Voss's page

To add to Deriven’s OP - for those porting over from PF1 - what is different - what can’t you do any longer that you could, or if that is boring/obvs what can you do now that you couldn’t?

No ley line guardian (or other archetypes) Can't trade a vulnerability out for a class feature that -can't- be stabbed in the face.

I think folks are overcomplicating this;

Arcane= Standard D&D Wizard spell list with a very small number of cuts (finger of death and the like)

Divine= Standard D&D Cleric spell list with a large pile of buffs cut

Primal= Standard D&D Druid Spell list + wizard damaging spells

Occult= Bard spell list expanded with the cleric/wizard support overlap plus force, tentacle and color spells, because Lovecraft.

All the bits about essences and whatnot is just window dressing and post hoc justifications.
Cleric buffs were problematic for PF2 so they got cut.
Druids spells were lacking, so they got a layer of blasting.
Wizards got to keep most of their stuff because they're wizards.
Bards had to get expanded to 10 levels, so they got 4 and a half decades of the accumulated D&D weirdness.

Voss wrote:

Its also, unfortunately, something that seems entirely out of place for the setting.

Scratching my head at this assertion. There's nothing particularly setting breaking about casting a spell to call up a big thing for a short duration.

Its the FF limit break aspect. Where its an entity that isn't actually an entity for the sake of a big flashy visual effect and then it swans off to wherever it doesn't exist.

There really isn't anything like it in the setting, whereas keeping it as a normal spell effect (albeit over two rounds), lets people get creative with how their spells look and behave, rather than just triggering the same battle music and cutscene that you just want to skip after the 4th or so time you cast it.

And since its a pen and paper RPG, you just innately skip all that anyway, so the strong visual tie to an overly specific 'non-entity' entity doesn't actually give any benefits in the first place.

A fixed manifestation to a new type of thing for the world simply has more drawbacks than benefits.

They seem like summoners to me.
Not sure how training and concentration factor in, they certain aren't required, nor are eidolon a 'psychic projections'

I'm not sure what the issue is beyond summoners don't really want to use summon spells, which is missing the Shakespearean rose for its 'any other name,' imo. Druids are nothing like their historical namesake, clerics don't clerk, etc.

Voss wrote:

but first time around you can make perfectly valid choices with no mistakes and still end up being punished for it.

It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life. - JL Picard

Pithy. But I don't find it makes for a very fun _game_, so I avoid classes centered around that kind of choice.

Voss wrote:

I also tend to prefer spontaneous to prepared casters to avoid hitting the 'Ye have chosen... poorly' problem.

So choose poorly once and stick with it?

I like spontaneous casters for younger players, inexperienced players, or players who for some reason or other don't feel like spending a bunch of brain power re-choosing their spell list for the day. It speeds up game play.

Personally I like prepared casters because if I choose poorly one day, I can learn from the mistake and choose better the next morning.

Er, no. As others have mentioned, it involves making more generally applicable choices.

---
As for 'learning from mistakes,' I've never found that particularly applies. Too much revolves around the adventure and the DM. If there suddenly aren't any more undead past point X in the adventure, your anti-undead and various restoration spells no longer matter. There was no mistake, the gears just shifted without warning.

Too often 'didn't prepare appropriate spells' is a metagame failure of 'didn't successfully read the DM's mind.'

Its the same reason I always disliked 'favored enemy' for the ranger. If you're playing something like Kingmaker, choosing anything but fey and magical beasts is largely a waste of resources, especially long term. But you still have to deal with that chapter that centers around undead and giants. Second time around, its trivial to metagame, but first time around you can make perfectly valid choices with no mistakes and still end up being punished for it.

I tend to use up low level spells. Its high level spells I try to hang on to, in case the next encounter is the Big One (or goes awry).

I also tend to prefer spontaneous to prepared casters to avoid hitting the 'Ye have chosen... poorly' problem.

I don't have a problem with 4 slot casting. I think the main issue is that people still see both of these classes as casters. While they can cast spells, casting spells isn't their main shtick.

Problem is, it isn't clear what their 'main shtick' actually is.

I see both the new classes like monk, champion, or even a druid who takes a bunch of focus spells. Hell, because they use focus spells over spell slots those classes are likely going to be doing more casting than a magus or summoner over the course of the day.

And the problem here is the focus spells for the magus and summoner are either rather indifferent or nigh mandatory.

Magus potency, their basic spell, depends entirely on whether or not you have item runes- its great if you want to pick up and swing any old thing, but redundant if you have what's expected of you by the game's math.

Hasted assault goes the other direction- use it always if you have focus to spare. Except of courses its real late in the leveling tree, most campaigns will never get there or will be wrapping up at this point.

Summoner has the opposite problem- their focus spells are 'math fixers,' that should be used whenever they can, _if_ you can find the spare actions to do it. But they don't actually give the class a role, beyond 'the eidolon is far more important (and more interesting), than that mobile anchor who wanders around in the back somewhere). I like the idea of the summoner, even some of the implementation here, but the caster feels like a real drag on the gestalt character's ability to act.

Yeah. Design needs a direction first, feedback later. 'Feedback' first means getting lost in the desert really fast.

Interesting. I think it highlights that losing the utility of low level slots is too high a cost. The top level slots aren't actually worth that loss- with both classes I'd be much happier the other way around. More lower level and feel free to snip the top end. At least they wouldn't feel quite so lacking in options or ability to contribute outside X fights per day, where X depends entirely on how quickly you dump your few spell slots.

Especially in areas that aren't fights.

Lack of legendary doesn't bother me at all.
Getting expert and master so very late, on the other hand... That's really bad.

Voss wrote:

Honestly, the easiest change to synthesis is to allow the combined creature to cast conduit spells and self targeting spells from the summoner's spells known, using the summoner's slots.

And that any effect on the summoner migrates to the new combined creature.

That might not be enough. Having to spend 1 action / turn to compete in melee and not having a fourth action might make them not competitive option compared to martial classes. I would be more in favor of getting the bonus given by Boost Eidolon if you're merged with your eidolon (I assume synthesis would be a class path and not a feat).

Oh, I don't disagree- but assessing focus spells is a huge problem for me personally, they never seem like they do enough (the oracle was and is a huge problem, as I'd almost never consider casting a focus spell being worth the penalties invoked)

So, yeah, conduit spells likely need tweaking, but I'm definitely not the person to do it.

But synthesis bringing the hammer down on everything else your class does seems obviously way too much, especially given how limited you are in 'everything else' just to have the eidolon at all.

Just the action cost to go in and out of synthesis makes it rather prohibitive to even attempt janky things in play.

Honestly, the easiest change to synthesis is to allow the combined creature to cast conduit spells and self targeting spells from the summoner's spells known, using the summoner's slots.

And that any effect on the summoner migrates to the new combined creature.

Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

Having cantrips isn't noteworthy. -Any- character can have cantrips through class, ancestry or dedication feats, either at level 1 or 2. They all scale and they're at the same attack bonus as the magus until 11th level (or higher with more feats, except cantrips from other classes obviously get higher attack earlier than a magus). That magus is actually pretty bad when it comes to keeping up with cantrips, beyond having several with no additional investment.

Medium armor proficiency is actually more difficult to get that early (or it was, since there is an archetype for that now)

Full caster is a bit much to claim. Casting Expertise is coming 4 levels late and your casting stat is also behind, and 4 spells total (6 with a nigh-mandatory feat) is a lot of lost magic ability.
Mastery comes so late it doesn't even matter.

Martial weapon and armor progression is nice, but they're sacrificing a lot for that.

Its actually not even clear that the sigil doesn't glow even when the Eidolon isn't manifested. Your link remains, see 'your connection also allows you to communicate... at all times, even when they aren't manifested.'

I think I know what the intent here is, but as written, you've got a constant night-light on your body that shines through every layer you put on top of it. Forever.

... can you read by its light? Do you never need darkvision?

Ressy wrote:

It really feels like the Magus was balanced around taking Wizard dedication.

Wizard also gives you access to a focus spell that works fairly well with Striking Spell in the form of Force Bolt, which is something the current Magus lacks.

All in all, I'm a bit afraid of the fact that Magi have so many abilities that synergise with spells and so few spells at their disposal that a spellcasting dedication overshadows a large part of their native class feats.

Yeah. I'm not 100% convinced the 2/2 casting is outright bad, but I do feel like the Magus is done better by taking a fighter and throwing the standard array of multiclassing feats into the mix. And that's definitely a bad impression of the class.

Multiclassing a non magus provides more flexible, more effective, and honestly more interesting. I don't care at all about missing out on 9th level spells at the top end. That isn't where most gameplay happens, so I don't expect to reach those spells with any class.

Spell strike seems great for people who like to gamble but too often (especially for the poor two-hander specialization) You're going for one big attack every two turns, and if it whiffs, you're not contributing at all, and probably won't next turn either. Piling up actions in attempt to be two other classes simultaneously just doesn't seem workable.

The magus also feels like Martial Caster at 6th is an absolutely required feat. I can see a delay for spell countermeasures in some cases, but by 10th at the latest, its seems required to get extra haste spells in. Energize strikes, by comparison, is a joke. Trivial damage bonus for juggling yet more actions you don't have.

-------

Summoner I'm far less certain about. 2/2 spells feels like far too few, and the class is very feat starved so can't really go into multiclass feats to cope.

Surprisingly I like this version of the summoner, but I think its struggling to keep up. A few too many investments, and too few options. I definitely think the eidolon should be able to cast conduit spells, and if it can cast all the summoner's spells (or be used as the origin point) it solves a lot of issues (particularly with synthesis).

Tandem move is another feat that just seems required (and perhaps should just be an inherent part of the class).

Some reactions would help, as too often even Act Together and Tandem Move, any turn where the summoner wants to cast, its effectively a null turn for the Eidolon. (since Act Together can't be used for multi-action 'activities'

Deriven Firelion wrote:

So basically an animal companion is more superhuman than an eidolon along with an attending character being vastly more powerful than a summoner.

All NPCs have inflated stat modifiers, without a proper ability score. That's the scale Animal Companions on.

Eidolons are on the player scale, which is not directly comparable.

That does not make them less superhuman.

The numbers go into the same combat system, so they are directly comparable.

If their bonus is lower, they're objectively less superhuman.

Ascalaphus wrote:

If alignment damage works on everyone then it quickly turns into "just damage".

Is that really a bad thing though? I mean, Slashing, Piercing, Fire, Sonic, Electric and Cold are all 'just damage' too and it doesn't seem like much of a problem.

As written, the function of Aligned damage and spells like Divine Wrath give players a perverse incentive to game their alignment when that should be one of the most personal and story-focused aspects of chargen.

I don't really agree. Alignment is, and has always been, just a tag.

Alignment mostly exists to create arguments about what a character 'should' do when bereft of actual motivations, habits and preferences.

---
As the game doesn't really bother to explain what 'good' and 'evil' damage actually do or how they hurt people, immunity to it seems fine. I'd assume a character is equally immune to 'blueberry' or 'truth' damage types.

Those are dimensions, not resolution.

How large a image is doesn't say anything about the quality of the image. 300 dpi vs 900 dpi (dots per inch), for example, is a huge jump in image quality. But also dramatically affects file size in terms of megabytes

Hello Everyone. I’m trying to introduce some new players to Pathfinder 2e, but something that is causing some confusion is the differences between the 4 magic traditions. Pathfinder 2e divides magic into 4 traditions (Arcane, Divine, Occult and Primal), but there doesn’t seem to be a good explanation of the practical differences for each tradition. Yes, the 2e SRD says that Arcane Magic is “built on logic and rationality” while Occult Magic “seeks to understand the unexplainable, categorize the bizarre, and otherwise access the ephemeral in a systematic way”, but from a gameplay perspective, that doesn’t really explain what types of spells Arcane magic would have that Occult would not.

The most obvious practical difference between the 4 magic traditions is that Arcane magic doesn’t have any healing spells, whereas all of the other schools do. The SRD also states that Arcane magic has the broadest spell list, but doesn’t elaborate on what types of spells that would include. I rather not tell my players to read the entire spell list for each tradition and figure it out for themselves. Can anyone provide a practical explanation as to what type of spells each magic tradition contains?

Its basically the classic D&D spells that have been around for ~45 years. There really isn't much more to it than that on the practical level.

Arcane = Wizard, more or less unaltered
Divine = Cleric, minus some of the major buffs from 3rd edition/PF1
Primal = Druid + blasty wizard spells
Occult = Wizard & Cleric support spells plus tentacles, colors and some strays (because Cthulhu).

The essences explanations exist, but if you change the flavor text of various spells (ie, make them do the same thing in a different way) you can add or subtract various spells from the lists they're currently on.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Bouncing off an earlier comment, I think one of the things really holding alchemists back is that consumables are really weak. Like, unless they're free I'd never even consider buying most of them.

Alchemical consumables are fairly weak relative to their cost (IMO) with some small exceptions. Though arguably this is because they're balanced around the alchemist making them rather than someone else buying them, the ability to purchase them is more of an afterthought.

I think that's broadly true, but... personally, there needs to be more to a class than the discount version of a shopping list, and more to class feats than making the discount store purchases 'less bad.'

I've seen people argue that the PF1 Alchemist got too much (multiple stacking buffs out of different resource pools), but the PF2 version really lost too much.

It feels like the old 'Expert' NPC class with a weak theme.

Most Anathema lists have a mix between the petty minor stuff. and the "the GM is angry that your paladin is eating babies".

Well, a lot of the core 20 actually... don't. You're kind of assuming that lying doesn't matter too much, but the anathema write-ups put it on equal footing without any real distinction.

But many of them are related ideas that seem equal, not 'lesser' and 'greater' anathema. Pharasma is pretty much: don't mess with the dead, Abadar's are: don't steal, don't mess with courts, Gorum wants every conflict resolved with a test of arms, Torag wants honesty and genocide, etc.

The real trick are the deities that can derail a campaign because of their anathema. Pharasma can be a problem if someone stuck their plot macguffin in a tomb, Gorum is just a constant problem if some of the party wants to talk, Cayden's followers can constantly go off on tangents if slavers wander by.

New comic is up, and all I can think of is 'Roy would be excellent at CinemaSins.'

Seems to be channeling the audience on the god talk.

What's missing from the rules is a formal discussion of the player's choice in what is used for Init prior to rolling.

That doesn't seem to be missing- it is _never_ the players choice, as quoted above.

Though I don't actually see anything that says that the initiative roll would not be a new, separate roll.

The typical perception check is specifically for initiative, not to spot anything. The example for not using Perception (if you were Avoiding Notice during exploration), simply states you'd roll a Stealth check. Or Deception/Diplomacy if social encounters. None of those skill rolls suggest they do anything but set your initiative number.

Squiggit wrote:

Kelseus wrote:

extreme RAW reading

It's not really 'extreme' though.

But it is though.

1) it is an absurd effect
2) ignoring it does nothing to boost a PCs power
3) enforcing it just punishes the PC

That's all pretty subjective. The spell, on the other hand, is very clear- it only moves the caster.

There are two very easy options:
if you don't want the spell to fail, don't have a familiar.
or
if you don't want to leave the familiar behind, don't take the spell.

Given how hard Dim-Door was hit with the nerf bat for 2e (much shorter range, line of sight only), it isn't exactly a go-to spell anyway. There are much better spell options for mobility, several of which are 1st level.

I'm not following the last bit. The assumptions about elementals in D&D/PF aren't racist, they're usually considered rigidly neutral and indifferent, with the summoner being the factor as to whether they're foes or not.

Far from subverting anything, this scenario just sets up the idea that you can and should murder hobo everything that isn't the obvious damsel in distress.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

But also, there are times when you need to examine things other than the RAW in order for PCs to feel they were treated fairly. I mean, technically, you can do all sorts of things to screw PCs over within the rules as written that remain deeply un-fun and will breed resentment and cause the players to feel like they are not being treated fairly.

That's basically the purpose of this thread, to examine those other things.

Asgetrion wrote:

IMO that is the worst kind of beginning for a new game.

The worst? Really?

Not the worst, personally, but pretty bad.

The most likely scenario is the targets and the assassins are all dead at the end (because the assassins turn on the party afterwards).

So... there's no hook. Some random strangers are dead on the road, and the PCs aren't motivated to really do anything afterwards.

Its actually worse than just finding the aftermath of the murder, because the players are going to feel like they can't trust the situation- ie, hauling the girl's corpse along to wherever the PCs are going has a high likelihood of going wrong.

The best reaction is to check for any convenient bags of gold and walk away.

There is a lot of lobby work for turn based, so I wondered why they made it real-time in the first place. It might be in favor of players who are not familiar with 3.x / Pathfinder's convoluted action system - real-time hides it somewhat. Such players are sometimes overwhelmed with the ruleset anyway (Owlcat forums have some postings about that), fully confronting them with the action system would have made it worse.

Personally, I'd go for a refined auto-pause system like Baldur's Gate II had. That way everyone can configure which event triggers a break from the flow, up to the point of effectively making it turn based. Ideally there would be buttons like "turn based" and "real-time", to avoid the hassle with the triggers.

It already has a lot of auto-pause triggers. Far more than BG or BG2 had (or has, the Enhanced Edition has 11 pause triggers), to be honest. Kingmaker has 24 different ones (and two have options of enemy, ally or both) with a quick check of the options menu- including pausing at end of round, ability use, spell use, start of spell casting, attack of opportunity, etc.

You're asking for something that already exists in the current game, in a more complex format than the 'refined' system you're using as an example.

The why 'they made it real time in the first place' answer is also Baldur's Gate.

I do find it somewhat amusing that even the most 'lawful stupid' paladin comes out as more reasonable than some interpretations of the neutral and chaotic champion tenets.

The liberator in particular is a game derail waiting to happen, and if read too literally is self-contradictory.

On the other hand, some of the anathema are even worse, and for a couple of gods, having their cleric in the party puts a kibosh on standard adventuring plots (Pharasma and Gorum in particular).

Really? It seems to have doubled down on building the character stats and nothing else to me. Characters are relentlessly the same (broad strokes between classes and almost no variation within classes), with maybe a few personality quirks (if the player bothers) that don't feel tied in to the character- they're interchangeable between whatever stat blocks you happen to play.

Someone mentioned the overlap of bards and occult sorcerers above, which I just find odd. The bard is just strictly better. That's just how PF2 rolls - sometimes there are dead options that fill out the stat block, and its best just to avoid them.

Ravingdork wrote:

Bellybeard, there's a big difference between limitations of a class, and actively punishing/penalizing a player.

The barbarian has limitations, like any class. Without such limitations, there would be no class dimorphism.

What the oracles does though is punish you for playing an oracle, for even using its primary class abilities.

Curses are fine, but they should be flavor, or perhaps minor limitations that can be easily built around, such as your character is cursed with hideousness (no mechanical effect) or your character cannot wear metal armor (per druid), that sort of thing.

I agree that the Oracle has too many drawbacks and not enough outstanding benefits, but neutering curses entirely is an awful design. You might as well not have the curses at all if you can just ignore them. Moreover, why do you even care? If you're so dead-set on hating curses, then don't play the class whose entire identity is being cursed. You already have the Sorcerer and Cleric to use instead anyway.

Don't ruin other people's fun just because you don't like something. There's nothing wrong with having interesting drawbacks that reinforce a class's theme and give it mechanical weight.

Yeah, but they need to be interesting. That's the big point. And at no point should your 'interesting' class feature be 'you the player can no longer participate in the game.'

Especially when the in-game time could involve the rest of the game session or even reach into further sessions.

Talk about ruining fun...

Yeah, this is not the same level of playtest as the full ruleset playtest we had for the full system playtest.

It's more in line with the previous playtests for when they did new PF1 classes.

It IS the same level of playtest surveys for the PF2 base classes.

The questions were the same, using the same form, to the point they even forgot to remove 'alchemist' and replace it with 'investigator' in several questions when they first went up.

Honestly, a single piece of equipment released with less than 50 words, placed on the gear table, and MAYBE a piece of 1-inch art would suffice to fix this in the form of a Familiar Satchel with rules on how they can be safely stowed away on the Masters body in exchange for something like 1 Bulk.

Making the class dependent on a pokeball to avoid game mechanics pretty much kills the flavor of the class.

I like the idea of a spirit animal that can manifest if the witch wants to take the risk.

With minor penalties that last until the next full rest if it does die.

Voss wrote:

Set wrote:

I would imagine that Tengu got the leg up over the Tiefling because they, and Goblins, are more uniquely 'Golarion' and not associated as strongly with D&D.

...they're a Japanese myth. They're not uniquely Golarion at all. While goblins aren't Japanese in origin, they're not uniquely Golarion either.

More 'uniquely Golarion' in that they aren't associated with Planescape or Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms or some other company's IP, like Tieflings.

Pretty sure tengu were in the Kara-Tur area of the Forgotten Realms, as it was the generalized asian adventures expy area, exactly like whatever-its-called in Golarion.

To be completely transparent, you've hit the nail on the head. In Second Edition, a player who wants all the benefits of a divine spontaneous caster without having to maneuver around a curse mechanic has everything they want in a divine-tradition sorcerer. The oracle in Second Edition is aimed at the player who dig the "power at a cost," balancing risks and rewards, and similar options. There's absolutely nothing stopping a player from creating a fantastic narrative of a devil bloodline sorcerer whose infernal ancestor likes to meddle in the character's affairs and make their life more "interesting" (read: difficult). But there isn't a good way in the core rules to model the "power with a price" concept that you could get with the First Edition oracle - and that's the need we're looking to meet with this class.

(But I'm sorry that makes you sad, Wei Ji.)

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.

Thematically and mechanically, is the oracle class really bringing much more to the table than a divine bloodline sorcerer?

Why would anyone want to play the oracle class when they could play a divine sorcerer and stylize it as an oracle? That way they would not be held back when multiclassing (especially in regards to focus points and powers) and also would not have to worry about the needless penalties of a curse.

-Better HP

- and a choice of:
easy access to armor and weapons/
or master reflex/
or even more HP.

I'd happily trade focus spells for any of these, let alone all of them, and most of the bonuses kick in at first level, no waiting.

I can find enough passable spells in the divine list to get by.
Feats are also bad enough that I can multi-class without feeling much of an opportunity cost.

Beyond that, No, the playtest oracle isn't bringing anything mechanically or thematically (you can just RP a 'curse' for your sorcerer).

Midnightoker wrote:

Lifelink is already a familiar power, and effectively allows HP sharing

Precisely. Not only is the familiar just as easily stowed on your person to make it as untargetable as a Spellbook

Really need a rules reference for that. I haven't seen anything to suggest that PF2 familiars can be 'stowed' and that they're magically immune to everything if they are.

In actuality, the rules seem to suggest they should be taking damage from every AoE they're in, and you should be meticulously tracking their HP as much as your own.

Given the dangers of adventuring life, statistically speaking the familiar should end up dead every month or two. The damage avoidance familiar ability helps a great deal, but not much else beyond never taking reactions so you can use lifelink.

I hope they come out with an alternative to having a Familiar, for those of us who don’t want an animal companion. Anyone else feel the same?

Very, very much so. I hate the familiar rules, I despise the concept (especially if they're effectively intelligent creatures, as it effectively becomes a form of slavery), and can't stand the vulnerability in play.

To riff off a quote: "I haven't named any of my other class features." And they can't be stabbed in the face until I lose spells.

Unless it's an effort to provide Anathema with more 'narrative/mechanical weight'?

Ugh.

But also, why would using your class abilities be anathema? Why would that be a good thing?

I believe I tried to make the bad representation point somewhere above but far far less eloquently

But I was definitely having thoughts of how blind people perceive dardevil and similar ideas. So when I get time to read them I will definitely find the links interesting!

Ah, you mean how its a super bad thing that destroy lives and makes you incapable as an independent person, unless you also get superpowers that are flatly superior to being sighted and then you have value again? Yeah, Daredevil, etc. comes across as a 'little' creepy and insensitive.

so possibly to move this away from exclusitory speaking.

how could someone that is not a divine entity teach someone the divine list? is it possible to use divine magic without a connection to divine powers whether hooked up legit or otherwise?

because it seems obvious with the lack of divine, that divine entities can teach other lessons, so i would assume other entities can likewise teach whatever list suits them.

so how would say a hag go about teaching divine?

this is a legit question and if answered believably I'd be for a divine list.

Same way they teach anything else. If we're going with the default explanation for magic, the spell lists are made up of various essences combined in different ways. They've already got a handle on some of the essences regardless of which casting list they use, so working out the one other combination is far more likely than being unable to.

This is particularly true if you've got a coven of hags, and they each use a different tradition. Collectively they've already got all the pieces to divine magic, so they could teach someone the relevant bits and help them put it together in a working whole.

Divine magic isn't any more or less special than any other type of magic.

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

If the limitation is kept, absolutely yes.

I am starting playtest sessions today so not yet sure on my balance judgments, but this is a matter of formatting and standardisation.

Agreed.

Tracking that they hexed Bob the Guard at 12:14:03 precisely, and they can't give healing to Sally the Fighter until 3:13:04 AM is just a problem waiting to happen. It doesn't help and doesn't fit fluff or mechanics well.

But the fact is that 'just solve it with feats' isn't a viable solution and new classes allow you to implement entirely new mechanics and dynamics of features that you couldn't accomplish otherwise.

Problem is, I still don't see the swashbuckler as any better than doing a 'swashbuckler' as a fighter or rogue.

Entirely new mechanics aren't always a plus. I'm still at a loss what purpose several of the new mechanics actually serve. None of the new ones seem particularly good or straightforward, and alchemist (just be a real class and go to a shop), bard and sorcerer are still puzzling balls of multiple mechanics (scaling cantrips, higher level cantrips and focus spells) all providing the same essential function.

Its also very bad and easy to break. And also I don't know how the witch is actually drawing the line once it does get bigger. They'd have to leave their space, but its a THREE action spell.

I get the theme they're trying to go for, but Bob the Demon can just say 'smudge it or I'll kill you' to any passing bystander and its gone. (fey can likely persuade animals or summon animals to do it].

Or a horde of minions can try and are statistically likely to pass and disarm it. Its a downright terrible use of a feat, focus point and full round of actions.

Any other major lesson (and some greater lessons) are a better choice.

Part of the thing that came up in one of the GenCon panels is that they wanted the Oracle to emphasize the pantheistic focus more, which didn't happen in PF1.

Its weird though, because it doesn't have any hallmarks of a pantheist, or someone that needs to care about the divine in any way at all. [except the weird spells in the divine list that can only be used if you've got a non-neutral god attached to your person. Though that raises all sorts of questions if your source of 'flames' is SaeRaeRae AND Azzy-D simultaneously. Divine lance does what kind of damage? Or is neither 'actually' your god and you can't cast it at all?]

But oracles have a small pile of spells, and a smaller pile of spells that backfire on them if overused. Paying homage to a pantheon isn't required. Nothing is really. You can be indifferent or hostile or think you're a wizard.

'Charisma mage with a minor theme that they might not even want to use' isn't a strong concept for a class, but at the moment that's the only thing the class presents, beyond a decree of 'But Thou Must' for the divine spell list.

James Jacobs wrote:

That's the thing for me—I don't see a patron as someone who gives anyone anything. They're not a source of power... they're an inspiration. If this were a real-world concept, a patron would be more like a teacher or an inspiring author or a politician or an activist—someone whose actions inspire you to take a specific route and to study and better yourself. Which means you can even have a dead person/deity as your patron.

I could see a mechanic whereby the patrons are listed not by name, but by role. Things like "Artist" or "Singer" or "Explorer" or "Teacher" or "Politician" or whatever. But with more flavorful names that make it sound like things a witch might be into, along with a few Golarion-flavored examples of patrons, before whatever else mechanical gets in there to do its thing. This way, the player could pick ANY NPC or whoever in any setting, potentially even for different roles. For example, a witch could pick Runelord Sorshen as a Teacher or a Politician and get different results....

Isn't that more akin to a muse? Being an inspiration an all that? If it goes that way, I think "patron" as a name should change.

Agreed. I have a hard time with that, especially with the familiar acting as a transfer point for actual powers, and power loss if the familiar gets killed. That's a lot more than just 'inspiration.'

On the threads topic: I kinda like the lessons you can string together yourself but I agree they should have more mechanical impact. At least every lesson should have one edict and one anathema.

Definitely disagree on this though. Edicts/Anathema are ridiculous punishment tools for the DM that get in the way of role-playing.

Its largely missing any sort of theme.

Be a primary spellcaster, but pick a spell list, slowly cludge together some random powers, always be starved for actions.

Plus as a bonus, constantly worry you're going to lose access to your abilities because you're saddled with a familiar.

Not much to the class beyond that. (And sadly I think its the most interesting of the four)

Not too keen on stat trading, and I wouldn't want to saddle the shaman with the bad chassis (bad HP, poor proficiencies).