So I would say similar intent was meant for the Oracle.
If your getting a spell from your mystery it is considered one of the known spells you gain towards 1 spell per slot you gain.
I don't really see how you can make that assumption. Sorcerer specifically gets a bloodline spell every rank, so they end up with 3+1 every rank, and the text calls that out. Oracle doesn't do either of those things.
There's really nothing to support the idea that Paizo intended the mystery spell to count since nothing says that. It's very specifically 3, and the Mystery on the levels when it has one.
The main issue here is is that part of this section we know is wrong on the numbers and the PFS Clarification suggests that both sets of numbers are wrong, so it should be 4.
Why does Oracle know more spells than Sorcerer? I have no idea. Frankly a lot of the Remaster Oracle design doesn't make sense to me, so I don't see this as an outlier on that front.
So I would say similar intent was meant for the Oracle.
If your getting a spell from your mystery it is considered one of the known spells you gain towards 1 spell per slot you gain.I don't really see how you can make that assumption. Sorcerer specifically gets a bloodline spell every rank, so they end up with 3+1 every rank, and the text calls that out. Oracle doesn't do either of those things.
There's really nothing to support the idea that Paizo intended the mystery spell to count since nothing says that. It's very specifically 3, and the Mystery on the levels when it has one.
The main issue here is is that part of this section we know is wrong on the numbers and the PFS Clarification suggests that both sets of numbers are wrong, so it should be 4.
Why does Oracle know more spells than Sorcerer? I have no idea. Frankly a lot of the Remaster Oracle design doesn't make sense to me, so I don't see this as an outlier on that front.
I understand but for me its this specific part right here.
When you gain a new rank of spells, your
first new spell is always the sorcerous gift spell for that
rank that’s listed in your bloodline, but you can choose the
other spells.
So imagine subbing in oracle mystery for the sorcerous gift language.
If they did that I would have read it asWhen you gain a new rank of spells, your
first new spell is always a spell given from your mystery for that
rank that’s listed in your mystery, but you can choose the
other spells.
Thats what I mean. If they used a phrase like this It would have been clearer. You gain 3 new slots? then you gain 3 new spells. If its a rank that has a mystery spell then one of the new spells you get is spoken for but you choose the others.
Now if they meant something else entirely thats fine and the errata will reflect it. I just dont think they meant for Oracles to have 5 spells in rep per rank.
So imagine subbing in oracle mystery for the sorcerous gift language.We try to not imagine RAW. You are baselessly speculating. Until errata arrives it's 4 free plus mysteries because this is the base rule and nothing says otherwise. Sorcerers have nothing to do with this.
There is a bit of taking me in a way I did not intend.
I am absolutely not baselessly speculating in my RAW argument, to see that argument look a few posts back to where I posted the PC2 language of the oracle.When I brought up the sorcerer text I was comparing it to my raw argument to see how it could have been written better and has been written better for sorcerer.
One thing RAW the Oracle entry does not do is explicitly tell players they get more spells in repertoire than the number of slots they receive. It does say to add spells based on the number of slots you gain, it just doesnt go the extra step as in the sorcerer entry of explaining the first spell gained is from mystery when mystery is giving one.
leaving that last bit unexplained caused confusion and a fork in interpretations.
The explanation could equally be spells gained from your mystery are in addition to the ones you add for each slot and that was not written either. But that is why I look to sorcerer as it sets an example of what they have done before to understand likely what they meant here.
When I brought up the sorcerer text I was comparing it to my raw argument to see how it could have been written betterSo you were guessing.
One thing RAW the Oracle entry does not do is explicitly tell players they get more spells in repertoire than the number of slots they receive. It does say to add spells based on the number of slots you gain, it just doesnt go the extra step as in the sorcerer entry of explaining the first spell gained is from mystery when mystery is giving one.
leaving that last bit unexplained caused confusion and a fork in interpretations.
The explanation could equally be spells gained from your mystery are in addition to the ones you add for each slot and that was not written either. But that is why I look to sorcerer as it sets an example of what they have done before to understand likely what they meant here.Why haven't you looked at bard and psychic? I'd recommend that.
And anyway, again: we know that the section is botched a bit. But until we have an errata we shouldn't guess and should use what definitely exists: slot=spell known plus additional spells from mysteries.
"Your mystery grants you additional spells", "You automatically add the spells listed here to your spell repertoire, as described in Spell Repertoire on
page 130. At 1st level, you gain a cantrip and a 1st-rank spell", "You learn skills related to that mystery, gain access to a cantrip..."
Yes, I'd say there's some ambiguity here. Spells 'in total count' won't be 'additional', but 'as described in Spell Repertoire' count mean just a reference to the repertoire as a feature. And then they forgot slotted spells mentioning only a cantrip, which is definitely a vestige of the old oracle.
Yeah that would assume Oracle acts like a 3 slot caster and not a 4 slot caster like a sorcerer. Not exactly strong grounds there either right?
Has me thinking too good to be true territory for a 4 slot caster to get more spells in rep then slots.
This is what happens when you don't have a well thought out mechanism for limiting the spells a spellcaster can cast in a day.
Yeah that would assume Oracle acts like a 3 slot caster and not a 4 slot caster like a sorcerer. Not exactly strong grounds there either right?Well we know something is funky in the slot count, because the Spell Repetoire text on p130-131 doesn't match the p131 Table. But having said that...
Has me thinking too good to be true territory for a 4 slot caster to get more spells in rep then slots....in my mind THAT is pretty clear. The last two sentences of the section, "Your spell slots and the spells in your spell repertoire are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your spell repertoire, it wouldn’t give you another spell slot, and vice versa" seem to very obviously communicate to players that the two numbers - spells at a rank in repetoire and slots at that rank - can be different. If they must be in lockstep, that sentence would say the opposite of what it does now.
I guess that could be some earlier draft text that snuck into the final? But barring errata that removes those two sentences, the as written meaning of them seems obviously that repetoir# does not necessarily have to match slot#.
That could also be because of feats like Gifted Power that give you a spell slot but do not give you a repertoire spell known.
The truth here is that since the text and table don't match, we know there's errors in the section. The only official guidance we have right now is the PFS clarification, which says "the table is correct for spells and spell slots."
That means we're all speculating to one degree or another what is actually intended here. :) To me, "spells" in the above could only refer to spells known because spell slots are also mentioned, so it should be 4 and 4 before any other modifiers.
That does mean Oracle ends up with a bigger spell repertoire than Sorcerer. If that was a good design decision or not is a different issue.
That could also be because of feats like Gifted Power that give you a spell slot but do not give you a repertoire spell known.Sure, but you're basically agreeing with me that the text supports the notion that slot# and repetoire# do not have to match.
I absolutely agree with that. They don't have to match.
To me, "spells" in the above could only refer to spells known because spell slots are also mentioned, so it should be 4 and 4 before any other modifiers.Before other modifiers, sure. The point is that, the way Oracle class is written, modifiers (feats etc.) can change the number of one of them without changing the number of the other.
Also agreed. That's how I come to base 4 known per rank, and then other stuff (like Mystery & Divine Access) add to it.
Yeah I have no dog in that fight, beyond agreement with another poster's sentiment that "I don't like it" /= "The RAI must be different from what we read in the RAW."
Agreed.
I'm going to guess that Pathbuilder is doing it right.
I'm going to guess that Pathbuilder is doing it right.
They have it set up as 3 known, 4 slot, right?
They have it set up as 3 known, 4 slot, right?
Yup, and then the granted spells, though marked as revelation spells, appear at the appropriate levels.
herolab does effectively the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything wrong with a spontaneous caster having more slots per rank than they know spells. The whole draw of being a spontaneous caster is "you can just cast fireball over and over again"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be treating it as 4 and 4, until it is clarified.