| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen it a few times, and I think people have forgotten one thing.
You cannot, may not, and shall not mitigate your curse by any means (other than by refocusing).While your curse is active, you
can’t mitigate, reduce, or remove its effects by any other
means;
LOL I haven't forgotten... This means things was REALLY bad for the battle oracle since your curse involves AC and saving throws meaning that once it activates you lose your Potency and Resilient rune bonuses [or they'd "mitigate, reduce, or remove" the penalty] and any buff spell to those. It's even worse when a single strike doesn't suspend it... The curse is just one big 'hit me, I'm easy' sign... :P
EDIT: actually now that I think about it, wouldn't that mean you also lose your AC bonus from armor too? And doesn't your proficiency bonus mitigate the penalty? And your Dex? Do you just drop to an 8 [base 10 and -2] AC and saves?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know that's not right, graystone.
Graystone may be right? At the very least: I think that might be a reasonable legalistic interpretation of RAW.
It’s not.
Because the effect is a penalty and penalties and bonuses specifically stack? I dunno. I still feel like this might constitute a "bug" in the code.
No they're intentionally reading it in a nonsensical manner to make it worse.
Then kindly explain what is and isn't something that mitigates, reduces, or removes a -2 penalty to AC and saving throws? What is the 'sensical' reading of that? As Excaliburproxy points out, penalties and bonuses specifically stack and it all happens in the same step.
PS: Also, I don't think I have to go out of my way to "make it worse": it's already bad enough that it's not worth casting your revelations to activate your curse without this: this is just icing on the cake made of awful.
You know that's not right, graystone.
I'm pretty sure that's not what they meant it to be but that doesn't mean that's NOT what it says. I'll ask you the same as I did Rysky: what IS then "something that mitigates, reduces, or removes a -2 penalty to AC and saving throws" if not what I said in my quote? IF it's not how I said it, they failed to explain just what it is they meant by it. Even if we're talking intent, were is the reasonable 'line' on what you think they meant?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That argument stating the Battle Oracle's curse is effecting even AC from armor seems very rules lawyery (which given the history of the game, is part for the course. It reminds me of a one story I heard about a passive/aggressive GM and his overly harsh ruling on a Fey Sorcerer's "Fey Disappearance" being virtually cancelled out by his class's blood magic ("You become invisible but immediately are surrounded by a technicolor aura. You're still concealed, but everyone knows about where you are.")).
You have a penalty to AC, it's not "you don't have any AC at all".
Wearing armor doesn't mitigate it, you still have the -2.
mit·i·gate
/ˈmidəˌɡāt/verb
make less severe, serious, or painful.
re·duce
/rəˈd(y)o͞os/
verb
3rd person present: reduces
1.
make smaller or less in amount, degree, or size.
re·move
/rəˈmo͞ov/
verb
3rd person present: removes
2.
eliminate or get rid of.
So is it your position that wearing armor doesn't do any of these? That doesn't seem to follow what these words mean in the english language. Then let me ask this, what about an active ability? Does raising a shield mitigate an AC penalty to you? Or does ANYTHING in your mind reduce, mitigate or remove a penalty in your mind?
That argument stating the Battle Oracle's curse is effecting even AC from armor seems very rules lawyery
What reduces, mitigates or removes a penalty?: where is this explained in an explicit manner?
Nope. None of that removes the -2.
Cool, but it doesn't say only remove. Does it reduce or mitigate it? We have multiple things it must not do. Just because it doesn't remove it doesn't mean it doesn't mitigate it does it?
Or, lets say you're right. Why add reduce or mitigate if none of those words matter?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
An example of mitigating the curse would be a dwarf feat that says "reduce penalties to your armor class by 1". Armor does not mitigate a penalty. Let's try abiding by Wheaton's Law here, folks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They do matter.
The system works better if you act in good faith and read the rules in a way that makes sense rather than intentionally reading them to not for the sake of not.
I'd rather they nail down the wording that let it up to 'common sense' as that varies wildly from person to person. It's NOT a case of intentionally reading it wrong: does the DM allow a heroism spell, that adds a status bonus to saving throws, work is a real question that's up in the air as a common sense reading tells you that it does indeed mitigate the curse. That's a real question that's up in the air with the wording.
An example of mitigating the curse would be a dwarf feat that says "reduce penalties to your armor class by 1". Armor does not mitigate a penalty. Let's try abiding by Wheaton's Law here, folks.
Lets look at the wording of your example once... It reduces explicitly but the wording of the curse goes further: reduce, MITIGATE or remove. Mitigate covers a lot of ground. Does the curse mitigate the save bonus from runes? If so, how is it different than armor? Or a heroism spell? And if this isn't a concern, then what exactly do they mean by mitigate that wouldn't be cover by remove if what you're saying is right?
Honestly people, lets quibble less on base armor and proficiency: what constitutes mitigating a penalty isn't some bizarre or unthinkable off the wall question that could never come up. Asking if a heroism spell should work on the battle curse isn't being a dick... It a legitimate question under the super vague wording. If everything your character does hinges on an ability, it doesn't seem out of place to want how it works nailed down: what does or doesn't affect your AC and saves is important to know.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s a lot more fun to approach the rules in good faith. They exist to help us have fun together, after all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the playtest though. It's the best place to point out vague wording that could be clarified before we have this same issue crop up at launch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can’t counteract a slowed condition from a curse with haste then why would you be able to counteract the battle oracles penalties with other effects? Even if you say, “well, obviously armor still counts” then are you equally sure that temporary bonuses still apply?
I am not sure where to draw the line as it stands even if “common sense” (which I am unconvinced entirely applies) would omit some possible issues.
It’s a lot more fun to approach the rules in good faith. They exist to help us have fun together, after all.
That's my point. You can, IN GOOD FAITH, have questions on what mitigating a penalty means. It doesn't seem to me that it's BAD FAITH to ask if the way it's worded would prevent a heroism spell from working on a battle curse. Assuming good faith and common sense will fix issues is fine for your home game but when you play with other you don't know, you quickly find that often that your good faith and common sense don't match theirs so I'd rather the rules actually be clear enough that we don't have to rely on it if possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s a lot more fun to approach the rules in good faith. They exist to help us have fun together, after all.That's my point. You can, IN GOOD FAITH, have questions on what mitigating a penalty means. It doesn't seem to me that it's BAD FAITH to ask if the way it's worded would prevent a heroism spell from working on a battle curse. Assuming good faith and common sense will fix issues is fine for your home game but when you play with other you don't know, you quickly find that often that your good faith and common sense don't match theirs so I'd rather the rules actually be clear enough that we don't have to rely on it if possible.
I can think of a second marginal example. Suppose a rogue character with +10 proficiency in Medicine and Assurance in Medicine performs Treat Wound on a life oracle. The oracle's minor Curse of Outpouring Life raises the DC from 15 to 20, but Assurance makes that an guaranteed success. The +5 to DC from the minor curse was been bypassed by a high proficiency. On the other hand, the medical rogue cannot perform the next stage of Treat Medicine via Assurance, the one that heals an additional 10 damage, on the oracle, so the curse does have an effect.
The example given in the playtest document seems pretty iffy, too, "While your curse is active, you can’t mitigate, reduce, or remove its effects by any other means; for example, while you are slowed 1 from your extreme curse, you couldn’t benefit from an effect that normally cancels or counteracts the slowed condition." Yet nothing in the Core Rulebook directly cancels or counteracts the slowed condition.
Checking the rules, only fortune and misfortune cancel each other out. Combining slowed and quickened does not cancel them, both effects apply. Counteracting is more common; page 458 says, "Some effects try to counteract spells, afflictions, conditions, or other effects." Dispel magic countacts spells, afflictions and magical traps list ways to counteract them. Oracle curses are not in those categories, though a clarifying sentence that curses cannot be counteracted like afflictions is reasonable.
We also have a question of whether the oracle alone is prevented from reducing the effects of a curse. If an fire oracle has a major Curse of Engulfing Flames, can allies or opponents cast Resist Energy to avoid the 2d6 fire damage from the 5-foot aura of fire? The fire oracle instead loses 2d6 Hit Points at the end of his turn, so Resist Energy would not help the oracle independent of the anti-mitigation rule. But would the oracle be allowed to cast Resist Energy on an ally so that the ally can safely stand beside the oracle?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Curses not in the playtest had some other mitigation examples. The PF1 Tongues curse forced the oracle to speak an exotic language, such as Celestial. Parties bypassed the curse by everyone learning to speak Celestial. An oracle with a curse of lameness, which reduces speed, often rode a mount to avoid using the oracle's own speed. Nature mystery's Bonded Mount revelation provided a good mount.
These solutions do not technically "mitigate, reduce, or remove [the curse's] effects," but they make the curse a lot less burdensome on the oracle. If we use a strong definition of "mitigate" to prevent this, then the anti-mitigation rule become strong enough to prevent wearing armor when under a AC reduction.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing curse needs to do is be worth the bang for the buck it's charging. In PF1 Kinetisist was in a similar boat where it took penalties in exchange for using its powers and it got bonused based on how harsh the penalties were. And by penalties I mean working with a smaller pool of hit points.LOL I LOATHED the 'punch myself in the face' method of burn and the oracle now has a much worse version for much, much less payback for doing so. The only good thing here is that you can totally ignore the curse by ignoring the revelation spells and since they aren't very exciting it doesn't feel like a huge lose. Time to multiclass!
I thought the playtest said something to the effect of "any Focus spells gained through multiclassing also use the Curse mechanic instead of focus points." If so, I think that would be the death knell for the entire class. Not only should you never use your own (rather weak) focus spells, but you can't even learn other class' focus spells without being cursed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the playtest said something to the effect of "any Focus spells gained through multiclassing also use the Curse mechanic instead of focus points." If so, I think that would be the death knell for the entire class. Not only should you never use your own (rather weak) focus spells, but you can't even learn other class' focus spells without being cursed.The big thing curse needs to do is be worth the bang for the buck it's charging. In PF1 Kinetisist was in a similar boat where it took penalties in exchange for using its powers and it got bonused based on how harsh the penalties were. And by penalties I mean working with a smaller pool of hit points.LOL I LOATHED the 'punch myself in the face' method of burn and the oracle now has a much worse version for much, much less payback for doing so. The only good thing here is that you can totally ignore the curse by ignoring the revelation spells and since they aren't very exciting it doesn't feel like a huge lose. Time to multiclass!
That feature is written on page 15 in the first paragraph under Revelation Spells.
Revelation Spells
You can cast revelation spells, which are a type of focus spell. Though it normally costs 1 Focus Point to cast a focus spell, as an oracle, you do not have a focus pool and can never gain one by any means, even if you take a feat that would grant you Focus Points or a focus pool. 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).
Oracle class lends itself naturally to multiclassing, since the character can easily have a backstory about a previous course of study. But this punishes classes with focus spells. "I was attuning myself to my ki powers though physical exercise. Listening to my heart beat, I attained a divine revelation about the power of life itself. Now I don't dare use my ki powers due to the death curse I unleashed."
I thought the playtest said something to the effect of "any Focus spells gained through multiclassing also use the Curse mechanic instead of focus points."
As far as I know, none of the archetypes force you to take focus spells: as such, it's not really an issue IMO. Just don't use focus spells: my oracle ended up with twice the non-focus spells per day that a normal oracle would have so it really didn't feel like a lose to not have focus spells.
But this punishes classes with focus spells.
No, it punishes those classes for USING them and most classes don't have them as a requirement: a monk can go through 20 levels and not take any. And even for classes that do get focus spells automatically, often they aren't too exciting like a dragon sorcerer losing dragon claws... is it REALLY a lose?
Not only should you never use your own (rather weak) focus spells
This is just a flatly untrue statement though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Oracle, as much as I hate the 2e version of that class, I will say one good thing about it: Oracle is a natural fit for multiclassing and archetypes. Their feats are so underwhelming that there's really no reason you can't just use all your class feats on multiclassing feats or archetype feats. You really don't lose anything by doing this.
I'm tempted to do exactly that when the official class comes out: play a Battle Oracle, multiclass Fighter, and use all of my class feats on Fighter feats while still retaining divine spellcasting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only should you never use your own (rather weak) focus spellsThis is just a flatly untrue statement though.
Which of the oracles focus spells alone are worth the curse? IMO, none of them. I can get a +2 initiative and 1/2 level temp hp for a -2 ac and save ALL DAY... I have to agree with Samurai: I'd never encourage anyone ever to cast revelation spells... Ever.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which of the oracles focus spells alone are worth the curse? IMO, none of them. I can get a +2 initiative and 1/2 level temp hp for a -2 ac and save ALL DAY... I have to agree with Samurai: I'd never encourage anyone ever to cast revelation spells... Ever.
Well, notion that the curse is something to be avoided at all costs isn't really accurate in the first place. Play experience as a life oracle has basically revolved around turning on Moderate as quickly as possible because the benefits are too good to pass up and the penalties might as well not exist at all.
My flame oracle gets plenty of use out of whirling flames and fusillade, too.
Which of the oracles focus spells alone are worth the curse? IMO, none of them. I can get a +2 initiative and 1/2 level temp hp for a -2 ac and save ALL DAY... I have to agree with Samurai: I'd never encourage anyone ever to cast revelation spells... Ever.Well, notion that the curse is something to be avoided at all costs isn't really accurate in the first place. Play experience as a life oracle has basically revolved around turning on Moderate as quickly as possible because the benefits are too good to pass up and the penalties might as well not exist at all.
My flame oracle gets plenty of use out of whirling flames and fusillade, too.
I've played all the types of oracle and I can say without any qualms that the curse IS in fact something to avoid at all costs: the focus spells just aren't worth it in any way when you take into account the super onerous curse. For instance, getting "plenty of use out of whirling flames and fusillade" in no way makes up for sight being limited and foes having auto concealment. I don't even have to get into slowly killing yourself as a life oracle...
Play experience 100% supports avoiding any revelation spells: in fact, I never bothered even figuring out what domain spells I had for later oracles I made after playing my first oracle because I knew I was never again going to ever use a revelation spell...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why?
Well, it's not just mechanics to everyone. Some folks are heavy into the narrative. Playing a Sorcerer is basically a fantasy dude with the X-gene. That doesn't appeal to everyone.
Oracle has a different feel. That feel has a strong ludonarrative harmony with the curse mechanics. Once they balance it a bit better, I can see a definitive draw on that alone.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why?
Well, it's not just mechanics to everyone. Some folks are heavy into the narrative. Playing a Sorcerer is basically a fantasy dude with the X-gene. That doesn't appeal to everyone.
Oracle has a different feel. That feel has a strong ludonarrative harmony with the curse mechanics. Once they balance it a bit better, I can see a definitive draw on that alone.
"Fantasy dude with the X-gene" is the best description of a Sorcerer that I've ever heard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why?
Well, it's not just mechanics to everyone. Some folks are heavy into the narrative. Playing a Sorcerer is basically a fantasy dude with the X-gene. That doesn't appeal to everyone.
Oracle has a different feel. That feel has a strong ludonarrative harmony with the curse mechanics. Once they balance it a bit better, I can see a definitive draw on that alone.
IMO, they both a similar feel/narrative: the difference between them is the oracle gets a bad X-gene while the sorcerer gets a good one. So both get to play a mutant but only one gets a free crippling disability to go with that. :P
Which of the oracles focus spells alone are worth the curse? IMO, none of them. I can get a +2 initiative and 1/2 level temp hp for a -2 ac and save ALL DAY... I have to agree with Samurai: I'd never encourage anyone ever to cast revelation spells... Ever.Well, notion that the curse is something to be avoided at all costs isn't really accurate in the first place. Play experience as a life oracle has basically revolved around turning on Moderate as quickly as possible because the benefits are too good to pass up and the penalties might as well not exist at all.
My flame oracle gets plenty of use out of whirling flames and fusillade, too.
I've played all the types of oracle and I can say without any qualms that the curse IS in fact something to avoid at all costs: the focus spells just aren't worth it in any way when you take into account the super onerous curse. For instance, getting "plenty of use out of whirling flames and fusillade" in no way makes up for sight being limited and foes having auto concealment. I don't even have to get into slowly killing yourself as a life oracle...
Play experience 100% supports avoiding any revelation spells: in fact, I never bothered even figuring out what domain spells I had for later oracles I made after playing my first oracle because I knew I was never again going to ever use a revelation spell...
What were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?
What were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?
Minor Curse: Smoke, heat, and crackling flames fill your vision and all your other senses. Creatures further away than 30 feet are concealed from you. As the concealment comes from your curse, you can’t benefit from effects that would allow you to ignore or mitigate the concealment, as is normal for an oracle’s curse.
Moderate Curse: Smoke and flickering visions of flame fill your senses more completely, and harmless flickers of obscuring flames also fill your space. You are concealed from other creatures, and all other creatures and objects are concealed from you; however, you do not need to attempt a flat check to make spell attack rolls for fire spells against creatures within 30 feet. All your senses become imprecise beyond 30 feet, meaning everything past 30 feet is either hidden or undetected. As the other creatures are not themselves cursed, they can benefit from effects that would allow them to ignore or mitigate the concealment, as normal
What were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?
I'll thank Cole for getting the quotes for me. It's part and parcel of playing a flame oracle that's used any revelation spells in the day.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, they both a similar feel/narrative: the difference between them is the oracle gets a bad X-gene while the sorcerer gets a good one. So both get to play a mutant but only one gets a free crippling disability to go with that. :PWhy?
Well, it's not just mechanics to everyone. Some folks are heavy into the narrative. Playing a Sorcerer is basically a fantasy dude with the X-gene. That doesn't appeal to everyone.
Oracle has a different feel. That feel has a strong ludonarrative harmony with the curse mechanics. Once they balance it a bit better, I can see a definitive draw on that alone.
To further expand the genre-merging, it's like the Sorcerer is playing Marvel Super-heroes, and the Oracle is playing Gamma World. Both have mutations, but only in Gamma World can most of those mutations be harmful or detrimental for your character. Or, if Gamma World is not something you've played, maybe you know about evil demon cultists getting Chaos Mutations in Warhammer or Zweihander?
What were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?I'll thank Cole for getting the quotes for me. It's part and parcel of playing a flame oracle that's used any revelation spells in the day.
Yes, but why did that impact you? It’s the easiest curse to mitigate
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but why did that impact you? It’s the easiest curse to mitigateWhat were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?I'll thank Cole for getting the quotes for me. It's part and parcel of playing a flame oracle that's used any revelation spells in the day.
Ah... Have read the class at all? "While your curse is active, you can’t mitigate, reduce, or remove its effects by any other means" So to answer your question, I didn't mitigate it because I'm not allowed to BY THE RULES! So my question to you would be, why didn't it impact YOU is you played one?
Now if you're talking about spell attack rolls for fire spells against creatures within 30 feet sure that's fine but how did you FIND the foes to get within 30' when "everything past 30 feet is either hidden or undetected"? Either you spend your life in dungeons that always limit line of sight to less than 30' or you're going to deal with concealment and/or hidden/undetected almost every encounter of your gaming life. There is no way around it, the curses really, really, really bad and should never, under any circumstance, be activated: you lose far more than you gain.
Yes, but why did that impact you? It’s the easiest curse to mitigateWhat were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?I'll thank Cole for getting the quotes for me. It's part and parcel of playing a flame oracle that's used any revelation spells in the day.
Ah... Have read the class at all? "While your curse is active, you can’t mitigate, reduce, or remove its effects by any other means" So to answer your question, I didn't mitigate it because I'm not allowed to BY THE RULES! So my question to you would be, why didn't it impact YOU is you played one?
Now if you're talking about spell attack rolls for fire spells against creatures within 30 feet sure that's fine but how did you FIND the foes to get within 30' when "everything past 30 feet is either hidden or undetected"? Either you spend your life in dungeons that always limit line of sight to less than 30' or you're going to deal with concealment and/or hidden/undetected almost every encounter of your gaming life. There is no way around it, the curses are really, really, really bad and should never, under any circumstance, be activated: you lose far more than you gain.
I checked the dictionary on "mitigate."
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
• to make something less severe or less unpleasant. Getting a lot of sleep and drinking plenty of fluids can mitigate the effects of the flu.
• to make something less harmful, unpleasant, or bad. It is unclear how to mitigate the effects of tourism on the island.
From Wikitionary:
• (transitive) To reduce, lessen, or decrease; to make less severe or easier to bear. Measures are pursuing to prevent or mitigate the usual consequences of such outrages, and with the hope of their succeeding at least to avert general hostility.
• (transitive) To downplay.
The word comes from Latin for "make mild."
If mitigate means only to make less severe, then we have a few cases where features can mitigate the curses in the playtest. A Halfling's Keen Eyes ability reduces the penalty of concealment, so it mitigates the Curse of Engulfing Flames (Halfling keen eyes and flame oracle). If Paizo invents a curse that penalizes skill checks, then the Assurance feat would mitigate its penalty. The Curse of Outpouring Life does affect the Medicine skill, but it works by increasing DCs, so it is not affected by Assurance. graystone pointed out in comment #101 that the item bonus to AC from armor mitigates the –2 status penalty to AC from the Curse of the Hero's Burden.
However, if mitigate also means to downplay, then a flames oracle casting an area-of-effect ice spell downplays concealment from the Curse of Engulfing Flames, because concealment does not affect area of effect. In fact, if the flames oracle simply heals and buffs, then concealment is mitigated, too. A battle oracle who attacks at a distance with archery or ranged spells to keep his distance from enemies downplays his lower AC for Curse of the Hero's Burden. Likewise, a battle oracle who makes a Strike every turn to negate the –2 status penalty to AC is using a loophole written into the curse to downplay its harmful effects, though it highlights the loophole of the curse. Likewise, the moderate Curse of Outpouring Life has a loophole about elixirs and potions that can mitigate its harmful effects.
Pathfinder tactics are about magnifying strengths and downplaying weaknesses. Defining "mitigate" as downplaying or avoiding the bad means that the anti-mitigation clause would violate basic principles of Pathfinder roleplaying.
Yeah, being prohibited from using smoke-sight goggles to ignore concealment is not at all the same as using intelligent tactics to reduce the impact of the curse.
The flame oracle has the easiest time, using buffs, area and flame spells to avoid rolling concealment as much as possible.
I think one thing we're experiencing here is a subjective assessment of the curses, Graystone has a visceral reaction to the curses where it's "never worth it" whereas Squiggit found it to be worth it to use it. That actually tells us that there's a degree of 'play' in the current viability of the curses, because obviously, there are going to be people who dislike the class or who think that the weaknesses outweigh the benefits- its the nature of choice created through drawbacks. We can tune that, but the disagreement tells us that there is fundamentally already taste variation functioning (not everyone would agree that the curses are worth it or not worth it)
I also think people are getting hung up on the clause that informs you that the curse can't be mitigated- I think that's meant to be read as 'directly mitigated' obviously it can be 'managed' in such a way that mitigates risk, the effect itself just can't be turned off by another feature. It's the only reasonable reading of the feature (though I think it should be worded more precisely to clarify what effects it shuts off)
e.g. A fire oracle could absolutely have a regeneration effect or other source of steady healing to counteract the damage dealt by their flames, even though that could be argued to "mitigate" their curse. The intent of the text is that the word 'mitigate' is in reference to effects that would reduce the damage directly (fire resistance, in this case)
Similarly, a Life Cleric could absolutely 'mitigate' their curse by playing safer and avoiding more damage than the rest of the party, or by cultivating a massive health pool in the first place, or by using Orc Ferocity to avoid dropping for longer, or by getting damage resistance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone has a visceral reaction to the curses where it's "never worth it"
It's not that there is a curse, as I was perfectly fine with PF1 oracles: heck, I was fine with the dual curse archetype. My reaction was to the degree that the new curses are quite onerous compared to the benefits gained [revelation spells].
'directly mitigated'
The issue is we have to have an explicit explanation on what this means for a numerical penalty like battle oracles. Or is there a difference between "smoke-sight goggles" negating concealment vs an ability that modifies a flat check or allows a reroll? There really need to be a way to know what is meant by a word like this in a game filled with keyword: if the game tells me what rounding and multiplying means in the game, it should tell me what mitigate means too.
I think the other thing about the way curses are constructed is that they're the first PF2 mechanics I've seen that mandate a One True Build for a given class... everything in Core works (or, er... doesn't) more or less equally well within the array of options given.
It could be argued that different oracle curses allow for multiple variations on the style, but as designed, each curse- which is, again, stapled to a mystery that a player might want just for flavor (Life, Fire, Battle all feel like thematic choices, rather than anything that the Divine spell list doesn't allow for at least some reflection of in and of itself)- mandates a specific style to work within its constraints.
And it might work mathematically with the right build and the right choices and all of that... but that's scant comfort to the player who wanted her Fire Oracle to be more about the ephemeral beauty and transient power of flame than about "everything around me is on fire, oh well."