Pilts Swastel

RexAliquid's page

60 posts. Alias of KingOfAnything.


1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
Which of the oracles focus spells alone are worth the curse? IMO, none of them. I can get a +2 initiative and 1/2 level temp hp for a -2 ac and save ALL DAY... I have to agree with Samurai: I'd never encourage anyone ever to cast revelation spells... Ever.

Well, notion that the curse is something to be avoided at all costs isn't really accurate in the first place. Play experience as a life oracle has basically revolved around turning on Moderate as quickly as possible because the benefits are too good to pass up and the penalties might as well not exist at all.

My flame oracle gets plenty of use out of whirling flames and fusillade, too.

I've played all the types of oracle and I can say without any qualms that the curse IS in fact something to avoid at all costs: the focus spells just aren't worth it in any way when you take into account the super onerous curse. For instance, getting "plenty of use out of whirling flames and fusillade" in no way makes up for sight being limited and foes having auto concealment. I don't even have to get into slowly killing yourself as a life oracle...

Play experience 100% supports avoiding any revelation spells: in fact, I never bothered even figuring out what domain spells I had for later oracles I made after playing my first oracle because I knew I was never again going to ever use a revelation spell...

What were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?

Gaterie wrote:
Orithilaen wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
You could use Flame Barrier to save the fighter’s life for a round so he can finish the fight. Or rebuke death to get him and the rogue both back into it.
Awesome. So the hail mary stuff works only if you multiclass to get some actual focus powers.
No need to multiclass--you can get rebuke death or flame barrier from Domain Fluency at level 12.

Awesome; so that's a level 1 ability that is useful during less than half of a campaign. And only if you take the appropriate feat.

HyperMissingno wrote:
To make things clear I was talking about the hail mary thing as if the oracle had an additional explosion when they went down, the focus spells are not and should not be the hail mary.

A divine class whose signature ability is an explosive belt... No, thanks.

Fire ray is available at level 1.

A last ditch contingency is not something that is necessary for all twenty levels. The feature can act like a cap until you get a revelation spell worth overspending for. But, if you want an option 1-20, go flame.

Gaterie wrote:

It's really funny to see people discussing about the hail Mary stuff as if it was an actual thing.

OK, so let's assume you're a battle oracle. Do you want to fall unconscious to give a +2 init to everyone else, because you entered fight at max curse for some reason and you're so useless as a caster, you think a +2 init to everyone else will be more useful than your whole presence during the fight? Or maybe you prefer to get a +2 to a save, and whatever the result is you fall unconscious anyway? Or you want to get a new fighter feat, and fall unconscious before you can use it?

You're a life oracle, do you want to remove a condition on an ally for one hour, so your party has to handle you instead of your ally (and one hour latter they have to handle both)? Or maybe you want to cast a life link that ends immediately? Or you think you'll be more useful as a literal object of healing, because an ally is dying and you don't have any more heal but he will have the time to move close to you and interact with you for 15 hp - and those 15 hp will save the day? Note: 15hp is at level 6, but at higher level it's even worse - eg at 13th it's 25 hp.

This hail mary stuff doesn't exist because the revelations effects are lame, and none of them can save any situation. The effects aren't "you shout 'you shall not pass' and your enemy falls into a bottomless pit - even if he can fly", the effects are more like "if an ally spend actions to interact with your body he gains 15 hp lol" - and that's when the effect isn't negated by your unconsciousness.

You could use Flame Barrier to save the fighter’s life for a round so he can finish the fight. Or rebuke death to get him and the rogue both back into it.

Each of the curses have built in ways to mitigate the downsides and the rewards benefit those playstyles.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
I do wish life has a better first focus spell though. As is you can't even get up to moderate curse if you wanted to increase heal output unless the enemy is using poison or diseases you are aware of.

A life oracle focused on healing is probably going to use healer's blessing to activate their curse. It's a small bonus, but it also counteracts the effects of the minor curse for a spell.

Voss wrote:

That's fine and all, but the 'power with a price' the current version models is 'never pay the price' by never using revelation spells. Just treat the class as a divine caster with a few basic chassis bumps.

That really does need to be addressed in some fashion.

As does the fact that as an 'oracle' nothing in the class really lives up to that term. The ethereal sight feat maybe, but that I'm still not clear on how being able to see into the ethereal is useful in PF2, beyond checking for something lurking there on the off chance it might be able to plane shift and attack.

Hard disagree.

As you grow in power it is more and more tempting to use your revelation spells.

The oracles has fortune effects for initiative, or just any roll once every ten minutes at high levels. At level 1, they can use Religion for prophecy about any topic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Blaze of Revelation is an awesome feat. As in it would make an awesome story if you ever had to use it to full effect.

I think the unconsciousness cap is mostly a hard cap until level 18 and that feat.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
Vlorax wrote:

That's how all things are, taste and opinion are always going to vary from player to player, the "fans" are unlikely to give a unified answer, some will like it, some wont.
That's very true, but from reading these forums, I don't get the impression that most fans are overjoyed with the witch and oracle designs at the moment. It'll be interesting to hear the results of the playtest responses, if they give them out, and even more interesting to see a hypothetical playtest 2.0, and/or the finished book.

You just can't get a sense of most fans from reading the forums. The sampling bias is so dang strong.

Bandw2 wrote:
yeah, guys we're not supposed to in general try to do a hail mary, i don't think mechanics for each curse are warranted. it's supposed to be a thing, that maybe you can do maybe because it'd be cool. not something the oracle is expected to do once per dungeon.

I'd like to read about the Oracle/Monk that managed a final ki blast to drop the boss and save the party.

The hail mary is not something that is going to happen for most oracles, but I think it should be absolutely possible for some niche builds.

What kind of playstyle does each mystery/curse push you toward?

My brainstorming:

Battle: buff spells, weapon-based combat, possibly archer? shield a must

Flame: area-of-effect spells, ally buffs, produce flame fusillade

Life: stay close to allies, life link, self heal, focus on control

What other playstyles could future mysteries encourage?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m more interested in picking a specific Patron to choose lessons from than I am in picking a specific muse for a bard.

I’d appreciate more suggestions in the book, but more restrictions aren’t necessary.

Yeah, the setting write up for the arcane and divine magic traditions makes it pretty clear.

I don’t consider a monk’s focus powers on the same level as spell list access.

Are you familiar with the Pathfinder Wiki? A lot of your questions will find answers there (with citations, too!).

Syries wrote:
Which is why I like the idea of a class feature (maybe just a line under Curse or Mystery) that states 'Once per day you may cast a revelation spell without advancing your curse.'

That sounds like an ability I wouldn't really make use of. Rather than force it on everyone as a class ability, I think it makes more sense to be available as a feat.

What would be really weird is having fey teach a witch divine magic. I don’t think that makes sense for the base class. A divine option sounds like a good premise for a class archetype.

Cyouni wrote:
Ice Titan wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Have you...considered not doing it if it would knock you unconscious at a bad time?
Sorry Craig. I didn't really think about when I used my two domain spells so you have to die so I can keep playing.

The alternative is literally that you only get one usage and get hard capped.

So if you're ever in that situation they're dead anyways. Just like how if you need the same thing but only have 1 point in your Focus pool.

Someone mentioned dead being a lot easier to recover from than forcibly unconscious for 8 hours. If that’s the case, let the character die and raise them.

If you don’t like over clocking, make it a hard cap in your head. That’s allowed.

Witches are arcane casters, primarily. Just because they can push into the adjacent traditions, doesn’t mean it makes sense to get all the way to the opposite side of the continuum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The lore didn’t change for Divine sorcerers, the rules changed to better match the lore.

The Ronyon wrote:

The idea that divine magic can only be be granted is proven false by divine sorcerers.

Divine sorceres never needed to exist.

There are two ways to get Divine spells (without getting cursed). Either innate spell casting like celestials and sorcerers or by being granted planar power from a deity.

Witches learn their spells, they are not innate magic, nor are they granted abilities by their patrons.

Temperans wrote:

Well by that logic why did Sorcerer get divine spells? I mean they were Arcane caster with the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list.

Witch spells and themes at least fitted with primal, arcane, and occult.

* Also thanks for responding to comments and talking to us about the process.

Because it makes more sense for characters with the blood of angels to cast from the same tradition as angels.

Remember that the PF1 sorcerer had to deal with baggage from DnD. The PF2 version is more like how Paizo would have done it from the start had they the freedom to. The PF1 witch was Paizo's creation, and so keeping closer to the PF1 version has more weight.

Approaching Occult and Primal from the Arcane perspective might make it difficult to comprehend the Divine.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

What is more likely than writers making mistakes is players and GMs having misunderstandings.

NEW PLAYER: (reading a rulebook) What is a focus spell?
GM: It is a spell cast with focus points from a focus pool instead of using prepared spells or a spell slot. All focus spells cost exactly one focus point regardless of spell level, and all focus pools start with one focus point that refreshes every morning. Some feats increase the size of the focus pool to two or three points, but it doesn't go more than three. A focus point can also be restored by performing a ten-minute Refocus activity that involves service to the god or principle that provides the power.

That's a pretty poor start to the explanation of Focus Spells. Try starting with what they actually are, rather than explaining the quite separate idea of a Focus Pool.

Focus spells are a special type of spell attained directly from a branch of study, from a deity, or from another specific source. You can learn focus spells only through special class features or feats, rather than choosing them from a spell list... you can’t prepare a focus spell in a spell slot or use your spell slots to cast focus spells;

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Also remember just because you cant think of how it will happen doesnt mean it cant, Murphy's Law and all that.

On the other hand 'writers can maybe make mistakes' doesn't really seem like an argument in and of itself to kill a mechanic. Especially when, as you've pointed out, even very basic mechanics can be misinterpreted or broken by weird exploits.

Actually you can take that a step further, if anything can break down if a writer screws up, then is it even a valid argument to single out the potential for it in this case?

I’m pretty sure the designers have a lot of thoughts on how to alter mechanics safely. I’m almost certain this is something Mark thinks about a lot. They know *how* those errors happen better than any of us, and the Oracle is clearly designed to avoid the common causes of weird exploits, misinterpretation, and brokenness. Yes, it adds complexity. But, in the safest way possible that makes it easy for developers to catch mistakes.

It’s not enough to throw up our hands and say new mechanics cause FAQ issues. We need to understand why new things do that and how we can reduce the risk of FAQs.

Temperans wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
I think I'm okay if the oracle doesn't qualify for feats/archetypes/items that require a Focus Pool. Not everything needs to work for them.

Not everything needs to work is not the same as nothing working. Currently nothing relating to focus points works with Oracle.

Well, not nothing, obviously. Focus Spells work for an oracle. And those are really the big thing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:
I don't dislike the Curse system in a vacuum. I think it makes plenty sense and it works well. My concern is how it (doesn't) interact with exterior systems. Having the Revelation spell + No Focus Pool system as is means that developers will need to spend word count making new features work with the Oracle (if they even remember to) OR just severely restrict how the Oracle will interact with archetypes/items that modify Focus.

I think I'm okay if the oracle doesn't qualify for feats/archetypes/items that require a Focus Pool. Not everything needs to work for them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
An oracle's first revelation spell spends a focus point instead of intensifying a curse. Therefore, it avoids intensifying a curse immediately in combat. Then the oracle can use the revelation spell again on the next turn by intensifying the curse. I complained about putting a discouraging additional price on the revelation spells, but I do not mind putting an alternate price on a revelation spell when out of focus points. That is a benefit rather than a penalty.

I think the result of this is that many oracles will only cast one revelation per combat and never interact with higher curse levels.

And a Refocus activity both lowers the curse and restores a focus point. Well, that pretty much means that oracle can cast twice as many revelation spells than other classes can cast their focus spells. I like enabling revelation.

I don't think that will fly with the design team. Oracles can get access to other classes' focus spells. The oracle already gets several bonus castings of revelation spells per day, regularly getting twice as many per combat strains the system.

I do agree that a constant curse effect would be nice. I think you could make a "least" curse severity from each of the curses as a constant curse effect.

Would making it a feat work for those that want to opt in to constant effects? I could see either a minor benefit for a new "least" level of curse, or a stronger benefit for never going below Minor that would compensate an oracle for giving up a daily revelation spell.

I don't think that works out to be functionally identical. Unless oracles can never Refocus to regain a Focus Point?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm having trouble parsing Rysky's suggestion. How does the curse level depend on the Focus Pool?

Between the two, I'd definitely pick "Every time you cast a focus spell, the severity of your curse increases one step. You can Refocus to reduce the severity to minor."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And how many wrongs might come out?

How many wrongs might come out if they were completely normal focus spells?

The problem with such a nebulous complaint is that it applies to anything. No matter what the final version of the Oracle looks like, there may or may not eventually be some issue that could cause problems down the road.

I can imagine a lot more errors and wonkiness trying to marry the focus pool/point system to a curse system so they work together. It is much cleaner to simply remove and replace the focus pool/points with the curse mechanic, which will lead to fewer errors down the road.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And how many wrongs might come out? Is there enough innovation and enjoyment to enjoy the added complexities?
Yes. Yes there is.
What do you enjoy about it?

It certainly gives more narrative impact than a simple focus pool. There is a lot of roleplay fodder in describing how a curse manifests as you dip further into wielding your abilities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The situations in which you want to overclock are likely to be session-enders anyway. Everyone in the party is going to take 8 hours of unconsciousness afterward.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that the description for cackle opened the RP up to be either mirth or malice. My witch is much more likely to chuckle than cackle.

Now I am imagining a Witch/monk multiclass that cackles with a sharp "Hah!".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like that idea of a witch subclass defined by your relationship to your patron. You could build up a line of feats based on forming a pact with a powerful entity versus one focused on discerning the mysteries surrounding the patron. Perhaps even one that is familiar focused for witches that try not to think about where their power ultimately comes from and focus on the messenger.

Rysky wrote:

It’s something that immediately popped out to me when I first read it, basically reading as “Ability functions as other ability except...” which Paizo has stated they wanted to move away avoid.

And I’d love to know about accidents before they happen, but that’s how accidents work, sorry that that concern sounds silly.

The write up for revelation spells gracefully avoids any "functions as X except Y" ambiguity, though. It is very clear about what works and what doesn't.

Does an oracle have Focus Points or a Focus Pool? No. Having those as well as a curse would be overly complicated.
Can an oracle use focus spells from other sources (e.g. bloodline powers)? Yes. Explicitly stated. Also clearly use the curse mechanic to cast.

There is complexity added to the system in that now we have a spellcaster that can never have Focus Points. But, there will never be ambiguity about that. If an item is published that assumes all spellcasters have Focus Pools, it is clearly wrong. If the developer is on their game, it will have a requirement that the spellcaster have a Focus Pool which clearly excludes the oracle.

The designers did a good job with revelation spells and curses altering the baseline assumptions without introducing ambiguity to the rules and how they interact.

Rysky wrote:

Mathmuse lays out well, thankies.

Before Oracle Focus was a unifying mechanic, after it broke a bit with their unique system. Unique not automatically meaning good, it’s complex and extra steps are required, from play to design, when playing with other Foci.

The way Focus Spells are defined makes them very modular and easy to subtly change like with the oracle.

I'm pretty interested in how their status as a spellcaster with no Focus Points works out. I kind of want to make a melee Dragon bloodline Flame oracle to play with now.

Data Lore wrote:

I still dont get it. Focus spells are meant to use focus points (hence the name). I dont see why the oracle powers are implemented in this janky way that preclude other focus powers when they can just be special cantrips that ratchet up your curse.

Either solution requires going against the grain of PF2 design. I am just suggesting a solution that doesnt require some weird except that fouls up multiclassing.

Where is this idea coming from that you can't get other focus spells?

Instead, you cast revelation spells, or other focus spells you learn, by drawing upon the power of your mystery, which incurs the effects of your oracular curse (see below).

Oracles can get bloodline powers or whatever focus spell they can access. They just use their curse pool rather than Focus Points.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The GM in PFS is Tonya. One person.

There are no rules, and the GM is not obligated to make stuff up. Why is that a problem? If the GM doesn't want to make stuff up, the player is more than welcome to. If the player doesn't want to make it up, why are they playing a witch?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would make the investigator a Ranger path, not a rogue racket.
I guess that as a hybrid class, the investigator pulls enough from both to warrant being it's own class.

Salamileg wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
If the GM doesn't want to do the work, maybe he shouldn't allow witches in his campaign.
Pathfinder Society Play
Honest question as a person who has never played PFS. Even if the Witch has specific patrons baked in (let's say Baba Yaga) would a PFS GM actually do anything with that? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can work with in a public game no matter what.

Players in PFS have a lot of free reign on these sorts of things. A witch playing in PFS could have just about any Patron they wanted from Golarion. Other players and NPCs have no obligation to believe the witch, but PFS is ultimately much less restrictive than a home game in this regard.

Squiggit wrote:
Mechanically I'd like to see the current Lesson system remain intact, with specific Patrons connected to Golarion having certain lessons that they qualify as eligible for. Perhaps also anathema and some sort of minor boon associated with them.

This is my thought as well. I like the flexibility to define my own patron through lessons I choose. Keep pre-defined specific patrons as an option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thoroughly enjoy these short fiction blogs. Such interesting characters in every one.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I would just like you to try and explain why your reading makes sense.

graystone's position here as far as I understand it is that because the rules for concealment mention that they trigger before you roll for effect, they're irrelevant when dealing with spells that don't contain such a roll.

Essentially, something that happens before you make your attack roll or force a save can't apply to something that never requires an attack roll nor save to begin with.

For a similar reason that you don't roll for concealment on an area of effect spell, you don't roll for magic missile. If you can target with magic missile, it auto-hits.


I don't read the language in guide 1.1 as limiting the hireling to once per scenario. Which part are you reading that way?

I'm looking forward to more of this series!

Sajan is pretty cool. I like how much he feels like a Monk in Core.

roll4initiative wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
roll4initiative wrote:
Can anyone tell me why Grab is Athletics versus... Fortitude? Why not Athletics vs Athletics? Kinda strange.
The question for me is why is it fortitude rather than reflex? Dodging aside from someone attempting a hold seems to make more sense than, what? Being really healthy at them?
Lol! Yes! I'm like, "Hmm, fortitude measures your resistance to poison & disease, ability to shake off fatigue, and... not being grabbed. Ohhkayy."

Fortitude measures your resistance to being paralyzed and slowed, too.

1177 - Role Reversal

Loki would put on a good show for it, too.

cartmanbeck wrote:
2. Since these characters may still be played using old sets and therefore old locations which are not banished when closed, (for example in Organized Play) I don't think any of these powers need to be changed. The characters are a bit less potent when played with the Core and Curse sets, but I think that's just okay, personally.

Do you not have the opportunity to move when playing old sets under Core rules and not banishing locations? If the power is redundant, it should be replaced with something like Core Amiri's power.

If it is not redundant, I would prefer to combine the old-style power and the Core version to have a power that works equally well in either set, rather than have character potency depend on which box you use.


The guide clearly states that you can spend only a single day using Earn Income (such as when retraining for 7 days first).

If you can earn income for a single day, why can't you Earn Income for multiple single days?

UndeadViking wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
UndeadViking wrote:

If you roll high, you go first even though you are unaware the creature is there.

That's my understanding based on previous posts.

This is where I'm confused

If you rolled high enough on Perception to go first, you noticed something was off. That doesn't give you the location of the hidden ambushers, but gives the character an opportunity to use the Seek action.

What exactly they perceive is up to the GM. But, it could be a falling pebble, a cracked twig, or even just Spidey-sense.

Hi Rex, I get part of what you're saying, but if the monster's Stealth roll beat your Perception DC, you don't know it's there: you perceived nothing.

That's incorrect. If a monster's stealth beats the character's Perception DC, the monster remains undetected. That is not the same thing as remaining unnoticed.

The character's Perception check beat the monster's Stealth DC. That is why the character gets to go first and why the monster is undetected instead of unnoticed.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>