Omega Metroid's page

Omega Metroid wrote:

In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff.

Gauntlet has Hands listed as 1, so technically it uses as many hands as a dagger does. This would NEED to be the case to use Shifting to turn anything into a Gauntlet because the Effect is "The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield" and "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively."

You can't rule you aren't holding a freehand weapon because otherwise you could never wield them.

[Free-Hand] is indeed a specific exception to holding rules here, going by the wording.

This weapon doesn’t take up your hand

Remember, holding an item takes up your hand(s), and as you pointed out, wielding an item means holding it. [Free-Hand] specifies that you can use the [Free-Hand] weapon's hand to wield other objects, which implies that free-hand weapons don't actually take up a hand (on the grounds that mechanically, you can only hold one item per hand, so [Free-Hand] weapons must logically be treated as "not held" when worn but not wielded). And most significantly...

When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.

(Most relevant parts italicised.)

The trait kinda explicitly states that free-hand weapons are worn and not actually wielded, but are treated as if they were wielded when your hand is otherwise unoccupied.

So, yeah, the trait kiiinda explicitly states that you don't hold [Free-Hand] weapons. It's not even a house rule or anything, it's flat-out stated in the trait description. ;P

Follow up to that.

If a staff a spellcaster prepared was turned into another weapon like a spiked gauntlet did they just lose all the benefits of preparing it that day and giving it charges? A spiked gauntlet is not able to hold staff charges. So when it reverts back to a staff they may have lost the preparation because it was turned into something other than a staff for a while.

If shifting a staff broke your attunement and drained its charges, then the Spellstriker Staff would be a non-functional trap option. (On the grounds that using its shifting rune would break your connection.) The staff's design intent is to allow a Magus to specialise in a non-staff weapon type while still gaining the benefits of wielding a staff (by letting them turn the staff into their preferred weapon), so it would be a pretty big flaw if it stopped working as a staff the first time they shifted it!

In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff.

Ancestries (in general): How about an errata that all [Ancestry Lore] feats now grant Additional Lore instead of just trained proficiency, to match remastered ancestries? And that ancestry weapon feats are modified to match remastered ancestries, too. Would help players patch legacy races into remaster games.

More specifically, the Vanara feat Climbing Tail needs some cleanup: General consensus is that it does allow you to climb with zero free hands and both legs, but would greatly appreciate cleaner wording. Dangle might also need an adjustment, since it seems like it might be redundant unless you fall if you stop climbing.

Hmm... you could go Bard with Swashbuckler archetype, Swashbuckler with Bard archetype, or dual-class variant rules to combine the two, if you're trying to make a dervish dancer. PF2 doesn't really do gishes, so it'll probably take a bit of work to make it feel just right, and it might end up a bit overpowered for the system. (The three-actions-per-turn cap will rein things in, but being able to choose between bardic spells and martial damage output is pretty potent.)

Good post, Omega Metroid. I'm still not convinced that Avoid Notice should necessarily be rolled in secret though.

Thank you, Ravingdork, I'm glad it helped.

As for the first roll being secret, there's nothing that actually requires it to be a secret roll, but there is reason to believe that it probably should be. Mainly in how the activity is tied to the Sneak action, which does want a secret roll.

First, if you enter an encounter while Avoiding Notice, your initiative Stealth check is essentially a public Sneak check with a different name; this hints at a connection, but doesn't say anything about publicity vs. secrecy in & of itself. Stealth feats are interesting, though:

• Terrain Stalker applies a benefit to Sneak, and also to Avoid Notice. This implies that the two are considered to be counterparts of each other, for encounter & exploration mode respectively.
• If following a specific target with Avoid Notice, Shadow Mark gives the target a penalty to their Perception DC for detecting you. When stating that the bonus also applies to their initiative & Perception DC if you enter encounter mode, it repeats the base activity's phrase "as normal for Sneak", strengthening the connection between the two.
• Foil Senses applies to Avoid Notice, Hide, and Sneak, suggesting a connection between the three.
• Legendary Sneak lets you Hide & Sneak whenever you want, with or without cover/concealment, and also lets you Avoid Notice whenever you want, with or without the Avoid Notice activity. This suggests a correlation. If we assume that the first sentence belies developer intent, the Avoid Notice benefit is caused by the Sneak benefit, with the assumption that your character gets free Avoid Notice because all of their movement is Sneak.

It's also notable that legacy Avoid Notice directly mentions Swift Sneak and Legendary Sneak, and explicitly applies Swift Sneak's Sneak benefit to Avoid Notice, suggesting that Avoid Notice is intended to be the exploration version of spending one action per turn on Sneak. It's also interesting to note that the Investigate and Search activities mention secret checks, but don't have the Secret trait; we can infer from this that exploration activities don't need to have the Secret trait to want secret rolls, but we can also infer that if they want a secret roll, they'll ask for it in the activity's description.

Now, all of this provides interesting data, and does suggest that there's reason to keep it secret, but we haven't seen anything that answers the question directly...

-----

There is one other place we can look, though: The rules for running exploration mode. In the legacy version, it was pretty explicit: The CRB chapter essentially tells us that Avoid Notice is just shorthand for using Sneak ten times a minute, and the GMG expansion confirms that exploration activities are typically based on using one action per turn. The GM Core version confirms that exploration activities are still based on taking one action per turn, and it does still hint that Avoid Notice is the "one Sneak per turn" activity, but the remastered version is unfortunately less explicit than the legacy version here.

And that, in turn, is why we tend to assume the first roll is secret. It's not explicitly required to be secret, you're right about that. But Avoid Notice is essentially ten Sneaks per minute, and Sneak is secret, so most people treat Avoid Notice's first roll as secret for consistency. You don't actually HAVE to make it a secret check if you don't want to, though, just keep in mind that letting your players see the result might convey information you don't want them to have yet, and might spoil a surprise or two for them. (In particular, if they know they rolled low, it's a lot harder to have competent NPCs pretend to not see them, and players might find it harder to believably fall for the trap and/or might unconsciously change the way they RP.) If your group is good at keeping meta information out of their roleplay, making it public can lead to fun times roleplaying the failure, and provide characterisation that success doesn't normally provide (e.g., did they get sloppy because they're too overconfident, did they make critical failures because they lack confidence, did they just trip over something like a banana peel and make too much noice, or was it something else entirely?). But if they're prone to metagaming even when they don't want to, or if they like letting things play out organically and don't want to know the result before their characters know, then they'll probably prefer you keep it secret.

Best to just go with whatever your table enjoys more, IMO; just keep in mind that the average player or GM will probably assume it's secret even if it doesn't say so.

Hmm... if we want to look at it strictly as written, the answer is: Never. Neither the dedication itself, nor any of the spellcasting feats (basic/expert/master), grant a feature called "spellcasting ability". And thus, if we want to base it solely on which feat grants the "spellcasting ability" feature, you will never be able to Cast a Spell with items.

This clearly isn't intentional, though, so we have to look at what the rules actually MEAN by "The spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype". Any and all answers will necessarily be RAI, because a purely literal interpretation of RAW is non-functional in this regard.

So, let's look at the casting!

1) All spellcasting archetypes grant the ability to cast cantrips in the dedication.
2) When you take a spellcasting dedication, you gain the trappings of a caster. You now have access to two cantrips from the archetype's tradition (either prepared or in a repertoire, depending on the archetype), become trained in spell attacks and DCs, and have a key spellcasting attribute.
3) The rules for innate spells explicitly state that gaining innate spells doesn't make you a spellcaster, since those require spell slots. This refers to spells that would normally require a slot; we know that innate spells and innate cantrips are distinct here, because innate spells never heighten and innate cantrips auto-heighten. Innate spells and innate cantrips also can't be prepared and aren't part of your spell repertoire, making them distinct from dedication cantrips.
4) Similarly, the rules for focus spells on non-casters explicitly tell us that being able to cast focus spells doesn't count as having a spellcasting ability/feature. Interestingly, though, this tells us that if you gain focus spells from a source that doesn't also give you spellcasting ability, then the ability that provides the focus spells will also provide your spell attack/DC proficiency and tradition, but still doesn't count as a spellcasting ability.
5) Importantly, the rules for dedication cantrips lack this "this looks like a spellcasting ability, but it isn't" clarification, telling us that innate spells, focus spells, and dedication cantrips operate on different rules. (We also know that if an archetype grants innate spells, it will explicitly use the word "innate"; see, e.g., the Captivator archetype. This tells us that most archetypes are spellcasting and not innate casting.)

The intent is clear here, but it looks like a case of bad wording. If you want to look purely at the wording and not at the errata & clarifications, I think the key is to look at multiclass archetypes. The Cleric archetype, for example, starts with the sentence "You cast spells like a cleric." Clerics cast spells as a spellcaster, thanks to the "Cleric Spellcasting" class feature; by definition, casting spells "like a cleric" must also mean that the cleric archetype allows you to cast spells as a spellcaster, as if by the "Cleric Spellcasting" feature.

-----

Really, the problem is that the term "spellcasting ability" only seems to exist in the rules for spellcasting archetypes, and the rules for non-casters with focus spells, and is used seemingly nowhere else. They should just revert to the old wording, and drop the phrase entirely.

Hmm... looking at it, I can see a few reasons for two rolls. (Note that this post will assume that after using Avoid Notice, you use Stealth if you roll initiative. All of the second roll's potential benefits are lost if you choose to roll Perception for initiative.)

1) The first roll is assumed (but technically not stated) to be a secret roll. Initiative, however, is not. If you use the initial roll as your initiative, then the GM is required to reveal the roll, thus breaking secrecy. The second roll thus exists to preserve the first roll's secrecy.

2) It's possible for effects to modify an Avoid Notice roll but not an initiative roll, and vice versa. (And, if we assume that Avoid Notice is a shorthand for subordinate Sneaks, it's also possible for effects to modify a Sneak roll but not an initiative roll, and vice versa.) Keeping the two rolls distinct makes it easier to properly apply effects.

3) The first roll is made when entering exploration mode, and the second roll is made when entering encounter mode. They take place during different modes of play, and are assumed to not carry over from one mode to the other.

4) Players aren't actually required to know whether they're being observed while being sneaky, funnily enough. The first roll thus allows the GM to maintain the illusion of opposition, regardless of whether the party is actually opposed or not. If you were only required to roll at the start of Avoid Notice if you're actually being observed, then Avoid Notice would actually be a magical omniscient radar that lets you know whether anyone in the known universe is looking at you or not. ...Meanwhile, if an encounter starts, you now know that you're being observed, and thus get a second public roll so you know whether you're still hidden or not when combat begins.

5) Funnily enough, the initiative roll actually provides a last-minute chance to mitigate the first roll's failure. If the first roll fails, then any opposition has reason to believe you're there, but can't actually prove it. If you then go into encounter mode, a sufficiently high initiative roll allows you to remain hidden when entering combat, either leaving your opponents easy pickings, or forcing them to waste actions searching for you. You also have an opportunity to stealthily exit combat, if you so desire. (More succinctly, the first roll determines whether you trigger an encounter. If an encounter is triggered, the second roll determines whether you enter combat undetected, hidden, or observed. If you only make one roll, it becomes impossible to enter combat undetected, because any result high enough to remain undetected is high enough to avoid combat in the first place.)

6) Logically speaking, the change of conditions might lead to changes in how you try to hide. If you hear someone shouting that they've discovered your friends, you might panic and make a mistake that outs you. Or conversely, you might take extra precautions to make sure they don't find you, too. Having a distinct initiative roll provides a way to model this.

7) And most importantly... combat is optional. If you try to Avoid Notice, you might end up getting in a fight, and you might not. If you don't, there won't be a second roll, because initiative is never needed. If you do, there will be a second roll, both to determine your starting initiative and whether your now-spooked opponents see you at the last possible second.

-----

It's important to remember that being discovered doesn't necessarily mean the first roll was low. It's entire possible that your party of four rogues got natural 20s on your Avoid Notice checks, but your quarry is as crazy prepared as Batman, and the only way to reach them is a chokepoint with detection magic or infrared sensors; the party's quarry knows you're there, but you're still sneaky enough that they don't know where you are, why you're there, or where you're headed. If you're just passing through and don't want to fight, or you're just there to observe your quarry and report back to base, then you can do so with no problem whatsoever; there's no second roll, because you never start an encounter and never need to roll initiative. If you're there to capture or kill them, then you're doing so on their terms, since they have the home field advantage; everyone involved makes a public initiative roll, and may or may not give your location away based on this public roll.

-----

It's also important to remember that different encounters might have different DCs. Suppose you're trying to infiltrate a mage's tower, with a security booth at the only entrance, cleaning staff on various floors, and the mage's apprentices & students halfway up. You decide to Avoid Notice, and get a nat 20 on your secret roll; let's say you're Lv.7, and have a total result of 37 (master Stealth, +4 Dex, no items). The security guard's Perception DC is 35, the maids are 14 because they're not paid enough to care, the students are anywhere from 3 to 33 depending on how occupied they are with experiments & studying, and the mage himself is DC 40. Thanks to Avoid Notice, you skip at least three potential encounters, and get to fight the mage with full resources and no minions; it'll take multiple turns for any of the mage's allies to arrive, giving you an opportunity to win and leave before anyone else shows up. Possibly even without anyone knowing you were here! Everyone now rolls initiative; the mage is about to sound the alarm, and you're about to strike. Depending on the results, this can go four ways:

1) The mage can go first but you beat his Perception DC, so he knows you're there but not where you are (letting him sound the alarm, and letting you get in a sneak attack).
2) The mage can go first and you fail his Perception DC, letting him sound the alarm and also target you with a spell.
3) You go first but fail his Perception DC, meaning you can stop him from setting off the alarm, but he's not off-guard and might be able to disable you with a reaction.
4) You go first and beat his Perception DC, leaving a spooked mage watching every shadow in terror, easy pickings for you to drop on from the ceiling; you can stop him from sounding the alarm, and he can't do a thing to stop you.

In this example, we see that the first roll allowed you to skip most of the dungeon and go straight to the end, while the second roll both gives you an opportunity to recover when the first roll eventually does fail, and also determines the severity of the first roll's failure.

-----
-----
-----

Now, that said, if you want to flatten it into a single roll, and have the initial roll pull double duty as any necessary initiative rolls, that's probably fine too. It can be a good way to save a tiny bit of time, even, if your group tends to sneak around a lot. You'll just want to keep a few things in mind:

1) The initial roll will only be truly secret if you never enter encounter mode. If you go into combat, the results will be revealed; either you have to tell everyone their rolls upfront so they know their initiative order, or you can tell players when it's their turn and which (if any) enemies have noticed them, allowing them to get a rough estimate of their rolls. Or, if you want to save time, you can just have them roll publicly, but act as if they think they passed; this can lead to fun roleplay opportunities, and let anyone who fails poke fun at how their character failed (stepped on a few too many branches, maybe, or accidentally tripped over a garbage bag in the dark alley).
2) Even though you're only rolling the dice once, there are still two distinct "rolls" for mechanical purposes. Remember to apply modifiers appropriately, and that the second "roll" still triggers any actions that rolling initiative normally would! (For instance, if your base Stealth check is 25, you have a +3 bonus to Avoid Notice, and a -1 penalty to initiative checks, make sure to remember that your roll is 28 in exploration mode and 24 in encounter mode! And if you're, e.g., a Monk with Reflexive Stance, you still get your free Stance action when combat starts!)
3) Using only a single roll means there's no last-second recovery chance. If you fail to beat their Perception DC while Avoiding Notice, you'll also fail to beat it when "rolling initiative", since you still have the same roll and they still have the same DC. This makes it impossible to enter combat undetected; depending on your one and only roll, you will always be either hidden or observed upon entering encounter mode. (This is a big one, your party's Rogues might feel unfairly punished unless you give them a second roll to try to enter combat undetected. At which point you're just making two rolls anyways. Make sure to discuss it with the party first; make sure they understand the repercussions of removing the second roll, and that they're still onboard with it, because it's more likely to harm them than it is to help them.)

The chassis is strong, but the subclass is intended to be a pure negative. If you lean into the spellcasting and ignore your curse, you'll be powerful. If you build your defenses up alongside what the base class gives you, you'll be very hard to take down. If you use Divine Access well, you'll be flexible. If you choose curses that don't harm you more than they help you (e.g., Cosmos & Flames), you can spam very potent Cursebound feats without problem.

But on the flip side, if you try to lean into what your mystery is supposed to specialise in, you'll usually be disappointed. Ancestors is a trap option (and the feat that replicates the legacy curse is, mathematically speaking, always harmful to use), Battle doesn't help you melee (and requires at least two feats (either archetype or general feats, IIRC) to regain legacy Battle's defenses), Bones is ambiguous and needs cleanup (as written, it either renders you effectively unhealable or does literally nothing, since it makes you vulnerable to but not targetable by vitality damage), Life is explicitly the worst subclass at using life link (and, weirdly enough, explicitly had its lore rewritten to be less enjoyable), Tempest gives you access to a domain spell that's incompatible with your curse, and so on. Meanwhile, Cosmos does basically nothing, Flames is hilariously ignorable, Lore is pretty much only a problem if you let it hit Cursebound 4, and so on.

--------

Generally, if you lean into being a tanky spellbot, you'll love it, and find that it performs that role very well. And if you minmax your curse, you won't feel the intended downside of using the powerful Cursebound class feats you'll have access to. But if you actually wanted to lean into a specific Mystery, you're probably going to end up being disappointed.

Errenor wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

In particular for imprisonment... making it mythic really helps to create narratives about ancient evils being locked away that not just anyone can let out.

This is a reasonable aim. But for this a paragraph (or a line) in the sense that rituals can have mythic versions and to implement or reverse those you must have mythic means (mythic group, help or items) should be enough, I think. So for every ancient evil you don't want to allow be freed by just any powerful entity you say it has been entrapped by a mythic version of some normal ritual.

Or we (or you, if you're the one creating the adventure) can just create something new.

In 2nd edition, only the PCs are bound by the rules for PCs. The GM gets to build things differently, using the guidelines for creating items and hazards and monsters and all that in the GM Core as a starting place.

I'm a bit late, and it's probably been said already, but this sort of view just ends up creating an "every adventurer in the entire world is able to do this with no restriction, except you specifically" sort of situation. It's not just that they're mythic rituals, it's that they're mythic rituals for PCs only, while literally every other caster can use them with or without mythic rules. That makes it come across less as the rituals suddenly being too powerful (which they kinda aren't), and more like you're taking away the players' scissors and replacing them with rounded kiddy scissors because you don't trust them not to hurt themselves.

If they were mythic for everyone, PC and NPC alike, then the "gating pre-existing content behind new rules" issue would still be there, but it probably wouldn't sit anywhere near as poorly with the community. But responding to questions by clarifying that it's mythic for PCs, but NPCs don't actually have to follow the rules because the GM can do whatever they want, makes it clear that this change is meant specifically to nerf PCs, which really isn't the sort of impression you want to give.

--------------------

Personally, what I would suggest is making a set of "lesser" rituals, as part of mythic rules specifically. When mythic rules are in use, the lesser versions can be accessed by anyone (in the same way that the originals used to be), while the original versions (now "greater" versions) explicitly require an expenditure of mythic power to use. When mythic rules aren't in use, then the rituals work as normal (in their original, pre-mythic form, with no "lesser" or "greater" versions), and aren't locked behind mythic rules. This feels like the ideal compromise between your vision and player/GM feedback, really.

Ah, I see. I couldn't find much info on their background, so that's good to know. They still _seem_ to have a bit of fae ancestry, as far as I can tell; is this accurate, or a false positive?

(Either way, it does mean that PF-verse humans are compatible with literal space aliens (that may or may not be giant alien fairies), which should be biologically impossible if nothing odd is going on. ;3)

Not so much reaching, as noticing that there are a ton of flaws, especially of the sort that would be caught in actual playtesting. For just a few of the ones I've noticed so far...

• The spell text issue here. It's clear that they get to add one spell to their repertoire for each slot, and the PFS ruling (made with Paizo's guidance) shos that this is the intent. But on the flip side, it not receiving day 0 errata when significantly less major issues have in the past is baffling for Paizo.
• The changes to Mystery & Curse mechanics, where the Mystery now has no actual benefits or unique class feats attached to it, and just serves as a vehicle for the Curse, is the opposite of how literally every other class in the game is designed. Most classes get a choice of subclass (or pseudo-subclass feat chains) to choose how they want to specialise, and reward their chosen playstyle; Oracles choose how they want to suffer, and are penalised in their chosen playstyle (unless they're Cosmos or Flames). They're the only class in the game that chooses what they want to be worst at instead of what they want to be best at, which doesn't even seem to be intentional on Paizo's part. (It's also weird since their stated plan was to remove Curse benefits, not Mystery benefits. Doing the latter suggests that the Mystery is treated as a rider on the Curse design-wise, instead of as their subclass choice that it's presented as. This, too, is curious.)
• Multiple Curses have flaws that would've been caught during playtesting, yet clearly made it through. Notable standouts include the Tempest Curse being given access to a domain spell they explicitly cannot use (bottle the storm, which is non-functional because its effect hinges on mitigating their curse), the Meddling Futures feat intended to replicate the old Ancestors Curse being both mathematically incompatible with Ancestors Oracles and more poorly designed than the original (the lack of heavy armour locks them into Dex, and the status bonuses are weaker than your Cursebound-level-based Enfeebled, so it can only break even at best; the addition of a movement-based ancestor with no Step option both means that using it up close puts you at risk of being forced to eat an AoO, that likely crits thanks to Enfeebled, and also changes the odds of getting a favourable ancestor from 50% to 25%), the Life Curse presents itself as having the same playstyle as the old but removes all of the survivability it relies on (losing your 10 base HP and having your heal spells go from supercharged to anemic makes life link suicidal, rendering the Curse's defining focus spell too much of a liability to use), the Battle Curse is bafflingly undercooked, and the Bones Curse contains another case of ambiguous wording that is either non-functional or makes you essentially immune to heal (you're vulnerable to vitality damage even though you're not undead, but it doesn't say you can be targeted by vitality damage (which normally cannot target living creatures even if they're somehow vulnerable to it); either the vulnerability is meant to make you a valid target (in which case heal both heals and harms you simultaneously; this seems to be the intent, but it has bizarre interactions with healing magic), or that part of the curse does literally nothing to you). I haven't done a full analysis, but even a cursory examination reveals more typoes and mistakes in the Mysteries & Curses than in any other PC2 class.
• As multiple people have pointed out, a Sorcerer with an Oracle Dedication is a better Oracle than the class itself, similar to the old "Rogue with Monk Dedication is the best Monk" issue. This comes across as weirdly mistuned.
• The class also has the overarching conceptual flaw that, thanks to the Curse being purely negative now, you're actually disincentivised from interacting with it. The old Oracle used riders on its curses to give you reasons to engage; they were overall negative, but the minor curse being negative and the moderate one adding a small positive incentivised you to push it to moderate when you could. The new Oracle just ramps up the penalty as you increase Cursebound, by extention making [Cursebound] feats positive for one turn and then negative for the rest of the encounter, encouraging an "interact with your class features as an absolute last resort if you have no other options" mindset that rewards playing as a pseudo-Sorcerer and punishes playing as an actual Oracle. Like the "Oracle uses its subclass to decide what you want to be worst at" issue, this is something no other class in the game does, which makes it stand out. (They even changed the flavour to be more negative and less enjoyable, removing even that potential reason to interact; the Life Curse is a notable standout, for going from "you're a fountain of life energy, and the more you use the more it tries to burst out of you" to "you're burning up your own life energy, and shrivel up & die inside more the more you use it".)

If it was just the spell issue, then it would be a reach, for sure. But the fact that this is just one of many similar problems, and hasn't received errata despite being a known and acknowledged problem (since the PFS team discusses their rulings with the dev team), suggests that it's just a symptom of a much deeper issue. I don't like harping at it so much, but the sheer number of Remastered Oracle problems that have been pointed out (and argued about) here and around the standard TTRPG Internet haunts paint a pretty telling picture. >.<

----

That said, it is clear that they get one spell known for every slot, since this is a core mechanical rule that's reinforced by the table, and since the example text contains other mistakes as well. Easiest thing to do is just say that the class tables are correct, and then you won't have egg on your face once the errata eventually drops. (Assuming that it does.)

...Honestly, at this point, I can't help but wonder if the entire "Demastered Oracle" class is just a secret pre-alpha test, and they're going to use errata to completely rebuild it a few months down the line. The entire class presentation has been too much of a mess to be a fully finished product, it's hard to come up with any other explanations.

Indeed. It's certainly within the realms of possibility, especially with the understanding that most writers aren't biologists. The standard sci-fi/fantasy-family writer tends to assume all humanoids are compatible regardless of species, since they either don't understand the genetic implications or don't let them get in the way of worldbuilding; at best, the work might acknowledge that inter-species fertility is not at all the norm, and either provide an issue or make it an explicit in-universe anomaly that scientists are trying to figure out. (Such as, e.g., Star Trek: TNG eventually did, where the answer was that most if not all humanoids are offshoots of a common ancestor, seeded by a near-godlike precursor species; essentially "evolution by intelligent design".)

That said, in the Pathfinder universe's case specifically, where it's a known and proven fact that creator deities exist, you can literally download a soul (if you're an android), the same species (or exactly identical species) can be found on multiple planets in multiple galaxies, and the line between mortal & deity is basically just a really strong suggestion, I would personally assume that we are dealing with multiple distinct species with varying levels of shared genetic code, and the differences are smoothed over with the same background divine magic that most Oracles rely on.

At the very least, we know that something funny is going on, considering that humans are known to be genetically compatible with lizards that may or may not pretend to be human (Dragonbloods, descended from dragon ancestors), giant alien fairies from another universe (Half-Elves, assuming at least lip service to original Germanic elf lore, and that the elves' ancestors were from the First World), literal angels from Heaven & demons from Hell (Nephilim in general, Aasimar & Tieflings specifically), embodiments of pure elemental energy (planar scions in general; Ifrits are especially notable, since their elemental ancestor may or may not have been literally made of living fire), and so on. Considering that some of these don't even have any form of genetic material, and some are from different planes of existence...

If you think the cross-compatibility issues are weird, just remember that a bipedal cat can have an anime catgirl as a fraternal twin, without inter-species relations. Probably best to assume the land is so imbued with magical energies that all life in Golarion literally has magic written into its very DNA, with all the problems that solves & creates. So, compatibility issues are nothing, when their genetic code can just cast a spell on itself to smooth it over.

Sorry for the delays responding, but... yeah. The Oracle still has issues. xD I'd like to have kept some form of mystery benefit, myself, even if you were forced to pay a feat tax for the basic functionality; I'd prefer it without the feat tax, of course, but I hear premaster basic functionality replication feats are part of the CUP, not the ORC, so they're covered by the Infinite license ;3 they'd probably have made it a tax so they could genericise them.

That said, I really wouldn't have wanted to see Life's extra 2/level HP be turned into something like "Your Hit Points increase by 9 for every level, instead of 8. If you are cursebound 3, they instead increase by 10 for every level, instead of 8." And I wouldn't have wanted to see Ancestors' extra ancestry feats get nerfed into "You gain the benefits of a Lv.1 ancestry feat if you're Lv.20 and cursebound 4. We choose which one, apply now and wait 6-8 business days for our decision." (I'm not even sure if I'm joking or not, the first one seems in line with how they nerfed the other stuff they carried over.)

yarrchives wrote:

Someone upthread said something about only two of the remastered mysteries having been playtested. What were the two, and where can I read that myself? So much about this book keeps making me think it got rushed, not just in the oracle (but definitely especially in the oracle) but other extra text that showed the care for clarity that went into the APG is just missing from PC2

There's no official confirmation, as far as I can tell, but it was a pretty common initial impression when PC2 came out. The class came across as them playtesting Cosmos & Flames, finding them satisfactory, and then just making everything else "similar" to them without actually testing anything. Notable standouts that support this are the Ancestors Curse being outright suicidal (and the feat that apes the premaster curse being mathematically incompatible with Ancestors Oracles)¹, the Battle Curse forcing no less than two feat taxes to restore the premaster form's basic functionality², the Bones Curse having a major ambiguity that either renders them unhealable or lets you ignore half the curse⁴, and the Tempest Curse being given a domain spell that explicitly does not work while Cursebound³. And, of course, the well-known spells goof, where one part of the class description says they get three spells per level, but another says four; it's been confirmed to be 4, but the error even being there reeks of "too rushed for proofreading." (The consensus still seems to be that Oracle suffers from not being playtested, though some people might be opening up a tiny bit to some of the other Curses. Most of them are poorly designed, though.)

Captain Morgan wrote:

...but like a third of the curses are so bad you'll rarely want to risk them.

This is exactly where people insisting former oracle was "better" lose me.

All of the new curses are far easier to tolerate in practical campaign scenarios than the former curses are, but there's some kind of mental block making it so that where new curses can be bad because they're hard to deal with old curses are good because they're hard to deal with and that doesn't register as nonsense.

Turning the whole discussion into a kind of No True Scottsman because anybody that had a problem with old oracle's mechanical implementation, and apparently also anyone that thinks the new oracle actually does have the same lore despite mechanical differences, isn't a real oracle fan.

The big difference is that the original Oracle's curses had both upsides and downsides, but the remastered version's are purely negative. This applies both to the mechanics, and to the fluff.

The original was designed so that engaging with your curse meant changing your playstyle, which made the class interesting and flexible; you were incentivised to engage despite the negatives, because it had a silver lining and a ton of flavour potential. Being unable to reduce the curse below minor also meant you were intended to spend most of the day with it active, which furthur encouraged you to push it harder so the benefits would kick in, too. It may not have been the ideal way to get you to interact with the feature, but the way it was designed did mean that you would end up engaging with it and the new playstyle if you picked the class. (Notable standouts include Life making you a superhealer that empathically siphoned harm away from their allies, Lore potentially being able to circumvent combats entirely if you used the knowledge well, and Ancestors being Ancestors.)

The new version, however... not so much. Each curse is now a strict downside with no benefits, and Cursebound feats only provide a fleeting benefit that'll last a turn or two at most. The curses hamper your "intended" gameplay while active (e.g., the Life Oracle is still designed to take damage for your allies, but has lost the higher HP and potent self-healing that makes it viable; you just end up taking more damage than your chassis can support), and in some cases run a very high risk of killing you outright (i.e., Ancestors, by turning you into a crit magnet). And importantly, you're no longer incentivised to aggravate them; bonuses tend to scale half as quickly as the curse, if at all, so increasing Cursebound is purely detrimental. (There isn't even a flavour reason to engage, since the flavour is anemic at best; the Curse tend to run contrary to the Mystery's flavour, with no silver linings. Case in point, the Life Oracle's flavour was originally that they're essentially an overflowing font of life force, and the curse represents how much is bursting out of them; the new Life Oracle's flavour, conversely, is that they're spending their own life force to heal people, and the curse represents how dead they are inside from spending their own life energy.) The end result is that while the original's curses gave you a bonus for engaging with them, and also had fun flavour potential to offset the mechanical penalties, the new curses have neither; they both make you perform worse, and are written to make playing your character feel worse, the more you engage your curse.

So, it seems weird, but there's a subtle but big reason: The old curses just felt better to engage with, since you got token benefits and neat flavour out of them, while the new curses just feel bad to engage with because the more you engage them, the harder they screw both you and your flavour.

SuperBidi wrote:

Old curses were having strong impact but were coming with strong bonuses.

That's the problem, though.

The bonuses you were supposed to want came alongside the penalties that prevented the class from actually being functional - without the whole of the campaign being skewed to account for it, at least.

Meanwhile, the new Tempest curse imposes a -10 penalty to all of your speed at Cursebound 4, literally slowing your entire party down if they don't want to leave you behind. Might just be me, but that sounds like it skews the campaign to account for it a lot more than any of the old curses did.

If Escape needed a free hand, it would say it needed a free hand; Gortle is trying to add pseudo-rules text that isn't actually there, that's all. You don't need a free hand to stomp on someone's foot while they've got you in a bear hug, you don't need a free hand to try to break free of the ice freezing you in place up to the neck, and you don't need a free hand to try to untie the ropes tying you up with your teeth. (Grabbed, immobilised, and restrained, respectively.) In two of these three situations, you don't even have a free hand to work with, using "free hand" as a standard English expression instead of a mechanical term.

Put simply, it's irrational to expect the action of freeing yourself to require you to have your hands free before you can use it. ;P

----

Now, that said, the Multiple Attacks with Athletics section is a bit ambiguous. The section, as written, assumes that [Attack] actions require a free hand, though the [Attack] trait itself doesn't actually require this. The gist of the section is "these actions require a free hand, so you use your fist attack's traits to determine MAP", which can be generalised to "[Attack] actions that require a free hand use Fist's traits for MAP". And importantly, every Athletics [Attack] action which requires a free hand explicitly states this as a requirement, while Escape notably does not.

Overall, upon reading it, I would say that "all Athletics [Attack] actions require a free hand, even if not explicitly stated" is an incorrect reading, if an easy one to make; the sidebar is poorly written, IMO. The biggest point against it is Force Open: Force Open is the only [Attack] action in the Athletics section that doesn't list a free hand requirement, and funnily enough, would not actually function as written if it did require a free hand. (On the grounds that Force Open has a -2 penalty if you're prying and aren't using a crowbar, and a crowbar requires two hands. If "all Athletics [Attack] actions require a free hand", then Force Open cannot ever be used with a crowbar, and thus all attempts to pry an object open would have a -2 item penalty.)

So, to sum it up: Force Open is undeniable evidence that Athletics [Attack] actions only require a free hand if they have an explicit free hand requirement, because you cannot wield a crowbar and have a free hand at the same time, and Force Open wants a crowbar. Therefore, the sidebar cannot be saying that all Athletics [Attack]s require a free hand, or it would be factually incorrect. And thus, the only interpretation is that the sidebar is saying "use the Fist attack's traits if you're using a free hand, use the weapon's traits if you're using a weapon, or ask the GM if you aren't sure (or aren't using either)".

Honestly, the sidebar is just really poorly written in general. Heck, as written, the "Some characters can get unarmed attacks without the agile trait as well." sentence is completely irrelevant, since free hand Athletics [Attack]s specifically use Fist even if you have other unarmed attacks. It needs another pass by the editor, IMO.

----

Now, all that said, I would personally rule that Escape is likely intended to apply full MAP, taking Slippery Prey into consideration. Or at least, apply full MAP when using Athletics or Acrobatics; it's telling that the feat doesn't reduce MAP as if agile when using unarmed attack stats, which suggests that the writers assumed "unarmed attack mod Escape" is inherently [Agile] because unarmed attacks default to [Agile]. This, in turn, means that Slippery Prey is basically just a stand-in for weapon traits like [Trip] or [Shove], to let you [Agile]-ify your Escape without needing a free hand in the same way as those traits do. And by extension, my verdict on the matter...

...Is that Escape probably wants to be [Agile] when using your unarmed attack mod, but really needs to be errata'd to clarify this. It's in a weird place where it's [Agile] if you use your attack bonus, but not if you make a skill check. And that just ain't right.

Just to throw my two cents in here... I haven't done a full comparison yet, but the thing that stands out the most to me isn't just the loss of Mystery benefits (and by extension, the effective loss of your Mystery as a whole, since there aren't really any class feats that key off of it), but the whole "choose your Mystery, and by 'Mystery' we mean Curse" thing means that Oracle's subclasses are anathema to the game's standard subclass design.

Normally, if a class has a subclass, then you use that subclass to specialise. It lets you choose what you're best at, and how you want to narrow your focus & define your character. Oracle, however, chooses how they want to get screwed over.

They're the only class in the game that uses their subclass to choose what they want to be worst at.

----

Quick summary:

• Ancestors doesn't get worse at having ancestors, but they're now significantly worse at not becoming an ancestral spirit (by which I mean dying because their ancestors are actively malicious and explicitly trying to kill you now).
• Battle is effectively a trap action to trick you into thinking you're good at battle, then cripple you the instant you miss an attack.
• Cosmos was one of the only two that was playtested, and "only" lost the fun part of the curse and all of its flavour.
• Flames got its wish granted by an evil genie; it gets fire spells now, but lost the features that interact with them.
• Life is now the worst Oracle at healing, since it no longer has the HP or self-healing capacity to be an empathic pseudo-healer with life link, and the self-healing nerf might or might not apply to temporary HP too (strictly as written, it affects any spell that "restores" temp HP).
• Lore loses the free RK check, and gaining stupefied 1 at CB4 just comes across as a petty insult.
• Tempest got its wish granted by the same evil genie as Flames, gaining air & water spells but losing the feature it wanted them for, and also slows the entire party down if you hit CB4.
• Not sure about Bones yet, though being more vulnerable to the very spells it grants you comes across as a petty insult.

I want to do a more in-depth comparison, but my first impression is that each "Mystery" is now named after the thing it makes you worst at, which is the literal exact opposite of how every other class in the game is designed. (Not counting how certain parts of the class got ripped out of their Mystery, turned into a feat, and then nerfed for no real reason, since that seems to have been done by a different team than the one that rebastard remastered the Mysteries.)

Poison seems to be something the party can lean into to integrate an alchemist, but doesn't get much focus because it isn't really part of the heroic fantasy. You can use it with something like an injection spear (letting one party member equip another), and there are a few feats that work with it, but it doesn't really seem like something that'll work outside of specific experimental party setups, for when one of your gaming group wants to try unusual builds that don't work with normal parties.

So, the thing you're missing here, Kitusser, is that before PF2R, weapons like the Nightstick opened up more archetype options for the Rogue (in this case, Dual-Weapon Warrior). Don't feel bad about it, you're likely just missing context; it's something that most PF1 veterans will think about, but isn't nearly as apparent if you're only (or primarily) familiar with PF2.

In PF1, one of the most popular Rogue builds was the dual-wielding build (both because it meant more opportunities to land a hit, and thus to land a sneak attack, and also because of a certain infamous Drow), and that popularity carried over into PF2. When a player wants to build a dual-wielding Rogue in PF2, they grab the Dual-Weapon Warrior archetype, and then find themselves lacking a defensive option.

Which is where Twin Parry comes in: It's the archetype's built-in defensive option, meant to replicate Raise a Shield while you're wielding a second weapon instead of a shield. Rogues, before the remaster, were... kinda lacking in ways to get Twin Parry's full bonus, shall we say. There were a grand total of two simple weapons that had [Parry], the Clan Dagger and the Nightstick; of these, the Nightstick was important because it also had [Finesse], letting its accuracy run off the Rogue's KAS.

Thus, if a Rogue wanted to dual-wield (this is the key point here, though I don't think graystone actually mentioned it directly), they would either want a Nightstick in their offhand, or would want to keep one in their golf bag in case they needed it, giving it a unique niche that no other weapon could replicate. (Twin Parry explicitly requires two weapons, explicitly excluding bare hands and shields. Bare hands are likely barred because blocking a sword with a fist is a terrible idea, and shields are barred to prevent you from screwing yourself over; there are no shields or shield augmentations/attachments with [Parry], so even if it was legal, using a shield to Twin Parry would always give you less HP than just Raising a Shield like a normal person.)

(Less importantly, it was also one of the only two simple weapons with both [Finesse] and [Nonlethal], making it relevant if you wanted to take the target alive.)

This was the nightstick's raison d'etre in PF2, before the remaster. It exists to fill a single, specific purpose, and thus was the only way for a dual-wielding Rogue to get an AC bonus equivalent to Raise a Shield. This niche no longer exists in PF2R, thanks to Rogues getting martial weapons, which is what graystone was getting at: There may not be a reason to use the Nightstick NOW, but there was back when it was printed.

-----

Now, as to your arguments about shield bashing not being a weapon, there's a clear reason why it's not: It's a maneuver, not an object. Calling a shield bash (the action of using a shield to bludgeon an opponent, on the grounds that the shield is just a big chunk of wood that absorbs attacks for you) is equivalent to calling a roundhouse kick (a specific type of martial arts move, often associated with Chuck Norris) a weapon, more or less.

Notably, even if the shield bash was a weapon, this would mean that the shield only counted as a weapon during the Shield Bash action, and at no other times; this is even stated in the shield rules, with an entire section dedicated to describing how a shield can be treated as a weapon while attacking with it. This is telling: If the shield bash actually was a weapon, then the section would be unnecessary, on the grounds that no other weapon needs to explicitly state that a weapon "can be used as a [martial] weapon for attacks". It's even more telling that the shield bash itself states that it's not a weapon, for that matter. ;3

And as to why a reasonable GM wouldn't allow it to be treated as a weapon, there's a reason for that, too: Using a shield as an offhand weapon for Twin Parry is explicitly worse than just using Raise a Shield, since no shields have [Parry]. Using it as a weapon for offensive dual-wielding feats is more logical (albeit strange), and arguably legal as written (it's treated as a weapon for attacking, Double Slice describes itself as making two attacks, and the other offensive feats either call themselves attacks or mention Strikes (which are attacks), so there's room to claim that a shield bash can be treated as a weapon for those feats specifically), but using it as a weapon for the defensive feat would just cut the bonus in half and prevent you from using Shield Block if you have it, so it makes a lot of sense design-wise to forbid Twin Parrying with shields.

---

Don't worry, not picking up on it doesn't reflect poorly on you; this is something that looks simple on the surface, but is surprisingly complex when you try to look at why it works the way it does. PF2 usually tries to lock out options if they would be a trap (see Flexible Spellcaster, which has a list of feats that it locks out because they become traps if you have it), so shields being incompatible with Twin Parry is just another case of the game doing that; it keeps you from losing mechanical benefits for the RP, when you could just reflavour Raise a Shield to get the best of both worlds.

...That said, though, the way you're acting kinda does reflect poorly on you, unfortunately. It's okay to not notice that a shield bash isn't a weapon... but if someone points it out to you, and you first respond that the rules text is an overly-draconian misreading that isn't supported by the rules, before finally acquiesing but also turning it into an implied insult with "okay, it's not actually a weapon, but any reasonable GM would ignore the rules here (and anyone who thinks 'isn't a weapon' means 'isn't a weapon' is clearly unreasonable)", then you're just going to make yourself look unreasonable. Not to be rude, but it's okay to admit that you misunderstood something; people misunderstanding each other is the world's most popular sport, after all! (And refusing to acknowledge that graystone was talking about premaster Nightsticks because the weapon predates PF2R doesn't help, either, it kinda just comes across as willful misinterpretation for argument's sake. -_-)

Hmm... considering that androids are essentially synthetic humanoids with downloadable souls, it's not impossible for a faulty backup program to result in a few traits, quirks, or memories carrying over from one renewal to the next. It should definitely be possible to justify it, thematically speaking. I'm just not sure if the mechanics would line up, myself; the character would be old and young at the same time, so to speak, if they renewed but kept a few traits from the last soul.

It's also worth mentioning that "most" androids willingly undergo renewal, which implies that not all do. Maybe you could use that to justify it, as a forced renewal gone wrong?

My Cloistered Cleric of Calistria from a while back used a whip, and an Android Ancestors Oracle I've been theorycrafting for a bit now is going to use a dagger pistol (because I want a [Combination] weapon for her Internal Compartment, and out of the three that fit the bill, it's the best fit IMO). I feel like d4 weapons work pretty well on casters, overall, since you're not dependent on its damage die and can put more value on interesting trait combinations or thematic decisions.

(That said, I am thinking of getting a more potent gunsword on the Oracle (maybe a triggerbrand, maybe a gunsword, not sure yet), because real premaster Ancestors Oracles need to be viable attackers thanks to the curse, but I haven't decided because I don't know if I want to give her a stronger main option or focus on the emergency weapon that's literally installed into her arm. I do want to have her specialise in [Combination] weapons either way, since curse wonkiness means she's liable to need to spend some time near the front line, which means she's likely to end up wielding a d4 weapon either way.)

I'm surprised they didn't throw in an "aid others" activity instead, that let one character essentially spend their own exploration activity to allow the rest of the party move at full speed. It would've been an interesting way to avoid the issue, since it's flexible: Any one party member could give up their activity depending on what the group needs, or they could ignore it entirely when time isn't of the essence.

Wouldn't necessarily fix the underlying issue Taja pointed out, but it would've at least been worth experimenting with.

It especially doesn't help that for a Dex-based Ancestors Oracle, Meddling Futures will mathematically never be worth taking, since automatically increasing your Clumsy level every time you use it means it can only break even at best (when you have no Cursebound status), and actually penalises you instead of buffing you.

(The Warrior ancestor explicitly makes you worse at Striking every time you use it, since the to-hit bonus caps at +1. The Adept ancestor will always penalise you for half your Cursebound status (rounded down), because it scales slower than the curse. The Wanderer ancestor doesn't directly penalise you, but not letting you Step means rolling it essentially wastes your entire turn at best or forces you to eat an AoO (and instantly die from being crit) at worst. And while the Sage technically doesn't penalise the spell itself, "spell-rank bonus, with a pity +3 if you're clumsy enough to guarantee everything crits & kills you" is not by any means worth making yourself worse at the things you're built to do for the rest of the encounter.)

Add to this that using it at all makes you actively worse at both striking and using half your skills (since you'd mainly run Dex & Cha skills), and your premaster Ancestor Oracle's basic gameplay loop is now a trap that prevents your character (that is explicitly designed around that loop) from functioning (and will probably kill you). It single-handedly turns the Ancestors Oracle into what people like RPGBot complained about the original version being: "Roll the Spells ancestor or your entire turn is wasted".

While I think if the item in its current incarnation is stronger than the old one, the lack of Worn Belt I suspect to be an error. Every other belt has it so dollars to doughnuts it'll receive an errata at some point.

And it'll still be stronger, due to the upgraded versions, but I think that's more reasonable than wearing 10 belts to get the same effect.
Though, Buckle Armor exists, so who knows...?

Eh, it would be ridiculous for it to be a mistake, right? It's silly to just wear ten belts all at the same ti--.

I think people would generally be happier if they translated all the mystery benefits into cursebound feats or w.e. As it stands, many of the mysteries are just a pile of focus spells. Tempest gets hit hard because the free electric damage was part of their balance and now all your spells do less damage because screw you I guess. Likewise Lufe was balanced off their increased health which they lose because screw you too. The cursebound geats aren't bad but they sure are flavourless (whoever wrote the feat that's for Life and Bones which is negated by theor curse sure was on something). Feels like a divine sorcerer now.

Like, seriously, if they were going to give every mystery a starting cursebound feat, why didn't they just make the default curse benefit that cursebound feat instead? No need to balance, you know it works already!

Honestly... if they translated the benefits the same way they translated the more unusual curses, that might've arguably made things worse (if that's even possible). Looking at the few unique curses that got preserved as feats... they seem to have been made worse somehow.

Case in point, Ancestors: The most thematically interesting Mystery, but also the one that best illustrates the class' issues. Their original curse was unique, in that it made you roll a favoured action type (out of Strike, Spell, or Skill) each turn, with a 50% chance of getting what you want; using the other two types was a risk, but the favoured type would get a bonus once the curse hit moderate or higher. (Actions that don't fit those three categories were "safe" to use, and having a good selection of safe actions was the key to making Ancestors work.) This was preserved as the Meddling Futures feat, except... worse in literally every way.

1. It only applies to one action, BUT it halves the chance of getting a favourable option by turning one of the previously "safe" action types into a liability (replacing the "your choice" option with a new movement-based one, that notably doesn't allow you to Step).
2. You have to use it every turn if you want to preserve the original curse's flavour, BUT using it increases your Cursebound status (which, since you're an Ancestors Oracle, is quite literally suicidal); you explicitly can't use it every turn if the encounter is more than a couple of turns, and need to take about half an hour to Refocus after every encounter just to do what the original curse did by default. (And importantly, the original curse didn't automatically increase when you rolled your ancestor, which means this is a strict downgrade.)
3. And most cripplingly, if you take it on an Ancestors Oracle (which you would expect to do to recreate the original Ancestors Oracle), then using it actively makes you worse at using it, thanks to the lack of heavy armour incentivising Dex builds (which in turn die to Clumsy):
⠀⠀3a) The Strike ancestor is most obvious, since the to-hit bonus is actually a lie; it cancels out Cursebound 1 for a net zero, but at Cursebound 2 or higher the Clumsy debuff outweighs the measly pittance +1, turning it into "kill your chance of hitting to do more damage, no, wait, you missed"...
⠀⠀3b) But the Wanderer ancestor is a sneaky trap because you can't Step, and thus are forced to eat an AoO if you were trying to get the Warrior or Adept instead... which will probably crit & killed you because rolling debuffs your AC...
⠀⠀3c) And the Adept one will explicitly never improve Dex skills, plain and simple. You need to be Clumsy 1 or 2 to get the +1, or Clumsy 3 or 4 to get the +2, so the +1 will only break even at best, and the +2 will explicitly always be overpowered by your Clumsy value. And considering that you're probably not going to be running many Str skills... yeah. Only real use is for mental skills, which you pobably won't want to be locked into if you were hoping for a different ancestor.
⠀⠀3d) Thus, by elimination, the only one that's actually usable if you're trying to be a real Ancestors Oracle is the Sage ancestor. And that just gives you a bonus equal to the spell's rank, plus a whopping +3 if you're so clumsy you'll die the instant a newborn infant sneezes on you! Hooray!

The end result is that the memes have become true. Old Ancestors Oracle had a reputation for being a trap, when it was really just super-fiddly and unique. But the Re-Messed-Up version of the old Ancestors curse, Meddling Futures, is an actual trap option, in the sense that taking it on an Ancestors Oracle (the very mystery it's intended to emulate) explicitly makes you worse at being an Ancestors Oracle (and will probably kill you when you try to use it). I do hope this was a mistake, and that it "merely" indicates that the [Cursebound] feats were made without accounting for the actual curses themselves (which is still bad, but at least understandable with how rushed the Remaster was)... but if not, then it's a true trap option in the 3e sense, an option designed to look neat but be bad, so you can feel good about yourself for being enough of a "pro" to know not to take it.

A bit of an extreme example, but the fact that it even exists in its current state honestly says a lot about how the Oracle was remade. They put a lot of time and thought into it, but it really does come across as making it simple for simplicity's sake, then punishing you for wanting to get some of the old complexity back. It's... honestly, it's the only class I would consider to be a victim of the Remaster.

Honestly, I'm not sure why they thought ripping out the mystery benefits and making this the only class in the game where your subclass lets you choose how you want to get screwed over (as opposed to choosing how you want to specialise your build like every other class) was an improvement, myself. One of the Oracle's themes has always been finding ways to turn their curse to their advantage; even back in PF1, the curse typically came with both ups and downs. (And notably, the entire reason that curses are tied to specific mysteries now is that Haunted some curses were 99% up and 1% down.)

It's weird that they want to drop that now, especially since it's halfway through an edition that already established that Oracle curses are still a mixed bag, that can be twisted into a benefit the more you embrace the curse. They HAD to know this was going to irreconcilably break basically any character that used the original Oracle; if they were so concerned about making sure "the curse is just a curse" and not a sidegrade, why not just move the plus sides to the mystery and call them a "Divine Conflux" or something, flavoured as using the point where your divine magic meets your curse as a way to join the two into something that's neither wholly positive nor wholly negative?

Overall, it just goes to show that simplicity for simplicity's sake is a fallacy; it's essentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater for simplicity's sake, because taking the baby out of the bath first is too complex.

--------

Honestly, it would've been a lot better to take a look at the weak points, and provide actual fixes tailored to shoring up each mystery's specific problems.

Case in point, premaster Ancestors: Its problem is that it was the single most complex subclass in the entire game (to the point that it was widely considered a trap option because it has an entirely different playstyle than every other Oracle), due to needing to split your focus in three directions, carry some non-strike/spell/skill options to pad out turns, and know how to use everything in conjunction to work around the limitations. (E.g., if you want bless as a spell, you need to know that increasing its aura isn't a "spell", so you can cast it when you roll the spell ancestor, then use it to fill out the strike & skill ancestors' turns.) And the randomness meant that even if you know how to manage this, and know when to ramp the curse up and when to leave it be, you could still get screwed over if you needed to heal someone NOW but got two bad rolls.

Hence, an easy fix would've been to explicitly state in the mystery's description (preferably in a sidebar) that in terms of player proficiency, Oracle is an expert class and Ancestors is a master Mystery, and then give a quick rundown of how it differs from the others and/or a small example build, and then add an extra action to the mystery, maybe something like this quick mockup:

Ancestral Cooperation ◇

Frequency once per battle
Requirement Cursebound 1 or higher
----

If your next action would conflict with your predominant ancestor, you do not need to pass a flat check to perform it. Also, if you're at Cursebound 2 or higher, your next action gains the moderate or major curse benefit as appropriate, based on the ancestor whose preferred action it matches.

(Not sure how to word this. Basically, the idea is that if your next action is a Strike, Skill, or Spell, then you evaluate your next action as if you had rolled the Martial, Skillful, or Spellcasting ancestor, respectively. It essentially lets you choose your ancestor for your next action.)

Special While your ancestors like meddling with you, they don't appreciate it when you meddle with them. On your next turn, you are unable to use any action that would normally require a flat check to use. Furthermore, after using this, you need to make it up to your ancestors somehow; I haven't thought this part through yet.

It is a very rough mock-up, admittedly, but the ability to essentially ignore the curse's downsides but reap all of its benefits once a battle, when you really need to use a specific skill or cast a specific spell, would make a WORLD of difference for the Mystery. And the implication that you're offending your ancestors and need to make it up to them before you can do it again both adds flavour (instead of removing flavour) and prevents it from being overpowered or breaking the mystery's theme.

If they had done something like this for each Mystery, we'd all be a lot happier. Evaluate the Mystery, find where it falters, and figure out a way to strengthen it that fits the Mystery's flavour. You don't need to rip the class' soul out and brutalise the empty husk, there are better ways to fix them!

I see, it did seem a bit messy. Thanks for answering, everyone, hope the wording'll be cleaned up in future errata or something.

The Vanara feat Climbing Tail is as follows:

Your tail makes it much easier for you to climb. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Athletics checks to Climb, you gain the Combat Climber skill feat, and you reduce the number of free hands required to Climb or Trip by one.

And Combat Climber is as follows:

Your techniques allow you to fight as you climb. You’re not flat-footed while Climbing and can Climb with a hand occupied. You must still use another hand and both legs to Climb.

Your techniques allow you to fight as you climb. You’re not offguard while Climbing and can Climb with a hand occupied. You must still use another hand and both legs to Climb.

(Both are identical, pick your favourite.)

As written:
• Climbing normally requires two free hands.
• If you have Combat Climber, you can also climb by using one hand and two legs.
• If you have Climbing Tail, you gain Combat Climber, and also reduce the number of free hands needed by one. (You presumably also have to use your tail, but for some reason this isn't listed as a mechanical requirement. Perhaps it's merely being used to balance and steer, like many actual monkeys do.)

So... how exactly do these things interact, since there's a bit of ambiguity here? As written, which of these climbing options are valid?
1. You can climb using two free hands and no other limbs. [Default, should still be available.]
2. You can climb using one free hand and no other limbs. [Default, reduced by Climbing Tail.]
3. You can climb using one free hand and two legs. [Combat Climber, should still be available.]
4. You can climb using zero free hands and two legs. [Combat Climber, reduced by Climbing Tail.]

I would assume that all but #2 is allowed, myself, though I'm not entirely sure. I've also heard people (including at least one person that's reasonably familiar with the game) claim that Climbing Tail's hand requirement reduction gets folded into Combat Climber because they "do the same thing" (which appears to be untrue, since one is an alternate method and one is a requirement reduction), and there doesn't seem to be a real consensus over how exactly Climbing Tail works, so I figured I'd ask here. Which of these are correct, and are there any I missed?

Honestly, to me, it feels like Dubious Knowledge was originally intended to be the default behaviour of a failed RK check, splitting the difference between success and crit fail, but was cut and relegated to a feat to ease the burden on the GM. (On account of 2-1-2-1 being a more natural pattern than 2-1-0-1, "you vaguely remember something but are a bit confused about the specifics" fitting RK's other results more than "you somehow know nothing whatsoever about this", flail--err, failing forward giving RK more value in hopes of encouraging non-RK-specialist-builds to try using it on subjects they're familiar with, and also giving more opportunity to have fun with the fail.)

So, they changed it into a feat, and made sure to clarify that you get one correct and one incorrect and don't have a way to differentiate which is which. Because that wording is the key to this entire discussion: You know that the two pieces of information are different, and that the difference matters. If you automatically think they're both true, or automatically think they're both false, then there's no differentiation, and the clause is not only invalid but misleading. It only makes sense if you know that your knowledge is, in fact, dubious, and that exactly one but not both is actually true.

Basically, it's meant to model things like:

• "The Cucco Farmer's Almanac says the dodongo dislikes smoke, while the Cave of Scholars Encyclopedia says their mouths are flammable, but they've been extinct for so long that nobody knows which is true."
• "Ma says X, Pa says Y, and for some reason this is the hill they'll both die on."
• "Your favourite author is into hard sci-fi, and always does their research, but they keep flip-flopping between whether it's Z or Q. Maybe there are different subspecies or something, who knows."

The text says "Weapons with the kickback trait don’t gain that

trait’s benefits when using an air cartridge firing system" and "they’re the default used in Arcadian air repeaters."

Full stop.

I agree this change was probably meant to be a buff to long air repeaters, but that's not what the text says.

At the very least, I think it should be clarified in PFS sanctioning. There will be GMs who will interpret this in the worst way.

The text does say that, but it also says they "[impose] a –10-foot penalty to the attached firearm’s range increment" (which everyone is ignoring) and that the firearm must "be modified to replace its normal firing mechanism with an air cartridge firing system" before the air cartridge firing system's stats are applied. It also lists the firing system's cost as 75 gp, which is significantly higher than the long air repeater's 9 gp price tag.

Full stop.

The air cartridge firing system also has a Usage requirement, specifically "Usage attached to firearm (firing mechanism)". And the rules for firearm customizations, the category which includes the system, states that they must be attached to a firearm before you can use them.

Fuller stop.

The text is actually extremely explicit that the description of the firearm customization air cartridge firing system ONLY applies to firearms which explicitly have the player-purchaseable air cartridge firing system attached to the firearm. That's what the usage requirement means: That it has to be used in the specific manner to provide its mechanical functionality, both benefits and drawbacks. The long air repeater may have an internal air cartridge system, but it does not come standard with the Air Cartridge Firing System item, and thus does not apply the rules text of the Air Cartridge Firing System item... and even if it did, it would have to apply the entire rules text for the air cartridge firing system, instead of picking & choosing which parts to apply and which to ignore.

Any GM who interprets the long air repeater as having the penalties of [Kickback] but not the benefits is kinda going against the game's rules, since "the long air repeater secretly has the effect of the air cartridge firing system customization even though the weapon's statblock doesn't say it's customized" is a pretty hard argument to make for a game that doesn't have hidden rules like this. ;P This is doubly true if they don't also say that it has a 50-foot range instead of the official 60 feet, that it costs 84 gp instead of the official 9 gp, and that no firing mechanism customizations can be addeded to it because it already has an attached firing mechanism, since you aren't actually allowed to selectively mandate part of an item's mechanics but ignore the rest.

(It may also be relevant to note that the ACFS actually does have a PFS note, that states that "Weapons that install an air cartridge firing system and that have the kickback trait retain the trait and the associated drawbacks." Going strictly by that text, weapons that have an air cartridge firing system by default would have to both have [Kickback] and install a different air cartridge firing system to gain [Kickback]'s drawbacks but not its benefits, would they not?)

----

Going strictly by the text, if you want to apply the ACFS' stats to a long air repeater, then you have to remove the repeater's default system and replace it with a different ACFS. Which does sound kinda silly, but...

Really, the air cartridge firing system says that it's the default used in air repeaters, not the default used in long air repeaters. They're different items. ;3

Basically, Simple weapons exist so you have to actually invest in martial training to use Martial weapons, more than anything else. They're not a category in and of themselves, as much as a way to separate Martial weapons out as a higher category. More than anything else, the existence of a simple weapons category that anyone can use creates more design space for more potent martial weapons, since the non-martials won't be left with nothing if the martial weapons are powered up and locked behind some form of martial training.

(Which does mean that they aren't well-designed in and of themselves, yes. If a category only exists to justify locking a different category behind access requirements, then it's usually just filler at best or wasted design space at worst.)

Okay, to people that thing the long air repeater doesn't benefit from [Kickback] because it uses compressed air... long story short, there's a critical detail you're missing: The long air repeater defaults to using an air cartridge mechanism. Its statblock accounts for this, and has the air cartridge's adjustments built into it. If you believe that the [Kickback] trait doesn't benefit the air repeater because it uses an air cartridge system, then do you also believe that the long air repeater actually has 50-foot range instead of the stated 60 feet, because of the air cartridge's range penalty? Probably not, because that would be pretty silly. ;P

But yeah, there's an extremely important detail that's kinda getting glossed over here: The air cartridge mechanism is a weapon mod. It's a DIY replacement firing mechanism for guns that normally use a different mechanism, and thus has to be designed to mate with rifling and projectiles that aren't actually designed to use compressed air. And being something that just anyone can install means it can't be expected to be installed professionally, either; it's entirely possible that a given PC can do a perfect install job, but they also might not have the tools necessary to create a perfectly airtight connection. And it also has to be removable, which means it has to be entirely self-contained and can't make permanent modifications to the base gun to better accomodate it. All things together, this means that using an air cartridge firing mechanism in a powder gun is less efficient than having a gun that's designed by the finest craftsdwarves to use compressed air from the ground up, that can be properly machined for its air cartridge system and has an air cartridge system that's properly machined for it, and assembled with high-precision factory tools operated by highly trained golems

What it boils down to is this:
• The air cartridge mechanism is less powerful than a black powder mechanism, when used in a black powder gun; it's an off-the-shelf aftermarket rig customisation marketed to firearm enthusiasts, installed without factory tools by someone who may or may not be trained in the manufacture of firearms. Weapons that normally use black powder have a range penalty and don't benefit from [Kickback] when using an air cartridge mechanism instead.
• The long air repeater is actually designed to use an air cartridge mechanism, from the ground up. This means it's actually designed around its firing mechanism, and can accomodate a larger, more powerful system with a better compressor as a result. (Or, conversely, may have a smaller mechanism with a tighter chamber and better rifling, to force the air into a smaller space and let less air escape around the projectile.) Either way, it isn't trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and its stats account for its built-in firing mechanism.

--------

tl;dr: The thing to remember is that the air cartridge firing system is a replacement firing mechanism. Its stats only apply to weapons where it replaces the default firing mechanism. If you want to apply the air cartridge system's stat adjustments to a long air repeater, then you have to rip out its built-in air cartridge system and replace it with the customisation version.

Dotting for future reference.

Darksol, you're looking at it backwards. Warrior Bards don't make Strikes just to proc Martial Performance. They make Strikes because they're Warrior Bards; Martial Performance is a rider, not a reason.

The Warrior Bard isn't casting spells every turn, and only throwing in a token Strike out of obligation every so often because they "have" to use the feat they're stuck with. The Warrior Bard is making Strikes when they have a good opportunity to do so already, with or without Martial Performance. They've already chosen to make both Strikes and spells, and will continue to do so even if you strip them of all their feats.

So, don't look at it as "wasting a turn to use Martial Performance vs. playing correctly to use Lingering Composition", because that's the wrong mindset. It's a question of whether a Bard that's already making Strikes still wants Lingering Composition, or whether the new Martial Performance will be good enough to let them forego it.

That's... a good question, actually. There are a lot of nice changes here, for sure, but a few of them do seem to have taken a bit less care & consideration than the others; I think a few items were examined in bulk or as a group, and the outliers suffered a bit as a result.

It would be nice to have official Paizo feedback to clarify intent here, to let us know whether the changes are exactly as intended, whether they missed an interaction or quirk and didn't errata accordingly, or whether we don't have the full picture about how the pre-errata versions worked and aren't evaluating things the same way they themselves do.

Omega Metroid wrote:

...as if a Medium race had a feat that said something like this: "You can interact with an object nine feet off the ground with a single Interact action, but that action gains the [Move] trait."

Do you mean "up to 15 ft off the ground" here? Because 9 ft off the ground is in reach already. Even 10 is.

I did, yes. Nice catch, thank you.

(Was meant to parallel the original Evanescent Wings, which gives the example of Sprites (Tiny creatures with 0 reach) fluttering up to reach a cookie jar 4 feet off the ground by adding a [Move] trait to their Interact action. "Up to 15 feet", with a 14-foot example, would've definitely worked better for a Medium race, thanks for pointing it out. My bad. -_-' )

Omega Metroid wrote:

stuff

I mean, kinda, sorta, ish.

No rule actually exists that requires tiny races to spend extra actions to do things, the only reference to this "tiny penalty" is in the old sprite feat that removes said penalty. The rules for tiny PCs in howl of the wild makes no mention of this action tax for example.

It kind of reminds me of the pf1 feat "prone sniper" which removes the circumstance penalty to using ranged weapons while prone. A penalty that just does not exist.

By which I mean to say, that if evanescent wings has been Erratad to remove reference to this penalty, than it has basically ceased existing

Hmm... possibly. It looks like the penalty was extrapolated from the rules for Tiny PCs, and Tiny PC reach in particular. Let's see... The Sprite statblock includes this reference for Tiny PCs:

PCs are typically Small or Medium size, but most sprite PCs are Tiny instead! Being Tiny comes with its own set of rules about space and reach. Your Tiny sprite can enter another creature's space, which is important because your melee Strikes typically have no reach, meaning you must enter their space to attack them. Like other Tiny creatures, you don't automatically receive lesser cover from being in a larger creature's space, but circumstances might allow you to Take Cover. You can purchase weapons, armor, and other items for your size with the same statistics as normal gear, except that melee weapons have a reach of 0 for you (or a reach 5 feet shorter than normal if they have the reach trait). Remember to adjust the Bulk of items and your Bulk limit for Tiny size (see Items and Sizes).

It brings attention to their reach, connecting it to Strikes. Not much, but it gives us somewhere to start; the pre-errata Evanescent Wings corroborates this, by specifically calling attention to Sprites having trouble reaching objects 4 feet above them. We know that Tiny creatures have 0 reach in general, not just melee weapons, but that doesn't mean anything in and of itself... right? Not quite, actually!

The section on Range and Reach is the missing piece here: It clarifies that reach is "how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon", and notes that "you" (i.e., Small/Medium PCs) typically have 5-foot reach. And while we mainly use reach for Strikes and other combat options, the implication here is that reach is what you use to interact with anything, and that having 0 reach means you need to be right beside something to interact with it. This is easy if it's horizontal distance, since you're considered to be at an unspecified location in your space (and thus can just say you're beside another object in your space, if necessary)... but vertical distance is a problem, since most Sprites explicitly aren't tall enough to reach objects 4 feet above them.

And that goes back to Evanescent Wings' example: Small/Medium creatures have 5 vertical reach, and thus can intrinsically reach an object that's four feet off the ground even if they're prone. But Sprites have 0 reach, and thus can't interact with an object if it's one or more feet above them, going by the Range/Reach rules. The extra action tax is still odd, and doesn't line up with any known use of Interact... but judging by how old Evanescent Wings adds a [Move] trait whenever you interact with an object that's in your space but outside of your reach, the implication seems to be that you had to either Climb, Leap, or waste a Step or a Stride getting high enough to interact with objects that were outside of your reach. (Which is mostly consistent with normal rules, where a typical Medium PC would have to use a Step or a Stride to get close enough to interact with an object that's 6 feet away, and would have to Climb or Leap to reach something that's outside their own vertical reach. It does falter a bit if Leap is the intended second action here, though, since that might also require using Grab an Edge or taking Rapid Mantel to interact with objects slightly above you.)

.
.
.

So, my conclusion is that it isn't a special rule, as much as the logical conclusion of how standard reach rules interact with Tiny PCs and their 0-foot reach. It could be clearer, yes, but it's the same as if a Medium race had a feat that said something like this: "You can interact with an object nine feet off the ground with a single Interact action, but that action gains the [Move] trait."

----

CRB links, for comparison:

• Size, Space, and Reach
• Range and Reach

I just think Combination weapons & Gunslinger would be nice if they kept the same proficiency with combination weapons as if they were firearm through and through instead of firearm in one form and a melee weapon in the other.

Honestly, an interesting fix for that might've been if the dagger pistol kept its component parts' categories, making it simple in dagger mode & martial in pistol mode. (Possibly dropping from [Fatal d8] to [Fatal d6] if necessary.) Would've opened up one option that doesn't need martial melee weapon progression, at the cost of it also being the weakest combo weapon option, which sounds like a good compromise.

They seem pretty good overall... but yeah, there are one or two changes I'd still like to see. Something like, say, the dagger pistol being simple in dagger mode & martial in pistol mode, that'd be a neat way to open up combination weapons to more classes. (Most classes get at minimum expert simple weapons, so making the dagger pistol simple/martial would make it scale for everyone if they're willing to invest in Gunslinger Dedication & Firearm Expert.)

So, does this rules change mean that Tiny Sprites with Evanescent Wings must spend two actions to Interact with any item not on their person?

As written, yes and no. They have to spend two actions to Interact with any item that's not on their person AND in reach of a standable surface. They are completely unable to Interact with any item that's not on their person and isn't in reach of a standable surface, unless they gain the ability to hover from a source outside their ancestry. (On the grounds that they fall to the ground if they end the new flight action in midair, and thus don't have time to Interact after flying to the object.) This appears to be unintentional, since it's due to Strix and Sprite flight feats using shared wording; I think the writer just forgot that Tiny creatures have 0-foot reach, and that as a result, the original Evanescent Wings was a "you have Medium reach within your square for Interact purposes" feat, not a "you can fly" feat.

It's easy enough to fix, at least, and I do expect they'll release a little mini-errata to address it as soon as they notice. Probably Tuesday or Wednesday, considering the long weekend (assuming you have it in the U.S. too, and it's not just a Canadian holiday). But if you're playing a Sprite before then, it might be better for your group to either hold off on the Sprite feat errata for a little bit, or combine the original and errata versions of Evanescent Wings.

----

Edit: Fixed a mistake on my part; new text bolded here.

> "you have Medium reach within your square for Interact purposes"

Also added a "combine original & errata Evanescent Wings" suggestion, which I kinda forgot earlier because I was just typing it up quickly before supper. My bad. 😅

Hmm... been thinking about it, and the new Evanescent Wings is good, but removes a tool that the Tiny flying ancestry kinda needs. That's easy to fix, though, it just needs a slight retouch. I'd suggest either:

• Integrate the original version into the Sprite as a core mechanic, like they did with the Strix's Nestling Fall.
• Combine the two versions into a single feat. Might look something like this quick mock-up:

Evanescent Wings

[Sprite]

You've manifested wings that can flutter for brief spurts. You don't need to spend any additional actions to reach something in your space that a Medium creature could reach. For instance, if you wanted to open a cookie jar located four feet off the ground, you only need to spend a single Interact action to do so. When you use Evanescent Wings to flutter to a higher place in your space, your action gains the move trait. You also gain the following action:

Flutter ♦
Frequency once per round
Drawing on your innate magic, you force your wings to carry you further than they normally could. You Fly. If you don’t normally have a fly Speed, you gain a fly Speed of 15 feet for this movement. If you aren’t on solid ground at the end of this movement, you fall.

(If this is overtuned, a possible fix might be to turn the entire feat off for the rest of the turn after using Flutter, to represent overtaxing your wings and needing to let them rest for a moment before using them again. That could create funky action ordering shenanigans, though, so I'm not 100% sure.)

----

Overall, the errata looks good, there are a lot of improvements bundled in them thar hills changes. I'm guessing this was just a quick copy-and-paste replacement to ensure consistency with Strix (and presumably future flying ancestries), but forgot to account for Sprite's size as a result. No biggie, it happens, especially after all the work you guys have put into getting the remaster and ORC ready on such short notice, while still putting out other books as well. Hope you get some time to cool down after running yourselves ragged like that!

Hmm... I'm not sure, but it looks like the new version of Evanescent Wings is actually a slight nerf to Sprites, hidden within a buff. It doesn't look like it was intentional, it reads as if they just plain forgot that Sprite is a Tiny race, but it does seem to be a nerf nonetheless.

The original version looked like this:

You've manifested wings that can flutter for brief spurts. You don't need to spend any additional actions to reach something in your space that a Medium creature could reach. For instance, if you wanted to open a cookie jar located four feet off the ground, you only need to spend a single Interact action to do so. When you use Evanescent Wings to flutter to a higher place in your space, your action gains the move trait.

The new version, however, is now a once-per-round action that does this:

You’ve manifested wings that can flutter for brief spurts. You Fly. If you don’t normally have a fly Speed, you gain a fly Speed of 15 feet for this movement. If you aren’t on solid ground at the end of this movement, you fall.

Comparing the two, the errata version is a mobility aid... but at the same time, either doubles the action cost of interacting with objects out of their reach, or completely removes their ability to interact with objects out of their reach, I'm not sure which. Unless I'm missing something, then...

• With the original version: A Sprite can fly within their space as needed, to reach any object within their space as if they were Medium. This does not cost any extra actions, and does not grant them a flight speed.
• With the errata'd version: A Sprite can spend one action to Fly, with a flight speed of 15' if they don't already have a fly speed. They will always be on solid ground at the end of this action, either by landing or falling. This thus forces them to spend a second action to interact with objects that are out of their reach and on a landable surface (doubling the action cost compared to the original, pre-errata version), and prevents them from interacting with any objects that are sufficiently high above the ground altogether (since they have no time to interact with the object between ending the movement and falling).

Overall, I'm not sure, but it makes the new version seem like a bit of a nerf compared to the original, on the grounds that while it does give them a slow fly speed, it also severely impacts their action economy when trying to interact with objects that aren't at ground level (and in some cases, makes interacting with objects that aren't at ground level impossible as written). It comes across as if it was written for a Medium or Small ancestry, and doesn't actually account for Sprite being a Tiny ancestry instead?

Also maybe a warpriest’s start with a deity was over love of that kind if weapon. The rest came later. It can be storied in.

I can totally see Cayden & a wannabe fencer becoming drinking buddies over their shared love of fancy rapiers, and a few weeks later, Cayden has a new cleric.

Personally, I think it's simply divine.

On a more serious note, it makes a lot of logical sense, at least using real-world logic. Runelords specialise in sinning, while divination is a portent from on high. It actually makes perfect sense that the biggest thing God would want to tell them is "stop sinning, guys, it's gonna screw you over in ways you really don't want". And if that's what you get from your divinations, when runelords really don't care if they're screwed over like that or not, shunning divination would make a lot of logical sense.

Y'know how the Bible mentions people hardening their hearts, and thus not being able to hear God's voice? That's what happened here. Runelords hardened their hearts, and now they can't hear their gods' voices anymore. And if you can't hear their voices, then you can't receive divine messages from them, and thus don't get any divinations.

/nerdglasses

A bit of a stretch, but Falayna might hate wedding planners as much as she loves weddings themselves.

...enforce a dress code...

At least in the real world, last I checked, there's an interesting little thing wedding planners are very well aware of: The bride wears a wedding dress, and the groom wears a tuxedo. Doesn't sound much, but de facto as it may be... it's a dress code. ;3

Ravingdork wrote:

Finoan wrote:

A spellbook would sell for 5 sp. Having spells written in it wouldn't increase the price. Because selling spells isn't how adventurers should be earning money.

I call bullpucky on that. A spellbook is obviously worth 5sp + the cost of Learn a Spell of every spell within (or half that on resale).

What is there in the rules that would indicate it has no value? That's ridiculous I say. Spellbooks are rightfully some of the most valuable treasure around.

Where in the rules does it indicate that it has any higher value than that?

The players at the table can decide to have a spellbook sell for any amount that they decide is appropriate. But I am seeing nothing in the rules that says that spell knowledge - or any other knowledge - in a book makes the book sell for a higher value than the cost of the book itself.

Well, for one, the page you linked explicitly states that it's the price for a blank spellbook, which means that saying a spellbook with spells in it sells for 5 sp breaks at minimum one rule. Apart from that...

• Spellbooks with giant silverfish skin in them are worth a pretty penny.
• An enemy's spellbook is viable treasure for a wizard, which tells us that it's worth more than 5 sp.
• Scrolls are priced based on the spell contained within, which tells us that spell knowledge is valuable. Funny how no one mentioned that, since it's actually hyper-relevant here (as described below).
• It's not outright stated, but Morlibint implies that recovered spellbooks are valuable. (On the grounds that he collects rare & valuable tomes, and runs a bookstore. He's the exact sort of person who'd want to buy a spellbook with spells in it, and some of the rare & valuable tomes he seeks are very likely to be spellbooks from notable casters.)
• On the subjects of rare & valuable spellbooks, look up Thresholds of Truth. It's explicitly a spellbook, and is considered a treasure trove; it's clear that it's meant to be priceless, it's that valuable.
• Also, grimoires as a whole. Sure, they have a special effect, but it's pretty telling that every single non-blank spellbook to actually have a price attached is explicitly worth 90 gp at absolute minimum, isn't it?

Now, normal spellbooks are just ink on parchment, but their value comes from spells. Remember, spellbooks are considered to be viable treasure because of the spells contained within, and blank spellbooks are worth 1 gp, so it's clear from the rules that any spellbook with one or more spells in it is worth 1 gp. (And again, most importantly, remember that the spellbook's description explicitly states that 1 gp is the price of a blank spellbook.) No sane GM would ever claim that a non-blank spellbook can only be sold for 5 sp, and any GM that does so is abusing Rule Zero to rip the PCs off.

-----

As to why scrolls are hyper-relevant to the discussion: Does anyone remember Learn a Spell? It specifies that spells can be learned from someone who knows the spell, or more relevantly, "magical writing like a spellbook or scroll". This gives us a direct point of reference for the monetary value of spell knowledge: A spell is worth at least as much as a scroll containing that spell. If someone wants to learn a spell, and doesn't have a teacher, then they're going to be willing to pay for it in written form. (And it probably doesn't matter to them whether that written form is a scroll, or pages ripped from a spellbook.) Add in the ability to borrow spells from another caster's spellbook, and it's pretty clear (from the rules!) that a spellbook is very valuable to any wizard that doesn't know the spells it contains.

Omega Metroid wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Omega Metroid wrote:

Personally, I'd just like the axes to be turned into traits, and players are allowed (but not required) to attach one of [Good] or [Evil], and one of [Law] or [Chaos], to their characters. (With renames, of course, to avoid the vulnerability to illegal legal damage.) Or leave the field there, but make it optional instead of mandatory (and perhaps allow players to make up their own alignments, like, e.g., "Chaotic Fun" or "Chronic Good"). Leave the concept of alignment as a broad filter that aids in interpreting edicts & anathema, but don't actually attach any mechanics to it. (Since the mechanics are attached to the new holy war traits, instead.)

Doing it that way would leave the option to have an alignment for flavour reasons, while at the same way adding a context & lens through which their actual drives can be interpreted. (Case in point, "Help the oppressed" takes a very different meaning depending on how you look at things. If a resource-poor nation is invading a more abundant nation, but using excessive force and brutal tactics in the process, then it's easy to see both sides as "oppressed"; the victim nation is being oppressed by their invaders, and the invading nation is oppressed by their neighbour hoarding all the resources. Knowing which side the character stands with helps you suss out who they see as oppressed and who they see as the oppressors.)

I imagine people that actually care about this will do it anyways, just dedicate a line in their character profile to classic alignment. It would be nice to see it be official, though, as an acknowledgment that edicts & anathema can easily be ambiguous if you don't know how the character see the world itself.

Making it official would undermind the whole point of the change in the first place: keeping them from getting sued.

I'm aware. (They probably would've won the lawsuit, seeing how (IIRC) the OGL contains a clause that makes it...

I'm of that opinion that sacred cows SHOULD be slaughtered if the meat will make tasty burgers; alignment caused a lot of issues and needed a lot of exceptions, while not doing much more than restraining narratives and providing shorthands that morphed into overgeneralizations. Now it's just people and creatures with varied motivations. Edicts and anathema work better for describing how you reflect the values of a culture, nation, or diety anyway

That's fair, yeah. It mainly comes down to how people use it, really.

• • If they use it as a summary, as a quick way to indicate the character's overarching mindset in as few words as possible, then it's fine to keep.
  
• • If people use it as a straitjacket, then it tends to morph into the Stupid alignments (Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, Chaotic Stupid, Lawful Stupid), and needs to go.
  

Or in short, it's helpful if it's defined by your actions, but harmful if your actions are defined by it.

Personally, I'm of the former camp, that alignment is/was supposed to be a summary rather than a requirement. (As are the rules of every game that uses alignment, seeing how actions can change alignment but alignment doesn't mandate actions, but this tends to be forgotten.) That's the sense I think it, or something similar, should be retained in: A minimalistic summary of the character's overarching mindset and ethos, with the edicts & anathema themselves helping to define the character's ethical code in light of that summary.

It doesn't necessarily need to be called "Alignment", and doesn't necessarily need to be restricted to the 3.5e nine, it just needs to be something short & to the point. Something like, say, the Bard being "Anarchic Horny", the Barbarian being "Irrationally Angry", the Champion being "Traditionally Good", the game designer being "Balanced Fun", or anything of the sort. All of those tell you what the character is like in two words, and can easily be expanded on with a few edicts and a few anathema, giving you a more complete picture than either would give alone.

I think an over-sensitive interpretation of the Arzani's "despise and never forgive those who have hurt you" would be funny.

GM - Your soup is cold.
PC - Damn you Tavern keep! You are now my enemy forever!

Taken strictly as written, it also means doctors are anathema to Arazni, what with how many medical procedures involve causing short-term harm to enable long-term healing. Anything involving needles, anything involving sewing up a wound, anything involving surgery, heck, anything that requires a full checkup (since they tend to involve squeezing tender areas, typically causing pain) triggers the edict!

Omega Metroid wrote:

Personally, I'd just like the axes to be turned into traits, and players are allowed (but not required) to attach one of [Good] or [Evil], and one of [Law] or [Chaos], to their characters. (With renames, of course, to avoid the vulnerability to illegal legal damage.) Or leave the field there, but make it optional instead of mandatory (and perhaps allow players to make up their own alignments, like, e.g., "Chaotic Fun" or "Chronic Good"). Leave the concept of alignment as a broad filter that aids in interpreting edicts & anathema, but don't actually attach any mechanics to it. (Since the mechanics are attached to the new holy war traits, instead.)

Doing it that way would leave the option to have an alignment for flavour reasons, while at the same way adding a context & lens through which their actual drives can be interpreted. (Case in point, "Help the oppressed" takes a very different meaning depending on how you look at things. If a resource-poor nation is invading a more abundant nation, but using excessive force and brutal tactics in the process, then it's easy to see both sides as "oppressed"; the victim nation is being oppressed by their invaders, and the invading nation is oppressed by their neighbour hoarding all the resources. Knowing which side the character stands with helps you suss out who they see as oppressed and who they see as the oppressors.)

I imagine people that actually care about this will do it anyways, just dedicate a line in their character profile to classic alignment. It would be nice to see it be official, though, as an acknowledgment that edicts & anathema can easily be ambiguous if you don't know how the character see the world itself.

Making it official would undermind the whole point of the change in the first place: keeping them from getting sued.

I'm aware. (They probably would've won the lawsuit, seeing how (IIRC) the OGL contains a clause that makes it illegal to change it the way WotC wanted to change it, contract law always sides against "I have altered the terms of the deal, pray I don't alter them further" (meaning they'd still have the right to use OGL 1.0 anyways), but that's neither here nor there.)

It would still be nice to have, though, just phrased in a legally distinct way. Rename the archetypal four, and make them into pairs of exclusive traits instead of a tic-tac-toe board, possibly with room to add additional trait pair "axes" later on (e.g., [Freedom] vs. [Duty-Bound]). Or make it a generic write-in, where you describe your character's overarching outlook in two words or less; that's legally very distinct, yet would be immediately recognisable as Alignment but more freeform. And either way, probably give it a new name, someting like, say... "Ethos".

I get why they did it, and I don't blame them for being paranoid about WotC's attack on the concept of D&D-like tabletop RPGs. Would be nice to have, is all.

Personally, I'd just like the axes to be turned into traits, and players are allowed (but not required) to attach one of [Good] or [Evil], and one of [Law] or [Chaos], to their characters. (With renames, of course, to avoid the vulnerability to illegal legal damage.) Or leave the field there, but make it optional instead of mandatory (and perhaps allow players to make up their own alignments, like, e.g., "Chaotic Fun" or "Chronic Good"). Leave the concept of alignment as a broad filter that aids in interpreting edicts & anathema, but don't actually attach any mechanics to it. (Since the mechanics are attached to the new holy war traits, instead.)

Doing it that way would leave the option to have an alignment for flavour reasons, while at the same way adding a context & lens through which their actual drives can be interpreted. (Case in point, "Help the oppressed" takes a very different meaning depending on how you look at things. If a resource-poor nation is invading a more abundant nation, but using excessive force and brutal tactics in the process, then it's easy to see both sides as "oppressed"; the victim nation is being oppressed by their invaders, and the invading nation is oppressed by their neighbour hoarding all the resources. Knowing which side the character stands with helps you suss out who they see as oppressed and who they see as the oppressors.)

I imagine people that actually care about this will do it anyways, just dedicate a line in their character profile to classic alignment. It would be nice to see it be official, though, as an acknowledgment that edicts & anathema can easily be ambiguous if you don't know how the character see the world itself.