42nfl19's page

As a side note, this is just like what happened to the Alchemist with Tricky Tinker. 1.2 brought the end of Signature Skills. Therefor the Alchemist no longer needed Tricky Tinker. "Deception and Thievery become signature skills for you." HOWEVER, it also had the nice benefit of allowing the Alchemist to use alchemist tools or a repair kit INSTEAD of thievery tools. I hope this gets brought back in the final version.Sure it might not have been a strong option at level 8 but it was an option non the less.

After perusing some threads online, I just realized that Lay on Hands, while recently buffed, also got nerfed at the same time.I mean so did Paladin Reactions, they have set ranges now, but that is another topic. So for background information, Somatic action was changed so that it no longer requires a free hand to cast spells/powers. That is a good thing. Now Clerics/Paladins can heal allies while there hands are busy with weapons or shields. Lay on Hands was also buffed to have d6s instead of d4s. That is also good. Hospice Knight only increased healing from d4s to d6s. Now undead get hurt by d6s also. For the most part, Warded Touch is no longer needed. HOWEVER, Warded Touch had another benefit that was not added or replicated. The removal of the manipulate trait from the somatic portion of Lay on Hands. Before, you could attack undead, or evil creatures with Vengeful Oath, safely. Now you are super at risk for attacks of opportunities and losing your Lay on Hands.The Paladin already has limited resources to cast it. Now he can waste them also. At least with heal/channel you can cast it at range safely at the enemy. But Lay on Hands as I recall has no range option. Sure the Paladin is tanky and might be able to dodge the hit, but at higher levels, it is almost certain that the enemy will comfortably be able to exceed the damage threshold needed to waste the spell. To "safely" "smite" the undead you need to make sure you raise shield action BEFORE you attempt the give them the good touch. You can no longer safely heal allies next to enemies either. Lay on Hands seems worse now. I rather they keep the Warded Touch feat just so I can get rid of the manipulate trait. I can't even touch myself safely to heal in battle.

Copied and pasted from the Shining Lights and Dark Stars blog. I hope a Dev or anyone else can clarify on this.

This might sound dumb but can anyone clarify the Ranger's new Hunter's Edge? Do you pick one at the start of a build? Do you pick one every time you activate Hunt Target? Or do you have access to all 3? It does not implicitly tell you to pick one. Even it has a line that says "You have trained for countless hours to become a more skilled hunter and tracker, gaining additional benefits when you Hunt a Target.) Benefit(s)...plural. Masterful Hunter,"You also gain an additional benefit depending on your hunter’s edge", implies that there was an individual choice from before.

The Rogue's Rogue's Technique specifically states " You gain one of the following techniques of your choice."

The Paladin's Righteous Form is chosen at the start and again later if you get a feat. "Once you have chosen the ally’s form, it cannot be changed"

Can anyone clarify? It's not like there are any class feats that require a specific build choice for the Ranger unlike The Paladin and Rogue.

This might sound dumb but can anyone clarify the Ranger's new Hunter's Edge? Do you pick one at the start of a build? Do you pick one every time you activate Hunt Target? Or do you have access to all 3? It does not implicitly tell you to pick one. Even it has a line that says "You have trained for countless hours to become a more skilled hunter and tracker, gaining additional benefits when you Hunt a Target.) Benefit(s)...plural. Masterful Hunter,"You also gain an additional benefit depending on your hunter’s edge", implies that there was an individual choice from before.

The Rogue's Rogue's Technique specifically states " You gain one of the following techniques of your choice."

The Paladin's Righteous Form is chosen at the start and again later if you get a feat. "Once you have chosen the ally’s form, it cannot be changed"

Can anyone clarify? It's not like there are any class feats that require a specific build choice for the Ranger unlike The Paladin and Rogue.

Not sure how this will play out. Before in PF1 you could multiclass and take an archetype at the same time. There are even some builds where you level dip in a class with an archetype/s and have your core class with its own archetype/s. Now it looks like you can't do both. With the way dedication works, you would need to be at level 12. Multiclass feats at 2,4, and 6 and Archetypes at 8, 10, and 12 at minimum unless I am mistaking something. This route would lock you out of many class feats. I know this is a rare build but I feel like PF1 does it better. Again, in PF1 multiclassing really hurt spell casters and their progression but there were ways to fight that. i.e. Magical Knack. Some Prestige classes also helped out the loss of progression. Overall this feels reminiscent of the Variant Multiclassing and I don't think many people used it. I mean the problems of multiclassing I think brought in the rise of Hybrid classes. Merge classes people would like to use together and give them the tools they need to succeed. Like the Magus, Slayer, Hunter, Skald, etc, etc. There are even archetypes that borrow features from other classes to their class. Do you like guns? I can name a few classes with archetypes that let them have a taste of guns.

Hey Mark, for the Katana and Longsword example, will it only say Common and Uncommon? Or will it also say Common(some region), Uncommon(another region), or even for spells Uncommon(some race). IDK the best way to do it but in my mind it could be Common(an inclusive category) or Uncommon and above(exclusive category). For example, this longsword is Common in all places that is the Inner Sea. Or this katana is Uncommon in all areas EXCEPT Eastern regions. Or an Uncommon Spell, this spell is uncommon to all people except this Kobold race. If you were to go this route, what is a better solution? Inclusion or exclusion? This might be in the old language of DR back in the day. Wait does this mean they are immune/resistive to that damage type or only that damage type can hurt them fully otherwise?

Roswynn wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Also, you didn't say this but I've seen a few posts that did, so I'll respond here: Rangers don't have anything built in that involves making snares (the only single mention of snares in a built in talent was that I added that snares can also trigger nature's edge, the ability they already had that let them treat enemies as flat-footed in areas of natural difficult terrain). If you like snares and want to be able to make them in a single action for no gp cost at will (the DC is lower if you do it for no gp cost), then you can go for it! Otherwise, you might focus more on animals and monster knowledge (like I did with my ranger), or boosting allies, or other options.

Oh! I misunderstood then. So I can set snares even w/o being a ranger, good to know - and there's a feat letting me do it in a single action at no cost? Holy cows.

But then... is what's left enough to keep the ranger competitive? I mean I see many people didn't like snares anyways, but... seems a little underwhelming perhaps?

If you ignore snares, you're still looking at a character with Hunt Target, tied for best mastery progression for weapons other than fighters, evasion on par with rogue; and then potentially Animal Companion stuff, monster lore feats, team buff feats, special Perception/Stealth/Survival related options either just for them or shared only with rogues, and more.

My ranger was doing steady consistent damage throughout my playtests, was consistently best at initiative due to being excellent at several major initiative values, and was generally pretty safe too, except the one time I did go down and the shoggoths kept constricting me over and over again instead of attacking the other party members (I still survived that barely because I had Diehard, but it was a very near thing).

If you want to be a trap/snare connoisseur, will you be able to level/upgrade them to be useful in a fight in combat mode? As of right now in low level, they seem to be only useful during exploration mode. I envision a point where you can become a master battle field controller. You are throwing out premade traps/snares mid-combat, mid-chase like a frisbee and when they land they deploy themselves. You lock down areas and escape routes and such.

Artificial 20 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

42nfl19 wrote:

Mark, how modular will the Ranger be? Will class feats/archetypes allow you to replicate the Slayer or Hunter? I feel like with all these more modular classes, we are going to end up losing all the cool hybrid classes like the Magus(Fighter/Wizard kind of), Slayer(Ranger/Rogue), Ninja(Rogue/Monk kind of), etc.

I feel like you can sort of already do the slayer in many ways, given that Hunt Target is based off slayer's Studied Target. Hunter I think would be very easy to do with an archetype I expect we'll see in the Core Rulebook, assuming the playtest doesn't change things of course!

Is there much playtest support for a single-shot sharpshooter archery style? Maybe Deadly Aim or something similar, looking at the new Power Attack, to make one highly-focused and damaging shot per a turn viable?

Weirdly enough, you could do that with some of the ranger's crossbow feats, substantially buffing your crossbow damage while turning all your movement into free chances to reload so that you can keep mobile or duck in and out of corners making an enormous shot basically as heavy as a greatsword. In that case, Studied Target is mostly to remove those range increment penalties, making it more important for more open areas, whereas your advantage in windy dungeons is that you are rarely even visible to the enemies off-turn.

Does that mean you can make 2 ranged combat styles with the Ranger? i.e. "Machine gun build" where you use a bow to just spam the enemy with as many arrows as possible? Or a "Sniper build" where it focuses on the "one shot one kill" mentality? Before in PF1 there was almost no reason to get a crossbow expect as an easy backup ranged weapon for some melee classes. If there's gonna be a good incentive for cross bow I will be really excited!

Mark, how modular will the Ranger be? Will class feats/archetypes allow you to replicate the Slayer or Hunter? I feel like with all these more modular classes, we are going to end up losing all the cool hybrid classes like the Magus(Fighter/Wizard kind of), Slayer(Ranger/Rogue), Ninja(Rogue/Monk kind of), etc.

Reading about how potions has to use RP iffs me a bit. I always liked the dichotomy between Potions and Scrolls(and to an extent wands). Potions were neat that anyone could drink them. Do you have s&#& UMD or are not magically inclined? Chug thus drink and you can breath underwater. Scrolls were a cheaper alternative I think and were good for users that had good UMD or had the spells on hand to cast. Are you magically illiterate? Do you have a working throat? CHUG CHUG CHUG now you can FLY FLY FLY.

So one of my big "issues" with this new RP system is that it hampers/removes the most cost effective way of healing between combat/down time or what is now called exploration mode. Before, after you get your first deposit of dosh the best cost effective healing item is Wand of CLW. You don't even need higher level wands. It has enough charges to top you off between fights. Do you have at least one person that can cast CLW? Boom don't even need UMD. Every party member, if they had extra dosh, could get their own and just let the party healer use it on them. Then the party healer could better use their spell slots for more utility spells, buff spells, etc.

Was this method too "Overpowered"? I feel like it was not that OP. It freed up spell slots and allowed more spells to be used. It also meant that you can stay out in the field longer and not have to stop. Can any DEVS or Mark comment on this? Was this tactic something you wanted to remove in the new system or can you replicate this healing method?

Also can other people comment on this? Was this method/tactic ok or too OP?

kwiqsilver wrote:

So are the archetypes that remove some abilities in exchange for others gone?

I like this type of archetype, because it expresses specializing in a an aspect of that class (similar to a wizard selecting a school). Two examples that come to mind are the Armor Master and Polearm Master fighter archetypes from Pathfinder 1. In these, the fighter skips some training in weapons to focus on defense, or skips some training in weapon variety to focus on a type of weapon.

The old system allowed two fighters to be very different, almost as different as a fighter and a ranger, even at first level. The new system sounds like all fighters will have the same generic base abilities and then just advance separately. This doesn't seem much different than feat trees, like the Pathfinder 1 Critical Focus tree, Blindfight tree, or Feint tree.

There is still design space for archetypes that morph something specific in a class. However, putting out several of them for each class would take a pretty big footprint in the playtest book, and the thing we have less testing on is these types of archetypes anyone can take.

So will there be more archetypes that are class specific? Cause as of right now, I am not into the new archetype system. As of right now, they just add additional themed options to the core base class you are building as Kwik mentioned. There are archetypes that alter/change a Paladins Smite Evil, a Cleric's Channel, or a Magus' spell strike/spell combat that make them similar but totally different. Paladin's that smite evil with a gun only or against different creature types etc. Now it seems like you will get a base class but it can optionally do themed stuff.

I think my worry also stems from the fact that certain class features were "removed" but you have to "re-add" them. Like the recent Monk reveal. The unchained monk had access to monk weapons and stunning fist at level 1. Now the new monk has to focus on one or the other. Sure a monk in PF1 could focus on one facet of his features over the other but at least we had access to both. It never feels good to have less psychologically, especially when you use to have more before. I could be wrong. Now if you were to take an archetype for a monk, level 1 you would have to decide if you wanted your new themed thing vs your "normal" monk stuff. This is similar to how it was in PF1 where it replaced Monk Features but I don't know.

I almost feel like these blanket archetypes that anyone can take should be renamed. In my mind they aren't really archetypes but themed asset packages that classes can optionally choose from. But this sentiment can just be only me.

Bardarok wrote:

I don't like the concept of being unable to make an attempt at something even if the odds are terrible. Would it be unbalanced to apply a penalty for lacking sufficient training?

Maybe -10 per level of training you are behind so an untrained character can attempt a trained only task but takes a -10 penalty or an expert only task at -20 etc. the odds of critical failure would probably be enough to prevent most people from trying it but it means you can still make an attempt.

I don't think it would break anything to allow this houserule, but it would lead to some of the situations that many on this thread find particularly troublesome, where the 20th level barbarian with 10 Int can use +18 - 10 = +8 Arcana to outperform the 1st-level 18 Int trained in Arcana wizard (1 + 4 = +5 Arcana) on some kind of trained-only test of obscure arcane theorems. That's something we've included safeguards to avoid, but it won't break anything if you do as you suggested, since it's not like the plot of a 20th level adventure is going to be likely to hinge on a standardized test duel between your 20th level barbarian and a 1st level wizard.

I know you don't want to have the Barbarian out "nerd" the wizard but by the time they reach that high level, shouldn't it make sense that they would have some Arcana prowess that they have experienced? They could have learned somethings through osmosis through proximity of partner members or the challenges they have faced in the past. If I had a Bard teammate that played his annoying flute every spare minute, I might have picked up at least some musical inclination from it. Or another party member speaks in another language often enough that I might pick it up.

Which leads me to another point, what happend to Linguistics? I use to love leveling that skill.
"You come upon a sign with strange writing on it. It's strange scripture leave you befuddled."
"WAIT, is it one of these languages?" *Start listing the 15+ languages you know*
"Sigh...its X language"

This might have been asked before but how is the balance between spells that just beat out skills?
i.e. I know 10+ languages vs Comprehend Language, I can climb good vs Spider Climb, I have a good intuition on lieing vs zone of truth? ETC

If any Devs can answer this, are Backgrounds suppose to replace Traits? I always felt in PF1 that traits acted as neat .5 feats to enhance your background. Or will Traits still exist as a thing in PF2? I feel like there are 2 schools of thought with traits. People who used them to spice up their character's backgrounds, and "min maxers" who only wanted the ability/buffs.

Speaking of backgrounds, Background skills were a non-core optional rule for PF1. Are they making a comeback also? Seeing that you already have the name Background claimed for PF2, it seems like my hopes are low. Background Skills were a neat way to fluff out your character who would normally have low skill points. Your Paladin loves to farm in his spare time? Now you can put points in Prof(Farming) to represent that.

Arachnofiend wrote:

So putting THAT aside, can we take your post as confirmation that the Paladin does still get traditional spellcasting, presumably of the 5th level variety? It wasn't entirely clear in the blog post, to the point where many were wondering if the Paladin didn't get spells at all and simply had the points pool to reflect its various (Su) and (Sp) abilities.

I can get wordy when it comes to design diary type information, but either of the two topics suggested (by you and HWalsh) would use up a lot of words to fully explain in a comprehensive fashion, and I already maxed out my words for the blog to cover the elephant in the room. I will say that those who think that hero's defiance may share a name with a PF1 spell that has a similar niche, but it's a much more powerful heal than people may be giving it credit for (19 dice of healing, and it doesn't even use your reaction!). Also, some people were asking about righteous ally. It's basically what you would expect from the blog. You either get a mount, a free weapon rune (at all times, not activated via an action for a set duration as in PF1) or some sweet shield buffs, and then you can take more feats to get even cooler abilities for your ally (mount upgrades, cooler runes, more shield benefits).

I don't know if you can tease this but is there a way to get the ability to be flexible? i.e. Depending on the situation you can choose a better mount, a better weapon, or a better shield. I feel like you can easily be flexible at a cost. You can choose a main thing to upgrade and buff. But later on you can gain the ability to use an un-upgraded/un-talented ability. You spend levels increasing your weapon rune buff. But then you gain the ability to use a vanilla/basic version of the shield buff.

I know these changes or proposed changes to the Paladin is so divisive but I would of really wanted some more Dev input. It was nice to get some clarifications, more teases, and future insight from them. It was nice to read them from the other blogs.

graystone wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3

Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)

Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

SLOTS? OH THANK GOD. This fixes one my major annoyances in game. You find a neat weapon with very good properties and enchantments BUT it is on a weapon that you are not specced into. Think weapon focus or chosen weapons from the Kensai. The ability to switch runes to upgrade your blade is such a grand idea. But I have to ask, how easy is it to switch runes from one item to another? Depending on the weapon prof, does that determine what craft prof you need to transfer?

On another note, dual shields when? Ultimate Turtle build when? Plate armor, two heavy shield. One Boss and one Spiked. Also of note, I love the idea of separating the weapon part of the shield. The idea of upgrading and swapping things really makes me want to make a crafter character.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Agile is a trait. It's a trait that mainly light weapons from PF1 have. TWFing with at least one of two weapons as agile is a very smart idea, similar to TWFing with at least one of two weapons as light in PF1, though not as punishing if you don't as in PF1.

Can you give us a hint as to when two weapon fighting is going to be covered? Soon hopefully. It's something I'm very curious how it will fit with the new action economy. Hopefully it's a worthwhile thing to do, but not an "I win" button.

Since it seems like Unchained Action Economy was a prototype for PF2 actions, I think it would act similar. Only Mark could confirm of deny this.

Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows

When you fight with a second weapon in your off hand or with a double weapon, you can make two attacks with the first attack simple action you take during your turn: one with your primary hand and another with your off hand. You take penalties on these attack rolls as listed on Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties. Any other attack simple actions you take during your turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.

If you have the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attack rolls on both the first and second attack simple actions taken during your turn; both of the attacks made on the second attack action are made at a –5 penalty. Further attack simple actions taken during the same turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.

If you have the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attacks on each of your attack simple actions on your turn, though you take all the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting, as well as the cumulative –5 penalty per attack simple action (all attacks made as part of the same attack action have the same penalty).

The flurry of blows class feature works in a similar way. At 1st level, you can make an additional attack with a –2 penalty on your first attack simple action during a turn. At 8th level, you can make an additional attack on both your first and second attack simple actions during your turn. At 15th level, you can make an additional attack on each of your attack simple actions during your turn. You must, of course, take all the penalties associated with those attacks.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Yeah, we're not really interested in forcing you into specializing in one very specific weapon. Probably the most we'd ask a character to do would be to decide they were into swords, and many characters don't even have to specialize that deeply. As to rapier/main gauche, personally, I feel like a good main gauche specifically for parrying was one of the few oversights in the incredibly wide diversity of PF1 weapons (there were options like a swordbreaker focused specifically on anti-weapon hijinks, but not really a main gauche).

Ah! When you mentioned the rapier earlier I wanted to ask if that fighting style would be supported, but I couldn't remember the name of the main gauche.

It is! It's better defense than rapier/shortsword but lower offense and better offense than rapier/shield but lower defense. Optimization corners tend to prefer being extreme in one direction and taking it as far as possible to a middle-ground...

Can you not shield bash? You say rapier/shield has lower offense than rapier/main gauche but you can still attack with the shield right? But if you do, do you lose the ability to raise it for defense? All this talk of main gauche, is this hypothetical or is it in PF2 now?

Another tangent but if you had two shields could you spend two actions to raise both of them?

42nfl19 wrote:

Question about agile, does that mean that agile has really great synergy with TFW to the point that it would be almost sub-optimal to not use it? And I might have missed it but is agile an enchantment you can get on weapons or is it that agile is a special property that exist in a certain class of weapons?

Agile is a trait. It's a trait that mainly light weapons from PF1 have. TWFing with at least one of two weapons as agile is a very smart idea, similar to TWFing with at least one of two weapons as light in PF1, though not as punishing if you don't as in PF1.

Does that mean TWF will be more flexible in PF2 than in PF1? I always felt that if you ever do TFW you always had to use a single weapon type because sometimes feats, classes/features, or etc asked you to choose a certain weapon. I might be wrong though. The idea of a samurai using a katana and wakizashi or a duelist using a rapier and a parrying dagger are very thematic.

42nfl19 wrote:

It is kind of implied by the devs that Paladins will be the armored guys. Because what other class besides the fighters love going into battle with heavy armor?

I'm still hoping this isn't true. While I understand giving fighters weapons, I don't like the idea of attaching armor specialty to a class that also has moral codes.

I just hope that the Paladins are more flexible with their alignments just like how the Clerics can be flexible with theirs. No more Paladin, Anti-Paladin, and "neutral" paladin aka bad archetypes and not Cavaliers.

Why no mentioned of ranged or thrown options? I see one mention of bows in this whole post. I feel weird that in a whole blog about weapons, you only have one spectrum of them and not the other. Sure hitting things is fun but sometimes you want to hit things without getting close. In the old blog post about the fighter it was mentioned that Paladins will have a thing with armor. Does that mean Rangers will get more talk with ranged weapons? I don't really want to combine Paladins/Armor and Rangers/Ranged weapons in single articles.

fujisempai wrote:

This has me wondering if deities each have their own interpretation on how their alignment is or if P2E is moving towards the "loyalty" system of alignment that was introduced in pathfinder unchained

You'll find out more about deities and how they work with cleric alignment soon!

I hope the talk about alignment and domains also leads towards more freedom for the Paladin. Good paladin, Evil paladin, and "neutral but not a really a cavalier" paladin. A paladin of a concept/domain if you will.

The decrease of spell slots is kind of weird to me. But I guess this is the interaction now that you can take lower level spells and slot them higher for more effects. I wonder if you get more or less spell slots overall at the end.

I know it is not strictly said here but do Clerics have access to all spells like before and don't need to learn them?

I can't wait for the Paladin reveal also.

I am fine with having goblins as a player race. But they always came with the stigma that they were outsiders to be wary of and it was great to roleplay with. I just don't understand the Cha boost. Before they were -2 Str, +4 Dex, and -2 Cha. That thematically made sense. The were small creatures so they were quick and agile but on the scrawny side. They were also ugly and socially..not really nice. So these stats made sense. I just don't understand how they have a +Dex, +Cha, and -Wis with a floating mod. Dex and Wis make sense. They are quick and not really the wisest creatures but cha? The floating mod makes sense based on different heritages/bloodlines. Kind of like Humans are so flexible or how there are so many different types of tieflings with varying ability mods. Has it been explained how this ugly mug of a race suddenly got more charismatic? While stat wise this is a buff, thematically it just does not make sense to me. It almost makes me want to play with the old stat block if I were to ever play a Goblin in PF2.

Looks like there still has been no mention of modifying the 10 barrier. i.e lowering the positive 10 side for more crit successes or increasing the negative 10 barrier to decrease the crit fails.

Mark, is crit fishing still a thing in PF2? It seems like if you want to crit hard and often you just increase your to attack numbers as high as you can. There has been no mention of confirming crits also. It just happens if you hit hard enough. In PF1 you could modify your crit range, damage, confirmation ,etc. Meaning you did not necessarily have to have a super high to hit bonus. So it felt cool that your damage burst out really high sometimes. Unless this information has not been revealed yet like a weapons blog to explain this mechanic.

Thanks for all the hard work that you do. I did find one issue though. Not sure if this was intended but in the sources page for Potions & Poisons, I could not find any references to any of the drugs. I can't seem to find any references to any drugs by using the search bar also.

Examples can be found on the d20pfsrd from such sources as, Potions & Poisons, Alchemy Manual[Keif, Golden], Black Markets[Keif], and the Game Mastery Guide[Opium] and more.

I have a question but I am not sure if this is the right board to ask.

For those who do not know, Words of Power is a magic rules variant which enables players to lego block build spells. As I was looking through the Word Listsfor certain classes, the word lists were not updated for newer classes.

Hybrid Classes[Bloodrager, Shaman]
Occult Classes [Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Psychic, Spiritualist]

I mean if it was as simple as the Arcanist(Hybrid class) which just pulls from the Wizard/Sorcerer spells list it would be simple.

For the Bloodrager you could say he pulls from the sorcerer word list and the Shaman maybe some weird combo of Witch and Oracle.

I would not even know where to start with the Occult classes.

This would be moot point if Paizo decided to stop supporting Words of Power for future classes with spell casting capabilities.