So I have only read both the original Oracle as it appeared in the Advanced Players Guide and the Remastered Oracle in Player Core 2.
Could someone who has played the original Oracle chime in and give their personal thoughts on what they believe the Oracle lost/gained in the transition to the Remaster?
I read a few threads on Reddit about this topic and turned out to be a big mistake as it always devolved into fighting.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective as someone who GM'd but not played the original Oracle multiple times, the Remastered Oracle is substantially more powerful than the pre-remaster one, and I don't think it's particularly close. However, it lost a great deal of the uniqueness it once had - playstyles that it previously enabled are not enabled anymore. When comparing mysteries that hewed closer to the classic casting playstyles - Cosmos, Time, Flames, Ash - I believe it's not quite a straightforward upgrade, but it's a pretty compelling rework. When comparing mysteries with more unique playstyles - like Battle, Ancestors, or Life - the Remastered oracle is more powerful but less interesting.
Functionally having two focus pools is very strong, being a 4-slot caster is already very strong, and you've still got some fun and interesting focus spell options, like Debilitating Dichotomy. If it was the original release of Oracle I imagine people would mostly be OK with it, but it's disappointing to lose those unique playstyles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could someone who has played the original Oracle chime in and give their personal thoughts on what they believe the Oracle lost/gained in the transition to the Remaster?
I played a few original oracles and I didn't play them as expected: I didn't interact with the curse system at all and played them as full casters with extra focus points and 10 class feats that i could use to archetype. So for me, they had a niche but not as the traditional oracle.
Now I'll actually play an oracle as/is and actually take its class feats now that it actually has a non-crippling curse system, interesting feats and the focus points aren't tied to the curse. So for me, the remaster is a total win: IMO, it was all gains. Now if you were someone that actually enjoyed how the old oracle worked, you might miss out on its playstyle.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Oracle became a more generically powerful spellcaster while losing most of what made it unique and interesting to the people who liked the original curse mechanics. The play styles of the battle and ancestor mysteries in particular were gutted so hard I gave up on a character I'd been playing for three years.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read a few threads on Reddit about this topic and turned out to be a big mistake as it always devolved into fighting.
Oh, it generally devolves into fighting on here too.
Aside from specific things that Oracle gained and lost - such as a 4th spell slot gained and the Mystery Benefits entry lost:
Oracle gained quite a bit of spellcasting and other magical power. They have 4 spell slots per Rank. They have focus spells. They have Cursebound powers, which feel a lot like additional focus spells.
Oracle lost the ability to be built as anything other than a spellcaster. Most notable is the Battle Mystery. Losing the Mystery Benefit means that they are no longer trained in medium and heavy armor. And with the Curse only giving penalties and no bonuses, they no longer get the bonus to damage and attack rolls that they used to get.
So Oracle lost a lot of complexity, but that also means losing a lot of options and variety of build.
Lost flavor on its Mysteries (that weren't heavy on Oracle flavor) and mechanical complexity, and gained power and a new feats more in line with oracular abilities.
So far, most people who loved/liked the old Oracle didn't like the change. Most people who didn't, enjoyed. No one is complaining about the increase in power, though.
Particularly, I would've loved if the old Mysteries to have been refined and reworked (the ones that only offer boring passives). Then added in the new feats, maybe a few more mechanics that enabled the Oracle to manipulate their Curse level in combat (reduce and suppress) and regain Focus Points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my 2 cents if I play an Oracle I will certainly be using the OG rules, not the remaster rules. I like the added complex flavor of the OG version, the remaster feels boring in comparison.
However if I am running a game and someone wants to play an Oracle they can use whichever ruleset they prefer.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having GM'd an Oracle and actively playing one right now... the class lost most of its flavor. Especially if you liked PF1 Oracle and want something like that: Remaster Oracle doesn't feel like the same class at all.
Remaster Oracle losing its mystery benefits is huge, as now some of the mysteries actively don't enable the playstyle they claim to: Battle is the most egregious here. You have a sustained focus spell to even have martial weapon proficiency and light armor proficiency. You are actively not good in melee without investing several feats elsewhere to gain those proficiencies. The mystery itself is doing basically nothing for you.
Life is in a similar boat: it used to be one of the best healers in the game with a unique playstyle. Now it's not really better at it than any other Oracle, especially since if you actually use Nudge the Scales to get healing, you take a penalty to healing yourself that makes it harder to use Life Link and 3 action Heal spells. It's got severe anti-synergy, so a Cosmos Oracle can just spam Nudge the Scales with basically zero penalty (the Cosmos curse is so irrelevant most of the time that you won't even notice it).
Ancestors used to have a difficult but very unique playstyle. Now it lost the unique playstyle but has an absolutely punishing curse that WILL get you killed if you actually push it very far. It's old unique ability is a feat anyone can take except it's worse than the old one.
Cosmos and Flames have comparatively trivial curses (outside of low level for Flames) and thus are way more open in using Cursebound abilities. As most Cursebound abilities aren't mystery locked, this just lets them use those abilities much more easily.
Bones has a curse that it's not clear how it's supposed to work. It makes you vulnerable to vitality damage, except that almost no vitality damage effects can actually target you (they target undead, and you are not undead). It's not clear if that's intended (in which case the curse is just weakness to void damage) or if it's supposed to make you actually take those effects, in which case things like 3 action heal would damage you.
I don't have it yet, but Divine Mysteries added Time and Ash back, and they apparently don't have a level 10 Cursebound feat at all, so they just have fewer of them than the others for some inexplicable reason.
As for the Cursebound abilities... the best ones are largely front loaded, which is awesome if you're some other class and taking Oracle Dedication. Pick it up, get 2 uses per combat (same as an Oracle until level 11), and just move on. The only ones not available to the archetype at all are not great.
The class now leans very heavily on being a 4 slot caster for its power. Which is definitely a power boost. But we already had that in Sorcerer, so the actual identity that made Oracle unique and gave it a distinctive playstyle is gone. And frankly: Sorcerer taking Oracle Dedication is probably going to come out ahead power wise since you can just poach a couple of the best things from Oracle.
Ultimately, this remaster seems aimed primarily at people who didn't like how original Oracle worked and want something simpler. It definitely succeeds at that. The flip side is that if you were already playing an Oracle, a lot of character concepts that it used to enable either are worse now or just flat out don't work. I don't think any other class had so many existing characters broken like this. That's why existing Oracle players tend to react so negatively to it: the class lost what made it interesting to us in the first place, and in some cases also just broke our characters.
Did I just read what basically boils down to "Needs Errata"?
Did I just read what basically boils down to "Needs Errata"?
Only Bones. Broken OG characters were broken on purpose.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I just read what basically boils down to "Needs Errata"?Only Bones. Broken OG characters were broken on purpose.
If it was intended to nerf Battle Mystery and Ancestors Mystery into oblivion, they should have just been removed and replaced. Have their respective 1st level feats as a nod to their previous existence, but not have Mystery entries that promise something and don't deliver on it.
Since the book has already been published, I can see that as a call for errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was intended to nerf Battle Mystery and Ancestors Mystery into oblivion, they should have just been removed and replaced. Have their respective 1st level feats as a nod to their previous existence, but not have Mystery entries that promise something and don't deliver on it.
Since the book has already been published, I can see that as a call for errata.
I'm not sure what they don't deliver on if you look at them as/is and not comparing them to the old versions.
Battle "Warlike forces fill you with physical might and tactical knowledge, aiming to have you uphold the glory of combat, fight to improve the world, prepare against the necessity of conflict, or endure the inevitability of war.": it offers "weapon trance, battlefield persistence and revel in retribution, Oracular Warning and the athletics skill and IMO, that fulfills the promise to "fill you with physical might and tactical knowledge".
Ancestors "The voices of generations past speak to you, and you hear their words." "You learn from their whispers and the fragments of their memories, but opening your mind to their knowledge and experience also allows them to meddle in your worldly affairs.": in a similar way, you have guidance, ancestral touch, ancestral defense, ancestral form and Whispers of Weakness.
IMO, it's more people don't like how it's fulfilled those promises, not that they didn't fulfill them. That's why, IMO, it's not errata: there is nothing wrong to fix. Now if you want to ask for a rework, sure go for it. I'm all for reworking some of its awful feats, but its not the only class with awful feats.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think for battle it's a little more than just not fully delivering. Weapon Trance is full stop one of the worst things Paizo has ever published.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think for battle it's a little more than just not fully delivering. Weapon Trance is full stop one of the worst things Paizo has ever published.
What's wild is they had already play tested and approved Embodiment of Battle, which is basically Weapon Trance, heightening heroism, and a Revel in Retribution wrapped up in one 1st level focus spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle "Warlike forces fill you with physical might and tactical knowledge, aiming to have you uphold the glory of combat, fight to improve the world, prepare against the necessity of conflict, or endure the inevitability of war."
Battle Mystery is especially bad. It offers nothing that gives any mechanics to justify its claims.
No physical might mechanically. No tactical knowledge mechanically.
Weapon Trance: For a Focus Point, and an action each round that you miss with your spellcasting tier weapon bonuses - you can temporarily have the benefits of the level 1 General feat Weapon Proficiency.
Battlefield Persistence: +2 bonus to saves. Nothing about actually being a combatant at all. This is purely defensive.
Revel in Retribution: This one does at least somewhat qualify as 'tactical knowledge'. So by paying a level 12 class feat, you finally get something that qualifies as delivering on the theme. You are still swinging with your very much lagging weapon proficiency. And no additional bonuses to compensate.
Battle Mystery does not deliver on making your character a physical combatant. You are just a spellcaster swinging around a weapon. I don't need to compare to the Pre-Remaster Battle Oracle. Comparing to Warpriest Cleric, Wild Form Druid, and Witness to Ancient Battles Animist is sufficient to show how bad it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No physical might mechanically.
If it does nothing else, it gives Athletics. That's physical might. You can also concider a better ability to hit with weapons physical might.
No tactical knowledge mechanically.
Oracular Warning "You have a premonition about impending danger that you use to warn your allies" Sounds like tactical knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No physical might mechanically.If it does nothing else, it gives Athletics. That's physical might. You can also concider a better ability to hit with weapons physical might.
No tactical knowledge mechanically.Oracular Warning "You have a premonition about impending danger that you use to warn your allies" Sounds like tactical knowledge.
So a Cosmos Oracle that gets the same Oracular Warning feat (or any other Oracle that pays for the feat) and puts a point of their training in Athletics is just as much a Battle Oracle as a Battle Oracle is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what they don't deliver on if you look at them as/is and not comparing them to the old versions.
Or to the sample Battle Oracle in PC2 and its own art? The sample's thing is about using strikes (which Battle doesn't actually do much to make you good at), and it's wearing armor that Battle can no longer wear.
So yeah, it doesn't deliver when compared to either the old version or the example Paizo put in the book. This version is strictly worse at it than the original version.
And yes: comparing to the original version is valid since there's no other remaster class that just says "ignore what you were playing before because we're totally changing the class." That argument boils down "this is a new class with the same name" which really isn't what the remaster promised.
Battle "Warlike forces fill you with physical might and tactical knowledge, aiming to have you uphold the glory of combat, fight to improve the world, prepare against the necessity of conflict, or endure the inevitability of war.": it offers "weapon trance, battlefield persistence and revel in retribution, Oracular Warning and the athletics skill and IMO, that fulfills the promise to "fill you with physical might and tactical knowledge".
Weapon Trance is hilariously, insultingly bad. Oracular Warning is also on Cosmos and can be picked up by anyone pretty cheap. Battlefield Persistence is fine. Revel in Retribution only works if you're in melee, and you need either Weapon Trance up (lol) or additional feats to actually do that, plus more feats to have some armor so you don't get destroyed because you're a spellcaster in melee.
Actually doing this requires significant feat support from elsewhere and isn't something that Battle is especially better at than some other Oracle that also takes that feat support.
Ancestors "The voices of generations past speak to you, and you hear their words." "You learn from their whispers and the fragments of their memories, but opening your mind to their knowledge and experience also allows them to meddle in your worldly affairs.": in a similar way, you have guidance, ancestral touch, ancestral defense, ancestral form and Whispers of Weakness.
Guidance is a bog standard thing and has nothing to do with anything here. Whisper of Weakness is also on Lore, and actually using it on Ancestor is incredibly dangerous because of how bad Clumsy is. The three focus spells are all basically "this is barely ancestor related at all but we stuck the word in somewhere so it counts."
Literally you could play any other Mystery and simply narratively declare that your ancestors are involved and it would be exactly the same as Ancestor's method of fulfilling this except with a less deadly curse.
IMO, it's more people don't like how it's fulfilled those promises, not that they didn't fulfill them. That's why, IMO, it's not errata: there is nothing wrong to fix. Now if you want to ask for a rework, sure go for it. I'm all for reworking some of its awful feats, but its not the only class with awful feats.
It's more like "both of these already had existing mechanics that fulfilled their promise in some way, and both were stripped out."
Did I just read what basically boils down to "Needs Errata"?
Oh it definitely needs errata, considering we're relying on PFS rulings for multiple problems right now, and they didn't touch them all.
What it REALLY needs is a do-over, because they frankly did a lousy job on this one. Stripping out what the people playing the class are actually playing it for is such a bad idea that I just can't fathom why anyone decided to do it, especially since that didn't really happen anywhere else in the remaster. Like, they didn't look at Swashbuckler and go "people have problems with Panache, so lets just get rid of that entirely."
No, they kept the playstyle and set about working on the pain points. Alchemist is probably the only real comparison (Wizard's remaster was also a let down but thats largely about schools and a lack of help elsewhere rather than wholesale rewriting the class). From what I've seen Remaster Alchemist has largely been better received because you now get to be an Alchemist all day rather and that was definitely not the case before for a large level range.
Now, we're not going to get another do-over. I highly doubt they'll even errata mystery benefits back in. This is what we're stuck with, though "play the original Oracle instead" is something that is happening far more often than for any other remaster class.
I'm not that hopeful that the errata will do much except explain some of the things that don't work or contradict right now, given how the last few releases have gone. I'd be thrilled to be wrong.
Did I just read what basically boils down to "Needs Errata"?Oh it definitely needs errata, considering we're relying on PFS rulings for multiple problems right now, and they didn't touch them all.
What it REALLY needs is a do-over, because they frankly did a lousy job on this one. Stripping out what the people playing the class are actually playing it for is such a bad idea that I just can't fathom why anyone decided to do it, especially since that didn't really happen anywhere else in the remaster. Like, they didn't look at Swashbuckler and go "people have problems with Panache, so lets just get rid of that entirely."
No, they kept the playstyle and set about working on the pain points. Alchemist is probably the only real comparison (Wizard's remaster was also a let down but thats largely about schools and a lack of help elsewhere rather than wholesale rewriting the class). From what I've seen Remaster Alchemist has largely been better received because you now get to be an Alchemist all day rather and that was definitely not the case before for a large level range.
Now, we're not going to get another do-over. I highly doubt they'll even errata mystery benefits back in. This is what we're stuck with, though "play the original Oracle instead" is something that is happening far more often than for any other remaster class.
I'm not that hopeful that the errata will do much except explain some of the things that don't work or contradict right now, given how the last few releases have gone. I'd be thrilled to be wrong.
Functionally they fixed the Swashbucker. I would have prefered if they had left it cleaner and had errated the class rather than added this additional until the end of your turn nonsense.
Oracle was a mess as half the mysteries were considered so bad they weren't played. But they replaced them all and now we have a different list of mysteries a couple of which are best played when you ignore the mystery. The changes being so substantial it is basically a new class, alienating the few people who made the old class work. The power level is higher so more people will play the new version. I'm not seeing it as a huge improvement over all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stripping out what the people playing the class are actually playing it for is such a bad idea that I just can't fathom why anyone decided to do it
I mean the why seems pretty obvious, just look at graystone (not picking on you graystone) and their reaction to the class. For someone who saw the premaster oracle as fundamentally broken and almost unplayable, moving away from those mechanics isn't a misstep, it's a design win. The new oracle is generally stronger, can use its focus spells more freely, and is much more straight forward to engage with.
For someone like me who really valued mystery mechanics and liked the design puzzle of scaling upsides/downsides built together it's a shame, but for someone who doesn't care about that the new Oracle is a big win.
Which is why I don't really like saying that they failed or did a lousy job. No, there are a few editing mistakes, but by and large they did exactly what they set out to do, it's just not what I personally wanted.
Alchemist is actually a really apt example here because while some people are really happy with it, there are some strident premaster fans who feel the fundamental core of the class was gutted by the changes. Builds focused around long term buffs, or builds that don't heavily rely on in-combat alchemy tend to benefit minimally from the remaster's new direction, or even end up worse than before.
So a Cosmos Oracle that gets the same Oracular Warning feat (or any other Oracle that pays for the feat) and puts a point of their training in Athletics is just as much a Battle Oracle as a Battle Oracle is.
The mystery didn't grant Athletics, so no on that. I never said it does a GOOD job at delivering the flavor text, just that it did so. The game has plenty of things in it that are subpar and 100% intended and not in need of errata and that is my point here: it'd be nice to see a rework on some things, but that doesn't mean that are in error.
Or to the sample Battle Oracle in PC2 and its own art? The sample's thing is about using strikes (which Battle doesn't actually do much to make you good at), and it's wearing armor that Battle can no longer wear.
I have to say, I never even glance at the sample characters. After going and looking at it, I see no issues at all. If you want to swing a big sword around, you can do it with weapon trance. And armor proficiency is a 1st level general feat: nothing says EVERYTHING from a random picture used for a sample character if granted at 1st level [or from the class at all].
So yeah, it doesn't deliver when compared to either the old version or the example Paizo put in the book. This version is strictly worse at it than the original version.
I never said anything about the old version: it's 10000000% meaningless about what I'm talking about: it's about if the current version is an error that needs errata. Again, lots of PF2 things aren't very good and are totally correct. The fact that you don't like a change doesn't make it wrong.
And yes: comparing to the original version is valid
I'll stop this here as I fundamentally disagree. What used to be has no impact on what was intended for this version: if they intended to give Flames all Ice spells, then that's what is correct no matter what the last version did.
Weapon Trance is hilariously, insultingly bad.
So?
Oracular Warning is also on Cosmos and can be picked up by anyone pretty cheap.
And?
Battlefield Persistence is fine. Revel in Retribution only works if you're in melee, and you need either Weapon Trance up (lol) or additional feats to actually do that, plus more feats to have some armor so you don't get destroyed because you're a spellcaster in melee.
Weren't you pointing at the picture with a dude holding a sword? Why would melee be an issue there?
Actually doing this requires significant feat support from elsewhere and isn't something that Battle is especially better at than some other Oracle that also takes that feat support.
You just need a high dex and some light armor as that can get you 1 less that heavy. Where in the description of the mystery is the mention of armor training?
Guidance is a bog standard thing and has nothing to do with anything here. Whisper of Weakness is also on Lore, and actually using it on Ancestor is incredibly dangerous because of how bad Clumsy is. The three focus spells are all basically "this is barely ancestor related at all but we stuck the word in somewhere so it counts."
Literally you could play any other Mystery and simply narratively declare that your ancestors are involved and it would be exactly the same as Ancestor's method of fulfilling this except with a less deadly curse.
The differencee is that it's granted, not picked: NOTHING suggested that anything be exclusive. A battle magic wizard is defined by their focus spells and granted spells: the fact that others can get those spells doesn't mean something is incorrect.
It's more like "both of these already had existing mechanics that fulfilled their promise in some way, and both were stripped out."
I say potato, you say potahto: it's all the same. I'm not defending how good or bad they are, just that they are indeed intended and correct. this whole thing goes back to "Did I just read what basically boils down to "Needs Errata"?", and while it might need a rework, errata means a factually incorrect rule, which this isn't. So if you just want to debate on what needs a rework, them have fun since I'm not talking about that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stripping out what the people playing the class are actually playing it for is such a bad idea that I just can't fathom why anyone decided to do itI mean the why seems pretty obvious, just look at graystone (not picking on you graystone) and their reaction to the class. For someone who saw the premaster oracle as fundamentally broken and almost unplayable, moving away from those mechanics isn't a misstep, it's a design win. The new oracle is generally stronger, can use its focus spells more freely, and is much more straight forward to engage with.
For someone like me who really valued mystery mechanics and liked the design puzzle of scaling upsides/downsides built together it's a shame, but for someone who doesn't care about that the new Oracle is a big win.
Which is why I don't really like saying that they failed or did a lousy job. No, there are a few editing mistakes, but by and large they did exactly what they set out to do, it's just not what I personally wanted.
Alchemist is actually a really apt example here because while some people are really happy with it, there are some strident premaster fans who feel the fundamental core of the class was gutted by the changes. Builds focused around long term buffs, or builds that don't heavily rely on in-combat alchemy tend to benefit minimally from the remaster's new direction, or even end up worse than before.
I mean, I get that. I said in another post in this thread that it succeeded at that goal. But IMO a goal of "we're going to redesign the class and not care if people already playing it like it" is a fundamentally poor goal. That's how you both succeed and do a bad job at the same time: you set a bad goal and then succeed at it.
That's what I can't fathom, because if you gave me any class in the game and said "make an update of this that isn't a new edition and isn't a new class", my response is not going to be "gut its identity so fixing the issues is easier." I'd want clean up and improve the areas that need work but not lose the identity. I'd want the people that are already playing it to still want to play it after the update. Cutting them off is effectively treating it like a replacement class.
"We want to try to make it more accessible without losing what people like about it" is a better goal. And maybe that was the actual goal, but if it was: they failed at it.
And hell, even if the goal is just "make it more accessable", why did Mystery benefits go? The curse stages having ups and downs I can follow and the reasoning for removing that makes sense, because they want Curse going up to be negative (except they put feats in that only activate at certain Cursebound levels for benefits which undermines their own stated reasoning).
But Mystery benefits? Those were only positive and only subclass identity related. There was absolutely no reason why that had to be done to simply the Curse related stuff. And of course, coming up with stuff like Weapon Trance while the same company is also coming up with Animist?
I mean, there's a reason why it feels half-baked (aside from the glaringly obvious errors that weren't caught).
That's what I can't fathom, because if you gave me any class in the game and said "make an update of this that isn't a new edition and isn't a new class", my response is not going to be "gut its identity so fixing the issues is easier." I'd want clean up and improve the areas that need work but not lose the identity. I'd want the people that are already playing it to still want to play it after the update. Cutting them off is effectively treating it like a replacement class.
"We want to try to make it more accessible without losing what people like about it" is a better goal. And maybe that was the actual goal, but if it was: they failed at it.
The thing is, we don't know the numbers at play here. For instance, maybe the number of people that weren't happy with the old oracle far outnumbered the number that did. In that situation, it makes total sense to rebuild it from the ground up. We just don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
And hell, even if the goal is just "make it more accessable", why did Mystery benefits go?
I enjoyed them myself: I likely played more Ancestors oracles than some OG oracle enjoyers.
I mean the why seems pretty obvious, just look at graystone (not picking on you graystone) and their reaction to the class.
No worries, it's all good. ;)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamentally, as a matter of RPG design philosophy:
If premaster oracle didn't appeal to a wide group, the answer to that problem was not actually to make oracle appeal to a wide group. The answer was to have other classes with wider appeal. And the system already did!
RPG design is not about making everything serve everyone. It is instead about making sure each thing serves someone. It's fine if a lot of people thought premaster oracle was weird or clunky. They could just play another class. Now people who liked premaster oracle have nothing to scratch that itch and are no longer served by the system.
So a Cosmos Oracle that gets the same Oracular Warning feat (or any other Oracle that pays for the feat) and puts a point of their training in Athletics is just as much a Battle Oracle as a Battle Oracle is.The mystery didn't grant Athletics, so no on that. I never said it does a GOOD job at delivering the flavor text, just that it did so. The game has plenty of things in it that are subpar and 100% intended and not in need of errata and that is my point here: it'd be nice to see a rework on some things, but that doesn't mean that are in error.
Not doing a good enough job to the point that the character fantasy doesn't even work (at a mechanical level) isn't good enough.
No, saying that Witch's Armaments: Eldritch Nails still exists isn't a sufficient excuse.
I'm not really expecting that this is going to ever be changed. Battle Oracle is now just something that doesn't get played because it is so comparatively bad at delivering on what is listed on the tin. Play a Warpriest or Animist specced in to Embodiment of Battle instead.
But if Paizo staff ever want Battle Oracle to be regarded well, then it will need errata.
Fundamentally, as a matter of RPG design philosophy:
If premaster oracle didn't appeal to a wide group, the answer to that problem was not actually to make oracle appeal to a wide group. The answer was to have other classes with wider appeal. And the system already did!
Again, it's a matter of numbers and resources, especially when you find yourself remaking things already. If you plan on spending resource remaking a class, it only makes sense to have it work for the widest audience you can. You could say the same thing about the original alchemist: there are people that would rather have the old version after all. We just don't see them railing against it like the oracle, likely since there are less of them.
Not doing a good enough job to the point that the character fantasy doesn't even work (at a mechanical level) isn't good enough.
What doesn't it do though? You can cast a focus spell to use martial weapons: the spell sucks but it fulfills the fantasy of swinging around the same weapons a real fighter does. The fantasy ISN'T that it can replicate the old oracle. The entire "fantasy" is a single non-specific sentence under the mystery.
No, saying that Witch's Armaments: Eldritch Nails still exists isn't a sufficient excuse.
Why not? It fulfils the 'fantasy' of a melee witch and the fact that it too sucks and isn't factually incorrect makes it NOT something that needs errata. It could use a rework though.
I'm not really expecting that this is going to ever be changed. Battle Oracle is now just something that doesn't get played because it is so comparatively bad at delivering on what is listed on the tin. Play a Warpriest or Animist specced in to Embodiment of Battle instead.
But if Paizo staff ever want Battle Oracle to be regarded well, then it will need errata.
No, it will never need errata. Now a rework, sure. Errata is to correct a mistake and the Battle oracle isn't a mistake: they printed what they wanted to.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, it's a matter of numbers and resources, especially when you find yourself remaking things already. If you plan on spending resource remaking a class, it only makes sense to have it work for the widest audience you can.
This is a rather questionable mentality, in my opinion, especially when we have literal dozens of classes that are each meant to occupy different thematic and mechanical niches. I don't want thirty McDonald's in my neighborhood just because that's what appeals to as many people as possible, not when at least a few of those could do something a little different. I certainly wouldn't want my local mom-and-pop place to turn into yet another McDonald's, even if they could hire a better cook.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you plan on spending resource remaking a class, it only makes sense to have it work for the widest audience you can.
But does current Oracle work for "the widest audience"?
The class has close to no class features after level 1. It's feats are nice but the most interesting ones are easy to poach. And half of the Curses are pointless as they don't carry the flavor they come up with and/or bring so much drawbacks that the best way to use them is to not use them.
Next to that, the Sorcerer seems like a so much better choice.
So I doubt the current Oracle satisfies many people, actually. From my point of view, it's both a thematically and mechanically uninspiring class. I've currently seen more Oracle Archetypes than actual Oracle and I think it's what the Oracle became: An Archetype.
I actually like the new Battle Oracle’s new fantasy. If I wanted a Divine magical knight, Champion and Warpriest exist.
Since PF2e came out, I wanted to make a “premonition/divination gladiator” (a gladiator who’s skills came from premonitions and seeing the future). There just weren’t any good classes that fit that. Legacy Oracle included. I tried Bard (pre-Warrior), Champion, and Diviner Wizard. Closest I got was Monk with Oatia Skysage.
Remastered Battle Oracle surprisingly fits the fantasy perfectly.
Even if it’s niche and unpopular, I’m super happy for it. Which, I’m sure is a sentiment Legacy Oracle lovers can understand.
I really hope they make a class archetype to help those who prefer the Legacy Oracle though.
Flavourwise I think the level 1 oracle cursebound feats are really good. You can have some fun with it.
Powerwise Whispers of Weakness is a lot stronger than most other recall knowledge options. +2 to hit as well. That is strong.The other issue is that you can pick up what you want as a multiclass. So why play an oracle when the best part is at level 1? I just think the class need more polishing to really come together well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power wise, oracle is a sorcerer with better armor, saves, and (going by PFS) a larger and significantly more flexible spell repertoire. Half its feats aren't tied to unreliable blood magic. And it has a a secondary focus pool. Some curses will make you really reluctant to use that pool, but others are fair game. It's really good from where I'm sitting. But...
Fundamentally, as a matter of RPG design philosophy:
If premaster oracle didn't appeal to a wide group, the answer to that problem was not actually to make oracle appeal to a wide group. The answer was to have other classes with wider appeal. And the system already did!
RPG design is not about making everything serve everyone. It is instead about making sure each thing serves someone. It's fine if a lot of people thought premaster oracle was weird or clunky. They could just play another class. Now people who liked premaster oracle have nothing to scratch that itch and are no longer served by the system.
This. Oracle didn't need to become a better divine sorcerer when we already had the divine sorcerer. Even the sort of divination gladiator Tuna was jonsing for could have been done via sorcerer and fixing the oracle archetype so the curse wasn't more punishing than the base class, instead of stripping out the functionality of the original class.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my two cents
I like the change.
It makes it a lot easier to explain how to play the Oracle. and the buff to power makes sense given that they are the class that has to deal with an active Nerf in the form of their Curse.
They have a lot more abilities that actually reflect being an Oracle and having visions and premonition's.
Frankly seeing how it works across the different classes, I think if you want to Gish a primary spell caster, you should be using a class archetype. I don't understand why every primary spell caster needs to have a dedicated gish subclass. But that's my opinion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly seeing how it works across the different classes, I think if you want to Gish a primary spell caster, you should be using a class archetype. I don't understand why every primary spell caster needs to have a dedicated gish subclass. But that's my opinion.
The thing is it's not that people are demanding Oracle be given a gish subclass, it's that it already has one and it's absolute garbage.
|
|
Hmm... might be interesting if They reworked the focus spells so it wasn't about making you a Gish, but making you a destroyer.
Replace Weapon Trance with Destructive Trance Allowing you to re-roll 1 on damage die (with increases to rerolling 2's as well, and eventually increase the size of the damage die by one size on your spell damage. But only allow it if you deliver it with a range of touch (regardless of the spells actual range)
And adjust Battlfield Persistence, as it seems to work against your curse, or try to mitigate it. I would say just give it a 1 minute duration that grants you resistance to one type of physical damage Equal to the spell level. 2 types at rank 5, and all three types at rank 7
and adjust revel in retribution to allow you to cast 1 and 2 actions spells as reactions on triggers for reactive strike, carefully wording it so you can only do this once per round, but still giving you the extra reaction specifically for this, so you can still shield block via the shield spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a rather questionable mentality, in my opinion, especially when we have literal dozens of classes that are each meant to occupy different thematic and mechanical niches. I don't want thirty McDonald's in my neighborhood just because that's what appeals to as many people as possible, not when at least a few of those could do something a little different. I certainly wouldn't want my local mom-and-pop place to turn into yet another McDonald's, even if they could hire a better cook.
This isn't the case though: they DIDN'T make the exact same class as every other as you allude to. It has a unique interesting curse system but allowed you to better control when you feel the curse. So I don't see your argument: it's more like a burger king moved in and you're complaining the meals are too similar to mcdonalds because both have meals with fries and a drink. A "mom-and-pop place" place getting better streamlined and offering better service may make it less unique but it can take care of more people than one guy taking orders, cooking the food and cleaning tables. Nostalgia often loses to numbers and the bottom line.
If you plan on spending resource remaking a class, it only makes sense to have it work for the widest audience you can.But does current Oracle work for "the widest audience"?
The class has close to no class features after level 1. It's feats are nice but the most interesting ones are easy to poach. And half of the Curses are pointless as they don't carry the flavor they come up with and/or bring so much drawbacks that the best way to use them is to not use them.
Next to that, the Sorcerer seems like a so much better choice.So I doubt the current Oracle satisfies many people, actually. From my point of view, it's both a thematically and mechanically uninspiring class. I've currently seen more Oracle Archetypes than actual Oracle and I think it's what the Oracle became: An Archetype.
Yes, I think it does. It's a full spontaneous caster with better base chassis than the Sorcerer including a pseudo-second focus pool. Not everyone HAS to have a class that beats you over the head with "theme" to be attractive and it's mechanically sound. That and "theme" doesn't necessitate overly fiddly sub systems work. Now I'm just talking from my perspective and what makes sense to me and I'm assuming you're talking from my perspective. It's possible where you are, people really liked the old version but from where I am, I'm seeing a lot more oracles than before. You can add flavor and theme to your character but the mechanics don't change: Before, it was 'CURSE the class' and now it's a class with a curse and I think that works with more people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I think it does. It's a full spontaneous caster with better base chassis than the Sorcerer including a pseudo-second focus pool. Not everyone HAS to have a class that beats you over the head with "theme" to be attractive and it's mechanically sound. That and "theme" doesn't necessitate overly fiddly sub systems work. Now I'm just talking from my perspective and what makes sense to me and I'm assuming you're talking from my perspective. It's possible where you are, people really liked the old version but from where I am, I'm seeing a lot more oracles than before. You can add flavor and theme to your character but the mechanics don't change: Before, it was 'CURSE the class' and now it's a class with a curse and I think that works with more people.
I still think the preremaster Oracle was raising a specific kind of praise, which is certainly the reason why the change has been so badly received.
But well, we'll see. Only time will tell if the new Oracle really meets more success than the previous one.
Your analogy only works if you think the remastered Oracle is driving sales of PF2. How much any given bit of published material is played doesn't matter as long as somebody is playing and enjoying it and the niche material isn't actively hurting sales.
I'm saying that they were suddenly thrown into a situation where they had to remake an edition of their game and they had an opportunity to rebuild classes: it didn't need to drive sales, as they were doing it anyway. All it had to do was tip the scales as some kind of remake was already on the table and this version would be even further removed from the PF1 version published under a non-ORC license. If it was JUST the oracle getting changed, then I might agree with you.
Bottom line they changed it for some reason and I'm just presenting a possibility. I'm more than willing to hear why others think they changed it.
I still think the preremaster Oracle was raising a specific kind of praise, which is certainly the reason why the change has been so badly received.
But well, we'll see. Only time will tell if the new Oracle really meets more success than the previous one.
That's the thing though. I don't know that it IS being received badly. There sure is a vocal group of people here that really liked the old version but there are people that are really liking the remake. I'm sure seeing an uptick in oracles since the new version came out so I'm skeptical of it generally being badly received.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't the case though: they DIDN'T make the exact same class as every other as you allude to. It has a unique interesting curse system but allowed you to better control when you feel the curse. So I don't see your argument: it's more like a burger king moved in and you're complaining the meals are too similar to mcdonalds because both have meals with fries and a drink. A "mom-and-pop place" place getting better streamlined and offering better service may make it less unique but it can take care of more people than one guy taking orders, cooking the food and cleaning tables. Nostalgia often loses to numbers and the bottom line.
The curse system can be and often is ignored entirely, and when you strip back the Oracle’s mysteries, which are now extremely superficial, what you’re left with is a divine Sorcerer with better stats.
You’re also relying on straw men arguments and false dichotomies here: the Oracle was never forced to be either janky or generic, and nobody here is claiming that the class wasn’t in serious need of changes. Rather, the criticism is that the Oracle, whose mysteries had the merit of setting very strong niches and individual identities, now has very little power from their mystery and much more power from their extra spell slots, which was not a change fans of the class felt was necessary and which shifted the class’s power towards the generic. Trying desperately to deny facts, as well as dismiss the opinion of fans of the class directly telling you their opinion, convinces no-one, not even yourself. Rather, it merely serves to mark you as a white knight, and more broadly as a person who came here not to have a constructive conversation, but to loudly broadcast their personal dislike of differing opinions without any rational basis.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The curse system can be and often is ignored entirely, and when you strip back the Oracle’s mysteries, which are now extremely superficial, what you’re left with is a divine Sorcerer with better stats.
That's a matter of themetics: you can lean into or away as much as you like which, for me, is a big bonus. Before, it was CURSE in huge bold letters for better or worse.
You’re also relying on straw men arguments and false dichotomies here: the Oracle was never forced to be either janky or generic, and nobody here is claiming that the class wasn’t in serious need of changes.
When did I claim all that? I did always think it was janky as heck, and I'm not alone, but I don't recall saying anything about generic. It had plenty of flavor, though that flavor was an acquired taste for sure.
Rather, the criticism is that the Oracle, whose mysteries had the merit of setting very strong niches and individual identities, now has very little power from their mystery and much more power from their extra spell slots, which was not a change fans of the class felt was necessary and which shifted the class’s power towards the generic.
I don't recall disagreeing on this. the class was clearly remade to appeal to a broader audience than the old one did and a lot of the old players wish they didn't, because they enjoyed the jankiness. Its merits or detriments are in the eye of the beholder.
Trying desperately to deny facts, as well as dismiss the opinion of fans of the class directly telling you their opinion, convinces no-one, not even yourself.
You're inventing things here. What facts did I deny and what opinions did I dismiss exactly? Or am I just not allowed to disagree? For instance, I can disagree on how it's received with SuperBidi without dismissing his opinion as we have different experiences and facts: I can believe that where he is doesn't like the change while also understanding that it's generally seen as a positive where I play: both can simultaneously be true. I can't say that it's broadly liked by the whole of the gaming community anymore than he can say it's hated by it as we don't know that. There is no objective fact to look to for that that we have access to.
Rather, it merely serves to mark you as a white knight, and more broadly as a person who came here not to have a constructive conversation, but to loudly broadcast their personal dislike of differing opinions without any rational basis.
LOL That's funny. I have no problem saying when i dislike something the company has made. I can go on for a while on bulk, non-rules for familiars out of combat, ect so "white knight" claims are just to dismiss what i'm saying. I'm someone who likes the new changes. I'm not sure why saying as much is any less constructive than anyone elses opinions. Me disagreeing with you doesn't make me the bad guy nor make ignoring "facts". Get off your high horse.
PS: I also find your saying my posts do not have a rational basis to be a personal attack, so please don't do so again. I will be flagging any future posts with similar phrasing as baiting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my two cents
I like the change.
It makes it a lot easier to explain how to play the Oracle. and the buff to power makes sense given that they are the class that has to deal with an active Nerf in the form of their Curse.
Except when you don't. Some Curses are so inconsequential that they can be nearly completely ignored, while others are anti-synergistic with what the Mystery grants (and wants to do), while others are so severe that you really don't want to actually ramp up the curse much at all.
It is easier to explain, but it's still not a "just pick up and go" class. And some of the class feats are still highly complicated and/or prone to slowing the entire table down (looking at you, 4 on Roll the Bones of Fate).
They have a lot more abilities that actually reflect being an Oracle and having visions and premonition's.
A lot of that already existed before and was moved around. If they did want to add new ones, they didn't need to change this much stuff to do it.
Frankly seeing how it works across the different classes, I think if you want to Gish a primary spell caster, you should be using a class archetype. I don't understand why every primary spell caster needs to have a dedicated gish subclass. But that's my opinion.
Classes don't need to have a gish option (many don't). That's fine. If they are going to have one, it should actually do that. Battle used to do that, and now it doesn't.
When you get a do-over on a class, having a gish option that is actively bad at that and worse than the state it was in before you started is a failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bottom line they changed it for some reason and I'm just presenting a possibility. I'm more than willing to hear why others think they changed it.
I don't think that the APG version had serious issues is in dispute. It was interesting and flavorful, but complex to understand how to play it well. They wanted to address that.
My theory: They simply ran out of time due to the compressed publishing schedule. There's just too much lack of polish and basic errors for something that was given plenty of time.
I mean, the core idea isn't bad: "curse going up is bad" makes sense, even though they break that almost immediately with feats that cause good things to happen if your curse goes up. I can get behind the concept. But that doesn't really require gutting mystery benefits, having serious anti-synergies that make a mystery worse at its thing than some other mystery that isn't related to it, and the Curses themselves being both severely uneven and in the case of Bones really unclear on what is even intended.
I also think that's how it became a 4 slot caster (probably): they weren't done, saw the state it was in, and at the last minute decided to add a spell slot to compensate, and missed the text because it was rushed.
Lets be honest: If someone told me "Weapon Trance was a first pass at an idea that we simply didn't have time to refine", I'd find it far more believable than "Weapon Trance is actually what we intended."
That's the thing though. I don't know that it IS being received badly. There sure is a vocal group of people here that really liked the old version but there are people that are really liking the remake. I'm sure seeing an uptick in oracles since the new version came out so I'm skeptical of it generally being badly received.I still think the preremaster Oracle was raising a specific kind of praise, which is certainly the reason why the change has been so badly received.
But well, we'll see. Only time will tell if the new Oracle really meets more success than the previous one.
There's really no way to know in a broad sense because there's no public data on what people are doing in home games. In my circle of games, literally no one is looking at the new Oracle going "I want to play that now." The most common reaction was to ask the GM "can I just keep using the old one?"
No other class in the remaster has gotten that reaction in our group, although the Wizards/Monks weren't exactly excited. Oracle has gotten it from multiple people. Oracle Dedication got WAY more popular though.
In PFS, I almost never saw someone play Oracle (except as a pregen from someone who thought the character art looked cool), and that hasn't changed.
Meanwhile my son is actively hyped to play Bomber Alchemist now... which is awesome except that we have like at least a year of Kingmaker left so I don't know when he'll get to.
I've played two Oracles in PFS. Flames Oracle and Lore Oracle. I would probably still play both of them now if I had the time.
As a spellcaster class, Oracle is pretty good currently. I think it holds its own in competition with the other spellcasting classes like Sorcerer, Cleric (Cloistered), or Witch.
It is just - as I mentioned initially - not able to be built in strange ways now after the Remaster. It is now fully a spellcasting class. Plenty of people don't like that change. I'm mostly fine with it.
Though even I am not impressed with how Battle Oracle was handled. Because that Mystery is still trying to say that you can build Oracle as something other than a full spellcaster - and it doesn't work.
Battle Oracle would probably need to be a Class Archetype in order to get stats more along the lines of Warpriest in order to fill that spellcaster hybrid role again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that the APG version had serious issues is in dispute. It was interesting and flavorful, but complex to understand how to play it well. They wanted to address that.
My theory: They simply ran out of time due to the compressed publishing schedule. There's just too much lack of polish and basic errors for something that was given plenty of time.
I mean, the core idea isn't bad: "curse going up is bad" makes sense, even though they break that almost immediately with feats that cause good things to happen if your curse goes up. I can get behind the concept. But that doesn't really require gutting mystery benefits, having serious anti-synergies that make a mystery worse at its thing than some other mystery that isn't related to it, and the Curses themselves being both severely uneven and in the case of Bones really unclear on what is even intended.
I also think that's how it became a 4 slot caster (probably): they weren't done, saw the state it was in, and at the last minute decided to add a spell slot to compensate, and missed the text because it was rushed.
Lets be honest: If someone told me "Weapon Trance was a first pass at an idea that we simply didn't have time to refine", I'd find it far more believable than "Weapon Trance is actually what we intended."
I can see that as a possibility. I hope it was a more intentional result, but i can see that happening.
There's really no way to know in a broad sense because there's no public data on what people are doing in home games. In my circle of games, literally no one is looking at the new Oracle going "I want to play that now." The most common reaction was to ask the GM "can I just keep using the old one?"
No other class in the remaster has gotten that reaction in our group, although the Wizards/Monks weren't exactly excited. Oracle has gotten it from multiple people. Oracle Dedication got WAY more popular though.
In PFS, I almost never saw someone play Oracle (except as a pregen from someone who thought the character art looked cool), and that hasn't changed.
Meanwhile my son is actively hyped to play Bomber Alchemist now... which is awesome except that we have like at least a year of Kingmaker left so I don't know when he'll get to.
I'm playing a lot of online games and I'm seeing a lot more oracles now where before I can only recall a handful. So it may be a case of where you look: I for instance, have NO idea what PFS looks like.
I've seen a few Oracles in my group both before and after. The one exception is our battle oracle, who just could not make the new one work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be ignoring any more of your post as i find them baiting and insulting Teridax and I have flagged your posts. I'm more than willing to continue posting with anyone else here.
Thank you everyone for your replies to my post, it has definitely given me a lot to think about.
I did see mention that Ancestors Curse will KILL you, could someone please explain the math on that one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you everyone for your replies to my post, it has definitely given me a lot to think about.
I did see mention that Ancestors Curse will KILL you, could someone please explain the math on that one?
Clumsy is probably the nastiest condition any curse so far inflicts. The Ac penalty and Reflex save penalty mean you're like to be critically hit or critically fail relfex saves a lot. It's not a guaranteed death, but it is far more punishing than, say, 1-4 persistent fire damage or being enfeebled.