcraft is thought to be now (a grey area between inspiration, creativity, and esoteric research, I think). If you wanted power and weren't gifted and not inclined to faith (particularly if you were more clever than wise), your best bet would have been performing a ritual to get the attention of a patron and bargain for their knowledge--assuming the patron hadn't contacted you, first.
Such witchcraft might be seen as 'cheating the system' as it were by making a deal to obtain magical knowledge that was neither beholden to another's approval nor innately gifted, before Old Mage Jatembe democratized magical knowledge and rediscovered wizardry. IMHO this works even better if it includes access to any tradition of magic, being able to learn the secrets of magics that are normally bestowed or revoked at the whims of forces beyond mortal control.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Not to monopolize the conversation by responding to every second post but...)
I should probably say how I feel on the subject since it's my thread and all...
I like the angle where the patron is more an object of focused study. The witch tries to emulate the patron, because they don't know magic but they see that the patron does, so they learn magic by doing what the patron does, or has been said to do. Their familiar is a piece of their soul in an animal (or Leshy) body like any other familiar, but that piece of soul has been shaped into an image of the patron.
Of course, as time goes on they learn of magic and begin to see how their style of magic is different from their patron's and become their own legend, or maybe they don't and become more and more like their patron instead. Either way works.
This reminds me a lot of how bard muses work, or at least one possible angle of how they might work (which I suppose is the intentional comparison given what you said above). I can't say that I like it very much for witch patrons specifically, but I can agree it is an interesting look with certainly some potential. I'm curious though how you envision this method working out in the fiction of the world (disregarding for the moment the mechanics). As I understand, in general, the ability to cast spells usually must come from somewhere; clerics and druids channel divinities and nature spirits, bards and wizards study the lore, sorcerers have natural talent. With this method I'm not seeing where actually the ability comes from--they model themselves after the patron and the knowledge of magic kind of comes to them. Do you see the witch more generally imitating the patron's life or history, or as directly observing the patron's magic and learning by imitation (in the latter which case, how much direct observation do we picture is necessary to pick up the magic before they come into their own?)
I feel like there is actually a fair bit of interesting potential here for an almost Blue Mage-like class (at least thematically speaking; mechanically Final Fantasy blue magic is a mess to make work in an open system), where members of the class learn how to use magic from studying and imitating magical beings. I kind of think they would be Cha-casters, working more on trying to emulate their chosen idol and embody their legacy than studying the magic personally. Almost reminds me of some archetypes of Medium, actually... actually on that note also reminds me of a headcanon I once had for 'bloodless' sorcerers (i.e. that sorcerers were innately gifted at magic, but it wasn't necessarily their genetics that gave them the talent, and they developed their magic by embodying other innately magical creatures). All in all, I rather like the idea, even if I'm a little lukewarm on it being a witch-patron thing.
(As an aside, in general I'm quite fond of the image of familiars being a semi-independant shard of the spellcaster's soul. If it were up to my headcanon the witch's familiar might be a product of the pact between patron and familiar out of a piece of the witch's soul, split off and created for the express purpose of being a living conduit between patron and witch. Of course, there might be provision for when the familiar is an object, imbuing said object with soul rather than being created by it, and pershaps another angle entirely when the familiar is an independant entity like the various Outsiders you'd normally have seen from Improved Familiar. That said, in the lore Daji comes to Feiya as a guide some time before revealing himself to be an agent of an otherworldly power and making the pact, so clearly this was not the original assumption in canon.)
But I also like the angle where the patron is an entity that contacts the witch and offers them knowledge of magic. I feel this should be different than the cleric/deity relationship, which, frankly, I don't care for to begin with. I prefer if the patron gives knowledge of magic, and chooses witches such that they aren't likely to abandon them unless the witch changes alignment drastically or something. I feel like most patrons if they take such a direct interest in a witch, would choose a witch that is likely to broadly work for their interests anyway.
** spoiler omitted **
Of course, they could also always contact the patron first, maybe there's a simple ritual for finding a patron, which sets you up with a patron compatible to your own goals, dropped into the world centuries ago by patron entities because it's preferable to each patron having their own individual ritual.
So maybe instead of anathema, if they really, absolutely must give them anything similar to that, maybe an ethos or long term goal the witch...
I definitely agree with you that a patron is most likely to select a witch whose personality align with their own well enough as to make the probability of the witch conflicting with their patron and running off less likely (and so does Blood of the Coven, for that matter). Certainly I would expect now and then the hidden price the patron demands in exchange for their magical tutelage to be too much for the witch and initiate a conflict, but I suspect most canny patrons bestow their power upon someone they believe would knuckle under and accept the price of their power, whether because they are unwilling to give up that source, or because they're in agreement, even if they don't like it. Some, possibly most patrons would be exploitative in their practice (here's a sample, now do what I say and you can hve more) if not in their actual goals or methodology, but certainly not all, and there are benign patrons out there offering conditional power that depends on you acting on benevolent mandates--the white witches of the Celestial Agenda invested with celestial might to defend the weak and heal the sick come to mind, for example.
As for the idea of a single ritual that acts as a matchmaking service for self-motivated witches seeking interested patrons, I feel like that would be too 'clean' if that makes sense. I don't see the body of patrons as remotely organized or unified, and not all of them are even on the same playing field. I would not expect the same ritual that calls upon Azathoth for a power-hungry mad cultist to also contact an archdevil or feylord. Rather I envision the process a lot more like finding the name of an obscure entity in a tome and setting up a circle of candles and invoking the that name until you get its attention, with no guarantee that the name you found is still operating, and less guarantee that if it notices you it deigns to make a pact. In this way, the ritual itself might be relatively simple and bear a lot in common across multiple entities (it would have to be, if the witch is only trained in the relavent skill), but the details of that entity and what you need to do to get its attention are up to you to discover for yourself--I am reminded of those grimoires which list hundred of names of demons or angels or the like, with simple sentence descriptions of what they represent. There would probably next to no actual communication in this event--if the entity decides you are worth the investment, there is an implicit offer of power (perhaps wordlessly) in kind with the nature of the patron, then you have the final choice to accept. If you do, your familiar is created to be your intermediary.
As a final aside (in this already oversized response) about the nature of the cleric/deity relationship, I once saw it said that in a fantasy world where the gods are objectively provable entities, faith is less a matter of believing that a god/the gods exist with or without evidence, but a matter of believing in the philosophy and example that a particular god or group of gods embodies--faith that you have chosen a god whose tenents are right for you and by following them you are leading a 'good' life (whether a good life to you is one that you feel is correct, one that is flexible to you, one that is simply the most interesting, or even one that results in the greatest self-gain). To me, a cleric is not so much a fanatical worshipper of a god or gods (though heavens knows they can be) but philosophers who devote themselves to a specific cause or ideal which they believe their deity embodies.
This is not to change your opinion of the cleric/deity relationship (I don't even know what it is you don't like), but I often like to find other ways of looking at things that don't satisfy me, and thought it might be interesting to think about. There is to me a lot of overlap between Witch-Patron and Cleric-Deity, while at the same time being very distinct creatures. I would speculate that in general clerics of good/neutral deities are more common and enfranchised within a society because it is more likely for people to devote themselves to a cause which they believe is generally beneficial or righteous (big exceptions being things like the Church of Asmodeus and Zon-Kuthon in their nations, where people would be indoctrinated to believe in that anyway) and malicious or socially unacceptable deities foster small isolated cults rather than broad religions. On the other hand, wicked neutral/evil patrons are more common because they're more likely to use manipulative or exploitative tactics to keep their charges obedient, while kindly patrons tend to attract worshippers more than bargains for power (which is not to say evil clerics and good witches aren't common, just perhaps not seen as the norm).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One consideration for this, is that even if we establish what patrons are, and add some kind of mechanical impact to them (lets say there are strings attached to the power as anathema, and that patrons can lose their familiar from it and have to atone or gain a new one) nothing prevents a class archetype from changing it.
So lets say the default model is that you have a patron that provides you a spell list, and there's a broad anathema about following their occasional orders (which is something I've brought up before as a compromise between hard and soft patrons, soft patrons with hard consequences, that can be easily seasoned by your GM) so you can decide that it's some arcane magic spirit or something lore apropo.
Now imagine a Class Archetype called "Ley Line Witch" that removes Anathema and maybe replaces the familiar mechanic (since that comes from the patron in the current iteration) and explains that you are a special kind of Witch that uses Ley Lines in lieu of a patron.
This way, we can have our cake and eat it too- we have a base traditional Witch with a clear idea of what a patron is (an entity that sends me a familiar, grants me power, teaches me magic, etc) but then break it using archetypes (I'm a Witch without a conventional patron! I'm a Witch that steals magic from other entities! I'm a Witch whose Patron is a magic item that offered me a pact to become a magical girl!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One consideration for this, is that even if we establish what patrons are, and add some kind of mechanical impact to them (lets say there are strings attached to the power as anathema, and that patrons can lose their familiar from it and have to atone or gain a new one) nothing prevents a class archetype from changing it.
So lets say the default model is that you have a patron that provides you a spell list, and there's a broad anathema about following their occasional orders (which is something I've brought up before as a compromise between hard and soft patrons, soft patrons with hard consequences, that can be easily seasoned by your GM) so you can decide that it's some arcane magic spirit or something lore apropo.
Now imagine a Class Archetype called "Ley Line Witch" that removes Anathema and maybe replaces the familiar mechanic (since that comes from the patron in the current iteration) and explains that you are a special kind of Witch that uses Ley Lines in lieu of a patron.
This way, we can have our cake and eat it too- we have a base traditional Witch with a clear idea of what a patron is (an entity that sends me a familiar, grants me power, teaches me magic, etc) but then break it using archetypes (I'm a Witch without a conventional patron! I'm a Witch that steals magic from other entities! I'm a Witch whose Patron is a magic item that offered me a pact to become a magical girl!)
Archetypes are my preferred way to tweak the witch, partly because their kit is well suited to it and partly because the witch has historically had some of the best, most flavorful, most satisfying archetypes in the game.
There are some people who seem to think that either Class Archetypes aren't going to be significant, aren't going to be satisfying, or shouldn't be considered as a source of future flexibility when designing a class. I'm not too sure where this nihilistic view of archetypes comes from.
Well, it wouldn't be an archetype. Those things work a little differently now. It would just be a new class "path" (rogue racket, druid order, etc).
But yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it wouldn't be an archetype. Those things work a little differently now. It would just be a new class "path" (rogue racket, druid order, etc).
But yeah.
"Class Archetype" is already defined in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Class Archetype" is already defined in the rules.Well, it wouldn't be an archetype. Those things work a little differently now. It would just be a new class "path" (rogue racket, druid order, etc).
But yeah.
You're right. Its just that none currently exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, given what we know currently, with Familiars being a guaranteed standard Witch class feature, any variation of Witch which seals the pact with a non-Familiar spell repository, such as the Cartomancer's Harrow deck, or the Witch Doctor's scarred mask, must take the form of a Class Archetype specifically to remove the familiar class feature and replace it with an alternative (unless the text of the release version pulls some deft wordcraft to suggest that some Witches don't have familiars, perhaps leaving room for class feats taken at level 2). Personally I look forward to seeing what kinds of things can be done with Class Archetypes and witches, though there are certain things that I feel would be better if done within the core chassis rather than appended with an archetype.
Reason why I have been considering the question of What is a Patron agnostic of the mechanics behind those patrons is that, even if it is established that one specific kind of patron (say, powerful singular supernatural entities) is the default for all witches, but mechanical options open the way for patron types that deviate from this default, that doesn't really change the question of what kinds of forces can possibly be patrons in the first place. Even if Ley Line Guardian is nowhere to be found in the core Witch chassis, it's still valuable to consider ley lines in terms of what kinds of things can serve as a patron from a overall perspective (though actually looking back at that archetype I note that depending on perspective, the ley lines in question actually serve as a conduit to their patron in place of a familiar, rather than as a patron itself). I agree, nothing prevents a class archetype from changing what a patron is to a witch, which is why I've mostly talked about patrons from a lore perspective.
Incidentally the 'witch stealing magic from their patron' has a very neat ur-priest aesthetic to it and I think could have some interesting potential (and double down on reasons why the usual public perception of witches is often so negative).
Well, here's what I had in mind: Let's take baba yaga since she's a popular example on this forum. There are likely to be legends about how she did magic, yes? Tricks she did, methods she used. So a witch focused on her could try to copy those legends, piecing together a functional way of doing magic out of what works and discarding what doesn't.
This could even be what led into wizardry when people started codifying what did work, without the baggage of having to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I feel like copying their history and life would be more a bardic way of reaching the same general result.
This is a very interesting idea. I don't know about it being a Witch thing still, but I would not turn my nose up at it if I saw it published. It strikes me as rather far afield of what at least I think of as the core of the witch--like to say if there were a Wizard who learned magic not by studying but by learning how to bind tomes and creating replicas of magic books--but perhaps not completely outside their wheelhouse. After all, witches are often quite strange. I do stand by my impression earlier that this sounds like a solid concept for a hypothetical future Medium class.
Incidentally, very little is actually known about Baba Yaga on Golarion since her legacy begins on Earth in 75 BCE and she didn't make her first appearance on Golarion until after she was already powerful enough to create demiplanes and claim territory in the First World, so it would likely be difficult for prospective Witches to follow her example--but nevertheless, your point stands, even if this specific case is a bit squirrelly.
On that note, I've noticed that though many of us (myself included) have liked to consider Baba Yaga as an example of an explicit named patron, but I don't think it's actually confirmed anywhere that she is the patron of Irrisen's Winter Witches. It is stated that many Winter Witches like to claim that their Patron is either Baba Yaga or the force of Winter itself out of a sense of social acceptability or prestige, "despite the fact that Baba Yaga herself has the Fate patron," (courtesy her own norn patron) but I don't think I've seen confirmation anywhere that she teaches Irriseni witches herself. Notably, despite having the power to grant spells as a demigod, Baba Yaga has refused to ascend to divinity to avoid dealing with worshipers' prayers.
To be fair, given what we know currently, with Familiars being a guaranteed standard Witch class feature, any variation of Witch which seals the pact with a non-Familiar spell repository, such as the Cartomancer's Harrow deck, or the Witch Doctor's scarred mask, must take the form of a Class Archetype specifically to remove the familiar class feature and replace it with an alternative (unless the text of the release version pulls some deft wordcraft to suggest that some Witches don't have familiars, perhaps leaving room for class feats taken at level 2). Personally I look forward to seeing what kinds of things can be done with Class Archetypes and witches, though there are certain things that I feel would be better if done within the core chassis rather than appended with an archetype.
Reason why I have been considering the question of What is a Patron agnostic of the mechanics behind those patrons is that, even if it is established that one specific kind of patron (say, powerful singular supernatural entities) is the default for all witches, but mechanical options open the way for patron types that deviate from this default, that doesn't really change the question of what kinds of forces can possibly be patrons in the first place. Even if Ley Line Guardian is nowhere to be found in the core Witch chassis, it's still valuable to consider ley lines in terms of what kinds of things can serve as a patron from a overall perspective (though actually looking back at that archetype I note that depending on perspective, the ley lines in question actually serve as a conduit to their patron in place of a familiar, rather than as a patron itself). I agree, nothing prevents a class archetype from changing what a patron is to a witch, which is why I've mostly talked about patrons from a lore perspective.
Incidentally the 'witch stealing magic from their patron' has a very neat ur-priest aesthetic to it and I think could have some interesting potential (and double down on reasons why the usual public perception of...
The part about Baba Yaga is because Designers have mentioned her as an example of someone they would like to see Witches be able to have as a patron, if I'm not mistaken.
Ah! Most interesting! I must have seen that but let it slip my mind. I do agree she would be thematically appropriate as a patron, and certainly fits the kind of personal power/influence I expect of a patron so I can get behind this.
[Still having difficulty getting time to post responses at all, but thought this topic looked interesting enough to try to squeeze something out.]
Personally, I see a Patron as an active and separate entity which is foundational to a Witch's practice of magic. They can take a wide variety of forms/creature types, but are typically less than deities, partially to help occupy the thematic gap left by Clerics (who can only worship deities/demigods). Not to say I think a deity couldn't be a Witch Patron (something like Hecate in Greek mythology would be perfect as such), but those would generally be exceptions for deities explicitly linked to Witchcraft rather than the norm.
Because I see Patrons as taking an active role, I don't really like the idea of them being an inspiration or object of study. That seems too passive, and more something I would expect from a Bardic Muse or Wizardly research rather than a Witch. In terms of thematics, I see it as Wizards study, Bards gain inspiration, Clerics worship, and Witches make bargains... whether they know what they're getting into or not.
---
Regarding the Witch's exact connection to their Patron, I admit that I'm a bit more vague there and would support different Patrons handling that in different ways. Personally, I kinda hope that rather than being spelled out, the class would just have a sidebar stating different typical possibilities or have it as part of a more specific Patron's entry.
Some examples of how I'd see the connection in relation to a Witch's magic:
Personally, I see the one-time granting of magic as sort of my default assumption for Witches, but see value in having other options for other Patrons/Situations. I also really like the idea of most Patrons not being able to revoke spellcasting since it helps further separate them from how deities/clerics work, makes the magic feel more personal to the Witch, and opens up a wide array of story options where a Witch realizes that they're not okay with what they learned about their Patron's motives (something I always felt was kinda implied by some PF1 descriptions of Patrons).
I always saw the witch patrons as teachers, mentors, gurus, or even surrogate parents; more providers of occult knowledge than direct sources of power.
To me a witch patron should teach spells to their pupils in exchange for their service or adherence to a philosophy espoused by the patron.
And since the patrons are inhumans creatures, their teachings should make the witches more inhuman, hence the hexes which are powers beyond traditional magic and symbolize the witch growing closer to their patron as they learn more and their mindset become more alien.
In short, hexes would be the way a human could emulate the inhuman abilities of their patrons.
Patrons benefit by having independant agents or disciples whose minds, world view, and very nature they have shaped, out and about in the world. The more powerful a witch is, the more closely she would be aligned with her patrons goals by dint of having accepted so much of their teachings.
This view also means a patron shouldn't be able to take a witch's power away since they only teach how to access that power instead of granting it the way a deity does with a cleric.
The more I see people define patron here with different specifications, the more I notice that not many of them align with what a "patron" (the actual word) actually is.
When the book says you gain your powers from a "God" or "your bloodline" or "Nature", people might have different opinions on the logistics of the how, but generally, it's consistent with the actual word (Clerics that get their powers from a God, and people treat Gods like Gods).
Now I understand that Patron doesn't need to be taken 100% literally, but if the reading of a Patron is synonymous with some of the feedback here in terms of the Witch itself, then "Patron" isn't what they are.
The most common definition nowadays is this:
"a person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, cause, or activity."
but even in the older definitions, we have this:
"a patrician in relation to a client."
Where a patrician is someone of note/power.
Not saying too much about the distinctions people are making, but there is certainly more to the relationship (in my eyes) than simply "I look up to them" or "I aspire to be like them".
A Patron has a very direct and often exchange-based relationship, even in PF1, with the Witch. It currently still has some modicum of that (the flavor text for Patrons indicates they have reasons to support Witches).
Just some observations I find interesting on how people are sort of redefining the word.