Player Core 2 Preview: The Oracle, Remastered

I'm playing an Oracle right now in Kingmaker and it sounds like these are really big changes that are going to require rethinking the character build in general.

Which is fine, since I've definitely run into the problems of the legacy Oracle. Cosmos physical resistance is amazing but the rest of it doesn't really do a lot most of the time and at low level you're not getting to the interesting curse effects very much anyway. The number of cursebound focus spells I get that I can't actually use more than once a fight is really limiting. I'm glad thats changing. And I hope they fix the problematic curses, as Ancestors is barely playable right now.

Other stuff sounds somewhat harsher. I'm already not exactly swimming in feats, so taking a lot of the interesting stuff and making it feats is... eh. I'm really going to need to see it to get a handle on it, I think.

It sounds like it'll be a net positive, though. So that's good. Also that art is amazing.

I can't wait for this book! I'm playing an Oracle right now, and I this'll go a LONG way towards making him better!

No experience with them but it sounds like a lot more options with some good trade-offs.

Am I detecting a cross-class trend though? First Kineticist gets "take an open gate action...AND get a free action blast/stance." Swash is getting "take a skill action...AND get panache" (well, they already had it. But giving panache on a fail means taking the action is a much lower regret choice). Oracle is getting a feat which is "cast a non-cantrip damaging spell...AND do some extra damage in exchange for bumping up your curse."

Could 'perform a sudden rush AND enter rage' be next? Ooh, how about 'perform an RK check AND take a free action devise a stratagem'? I'm really liking the whole 'feats/class powers make other actions dual use' concept.

Barbarians will be able to enter rage as a free action as part of initiative, part of their move to enabling faster, riskier play that is so suited to the class image.

How does “The Dead Walk” work with MAP? Does this imply that they are effectively separate entities with separate MAP counters? “Two ghostly warriors manifest within a 30-foot emanation of you and each attempt a Strike against an adjacent enemy”

Probably separate entities that do not engage with MAP. I think having to roll each separate attack is already in line with other spells that demand attack rolls (Like Blazing Bolt and its three attacks). Also, having MAP would make the 3 and 4 soldiers basically useless, specially with the danger of being Cursebound 2~3 (Assuming it's like Conditions such as a more limited Sickened, then it's a hefty debuff).

I love everything I'm reading so far, especially for the cursebound trait. Also, we did it Divine Access bros! More domain access is a nice surprise. And of course, more feats for the one of the most feat starved classes deserves a big thanks!

Oh man, I cannot wait to fall in love with this class all over again! I'm always down for another round of playing with every mystery.

The best thing about this whole post by Paizo is that Tengu Oracle illustration by Mr. Peters.

Amazing!

Interesting.

I have to admit, the thing I like most from what I'm seeing isn't actually anything mechanical. It's that they seem to be paying attention to the class's name. Oracles had nothing to do with, you know, actually being an oracle. They were weird divine casters with mechanics pretty heavily centered around the idea that you were tapping into the same source of powers as deities and it was super hard on your body, like staring into the sun to gain fire powers or getting brain fried after tapping into the Akashic Records. You had to work more to make an oracle feel like a prophet than with other classes like the cleric (which got Read Fate) and psychic (infinite eye subclass), which was really weird. Adding more "foresight" abilities and making the curse something more opt-in is going to make it feel a lot less like you're a divine sorcerer with really costly drawbacks and allow the class to lean into the name more.

The best thing about this whole post by Paizo is that Tengu Oracle illustration by Mr. Peters.

Amazing!

We don't know that the Tengu is the oracle. That skeleton might be a Bones Oracle! ;)

Overall, I'm liking the changes I'm seeing. It'll make it MUC easier for me to ignore everything cursebound with this version.

Being able to mix and match curses would be lovely, but I'm concerned about how deep these changes are. I'm an ancestor oracle built around the whole meddling spirits concept, so I want to see how this all works before deciding whether to remaster.

Reading Foretell Harm again, I feel a day 0 errata: It doesn't say how it interacts with multi target spells.

Also, twice the spell level in damage, with no need to actually hit and compatible with Dangerous Sorcery... that's quite broken actually. I have the feeling the Oracle may end up as the best caster in the game.

Look forward to seeing the full class.

Reading Foretell Harm again, I feel a day 0 errata: It doesn't say how it interacts with multi target spells.

The intention at least looks like it's intended to work on a singular enemy. The ability keeps referring to "the target" rather than "targets/target creatures."

Also, twice the spell level in damage, with no need to actually hit and compatible with Dangerous Sorcery... that's quite broken actually. I have the feeling the Oracle may end up as the best caster in the game.

It does need to hit. Or, rather, it needs to have "dealt damage." I believe the intent is that this spell already caused damage to the enemy, and this ability causes more to happen, elsewise it would have said something like "a damaging spell," or "deals damage" at the end.

It does need to hit. Or, rather, it needs to have "dealt damage." I believe the intent is that this spell already caused damage to the enemy, and this ability causes more to happen, elsewise it would have said something like "a damaging spell," or "deals damage" at the end.

My formulation was not good: You don't need the enemy to fail the save, even half damage on a success is enough to trigger the ability. And it's not reduced by the fact the enemy succeeded at the save, unlike something like Dangerous Sorcery.

That'll make AoE spells pretty great to use in conjunction with this ability though. Someone's going to be taking at least some damage unless all your enemies crit succeed, and if they do that then you've got bigger problems.

Be careful, most AoE spells don't target enemies inside their AoE (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc...). So they wouldn't work together.

I just calculated how much damage a Magic Missile with Dangerous Sorcery and Foretell Harm does and it outdamages a Greatsword Fighter 2 to 1 against a level +3 boss. So it's out of bounds for me (even if it's true it's only once per target). My Oracle already manages to be a massive damage dealer, if you give me such feats I'm pretty sure the rest of the party will quickly complain about my absurd damage output.

Yeah, Fortell harm looks kinda meh to me. Single target that took spell slot/focus spell damage takes double spell level damage next turn, so 2-20 damage. That's really low for an ability that is supposed to be above par due to giving you curse effects. Also once a day per target. Being a free action helps a lot.
Everything else sounds good, less work to make it just do its thing but you can build into more risk vs reward. Hopefully will be worth it.

Foretell Harm is Strong but don't looks broken.

2-20 no save of extra damage as free-action is far from negligible and as pointed by SuperBidi it combos with Dangerous Sorcery and if it is a fire spell can also get a bit more damage with Burn It!, or maybe a more if you are able to take it via archetype using a psychic or a sorcerer possibly combining it with blood magic or unleash.

It's a pretty good level 1 feat. But I don't think that it's broken once it's a Cursebound. It will depends from the curse penalty but you will pay the price to use it.

The main problem as combination with damage spells is that the Oracle's tradition is Divine what's probably the worse tradition in terms of damage spell even after remaster put Spirit damage in place of most alignment damage spells. Yet as I said this probably will be workarounded if you take it as archetype.

The remastered oracle is interesting specially because now looks like that it will thread curses as curses not as it was overwellmed by its own power how the legacy oracle do. Yet it's too earlier to take any conclusions let's see what we will get in next weeks when the book was released.

I'm optimistic for this one.

Feels like it'll frontload all the fun parts of being an oracle without having the worry of the fight ending before you even got to do your cool stuff. And the fact your cursebound abilities seem to get more powerful the more cursed you are anyway, you'll still be rewarded for the occasional long fight.

I remember hearing, but wasn't there complaints that the fun part of the curses did not get to kick in in most fights as they would end too fast, and only big fights to to see those parts shine? I know in my experience, it's rare I see a fight leave round 2 with the exception of bosses so far.

Perpdepog wrote:

That'll make AoE spells pretty great to use in conjunction with this ability though. Someone's going to be taking at least some damage unless all your enemies crit succeed, and if they do that then you've got bigger problems.

Be careful, most AoE spells don't target enemies inside their AoE (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc...). So they wouldn't work together.

They would work perfectly, nothing demands targeted spells: "Cast a non-cantrip Spell that dealt damage". That's all. Target mentioned in text is the target of the ability itself.

Foretell Harm being once per target per 24 hours doesn't actually make it stronger then some of the feats we currently have in the game unfortunately. Heck I can't even use it on cantrips, which would be silly but you know. It feels like a weaker version of dangerous sorcery outside of the ability to hit weakness again which is pretty cool but the flat out immune for 24 hours after using it I think weakens the feat far to much. Especially considering there is a limit to your curse status.

SuperBidi wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

That'll make AoE spells pretty great to use in conjunction with this ability though. Someone's going to be taking at least some damage unless all your enemies crit succeed, and if they do that then you've got bigger problems.

Be careful, most AoE spells don't target enemies inside their AoE (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc...). So they wouldn't work together.

They would work perfectly, nothing demands targeted spells: "Cast a non-cantrip Spell that dealt damage". That's all. Target mentioned in text is the target of the ability itself.

With this reading, you can even target a creature that didn't take damage from your spell...

But I agree your reading is better than mine, even if it raises this question.

Errenor wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

That'll make AoE spells pretty great to use in conjunction with this ability though. Someone's going to be taking at least some damage unless all your enemies crit succeed, and if they do that then you've got bigger problems.

Be careful, most AoE spells don't target enemies inside their AoE (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc...). So they wouldn't work together.

They would work perfectly, nothing demands targeted spells: "Cast a non-cantrip Spell that dealt damage". That's all. Target mentioned in text is the target of the ability itself.

With this reading, you can even target a creature that didn't take damage from your spell...

I don't know if it's intended.

But I agree your reading is better than mine, even if it raises this question.

Ok, I agree that the wording is very imperfect and we have to build it up to make use of it. But claiming that it allows to target non-damaged creatures is very close to

So what other domains are going to be added to the different mysteries?

Like the Mystery of Bones has already had Death and Undeath. So what other domains would be added? Maybe "Time"

SuperBidi wrote:

Errenor wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

That'll make AoE spells pretty great to use in conjunction with this ability though. Someone's going to be taking at least some damage unless all your enemies crit succeed, and if they do that then you've got bigger problems.

Be careful, most AoE spells don't target enemies inside their AoE (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc...). So they wouldn't work together.

They would work perfectly, nothing demands targeted spells: "Cast a non-cantrip Spell that dealt damage". That's all. Target mentioned in text is the target of the ability itself.

With this reading, you can even target a creature that didn't take damage from your spell...

I don't know if it's intended.

But I agree your reading is better than mine, even if it raises this question.

Ok, I agree that the wording is very imperfect and we have to build it up to make use of it. But claiming that it allows to target non-damaged creatures is very close to

Okay, you are actually right. I can't see in the flavour or rules or text in general any mention that the target must have been damaged by this spell at all. The feat even is named 'Fortell Harm', not 'Amplify harm' or 'Intensify harm'. And it very well could have been indended like that. Anyway, most of the time it's much more advantageous to damage already damaged target. But this way you could finish off some other unaffected creature with a bit of guaranteed damage.

Let's not get ridiculous.

If your reading is the way you say, then the feat actually does nothing, since it only refers to the "target" in the description, but never actually defines who, how many, how far, and etc the targets actually are.

So, if we're looking at a vacuum there is no way to declare Targets. So the feat doesn't affect anyone.

On the flipside, we can use Occam's razor and judge that "target" refers to the target of the spell that triggered the ability, and then it actually works just fine.

From my read it sounds like they are fixing the number one complaint by people who would never play the pre-remaster PF2e oracle. The big issue people had with the class, especially those coming from PF1e, was that in PF2e the mysteries and curses were coupled. Specifically, that the really cool mystery they wanted was tied to a literal dead weight curse. In PF1e you could opt into truly crippling curses like Clouded Vision, but in the pre-remaster PF2e oracle you're stuck with them.

The rationale stated by designers at the time was that they didn't like people mix and matching (like they did in PF1e since people would take the curses that they could overcome in some way) AND they felt like they could provide more powerful mysteries and balance them against the one curse progression (instead of balancing from all mysteries to all curses at once). I think the point they missed was that if people don't think the pro is worth the con they simply won't play the class or pick that mystery. That is always the issue with any bespoke game design element (what the designer things is great/cool/balanced rarely lines up with what the generic player does). There will always be people in love with self crippling their PC, but I don't think the majority of people like that. Some of the existing oracle curses are so bad they are on the verge of non-functional or are just not reliable. So I think making people opt into those really crappy curses is a good design change by making the base chassis appear better and allowing those who don't want to play a crippled character to avoid the worse of the curse-bound feats.

I see the major complaint here is that those same players were getting, for free, their crippling curses. So probably it would have been better to include a fighter esc feature to give 1-2 free cursebound feats at different levels so they weren't so feat taxed. It doesn't sound like they did do that, but perhaps that can be a at the table fix players can discuss with their GMs. Fighters get those feats at L9 and L15, so you could pick what you want up to those levels and retrain it to another feat.

Either way, what they presented is much more likely to be an oracle that I would want to play. It'll depend on what the curse effects are. If what they did was remove all power from mysteries and make them cleric domains, then the desire to play the class will be tied up in the class feats. Otherwise they are just a CHA based spontaneous cleric with some options to do something 1-3 times a day. Hopefully they will still have cool/unique focus point spells instead of defaulting to mystery focus spells? I'm excited to see though.

Errenor wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Errenor wrote:

They would work perfectly, nothing demands targeted spells: "Cast a non-cantrip Spell that dealt damage". That's all. Target mentioned in text is the target of the ability itself.

With this reading, you can even target a creature that didn't take damage from your spell...

I don't know if it's intended.

Ok, I agree that the wording is very imperfect and we have to build it up to make use of it. But claiming that it allows to target non-damaged creatures is very close to

Okay, you are actually right. I can't see in the flavour or rules or text in general any mention that the target must have been damaged by this spell at all. The feat even is named 'Fortell Harm', not 'Amplify harm' or 'Intensify harm'. And it very well could have been indended like that. Anyway, most of the time it's much more advantageous to damage already damaged target. But this way you could finish off some other unaffected creature with a bit of guaranteed damage.

Let's not get ridiculous.

I don't see this as ridiculous. It works unless you make it broken...

If your reading is the way you say, then the feat actually does nothing, since it only refers to the "target" in the description

... like this.

but never actually defines who, how many, how far, and etc the targets actually are.

But here you are actually on point, especially in 'how far'. Because 'how many' is obviously 'one'.

On the flipside, we can use Occam's razor and judge that "target" refers to the target of the spell that triggered the ability, and then it actually works just fine.

You've cut way too much. Area spells deserve this too. So not 'targeted', but 'affected' (well, in this case 'damaged') by the spell would be fine indeed.

shroudb wrote:

Errenor wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Errenor wrote:

They would work perfectly, nothing demands targeted spells: "Cast a non-cantrip Spell that dealt damage". That's all. Target mentioned in text is the target of the ability itself.

With this reading, you can even target a creature that didn't take damage from your spell...

I don't know if it's intended.

Ok, I agree that the wording is very imperfect and we have to build it up to make use of it. But claiming that it allows to target non-damaged creatures is very close to

Okay, you are actually right. I can't see in the flavour or rules or text in general any mention that the target must have been damaged by this spell at all. The feat even is named 'Fortell Harm', not 'Amplify harm' or 'Intensify harm'. And it very well could have been indended like that. Anyway, most of the time it's much more advantageous to damage already damaged target. But this way you could finish off some other unaffected creature with a bit of guaranteed damage.

Let's not get ridiculous.

I don't see this as ridiculous. It works unless you make it broken...

shroudb wrote:

If your reading is the way you say, then the feat actually does nothing, since it only refers to the "target" in the description

... like this.

shroudb wrote:

but never actually defines who, how many, how far, and etc the targets actually are.

But here you are actually on point, especially in 'how far'. Because 'how many' is obviously 'one'.

shroudb wrote:

On the flipside, we can use Occam's razor and judge that "target" refers to the target of the spell that triggered the ability, and then it actually works just fine.

You've cut way too much. Area spells deserve this too. So not 'targeted', but 'affected' (well, in this case 'damaged') by the spell would be fine indeed.

Anyway, I have a suspicion that we were given incomplete text. Let's wait for the book.

There's not a single word defining who you can target OR telling you you can target.

So if you don't "assume" that you are using what triggers the ability in the first place to declare said targets, then you have none.

Sorry, but you can't say "well, it doesn't say who I can target, so I can target anyone in Golarion". Thats not how targeting works in pf2. Abilities with targets tell you who you are targeting.

By default, the ability has zero targets, so obviously it has to take the targets from someplace, and it just so happens that this ability triggers from a thing that indeed has targets.

This discussion goes back to what I stated earlier: "Reading Foretell Harm again, I feel a day 0 errata"

It's just that depending on how you read it, either it doesn't say how it interacts with multi target and non-targetting (most AoEs) spells or it allows you to target anyone on Golarion.

There's not a single word defining who you can target OR telling you you can target.

Let's remember this as an A statement.

So if you don't "assume" that you are using what triggers the ability in the first place to declare said targets, then you have none.

Sad. But you can't assume, remember A!

Sorry, but you can't say "well, it doesn't say who I can target, so I can target anyone in Golarion". Thats not how targeting works in pf2.

Well, good. (And sad) Let it be B!

Abilities with targets tell you who you are targeting.

But A!

By default, the ability has zero targets, so obviously...

Wait-wait-wait! Nope, can't do! You can't be telling me this after B. And A.

it has to take the targets from someplace, and it just so happens that this ability triggers from a thing that indeed has targets.

Or does not.

shroudb wrote:

There's not a single word defining who you can target OR telling you you can target.

Let's remember this as an A statement.

shroudb wrote:

So if you don't "assume" that you are using what triggers the ability in the first place to declare said targets, then you have none.

Sad. But you can't assume, remember A!

shroudb wrote:

Sorry, but you can't say "well, it doesn't say who I can target, so I can target anyone in Golarion". Thats not how targeting works in pf2.

Well, good. (And sad) Let it be B!

shroudb wrote:

Abilities with targets tell you who you are targeting.

But A!

shroudb wrote:

By default, the ability has zero targets, so obviously...

Wait-wait-wait! Nope, can't do! You can't be telling me this after B. And A.

shroudb wrote:

it has to take the targets from someplace, and it just so happens that this ability triggers from a thing that indeed has targets.

Or does not.

Anyway, it's either incomplete text or needs errata. My assumption with 'damaged' is not worse than yours, and actually better because the feat doesn't require targeted or one-target spells.

Yes:

As Written we have A: No Targets. Ability does absolutely nothing.

And then we have:
The thing that triggers the whole ability can have targets.

So, easiest explanation: you use the targets of what triggered the ability in the first place.

Alternatively: they printed an ability that's not supposed to work

Hmmm, I wonder which of the two is correct...

While I agree, it sounds like the intent is to target the original target of the spell, the fact that there is this much debate indicates a an Errata is needed if this is how it is in the books.

So the thing I notice is that "cursebound" looks like an encounter resource. Like, "take more curse" is explicitly intended as a cost, and higher-level characters are supposed to be able to get more cursed than lower-level characters. As such, I'm thinking that ones you've maxxed out your current curse level, you don't get to push it any further, and all of those shiny feats turn off until you can (somehow) get your curse to subside.

While I agree, it sounds like the intent is to target the original target of the spell, the fact that there is this much debate indicates a an Errata is needed if this is how it is in the books.

Well no, it means the posting community likes to argue over 'this panda eats shoots and leaves' grammar even when it is pretty darn clear what the author is saying 'the panda does'. :) I don't think there is any honest debate that the feat has no possible targets or can target anyone in Golarion.

This sounds rad, I've never really considered making an oracle before, but the revamp sounds a lot more straightforward and fun to interact with.

Zoken44 wrote:

While I agree, it sounds like the intent is to target the original target of the spell, the fact that there is this much debate indicates a an Errata is needed if this is how it is in the books.

Well no, it means the posting community likes to argue over 'this panda eats shoots and leaves' grammar even when it is pretty darn clear what the author is saying 'the panda does'. :) I don't think there is any honest debate that the feat has no possible targets or can target anyone in Golarion.

The new Awakened Animal movie star. The good, the bad, the panda.

So the thing I notice is that "cursebound" looks like an encounter resource. Like, "take more curse" is explicitly intended as a cost, and higher-level characters are supposed to be able to get more cursed than lower-level characters. As such, I'm thinking that ones you've maxxed out your current curse level, you don't get to push it any further, and all of those shiny feats turn off until you can (somehow) get your curse to subside.

Yeah, my read on it is that it's another metacurrency parallel to your focus pool. It's additive (you gain levels of curse), there's a cap (probably depending on your level), and each additional level of cursed hurts you somehow, but it's otherwise mostly "a second metacurrency" and probably serves to replace the original oracle gimmick of "you automatically get the accelerated refocus without spending feats" which wasn't really needed anymore.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

So the thing I notice is that "cursebound" looks like an encounter resource. Like, "take more curse" is explicitly intended as a cost, and higher-level characters are supposed to be able to get more cursed than lower-level characters. As such, I'm thinking that ones you've maxxed out your current curse level, you don't get to push it any further, and all of those shiny feats turn off until you can (somehow) get your curse to subside.

Yeah, my read on it is that it's another metacurrency parallel to your focus pool. It's additive (you gain levels of curse), there's a cap (probably depending on your level), and each additional level of cursed hurts you somehow, but it's otherwise mostly "a second metacurrency" and probably serves to replace the original oracle gimmick of "you automatically get the accelerated refocus without spending feats" which wasn't really needed anymore.

This is also how I'm reading it. It's less turning off your shiny feats, and more akin to expending all of your focus points, both of which you can get back with ten minute activities after the encounter is over. I like that it's another resource layered atop the ones that casters generally get.

Actually, I'd really enjoy pushing it, if for no other reason than to see how many combats I can get through without using any of my spell slots. That could be a fun experiment to try, seeing just how long oracle can go while still having gas in the tank.

One thing to notice about Foretell Harm is that it's also another dip on the available vulnerabilities, if you were able to hit them once already.

From my read it sounds like they are fixing the number one complaint by people who would never play the pre-remaster PF2e oracle. The big issue people had with the class, especially those coming from PF1e, was that in PF2e the mysteries and curses were coupled. Specifically, that the really cool mystery they wanted was tied to a literal dead weight curse. In PF1e you could opt into truly crippling curses like Clouded Vision, but in the pre-remaster PF2e oracle you're stuck with them.

An upside to it was that they could create a mystery and curse that were thematically tied together since you'd be getting them as a package, but yeah. The curses vary wildly in how problematic they are, from "this is barely an inconvenience" to "this is barely playable", and the mysteries are really not tuned to make up for that.

If they wanted to balance it that way, they didn't really get it right. IIRC it didn't get errata either (I'm always a bit salty at the sheer quantity of errata Alchemist got multiple times while other classes didn't really get any attention).

I see the major complaint here is that those same players were getting, for free, their crippling curses. So probably it would have been better to include a fighter esc feature to give 1-2 free cursebound feats at different levels so they weren't so feat taxed. It doesn't sound like they did do that, but perhaps that can be a at the table fix players can discuss with their GMs.

Hopefully they did something like that and just didn't mention it. Right now it does sound very feat intensive especially if we need feats for focus spells and more feats for cursebound abilities.

IIRC it didn't get errata either (I'm always a bit salty at the sheer quantity of errata Alchemist got multiple times while other classes didn't really get any attention).

There weren't many opportunities for errata using the old schedule, really - the APG got one errata which was pretty small, and then the Remaster errata most of the Rulebooks received. The CRB went for 4 rounds of errata, so it does make sense that the most-criticized class in the CRB received more changes, I think.

Related to the discussion, is there a reason we've got a few posts that are talking about it like mysteries and curses are separated from each other? I don't see anything to that effect in the blog, and it seems a big leap to just be assuming it from the blog, so I feel I might've missed something?

Tridus wrote:

IIRC it didn't get errata either (I'm always a bit salty at the sheer quantity of errata Alchemist got multiple times while other classes didn't really get any attention).

There weren't many opportunities for errata using the old schedule, really - the APG got one errata which was pretty small, and then the Remaster errata most of the Rulebooks received. The CRB went for 4 rounds of errata, so it does make sense that the most-criticized class in the CRB received more changes, I think.

Related to the discussion, is there a reason we've got a few posts that are talking about it like mysteries and curses are separated from each other? I don't see anything to that effect in the blog, and it seems a big leap to just be assuming it from the blog, so I feel I might've missed something?

That's because the old errata schedule was tied to print runs; new print is required means it got all the errata. Naturally the core book got the most new printings.

Related to the discussion, is there a reason we've got a few posts that are talking about it like mysteries and curses are separated from each other? I don't see anything to that effect in the blog, and it seems a big leap to just be assuming it from the blog, so I feel I might've missed something?

I'm pretty certain that Mysteries and Curses are very much related.

The only thing we know is that instead of the Curse being a double-edged boon/bad thing now it's straight up a bad thing for you.

So, as an example, where before with Cosmos you started with Enfeeble 1, and then went Enfeeble 2 but you get Powerful leaper and bonus vs Trip, to Enfeeble 4 but also Cloudjump and walk on water and etc.
Now it will be straight up Enfeeble 1, Enfeeble 2, Enfeeble 4 (plus the rest drawbacks) but none of the good stuff that came along those negatives.

Instead, you may get a related Cursebound Action that gives you some sort of those benefits depending on how progressed your Curse is.

I liked the old oracle but I also think these new mechanics have a lot of potential. I like it a lot.

Cursebound reminds me of burn. Stacking detrimental condition gained by powering up abilities or cheating action economy, some abilities get stronger the higher your cursebound condition is.

I just calculated how much damage a Magic Missile with Dangerous Sorcery and Foretell Harm does and it outdamages a Greatsword Fighter 2 to 1 against a level +3 boss. So it's out of bounds for me (even if it's true it's only once per target). My Oracle already manages to be a massive damage dealer, if you give me such feats I'm pretty sure the rest of the party will quickly complain about my absurd damage output.

This is a little disingenuous as this is the absolute worst case scenario for the fighter (level +3) and the best case for an auto hitting single target spell. It also comes with a higher cost to pull off for the Oracle.

Comparing optimum for the Oracle and worst case scenario for fighter is not a fair comparison.

I don't know how I feel about the changes to Oracle other than to say the class I loved in PF1 is pretty much completely gone.

My favourite thing about the class was how curses worked, their bespoke nature, the fact they were all different. I loved that curses while crippling at low levels came with bonuses later that sort of compensated as your character learned to deal with the curse. That is completely gone now.

Probably my favourite PF1 character to play as a Gnome Bones Oracle with clouded vision curse and a morbid sense of humour. There were so many cool roleplaying opportunities. The new oracle just feels flavourless. I know making interesting curses that operate in different ways is a challenge for balance but I feel something very unique and cool has been lost. When I heard PF2e was coming I was hoping they would make sorcerers more like oracles, a spontaneous caster that could choose options (feats) thematic to their bloodline (like mystery benefits in pf1e). Instead it seems all that has been stripped out to just be... boring numbers.

I feel like curses right now could mostly be rebranded into the price of power for sorcerers just as easily. Sorcerers could do cool stuff but at a cost to their body (drained or similar) working like curses work now. I am sure it will feel more balanced but I miss when Paizo did funky interesting things with less of a focus on raw numbers. Still its probably the communities obsession with raw numbers that push them to it.

I don't know how I feel about the changes to Oracle other than to say the class I loved in PF1 is pretty much completely gone.

My favourite thing about the class was how curses worked, their bespoke nature, the fact they were all different. I loved that curses while crippling at low levels came with bonuses later that sort of compensated as your character learned to deal with the curse. That is completely gone now.

Probably my favourite PF1 character to play as a Gnome Bones Oracle with clouded vision curse and a morbid sense of humour. There were so many cool roleplaying opportunities. The new oracle just feels flavourless. I know making interesting curses that operate in different ways is a challenge for balance but I feel something very unique and cool has been lost. When I heard PF2e was coming I was hoping they would make sorcerers more like oracles, a spontaneous caster that could choose options (feats) thematic to their bloodline (like mystery benefits in pf1e). Instead it seems all that has been stripped out to just be... boring numbers.

I feel like curses right now could mostly be rebranded into the price of power for sorcerers just as easily. Sorcerers could do cool stuff but at a cost to their body (drained or similar) working like curses work now. I am sure it will feel more balanced but I miss when Paizo did funky interesting things with less of a focus on raw numbers. Still its probably the communities obsession with raw numbers that push them to it.

I think it might have more to do with balance and making the game playable and enjoyable for more people. PF1e could be a nightmare for GM's and players. The thing I love most about this system is you don't need total system mastery to make a working character.

We haven't yet seen any of the curses. They could still be pretty interesting.

We haven't yet seen any of the other path features of the mysteries, either. Those could also be interesting.

We've lost most (but not quite all) of the bit where you could turn the downside of your curse into an upside by dancing with it, but let's be a bit patient before we conclude that all of that flavor is lost.

I loved that curses while crippling at low levels came with bonuses later that sort of compensated as your character learned to deal with the curse. That is completely gone now.

I never played PF1 but in a general sense, I disagree. I don't like the idea of a "tradeoff" being: terrible at low level, spectacular at high ones (I'd also disagree with the reverse). I'll be very glad if the PF2E remastered oracle gives a "smooth ride" at all levels, with the curses being painful at all levels but also the value of invoking it being (often) worthwhile at all levels.

Having said that, Sanity is absolutely right. This preview is really not enough to be judging the state of curses yet. "All different" could still be true. "Options (feats) thematic to their [X]" seems even more likely to be true than before, because there will be more feats and more feats linked into mysteries.

I might actually play an oracle now.

Lookin good! Love The Dead Walk. I'm going to assume it will scale