[PF] Witches learning new spells...

[BadCoyote]

Witches cast arcane magic, this I know... and they can add spells to their repertoire from scrolls, but which scrolls? Can they read spells off of wizard scrolls (as long as they are spells on the witch's spell list), or is a witches version of an arcane spell different than a wizards?

I'd imagine that for every 20 wizards there is probably only 1 witch, so that is also likely the same ratio of how many wizard scrolls there are to wizard scrolls. I hope that the witch is not stuck hunting down rare witch scrolls...

Hope to hear from you folks soon! :)

-- BadCoyote

[Ravens_cry]

As long as it's on your list and the right type (arcane verses divine), scrolls are scrolls. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/scrolls)
Yes, witch isn't mentioned, but it says arcane casters, the list given was printed before witches existed, and witches are arcane casters explicitly.

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score.

If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check
Don't say nowhere it has to be written by the same class.

[MonochromeTiger]

As long as it's on your list and the right type (arcane verses divine), scrolls are scrolls. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/scrolls)
Yes, witch isn't mentioned, but it says arcane casters, the list given was printed before witches existed, and witches are arcane casters explicitly.

Don't say nowhere it has to be written by the same class.

well even some of the restrictions there are a bit arguable, bards are able to cast cure light wounds and other seemingly divine spells for instance despite being arcane casters making the question of "what's divine what's arcane" come up. then depending on if the DM allows spell creation (which has some very vague but very hard to find rules) that can be blurred even further to just be "what's fair for that spell level".

[Vanitas]

well even some of the restrictions there are a bit arguable, bards are able to cast cure light wounds and other seemingly divine spells for instance despite being arcane casters making the question of "what's divine what's arcane" come up. then depending on if the DM allows spell creation (which has some very vague but very hard to find rules) that can be blurred even further to just be "what's fair for that spell level".

It's wether the scroll is arcane/divine, not the spell.

[Ravens_cry]

well even some of the restrictions there are a bit arguable, bards are able to cast cure light wounds and other seemingly divine spells for instance despite being arcane casters making the question of "what's divine what's arcane" come up. then depending on if the DM allows spell creation (which has some very vague but very hard to find rules) that can be blurred even further to just be "what's fair for that spell level".
If a Bard casts a cure light wounds, it's an arcane spell, no matter what it 'feels' like. Likewise, if a Bard makes a scroll of cure light wounds, it's an arcane scroll, and if a cleric makes a scroll of Fireball due to having the Fire domain, that's a divine scroll.
There is no question.

[MonochromeTiger]

If a Bard casts a cure light wounds, it's an arcane spell, no matter what it 'feels' like. Likewise, if a Bard makes a scroll of cure light wounds, it's an arcane scroll, and if a cleric makes a scroll of Fireball due to having the Fire domain, that's a divine scroll.
There is no question.

then what's to make it so that they can't just take spells from each others spell lists and say "this is arcane/divine now"? if not the feel of the spell all we have to say it fits one category or the other is the fluff and that can be changed with a simple bit of logic and wording difference.

also, while I fully predict someone will answer "because the rules say that" people ignore parts of the rules on an almost daily basis so I don't quite see how that's the best answer to it, it feels to me like saying that water can't be hot because fire is hot and water isn't fire.

[Vanitas]

then what's to make it so that they can't just take spells from each others spell lists and say "this is arcane/divine now"? if not the feel of the spell all we have to say it fits one category or the other is the fluff and that can be changed with a simple bit of logic and wording difference.

also, while I fully predict someone will answer "because the rules say that" people ignore parts of the rules on an almost daily basis so I don't quite see how that's the best answer to it, it feels to me like saying that water can't be hot because fire is hot and water isn't fire.

I'm not sure if you are getting it.
Spells are not necessarily arcane/divine, it only depends on which list they are in. So when you try to read a scroll, what determines if you can read it or not is if the character who wrote the scroll was an arcane or divine spellcaster. If you are the same kind of caster than him and the spell is in your class list, congratulations, you can cast the spell.

[MonochromeTiger]

I'm not sure if you are getting it.
Spells are not necessarily arcane/divine, it only depends on which list they are in. So when you try to read a scroll, what determines if you can read it or not is if the character who wrote the scroll was an arcane or divine spellcaster. If you are the same kind of caster than him and the spell is in your class list, congratulations, you can cast the spell.

that's kind of what I was getting at, if the DM allows spell creation and you follow the rules available for it there's really no use to saying a spell is divine or arcane anymore so long as you can point out some reason for it to be usable to you. I'm not saying "well that sorcerer made the scroll so my cleric can use it now" I'm saying "if there is no reason for it to be in one set type beyond 'I said so' there's no reason someone of your magic type can't have made a scroll of the spell".

[Vanitas]

that's kind of what I was getting at, if the DM allows spell creation and you follow the rules available for it there's really no use to saying a spell is divine or arcane anymore so long as you can point out some reason for it to be usable to you. I'm not saying "well that sorcerer made the scroll so my cleric can use it now" I'm saying "if there is no reason for it to be in one set type beyond 'I said so' there's no reason someone of your magic type can't have made a scroll of the spell".

Creating spells is a long and costly process, though. I think it works fine this way.

[MonochromeTiger]

Creating spells is a long and costly process, though. I think it works fine this way.

and I fully respect that, what I said is not meant to be a "my way or nothing" situation so much as a possible alternative I can see. I completely understand that my way can often be overcomplicated or harder to manage and it can definitely be better to simply go with the core way of doing things.

[Blyte]

I figured I would piggyback my question onto this thread, instead of making a new thread.

So my witch found a wizard spell book.

Can I sacrifice the spells from the book (on the witch spell list) to learn them? or do they need to come from scrolls?

[Ravens_cry]

If you don't like the rules, change them in your own game, but the rules are those shown and there is basically nothing ambiguous about them.
If you want fluff, maybe arcane and divine spellcasters use a different 'programming language' when writing spells. You can have a spell/program that has the same effect , but is in a different language.

I figured I would piggyback my question onto this thread, instead of making a new thread.

So my witch found a wizard spell book.

Can I sacrifice the spells from the book (on the witch spell list) to learn them? or do they need to come from scrolls?

Hmm, this is less clear. RAW, it seems no, but I wouldn't be against it personally.

[fluke1993]

@Blyte

I may be wrong, but I don't think you can. You can however learn spells from other witch's familiars so there's that. Maybe ask your DM to put a few more witches into the campaign?

Edit for targeting.

[MonochromeTiger]

If you don't like the rules, change them in your own game, but the rules are those shown and there is basically nothing ambiguous about them.
If you want fluff, maybe arcane and divine spellcasters use a different 'programming language' when writing spells. You can have a spell/program that has the same effect , but is in a different language.

I had already moved on from that topic but I'm responding just to make sure people don't think I'm selfishly declaring everyone but me wrong. I was talking about a possible alternative, not an end all be all answer, so long as options are available there's really no reason not to point them out and while I respect that people may not choose to use an option I see I'm also not going to do what I see here and give a response of "no, I disagree, go use it yourself and don't bring it up here". fluff is the explanation in a game as to why a rule is what it is, it is what makes the story, what tells you why up is up and down is down, so while I'm glad you can choose to use fluff to back up your view it can also be used towards mine.

but again, I offered a mere option, it is up to anyone reading whether they want to use it or not and I can respect that but I can't quite respect "it's this way cause the rule says and even though there's no explanation it's wrong to question the rule".

[Ravens_cry]

I apologize for being over-confrontational. I believe the original question has being answered, and, as you say, you've moved on, so I guess we can try and answer Blyte's question.

[Vanitas]

I had already moved on from that topic but I'm responding just to make sure people don't think I'm selfishly declaring everyone but me wrong. I was talking about a possible alternative, not an end all be all answer, so long as options are available there's really no reason not to point them out and while I respect that people may not choose to use an option I see I'm also not going to do what I see here and give a response of "no, I disagree, go use it yourself and don't bring it up here". fluff is the explanation in a game as to why a rule is what it is, it is what makes the story, what tells you why up is up and down is down, so while I'm glad you can choose to use fluff to back up your view it can also be used towards mine.

but again, I offered a mere option, it is up to anyone reading whether they want to use it or not and I can respect that but I can't quite respect "it's this way cause the rule says and even though there's no explanation it's wrong to question the rule".
Very well said.

[avr]

Just on the relative numbers of witches and wizards - this is incredibly campaign dependent.

If the main source of wizards is a single academy which graduates a few dozen per year, whereas every village has a witch, then there will be many more witches.

If the main source of witches is barbarian tribes outside the main campaign area whereas half the tinkers on the roads are wizards casting mending (learning passed on master - apprentice) then there will be many more wizards.

There's not a lot inherent in the definition of the classes which makes either more abundant.

[Psyren]

Here is the base RAW for Witches. Feel free to alter in your campaign as you see fit, but this is the default.

1) Witches add new spells to their familiar in three ways: free spells from leveling up, from the familiar of another witch, or from scrolls.

2) For the scroll method, all that matters is that the spell is on their list. Whether the scroll itself is arcane or divine does not matter. A witch can learn from a cleric's scroll of cure light wounds just fine.

3) Spellbooks will not work, as they are not scrolls.

[Barstro]

3) Spellbooks will not work, as they are not scrolls.

^This. Unless you want to houserule that an arcane caster can use use up a spell in a spell book (lost forever) by using it as a scroll.

I say, convince your DM to let you sell/trade the spellbook to another arcane caster/store for scrolls of the spells. That's what I'm doing in my campaign.

[Zubrowka74]

Take "Slumber" and "Blight" as hexes, copy "Sands of time" in your spellbook and you have a... Sand Witch!