| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a reddit poster who got his subscriptions PDF already,
Other than Oracle in being buffed in general through cursebound actions and getting 4 spell slots per level (like sorcerer), battle oracle got shafted quite hard.
Oracles in general seem to follow more of a caster design now, with less unique features to set them apart from other classes. Mysteries only provide domains, spells, a curse (which is purely negative), and a cursebound action that other oracles are also able to grab. This means mysteries no longer provide a passive benefit or positive effects through their curse.
This brings us to battle oracle:
Call to arms is now a cursebound action that all oracles can grab as a class feat, battle (and cosmos) oracles simply get it for free.
They lost both medium and heavy armor proficiency (!).
They lost martial weapon proficiency inherently, but their new focus spell is a 1 action spell that gives them proficiency with martial weapons equal to their simple weapon proficiency. It has a duration of 1 sustained up to 1 minute, but it automatically sustains if you hit with a Strike. It does nothing else other than provide martial weapon proficiency.
Edit: they lost all benefits from the curse they had before. No fast healing. No damage bonus. No attack bonus.
Between losing their armor proficiencies and needing to spend an action just to be able to use your martial weapons, as well as forcing you to spend more actions if you miss because of your bad weapon proficiency, battle oracle is just not the same class anymore. I would still say it is buffed overall, but it does not fulfill the same class fantasy as before.
To end on a positive note, all the spellcasting focused oracle mysteries are absolutely amazing now.
Gained spells are shield, true strike, telekinetic maneuver and weapon storm.
Cursebound 1 is weakness to spells, cursebound 2 is penalty to saves, cursebound 3 and 4 are then more weakness to spells and steeper penalty to saves respectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always thought that Oracle was intended to be primarily a caster class. Battle Oracle being a big outlier since it was possible to build as more of a hybrid caster/melee character.
This might be one of the cases where it is better to either homebrew the old Battle Oracle with some of the Remastered Oracle updates, or re-envision the character as a different class. Perhaps Warpriest Cleric with Oracle archetype.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oracles losing their unique mystery mechanics was kind of a worst case scenario for me. This is a big shame. Not sure why Paizo decided to make them more like sorcerers instead of leaning into their unique powers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I love the change, but I imagine to make big changes they had to rework things heavily.
From some post on reddit, it seems the 4 slots might be a mistake.
The text in the class still mention 2/3 slots, while the table shows 3/4.
I'm enclined to believe that as it does not make sense in relation to the other classes to increase the oracle spell slots (and with their new curse mechanic, they already have a lot of sustain capacity).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem arose from figuring out what to tie curse progression too. Tying it to focus spells and refocusing was inherently problematic. If you wanted to stay at high curse, you couldn't refous and any focus points you still had couldn't be used for the Cursebound Spells that often synergized with your higher curse levels. Curse-avoidant Orcale players on the other hand were almost forced to look to archetypes, which is not a sign a class is in a healthy place. But once the curse mechanics were dissasembled and being redesigned, it was probably very tricky to figure out a balanced way for Oracles to advance their curse.
I am going to miss some of the more intricate curse mechanics, but I think they were too tied to the cursebound focus spells that never truly worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always thought that Oracle was intended to be primarily a caster class. Battle Oracle being a big outlier since it was possible to build as more of a hybrid caster/melee character.
This might be one of the cases where it is better to either homebrew the old Battle Oracle with some of the Remastered Oracle updates, or re-envision the character as a different class. Perhaps Warpriest Cleric with Oracle archetype.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking right now. What's interesting is that my 12th level battle oracle seems like it will convert closer to a warpriest. Both classes have expert in weapons and spells at this level. Mostly it means trading focus spells for divine font. Which is probably a good track but not one I like.
Oracle archetype might be the way to go, since cursebound abilities are now feats which scale off character level. But I'll need to wait and see how it looks. Any feats I spend on archetypes to get what I lost back means giving something else up, and I was very much leaning into the flavor all my build choices.
Oracles losing their unique mystery mechanics was kind of a worst case scenario for me. This is a big shame. Not sure why Paizo decided to make them more like sorcerers instead of leaning into their unique powers.
I'm not sure how much the others lost in practice yet. There are implications you can buy some of that nuance back with feats, but idk what that means and I doubt you'll see a lot of passive benefits. (Probably none.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oracles losing their unique mystery mechanics was kind of a worst case scenario for me. This is a big shame. Not sure why Paizo decided to make them more like sorcerers instead of leaning into their unique powers.
Personally I think the new implementation of Cursebound is much better than the old one.
Thematically I love the idea that the curse is something that punishes you, and only punishes you when you use stuff that you’re “getting away with”. In this case the stuff you’re getting away with is Cursebound Feats.
Mechanically the Cursebound Feats are fantastic. The level 1 Feats all have roughly the same power level as a Psychic’s Unleashed Psyche options (Flames Oracle adds the same amount of damage as Unleash Psyche does, Life Oracle heals as much as Restore the Mind) but can happen on turn 1 unlike the Psychic, and can be used for more than two rounds. Most non-Battle Oracles also seemingly kept their old Cursebound Focus Spells, just without the curse. All that, plus the higher level Cursebound options seem considerably stronger. The level 10 one they showed off allows a 2-Action Activity to do 1 + Cursebound value number of MAPless Strikes that each deal 4d6 spirit damage while providing flanking to you and each other. If the other Feats are roughly in the same realm of power (scaled to their level obviously) it’ll be fantastic.
On top of all that, they now get much better granted spells (except poor Cosmos lol) and become 4-slot casters! (Some people are surmising them being 4-slot casters maybe a typo, because there’s another section of the book that refers to their level 1 spell slots as only being 2, not 3.)
I think this was overall a huge win for all Oracles, with the exception of Battle Oracles who will now need General/Archetype Feats to maintain the same flavour (I wish they’d released a Class Archetype to fix this).
"I Know what it like to lose; to feel so desperately that you're right... And to fail all the same..." XD that's how it feels to me who was looking forward to playing a battle Oracle next rn.
I may be wrong, but still, ouch.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else think that even though Oracles are meant to be spellcasters and that the new Battle Oracle needed to lose some stuff to compensate for the benefits the redesign gave, it still doesn't make how anyone thought it was a good idea to have a Focus Spell that gives you proficiency with martial weapons as an action tax that only sustains itself IF you hit your attack with caster accuracy no less?
Am I insane? Or Weapon Trance is the most obviously badly designed Spell that even appeared in Pathfinder? Not only it's obviously egregiously awful, but it's outright NOT FUN.
Honestly, some character and design issues can be understandably missed in the myriad of changes that a system goes through during its development, but on this one, that's just too obviously bad to give a pass.
I know I'm being incredibly harsh, but this one needs ZERO context to be evaluated. Did nobody ask "Is this going to be fun to play with? Will the players few excited to play with once they read this spell?" while designing this thing?. I know the answer with 100% confidence for those questions: No player will ever think this spell is either interesting or good, no matter how new to PF2e or TTRPG they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else think that even though Oracles are meant to be spellcasters and that the new Battle Oracle needed to lose some stuff to compensate for the benefits the redesign gave, it still doesn't make how anyone thought it was a good idea to have a Focus Spell that gives you proficiency with martial weapons as an action tax that only sustains itself IF you hit your attack with caster accuracy no less?
Am I insane? Or Weapon Trance is the most obviously badly designed Spell that even appeared in Pathfinder? Not only it's obviously egregiously awful, but it's outright NOT FUN.
Honestly, some character and design issues can be understandably missed in the myriad of changes that a system goes through during its development, but on this one, that's just too obviously bad to give a pass.
I know I'm being incredibly harsh, but this one needs ZERO context to be evaluated. Did nobody ask "Is this going to be fun to play with? Will the players few excited to play with once they read this spell?" while designing this thing?. I know the answer with 100% confidence for those questions: No player will ever think this spell is either interesting or good, no matter how new to PF2e or TTRPG they are.
Dragon Claws is dead! Long live Dragon Claws!
(The king of bad focus spells may die, but a successor will always arise.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Claws got a bad rap imo. They were a full 1 minute free claws. No concentration. The extra damage scaled up to 3d6, and they gave you resistance to boot. Even better, the later bloodline spell 'Dragon Wings' gave you the option to use two focus points for claws when you cast the wings.
In theory, the focus spell and it's later twin we're really thematic and impactful. The issue came from putting them on a caster frame with no means of capitalizing on the full possibilities. (Much like the current hiccup occuring with Battle Oracles now.)
Honestly it makes me want design a class archetype for both "subclasses" on these two classes. Turn them into wave caster gishes, power them up into a stronger frame and let them go to town. Enhance the blood or curse aspects a bit. Will be some fun developing while I wait for the next scholastic school year.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Claws got a bad rap imo. They were a full 1 minute free claws. No concentration. The extra damage scaled up to 3d6, and they gave you resistance to boot. Even better, the later bloodline spell 'Dragon Wings' gave you the option to use two focus points for claws when you cast the wings.
In theory, the focus spell and it's later twin we're really thematic and impactful. The issue came from putting them on a caster frame with no means of capitalizing on the full possibilities. (Much like the current hiccup occuring with Battle Oracles now.)
Honestly it makes me want design a class archetype for both "subclasses" on these two classes. Turn them into wave caster gishes, power them up into a stronger frame and let them go to town. Enhance the blood or curse aspects a bit. Will be some fun developing while I wait for the next scholastic school year.
It bugs me that some folks are cheering for the replacement to dragon claws... it is a two action attack focus spell... with cantrip tier damage. It is almost always beaten out by save cantrips.
I don't require something to be optimal, but damn it would be nice to see it useful at all. I see it as even more situational than dragon claws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Claws got a bad rap imo. They were a full 1 minute free claws. No concentration. The extra damage scaled up to 3d6, and they gave you resistance to boot. Even better, the later bloodline spell 'Dragon Wings' gave you the option to use two focus points for claws when you cast the wings.
In theory, the focus spell and it's later twin we're really thematic and impactful. The issue came from putting them on a caster frame with no means of capitalizing on the full possibilities. (Much like the current hiccup occuring with Battle Oracles now.)
Honestly it makes me want design a class archetype for both "subclasses" on these two classes. Turn them into wave caster gishes, power them up into a stronger frame and let them go to town. Enhance the blood or curse aspects a bit. Will be some fun developing while I wait for the next scholastic school year.
It bugs me that some folks are cheering for the replacement to dragon claws... it is a two action attack focus spell... with cantrip tier damage. It is almost always beaten out by save cantrips.
I don't require something to be optimal, but damn it would be nice to see it useful at all. I see it as even more situational than dragon claws.
I'll hold out full judgement till I see the full changes myself, but it does strike me as underwhelming. Honestly it feels more like something a Magus or eldritch archer will steal through dedication.
Dragon claw didn't need you to continue hitting with it to be a better-than-martial weapon, though. I think Battle Oracles would prefer it frankly.
Am I insane? Or Weapon Trance is the most obviously badly designed Spell that even appeared in Pathfinder? Not only it's obviously egregiously awful, but it's outright NOT FUN.
Dragon Claws is dead! Long live Dragon Claws!
(The king of bad focus spells may die, but a successor will always arise.)
It is really, really, really bad. I'm considering keeping my build as an Oracle, but even if I do I'm not sure why I'd keep the mystery since the only thing which actually makes you better at melee is the 6th rank advanced spell and sure strike. Otherwise there are stronger mysteries.
And meanwhile war priest is looking mighty enticing with things zealous rush.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thread should be renamed: Oracles won big but all mysteries got trashed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of disappointed about the 4 spell slots. It feels like there's barely any room leftover for class identity at that point and no matter how powerful a 4th slot, it's dead boring compared to thematic class abilities. Sorcerer gets away with it mostly, but it doesn't sound like a lot of Oracle fans think it will too
|
I'm kind of disappointed about the 4 spell slots. It feels like there's barely any room leftover for class identity at that point and no matter how powerful a 4th slot, it's dead boring compared to thematic class abilities. Sorcerer gets away with it mostly, but it doesn't sound like a lot of Oracle fans think it will too
The fans of the pre-Remaster Oracle who had to be rather enthusiastic about it IMO to take the necessary steps to have it function well.
Post-Remaster we simply do not know about how it will be received. The new iteration of the class is just too different.
Maybe we will have fans of the Post-Remaster Oracle too, but maybe just not the same people.
And it might be counted as a net gain if we see more Oracles in actual play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fans of the pre-Remaster Oracle who had to be rather enthusiastic about it IMO to take the necessary steps to have it function well.
Post-Remaster we simply do not know about how it will be received. The new iteration of the class is just too different.
Maybe we will have fans of the Post-Remaster Oracle too, but maybe just not the same people.
And it might be counted as a net gain if we see more Oracles in actual play.
That's more complicated than that, because this Oracle is clearly stepping on the Divine Sorcerer's toes and even on most caster's toe. So we will certainly see more of this Oracle but the net gain will be much harder to determine.
Also, there were room for a mix of both Oracles. As the curse is no more automatic, it was possible to keep a very impactful curse and mystery benefits linked to the curse levels so those who loved the curse could keep it and those who found it too impactful could just not trigger it.
I am going to see the whole thing first. Maybe the curse mechanic will be fun and interesting. I will miss the unique special abilities though. Those were cool on a few mysteries.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it might be counted as a net gain if we see more Oracles in actual play.
I think it will, it seems like a stronger class, and is definitely simpler and more intuitive.
It's just sort of a shame because, as I said earlier, it's very much a change for people who didn't want to play the Oracle in the first place.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it might be counted as a net gain if we see more Oracles in actual play.I think it will, it seems like a stronger class, and is definitely simpler and more intuitive.
It's just sort of a shame because, as I said earlier, it's very much a change for people who didn't want to play the Oracle in the first place.
That's exactly how I feel about it. Power wise, the class is better. "Fiddly bits" wise, the class is better.
Flavor and narrative wise, the mysteries got absolutely gutted. They're basically just a bullet point list of spells/domains/a skill/a feat that you get now and that's it. The unique thing that made them all really distinct from each other is gone, and some of it is now just yet another feat.
The curses also have that problem now, in that one is "you get Clumsy X" and another is "you get Enfeebled X", which is just not nearly as interesting as what was going on before.
I'm disappointed, honestly. I'm totally fine with "curses don't have upsides" so that curse levels going up is primarily bad (though some abilities do get better as curse level goes up so even now its not totally true), but I don't get why that also meant the mysteries had to be made so much less interesting.
I'm playing a Cosmos Oracle right now in Kingmaker and I don't really know if I want to keep doing that. Cosmos got whacked hard, though not as hard as Battle. I don't know what they were thinking with Battle at all. But on top of that, Cosmos also just got way less interesting in terms of what it actually does flavor wise. It's not really a power issue, because power wise I'll be fine (more spells, more easily spammable focus spells, and another pool of curse abilities to spam is quite a lot). The class itself just lost a lot of the interesting flavor in all this.
I guess the upside there is that if you're not trying to use Athletics of melee Strikes, Enfeebled is basically irrelevant and it's an incredibly easy curse to just feel free to spam Cursebound stuff on because the effect of the curse is basically meaningless most of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core chassis of the oracle class got major improvements. Especially at lower levels. However, the cost of this was that the mysteries both in their boons and flavor were absolutely gutted. On the plus side certain mysteries are no longer heads and shoulders above others (life, cosmos) but they also don't have the flare and unique play as before. And battle oracle.. wow.. Mark must really not want to allow spellcasters to be melee capable except the not a spellcaster but is a spellcaster kineticist.
I've played several oracles and nothing in the remaster wants me to play another since the mysteries act more like bloodlines with a penalty now. Also makes me feel like it really steps on the divine sorcerer a lot.
I don't hate the changes. It seems like they don't want base classes to be "fiddly", and the Oracle was certainly that. What I wouldn't mind seeing is an archetype/class archetype that focuses on giving upsides to curses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reminded of old conversations where people argued you could simply gain all the battle mystery proficiencies by feats. I'm seeing firsthand how costly that is, especially now that you can't just use champion to jump straight to heavy. On a 12th level character with free archetype I can get pretty close. I'm mostly just shifting my offensive focus spells into curse actions and losing my bonus damage and fast healing.
And I don't see a good reason to use the battle mystery itself. All it really grants is sure strike, and there are other ways to get that without having to marry myself to a dud initial revelation spell.
Side note: Mark Seifter hasn't worked for Paizo full time in like a year or two.
Edit: you basically need to take either fighter or champion archetype for weapons or armor respectively, then use general fears to snag the other one.
Honestly it makes me want design a class archetype for both "subclasses" on these two classes. Turn them into wave caster gishes, power them up into a stronger frame and let them go to town. Enhance the blood or curse aspects a bit. Will be some fun developing while I wait for the next scholastic school year.
I plan to knock together a quick one based on the warpriest doctrine once I see PC2 and the alchemist chassis. I personally count that doctrine as a proto-class archetype instead of a subclass, so it makes sense to me that a version that can be applied to any of the caster classes should exist.
I’m curious how the CA in war of immortals will compare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They lost both medium and heavy armor proficiency (!).
They lost martial weapon proficiency inherently, but their new focus spell is a 1 action spell that gives them proficiency with martial weapons equal to their simple weapon proficiency. It has a duration of 1 sustained up to 1 minute, but it automatically sustains if you hit with a Strike. It does nothing else other than provide martial weapon proficiency.
The problem with both of these is that you can effectively replace these with simple ancestry weapon feats, and well known armour feats. So very few people are going to bother with them in practice. Battle Oracle is realistically gone.
I would note of course that Bones, Lore, Ancestry oracles, were in my opinion almost unplayably bad, now work well. The other more reasonable Oracles still work well.
Ancestry does not work well. Worst curse in PC2.
Ancestry does not work well. Worst curse in PC2.
For sure the old ancester is gone and completely replaced. But that sort of mess with my actions was a very hard no from me personally. So I do very much prefer the new ancester.
However in a game which is supposed to support diversity of play style, taste, and everything else, then perhaps it should have been kept.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bigger issue is that Ancestors still has what's probably the most punishing of the curses via stacking Clumsy. It's the worst at using its own former benefits (and Cursebounds in general) because of it.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of morbidly curious about the conversations that led to weapon trance existing. Like, how is it considered mechanically sound and well designed, given how unremarkable its benefits are and how comparatively steep its costs? Spellcaster with a martial weapon is not remarkable or punching above your weight, it's the bare minimum of investment someone without proficiency can manage. It's a single general or ancestry feat.
Like in what world is this fun or evocative for players? How is this going to excite anyone?
... And who was worried that the Oracle spending a focus point and an action every combat just to wield their weapon would be overpowered, such that the spell needed to also have a sustain requirement? At some point in the design process, this was a legitimate concern. How? Why?
... I'm sure we all have things we wish were different about Pathfinder, but I'm sure many of us realize a lot of those gripes are matters of taste or design preference or table variation more than anything else.
But Weapon Trance? I can't even find a starting point for where this focus spell makes sense.
The bigger issue is that Ancestors still has what's probably the most punishing of the curses via stacking Clumsy. It's the worst at using its own former benefits (and Cursebounds in general) because of it.
Agreed so unlike the other curses staying at range is not really safe. However you do get to control the level of your curse. You can now get back to zero after every encounter, -1 is not that bad, -2 is not game over. Plus you have more spells than before, and more HP compared to a sorcerer, to cope with the situation where your curse is really bad.
I'm kind of morbidly curious about the conversations that led to weapon trance existing. Like, how is it considered mechanically sound and well designed, given how unremarkable its benefits are and how comparatively steep its costs? Spellcaster with a martial weapon is not remarkable or punching above your weight, it's the bare minimum of investment someone without proficiency can manage. It's a single general or ancestry feat.
Like in what world is this fun or evocative for players? How is this going to excite anyone?
... And who was worried that the Oracle spending a focus point and an action every combat just to wield their weapon would be overpowered, such that the spell needed to also have a sustain requirement? At some point in the design process, this was a legitimate concern. How? Why?
... I'm sure we all have things we wish were different about Pathfinder, but I'm sure many of us realize a lot of those gripes are matters of taste or design preference or table variation more than anything else.
But Weapon Trance? I can't even find a starting point for where this focus spell makes sense.
.
Yeah, I hate to be overly negative, but I'm right there with you. It's just wild to me how bad it is.Couple of house rules to consider: give them a domain spell instead. Or just give them martial weapon proficiency instead of a focus spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m guessing it was a misguided attempt to maintain the “you must keep attacking” flavor of the old curse. But that was to get a bonus and avoid a penalty, not for basic knowledge about how to use your chosen weapon.
You know what, THAT would have been cool, if the spell gave you a souped up attack. Give it the old bonus damage you'd have gotten from the APG curse. That might be worth the "land a hit or burn and suction sustaining" thing.
Edit: Dang it, I just went and looked at the animist spell. It's so much better it makes me sad. It even has interesting downsides a la the original oracle curse. I have some serious copium for day 1 errata.
EMBODIMENT OF BATTLE [one-action] FOCUS 1
UNCOMMON ANIMIST
Duration sustained up to 1 minute
Your apparition guides your attacks and imparts its skill to your movements. For the duration, your proficiency with martial weapons is equal to your proficiency with simple weapons, you gain a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls made with weapons or unarmed attacks, you gain the Reactive Strike reaction (Player Core 138), and you gain the critical specialization effect for any weapon you are wielding
when you Cast or Sustain this Spell. The instincts of an
apparition of battle run contrary to the use of magic; for the duration of this spell, you take a –2 status penalty to your spell attack modifier and your spell DCs.
Heightened (4th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +2.
Heightened (7th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I plan to knock together a quick one based on the warpriest doctrine once I see PC2 and the alchemist chassis. I personally count that doctrine as a proto-class archetype instead of a subclass, so it makes sense to me that a version that can be applied to any of the caster classes should exist.
I’m curious how the CA in war of immortals will compare.
Color me curious what your final results will be. Please share here when you are finished. I'll make sure to do the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m guessing it was a misguided attempt to maintain the “you must keep attacking” flavor of the old curse. But that was to get a bonus and avoid a penalty, not for basic knowledge about how to use your chosen weapon.You know what, THAT would have been cool, if the spell gave you a souped up attack. Give it the old bonus damage you'd have gotten from the APG curse. That might be worth the "land a hit or burn and suction sustaining" thing.
Edit: Dang it, I just went and looked at the animist spell. It's so much better it makes me sad. It even has interesting downsides a la the original oracle curse. I have some serious copium for day 1 errata.
EMBODIMENT OF BATTLE [one-action] FOCUS 1
UNCOMMON ANIMIST
Duration sustained up to 1 minute
Your apparition guides your attacks and imparts its skill to your movements. For the duration, your proficiency with martial weapons is equal to your proficiency with simple weapons, you gain a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls made with weapons or unarmed attacks, you gain the Reactive Strike reaction (Player Core 138), and you gain the critical specialization effect for any weapon you are wielding
when you Cast or Sustain this Spell. The instincts of an
apparition of battle run contrary to the use of magic; for the duration of this spell, you take a –2 status penalty to your spell attack modifier and your spell DCs.
Heightened (4th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +2.
Heightened (7th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +3.
I forgot about this. So did Paizo apparently.
Anyone else in the mood for asking for a day 1 errata?
Because, to me, the Animist spell seems perfectly reasonable for the Battle Oracle. Even if they have to use ranged weapons until they can buy back the armor proficiency they lost.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m guessing it was a misguided attempt to maintain the “you must keep attacking” flavor of the old curse. But that was to get a bonus and avoid a penalty, not for basic knowledge about how to use your chosen weapon.You know what, THAT would have been cool, if the spell gave you a souped up attack. Give it the old bonus damage you'd have gotten from the APG curse. That might be worth the "land a hit or burn and suction sustaining" thing.
Edit: Dang it, I just went and looked at the animist spell. It's so much better it makes me sad. It even has interesting downsides a la the original oracle curse. I have some serious copium for day 1 errata.
EMBODIMENT OF BATTLE [one-action] FOCUS 1
UNCOMMON ANIMIST
Duration sustained up to 1 minute
Your apparition guides your attacks and imparts its skill to your movements. For the duration, your proficiency with martial weapons is equal to your proficiency with simple weapons, you gain a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls made with weapons or unarmed attacks, you gain the Reactive Strike reaction (Player Core 138), and you gain the critical specialization effect for any weapon you are wielding
when you Cast or Sustain this Spell. The instincts of an
apparition of battle run contrary to the use of magic; for the duration of this spell, you take a –2 status penalty to your spell attack modifier and your spell DCs.
Heightened (4th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +2.
Heightened (7th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +3.
Nobody believed me when I said Paizo has a history of making existing options worse in order to better prop up and sell the new content. They called me crazy. Laughed at me. Demanded that I cite sources and provide evidence.
Soon they will all see the truths I have held as self evident for themselves! Muhahahahaha!!!
;P
I’m guessing it was a misguided attempt to maintain the “you must keep attacking” flavor of the old curse. But that was to get a bonus and avoid a penalty, not for basic knowledge about how to use your chosen weapon.You know what, THAT would have been cool, if the spell gave you a souped up attack. Give it the old bonus damage you'd have gotten from the APG curse. That might be worth the "land a hit or burn and suction sustaining" thing.
Edit: Dang it, I just went and looked at the animist spell. It's so much better it makes me sad. It even has interesting downsides a la the original oracle curse. I have some serious copium for day 1 errata.
EMBODIMENT OF BATTLE [one-action] FOCUS 1
UNCOMMON ANIMIST
Duration sustained up to 1 minute
Your apparition guides your attacks and imparts its skill to your movements. For the duration, your proficiency with martial weapons is equal to your proficiency with simple weapons, you gain a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls made with weapons or unarmed attacks, you gain the Reactive Strike reaction (Player Core 138), and you gain the critical specialization effect for any weapon you are wielding
when you Cast or Sustain this Spell. The instincts of an
apparition of battle run contrary to the use of magic; for the duration of this spell, you take a –2 status penalty to your spell attack modifier and your spell DCs.
Heightened (4th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +2.
Heightened (7th) The status bonus to attack and damage rolls granted by this spell is increased to +3.I forgot about this. So did Paizo apparently.
Anyone else in the mood for asking for a day 1 errata?
Because, to me, the Animist spell seems perfectly reasonable for the Battle Oracle. Even if they have to use ranged weapons until they can buy back the armor proficiency they lost.
I'm right there with you. Weapon trance is so bad I seriously wonder if a mistake was made.
|
Paizo has been willing to buff things with errata's in the past so let's hope weapon trance gets a revisit at some point. Some obvious fixes could include the bonus damage they used to have, temp hp on hits to add back their staying power, and either make it last a minute without sustain or allow a strike when you take the sustain action.
Not sure what to do about the armor though. It's in the boat with warrior bard now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to use feats to buy armor OR weapon proficiency. Both is where my eye starts to twitch.
One feat that gives you Martial/Medium proficiency at Cursebound 1 and Advanced/Heavy proficiency at Cursebound 2, would have made a lot of people happier.
Not happy, just happier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I think is possible is that there's the intent to make a class archetype that allows for a more martial oracle to appear in a forthcoming book (War of Immortals, say). That way people who want to play a battle oracle that has the medium armor and martial weapons of the legacy version can buy that back, but most oracles are not going to want to play that way so there's no reason to build it into the basic chassis.
Nobody believed me when I said Paizo has a history of making existing options worse in order to better prop up and sell the new content. They called me crazy. Laughed at me. Demanded that I cite sources and provide evidence.
Soon they will all see the truths I have held as self evident for themselves! Muhahahahaha!!!
;P
Nobody?... :P