Welcome to the Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest!

So, Oracle main from PF1 here. I like what I see from the PF2 Oracle.

In PF1 the curse sometimes felt a bit like a stapled on class feature that felt kinda jank at times. While a fair amount of curses were balanced in what they took and gave like tongues and deafened, but others took too much like clouded vision and others gave too much like haunted. Finding a curse that wasn't undesirable for mechanical or flavor reasons could sometimes be a chore.
TL:DR there are some characters where I wish I could have skipped the curse part of my character, even if it meant less goodies.

Now PF2? With that curse being a part of the mystery? Honestly kind of attractive, as is having it play out like burn. Hell if you just want the goodies from your mystery and not the spells you can completely avoid your curse. Overall I like this idea.

Right now there are two things I want from this. One, more mysteries and exclusive options for those mysteries. Part of the fun of PF1's oracle is finding niches for the mysteries and more ways to diversify them would be appreciated. The other thing is maybe tone down the major curse of life a bit? It feels a lot more harmful than Flame and Battle's major curses, especially since casting a 5th+ level spell forces you to pulse out healing, which may heal the enemy if you haven't positioned yourself well on top of hurting yourself. I'm not saying make the pulse optional, but maybe make it so that I don't heal the enemy with this?

But still, very excited to see what's in store for the future of my favorite class.

Right now there are two things I want from this.

You might want to post this in the Oracle Playtest forum, where staff are looking for feedback

I think it's pretty safe to assume the new APG is also going to have a lot of expansions to the core classes. Of the 4 classes presented, I think only the Investigator could reasonably be considered able to fit an existing class, and I like the adjustments to the chassis they've made for that one. How would you make a Witch as we see here with only class feats on an existing class?

I would have made a 'Witch' by playing a wizard or sorcerer (or any other spellcaster), and taking a "Mysterious Patronage" dedication feat. With that, you gain a basic lesson, granting you a focus spell, and a focus pool (or adding to an existing one), and maybe the cackle ability (the ability to sustain without concentration by adding audible and sonic). Subsequent feats can be taken later to learn greater and major lessons.

The character themeing options are FAR greater being able to have this mysterious patron bolt on to any other spellcaster, than being tied only to this particular trope. This method as presented here, of 'just make a new class', backpedals on the great innovations and potential pf2 brought to the table.

To be completely honest, I feel the oracle could have been built with the exact same dedication feat - a witch's patron and an oracle's mystery being essentially synonymous - and to combine the various 'lessons/curses' into a common list means even more options for all.

In the same way, swashbuckler panache should have been focus spell feats that any character could pick up with a swashbuckler dedication.

Panache not being focus spells is great thou as it not limited to how often you can activate/regain it.

Also, making more classes is not backpedaling if they introduce new mechanics for those classes. Which is partly why Witch feels so bad, it doesnt really have anything different to other classes. Right now it's different due to having harsh penalty when they lose their familiar and a few strong focus spells (they should be at will or more usable), and have a whole paragraph on refluffing sustaining spells which doesnt match what other classes get as a special action.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I just don't envision my swashbuckler using a buckler. I'm fine with some people's swashbuckler using a buckler so I'm OK with it being an option I just don't want the (what would be) wasted option for mine.

So you want to play a Swash?

I mean, to be fair, a gunslinger does not (ordinarily) sling his gun, so I would say you can play a swashbuckler without a buckler.

In the same way, swashbuckler panache should have been focus spell feats that any character could pick up with a swashbuckler dedication.

Swashbuckler isn’t a spellcaster, so no.

Swashbuckler isn’t a spellcaster, so no.

Neither is the champion. That shouldn't and doesn't really stop us from using the mechanic.

Rysky wrote:

Swashbuckler isn’t a spellcaster, so no.

Neither is the champion. That shouldn't and doesn't really stop us from using the mechanic.

Paladins/Champions have always been supernatural and uses spells.

Swashbucklers are not inherently supernatural and do not use spells.

Supernatural options down the line would be neat, but I am vehemently against making all class abilities Focus Spells just cause.

Rysky wrote:

Swashbuckler isn’t a spellcaster, so no.

Neither is the champion. That shouldn't and doesn't really stop us from using the mechanic.

Lay on Hands is magic, and is a spell. Being a totally cool dude who does kickflips in combat is not magic, and therefore is not a spell. That simple, really.

cavernshark wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Swashbuckler isn’t a spellcaster, so no.

Neither is the champion. That shouldn't and doesn't really stop us from using the mechanic.

Lay on Hands is magic, and is a spell. Being a totally cool dude who does kickflips in combat is not magic, and therefore is not a spell. That simple, really.

Monk says "hey."

Yeah? Monks are also magic, at least the ones that take spells. Monks had (Su) all over their abilities list in PF1 and the only thing that's changed is that being magical is opt-in now.

A spellcaster has the [Tradition/Class] Spellcasting class feature. For example, Witch Spellcasting or Primal Spellcasting. Spellcasting is not a requirement for Focus Spells as seen in the cases of the Monk and Champion. Panache doesn't act like Focus Spells/Points at all.

Yeah? Monks are also magic, at least the ones that take spells. Monks had (Su) all over their abilities list in PF1 and the only thing that's changed is that being magical is opt-in now.

A Panache based monk sounds awesome, too. I wonder if there's going to be a way to do that in the full APG?

Arachnofiend wrote:

Yeah? Monks are also magic, at least the ones that take spells. Monks had (Su) all over their abilities list in PF1 and the only thing that's changed is that being magical is opt-in now.

A Panache based monk sounds awesome, too. I wonder if there's going to be a way to do that in the full APG?

The chance of the Swashbuckler multiclass dedication giving you access to panache is approximately 100%, so if nothing else you should be able to do it that way.

Oh no! Alahazra got Gimbled!

Got what now?

Are you sure it wasn't Fumbused?

:>

I think that the oracle, swashbuckler, and witch are different enough to warrant new classes. But the investigator could easily be done as a rogue racket with investigator feats added to the rogue feats, and studied strike a special action available to the racket that lets them get sneak attack damage.

Just from one session of play, I feel that the Oracle and Witch are very similar to pre-existing spellcasters, just with different flavour. The Swashbuckler and Investigator have played differently in combat and exploration encounters, whereas the Battle Oracle and Witch could have been a Champion and Wizard.

Got what now?

You know, Dick Sargented.

The surveys are now live! Please head to The class survey and the open response survey and answer some questions whenever you're ready; you can change your answers up to the close date.

Thanks for all the great feedback so far; you've already helped us identify several areas to focus on with your comments, and the surveys will help gather even more data!

Kinda wish Patron and Familiar weren't listed as the same thing in the Witch survey. I really like Lessons but I think the Familiar is really underwhelming. Ended up not being sure how to quantify that on the survey.

Good sign. Investigator questions ask about the 'highest character level your alchemist reached.' Alchemist keeps popping up throughout the questions.

Just a heads up, the option to skip the witch survey is bugged and forces you to do it anyway.

*cackles*

*snickers*

I really do like the Lessons versatility witch has, and the different spell list. It really allows you to create your own patron per se rather than just being locked into archetypes like the 5e warlock...

But speaking of Archetypes, the Class Feats it has now are super restricted to the 1e-style Basically-a-lesser-hag-but-a-PC aesthetic, with few exceptions.

Oh no! Alahazra got Gimbled!

Boo! :(

The witch needs access to the Reach feat! A low AC combined with low HP means bag the touch spells. Your familiar is also your spellbook, it doesn't make any sense to have your familiar killed delivering a touch spell, the downside to too great.

So rolling a one is not a free attack anymore? Sad only a Swashbuckler can do it now and only against one enemy. Kind of lame. I suggest Paizo to come up with a different Riposte dynamic OR adding the Flatfooted condition to the enemy with Riposte. "You take advantage of an opening from your enemy’s attack leaving him flatfooted against you. Make a melee Strike against the triggering foe or attempt to Disarm it."

Are we adding the Sword Cane stats to the playtest? That seems to be a glaring omission...

Are we adding the Sword Cane stats to the playtest? That seems to be a glaring omission...

That'll be in the actual book. It wasn't seen as all that necessary or vital to the playtest.

Thought I was losing my mind for a moment until I realized this was for second edition.

So rolling a one is not a free attack anymore? Sad only a Swashbuckler can do it now and only against one enemy. Kind of lame. I suggest Paizo to come up with a different Riposte dynamic OR adding the Flatfooted condition to the enemy with Riposte. "You take advantage of an opening from your enemy’s attack leaving him flatfooted against you. Make a melee Strike against the triggering foe or attempt to Disarm it."

Link to PF1 Attack of Opportunity rules.

It actually wasn't a rule in PF1 that a nat 1 on an attack roll resulted in an attack of opportunity. That was a common house rule people would use to make nat 1's more deadly. I believe it was also used in conjunction with the Critical Fumble deck.

My group's planning to get a playtest session done next Sunday, Dec 1. When you say the playtest runs "until Dec 2," what exactly does that mean? How much time will we have to fill out the surveys?

Yeah. They close out the surveys on dec 2. You can keep using the stuff but official feedback surveys will be closed.

My group's planning to get a playtest session done next Sunday, Dec 1. When you say the playtest runs "until Dec 2," what exactly does that mean? How much time will we have to fill out the surveys?

I would guess that you have at a minimum, until 11:59 PM Dec 1. And more likely, 10 PM PST [1 PM EST] Dec 2. That's the time the office opens on Monday, Dec 2.

Perhaps staff will pop into this thread and give us more precise information.

I've just gone on to fill in the survey and I was wondering what is the reasoning behind having all demographic questions being opt out except age?

I've just gone on to fill in the survey and I was wondering what is the reasoning behind having all demographic questions being opt out except age?

Being able to opt out of demographic questions is standard practice

Malk_Content wrote:

I've just gone on to fill in the survey and I was wondering what is the reasoning behind having all demographic questions being opt out except age?

Being able to opt out of demographic questions is standard practice

Unless your question is actually why is age the only one you can’t opt out of?

Yup thats my question.

Lanathar wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

I've just gone on to fill in the survey and I was wondering what is the reasoning behind having all demographic questions being opt out except age?

Being able to opt out of demographic questions is standard practice

Unless your question is actually why is age the only one you can’t opt out of?

Yup thats my question.

Short version: probably COPPA, which is the same reason most web services won't let you make an account unless you click a box saying you're at least 13.