|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You’re just overthinking this.
The Not-Focus Mechanics are a side thing to the Oracle and unique to them, it’s not from left field they might get forgotten about or confused with given their needless complexity.
Basically, what value do these rules provide other than complexity for sake thereof?
|
|
I’m not really seeing any point to this debate anymore if you’re just going to be insulting for the sake of insulting and not bothering to think about the potential issue being brought up.
Why is the potential for there to be an issue such an impossibility for you?
They could be making feats for multiple classes and forget that Oracles don’t have Focus Pools. It’s needlessly complicated and solely unique to the Oracle, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility something gets overlooked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am with Rysky on this. There are better ways of managing the tie between revelations, curses and focus. I think this is a huge detriment to anyone what does multiclass through archetypes. I mean there goes an oracle monk hybrid (something quite thematic) or an oracle sorcerer hybrid.
It creates unnecessary separation. The reference and limitations to focus should be left out of it entirely. Remove the line about Oracles not being able to get a focus pool would be a huge benefit. Curses and revelations already break what is most important about the focus pool system so why even relate the two?
why? whenever you gain focus spells they use your curse. if you get ki powers they advance your curse... ?
I don't understand what is hard to get by this. the text specifies that whenever they get focus spells they instead advance your curse.
you use ki strike and gain your minor curse for the day.
what the oracle gets about this over all other focus casters is they have effectively a focus pool 1 higher than everyone else and it advances for free (2 higher if you count they can use their spell to make themself go unconscious)
Instead, you cast revelation spells, or other focus spells you learn, by drawing upon the power of your mystery, which incurs the effects of your oracular curse (see below)
anyway most classless focus stuff requires "a focus pool" so they won't even be able to get feats that effect focus pools directly. if it doesn't do anything with a focus pool then it shouldn't have a focus pool as a requirement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the potential for there to be an issue such an impossibility for you?
i don't quite get why you think it's such an important possibility.
focus spells from outside the class are covered, effects that effect focus pools are covered, what system relating to focus spells and focus pools is left open for possible exploitation?
Imo, oracles are set up to be possibly the best focus casters in the game(with a larger than average 'pool', and free refocusing feats), i don't really want to see the system broken down so that the oracle doesn't have any of their unique advantages for focus casting anymore.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Having Focus Spells but No Focus Pool problem really boils down to complications with future archetypes.
Let's say in the future, Paizo makes a Bloatmage archetype. If this prestige archetype was based on using your own hit points to empower your spells, one way that could be accomplished would be by creating a Feat that lets you sacrifice hit points when casting a Focus Spell rather than spending a Focus point.
For most cases, this ability works fine. But it enters a grey area with the Oracle where it isn't sure how the ability should work or if the author had considered the Oracle snowflake case.
Similar abilities could arise that called out the number of Focus Points in your Pool, perquisites on Feats that refer to Focus Pools but otherwise work fine and would be a thematic option on the Oracle, and so on.
Again, most of these would come up with prestige archetypes and less frequently General/Ancestry feats. But I think it would be good to avoid the issue where possible by making the mechanical verbiage allow for the most interactions and with the most overlap as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an impossibility because I cant, while legitimately trying come up with something that would cause an issue and you haven't given any specific example that would be problematic. I assume if it's so obvious that it would cause issues you could easily give an example.
Inventing examples is not difficult. For example, suppose a third-party or I invent a Focus Crystal.
Focus Crystal. Item 5.
Price: expensive
Usage: Worn as necklace.
Once per day, the wearer may cast a focus spell of 2nd level or lower that he or she knows without spending a focus point.
Okay, that interacts pretty clearly with a caster of regular focus spells, but how would it interact with the revelation spells. They are focus spells and they are already cast without spending a focus point. Does trying to cast one via a Focus Crystal increase the curse or not?
Re: curses being tethered to the mystery - I haven’t read them in detail but is there something stopping people just ignoring the limitation there and mix matching (currently as a house rule of course). Or are they intrinsically linked in terms of how the abilities work ?The curses are tied to the mysteries by theme, but they are separate abilities without a direct mechanical link. Thus, a house rule could easily allow mix and match curses.
However, the curses have another property. They are the worst curse for their mystery.
A battle oracle's Curse of the Hero’s Burden gives the oracle a -2 to AC and saving throws, resembling a double-strength fatigue. This is especially bad for a melee character, which is a common style for a battle oracle.
A flame oracle's Curse of Engulfing Flames reduces their vision. Creatures become concealed from them, and at higher curse levels and farther away, hidden. This is especially bad for a ranged character, a common style for a fire-based spellcaster. However, it has no effect on area-of-effect spells, such as fireballs.
A life oracle's Curse of Outpouring Life is resistant to healing, including the mundane Treat Wounds. This is awkward for a party's primary healer, who could easily heal the other party members but would rather not waste healing magic on him- or herself. Instead, the logical thing to do with Curse of Outpouring Life is repeat Treat Wounds on the life oracle as often as possible, while the rest of the party is ready to keep adventuring. I remember seeing D&D games where the other players tell the healer, "You are our sole source of healing. We cannot risk you. Stay out of combat." Hence was born the healbot role. Life oracle seems destined for the healbot role.
In contrast, if we allowed mix-and-match curses, then a life oracle with Curse of the Hero’s Burden would say, "I take more damage, but it's no big deal because I can heal it." A melee battle oracle with Curse of Engulfing Flames would have trouble with...
This is a very good point. The battle mystery would probably have an easier time with the flames curse, assuming they were going to be in melee anyway, while the flames mystery would prefer to actually be able to target enemies and allies accurately when dropping fire balls. Life mystery would probably be better off with either curse, as it wants to have as many hit points to give to allies in the first place.
Honestly, rotating the curses would do a lot to make the class stronger. But it would contradict the canon of the PF1 iconic.
It's an impossibility because I cant, while legitimately trying come up with something that would cause an issue and you haven't given any specific example that would be problematic. I assume if it's so obvious that it would cause issues you could easily give an example.Inventing examples is not difficult. For example, suppose a third-party or I invent a Focus Crystal.
Focus Crystal. Item 5.
Price: expensive
Usage: Worn as necklace.
Once per day, the wearer may cast a focus spell of 2nd level or lower that he or she knows without spending a focus point.Okay, that interacts pretty clearly with a caster of regular focus spells, but how would it interact with the revelation spells. They are focus spells and they are already cast without spending a focus point. Does trying to cast one via a Focus Crystal increase the curse or not?
it clearly doesn't do anything for an oracle, in the same way that you can't use a familiar to regain a focus point.
besides that item is already poorly written it should be written as an item that gives you an action, a free action(though it should be a reaction), frequency: once per day, that has the prerequisite of a focus pool. in fact to make sure it doesn't break anything, it should refund the point afterward so you still count as having spent a focus point and in general should be worded like refocus. if you had an ability that did something whenever you spent a spell point, it wouldn't work here either.
anything that deals with focus points or pools should have focus pool as a requirement on it's action.
really that item doesn't work well with just the focus system in general. should be
Focus Crystal. Item 5.
Price: expensive
Usage: Worn as necklace.
while wearing this necklace you can catch the rebound from one of your focus spells once per day
Activate[Reaction] interact; Trigger your last action was the cast action for a focus spell you know; Effect you perform a refocus activity as part of this action, using it's full benefit.
if you wanted it to not work for oracles
Activate[Reaction] interact; Trigger your last action was the cast action for a focus spell you know, you have a focus pool; Effect you regain a focus point.
the 2nd one not only doesn't work for oracles, but if it wasn't a reaction, you'd have a case where potentially another ability as above(in other posts) lets you cast a spell without using a focus point, and this would still let you regain a focus point even though one wasn't spent.
likely is the case, that the entire system does not want these types of abilities to be given out.
tl;dr; the focus system in general is already a mine field, and the oracle is not more dangerous to have poorly worded abilities than is the entirety of the rest of the focus pool system.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple, either you keep it as written and the item doesn't help oracles. Which is a fine idea as circumnavigating the curse might not be what is intended. Or you reword it to not mention focus points at all such as "cast a focus spell you know without paying any cost."It's an impossibility because I cant, while legitimately trying come up with something that would cause an issue and you haven't given any specific example that would be problematic. I assume if it's so obvious that it would cause issues you could easily give an example.Inventing examples is not difficult. For example, suppose a third-party or I invent a Focus Crystal.
Focus Crystal. Item 5.
Price: expensive
Usage: Worn as necklace.
Once per day, the wearer may cast a focus spell of 2nd level or lower that he or she knows without spending a focus point.Okay, that interacts pretty clearly with a caster of regular focus spells, but how would it interact with the revelation spells. They are focus spells and they are already cast without spending a focus point. Does trying to cast one via a Focus Crystal increase the curse or not?
Regarding the "cast a focus spell you know without paying any cost" wording, is the increased curse a cost or a consequence? The current wording of Oracular Curse has it as a consequence, but I suppose it could be reworded as a cost.
Rysky mentioned someone else overthinking a few comments ago, but I am a master of overthinking. The bigger issue is not that two kinds of focus spells might cause rules gaps based on overlooked cases. The bigger issue is that Pathfinder 2nd Edition has a design philosophy of unifying mechanics and this breaks that philosophy.
All spell-slot spellcasters have 10 levels of spellcasting because spell-slots became a unifying mechanic. Both weapons and skills and saving throws use proficiency bonuses because that mechanics unifies bonuses coherently. Focus spells all use the same kind of focus pool because that unifies focus spells--except for this new proposal for oracles.
With the revelation spells being declared focus spells, the unifying mechanic of focus is reduced to a category rather than a mechanic. Clear design in the PF2 philosophy would have been to simply declare the revelation spells to be their own kind of spell, a new entry among cantrips, spell slots, and focus spells.
Which isn't that hard to do. Why are the revelation spells called focus spells anyway? It wasn't for using Refocus, because that would have been more clearly written as a new Uncurse activity.
besides that item is already poorly written it should be written as an item that gives you an action, a free action(though it should be a reaction), frequency: once per day, that has the prerequisite of a focus pool. in fact to make sure it doesn't break anything, it should refund the point afterward so you still count as having spent a focus point and in general should be worded like refocus. if you had an ability that did something whenever you spent a spell point, it wouldn't work here either.
Of course, it is poorly written. It was a quick example and I was not going to take the time to write up all the details of a magic item. Wasn't the "Price: expensive" and lack of a Bulk value enough of a clue that this was a rough sketch?
Should the prerequisite simply be having a focus pool? Shouldn't the prerequisite also require having focus spells, too? With a proper unifying mechanic, we would not have to worry about how the details split.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You’re just overthinking this.
I feel like you are. There's a lot of handwringing over things being marginally different, referencing things in overcomplicated ways, fears about problems so nebulous no one can actually state what they are and glib phrases like "complexity for complexity's sake" and not a lot of... actual issues with the system.
Revelation spells, as written, are easy to understand, work just like an existing mechanic so you don't have to learn dramatically new features for one class and are built with future proofing in mind to disable potential abuses that would potentially allow for players to circumvent the mechanic.
Accomplishing that with normal focus points would require writing in a bunch of specific exceptions, which would be more confusing, or completely breaking the Oracle's curse dynamic, which feels increasingly like the real goal here.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely think the Advanced Player's Guide is an appropriate place to introduce classes which are more complex than the core rulebook classes, and which exist as exceptions to certain established rules.
Like I'm fine with the Oracle interacting with Focus differently because I want the Occultist to interact with Focus differently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we aren't ever allowed to modify how a character interacts with base mechanics we are going to very quickly end up with either a bland series of expansions or constant new mechanics to create niches around.
Pf2 near universal systems are a fantastic and strong base and great for learning. The key point is that the complexity is almost entirely out in. The oracle can buck universal simplicity because of its opt in nature. The complexity is worthwhile because it adds depth and creates mechanics that are well married to theme whilst shutting down potential abuses.
Using only pre-existing systems is how we get the Witch, yep. All mage classes can't just be "has this spell list + these focus spells + method to add some random new spells outside your list".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blackened was admittedly the biggest no-curse for maximum benefit in PF1. But some of them were a bit much; such as, yes, wolfscarred face, which was really hard to justify unless you were Dual-Cursed and deaf, and eventually got its lunch completely eaten (no pun intended) by the hunger curse.
Blackened is a no-curse? Not until Pathfinder Unchained and VMC Monk came along. Otherwise, you are either giving up most of your melee ability or diverting levels from your main class to be effective in melee at all.
It is only natural that an oracle would be built to avoid using abilities that are crippled by their curse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point should be that it should not be feasible to build an oracle who is simply not inconvenienced by their curse because "it only affects a thing I have chosen not to do."
I think the biggest no-curse in PF1 was "Legalistic."
How would this work for oracle curses and focus points:
Oracles are always under the effects of their least/minor curse and begin each day with 1-3 focus points (according to how many stages beyond minor they can advance their curse).
The only way they can refocus is by incrementing their curse to the next stage. It has the advantage of working instantly and giving them more focus points over the course of the day than other focus-based spellcasters get, but the disadvantage is obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't that have the effect of the Oracle being able to use less focus than anyone else, since once you activate the major curse and "you are constantly on fire" you're kind of done for the day.
Shouldn't the opposite be true? Like the oracle can use focus more freely than other classes.
How about something like:
-the oracle has 1-3 focus points, depending on which level of curse they can activate.
-the oracle can instantly refill to max focus by advancing their curse to the next level.
-the oracle's "short rest" refocus ability only reduces the curse, it does not restore focus.
This represents how the oracle can tap directly into fundamental powers of the universe, and receive that power nigh-instantaneously. But that's dangerous so they should only really do it in high pressure situations, and it kind of messes them up. In less stressful moments, they can't (or shouldn't) access that kind of power, but they can engage in self-care in order to recover from how much doing that can harm you.
Mathmuse lays out well, thankies.
Before Oracle Focus was a unifying mechanic, after it broke a bit with their unique system. Unique not automatically meaning good, it’s complex and extra steps are required, from play to design, when playing with other Foci.
The way Focus Spells are defined makes them very modular and easy to subtly change like with the oracle.
I'm pretty interested in how their status as a spellcaster with no Focus Points works out. I kind of want to make a melee Dragon bloodline Flame oracle to play with now.
stuff I can't easily quote on my phone.
The requirement for focus spells is written into the trigger, FYI.
The point of the rewriting was to show how you can easily make stuff that breaks the current focus pool mechanics just as easily.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You’re just overthinking this.I feel like you are. There's a lot of handwringing over things being marginally different, referencing things in overcomplicated ways, fears about problems so nebulous no one can actually state what they are and glib phrases like "complexity for complexity's sake" and not a lot of... actual issues with the system.
Revelation spells, as written, are easy to understand, work just like an existing mechanic so you don't have to learn dramatically new features for one class and are built with future proofing in mind to disable potential abuses that would potentially allow for players to circumvent the mechanic.
Accomplishing that with normal focus points would require writing in a bunch of specific exceptions, which would be more confusing, or completely breaking the Oracle's curse dynamic, which feels increasingly like the real goal here.
It’s something that immediately popped out to me when I first read it, basically reading as “Ability functions as other ability except...” which Paizo has stated they wanted to move away avoid.
And I’d love to know about accidents before they happen, but that’s how accidents work, sorry that that concern sounds silly.
I do feel it is needlessly complex rather than innovative, and more importantly, fun.
As for “actual” issues (which I have talked about), your Oracle’s Curse constantly buffing/debuffing as they cast/refocus, being punished for playing your class if your overcast by being unable to play the game anymore (the 8 hours unconsciousness), the Curses being locked to each Mystery, cutting of a bunch of options and Oracles from P1, and the Curses themselves being overly and easily punitive for what they give.
The Oracle has a lot of issues, i’m not ignoring them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
being punished for playing your class if your overcast by being unable to play the game anymore (the 8 hours unconsciousness)
Would you prefer if you just simply couldn't cast past your maximum? That's essentially what it is, just with the option to push beyond it if for some reason in an emergency you really need to.
Kind of like how wands are essentially 1/day items but under some extreme circumstances it might be worthwhile to gamble on an extra use.
I'm not sure that's really a bad thing ultimately.
It’s something that immediately popped out to me when I first read it, basically reading as “Ability functions as other ability except...” which Paizo has stated they wanted to move away avoid.
And I’d love to know about accidents before they happen, but that’s how accidents work, sorry that that concern sounds silly.
The write up for revelation spells gracefully avoids any "functions as X except Y" ambiguity, though. It is very clear about what works and what doesn't.
Does an oracle have Focus Points or a Focus Pool? No. Having those as well as a curse would be overly complicated.
Can an oracle use focus spells from other sources (e.g. bloodline powers)? Yes. Explicitly stated. Also clearly use the curse mechanic to cast.
There is complexity added to the system in that now we have a spellcaster that can never have Focus Points. But, there will never be ambiguity about that. If an item is published that assumes all spellcasters have Focus Pools, it is clearly wrong. If the developer is on their game, it will have a requirement that the spellcaster have a Focus Pool which clearly excludes the oracle.
The designers did a good job with revelation spells and curses altering the baseline assumptions without introducing ambiguity to the rules and how they interact.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
being punished for playing your class if your overcast by being unable to play the game anymore (the 8 hours unconsciousness)Would you prefer if you just simply couldn't cast past your maximum? That's essentially what it is, just with the option to push beyond it if for some reason in an emergency you really need to.
Kind of like how wands are essentially 1/day items but under some extreme circumstances it might be worthwhile to gamble on an extra use.
I'm not sure that's really a bad thing ultimately.
That or some other drawback for overclocking that doesn’t take you out of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point should be that it should not be feasible to build an oracle who is simply not inconvenienced by their curse because "it only affects a thing I have chosen not to do."
I think the biggest no-curse in PF1 was "Legalistic."
While Legalistic was among the easiest curses to bypass the benefits from it were either lacking (level 5's is a situational boost and while level 10 gave you a reroll it took a long time to do so) or forced you to interact with the curse.
If you ask me, the biggest no-curse was Haunted. It only impacted non-weapon items so as long as you're not the consumable user you only have to worry about dropping your weapon. In exchange you got 6 spells, which included such beasts as Telekinesis and Reverse Gravity. The illusion spells and Mage Hand weren't too shabby either.
It seems PF 2 wants to make every curse a high impact curse this time, a bit of a shame. I feel some low impact curses here and there would be fine so long as the benefits to those curses is kept lower than the curses with higher impacts. Tongues was a good example of this where the problem was easy to work around but the benefit was also lackluster.
Regardless it is Paizo's game, though I hope that they make sure each curse is worth it. They have to be a lot more careful now with them since a curse that harms too much can take its entire mystery down with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The situations in which you want to overclock are likely to be session-enders anyway. Everyone in the party is going to take 8 hours of unconsciousness afterward.
stuff I can't easily quote on my phone.The requirement for focus spells is written into the trigger, FYI.
The point of the rewriting was to show how you can easily make stuff that breaks the current focus pool mechanics just as easily.
Sorry, my walls of text are hard to quote.
I was confused about the mention of a trigger, especially since I did not know which of my comments was quoted. The revelation and curse rules in the Playtest document did not mention triggers. My guess is that Bandw2 meant the trigger in his rewritten Focus Crystal in comment #112. I did not see Bandw2's comment when I was writing my comment #113, and I chose not to edit my comment when I noticed that new comment during the preview. So my comment #113 is not based on Bandw2's comment #112.
Nevertheless, the progression is illuminating. I wrote a sketchy example of a magic item that assumed focus spells used focus points. Malk_Content improved the wording from focus point to cost, but that did not prevent the revelation focus spell from increasing the curse, since that was not a cost. Bandw2 created a more robust version that does not prevent the cost, but instead refunds the cost with a Refocus activity, since both the regular focus pools and the oracle's curse respond to the Refocus activity. That is an elegant solution; however, it forgets that Refocus for some classes involve other deeds:
The deeds you need to perform are specified in the class or ability that gives you your focus spells. These deeds can usually overlap with other tasks that relate to the source of your focus spells. For instance, a cleric with focus spells from a good deity can usually Refocus while tending the wounds of their allies, and a wizard of the illusionist school might be able to Refocus while attempting to Identify Magic of the illusion school.
Many deeds will be unbelievable if squeezed into a Reaction.
I view this difficulty as a consequence of splitting focus spells into two different forms.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s something that immediately popped out to me when I first read it, basically reading as “Ability functions as other ability except...” which Paizo has stated they wanted to move away avoid.
And I’d love to know about accidents before they happen, but that’s how accidents work, sorry that that concern sounds silly.
The write up for revelation spells gracefully avoids any "functions as X except Y" ambiguity, though. It is very clear about what works and what doesn't.
Does an oracle have Focus Points or a Focus Pool? No. Having those as well as a curse would be overly complicated.
Can an oracle use focus spells from other sources (e.g. bloodline powers)? Yes. Explicitly stated. Also clearly use the curse mechanic to cast.There is complexity added to the system in that now we have a spellcaster that can never have Focus Points. But, there will never be ambiguity about that. If an item is published that assumes all spellcasters have Focus Pools, it is clearly wrong. If the developer is on their game, it will have a requirement that the spellcaster have a Focus Pool which clearly excludes the oracle.
The designers did a good job with revelation spells and curses altering the baseline assumptions without introducing ambiguity to the rules and how they interact.
And how many wrongs might come out? Is there enough innovation and enjoyment to enjoy the added complexities?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how many wrongs might come out? Is there enough innovation and enjoyment to enjoy the added complexities?
Yes. Yes there is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The situations in which you want to overclock are likely to be session-enders anyway. Everyone in the party is going to take 8 hours of unconsciousness afterward.
That’s a pretty big assumption.
Not every session/game is set up like that. What if there’s another fight?
What do you enjoy about it?And how many wrongs might come out? Is there enough innovation and enjoyment to enjoy the added complexities?Yes. Yes there is.
The complexity, obviously. Paizo's willingness to push the envelope and do things that are a bit weird is one of the reasons I like this system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not every session/game is set up like that. What if there’s another fight?
Then you don't use the ability?
It's not like this is some weird surprise that gets sprung on players or some underhanded piece of RNG. It's something you have to voluntarily opt into after already hitting your normal cap.
It will never happen unless the player chooses it to happen. Which makes it weird to characterize as a punishment.
And how many wrongs might come out?
How many wrongs might come out if they were completely normal focus spells?
The problem with such a nebulous complaint is that it applies to anything. No matter what the final version of the Oracle looks like, there may or may not eventually be some issue that could cause problems down the road.
stuff I can't easily quote on my phone.The requirement for focus spells is written into the trigger, FYI.
The point of the rewriting was to show how you can easily make stuff that breaks the current focus pool mechanics just as easily.
Sorry, my walls of text are hard to quote.
I was confused about the mention of a trigger, especially since I did not know which of my comments was quoted. The revelation and curse rules in the Playtest document did not mention triggers. My guess is that Bandw2 meant the trigger in his rewritten Focus Crystal in comment #112. I did not see Bandw2's comment when I was writing my comment #113, and I chose not to edit my comment when I noticed that new comment during the preview. So my comment #113 is not based on Bandw2's comment #112.
Nevertheless, the progression is illuminating. I wrote a sketchy example of a magic item that assumed focus spells used focus points. Malk_Content improved the wording from focus point to cost, but that did not prevent the revelation focus spell from increasing the curse, since that was not a cost. Bandw2 created a more robust version that does not prevent the cost, but instead refunds the cost with a Refocus activity, since both the regular focus pools and the oracle's curse respond to the Refocus activity. That is an elegant solution; however, it forgets that Refocus for some classes involve other deeds:
The deeds you need to perform are specified in the class or ability that gives you your focus spells. These deeds can usually overlap with other tasks that relate to the source of your focus spells. For instance, a cleric with focus spells from a good deity can usually Refocus while tending the wounds of their allies, and a wizard of the illusionist school might be able to Refocus while attempting to Identify...
Sorry for any misunderstanding due to me not providing a decent description of what I quoted.
I don't believe deeds are required but tasks that can be done at the same time. Regardless of the case, it still shows how the current focus system is already difficult to write for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you enjoy about it?And how many wrongs might come out? Is there enough innovation and enjoyment to enjoy the added complexities?Yes. Yes there is.
More focus casting at level 1, where I need to manage not a number but degrees of severity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you enjoy about it?And how many wrongs might come out? Is there enough innovation and enjoyment to enjoy the added complexities?Yes. Yes there is.
It certainly gives more narrative impact than a simple focus pool. There is a lot of roleplay fodder in describing how a curse manifests as you dip further into wielding your abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And how many wrongs might come out?How many wrongs might come out if they were completely normal focus spells?
The problem with such a nebulous complaint is that it applies to anything. No matter what the final version of the Oracle looks like, there may or may not eventually be some issue that could cause problems down the road.
I can imagine a lot more errors and wonkiness trying to marry the focus pool/point system to a curse system so they work together. It is much cleaner to simply remove and replace the focus pool/points with the curse mechanic, which will lead to fewer errors down the road.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not every session/game is set up like that. What if there’s another fight?Then you don't use the ability?
It's not like this is some weird surprise that gets sprung on players or some underhanded piece of RNG. It's something you have to voluntarily opt into after already hitting your normal cap.
It will never happen unless the player chooses it to happen. Which makes it weird to characterize as a punishment.
And how many wrongs might come out?How many wrongs might come out if they were completely normal focus spells?
The problem with such a nebulous complaint is that it applies to anything. No matter what the final version of the Oracle looks like, there may or may not eventually be some issue that could cause problems down the road.
Uh, it is a surprise, or do you tell your players ahead of time every encounter that’s going to happen that session? Otherwise they have no way of knowing what’s going to be the “final” fight before they can rest.
And of course it applies to everything, but it applies more here when you’re working with a system and then a unique more complicated system it attached to it that every writer has to keep in mind of.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can imagine a lot more errors and wonkiness trying to marry the focus pool/point system to a curse system so they work together. It is much cleaner to simply remove and replace the focus pool/points with the curse mechanic, which will lead to fewer errors down the road.And how many wrongs might come out?How many wrongs might come out if they were completely normal focus spells?
The problem with such a nebulous complaint is that it applies to anything. No matter what the final version of the Oracle looks like, there may or may not eventually be some issue that could cause problems down the road.
Would you say the following is more complicated?
You have a Focus Pool, you regain a Focus Point every time you cast an Oracle Spell, and your Curse advances depending on your current amount. Revelation Spells, being Focus Spells, cost 1 Focus to use.
How hard is it to say: You have a pool of 3 focus when ever you spend a focus point to cast a focus spell increase your curse severity by 1?
It does the exact same thing as regular focus, has the incremental effects of the curse, and triggers using any focus spell you might gain.
You want to over cast? Add this line: If you have no more focus points you may still cast a spell but suffer X harsh effect.Also, congrats to the Oracle and his incremental curse for being based on what many (probably most) considered the worst part of the Kineticist, taking (near) unhealable damage/penalty to use your main ability. And the Kineticist versions only added stacks, these Oracle curses multiply their penalties.
well because as it is, an oracle can potentially cast 5 focus spells in a row at level 20 and not need to refocus between them(note: you go unconscious after the 5th one).
a battle oracle MCd with monk sounds pretty fun.
you essentially start with a focus pool value of 2, where you can overspend and go unconscious, and then gain more as you level up, to pool of 4. however, you only refocus it to minor curse, so you never can fill out your focus pool again (so after the first casting it can't go above a pool of 3)...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if its something specific to Orcales, yes that is rules writing incompetence. Sorry but that would be like forgetting how Witches get their spells when writing content for a Witch. If it isn't something specific to Oracle then it is already covered in the "Oracles never get Focus" portion of the Oracle text. Maybe I'm still being dumb and still require an actual specific example.Any Feat or ability that assumes Oracles have a Focus pool because they have Focus Spells.
Or someone merely forgot because the Oracles rules on their Not-Focus are needlessly complicated rather than being innovative. I also wouldn’t consider them the class defining feature of the Oracles, that belongs to the Mystery/Curse.
1e's Charger archetype for Animal Companions has a feature that gives benefits to a Cavalier, but replaces Share Spells. A Cavalier's Animal Companion doesn't get Share Spells as per the Cavalier's class feature that grants the Animal Companion. It was designed for Cavaliers, but cannot be taken by them. And this is just an example of overlooking a single sentence in Cavalier.
If that can happen for 1e, it can happen in 2e as well. I feel like it'd be even MORE likely to happen if the class feature is confusing, like with the playtest's Oracle not focus* TM.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, thing with desperation moves(and stuff like Blazes of Revelation) is that you will never use them unless you absolutely have to.
Like, even if you think the foe is final boss of whole campaign or final encounter of day, you will only use attack that KO you if you think you are definitely going to die otherwise :P
So it is kinda irrelevant whether player knows the encounter is final one or not, desperation moves are always done out of desperation.
(I like mechanics that actually allow you to try to perform heroic sacrifice or blazes of glory moves. They are also interesting from npc perspective, though npc/pc rules are separate now)