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"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be treating it as 4 and 4, until it is clarified.
Now it's June 2025 and still no signal from Paizo. Odd!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now it's June 2025 and still no signal from Paizo. Odd!
It came out in the Fall 2024 errata for PC2.
"Page 130: The oracle’s spellcasting text doesn’t match the table, which has the correct number of starting spells per day. Update the second paragraph under Oracle Spellcasting to “Each day, you can cast up to three 1st-rank spells.”"
I want to revisit part of this because the errata addresses the number of spell slots, but not the repertoire size. The relevant text from the class is here:
At 1st level, you learn two 1st-rank divine spells of your choice and five divine cantrips of your choice. You choose these from the common spells on the divine list or from other divine spells to which you have access. You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell rank.
You add to this spell repertoire as you increase in level. Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank. At 2nd level, you select another 1st-rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd-rank spells, and so on. When you add spells, you might add a higher-rank version of a spell you already have, so you can cast a heightened version of that spell.
Now, that's not vague. You get 2 spells known to start, another at level 2, and then so it goes: 2, 1, 2, 1.
So, is that correct or not? Because folks don't seem to run it that way. Pathbuilder and HLO both start you with 3 spell picks for your repertoire at level 1 and likewise go 3, 1, 3, 1.
Did we just decide collectively that the text is wrong and the lack of errata is simply a lack of errata rather than intentional?
Your number of spell slots only says how many times per day you can cast spells of a given rank. So a 1st level Oracle gets two 1st rank spells and 3 slots; he can cast one spell three times, or one spell twice and the other spell once. He gets to choose which spell he wants to cast at the time he casts it. This is "Spontaneous Casting" as opposed to "Prepared Casting" (like a Wizard) which requires choosing which spell goes in which slot during your daily preparations. So it seems to me the 2-1-2-1 text might well be correct. If so, I don't think we need another erratum.
Compare with Sorcerer. If you ignore the bloodline spells, it works the same as Oracle. Bard does too; the same 2-1-2-1 progression applies. Bard has fewer slots than Oracle, though.
I don't see how 2-1-2-1 is incorrect. The table shows that you gain 2 rank 1 slots at first level, one more at second, 2 rank 2 slots at third, and so on. 2-1-2-1. What am I missing?
okay, I got confused there for a minute. Is my description from an hour and a half ago wrong? If so, how?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
okay, I got confused there for a minute. Is my description from an hour and a half ago wrong? If so, how?
The problem is that the wording for Oracle Repertoire is inconsistent with itself. The rule doesn't match the example that it gives.
The rule:
Each time you get a spell slot (see the Oracle Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank.
The example:
At 2nd level, you select another 1st-rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd-rank spells, and so on.
You do in fact gain one more 1st Rank spell in Repertoire at 2nd level, but you gained three 2nd Rank spell slots at level 3. So why does the example only list gaining two 2nd rank spells in Repertoire at that level?
That's logically inconsistent internally. No external information or interpretation needed. The example doesn't match its own rule.
So something is wrong and needs clarified. That is objective truth.
More subjective is what that change should be. Most people are going to look at the errata for the number of spell slots gained at each level and interpret that things should be corrected in the same manner for the inconsistencies in Repertoire text. That the table is correct and the text has vestiges of preRemaster Oracle numbers still remaining in it that need updated.
-----
As for comparison to Sorcerer and Bard:
Sorcerer has the same rule, with a modification that the first spell of each Rank added to Repertoire cannot be freely chosen:
Each time you get a spell slot (see the Sorcerer Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank. 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.
And the example:
At 2nd level, you select another 1st-rank spell; at 3rd level, you gain a new spell from your bloodline and two other 2nd-rank spells, and so on.
So at level 3 you are still adding 3 2nd Rank spells to the Sorcerer's Repertoire. You only get to choose two of them, but three is still the number of spells added.
for bard it is identical to Oracle save for the number of spell slots per level (and save typos in the example).
Each time you get a spell slot (see the Bard Spells per Day table), you add a spell to your spell repertoire of the same rank.
And the example:
At 2nd level, you select another 1st-rank spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd-rank spells, and so on.
The Bard does only gain two 2nd Rank spells in Repertoire at level 3, but that is because they also only gain two 2nd Rank spell slots at level 3.
There seems to be an assumption that the number of spell slots should equal the number of spells in the repertoire. I don't know why that should be the case.
There seems to be an assumption that the number of spell slots should equal the number of spells in the repertoire. I don't know why that should be the case.
It's because of this line in the repertoire section:
Each time you get a spell slot (see Table 2–3), you add a spell of the same level to your spell repertoire.
If you follow that, you're adding a repertoire spell every time you add a spell slot so they wind up in sync.
The very next line says something else, though, and that's where the confusion is:
At 2nd level, you select another 1st-level spell; at 3rd level, you select two 2nd-level spells, and so on.
These used to be in sync because the text about how many spells you get was also 2 and then 1, but that was changed to 3 and then 1 (to match the table). So now this paragraph is saying two different things at the same time and we can't tell which one is intended.
That's why I asked the question, since the tool consensus seems to be "it's the first one."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be an assumption that the number of spell slots should equal the number of spells in the repertoire. I don't know why that should be the case.
Because every other spontaneous spellcasting class in the game does follow that assumption.
Every spellcasting class in the game also has a note that the number of spell slots they have and the number of spells in repertoire that they have are different numbers that are changed independently if a feat or ability changes one of them.
But every spellcasting class other than Oracle starts out with both their spell slot count and their repertoire count being the same and matching to their spellcasting progression table. Only Oracle has any mismatch there, and the developers have tried to fix that mismatch once already.
But every spellcasting class other than Oracle starts out with both their spell slot count and their repertoire count being the same and matching to their spellcasting progression table. Only Oracle has any mismatch there, and the developers have tried to fix that mismatch once already.
This, for sure. This text has already been wrong once in exactly this way, and since it contradicts itself, assuming the number is just wrong for a second time is pretty reasonable.
(That it feels rasonable to make that assumption also says something about Remaster Oracle and PC2's general need of more editing than it got.)
since most other spontanious casters follows the "1 spell added to repertoire per spellslot gained"
The only one I can think of that doesn't follow that is technically not even a spontaneous spellcaster. Animist is a prepared spellcaster primarily and is considered as such for any items or other abilities that distinguish between the two - such as staves.
Animist's repertoire is not directly chosen by the player at all. The choice of Apparitions for the day indirectly decides the spells in repertoire.
Aside from Animist all other spontaneous spellcasters start out with the same number of spell slots and repertoire slots. Some get a few extra spells in repertoire added by class abilities. Bard gets one spell added to repertoire by their choice of Muse and will end up with 3 1st rank spells at level 1 and 4 1st rank spells at level 2. Psychic gets a bonus spell in repertoire at each spell rank. So at even levels they end up with 2 spell slots and 3 spells in repertoire at each rank that they can cast from.
|
There seems to be an assumption that the number of spell slots should equal the number of spells in the repertoire. I don't know why that should be the case.
I believe this is an axiom, rather than an assumption.
I’ll be playing Oracle as Spells Known = Table Spell Slots plus Bonus Mystery until that axiom is explicitly mentioned as being intentionally broken.
=)
The ones I was thinking of when I was stating "most" was actually summoner since they lose/replace spells instead of gaining them after reaching 5 spells learned.
Yeah, that is probably an even better example. I had forgotten about Summoner.
Seems like somebody at Paizo ought to be conducting a comprehensive review and update of spontaneous spellcasting across all classes that use it.
You think the Oracle test is "wonky" because it's different to the other classes. Maybe it's the other classes that are wonky and the Oracle is right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You think the Oracle test is "wonky" because it's different to the other classes. Maybe it's the other classes that are wonky and the Oracle is right.
Oracle is wonky because it's literally saying two different things within the same paragraph, and one of those things is saying the same numbers that were already wrong once and errata'd. The other spontaneous casters don't have that problem.
Paizo needs to do a comprehensive errata on remaster Oracle to actually fix this stuff. The state the class was released in is simply below an acceptable standard.
Where can I find the errata for, I guess, Player Core 2? Not to mention other pubs.
Alternatively, are the errata included in AoN's description of this class?
I saw a lot of FAQs on the link, no errata. I'll look again.
I think I finally see the problem: Oracle differs from other Spontaneous Casters in the number of learned spells he gets initially in his repertoire. It seems the second sentence of the first paragraph under "Spell Repertoire needs to be changed as follows: "At 1st level, you learn two three 1st-rank divine spells of your choice and five divine cantrips of your choice."
Does that fix it?
I saw a lot of FAQs on the link, no errata. I'll look again.
they are now one in the same. The FAQ has far more errata than FAQ to be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All right.
I'm about at the point where it no longer matters to me, because at 78, and with no one in my circle of friends who is at all interested in playing Pathfinder (or Starfinder), and with the demise of "Paizo Advantage", I'm seriously considering bailing altogether on these games. <shrug>