| voska66 |
I thought the Cavalier was cool but the Oracle, now that is really cool. I'm seeing few issue though that only play testing determine if it's too good or not. Going to start CoT soon and this is perfect time to play test. I'm sure one of my players will take the Oracle for sure. The Cavalier I doubt will be used but I think I'll use it somewhere as NPC bad guy.
Tensility&Momentum
|
I thought the Cavalier was cool but the Oracle, now that is really cool. I'm seeing few issue though that only play testing determine if it's too good or not. Going to start CoT soon and this is perfect time to play test. I'm sure one of my players will take the Oracle for sure. The Cavalier I doubt will be used but I think I'll use it somewhere as NPC bad guy.
I don't know. I'm about to make an Oracle to play in a PbP game; however, now that I see it, my initial reaction is that the class is largely inferior to the Cleric, certainly more so than the original 3.5ed Sorceror was compared to the Wizard before PFRPG smoothed that balance out (thank you for that, by the way).
When I compare the power of Channeling to that of Revelations, I'm left a bit cold by the latter. New ones come too infrequently, and quite a few of them simply don't scale well in power over career progression. One extra use per day every five levels?! Meh. I'll reserve judgement until I've had the chance to really playtest, but I suspect that Revelations will need some tweaking.
Also, the number of extra spells per day and spontaneous casting isn't really an even trade for the limited number of spells known and the lost level of spell progression, especially given the Cleric's existing albeit limited ability to spontaneously cast.
Anyway, for whatever it's worth, that's my first impression of Oracle. I'll report more later after I've played one for a while. All of that said, I think the Cavalier is an excellent class and quite well done. Bravo!
JoelF847
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
It seems the Oracle is just the divine version of a Sorcerer. Am I wrong?
At a very basic leavel, sure, that's 100% accurate. Just like the sorcerer is just a spontaneous version of the wizard, and the druid is just a naturey version of the cleric. From the sounds of it, the inquisitor is also just a divine version of the bard.
However, all of these classes bring something else to the table than the class that they are similar to. I know that spontaneous casters are great for newer players, since they don't have to worry about what spells to prepare each day and what every spell in the book does as much, so I'm in favor of filling out the spontaneous caster ranks.
Beckett
|
On the other hand, spont. casters tend to get kind of boring fast because for a long while, they are (not literally) one-trick-ponies.
I've built an Oracle at varying levels just to see what the numbers look like, and it does seem weaker than the Cleric and Druid, but I have not playtested it, and really wish I could get an answer to my earlier questions, which would make a lot of difference.
It does look fun, but than so did the Favored Soul and it distinctly was not.
Beckett
|
Depending on if they can cast different alignment spells, and a few other things like that, I might say it is what the PF cleric should have been :)
But that is kind of my point. The Favored Soul "looked" pretty good. So did the Mystic (Dragonlance). But, in playthey really did not work well at all. The Mystic was just straight up weaker than the Cleric in all but one area and it did not balance it back out at all, while the Favored Soul's poor mechanics and lack of love (no further material and almost absolute exclusion from most divine and caster feats/prestige classes) made it absolutly terrible and frustrating to play past low low level. But it looked good.