Wouldn't this change just make battle oracle the best oracle?
Like, if Battle was updated so the mystery grants Medium armor, a Martial weapon group, and Weapon Trance was changed to a +status attack/damage bonus, that would immediately feel way better.
If that was the only thing you did to the entire class, probably... but presumably every mystery would get a mystery benefit. It could also be tweaked if it's too much, but it's an example of a change that dramatically improves the feel of the mystery.
It's just showing that it doesn't take another massive rework of the class to fix some of the major pain points that exist now. Battle effectively needing multiple feats to be functional at the thing people want it to do (be a gish) feels lousy.
Life has the same problem, really. If it got back a bit of what it did before, like "you roll healing effects one die higher" so your Heal is d10, it's now suddenly doing something unique at the thing it's supposed to be good at.
Oh ok I see what you meant. That makes sense.
Oracles as they are don't feel like they have any room to have a gish subclass. What might have made more sense if they wanted to keep the oracle the way it is would have been to not release battle as a subclass but as a class archtype of oracle that gives up some casting to really be a gish.
Oracles as they are don't feel like they have any room to have a gish subclass. What might have made more sense if they wanted to keep the oracle the way it is would have been to not release battle as a subclass but as a class archtype of oracle that gives up some casting to really be a gish.
Druid and Animist do perfectly fine, though, with their focus spell powered gishing.
If you mean 'as a four slot caster' then yes but that's a new (ish) problem.
Yeah.
Just following whats been said here already. The idea that it seemed like they didnt have time to flesh out subclasses so they just filled the gap with a 4th slot.If that was the case then they wouldnt have had time to make a class archtype either. But they could have left battle out of the release and brought it back later with more time and effort put into it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another interesting aspect of the discussion is that regardless of which version of the Oracle people prefer, there doesn't seem to be that much enthusiasm over the class's fourth slot per rank: at best, it's not mentioned as a reason why people like the new class, and at worst it's cited as a design detriment, with plenty of unfavorable comparisons drawn with divine Sorcerers. I suspect that if you were to strip the class of that fourth slot per rank, most people wouldn't complain -- provided, of course, that you filled in that gap with something appropriate, like a mystery benefit.
In a similar vein, I also think the reasons why some people dislike the remastered curses aren't necessarily incompatible with the reasons why some prefer them to their old version: a common criticism of the remastered curses is that there's no longer a consistent benefit to becoming more cursed, and that's reflected in some mysteries being actively avoided when their curse outweighs the benefit of cursebound actions (e.g. Ancestors), as well as the most popular cursebound actions for both the Oracle and MC Oracles having no cursebound scaling at all (e.g. Foretell Harm, Nudge the Scales, and Whispers of Weakness). By contrast, a recurring criticism of the Oracle is how many moving parts there were to premaster curses, with various benefits mixed into the drawbacks that shifted constantly over the course of encounters: it may be here that the problem isn't necessarily with the structure of the curses, but with their balance (and there seems to be pretty much universal agreement that some curses need rebalancing), as well as the balance of several cursebound actions. Even with the Oracle we have now, rebalancing curses and making cursebound actions scale by default with the cursebound condition could go a long way towards incentivizing players to curse themselves for more power, and capping the cursebound condition at 1 for the MC archetype would prevent other classes from poaching those benefits in the same amounts.
Just to use the aforementioned cursebound actions as an example:
If you wanted to fluff this up even more, your mystery could have you count your cursebound condition as 1 higher for the purposes of scaling on the cursebound actions it provides. I'm also starting to feel like this scaling would work a lot smoother if you increased your cursebound condition first, and then calculated your benefit based on your resulting cursebound value, including for existing cursebound actions like Oracular Warning. On top of that, several effects like The Dead Walk or Trial by Skyfire could probably use some smoother level-based scaling in addition to cursebound scaling, given how piddly these effects become when you use them at a low cursebound value at higher level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I’d add one voice of someone who was never intrigued by Pre-Oracle (but did stay informed), yet absolutely fell in love with the RM-Oracle. (Coz I know Paizo does look at these boards).
Overall, I think 1) divorcing Revelation/Curse level, 2) Cursebound abilities, 3) Negative Curses, and 4) Curse as a resource poll were all great ideas (I really like James Case’s class designs). I love having these pocket powers available (separate from typical caster resources) that I can tap into for a cost. But I do feel pretty feat starved with the RM Oracle.
Just checking, do you like cursebound abilities being available to all mysteries? It's definitely one of the things which I feel makes the mysteries very same-y but if it's valuable to players like you then that has to be taken into account.
(Personally I say heck to it, make each mystery's initial cursebound unique and unpoachable and now you can afford to have terrible curses even keeping the other things on your list, but I'd like to hear your views!)
Thanks for asking! I apologize if my thoughts are a bit raw/first draft. I don’t usually get to have a wholesome/good-hearted conversation about the RM Oracle (and potentially generating discussions on how Paizo should approach this in the future).
Short answer: I personally don’t think internally poaching/sharing lvl. 1 Cursebounds result in sameness. One main thought, the lvl. 1 Cursebounds have usage restrictions (initiative only, immunities, is a heal), we only have a max of 2 uses, and there are penalties (Curse) that come along with it, which means lvl. 1 Cursebounds tend to be a fraction of my Oracle’s combat abilities (because most are hard-locked to generally one usage per combat). Two, the rest of the Oracle’s combat options are made from their Mystery/spell decisions, which means granted spells, revelation spells, and repertoires cover a large portion of what the Oracle does in combat. Three, there’s a trade-off in spending feats to pick up other lvl. 1 Cursebounds such as Domain Acumen to pick up another focus point/spell as using it doesn’t have increased negative effects. Four, the chances of 2+ Oracles in the same game is likely going to be rare (someone will probably change to something else) and in Session 0, I’m more inclined to believe they’ll instead discuss synergy rather than trying to undermine each other.
Essay Answer: In my (growing) personal experiences so far, it hasn’t? And based on what I’ve done with building and seeing another RM Oracle in action, I don’t think same-ness will ever be a problem? I guess I sort of see it has having 4 “core Oracle identities” but then there are 2/(3) playstyle/subclasses in each core identities (if we shift perspective and view Cursebounds as a category rather than a component).
What I’ve experienced: my PFS folks are now more familiar with what an Oracle brings to the table as there’s only 4 core Cursebounds. And I feel like that’s been a good thing because it makes the Oracle so much more identifiable in what they will be bring. In one PFS, there was me (Battle) and another (Bones) Oracle. It became clear that I had a strong party support with Oracular Warning and they had post/emergency healing with Nudge the Scales. In a beginner game, I had a Battle Oracle with both Whispers of Weakness and Oracular Warning. My team picked up quickly what to expect by playing with an Oracle (none of them have played with one) and now they’re familiar with 50% of what different Oracles can bring to the table in the future. I think it’s also good in the future if Paizo accidentally makes a “weak” Mystery. At least there’s that core Cursebound identity. I think it’s a good thing as Oracles now have a “baseline identity”.
But I also don’t think that risks sameness, because even amongst similar Oracles, the Mysteries will make things extremely different. As an example, I also made a Time Oracle (coz…time mages are fun) and it’s a completely different playstyle from my Battle Oracle. While both have the same Cursebound, that only applies to initiative. What I did during combat differed. As a Battle Oracle, I have a lot of different weapons I could start with because Weapon Trance lets me choose any ancestry without worries about what weapon accesses they have. I also felt more inclined to Runic Weapon (Greataxe)+Weapon Trance myself, then try to delete an enemy with a Stride (Flank)->Sure Strike->Strike (which I did and that surprised the table). I had a preference for Concordant Choir so I could have a 1A Concentrate save-spell in melee to go along with my Strike (which makes it great for avoiding reactions) while still having a spell for ranged AoE. On my Time Oracle, there’s a bit of randomness due to Temporal Distortion, which means I lean more towards caster/support (if Clumsy, use Bless. If Enfeebled, maybe use Benediction. If Stupefied, try a Demoralize/Command/Ill Omen). So, same Cursebound, but unique Mysteries and different repertoires to support that.
Going back to multiple Oracles (Bones/Battle), if Bones picked up Oracular Warning and I picked up Nudge the Scales at lvl. 2, our Curses could make us different. I’ve had a situation where I fought a caster boss in PFS, but our party decided to rush in without that knowledge. I used Oracular Warning to try and give us initiative, but the boss won out and got a nice AoE spell on us. That hurt my Oracle hard, so while the melee moved forward to the boss, I stayed back to help another martial with an add. So in the hypothetical of the Bones/Battle both picking up the same Cursebounds, if we knew we were at risk of fighting casters, it would offer strategic reasons for him to Oracular Warning instead of me, which means I shift to saving my Cursebound for tactical heals (Nudge the Scales) rather than him. Conversely, fighting enemies with more Void abilities, I would prefer to run Oracular Warning over him, to minimize his vulnerability. Otherwise, Weapon Trance can be action straining, that it’s better for me to Oracular Warning and emergency back-up Nudge the Scales while Bones can 2A cast and 3rd action Nudge from the backline.
Add to that, how we grow our Oracles is a lot more diverse and complex because we have so many different things we want to improve: our Cursebound “usage”/options, our focus spell points/options, our spell casting/spell slot uses, etc.. and they all have trade-offs that I have to sit with that decision for 2 levels.
Another example, of a Cosmos Oracle I was making, I have a choice at lvl. 2 for more focus points/focus option (Domain Acumen), “more” Cursebound “use”/option (maybe Foretell Harm), larger spells (Widen Spell), or safer backline casting (Reach Spell). Would picking up Foretell Harm detract from my Tempest Oracle (got to play one in a one-shot)? I personally don’t think it did!
My Cosmos Oracle can Oracular Warning, and I would likely use Foretell Harm with Spray of Stars to help improve its AoE damage while Dazzling enemies (defensive buff!). On my Tempest Oracle, I have options of Domain Acumen, Oracular Warning, Reach Spell, etc.. I personally picked up Domain Acumen for a second focus point and Tidal Surge for some utility. As I have a strong blast spell (Thunderstrike), I’m more inclined to use Thunderstrike+Foretell Harm for a strong single target blast, then using Tidal Surge for positioning martials (closer or further). Alternatively, Reach Spell would make it easier for me to Tempest Touch+Foretell Harm, then Thunderstrike next round. And if they were lvl. 4 Oracles, I might instead choose Whispers of Weakness + Domain Acumen (Charged Javelin) on Tempest. I can Whispers of Weakness, get the +2 for Charged Javelin, and then Foretell Harm if Charged Javelin hits, then Thunderstrike next round (hopefully with the save penalty). My lvl. 4 Cosmos Oracle could try to do similar with Whispers of Weakness and Domain Acumen (Moonbeam), using Whispers of Weakness + Moonbeam to try and Dazzle the target, then Stride + Spray of Stars for another round of Dazzle. Same feats both Oracles, but they both would feel different to me even if they were doing the same caster-y thing as one is about maximizing electric justice and the other is about debuffing (with damage).
TLDR: That said, this is ANECDOTAL (and clearly I have an obsessive bias). I don’t think it does cause sameness, as the it’s not just having components, but it’s how the components can interact as more components are added in.
Hopefully that was helpful! I’ll leave myself to the possibility I’m deluded and wrong, but maybe there’s something to glean out of this long-winded answer!
(Edit: If anyone wondering why I keep using Weapon Trance, it’s moreso that I have a philosophy of trying to explore classes at their baseline and really exploring the flaws of something personally/extensively. I have a friend who is a min-maxer and he can be the “best” at something, but he doesn’t know why. He also can’t explain why to choose one thing over another. I really like understanding things as a whole and I also love exploring what causes fail-states, so we can learn from it. So, that’s why I keep playing with Weapon Trance and not picking up an ancestry that can grab Ancestral Familiarity or pick up Weapon Proficiency. Because that ignores the problem, rather than trying to explore it. I don’t think anyone is required to do that, that’s just how I like approaching things.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another interesting aspect of the discussion is that regardless of which version of the Oracle people prefer, there doesn't seem to be that much enthusiasm over the class's fourth slot per rank: at best, it's not mentioned as a reason why people like the new class, and at worst it's cited as a design detriment, with plenty of unfavorable comparisons drawn with divine Sorcerers. I suspect that if you were to strip the class of that fourth slot per rank, most people wouldn't complain -- provided, of course, that you filled in that gap with something appropriate, like a mystery benefit.
Yeah the extra slots are a crutch: they shift the class power a lot towards "generic spellcaster" and away from "unique stuff". It feels like just stepping into Sorcerer's territory.
I'd be totally happy with ditching that and bringing back mystery benefits and the other unique things the class had. Was anyone really clamoring for "more spell slots but the actual distinct class mechanics are all entirely optional?"
Like, you can make a Bard that never uses a composition, but that's not the intended design, surely? Is there another class where "the class" itself is designed to be optional like this?
I'm gonna push back on that Druid thing: the Druid's "thing" is being exceptionally tough for a caster and naturally gishy, which is why they're trained in medium armor, have Shield Block, and have 8 HP per level, all of which is perfectly tuned towards the demands of the primal list: many primal spells require you to fight at melee range or around it, so you'll want to be more robust and probably have good Strikes... which the Druid starts off doing really well. You certainly could build the Druid as a cloth caster that hangs back and makes no use of their survivability, but why would you? Just because their benefits disappear at high levels doesn't mean those don't exist at low level: meanwhile, the Oracle has the opposite problem where they're no better at using their curse than a MC Oracle until the level past which most APs end, and where often the winning move is not to play into the class's curse at all. The Oracle could therefore do with being more rewarded for using their curse, while having some of their curses rebalanced to be less of a death sentence (though conversely, mysteries like Cosmos could do with curses that are actually relevant more than just sometimes).
Technically Druid (see adjacent thread) but it has the advantage of more comprehensive focus spells and being the core identity of the primal tradition meaning a druid is always casting druid spells. In the meantime, a flame oracle doesn't have to cast a single fire spell and is probably optimal doing so currently.
Yeah the extra slots are a crutch: they shift the class power a lot towards "generic spellcaster" and away from "unique stuff". It feels like just stepping into Sorcerer's territory.I'd be totally happy with ditching that and bringing back mystery benefits and the other unique things the class had. Was anyone really clamoring for "more spell slots but the actual distinct class mechanics are all entirely optional?"
Like, you can make a Bard that never uses a composition, but that's not the intended design, surely? Is there another class where "the class" itself is designed to be optional like this?
Druid also isn't designed around the premise "we expect people to just not use their Order features and are basing the class around that." Which is an explicit design goal stated in the remaster Oracle preview: they literally designed it around the premise that people could simply play it without a curse existing at all.
I don't think any other class is designed that way. Like, its a thing you can do, but Thaumaturge is not designed around the idea that someone will just opt-out of using Implements.
Technically Druid (see adjacent thread) but it has the advantage of more comprehensive focus spells and being the core identity of the primal tradition meaning a druid is always casting druid spells. In the meantime, a flame oracle doesn't have to cast a single fire spell and is probably optimal doing so currently.
Yeah the extra slots are a crutch: they shift the class power a lot towards "generic spellcaster" and away from "unique stuff". It feels like just stepping into Sorcerer's territory.I'd be totally happy with ditching that and bringing back mystery benefits and the other unique things the class had. Was anyone really clamoring for "more spell slots but the actual distinct class mechanics are all entirely optional?"
Like, you can make a Bard that never uses a composition, but that's not the intended design, surely? Is there another class where "the class" itself is designed to be optional like this?
I think you either chose the wrong the curse or meant something else here. Fire oracles really want to use fire spells for a host of reasons. They might choose not to engage their curse, but they get strong revelation spells, domain spells, and spell spells from fire. They have less incentive to use them than pre-remaster, of course.
Flames oracles may choose not to engage with their curse, but their curse is one of the more manageable options.
The Oracle isn't a cloth caster, though: they're trained in light armor and have 8 HP per level, so they start off a fair bit more durable than your Psychics, Sorcerers, Witches, or Wizards. I definitely agree though that they're not pushed all that much to use fire spells: a premaster Flames Oracle who tried casting lots of non-flame spells would be constantly bashing their heads against concealment checks, but would also have the better Reflex saves to survive getting up close a little more and use their incendiary aura (and also apply their curse's fire damage). I could certainly get behind a mystery benefit that rewards them specifically for using fire spells.