What will Oracles look like in PF2


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

And for context: I believe Paizo directly confirmed that Oracle was high on their priority list for unique Classes, the main reason it wasn't included in Core was simply desire to integrate Alchemy as general subsystem into Core rules from ground level up, so to speak. So I'm not sure of the value of debating something that isn't really up for debate within Paizo.


For the sake of debate of course. o3o


Quandary wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Being a better warrior (BAB/Armor proficiences/HP or the PF2 equivalents) already throws it into a different style, then you add in the Curses and Mysteries, which have a larger effect then sorcerer blood lines do, they're very different classes.

Despite both being spontaneous divine casters. Much like the bard is a different spontaneous occult caster than the sorcerer. You could go reductionist and just make 2 caster classes: spontaneous and prepared, each with options to pick a spell list, but the game chassis encourages breaking things out into multiple classes.

I don't necessarily expect much "2E equivalent to BAB" between Sorceror and Oracle, everybody gets +Level and I don't see major proficiency boosts being necessarily hard-wired into Oracle, aside from specific Mysteries. I don't really expect Mysteries to have more effect than Bloodlines, with evevrbody using Class Feats for that now. I would agree Curse has more potential for differentiating them, but not so much because of it's 1E heritage... I actually expect Curse to be MORE developed in 2E than 1E (possibly to different degrees, depending on each Oracle's Feat choices), which I alluded to by tying Curse to Focus and Burn.

My previous post went into how the Mystery and Bloodline themes aren't really very close to each other at all. Although there might be Bloodlines not yet existent/revealed which might threaten overlap more, that would just call for stricter ensurance of distinction. How Elemental Bloodlines, including Positive/Negative Elemental, work might be most challenging case. Although even then, the Oracle would be Divine while Sorceror would be either Arcane or Primal(?) so I'm not too worried about differentiation.

I definitely agree with your broader point that reducing things to crude elements e.g. Spontaneous and Divine misses way to much to actually be of relevance.

I was thinking they'd get beyond Trained in their weapons and armor, which is how PF2 represents some classes being better at fighting, but I'd forgotten Clerics didn't actually get that, so they probably won't.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
For the sake of debate of course. o3o

Somebody really needs to create a private Demiplane for that sort of thing... I tell somebody going by "Pumpkinhead". :-)

thejeff wrote:
I was thinking they'd get beyond Trained in their weapons and armor, which is how PF2 represents some classes being better at fighting, but I'd forgotten Clerics didn't actually get that, so they probably won't.

Sure, generic Cleric really was pared back because it now includes Cloistered Cleric, and additional weapon/armor stuff is contained within more martial Path for that. Of course, I think even Wizards do eventually get more than Trained in their Simple Weapons, just much delayed vs martials whose apex also is much higher. I just don't see compelling reason for Oracle generically to be THAT much superior than Sorcerors, albeit specific Mysteries (or Curses) can be thematically appropriate to boost weapon/armor profiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really understand the impulse to keep the number of classes low. A class is a top level choice, you decide whether or not you want to play that thing before you decide anything else. No one in PF1 had trouble deciding "do I want to play a tiefling or not, and if so what kind?"

I'm much more concerned with keeping the number of feats available to a given character and spells manageable than the number of classes, backgrounds, or ancestries.

Like I don't really see why PF2 needs a Magus, but other people do and I hope Paizo comes up with a way to make a Magus that makes Magus fans happy. I would be happy if PF2 had all the classes from PF1, plus a bunch more.


I just don't see a problem with it being an Archetype and you look in that bag of Feats when figuring what kind of "Magus" to make.
There's plenty of ways to get Cantrips at 1st level, or some martial weapons at 1st level, to be doing "Magus"-y stuff early on.
Hell, there can be specific "Magus" background that grants a Cantrip or Martial weapons.
In my mind that is better for Gish diversity, than a single Magus class that then hinges on Multiclassing out for fringe options.
I just don't see value of having Magus Multiclass Feat, that's making a blend of the blend.
A Class should have unique identity strong enough that a Multiclass of it is still reasonably distinct.
I don't see value of a Wizard Multiclassing in Magus vs Multiclassing in Fighter. Unique Feats are Archetype material.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I suspect the arcanist could pretty easily be retooled as the spontaneous arcane.

Maybe make a theurge like class for the prepared "sorcerer".


The other thing is that Oracle is one of those classes that actually exists as a named thing in universe. Fighters, rogues, and barbarians in fiction are kind of just what you do, not what you are. But rolling oracles into sorcerer would be the equivalent of rolling Paladins into clerics. This is a specific title for specific people.


Quandary wrote:

I just don't see a problem with it being an Archetype and you look in that bag of Feats when figuring what kind of "Magus" to make.

There's plenty of ways to get Cantrips at 1st level, or some martial weapons at 1st level, to be doing "Magus"-y stuff early on.
Hell, there can be specific "Magus" background that grants a Cantrip or Martial weapons.
In my mind that is better for Gish diversity, than a single Magus class that then hinges on Multiclassing out for fringe options.
I just don't see value of having Magus Multiclass Feat, that's making a blend of the blend.
A Class should have unique identity strong enough that a Multiclass of it is still reasonably distinct.
I don't see value of a Wizard Multiclassing in Magus vs Multiclassing in Fighter. Unique Feats are Archetype material.

For the most part i don’t think that many people have an issue with Magus as an Archetype. More specifically i believe what Cabbage is talking about is some peoples odd hesitancy with allowing new classes that can be partially covered with the classes that we currently know of. So far this thread alone has had some people try to push Oracle into a Sorc Archetype simply cause of a few similarities. This has been vocalized in a number of threads that ‘there’s no need for X or Y cause we already have Z.’ The problem with this idea is that it should be used as a critique on a fleshed out idea rather than at a suggestion or discussion topic as has been happening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
For the most part i don’t think that many people have an issue with Magus as an Archetype. More specifically i believe what Cabbage is talking about is some peoples odd hesitancy with allowing new classes that can be partially covered with the classes that we currently know of. So far this thread alone has had some people try to push Oracle into a Sorc Archetype simply cause of a few similarities. This has been vocalized in a number of threads that ‘there’s no need for X or Y cause we already have Z.’ The problem with this idea is that it should be used as a critique on a fleshed out idea rather than at a suggestion or discussion topic as has been happening.

I'm not sure I would call it odd. It is important for classes to have an identity without treading over too much covered ground. It's just that people have different ideas of where the exact point of retreading is. It's worthy of discussion, is it not?


Lunatic Barghest wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
For the most part i don’t think that many people have an issue with Magus as an Archetype. More specifically i believe what Cabbage is talking about is some peoples odd hesitancy with allowing new classes that can be partially covered with the classes that we currently know of. So far this thread alone has had some people try to push Oracle into a Sorc Archetype simply cause of a few similarities. This has been vocalized in a number of threads that ‘there’s no need for X or Y cause we already have Z.’ The problem with this idea is that it should be used as a critique on a fleshed out idea rather than at a suggestion or discussion topic as has been happening.
I'm not sure I would call it odd. It is important for classes to have an identity without treading over too much covered ground. It's just that people have different ideas of where the exact point of retreading is. It's worthy of discussion, is it not?

It’s worthy of a discussion, yes. Most times it crops up though is to stop the discussion before it can get anywhere. Thus it seems odd to me that there are some that want to hack up an idea cause you can Frankenstein a similar concept that is otherwise a shell of the real thing.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
I think that [Arcanists] could just be a wizard school/thesis or an archetype that gives spontaneous casters more signature spells.
I do agree, and even think an Archetype could be written 'from 2 directions' to be applicable to both Wizard AND Arcane Sorceror, with one simply having prepared bias and the other spontaneous bias. But regardless of Arcanist being Archetype like that or it's own class (I prefer archetype at this point because nobody seems to actually believe Arcanist has unique flavor justification, it's just alternate casting ruleset), I acknowledge Arcanist casting as useful reference point given other classes could use it or similar mechanic.

I'm not budging from my stance that new rules, like Arcanist style casting, needs to be hung onto a class and archetypes should be combining those rules in interesting ways. But I agree that like the Magus, Arcanists suffer from the problem of not having much flavor on their own in PF1, and just being weird wizards (who are already weird IMO).

But that just suggests to me the class should also get interesting fluff with their crunch. Paizo has succeeded in introducing classes with interesting flavor; I think they can do it again.

For instance, what if Arcanists absorbed the "magical hacker" shtick from Wizards and ran with it? They can only set a few spells a day, possibly even fewer than the bard, but they can shape those spells by adding rider effects or changing up the energy type or simply bouncing between the levels they're able to cast those spells at (burning through focus like anything to pull it off)? We've seen the sorcerer get some cool effects with Bespell Weapon, what if arcanists could do similar things with spells? Like if you cast a non-cantrip enchantment, that evocation spell you cast next turn gets a chance to daze the enemy targeted in addition to its other effects. And then that abjuration you cast the next round has a small residual evocation damage when the defense is triggered. All those really niche metamagics that 20 years of 3.+ have come up with, like Twinned spell and transdimensional spell? Let Arcanists have at them.

Basically, wizards can push the boundaries of spells because they've spent their lives studying magic and what it can do. Arcanists can do absolutely unpredictable things with their magic because they don't know what they can't do (and no one else knows either).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
They are not, actually. Flavor wise, there's a world of difference between getting your magic from your grandma being an angel vs being chosen by a god for mysterious purposes.

We've already been told that bloodline doesn't necessarily mean bloodline, so not really. The hook "Blessed" by an Empyreal Lord could produce a Sorcerer or Oracle pretty interchangeably.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Okay, but you have to be the one to tell Bard that he’s gonna get wrapped up into a Sorc Archetype for being too similar. I just don’t have the heart to do it myself.

If you don't think the Bard should be a full class I'd be more than happy to hear your argument for such. It could be an interesting discussion, but this is too vague to respond to on its own.

Quote:
This means the space is available for the Class to be fleshed out.

Okay, but again, in what way? I've asked before how people want to differentiate Oracles from Sorcerers and Clerics but all I've gotten in response is vague "oh there are plenty of things to do" or "sorcerers are dumb and shouldn't exist anyways so it doesn't matter."

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I don't really understand the impulse to keep the number of classes low.

Because a big part of PF2's design goals is modularity in class building. The more you specific you make your top level choices, the harder that becomes or the more you end up power-creeping over existing options and the more you end up diluting future support for each individual option.

More utilitarian and less philosophical: If you can accomplish the same goal by adding onto something that alrady exists or building an entirely new chassis, why waste limited resources (book space and developer time) reinventing the wheel?


Personally what I'd really like to see with Oracles in 2e is for curses to get expanded out. Curses in 1e are kind of boring and in some ways feel kind of tacked onto the class. 2e could be an opportunity to integrate them more directly into the rest of the class' features and make them more compelling.

I think the problem is less that Oracles don't feel different enough from Sorcerers and Clerics but more that in PF1 casters in general feel kind of samey because spellcasting overshadows the rest of their kit and casters kind of converged on the same endpoint the higher up in levels they got. PF2 is a real opportunity to change that script up and make different Curses and Revelations feel really character defining.

One of my bigger disappointments with the Playtest honestly was that Sorcerer Bloodlines weren't more expansive. I always felt like Revelations were in a way almost Bloodlines Unchained, fleshed out a lot more than their CRB counterparts and I was kind of hoping they'd go even further with 2e Sorcerers.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
For me, the fact that sorcerers use their literal blood to cast magic sharply delimits the character concepts the class is capable of covering. At the very least, a class arcehtype would be needed to carve that out and replace it with other fluff, probably the rules for curses in this case.

I'm not sure why oracles can't have a curse in their blood and they use that to cast magic: basically instead of a [insert race] in their blood, a curse in their blood. Doesn't seem like much if any refluffing needed. Revelation powers and bloodline powers doesn't seem like a big jump in fluff either [a curse gave it to me vs a [insert race's magic] gave it to me]. Curse feats fundamentally the same as bloodline feats.

Pretty much cursed bloodlines fixes fluff issues IMO.


swoosh wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I don't really understand the impulse to keep the number of classes low.
Because a big part of PF2's design goals is modularity in class building. The more you specific you make your top level choices, the harder that becomes or the more you end up power-creeping over existing options and the more you end up diluting future support for each individual option.

I think you have this precisely backwards- if we make the oracle a class, we can then let any class be "cursed by the gods, which has its upsides"- just take the multiclass dedication and you can have a fighter who speaks in tongues or a rogue who is physically incapable of lying. Fully half of all Oracle feats become available to everyone.

If you make it an archetype only sorcerers (or clerics) can ever be cursed by the gods- you can't access class archetypes via multiclassing.

We can also see from PF1 that your thesis just doesn't hold up. Vine Leshys and Waker Mae Changelings are simply not as powerful as Humans and Aasimar; moreover Vigilantes, Shifters, Psychics, and Mesmerists are simply not as powerful as Wizards, Paladins, Clerics, and Druids. All of the most powerful top level options in PF1 were very early, and all of the power creep options were secondary or tertiary choices like feats, spells, traits, and items.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
This means the space is available for the Class to be fleshed out.

Okay, but again, in what way? I've asked before how people want to differentiate Oracles from Sorcerers and Clerics but all I've gotten in response is vague "oh there are plenty of things to do" or "sorcerers are dumb and shouldn't exist anyways so it doesn't matter."

To start, this is an example bloodline:

Quote:

UNDEAD BLOODLINE: Spell List divine (page 309)

Bloodline Skills Intimidation, Religion
Granted Spells cantrip: chill touch; 1st: harm; 2nd: false life; 3rd: bind undead; 4th: talking corpse; 5th: cloudkill; 6th: vampiric exsanguination; 7th: finger of death; 8th: horrid wilting; 9th: wail of the banshee
Bloodline Spells initial: touch of undeath; advanced: drain life; greater: grasping grave
Blood Magic Necromantic energy flows through you or one target. Either you gain temporary Hit Points equal to the spell's level for 1 round, or a target takes 1 negative damage per spell level.

I disagree that is enough for a full mystery. The skills and granted spells map well enough, but the revelations are a lot more expansive and varied from mystery to mystery. Given enough class feats, you can do it, but since class feats are the biggest part of the class itself, that seems more like an argument towards it being its own class than not.

I'd also want to move the Bloodline spells off mysteries and onto curses, making them a combination anathema and associated focus powers. I'd want you to be able to select focus powers as revelations, but the baseline focus powers you'd get I'd prefer attached to curses. Curses were a big thing that attracted me to oracles, as well as the ability to mix and match mysteries with curses to make no two oracles alike. This would allow that while not creating new rules.

Those two items, plus moving sharply away from blood magic (which is a baseline assumption for the sorcerer class, however a specific character is empowered), is enough to convince me that a full class write up is needed to give the depth that the PF1 concept and mechanics has. I can see it being possible to reshape the sorcerer class to fit this space, but I honestly don't see what that would buy you, given the number of new feats needed for revelations and splitting up what is currently encapsulated into bloodlines into curses and mysteries.

Edit:

graystone wrote:
Pretty much cursed bloodlines fixes fluff issues IMO.

I deleted and reposted my thoughts on this one. Partly because I think I was kind of rude in my earlier post, partly because I wanted to make my case a bit more thoroughly. I hope I answered why I don't think this is enough for my taste.


swoosh wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
They are not, actually. Flavor wise, there's a world of difference between getting your magic from your grandma being an angel vs being chosen by a god for mysterious purposes.
We've already been told that bloodline doesn't necessarily mean bloodline, so not really. The hook "Blessed" by an Empyreal Lord could produce a Sorcerer or Oracle pretty interchangeably.

This isn’t an argument or even a critique. This is purely opinion.

swoosh wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Okay, but you have to be the one to tell Bard that he’s gonna get wrapped up into a Sorc Archetype for being too similar. I just don’t have the heart to do it myself.
If you don't think the Bard should be a full class I'd be more than happy to hear your argument for such. It could be an interesting discussion, but this is too vague to respond to on its own.

Good to know you took the one line that was a joke and skipped the very next line where i said, ‘similarity does not equal mimicry.’ The Bard and Abberant Sorc are almost mechanically identical with the biggest exceptions being Bloodline/Compositions and Feat choices; so if the Oracle should be a Sorc Archetype then there is either clearly a double standard or Bard should be rolled into Sorc by your logic.

swoosh wrote:
Quote:
This means the space is available for the Class to be fleshed out.
Okay, but again, in what way? I've asked before how people want to differentiate Oracles from Sorcerers and Clerics but all I've gotten in response is vague "oh there are plenty of things to do" or "sorcerers are dumb and shouldn't exist anyways so it doesn't matter."

. . . A-are you expecting people on here to have a clear and concise road map to how a 1e class should be ported over into 2e? Really? The comments you have ‘quoted’ are vague and the second one is even a first i’m Seeing of it. People have said in here that Mysteries are actually different from Bloodlines enough to justify not throwing them together. Just because you technically could doesn’t mean you should. The Curses are just as important of a feature to the class as well which, admittedly, may be tricky to figure how they should best be implemented; this would actually be the best way to direct the discussion rather than trying to chop it at the knees.

swoosh wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I don't really understand the impulse to keep the number of classes low.
Because a big part of PF2's design goals is modularity in class building. The more you specific you make your top level choices, the harder that becomes or the more you end up power-creeping over existing options and the more you end up diluting future support for each individual option.

This is no reason to bar off class ideas before they can even be thought up as a concept though. I agree that if despite a solid effort the Oracle, or any class idea for that matter, can’t provide a unique enough feel that it shouldn’t be made. That said Bard and Abberant Sorc are proof that you don’t even need that much difference to make it work.

swoosh wrote:

More utilitarian and less philosophical: If you can accomplish the same goal by adding onto something that alrady exists or building an entirely new chassis, why waste limited resources (book space and developer time) reinventing the wheel?

Okay, then by this logic we should scrap Bard to the wolves and give Compositions to Sorc as a Class Archetype, got it. Well said.


graystone wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
For me, the fact that sorcerers use their literal blood to cast magic sharply delimits the character concepts the class is capable of covering. At the very least, a class arcehtype would be needed to carve that out and replace it with other fluff, probably the rules for curses in this case.

I'm not sure why oracles can't have a curse in their blood and they use that to cast magic: basically instead of a [insert race] in their blood, a curse in their blood. Doesn't seem like much if any refluffing needed. Revelation powers and bloodline powers doesn't seem like a big jump in fluff either [a curse gave it to me vs a [insert race's magic] gave it to me]. Curse feats fundamentally the same as bloodline feats.

Pretty much cursed bloodlines fixes fluff issues IMO.

So, my one real issue with this line of logic is why don’t we just roll Barbarian and Champion into Fighter Archetypes then? Why don’t we just make three classes (Fighter, Caster, Rogue) and just make a plethora of Archetypes and feats so they can end up being the classes anyway? I’m honestly not trying to take this point to the far extreme, but if we can justify unique enough classes such as the Oracle or for some the Magus as simply Archetypes then why do we even have 12 different classes to begin with? I’m really having trouble understanding this idea cause to me it’s very clearly only looking in one direction and taking the broad and open system design for granted. I feel that if we go this route there will be classes that will lose their identity. Magus isn’t simply a type of Wizard. Oracle isn’t simply a Divine Sorcerer. Though because we can make something similar with the CRB they’re being treated like they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of how the Oracle is done, I do not think they should print any class archetypes for the Cleric which allow for "an irreligious cleric" or any class archetypes for the Sorcerer which do not have special blood.

Some things are so part and parcel to the identity of a class that even allowing them to be removed via an archetype, you damage the identity of the class- if there are sorcerers without ties to something unusual via their blood, what even is a sorcerer?

Even if we could use the mechanics of a class for something else, if we have to destroy what the class means, it's better to just do that other thing as a new class entirely.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Partly because I think I was kind of rude in my earlier post

You seemed passionate about it but you didn't seem rude IMO.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
partly because I wanted to make my case a bit more thoroughly

Yes, I got a better picture of what you're talking about with the new post. You're looking for a more direct port of the class than I'm thinking of. I don't really have a preference myself, I'm just thinking either way could work.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So, my one real issue with this line of logic is why don’t we just roll Barbarian and Champion into Fighter Archetypes then?

I think you've got the wrong impression from what I posted: I stated that I thought there was a way you COULD make it using the sorcerer and make it work using the existing logic. I never said it SHOULD be done that way.

As to the rest, I'm not advocating ANY route: There is ALWAYS going to be a debate which class should be an archetype or class or subclass. I don't see a right or wrong side. Where you see lost identity, another can still see it clearly. We have to evaluate each in it's new environment and not assume that all the past feature will make as new features. We have to figure out in instances like this how much overlap makes it easier to to use an existing class. If 90% is the same? 80%. Is a single unique feature is all the difference is that enough for a class? Two? It's not as simple as 'make everything a new class'.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Regardless of how the Oracle is done, I do not think they should print any class archetypes for the Cleric which allow for "an irreligious cleric" or any class archetypes for the Sorcerer which do not have special blood.

For the sorcerer, almost anything magic tied to blood: want to make a magic blacksmithing variant, you have metal in your blood. A planar variant, you have planar energy in your blood.

For the cleric, we already have Polytheistic Blessing [like juju wendo], Pantheistic Blessing [groups of deities], Green Faith [nature], demons, oni, ect... Heck, the PF1 cleric had an identity and didn't have to be "devoted to a particular deity": "a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction".

As such, I don't see either of those as off-limits IMO.


graystone wrote:


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
So, my one real issue with this line of logic is why don’t we just roll Barbarian and Champion into Fighter Archetypes then?
I think you've got the wrong impression from what I posted: I stated that I thought there was a way you COULD make it using the sorcerer and make it work using the existing logic. I never said it SHOULD be done that way.

Then yeah, i really misinterpreted what you said. That one’s on me. :p

“greystone” wrote:
As to the rest, I'm not advocating ANY route: There is ALWAYS going to be a debate which class should be an archetype or class or subclass. I don't see a right or wrong side. Where you see lost identity, another can still see it clearly. We have to evaluate each in it's new environment and not assume that all the past feature will make as new features. We have to figure out in instances like this how much overlap makes it easier to to use an existing class. If 90% is the same? 80%. Is a single unique feature is all the difference is that enough for a class? Two? It's not as simple as 'make everything a new class'.

I agree to debating the usefulness of where features should end up going, if anything for creative purposes. Just making things into full classes would easily be a hassle and unnecessary. I’ll go in with the mindset of ‘can we make this a base class, and if so how?’ Worse case from there is it keeps getting bumped down from base class to Multiclass AC; then class Path; at worst gut any useful feature and make it into a feat. That process though is nearly impossible to do backwards.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
You're looking for a more direct port of the class than I'm thinking of. I don't really have a preference myself, I'm just thinking either way could work.

Fair enough. And yeah, there’s plenty of ways it could be done including how you proposed. I actually hadn’t hammered out my own preferences until my second post, but I’m sure any ways that it’s done, I’ll be satisfied.


Polytheism, worshiping nature, etc. are still religions. Not the same sort of thing as "worshiping Iomedae" but religions nonetheless. What I'm saying is that they should under no condition print a Rahadoum specific archetype for "Cleric of the Laws of Mortality" or something like that. A cleric is defined by having a devotional relationship with something larger than herself. Just like a Sorcerer is defined as someone with unusual blood.

An Oracle, as someone who need not be devoted to anything at all, and can literally be absolutely anyone who happens to be chosen by mysterious forces is a bad match for either.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Polytheism, worshiping nature, etc. are still religions. Not the same What I'm saying is that they should under no condition print a Rahadoum specific archetype for "Cleric of the Laws of Mortality"* or something like that.

I'd have no issue with that archetype: the old PF1 cleric could do it without an archetype: dedication to a divine concept worthy of devotion. An ideal vs a religion. In a similar way, Green Faith "is a naturalistic philosophy based on the belief that natural forces are worthy of attention and respect." That sounds more like concept/idea than deity worship/religion.

Maybe we're stumbling over semantics.

*I assume you mean the laws of man. It's technically possible to be a cleric that follows the laws of man. "Let no man be beholden to a god": It "forbid[s] anyone from worshiping any god or other divine being", but it's possible to gain power other ways: again, green faith grants domains/spells without a deity. In Golarion, you just need to find a similar force that clerics can take and outside it following an idea doesn't violate it.


Per James Jacobs (I asked him in the "Ask James Jacobs" thread) it's impossible to combine Rahadoumi atheism and "being a druid" FWIW.

Also, the "Laws of Man" are the "Laws of Mortality" now, since they also apply to Rahadoumi women.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Per James Jacobs (I asked him in the "Ask James Jacobs" thread) it's impossible to combine Rahadoumi atheism and "being a druid" FWIW.

That doesn't invalidate anything I said though. #1 if an archetype is made by Paizo the elements in it would be legal. So if they made that archetype, they'd have a way to make it work. #2 we're talking about what would invalidate the identity of the class. Being able to gain spells/domains doesn't require a god or divine being so it doesn't require the traditional worshiping of a god/deity now.

As to James comments, that's not reflected in what's printed. It clearly says god or divine being. Either Green Faith needs an update to make it a god/divine being or the Law needs an amendment to include divine ideas.

As to RAI, he'd be the one to ask but I'd like to hear why he said that. I see nothing in the Law against divine spells or having divine abilities: everything is tied to worshiping a deific being in return for that power. "Under the Laws of Man, all demonstrations of faith, in a deity are banned within Rahadoum under the principle that divine aid comes at too high a price—a seductive form of indentured servitude that extend even after divorced from a deific patron, aren’t banded, though their practitioners are often suspected of secret religious leanings." With no "deific patron" to worship or tempt you there is no price under the law/philosophy.

"Laws of Mortality": A quick search for this comes up with nothing, only Laws of Man. Was this just changed?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:


"Laws of Mortality": A quick search for this comes up with nothing, only Laws of Man. Was this just changed?

Yes. It was mentioned as part of the Goldm Road blog. Not specifically called out, but Laws of Mortality was used in the same way for Rahadoum as Laws of Man used to be, i.e. Thou shalt not worship the extraplanar a@!~$&#!s calling themselves gods.


Paul Watson wrote:
graystone wrote:


"Laws of Mortality": A quick search for this comes up with nothing, only Laws of Man. Was this just changed?
Yes. It was mentioned as part of the Goldm Road blog.

AH, no wonder it didn't show up anywhere. Thanks.

PS: You seemed to have tripped the profanity filter, so you might want to edit that out while you have the chance.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
graystone wrote:


"Laws of Mortality": A quick search for this comes up with nothing, only Laws of Man. Was this just changed?
Yes. It was mentioned as part of the Goldm Road blog.

AH, no wonder it didn't show up anywhere. Thanks.

PS: You seemed to have tripped the profanity filter, so you might want to edit that out while you have the chance.

Thanks. Way too late for editing now. Hopefully calling entirely fictitious deities rude names is allowed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
swoosh wrote:


This means the space is available for the Class to be fleshed out.

Okay, but again, in what way? I've asked before how people want to differentiate Oracles from Sorcerers and Clerics but all I've gotten in response is vague "oh there are plenty of things to do" or "sorcerers are dumb and shouldn't exist anyways so it doesn't matter."

. . . A-are you expecting people on here to have a clear and concise road map to how a 1e class should be ported over into 2e? Really? The comments you have ‘quoted’ are vague and the second one is even a first i’m Seeing of it. People have said in here that Mysteries are actually different from Bloodlines...

I'd just like to point out that I actually gave some pretty specific ideas on how you could do a 2e Oracle, in a post that swoosh actually even quotes, and that's apparently qualifies as a vague "oh there are plenty of things to do."

For crunch, there's room to have a spontaneous occult caster besides the sorcerer and have it feel distinct. No reason the Oracle can't exist as a class that gets 8 hit points per class level and 3 slots per spell level, plus weapons and armor proficiency and some unique features. You could make their revelations like 5e warlock invocations that a small number of spells as at will abilities.

That feels preeeeetty explicit to me. That's basically what sets bard apart from the sorcerer: HP, spells per day, starting proficiencies, and compositions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

For crunch, there's room to have a spontaneous occult caster besides the sorcerer and have it feel distinct. No reason the Oracle can't exist as a class that gets 8 hit points per class level and 3 slots per spell level, plus weapons and armor proficiency and some unique features. You could make their revelations like 5e warlock invocations that a small number of spells as at will abilities.

That feels preeeeetty explicit to me. That's basically what sets bard apart from the sorcerer: HP, spells per day, starting proficiencies, and compositions.

This is the reason it's particularly easy to see Oracle as a class being distinct from divine Sorcerers. Bard has already set a standard that is clear and simple:

More HP, fewer spell slots, better weapon and armor proficiencies, and feat and feature progression based heavily around focus spells and cantrips.

An Oracle could follow this formula, with curses filling in for compositions, and it would probably have more overlap mechanically with Bard than a Divine Sorcerer. And that's with the bare minimum of design work.

Curse is a concept with a ton of versatility. There are many ways to take that concept and make it interesting in play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oracle was, by the d20pfsrd survey, the 12th most popular class, beating Druid. I think being more popular than a core class should be enough to get a spot at the table.

Personally, I like the idea of Oracle as a dual-path class, where you’re picking both a curse and a mystery. To make mysteries distinct from bloodlines, it’s as simple as not having them give focus powers, but other abilities instead.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
That's basically what sets bard apart from the sorcerer: HP, spells per day, starting proficiencies, and compositions.

*takes notes for my eventual fan-conversion*

Spoiler:
I've got solid ideas for the Medium, Magus/Inquisitor/Hunter, and now Oracle, some vague ideas for the Arcanist and Swashbuckler/Gunslinger, and a few notes on Thaumaturgist (Summoner/Spiritualist), Witch, Psychic, Kineticist, and Occultist.

Can't wait to get my hands on the CRB, the first couple world guides, and the gamemastery guide to start getting actual numbers for all of this.


QuidEst wrote:
Personally, I like the idea of Oracle as a dual-path class, where you’re picking both a curse and a mystery. To make mysteries distinct from bloodlines, it’s as simple as not having them give focus powers, but other abilities instead.

We already kind of have a dual path class in core with the Wizard who chooses both an arcane school and a thesis, so there's no reason we can't do that sort of thing again. Having the Oracle out of the CRB gives us more license to make it a little more complex.

I figure the Curse should be the choice which is static, but evolves as you gain in power, while the Mystery should be the one that involves choices. Unlike a bloodline, which IIRC has 3 powers and you can take them or not, Oracle mysteries should have more revelation feats than you are likely to fit on a single character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lunatic Barghest wrote:
An Oracle could follow this formula, with curses filling in for compositions, and it would probably have more overlap mechanically with Bard than a Divine Sorcerer. And that's with the bare minimum of design work.

I think Muse=Mystery (≈Bloodline) and Composition=Revelation (≈Bloodline power) is a more faithful comparison...but maybe that's too simple. Maybe it's Muse=Path=Curse and Deity+Domain=Mystery. (Edit: Ninja'd by PossibleCabbage, who points out the Thesis/Arcane School comparison.)

I think the broad variety of Mysteries and their accompanying Revelations and bonus spells really drive the need for Oracles to be a separate class. They have as much variety as a Sorcerer bloodline, and can make some meaningfully different-feeling divine spellcasters. Turning every single one of those into a separate sub-bloodline that casts from the Divine list feels super-cumbersome. The same argument applies for replacing every deity and domain with Mysteries.

I agree with the folks pointing toward curse as one of the (many) things that an Oracle had that just doesn't line up with how sorcerers are structured. But in PF1, it isn't tied to most of the abilities you get; it was just a limitation with a predefined progression of some related/compensating abilities...but it added some cool flavor if used well. Notably, it did not define your selection of Mysteries (I think there might be some exceptions in later published material with archetypes and the like).

I'm curious if people think that the separation between Curse and Mystery needs to be maintained.

And lastly, I'm really hoping the buffs Sorcerers got in the final PF2 rules are solid, because I feel like if I had to pick between an occult sorcerer and a bard, I'll take bard every time. If the same situation shows up for dedicated divine and primal spontaneous caster classes, that just sort of drags down the Sorcerer over the life of PF2.


I could see tying together curse and mystery by either saying what curses a given mystery must choose from, or what mysteries a given curse is available to. But I don't think "all bones oracles have this curse, all battle oracles have that curse, etc" would be good.

Alternatively we could just bar certain mysteries from taking curses which are singularly inappropriate. Like a life oracle taking the lich curse or a community oracle taking the tongues curse.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I could see tying together curse and mystery by either saying what curses a given mystery must choose from, or what mysteries a given curse is available to. But I don't think "all bones oracles have this curse, all battle oracles have that curse, etc" would be good.

Definitely not, but I do think curses could be more integrated into the rest of the class.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I could see tying together curse and mystery by either saying what curses a given mystery must choose from, or what mysteries a given curse is available to. But I don't think "all bones oracles have this curse, all battle oracles have that curse, etc" would be good.

It could be possible to combine curses with mysteries by a thematic link: for instance link bone with brittle bones [Consumed] or stiff joints/bone spurs [lame]. I can see the benefits as this would sped up creation [one less option]. That said, I'd rather see more options from their being separate options.

Squiggit wrote:
I do think curses could be more integrated into the rest of the class

Do you have any ideas how you'd like to see that done? I'm curious to see what you're thinking to expand it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RicoTheBold wrote:
I'm curious if people think that the separation between Curse and Mystery needs to be maintained.

I would prefer complete mixing and matching. Like, for instance:

PossibleCabbage wrote:
life oracle taking the lich curse or a community oracle taking the tongues curse.

Those genuinely sound like interesting characters to role play. Or, heck, GM at my table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agree with paper, clashing combos actually sound interesting.

Unrelated to the this current conversation, but later in PF1's life we saw a lot of weirder Oracle curses get published, like the corruption curses, and I'd like to see some options like that in the baseline release. In general I just felt like curses like Legalistic or Vampirism are a lot more interesting than Lame.

graystone wrote:
Do you have any ideas how you'd like to see that done? I'm curious to see what you're thinking to expand it.

I don't but off the top of my head I really like the idea of mysteries + curses interacting. I wouldn't want to restrict options, but class feats tied to certain combos could be cool, albeit very overhead intensive.

Simply expanding out curses to be a more comprehensive and meaningful suite of class features could be fine too though. I just feel that in PF1 when I see oracles get made people either pick curses they can safely ignore or slightly more rarely pick curses that enable some specific gimmick, but either way they don't necessarily add a lot of value or identity.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
To start, this is an example bloodline:

Kinda unrelated but just looking back at this post... Bloodlines really suck in PF2. There just really isn't much going on there.

I feel like that's the best argument for Oracle being its own class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Agree with paper, clashing combos actually sound interesting.In general I just felt like curses like Legalistic or Vampirism are a lot more interesting than Lame.

I got to play with quite a few of them: Cold-Blooded, Covetous, Deep One, Infested, Shadowbound, Shattered Psyche and Toxic Blood were the 'odd' one's I've gotten to play and they were pretty fun. Shattered Psyche was especially fun as I was a samsaran that had all her past reincarnations aware and talking in her head: played a Psychic Searcher [lore] and the various other selves were what gave me my Inspiration. We had a blast, with different personalities popping in to comment when their skills were needed.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What will Oracles look like in PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.