How many spells do oracles get?

[Ravingdork]

I'm aware that the remaster oracle gets more spell SLOTS than their non-remaster counterpart, but I'm curious to know if they also got additional spells known to their repetoire to match.

The book text and Pathbuilder seems to indicate that I have 4 slots for each spell rank at most levels, but only 3 base spells known for each rank. Is that right?

[Baarogue]

There is what looks like a mismatch in rule text and example text in the Spell Repertoire section, PC2 pp 130-131

Spell Repertoire, emphasis mine wrote:

The collection of spells you can cast is called your spell repertoire. At 1st level, you learn two 1st rank divine spells of your choice and five divine cantrips of your choice. you choose these from the common spells on the divine list or from other divine spells to which you have access. you can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell rank.

You add to this spell repertoire as you increase in level. Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank. At 2nd level, you select another 1st rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd rank spells, and so on. When you add spells, you might add a higher rank version of a spell you already have, so you can cast a heightened version of that spell.

Your spell slots and the spells in your spell repertoire are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your spell repertoire, it wouldn't give you another spell slot, and vice versa.

The number of spells you gain at character creation and when gaining a new spell rank appear to be stuck at the old oracle's amount of 2, when the table it tells you to refer to shows that you gain 3 new slots when gaining a new spell rank. Pathbuilder may be adhering too closely to the example text when it should go with the rule text if they conflict

Some might think the granted spells are supposed to make up the difference, but they aren't granted to oracles at every spell rank like they are for sorcerers, nor are they even consistently granted at the same ranks to all mysteries (Ancestors gets granted spells at 1st, 2nd, and 5th ranks, while Lore gets them at 1st, 3rd, and 6th ranks for instance) so I don't buy that. I suspect this just slipped through the cracks of editing. I would go with the rule text over the example text, and say you learn 3 spells when gaining a new spell rank and another the next level for a total of 4 (before granted spells)

additional complication:

By itself this will result in an imbalance of spells known per rank due to the granted spells being added to the mix. At first level you'll know 6 cantrips and 3 1st rank spells (5 cantrips and 2 spells chosen, plus 1 of each granted - all mysteries do have a granted cantrip and 1st rank spell), but after gaining another 1st rank spell known at level 2, you'll have 1 fewer known 1st rank spell than at any other rank you gain a granted spell. You decide if that's an issue worth taking up with your GM. Personally, I would rule you can choose 3 1st rank spells at c.creation plus the granted

[Tridus]

No one really knows for sure.

PC2 says that it's 3 spells known and 3 spell slots per rank in the text. The table says spell slots is 4. There's no errata, which is frankly ridiculous given this situation.

There's a PFS clarification that says this: "The oracle’s Spells Per Day table is correct about their number of spells and spell slots. The text explaining their spellcasting was not updated to match."

That means both numbers are 4, assuming you read "spells and spell slots" to read "spells in your repertoire and spell slots".

That would actually give Oracle AFAIK the most spells in a repertoire of any class, since Sorcerer gets 3 + 1 (bloodline) and 4 slots, while Oracle would be getting 4, plus Mystery spells at certain levels, plus Divine Access.

And I'm less clear on if "Oracle gets the biggest repertoire of any spontaneous caster in the game" is actually what's intended or not. Pathbuilder's developer is apparently feeling the same way and going with 3 until an actual errata comes out.

This is pretty much an "ask your GM" question until we get errata, though anecdotally having the spells per rank and the repertoire both at 4 seems to be the more common ruling at the moment.

[Ravingdork]

All other spontaneous classes have their base number of spell slots match their base repertoire though, right? (Not counting bonus spells or spell slots from other class abilities, like healing font.)

If that's the case, then I think I too will stick with the trend of 4/4 in my games until we get official clarification.

[Bluemagetim]

Well maybe they put it out this way on accident but then are assessing the accident against player reactions to see what direction to errata?

[Easl]

Could the conflict in count be explained by the granted spells? IOW your four slots = four repetoire spells, consisting of three spells you pick for your repetoire + one spell that gets automatically added to your repetoire based on your mystery.

??

[Squiggit]

No, because mysteries don't add enough spells.

[Captain Morgan]

There's nothing in the rules suggesting oracles should get 4 spells known per level, and I will be treating it as 3 spells known per level. Yes, this breaks the old design paradigm. But oracles already did that when they got 4 slots per level while having 8 hp per level, armor proficiency, and a great save progression. That + curse bound actions makes them feel extremely stacked.

Giving them 4 spells known as a baseline would mean they wind up with six more spells known than the sorcerer and more flexibility in choosing another nine. Sorferr has less hp, no armor, and worse save progression. Sorcerous potency and blood magic are not enough to make up for all this.

[Baarogue]

>There's nothing in the rules
Except the text of the rule itself?
>Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank
The table shows 4 spells per rank. The example is what doesn't match

And where are you getting this "six more spells known... another nine, etc." stuff? Show your math plx

[Ravingdork]

Captain Morgan wrote:

There's nothing in the rules suggesting oracles should get 4 spells known per level, and I will be treating it as 3 spells known per level. Yes, this breaks the old design paradigm. But oracles already did that when they got 4 slots per level while having 8 hp per level, armor proficiency, and a great save progression. That + curse bound actions makes them feel extremely stacked.

Giving them 4 spells known as a baseline would mean they wind up with six more spells known than the sorcerer and more flexibility in choosing another nine. Sorferr has less hp, no armor, and worse save progression. Sorcerous potency and blood magic are not enough to make up for all this.

Coincidentally, I'm asking precisely because I was in the middle of converting a premaster divine sorcerer character into an a remaster oracle for precisely that reasons you stated.

[Captain Morgan]

Ravingdork wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

There's nothing in the rules suggesting oracles should get 4 spells known per level, and I will be treating it as 3 spells known per level. Yes, this breaks the old design paradigm. But oracles already did that when they got 4 slots per level while having 8 hp per level, armor proficiency, and a great save progression. That + curse bound actions makes them feel extremely stacked.

Giving them 4 spells known as a baseline would mean they wind up with six more spells known than the sorcerer and more flexibility in choosing another nine. Sorferr has less hp, no armor, and worse save progression. Sorcerous potency and blood magic are not enough to make up for all this.

Coincidentally, I'm asking precisely because I was in the middle of converting a premaster divine sorcerer character into an a remaster oracle for precisely that reasons you stated.

I mean, what more proof do you need?

[Captain Morgan]

Baarogue wrote:

>There's nothing in the rules

Except the text of the rule itself?
>Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank
The table shows 4 spells per rank. The example is what doesn't match

And where are you getting this "six more spells known... another nine, etc." stuff? Show your math plx

Read that closer. It says you start with two 1st rank divine spells of your choice at 1st level. At 2nd level, you select another 1st rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd rank spells, and so on.

Nothing in that actually puts slots and spells known on a 1:1 basic. It doesn't say "your number of spell slots and number of spells in your repertoire are always the same." It says you start with two at any given rank, and when you get another slot you gain a third.

In fact, the last paragraph goes on to put this to bed: "Your spell slots and the spells in your repertoire are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your repertoire, it wouldn't give you another spell slot, and vice versa."

By comparison, sorcerer has the same paragraph, but has a very relevant clause tacked onto the front: "though you gain them at the same rate," which was also included on the APG Oracle but removed from the remastered Oracle. This is reaaaaally clear cut and y'all insisting otherwise aren't paying close enough attention.

The six and nine thing is also really straightforward. Both classe repertoires get 3 spells per rank they can freely choose. Sorcerer bloodlines grant a fourth pre-assigned spell of each rank, so nine additional spells. Oracle mysteries initially grant 3 pre-selected spells. Then at 11th level they grant an additional 3 from divine access. (Technically you have more flexibility than a sorcerer in picking the 3 for divine access, but you have to then comb though the entire deity list and find a set you like which doesnn't overlap with your initial mystery spells. It is more powerful but more annoying.)

The result of ignoring the rules to give oracles another spell per rank in their repertoire is Oracle get nine more spells than sorcerers to freely choose, with an additional 3 pre-assigned and another 3 quasi free to assign. In total, oracles get six more spells known and much more choice.

And again, the Oracle gets more HP, better saves, and armor proficiency, on top of the the "second focus pool" from curse bound actions. Sorcerers get one good feature (sorcerous potency, which foretell harm can emulate) and one bad feature (blood magic effects, where the triggers are too limited to reliably benefit from them). So... Why do y'all think oracles need to known even more spells than sorcerers?

[Captain Morgan]

Let's also not forget that the animist play test did wecen weirder things to how repertoires work. It isn't like Paizo is afraid to change things up. And oracles already got a completely unique set of mechanics which sets them apart from other casters.

[Errenor]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

>There's nothing in the rules

Except the text of the rule itself?
>Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank
The table shows 4 spells per rank. The example is what doesn't match

And where are you getting this "six more spells known... another nine, etc." stuff? Show your math plx

Read that closer. It says you start with two 1st rank divine spells of your choice at 1st level. At 2nd level, you select another 1st rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd rank spells, and so on.

Exactly this we ignore because we already know it's an error from PFS notes. Only the rule remains, quoted by Baarogue. So for now it's quite clear that they have 4 free spells known per rank.

[Captain Morgan]

The PFS ruling says "The oracle’s Spells Per Day table is correct about their number of spells and spell slots. The text explaining their spellcasting was not updated to match."

It doesn't say anything about spells in their repertoire in the table or the ruling. The ruling does say "spells and spell slots" as though those are different things, which could be read to mean spells in the repertoire, but only slots are referenced in the table they cite so TBH whoever wrote it seems confused.

And again, the text explaining their spell casting wasn't updated to reflect 4 spell slots a day... But it WAS updated to remove the text saying you gained slots and spells in your repertoire at the same rate.

Maybe we will get some designer to publicly comment on this and settle the issue and I will eat my hat. But until then, I'm sticking to 4 spells known per rank being buckwild.

[Errenor]

Captain Morgan wrote:

It doesn't say anything about spells in their repertoire in the table or the ruling. The ruling does say "spells and spell slots" as though those are different things, which could be read to mean spells in the repertoire, but only slots are referenced in the table they cite so TBH whoever wrote it seems confused.

And again, the text explaining their spell casting wasn't updated to reflect 4 spell slots a day... But it WAS updated to remove the text saying you gained slots and spells in your repertoire at the same rate.

"Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank" is still there, the table is correct. What more could you possibly need?

[Tridus]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

>There's nothing in the rules

Except the text of the rule itself?
>Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank
The table shows 4 spells per rank. The example is what doesn't match

And where are you getting this "six more spells known... another nine, etc." stuff? Show your math plx

Read that closer. It says you start with two 1st rank divine spells of your choice at 1st level. At 2nd level, you select another 1st rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd rank spells, and so on.

It also says you get 2, and then 3 spell slots, which we know is wrong. Since we know for a fact that at least part of this was supposed to be changed and wasn't, its hard to assume that the rest of it is correct.

Especially since as you point out later, the PFS ruling says "spells and spell slots". What else would "spells" be talking about there unless its poorly worded? Of course, given the mess this already is, it being poorly worded is entirely possible.

I am really, really disappointed that Paizo hasn't errata'd this yet. Its such a fundamental error that there's no excuse to leave people guessing like this in a freaking core book.

[Finoan]

Tridus wrote:

It also says you get 2, and then 3 spell slots, which we know is wrong. Since we know for a fact that at least part of this was supposed to be changed and wasn't, its hard to assume that the rest of it is correct.

Fair. But it also isn't like we got Day 0 PC2 errata that didn't include any changes to Oracle spell slot rules.

I am not seeing any errata for PC2 at all. So I am still expecting this to be corrected shortly at the next errata milestone.

[Baarogue]

I just wish Morgan the tastiest of hats. The PFS ruling is short and casual, but everyone can tell what they mean by "spells and spell slots." I do suspect the published wording will be more like sorcerer's, such as, "When you gain a new rank of spells, your first new spell is always the granted spell for that rank that's listed in your mystery, but you can choose the other spells." Whether that'll soothe this weird jealousy for "how good oracles have it" we'll just have to see

[Tridus]

Finoan wrote:

am not seeing any errata for PC2 at all. So I am still expecting this to be corrected shortly at the next errata milestone.

There isn't any, and that's part of why I'm so frustrated. This is an obvious, glaring error that they could have had fixed with day 0 errata. Instead, they are apparently choosing to stick to an errata policy unsuited to a problem like this and are just making everyone guess at how this is actually supposed to work... and that's not the only case of that in this class.

This is worse than several past books where they did put a day 0 errata for issues like this and when we're talking about a "Core" book is well below the standard I expect from Paizo, both in terms of the editing quality of the release and also in responsiveness towards correcting it.

Hell, it's not even the only case of this with Oracle. They also stuck to their PFS policy of "characters made after PC1 came out don't get a rebuild", even though PC2 classes weren't updated yet and that can render an Oracle made after that date really awkward to play.

It's extremely disappointing the way this whole class has been bungled. But this entire thread specifically could be solved by someone from Paizo saying "it should be X." Done.

[Captain Morgan]

I'm feeling the same way Tridus.

Baarogue wrote:

I just wish Morgan the tastiest of hats. The PFS ruling is short and casual, but everyone can tell what they mean by "spells and spell slots." I do suspect the published wording will be more like sorcerer's, such as, "When you gain a new rank of spells, your first new spell is always the granted spell for that rank that's listed in your mystery, but you can choose the other spells." Whether that'll soothe this weird jealousy for "how good oracles have it" we'll just have to see

Look, maybe I'm in the wrong here, and I'm probably coming at too hard. But this isn't a weird jealous; I main an oracle and never played a sorcerer. This is an objective assessment of balance. Set aside the PFS ruling and inconsistent wording for a sec. Assume that this was intended. You can see why oracle getting that many spells in their repertoire is bananas, right?

[Tridus]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

I just wish Morgan the tastiest of hats. The PFS ruling is short and casual, but everyone can tell what they mean by "spells and spell slots." I do suspect the published wording will be more like sorcerer's, such as, "When you gain a new rank of spells, your first new spell is always the granted spell for that rank that's listed in your mystery, but you can choose the other spells." Whether that'll soothe this weird jealousy for "how good oracles have it" we'll just have to see

Look, maybe I'm in the wrong here, and I'm probably coming at too hard. But this isn't a weird jealous; I main an oracle and never played a sorcerer. This is an objective assessment of balance. Set aside the PFS ruling and inconsistent wording for a sec. Assume that this was intended. You can see why oracle getting that many spells in their repertoire is bananas, right?

I don't think its just you. I'm playing an Oracle in Kingmaker right now, and of all the things I wanted to see to tune up the class in the Remaster, "Oracle now has the largest spell repertoire" was not on the list at all.

It's just such a left field thing to do. Here's a class that was about Mystery/Curse interactions and Revelation spell use, and now its got less of that but more spell slots and more spells known?

I mean, power wise that works fine. That makes the class stronger. But there was already a class that was more about that. It's just such an odd direction for the class to go to downplay the things it was really about in favor of "more generic spellcasting". I feel like these kinds of changes are part of why the reaction to this new Oracle is so mixed.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, the more generic spell caster thing we definitely agree on. The four slots per day came out of left field but wasn't completely outrageous. My group had implemented a similar house rule months ago.

But I think giving them more spells in the repertoire than the class with the biggest repertoire in the game (being reprinted in the same book, no less) isn't just a weird move for oracles but a wild move for any concept of balance Paizo had.

[Ravingdork]

They needed the bone thrown to them to offset the "only one tradition" limitation (and arguably the least versatile, smallest, and weakest tradition at that).

[Squiggit]

That doesn't really make sense, tradition is a top level choice it doesn't really have any bearing in-game so why would you use it as a power knob.

[Errenor]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Assume that this was intended. You can see why oracle getting that many spells in their repertoire is bananas, right?

I, for one, absolutely do not. I'm so irritated by their treatment of sorcerers when they push useless junk in their spell repertoire that I'm glad if oracles would be treated more fairly.

And then they try to forbid throwing that junk out of repertoire (or not?). And do it badly: they still haven't fixed/cleared that sentence from CRB "you can’t swap out bloodline spells". 'Bloodline spells' are still focus spells and you can't swap them at all. Repertoire spells now are 'Sorcerous Gifts'. So what do they mean in the end?

[Captain Morgan]

It sounds like you're glad oracles are treated better than sorcerers, not fairly. Fair implies everyone gets treated equally. Oracles are just treated better here. No other spontaneous class got a fourth spell per rank in their repertoire, preselected or otherwise, prior to this. Sorcerers weren't being treated unfairly before.

You like that there is now a more powerful and flexible option. Which is fine, really. But personally I'd prefer if we are raising the power level of one class above the others that we raise the others for parity. I'd prefer to avoid one class just being a better version of another.

Squiggit wrote:

That doesn't really make sense, tradition is a top level choice it doesn't really have any bearing in-game so why would you use it as a power knob.

Yeah. The "pick a tradition" thing is a crappy balance point because any given sorcerer only gets one tradition, and you can then compare that sorcerer to any other casting class using that tradition. There's a lot of legacy baggage clashing with balance around this. Wizards used to have be the most fragile because their spell list was indisputably the best in the game, which is no longer the case.

[Errenor]

Captain Morgan wrote:

It sounds like you're glad oracles are treated better than sorcerers, not fairly. Fair implies everyone gets treated equally. Oracles are just treated better here. No other spontaneous class got a fourth spell per rank in their repertoire, preselected or otherwise, prior to this. Sorcerers weren't being treated unfairly before.

You like that there is now a more powerful and flexible option. Which is fine, really. But personally I'd prefer if we are raising the power level of one class above the others that we raise the others for parity. I'd prefer to avoid one class just being a better version of another.

Well, I just think that adding bad spells in repertoire and trying to prevent fixing that by players (if that's what's happening) is unfair. That's why giving a free pick is 'fair'. We are using the word differently.

I agree that in this case it would be better to allow selecting spells freely for everyone. I guess I just dislike this element universally: wizards also have this problem (and worse: they can't just ignore those given spells). Suppose not everything 'flavourful' justifies loss of gameplay choice and convenience for me.
BTW, talking about parity: psychics actually don't have any analoguous wording for removing minds' spells from repertoire. Nothing at all. They probably just forgot given that minds are very alike with bloodlines, but I will exploit this as much as possible anyway. (Ok, using normal rules for swapping spells in repertoire is not much of an exploit...) Because with tiny little psychics' repertoires giving them things like Mindlink is really a crime. (This could work as an additional 1/day ability for example...)

[Ed Reppert]

Errenor wrote:

we already know it's an error from PFS notes.

No. We know the people running PFS think it's an error.

[Baarogue]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Errenor wrote:

we already know it's an error from PFS notes.

No. We know the people running PFS think it's an error.

lol, like PFS is some third-party hustle

[Tridus]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Errenor wrote:

we already know it's an error from PFS notes.

No. We know the people running PFS think it's an error.

The people running PFS are also the only ones connected to Paizo at at all who are willing to give us some guidance.

[Errenor]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Errenor wrote:

we already know it's an error from PFS notes.

No. We know the people running PFS think it's an error.

Yeah, as Tridus said. They think that because they talk with the designers and ask them questions (and they answer).

[Omega Metroid]

...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.

[Squiggit]

I think you're reaching. The class is functional, and makes sense in its own context, it's just really disappointing if you liked having an actual Mystery.

The fundamental issue in this thread too just boils down to a line of text got copied from the APG without editing, which is something that's happened in a handful of places across the core line.

[Omega Metroid]

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.)

[Tridus]

Omega Metroid wrote:

...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.

That'd be nice, but there is another explanation: They ran out of time while making PC2 and Oracle got rushed because of it.

Paizo is putting out a TON of books in the second half of this year. Too many, IMO. Given the size of their staff and that the remaster books weren't expected originally, there's only so much time they can get, and only so much time for major reworks (which Alchemist also got, though with better results).

IIRC the only class that has ever gotten major errata post release is legacy Alchemist, which got like 3 of them. So the idea that they deliberately released a half-baked Oracle in a core book that they intend to replace down the line is optimistic at best. It's more likely that other classes took more time than expected, they ran out of time when working on Oracle, had to ship it in a clearly not playtested properly state, and said "add another spell slot" as a quick fix.

[Squiggit]

Tridus wrote:

That'd be nice, but there is another explanation: They ran out of time while making PC2 and Oracle got rushed because of it.

There's also the chance that this is what they want the class to be and a few minor editing issues aren't signs of some conspiracy or design failure.

Like if you read the comments they made to promote the remaster oracle it lines up pretty much exactly with what we've got. In terms of raw performance, the new Oracle is fine.

Now, I'll agree that the remaster Oracle is disappointing in terms of the direction they chose, but "I don't like the new curse mechanics" is not a design flaw or an error with the class. It's just an unfortunate side effect of being on the wrong side of Paizo's curious developmental choices.

I just don't see a point in pretending that Thing We Don't Like is indicative of some hidden plan or fundamental failure rather than just being a choice that happens to be bad for us.

[Bluemagetim]

I wouldnt say theres a conspiracy. Its more a mistake that creates an opportunity to see how consumers react and offers the ability to plausibly errata in either direction when they finally release errata.

[Tridus]

Squiggit wrote:

Now, I'll agree that the remaster Oracle is disappointing in terms of the direction they chose, but "I don't like the new curse mechanics" is not a design flaw or an error with the class. It's just an unfortunate side effect of being on the wrong side of Paizo's curious developmental choices.

I just don't see a point in pretending that Thing We Don't Like is indicative of some hidden plan or fundamental failure rather than just being a choice that happens to be bad for us.

I don't think I'm doing that, though. I don't think it was rushed because I don't like it. I think it was rushed because there a lot of errors/inconsistencies/confusing wording/contradictions.

If you look at things like the Bones curse and how its supposed to interact with Vitality damage being so unclear, that would have been caught pretty quickly by playtesting with someone who didn't already know what the writer's intent was. I feel its the same with a lot of the bigger problems: the Curses are so wildly uneven and the Mystery/Curse combinations in some cases now just flat out don't enable the type of character the Mystery description says it should. That comes across less as designer intent and more as "we were rushed and some of this stuff wasn't properly play tested."

Like, a Life Oracle being a worse healer than a Cosmos Oracle (who can spam Nudge the Scales more easily and otherwise has basically the same healing) doesn't make any sense whatsoever as a design goal, and I find it much easier to believe that it's a consequence of being rushed as opposed to a deliberate design objective. Whatever Battle is now, does it do what the Mystery description says it does without getting multiple other feats/archetypes and ignoring the initial Revelation spell entirely?

None of us really know what happened, but the combination of that and the number of editorial errors really doesn't make me think they had tons of time and extensive testing.

[Ed Reppert]

I'm confused. What text is it that we think is wrong wrt the spells? The part that says you get two rank 1 spells to start? We're saying it should be 3? And then 3 each time you gain a rank?

[Tridus]

Ed Reppert wrote:

I'm confused. What text is it that we think is wrong wrt the spells? The part that says you get two rank 1 spells to start? We're saying it should be 3? And then 3 each time you gain a rank?

Yes, that's what we're saying, based on the PFS Clarification.

[Ed Reppert]

That is... totally unclear. :(

[Tridus]

Ed Reppert wrote:

That is... totally unclear. :(

Yep. Welcome to Remaster Oracle. :(

[Bluemagetim]

PC2 Oracle pgs 130-1301 wrote:

The collection of spells you can cast is called your spell

repertoire. At 1st level, you learn two 1st-rank divine spells
of your choice and five divine cantrips of your choice. You
choose these from the common spells on the divine list or
from other divine spells to which you have access. You can
cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot
of an appropriate spell rank.
You add to this spell repertoire as you increase in level.
Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day
table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same
rank. At 2nd level, you select another 1st-rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd-rank spells, and so on. When you
add spells, you might add a higher-rank version of a spell
you already have, so you can cast a heightened version of
that spell.
Your spell slots and the spells in your spell repertoire
are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your
spell repertoire, it wouldn’t give you another spell slot, and
vice versa.

Battle for example gives Granted Spells cantrip: shield; 1st: sure strike; 2nd: telekinetic

maneuver; 4th: weapon storm

Lets say you follow the bolded instructions at first level.
You will have 3 slots and 3 spells known. 2 will be chosen and 1 will be given by the mystery surestrike.
I wouldn't give 3 spells chosen and then also the mystery spell.

Now when you level it gets weird if your trying to apply RAW at new spell ranks that dont also provide a mystery spell.
So when you gain to level 2 we pick another 1st rank spell, at level 3 we select 2 first rank spells and add telekinetic maneuver.
If we follow the example provided as the guide then 4 gets one new spell and at level 5 only two spells get added because you add two and there is no mystery spell, unless you actually add 3 spells of your choice because none are added by mystery at that level.

Thats actually the point where interpretation comes in. Before that the example is clearly telling us what is meant by add spells to the rep for each slot, only 2 that you actually choose.

I wouldnt interpret this as adding 3 plus mystery mainly because the instructions never tell you to explicitly choose spells it just says add spells and the mystery is making you add a specific spell. It would just be taking up space in rep (that 1 spell known per slot gained) that isnt a choice.

[RadiantSophia]

This is all VERY confusing for someone who switched to second edition (from PF1) about a month ago, and, quite honestly, is damaging my enthusiasm for the game.

[Bluemagetim]

I said it that way just to try and be specific and call out the part where the interpretation looks to fork.

My interpretation was.
You have as many spells in repertoire as you have spell slots. The mystery you selected gives spells at certain spell ranks. Those spells count towards the number you have in repetiore and you pick the rest from your traditions spell list.

Others are interpreting it differently where you get to choose spells for each slot you have and on top of that you get spells from your mystery netting Oracles more spells than the number of slots they have.

[Tridus]

RadiantSophia wrote:

This is all VERY confusing for someone who switched to second edition (from PF1) about a month ago, and, quite honestly, is damaging my enthusiasm for the game.

Yeah, it really is. :( The other classes aren't really in this situation. I'd just pick an interpretation and go with it for now (either you repertoire is 3 spells per rank, or its 4 spells per rank) until the errata comes out.

Either option will work for now.

[RadiantSophia]

Tridus wrote:

RadiantSophia wrote:

This is all VERY confusing for someone who switched to second edition (from PF1) about a month ago, and, quite honestly, is damaging my enthusiasm for the game.

Yeah, it really is. :( The other classes aren't really in this situation. I'd just pick an interpretation and go with it for now (either you repertoire is 3 spells per rank, or its 4 spells per rank) until the errata comes out.

Either option will work for now.

My two copper pieces:

I am going to disagree with Bluemagetim's interpretation due to the unlikliness of the inverse. Under "Spell Repertoire" in the Oracle section it very clearly spells out at 3rd level you get 2 second-rank spells. As Lore and Tempest do not add second-Rank spells, that interpretation would leave Lore and Tempest oracles with only two second-rank spells at third level. There is no way to interpret the text RAW in a way that leaves those mysteries with 3 second-rank spells in their repertoire, so the entire section is called into question as to the intention and what parts are, exactly, errors. The simpilest interpretation is that known spells = spell slots on the table + mystery.

That being said, I am still going to use Bluemagetim's interpretation, as, if in the future (which is likely) it is errata'd players are not going to object to having to add a few spells to their repertoires. They certainly would if I implemnted the other way, and had to subtract know spells due to errata.

[Bluemagetim]

Also looking at sorcerer you see they get 2 plus bloodline at level 1.
They also spelled it out like this and likely probably should have done something similar in oracle to be more clear.

PC2 Sorcerer spell rep pg. 147 wrote:

Spell Repertoire

The collection of spells you can cast is called your spell
repertoire. At 1st level, you learn two 1st-rank spells of
your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as
an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline (page
149). You choose these from the common spells from the
tradition corresponding to your bloodline, or from other
spells from that tradition to which you have access. You
can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell
slot of an appropriate spell rank.
You add to this spell repertoire as you increase in level.
Each time you get a spell slot (see the Sorcerer Spells per
Day table above), you add a spell to your spell repertoire
of the same rank. When you gain a new rank of spells, your
first new spell is always the sorcerous gift spell for that
rank that’s listed in your bloodline, but you can choose the
other spells. At 2nd level, you select another 1st-rank spell;
at 3rd level, you gain a new spell from your bloodline and
two other 2nd-rank spells, and so on. When you add spells,
you might select a higher-rank version of a spell you already
know so that you can cast a heightened version of that spell

[Bluemagetim]

So I would say similar intent was meant for the Oracle.
If your getting a spell from your mystery it is considered one of the known spells you gain towards 1 spell per slot you gain.