Bonuses Built Into A Class Should Be Untyped

[nick1wasd]

I had discussion at one of my tables during the early days of just making a "class" bonus type, so things like Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Wizards, Clerics, et al. have a "class bonus" to X, and you can't stack the same bonus from the same class source. And all focus spells use this class type instead of their typical type. So a Cleric, Bard, and Witch all buffing the Fighter stacks, but 2 Bards can't both cast IC and pile up a set of +1s for the whole crew. This was eventually scrapped as an idea at our table, but it's fascinating to see the idea crop up on the forums. That would also make Monks be able to use Longstrider or Expeditious Retreat, which means you could potentially brush against the sound barrier for a bit :P

[demon321x2]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Battle Oracle player here who just played a session with a bard. At low levels the Inspire only fails to stack for +1 damage which is no big deal. At higher levels the bard should have opportunity to replace it with a different composition. Odds are a party with two primary casters will be better served by Dirge of Doom anyway.

I'm more ticked about circumstance bonuses being so common out of combat. Lots of feats and features give them. Aid gives them. And a lot of contextual AP activities give them as well. At least two of those three should usually stack, IMO.

The easiest solution is just making those AP contextual bonuses stack or reduce the DC.

But the bard can't not inspire courage still because the martials who don't get a status bonus still want it.

The entire thing seems weird to me. PF2e is a party based system and making certain class features status bonuses means they function relatively worse the better the party works together. If a wildshape druid is supposed to be on par with martials just give it a flat +2 when wildshaped or don't.

The system does not make access to buffs seem like a balancing feature. Attack buffs just aren't that plentiful. Heroism is single target/1 fight and only divine/occult. Bards get inspire courage, but they are the only ones with anything like it. If you don't have a bard you probably won't see a status bonus to hit more than once a day until the 9th+ when 3rd level spells are plentiful enough to spend on +1s to hit for a single character. It ends up not being a penalty for half the game and then when heroism hits +2/3 it becomes painful because the martials suddenly spike to a +2 above you after keeping pace up till that point.

[breithauptclan]

demon321x2 wrote:

PF2e is a party based system and making certain class features status bonuses means they function relatively worse the better the party works together. If a wildshape druid is supposed to be on par with martials just give it a flat +2 when wildshaped or don't.

Exactly. Party based.

When you have a smaller party, individual characters need to be able to fill in for needed roles that they may not be directly suited for. A spellcaster being a Battle Oracle or Wild Shape Druid so that they can fill in as melee combatants is quite valuable.

When you have a larger and more diverse party, individual characters should be more specialized. The martial characters may appreciate a flanking partner from a Battle Oracle, but the Battle Oracle isn't expected to be doing on-par martial role with the actual martial character. That would make the player of the martial character wonder why their class even exists since they could get similar martial power along with full casting by being an Oracle.

[Squiggit]

breithauptclan wrote:

but the Battle Oracle isn't expected to be doing on-par martial role with the actual martial character. That would make the player of the martial character wonder why their class even exists since they could get similar martial power along with full casting by being an Oracle.

No one suggested they should. This is kind of off topic.

[Norade]

What is the in-universe explanation for buffs not stacking? Did Paizo ever publish lore explaining why spells that worked in PF1 no longer have the same effects and why buffs that used to stack don't work anymore or did they just handwave it and expect us to not ask questions?

Obviously out of the universe the reason is a new version of the game with a different set balance requirements came out, but I'm a sucker for such changes being explained in the lore.

[HumbleGamer]

Norade wrote:

What is the in-universe explanation for buffs not stacking? Did Paizo ever publish lore explaining why spells that worked in PF1 no longer have the same effects and why buffs that used to stack don't work anymore or did they just handwave it and expect us to not ask questions?

Obviously out of the universe the reason is a new version of the game with a different set balance requirements came out, but I'm a sucker for such changes being explained in the lore.

Well, because when you deliver a game what matters the most is balance, rules and so on.

Would have you have preferred this 2e to be in line with the 1e lore rather than having a pretty solid game system?

I would have passed on it if it had been more rpg / flavor oriented rather than more close to a boardgame ( in terms of mechanics and balance ).

[Norade]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Norade wrote:

What is the in-universe explanation for buffs not stacking? Did Paizo ever publish lore explaining why spells that worked in PF1 no longer have the same effects and why buffs that used to stack don't work anymore or did they just handwave it and expect us to not ask questions?

Obviously out of the universe the reason is a new version of the game with a different set balance requirements came out, but I'm a sucker for such changes being explained in the lore.

Well, because when you deliver a game what matters the most is balance, rules and so on.

How does this prevent them from updating the lore to explain changes that, were the world real, would greatly impact the lives of all Golarions?

[HumbleGamer]

Norade wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Norade wrote:

What is the in-universe explanation for buffs not stacking? Did Paizo ever publish lore explaining why spells that worked in PF1 no longer have the same effects and why buffs that used to stack don't work anymore or did they just handwave it and expect us to not ask questions?

Obviously out of the universe the reason is a new version of the game with a different set balance requirements came out, but I'm a sucker for such changes being explained in the lore.

Well, because when you deliver a game what matters the most is balance, rules and so on.

How does this prevent them from updating the lore to explain changes that, were the world real, would greatly impact the lives of all Golarions?

I don't really know.

If I were to guess, I'd say the same thing preventing them from releasing more errata :d

I mean, when you deliver a brand new version of the game it's not a priority to explain those changes ( though they might do that time by time with the release of new books. I don't see that very impactful as a player ).

[Norade]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I don't really know.

If I were to guess, I'd say the same thing preventing them from releasing more errata :d

I mean, when you deliver a brand new version of the game it's not a priority to explain those changes ( though they might do that time by time with the release of new books. I don't see that very impactful as a player ).

I'm the opposite. I value lore and how a system presents itself more highly than the rules it uses to do so. I'd love it if Paizo were to style Pathfinder after how Battletech has handled things over the years in spite of having had multiple rights holders over that span.

[Gaulin]

Yeah that's not a priority for 2e. Things like alchemist immortality don't exist short of getting the sun orchid elixir. Like it or not, 2e is 'gamier' than 1e. Best to appreciate it for what it is

[Norade]

Gaulin wrote:

Yeah that's not a priority for 2e. Things like alchemist immortality don't exist short of getting the sun orchid elixir. Like it or not, 2e is 'gamier' than 1e. Best to appreciate it for what it is

You can have the rules be gamier, I have little issue with that concept. What I have an issue with is the lore not mentioning the massive change. One thing 4e did well was to explain the change to how magic works with an in-universe explanation.

[NielsenE]

I think the intent is that the lore hasn't changed (aside from the passage of time/resolutions of APs). Which is why it isn't explained, there's nothing to explain.

Things that are different are best seen as game rules (either 1e or 2e) are imperfect mappings of actual in-world effects. Yes, there are places where that answer/policy feels incomplete or handwavy, but its also helps to understand why there is not lore reason, since from that perspective there's no reason for one.

[Captain Morgan]

demon321x2 wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Battle Oracle player here who just played a session with a bard. At low levels the Inspire only fails to stack for +1 damage which is no big deal. At higher levels the bard should have opportunity to replace it with a different composition. Odds are a party with two primary casters will be better served by Dirge of Doom anyway.

I'm more ticked about circumstance bonuses being so common out of combat. Lots of feats and features give them. Aid gives them. And a lot of contextual AP activities give them as well. At least two of those three should usually stack, IMO.

The easiest solution is just making those AP contextual bonuses stack or reduce the DC.

But the bard can't not inspire courage still because the martials who don't get a status bonus still want it.

Yes, they can not inspire courage. Dirge of Doom lowers enemy armor class giving the same net accuracy result. It also penalizes the enemy's to hit, saving throws, and spell DCs. The only justifiable reasons to use Inspire once you have Dirge is if you're already inflicting a status penalty on the enemy (which you just wouldn't bother doing) or you're out of Dirge Range.

[breithauptclan]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yes, they can not inspire courage. Dirge of Doom lowers enemy armor class giving the same net accuracy result.

Better net result usually. Because the circumstance bonuses that your allies already get from their class features and feats would still apply to them. Only the allies that don't have something else that is failing to stack with Inspire Courage are going to be at the same net level - all else being equal.

[Captain Morgan]

breithauptclan wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yes, they can not inspire courage. Dirge of Doom lowers enemy armor class giving the same net accuracy result.

Better net result usually. Because the circumstance bonuses that your allies already get from their class features and feats would still apply to them. Only the allies that don't have something else that is failing to stack with Inspire Courage are going to be at the same net level - all else being equal.

I think you mean status bonuses, but yes. Even without those bonuses Dirge is better.

[Gisher]

Norade wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

Yeah that's not a priority for 2e. Things like alchemist immortality don't exist short of getting the sun orchid elixir. Like it or not, 2e is 'gamier' than 1e. Best to appreciate it for what it is

You can have the rules be gamier, I have little issue with that concept. What I have an issue with is the lore not mentioning the massive change. One thing 4e did well was to explain the change to how magic works with an in-universe explanation.

I think of the PF1 universe and the PF2 universe as alternate timelines.

[Cyouni]

Norade wrote:

What is the in-universe explanation for buffs not stacking? Did Paizo ever publish lore explaining why spells that worked in PF1 no longer have the same effects and why buffs that used to stack don't work anymore or did they just handwave it and expect us to not ask questions?

Obviously out of the universe the reason is a new version of the game with a different set balance requirements came out, but I'm a sucker for such changes being explained in the lore.

There is none, because buff stacking has never been a part of the actual story except in that one scene from Overlord.

[demon321x2]

Captain Morgan wrote:

demon321x2 wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Battle Oracle player here who just played a session with a bard. At low levels the Inspire only fails to stack for +1 damage which is no big deal. At higher levels the bard should have opportunity to replace it with a different composition. Odds are a party with two primary casters will be better served by Dirge of Doom anyway.

I'm more ticked about circumstance bonuses being so common out of combat. Lots of feats and features give them. Aid gives them. And a lot of contextual AP activities give them as well. At least two of those three should usually stack, IMO.

The easiest solution is just making those AP contextual bonuses stack or reduce the DC.

But the bard can't not inspire courage still because the martials who don't get a status bonus still want it.

Yes, they can not inspire courage. Dirge of Doom lowers enemy armor class giving the same net accuracy result. It also penalizes the enemy's to hit, saving throws, and spell DCs. The only justifiable reasons to use Inspire once you have Dirge is if you're already inflicting a status penalty on the enemy (which you just wouldn't bother doing) or you're out of Dirge Range.

Frightened like flatfooted has many ways of being given out. Even fighters get fear support. Why wouldn't you apply frightened in another way so the Bard can Inspire Courage and have frighten applied too? Or have the bard cast a fear spell and inspire courage or spend a focus point and harmonize. Inspire Courage is a spell no one else can replicate, Dirge is an ability anyone with a high charisma and an action can attempt to replicate or a 3rd level spell which quickly becomes fairly cheap (or first if you only have one enemy). Fear is easy, a status bonus to hit is not. Inspire Courage also has twice the radius which is nice.

[Squiggit]

"Just use dirge of doom it does the same thing" feels like an odd argument to follow "Oracles would be overpowered and invalidate true martials if they could benefit from Inspire Courage"

Does an Oracle benefitting from Dirge of Doom invalidate martials? -1 to enemy AC and +1 to hit have essentially the same value after all.

[Unicore]

Norade wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

Yeah that's not a priority for 2e. Things like alchemist immortality don't exist short of getting the sun orchid elixir. Like it or not, 2e is 'gamier' than 1e. Best to appreciate it for what it is

You can have the rules be gamier, I have little issue with that concept. What I have an issue with is the lore not mentioning the massive change. One thing 4e did well was to explain the change to how magic works with an in-universe explanation.

The “in world explanation” for major mechanical changes had, at best, a very mixed reaction from the fan base for D&D. Fans of the way things were will be pretty desperate to latch onto anything they can to justify throwing out the new to bring back the old. At least as many players would find fault in the way things were explained as would be that off put by just changing the system to work for the new stories developers want to tell. Because your Galorion in your Galorian, those background stories can be yours to tell if you want them there. Look at it as an opportunity and world building exercise.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the "lore changes" in the edition switch aren't something that a person who wasn't actually present for the event in question would notice when telling the story of what happened?

Like sure things like "you can't finesse a polearm anymore" or "the alchemist isn't going to have the same kind of nova damage" but broadly almost nothing changed in the lore except "it's canon that the APs happened" and when you are telling the story about heroes and their deeds you're not going to get so granular as to describe combat loops and DPR numbers. Like "Fighters are good now" is not a thing that needed to be explained in lore, because the Fighter was always supposed to be a person who was good at fighting.

[gesalt]

demon321x2 wrote:

Frightened like flatfooted has many ways of being given out. Even fighters get fear support. Why wouldn't you apply frightened in another way so the Bard can Inspire Courage and have frighten applied too? Or have the bard cast a fear spell and inspire courage or spend a focus point and harmonize. Inspire Courage is a spell no one else can replicate, Dirge is an ability anyone with a high charisma and an action can attempt to replicate or a 3rd level spell which quickly becomes fairly cheap (or first if you only have one enemy). Fear is easy, a status bonus to hit is not. Inspire Courage also has twice the radius which is nice.

You use (lingering) dirge because it has no save. Every other method can be resisted, is 1/fight or takes 2 actions for spells. Lingering dirge is long lasting, single action and, above all else, reliable.

Also, status bonuses are easy to come by. Marshal aura and bless are easily accessed by the martials themselves with a pair of archetype feats and the same bard casting dirge is high enough level to throw out a heroism if it's needed. They can also forego lingering dirge to harmonize inspire and dirge together though that's probably best reserved for easier fights where full spells are unnecessary.

[QuidEst]

Norade wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

Yeah that's not a priority for 2e. Things like alchemist immortality don't exist short of getting the sun orchid elixir. Like it or not, 2e is 'gamier' than 1e. Best to appreciate it for what it is

You can have the rules be gamier, I have little issue with that concept. What I have an issue with is the lore not mentioning the massive change. One thing 4e did well was to explain the change to how magic works with an in-universe explanation.

Well, you might feel that way personally, but a lot of people disagreed and found it unpleasant. It also got undone with 5e. I doubt Paizo would want to go do something that would take a lot more work, bog down their setting, and was unpopular the last time somebody tried it.

The nitty-gritty details of how certain buffs interact isn't part of the lore, and there was no change in-world. It helps to think of the rules as a window through which the players interact with the fantasy world. Just because the details of the rules have changed, doesn't mean the world being represented has changed.

If you need to have an explanation, the fact that the god of magic had his mind shattered by too much knowledge is an excellent hand-wave for any inconsistencies that bother you. Tar Baphon also broke out after being sealed for millennia, and you could have ripples from that. The Worldwound was sealed, so maybe things are less chaotic than they used to be. But, the explanation is not going to take up space in a dozen books when it's easier to just move past the differences.

[Captain Morgan]

Squiggit wrote:

"Just use dirge of doom it does the same thing" feels like an odd argument to follow "Oracles would be overpowered and invalidate true martials if they could benefit from Inspire Courage"

Does an Oracle benefitting from Dirge of Doom invalidate martials? -1 to enemy AC and +1 to hit have essentially the same value after all.

My argument isn't that allowing the stacking breaks the balance in anyway. I'm just saying this is a really minor issue either way. Level 11+ Oracles and Bards have plenty of options besides Inspire Courage. Should the basic rules have done a bit differently? Yeah, probably. Are Battle Oracles actually inconvenienced if their bard bud gets to level 11 with them? Almost never.

Which is why I am more miffed about things like contextual circumstance bonuses being overused, because you can't play around it.

[The Raven Black]

The cannon lore has not changed between the editions, even though the possibilities that PCs used have.

For example, CG Clerics of Gorum were a possibility in PF1 and do not exist in PF2. But there has never been a CG Cleric of Gorum in cannon lore AFAIK.

In a way, the PF2 system is closer to the lore of the setting.

[Gaulin]

There are some lore changes I'm really glad for - I like the change that gnomes can theoretically live forever, for example.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

You know that movie cliche when the action hero dares someone else to risk their life, and says, "What? Do you want to live forever?"

In the case of gnomes, they risk their lives so that they have the chance of living forever. Either you dive in head first to life -- or you die a little inside each time you choose the safe choice.

"Yes! I want adventure! Yes, I want to live!"

[WWHsmackdown]

More gnomes! More First World! First World source book like the Mwangi Expanse!

[Onkonk]

Though while Battle Oracle gains their status bonus at 11, the Ancestors one gains their own at level 1. I noticed I feel very relunctant to get Bless as I would not benefit from the bonus myself.

[Paradozen]

Adding to the lore change conversation, I think having an in-universe shift in the worlds physics would actively discourage converting APs across editions, which seems like an unfortunate move to make given that Kingmaker is being published for 2e.

[yarrchives]

Onkonk wrote:

Though while Battle Oracle gains their status bonus at 11, the Ancestors one gains their own at level 1. I noticed I feel very relunctant to get Bless as I would not benefit from the bonus myself.

Hm, I just checked to confirm but I always thought those major curse status bonuses were +2s all this time for some reason. Oops. I just don't run into those two much I guess.

If those bonuses were +2, it would 'solve' these common +1 overlaps. Getting Bless or your Courage Inspired is still nothing for you but it's less feels bad energy with the better personal buff.

Here's the catch though, I'm not familiar with this kind of balance. Is a +2 too much here? As in, how close is it to stepping on martial territory?

EDIT: +2 bonus on the major curses

[Onkonk]

Ancestors Oracle to hit bonus compared to martials:

1-4: Equal
5-9: -1
10: -2
11-12: Equal
13-14: -2
15-16: -1
17-19 (assuming apex at 17 and that an oracle wants to get apex in charisma): -2
20: -3

So if it was a +2 then they would actually have more hit bonus at some levels and be equal a lot more.

And with the presence of a readily available status bonus to hit they have no boost and is as good as regular caster in that department instead.

[yarrchives]

Oh cool! That helps me a lot for visualization.

Also, I should've clarified the +2 only being there on the major curses, which would only be available at 11+. +2 on the moderate curses would be insane for a spellcaster!

[demon321x2]

Onkonk wrote:

Ancestors Oracle to hit bonus compared to martials:

1-4: Equal
5-9: -1
10: -2
11-12: Equal
13-14: -2
15-16: -1
17-19 (assuming apex at 17 and that an oracle wants to get apex in charisma): -2
20: -3

So if it was a +2 then they would actually have more hit bonus at some levels and be equal a lot more.

And with the presence of a readily available status bonus to hit they have no boost and is as good as regular caster in that department instead.

Ancestors also has to deal with the randomness that is their curse though. 50/50 shot you don't get the bonus to attack rolls and a 1 in 4 shot you end up with skill focus and have a 6 in 20 chance of losing non-skill combat actions. And Oracle doesn't get any other martial support and spells that help martial abilities give status bonuses. So equal more often or even slightly better on occasion I don't think would be that bad if you are accepting an 8 in 20 chance of losing the actions for doing anything other than striking and have no feats or other bonuses to support melee combat.

[HumbleGamer]

Yeah, given the 50/50 ( as well as the absence of a proper armor proficiency compared to the battle oracle ) I too don't think the ancestor one serves right in terms of a comparison.

[Lycar]

Onkonk wrote:

Though while Battle Oracle gains their status bonus at 11, the Ancestors one gains their own at level 1. I noticed I feel very relunctant to get Bless as I would not benefit from the bonus myself.

Well, RP-wise one could argue that the Ancestor Oracle leads a blessed life already, and they would just go and share their blessing with others.

You know, instead of hogging it all for themselves, the selfish pricks. :)

[aobst128]

I dig ancestors. With how many ancestries that have some sort of weapon feat, you have the room to build for attacks as well as whatever else you want out of your ancestry. Being charisma based, the skill bonus comes in handy too.

[Onkonk]

My ancestors oracle took the Drow Shootist archetype for the repeating hand crossbow which is really nice as ancestors so you can have a staff or other item as well with no issues.

The extra damage is also real nice on ranged weapons.

Bon Mot and Demoralize are real nice though I've noticed mindless creatures are kind of my bane when I roll skillfull.

[Tess of Tosof]

Remember too that the Ancestral Touch focus spell causes fear. I am really loving my Elven Duskwalker Ancestor Oracle. I can do spells, or I can fight, or I can use skill checks to affect the combat. Sure my ancestors may give the orders, but I have plenty of options for what I can do with each option!

[yarrchives]

I never noticed the spellcasting ancestor bonus added to healing. That's less boring than when I thought it was just a damage boost.

[Tonya Woldridge]

Removed a post involving comparisons of discussion to physical violence.

[Gisher]

yarrchives wrote:

I never noticed the spellcasting ancestor bonus added to healing. That's less boring than when I thought it was just a damage boost.

I love discovering tidbits like that.

[Ganigumo]

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

If we don't factor in level or item bonuses, casters can get:
+5 to hit from 1-4
+6 to hit from 5-10
+8 to hit from 11-14
+9 to hit from 15-20

Normal martials have:
+6 from 1-4
+8 from 5-9
+9 from 10-12
+11 from 13-19
+12 at 20
Most martials have access to significant untyped bonuses to hit and/or damage.

Alchemist has:
+5 from 1-4
+6 from 6-7
+8 from 8-14
+9 from 15-20
*with potential access to +1 to hit as an item bonus that might apply to party members

Given these numbers, and how much martial caster subclasses struggle with being MAD, having a small untyped bonus somewhere would not break the math that much if they couldn't be picked up by other classes, especially if it came in after level 4, it would actually put their martial ability roughly on par with the alchemists' and consistently below what a martial could achieve at the same level.

Honestly I would go as far as to say they probably should get an untyped bonus of sorts somewhere for picking the martial subclass, as otherwise it's way too easy to get most of the benefits without taking it. An ancestry feat and/or a single class feat can often reap the full benefits.

Also there was a lot of talk about heroism(level 3 spell), Marshal, and inspire courage (bard only) but bless is also an easily accessible status bonus.

[Captain Morgan]

Ganigumo wrote:

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

Speak for yourself. My battle Oracle slaps.

[aobst128]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

Speak for yourself. My battle Oracle slaps.

As does mine.

[Captain Morgan]

aobst128 wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

Speak for yourself. My battle Oracle slaps.

As does mine.

War Priest also gets a lot of feat support and is at least good before master proficiencies start kicking in. I guess guess martial muse bards don't have as much support? But the basic bard package is already so good it almost doesn't matter. Take sentinel and go to town really.

[Mythraine]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

Speak for yourself. My battle Oracle slaps.

What's the build summary? I'd be keen to understand how to get the best out of an Oracle.

[aobst128]

Mythraine wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ganigumo wrote:

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

Speak for yourself. My battle Oracle slaps.

What's the build summary? I'd be keen to understand how to get the best out of an Oracle.

Basically, a battle oracle is only a striker for legal reasons. You mitigate your curse every time you make a strike, so it mostly doesn't matter that your terrible at hitting things. It's nice when it does connect though. The main benefit in melee is your fast healing and your heavy armor. Having bless up to support your allies as well as yourself and do some Frontline divine support is the way to go. You're very hard to kill because of your fast healing.

[Squiggit]

aobst128 wrote:

Basically, a battle oracle is only a striker for legal reasons. You mitigate your curse every time you make a strike, so it mostly doesn't matter that your terrible at hitting things. It's nice when it does connect though.

This does not really read like a particularly ringing endorsement of spellcasters doing martial things.