| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it got me thinking: what classes got the biggest buffs in your opinion ? What is your top 3 ?
For me it was 4:
Swashbuckler becomes resonably balanced and fun to play. But I find that gaining panache on all bar a critical failure really diminishes the concept. Overall it is good I'd have just done it differently - to me the real problem was the Finisher concept.
Even though I miss the risk of the AC penalty the Barbarian is now awesome and right up there with the Fighter for most levels. The extra toughness and damage make up for the lower accuracy and the free action rage helps with the action economy where the Fighter pulls away at higher levels. Though obviously the Fighter is a better place to start if you want to multiclass as a martial. At least the elemental and superstitious subclasses now work by default.
Alchemist became playable for most people. Too bad a lot of the subclasses add next to nothing. I'd like to see a broader vision for this class. But at least it works now even if the rules are confusing.
The Cleric didn't need anything but got heaps including the ability to dump charisma. The changes to alignment work very well. I was very sceptical about it but I think the new Holy/Unholy has really pulled it off well. A big boost to the Divine spell list. If they had a bit of action efficiency then Cleric would be the best class now.
The rest:
Investigator was always fine as long as your GM allowed it to work. They just made that more explicit so I guess that helps most people.
Oracle got some more magic but it lost its flavour so there is little point in the class. I can see why I'd multiclass into this class just not why I'd make it my base class.
Sorcerer got blood magic but some it is clunky and the timing of effects makes some of what looks good unplayable. The loss of the old crossblooded feat really hurts though.
Rogue has been rounded out a bit. It is mostly positive. I really hate the new Gang Up feat. It is just too good. It takes flanking out of the tactical game by making it free.
Witch got a few busted builds. Is that really an improvement?
Bard got some funtionality in the Warrior Muse but probably not enough to move the needle.
Druid, Champion, Monk got next to nothing.
Wizard iterated but didn't change except for weaker school spell selection and some alternative focus spells.
Ranger needed a fix and still has nothing. Flurry is almost strictly weaker that the agile Fighter. Outwit is pointless before level 10.
Inventor looks strictly worse than the Barbarian. It needs more gadgets.
The Gunslinger Way of the Spellshot is now OK.
Overall it was a good set of improvements. A lot of things that needed a fix were fixed. But there is a lot left to do.
Sorcerer got better niche protection, but Oracle is now as exposed to multiclass exploitation as the Psychic and Exemplar are. Paizo used to be better at this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I definitely agree that there's still room for improvement, including on classes that were improved overall. The Witch in particular is still close to my heart, because the class was truly in an awful place pre-remaster, and although they were improved since, many of their base patrons still aren't that great, like the Inscribed One. The problem now is that because broken patrons like the Resentment exist, every discussion of the Witch focuses on that and assumes it to be the standard of power for the class, when really we should be using that subclass as evidence that the Witch's effectiveness is extremely dependent on their patron. The Witch needs an extremely powerful combination of hex cantrip and familiar ability to shine alongside other classes, otherwise they're still fairly weak. It's good that at least there's ways for the Witch to feel effective, and a lot of their feats are quite fun to use now (Witch's Armaments is still bad though), but there are still gaps in the class, just as there are lingering issues with several other classes too.
IMO the main problem of remastered witches is the same of many other subclasses of many other classes. You have a good selection of them but almost always we have some that's OP or some that's weak or meh!
So it's not really a witch exclusive issue but a more general balance concern that repeats in many classes like Alchemist, Animist, Barbarian, Champion, Inventor, Investigator, Magus, Oracle, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Swashbuckler, Thaumaturge, and Wizard. So in general, all these classes have some subclass selections that's generally considered weak or that's way better than others.
While it's true that every class with subclasses will have some clunkers and some better options, I do think it's particularly pronounced on the Witch. Just to pick a few of those examples, the Champion and Animist have some subclasses that are better than others (or, in the Animist's case, one subclass), but even with one of the weaker subclasses they're still strong. The Wizard and Investigator, by contrast, have some really terrible subclasses, but no subclass is so strong as to make the entire class that much stronger. The Witch I think sits in this spot where the base class is still pretty weak, and it's their patron that makes or breaks them, with specific really strong patrons like the Resentment lifting the class up to a level where they can actually feel quite powerful. Whereas some of these classes could do with better subclass balance, and some of these classes could use core class improvements, the Witch I think could benefit from both, such that the core class could be made much stronger and their patrons could be equalized to not require broken mechanics to work.
The alternative, of course, could also be to just massively buff every patron that's under the power level of the Resentment, and that could be valid too. It'd be interesting to see how wacky things could get with each patron providing some extremely powerful familiar ability or hex cantrip of their own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teridax you're too focused on the witch problem and underestimating the rest. Honestly, compared to many other subclass problems, the witch seems pretty okay (but no it isn´t):
When I put all these in the table. The witch subclass problem just looks one more between many others.
Teridax you're too focused on the witch problem and underestimating the rest. Honestly, compared to many other subclass problems, the witch seems pretty okay (but no it isn´t):
Given how I fully acknowledged how several classes still have problems, gave examples of changes that did not improve classes, and also listed examples of classes whose subclasses have problems, I don't think I'm the one tunnel-visioning here. I urge you to consider what I'm saying and acknowledge the Witch's problems, instead of trying to dismiss them by pointing to the problems of other classes. Just because balance isn't literally perfect everywhere doesn't mean the imbalance in the Witch's patrons isn't a valid concern, particularly as there is a lot of variance that has a very real impact on the overall class's performance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Already kicking myself for forgetting about using spoiler tags to compress the previous posts, specific Alchemist quibbles like that should not be clogging up the thread.
I think by far the biggest issue plaguing the Tox post-remaster is that now more than ever, the subclass taunts/suggests PCs apply injury poison mid-combat.
IMO, this is a huuuge trap, and poisoning your own weapon is never a good idea to attempt, let alone invest feats into.*
.
In general, I advise would-be Tox players consider the few inhaled poisons as their first thought for QAlch if/when one runs out of pre poisoned strikes and still wants to do Tox actions, and avoid bombs/elixirs.
Even without a Lab Assistant familiar, inhaled are much easier to use. It's just 2A to create --> disperse, and they immediately trigger a save for a 2x2 cube.
But uh, there's kinda a bigger issue with Tox, and that is poison balance (and concept) are all over the place.
Yes, getting foes to fail Fort saves suuuucks, but when you manage, you kinda only need that single fail to change the fight.
I'll explain a single common L10, no access requirement, inhaled poison, and one that a GM may read as in need of adjustment/nerf.
This is a virulent poison, so once failed, the victim needs 2 saves in a row to pass a recovery check and go up a stage.
[body text] . . .
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.
[body text about poison fighting against attempts at resurrection]Saving Throw DC 29 Fortitude;
Maximum Duration 6 minutes;
Stage 1 3d6 persistent bleed and drained 1 (1 minute);
Stage 2 3d8 persistent bleed and drained 1 (1 minute);
Stage 3 3d10 persistent bleed and drained 2 (1 minute)
Soooo. Yeah. If a foe can take bleed damage, and they fail this initial save, it's one of the best single-exposure killers. Victims have to wait a full minute before they can even attempt to recover from the affliction.
During that minute, they can use actions to attempt to ~skip a round of bleed damage, or attempt to heal through it, but that's a small consolation when the bleed just reapplies every round.This effect is genuinely fine and balanced, but only if we are talking about combat continuing as normal after the foe fails the exposure.
Without actions, Stage 1 will deal 30d6 damage over that minute. After that, if they fail 1 of 2 Fort saves, it's 2 more minutes of 3d8 & then 3d6 bleed, etc.
But, there's also the mechanic of multiple exposures. However a GM rules the lingering cloud repeat exposures, a Tox can at worst pop a 2nd dose to force another save. If a foe fails, they drop down to the next stage with no loss of duration.
Honestly not needed in combat due to it being virulent, but this is kinda the NPC killer, as a stage 2 foe teleporting away can expect to take an amount of bleed damage so high, it's in the ballpark of GM hand-waiving their certain death.
If a stage 2 foe didn't mitigate the bleed, but instead aced 4/4 rolls to shake it off asap, that's 30d8 (~135) + 30d6 (~105) before the bleed is over.
240 damage just for a stage 2 --> stage 1 --> end example case. Which is already a hecking lot.
If we presume the case of exposure --> 1 virulent fail --> miracle 2x recovery |
that is Stage 1 --> Stage 2 --> Stage 1 --> end |
. . . 30d6 --> 30d8 --> 30d6 --> end | 345 bleed
345 damage is a whole lot, and this is assuming half the duration is used. If one were to math out loss of damage from bleed recovery successes, and damage increases from estimating the actual expected duration due to virulent save/fails, I'm guessing the damage would be well over the 345 of 1/2 duration case.
And we don't have to say that the foe teleports away to trigger this "that's a lot of damage!" bleedout, we just need for normal encounter mode to be disrupted / stalled.
So you now have an item that highly encourages a Tox to not just stall out bleed, but also to split from the party to poison foes and run away, as this is a tool that can genuinely kill combat-balanced foes with a single fail.
While other poisons, like contact and ingested, have always flirted with baiting a Tox PC into party-unfriendly play, this ~new inhaled poison brings that temptation into normal combat.
This is not to say that Toxicologist is secretly OP or anything, just that poison balance is kinda problematic / creates a lot of unexpected player incentives, and therefore, GM headaches. I wince at how much of a PitA it must be for a GM to try to allow a Tox to use contact/ingested in a conventional AP.
The nature of poisons themselves beg the PC into a table-unfriendly playstyle that gameplay is just not supported by the AP design, imo.
.
If anyone wants to play a Tox in a non-disruptive way, here's my quick advice:
Get the GM on board with inhaled provoking multiple exposures across turns, and you instantly have a valid combat niche that's totally unique to the Tox. You have the ability to set up hazardous areas unlike any PC in the system, protecting flanks, taking advantage of chokepoints, etc. If inhaled poisons can only ever get 1 exposure per item, which I've played with for a long time, imo that does not have enough of a mechanical threat to affect gameplay to the degree needed.
You will also need to work with the GM to determine how inhaled poisons interact with alternative breathing or lack thereof.
The trait itself has a hold-breath for a +2 mechanic, but that only raises more questions. If holding one's breath is only a +2, are all non-breathing creatures still valid targets?
Overall though, I think that the toxic cloud concept, plus the pre-battle injury poisons, imo will be enough mechanically to satisfy the concept of a Toxicologist.
While the remaster certainly baits players into the un-fun, low performance combat slather style, overall the remaster really did make Tox into a valid / playable choice. Granting immunity bypass to your alchemical poisons (not all poison trait items, btw) really is that much of a game-changer compared to what came before.
Almost forget to mention scaling item DCs on daily prep items! That change is just as important for Tox, imo, and the remaster should get major credit for that fix/change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Alchemist still suffers from horrendous action economy, and the Toxicologist is very much still not in a great spot, especially when the Rogue gets Poison Weapon at 4th level to draw a poison and apply it in a single action. I just wish there was a more generalized version of Quick Bomber that let you use the alchemical item you create in the same action that you create it, and I wish that action compression were made baseline to the class rather than what is essentially a feat tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point I just blanket recommend all Alchemists take a familiar and load them with Independent + Manual Dex + Lab Assistant. All of them, every Alchemist.
Assuming a shoulder-rider familiar, this combo enables the assistant to use their Independent action each turn to pay the Quick Alchemy action tax on the Alch's behalf, poofing the item/s into their hand without messing w/ their core 3A.
It can use your Quick Alchemy action. You must have Quick Alchemy, and your familiar must be in your space. This has the same cost and requirement as if you used it. It must have the manual dexterity ability to select this.
In my experience with and without it, this is outright mandatory for the Alch player to have a good time. It genuinely seems to be RaW as well. (Minus the 0A familiar movement thanks to shoulder-riding.)
Even if a Bomber wants to huck bombs most turns, being able to drink / feed an ally an Q.A elixir for 1A total is just too good to not pitch it to them.
All Alchemists benefit so much from a 1/p turn 0A Quick Alchemy, that I feel obligated to spread the meme to as many as I can.
The most annoying part of this ~build(?) is that this pitch means archetyping into Witch, Familiar Master, etc.
(Witch is still the goat Alch pairing. Spellcasting of a tradition of your choosing, cantrips/scrolls/etc, get the 3rd needed f.ability for free with Basic Witchcraft, meaning the L1/2 feat is your personal preference. 3rd lockout escape feat is also entirely a flexible preference pick.)
I never played a toxicologist so I might say something stupid but how about taking poison weapon at level 6 from poisoner or assassin archetype (or at level 8 from rogue) ?
Doesn’t it solve most issues (at least, those pertaining to action use) ?
And if so, would merely giving alchemists this feat at level 4 like the rogue fix the toxicologist ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemical Bombs feat now gives 4+1/2 level at level items (so scale much better) with ways to get versatile vials now as well.
I don't really find this was an upgrade. Being on-level is nice, but at high level it's actually less ammunition: 4+level/2 is less than level once you're at level 9. That matters when using Precious Munitions because that's a 1:1 trade.
You now get versatile vials, but they're also barely useful since the action economy on them doesn't work and you can't make other things you might want them (like elixirs). They're really only useful if you want to throw a bomb and I very rarely see Gunslingers wanting to do that.
If you were primarily making things like elemental ammo and precious ammo before, it only really got better here for a couple levels, and then you'd catch up on level in the old version while having more total ammo out of it.
long toxicologist explanationFor poisons with longer stages (e.g. 1 minute), they don't reapply their effect every round, only whenever you reach a new stage. So the conditions of that stage (like the bleed in the case you mentioned) can be removed or end on their own in the meanwhile unless it specifically says that they can't.
Yes, exactly. And that bleed poison explicitly says it reapplies while the duration is ongoing.
It's not 1 bleed event per minute for 6 min. It's 1 bleed event per turn, for up to 6 minutes, on a virulent poison.
If the poison times out, that's 60 bleed events, doing 3dX damage each time.
The average damage of 180d6 is 630.
For 180d8, it's 810 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teridax you're too focused on the witch problem and underestimating the rest. Honestly, compared to many other subclass problems, the witch seems pretty okay (but no it isn´t):
The whole problem here is that while most classes have "a given sublcass is better/worse than the others", the degree of that varies wildly. Like, people talk down Liberator Champion and Fury Barbarian, but I've had both in play in my games and the players were perfectly content with them. They 're behind, but they work well enough that they're not broken.
It's just not that big a problem compared to Resentment Witch, which is well out of line compared to everything else. Or Ancestors Oracle compared to say Cosmos Oracle, which is a really big gap.
Witch isn't alone in the "these are significant problem" category, but some of the ones you listed aren't at that level.
** spoiler omitted **
It's a good poison. But nothing so fantastic. It's basically a Thermal Nimbus avg damage (including the fire weakness junction) but that requires a fortitude check to work.
The best part IMO it's the drained 1!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never played a toxicologist so I might say something stupid but how about taking poison weapon at level 6 from poisoner or assassin archetype (or at level 8 from rogue) ?
Doesn’t it solve most issues (at least, those pertaining to action use) ?
And if so, would merely giving alchemists this feat at level 4 like the rogue fix the toxicologist ?
The Poison Weapon feat helps a lot for injury poisons that you carry, but it does not interact with the Quick Alchemy action at all.
If you are already doing the "sustain X 10min effects via my X p 10 min recharging VVials" then you are keeping 2 or 3 VVial doses of injury poison pre buffed and ready for combat with 0 actions. These don't cost dailies, so this is typically mixed with keeping a few more shots/blades pre-poisoned with the daily items.
You now have 2/3 "recharging" injury poisons, and only dip into dailies if you want to burn more than that during the fight.
All that context is to say that applying injury poisons mid-combat for 1A via Poison Weapon is actually a rather small get. And you kinda need those feats for the poison helper feats like Pinpoint and Double, plus it's advisable to get some kind of martial power attack or compressed Strike via a dedication.
(Especially if the archetype offers some form of Reactive Strike)
Even the free daily hit poisons of the feat are not great for a Tox, as they hog the "poison slot" you need to use for your on-level poisons.
This is why I said that it's also a trap to invest much into improving the combat slather playstyle.
You should be able to eliminate the general need for combat slathering with a bit of planning.
If there was an Alchemist version of the feat compatible with Quick Alchemy, then absolutely, yes.
However, as you could instead get a pseudo 0A Quick Alchemy via a Lab Assistant familiar, you can see why that alternative action save investment is more appealing to even a Tox.
Honestly, I'd take the Poison Coat feat before Poison Weapon, it's pretty neat.
I used to have a Toxicologist with Archer in PFS who'd just use most of their reagents to poison a dozen + arrows at the beginning of the day and use DoubleShot to get lots of poison attempts.
If there happened to be another archer they'd get a big handfull of poison too. Would leave a couple slots free for utility/healing.
They'd never apply poison in combat.
I'm still sad that build, which was in no way high on the power curve so nonfunctional.
|
Something I haven’t seen mentioned (or maybe it was?) that added power to the RM Oracle:
•Granted/poached spells at lvl. 1.
•2 extra domains.
Not perfect across the board, but Tempest/Flames/(pre SS nerf) Battle really benefited from these starter spells. And while Divine Access feat isn’t a RM option, the extra domains REALLY expand the Divine Access feature options of deity granted spells you can pick up.
So adding that to the other Oracle buffs, the class is pretty nice in terms of vertical and horizontal power.
Edit: And while it does come with a feat tax, all Oracles can access slot-less/unlimited Flight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus got slightly buffed indirectly with the change to Refocus rules, this made it more flexible to use conflux spells more liberaly but mainly it made the psychic dip soar even higher as a constantly recommended option.
Something I haven’t seen mentioned (or maybe it was?) that added power to the RM Oracle:
•Granted/poached spells at lvl. 1.
•2 extra domains.Not perfect across the board, but Tempest/Flames/(pre SS nerf) Battle really benefited from these starter spells. And while Divine Access feat isn’t a RM option, the extra domains REALLY expand the Divine Access feature options of deity granted spells you can pick up.
So adding that to the other Oracle buffs, the class is pretty nice in terms of vertical and horizontal power.
Edit: And while it does come with a feat tax, all Oracles can access slot-less/unlimited Flight.
Not sure if you looked over the Remaster Oracle, but Divine Access is backed into the class for free at level 11.
That's why I don't get players saying you can get most of the Remaster Oracle with the archetype. The Remaster Oracle is one of the most powerful and versatile casters in the game now.
Divine Access for free.
Feats for extra slots.
Focus spells using focus points.
Curse effects from a completely different resource pool that recovers while you refocus.
Free additional spells from mystery.
Feat that grants extra spell from any list.
You can build a huge repertoire with the oracle as a divine caster.
Oracle is quite powerful if you play it on its own and worth running it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I haven’t seen mentioned (or maybe it was?) that added power to the RM Oracle:
•Granted/poached spells at lvl. 1.
•2 extra domains.Not perfect across the board, but Tempest/Flames/(pre SS nerf) Battle really benefited from these starter spells. And while Divine Access feat isn’t a RM option, the extra domains REALLY expand the Divine Access feature options of deity granted spells you can pick up.
So adding that to the other Oracle buffs, the class is pretty nice in terms of vertical and horizontal power.
A side-effect of those extra domains is that using Divine Access is an incredible pain. We did some numbers on another thread about this, but you wind up with an absolutely massive list of deities to look at in terms of granted spells to actually figure out which ones give what. Like, triple digits in some cases.
It's one of the clunkiest class features in all of PF2 because of the multiple steps required to use it and the sheer scale of the Deity list that every Oracle has to wade through.
Or you just skip that and use a guide, but "you need a guide to build a character because the options are so hard to find without expansive system mastery" is a PF1 throwback that PF2 is better off without.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the remastered Oracle is pretty much the poster child for how buffs =/= improvements. In objective terms, the class is more powerful than it was prior to the remaster, given its extra spell slot per rank and other benefits, and more subjectively the class did change in ways that addressed certain players' dissatisfaction with the pre-remaster class, such as by making curse effects easier to parse. However, the remaster also stripped the class of its unique mystery benefits, made curses generally less attractive by reducing the benefits that come with being cursed, disrupted many players' Oracle builds to the point where some could no longer fulfil their primary intended goal (Battle Oracles no longer work as gishes, for instance), failed to balance mysteries whose curse impact was either too severe or inconsequential (Ancestors versus Cosmos respectively), and left the multiclass archetype in a state where any class could become just as good as an Oracle at using their central curse mechanic at levels 1-10. The end result is therefore a class that is more powerful, but also more generic, much less incentivized to use their defining mechanic, and whose defining mechanic is far too easy for other classes to poach. I would thus not say that the Oracle was improved, even if it definitely was buffed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I don't get players saying you can get most of the Remaster Oracle with the archetype. The Remaster Oracle is one of the most powerful and versatile casters in the game now.
Because most of what Remaster Oracle does is stuff that other classes also do. The case where that isn't true is primarily Cursebound abilities, and the best ones are easily obtainable with the Archetype. Cursebound abilities being so heavily front loaded is an absolute boon for the archetype.
This isn't really a power judgement. Oracle is powerful.
Divine Access for free.
Divine Access is good, but it's also one of the clunkiest, most poorly designed class abilities in the entire game. It practically begs "use a guide or ignore that everything outside of the two core books exists" when using it, because actually going through all the options yourself is so time consuming that it's not even remotely realistic for most players.
It's also at level 11 and more than half the APs out there will never hit it.
Feats for extra slots.
Great feat. Begs the question of "why does this feat exist?" because it's so strong vs the other options and I can't see any scenario where someone wouldn't take it.
Focus spells using focus points.
Focus spells are a pretty common thing in the game. Most of Oracle's can be picked up via the Archetype. And Weapon Trance existing is not a point in favor of the remaster doing a good job.
Curse effects from a completely different resource pool that recovers while you refocus.
The whole argument behind "the archetype can poach the distinctive class feature" is that the archetype can easily access the Cursebound abilities people actually want and it's easy to do so. Until level 11 it's no different than an actual Oracle in terms of what they do and how often you can use them, and again, an awful lot of campaigns end by level 11 so the class is in no way distinctive from the archetype on these from level 4-10, which consists of an outsized percentage of actual play.
That's the whole problem.
If the Cursebound ability list wasn't so front loaded it would help a lot, but the high level ones are frankly not worth taking most of the time.
Free additional spells from mystery.
Feat that grants extra spell from any list.You can build a huge repertoire with the oracle as a divine caster.
Oracle is quite powerful if you play it on its own and worth running it up.
This isn't really a discussion about power, though. Because yeah if you want to build a generic spellcaster, Oracle is probably the strongest one in the game.
That doesn't mean it's a well-designed class. Divine Access is just poorly designed. Cursebound abilities are too front loaded. Curses themselves are insanely uneven. And does it make any sense for this class to have the largest spell repertoire & most spellcasting slots in the game along with the Cursebound abilities?
The remaster threw a whole pile of power on, but didn't do it in a well designed way.
That's why I don't get players saying you can get most of the Remaster Oracle with the archetype. The Remaster Oracle is one of the most powerful and versatile casters in the game now.Because most of what Remaster Oracle does is stuff that other classes also do. The case where that isn't true is primarily Cursebound abilities, and the best ones are easily obtainable with the Archetype. Cursebound abilities being so heavily front loaded is an absolute boon for the archetype.
This isn't really a power judgement. Oracle is powerful.
Divine Access for free.Divine Access is good, but it's also one of the clunkiest, most poorly designed class abilities in the entire game. It practically begs "use a guide or ignore that everything outside of the two core books exists" when using it, because actually going through all the options yourself is so time consuming that it's not even remotely realistic for most players.
It's also at level 11 and more than half the APs out there will never hit it.
Feats for extra slots.Great feat. Begs the question of "why does this feat exist?" because it's so strong vs the other options and I can't see any scenario where someone wouldn't take it.
Focus spells using focus points.Focus spells are a pretty common thing in the game. Most of Oracle's can be picked up via the Archetype. And Weapon Trance existing is not a point in favor of the remaster doing a good job.
Curse effects from a completely different resource pool that recovers while you refocus.The whole argument behind "the archetype can poach the distinctive class feature" is that the archetype can easily access the Cursebound abilities people actually want and it's easy to do so. Until level 11 it's no different than an actual Oracle in terms of what they do and how often you can use them, and again, an awful lot of campaigns end by level 11 so the class is in no way distinctive from the archetype on...
All of this is opinion.
I don't see why you're having problems with Divine Access. It's not that difficult with digital tools. If you're sitting around with a book at the table, maybe this is slow and clunky. This is the digital age where you can look up domain using a find feature or use the index system on Archives to quickly go through domains associated with deities with spell lists.
There are some better cursebound abilities at higher level. Oracle is also a good archetype because you can grab some good abilities fairly easy, though your max curse is 2. So you get to use them twice per fight at best.
Seems once again there is confusion about personal opinion and objective play again. You can very much play an oracle all the way up and you'll feel just as good doing it as most other caster classes.
About the only part I agree with is the oracle mysteries are less interesting than they were prior. Their benefits are less unique, mostly due to removing the unique benefit each provided like the DR from Cosmos or the more developed curse abilities.
They made the class simpler and more playable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this is opinion.
This statement alone I think can be challenged in a number of ways:
So really, we need to stop pretending that "well, you know, that's just, uh, your opinion, man" is a valid argument in discussions involving feedback. Feedback is inherently subjective, and subjective opinions can still be backed up by evidence. If you don't want to have to deal with other people's opinions, then your best bet is to just not engage with feedback, rather than go out of your way to try to invalidate it when you disagree with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just speaking for myself, I was playing my Life Oracle more as an HP tank than anything else. I had access to really big heals, buffs, and bits of healing while buffing thanks to the curse, but the character also had Wellspring Mage and another archetype for flavor reasons, so the biggest and most interesting thing was taking damage for everyone and being a good target to consolidate healing on.
The remastering of the class didn't offer any kind of replacement for the extra HP or big/convenient heals (especially the AoE ones and healbuff combo), it removed the curse when using focus spells, and the actual curse for using cursebounds was ultimately harsher for my playstyle. Instead I got extra caster resources which weren't part of the character concept and antisynergistic additions.
So if not for deciding Wellspring was too conceptually important to give up, the best thing to do would've been switching to Champion with the Oracle archetype and item resources for support spells, flavoring the other magic resources as going to auras and the reaction, because the HP and curse-free Life Link were the most important things and mean the class (among others) arguably does the HP Tank playstyle better than Oracle itself now. ¯\_('v')_/¯
I didn't do that, electing to keep Numbing Tonics on hand for HP and heavily leveraging all those new spells for slower defense and support, but there's still holes I don't have much of a way to fill and compromises I had to make to stick to my character concept as best as I could. This is all particular to that character focus, of course, but Life Link is such a unique and powerful spell which gets relatively little support from the new class (just False Life, really, which only scales so much and still takes resources), so it's a notable example. Cursebounds are a big thing for those wanting to use or center on them too, since they're at full strength regardless of subclass or class.
(Oracle is pretty buffed as raw caster power goes, and it's a nice little consolation getting more support spells and (in my case) free Divine Access for Slow and Resilient Sphere, plus an emergency ranged one-action heal. It's not at all the same and it took a big in-game event to explain, but it's nice nonetheless.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this is opinion.
An opinion in an opinion thread? Shocking! But a bunch of it isn't an opinion, and the idea that RM Oracle is a good remaster is also an opinion.
I don't see why you're having problems with Divine Access. It's not that difficult with digital tools. If you're sitting around with a book at the table, maybe this is slow and clunky. This is the digital age where you can look up domain using a find feature or use the index system on Archives to quickly go through domains associated with deities with spell lists.
Using the index system on AoN, the first domain of the Ancestors mystery is Death. That domain has 39 deities listed. To see which spells are available to be picked, you need to look at the granted spells of those deities.
When you do that for the other three domains, the grand total number of deities is 148. So to actually know what spells you can pick from Divine Access, you need to look at 148 sets of granted spells. You then probably need to look at what some of those spells do, but we'll ignore that.
That's using the digital tool you suggested to filter the deity list by the relevant domains, and then requires looking at 148 different links to get the full list of options. What part of that isn't clunky?
This is way worse then picking spells, since those are at least all on a single list and no spell level has close to 148 options. And yeah, if you're using books this is so impractical to the point of being completely unrealistic. Which itself illustrates the problem pretty nicely: there's not many other class features in the game that don't work when building a character from the books.
There are some better cursebound abilities at higher level. Oracle is also a good archetype because you can grab some good abilities fairly easy, though your max curse is 2. So you get to use them twice per fight at best.
Max curse being 2 is the same for an Oracle for the half of the game that a majority of campaigns play in, which is part of the reason why people say the archetype can just poach the unique class feature so easily. It's pretty baffling in the same book that decided archetype Flurry of Blows needed a cooldown to protect it for the class.
There's only two Cursebound abilities not available to the archetype. One is for something players rarely do (3 action heal) and is decidedly meh, and the other one is even more meh because why do I need a free 5th level spell on a class with this many spell slots at level 20?
Even the ones at level 10 are mostly not very good.
Seems once again there is confusion about personal opinion and objective play again. You can very much play an oracle all the way up and you'll feel just as good doing it as most other caster classes.
Seems once again there is confusion about what this conversation is actually about. The fact that the class is strong isn't in dispute. But that it got buffed doesn't mean they did a good job on the remaster of it.
About the only part I agree with is the oracle mysteries are less interesting than they were prior. Their benefits are less unique, mostly due to removing the unique benefit each provided like the DR from Cosmos or the more developed curse abilities.
They made the class simpler and more playable.
Yeah, that's true. Except for all the existing characters they broke, anyway.
All of this is opinion.This statement alone I think can be challenged in a number of ways:
Many of Tridus's arguments are backed up by objective facts and comparisons. Having 4 spell slots per rank is objectively the top end of spell slots a class is allowed to have in 2e, for example, and the Oracle is unique among spellcasters in Pathfinder for having that spell output plus 8 HP per level, light armor proficiency, and legendary Will saves. Similarly, it is an objective fact that a multiclass Oracle can become cursebound in the same amounts as a main-classed Oracle from levels 2 to 10.
Everything you've posted is unsubstantiated opinion, and you're making the mistake of assuming your opinion is a universal truth.
Even the parts of Tridus's arguments that stem from opinion are still valid criticisms to make. You don't get to dismiss their criticism of Divine Access's complexity with dismissive statements such as "it's not that difficult," particularly when those statements visibly do not stem from a place of expertise. So really, we need to stop pretending that "well, you know, that's just, uh, your opinion, man" is a valid argument in discussions involving feedback. Feedback is inherently subjective, and subjective opinions can still be backed up by evidence. If you don't want to have to deal with other people's opinions, then your best bet is to just not engage with feedback, rather than go out of your way to try to invalidate it when you disagree with it.
No. There are just people that confuse personal opinion with objective play. You do this quite often, then hope to win arguments by using ad nauseum posts to in your mind prove it.
What is objectively true is the oracle is a very playable class from 1 to 20, as good as the other classes and better than quite a few. It is one of the few post-remaster classes that if you play it from 1 to 20, you will feel similar power to other classes like the cleric or sorcerer.
It lost the more unique aspects of its curses and some individual abilities of varying quality, the best of which was probably cosmos DR.
That's all that happened.
People claiming the oracle isn't worth playing 1 to 20 are objectively wrong. The oracle would perform well 1 to 20.
All of this is opinion.An opinion in an opinion thread? Shocking! But a bunch of it isn't an opinion, and the idea that RM Oracle is a good remaster is also an opinion.
I don't see why you're having problems with Divine Access. It's not that difficult with digital tools. If you're sitting around with a book at the table, maybe this is slow and clunky. This is the digital age where you can look up domain using a find feature or use the index system on Archives to quickly go through domains associated with deities with spell lists.Using the index system on AoN, the first domain of the Ancestors mystery is Death. That domain has 39 deities listed. To see which spells are available to be picked, you need to look at the granted spells of those deities.
When you do that for the other three domains, the grand total number of deities is 148. So to actually know what spells you can pick from Divine Access, you need to look at 148 sets of granted spells. You then probably need to look at what some of those spells do, but we'll ignore that.
That's using the digital tool you suggested to filter the deity list by the relevant domains, and then requires looking at 148 different links to get the full list of options. What part of that isn't clunky?
This is way worse then picking spells, since those are at least all on a single list and no spell level has close to 148 options. And yeah, if you're using books this is so impractical to the point of being completely unrealistic. Which itself illustrates the problem pretty nicely: there's not many other class features in the game that don't work when building a character from the books.
There are some better cursebound abilities at higher level. Oracle is also a good archetype because you can grab some good abilities fairly easy, though your max curse is 2. So you get to use them twice per fight at best.Max curse being 2 is the same for an Oracle for the half of the game that a...
You stated that all the "good" parts of the oracle can be poached by the archetype. I disagree and that is pure opinion.
The class is a good class to play 1 to 20.
The old oracle was a jumbled mess with some mysteries extremely good like cosmos and most others mixed or bad.
The new oracle is far more playable and on par power with the core classes.
As far as "good" goes, that is subjective. I find it a very playable class now. Do I miss things like the DR on Cosmos? Sure. Do I miss other clunky aspects of the curses, no, not really.
Subjectively, I only thought Cosmos was optimal. The other curses were a mixed bag.
I think the remaster makes the oracle far more playable, less clunky, and as far as Divine Access, the feat existed prior so I don't see the problem with it now that it is an inherent part of the class.
Playability should be the goal with every class. Not niche design where more than half the options are barely playable. Now the oracle is playable all the way from 1 to 20, feels strong, and the mysteries are more in line with sorcerer bloodlines or wizard curriculums: a part of the class but not so powerful as the curse itself makes or breaks the class except maybe that battle curse...weakness to spell damage is unplayable.
I like it when the designers focus on playability, not niche design with small parts that make for a broken game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People claiming the oracle isn't worth playing 1 to 20 are objectively wrong.
I don't think that's what most people here were actually claiming, if anyone. There was a lot of 'they got caster power buffs and are strong but' clauses, because that part is hard to deny and also not the part in contention. :o
As far as unique features go, the class itself has an unrestricted 4th slot, a few very strong feats, Divine Access at 11, and timely/exclusive access to the later cursebound stuff, plus decent caster defenses (their non-Will saves do still stink). That's plenty, so for some the archetype won't be enough, while for others they'll value the unique features of other classes more and get all they need from the early (broadly quite strong) cursebounds and focus spells. That's all there is to it, really!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the new oracle as playable at all. The Remaster totally gutted it of its heart and soul. A divine sorcerer has more flavor and better meets my character concepts now.
A class that is uninteresting will not get played no matter how capable it is.
Using the index system on AoN, the first domain of the Ancestors mystery is Death. That domain has 39 deities listed. To see which spells are available to be picked, you need to look at the granted spells of those deities.
When you do that for the other three domains, the grand total number of deities is 148. So to actually know what spells you can pick from Divine Access, you need to look at 148 sets of granted spells. You then probably need to look at what some of those spells do, but we'll ignore that.
That's using the digital tool you suggested to filter the deity list by the relevant domains, and then requires looking at 148 different links to get the full list of options. What part of that isn't clunky?
I've had to deal with that headache myself no less than three times. It IS tedius.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Access aside, I'm an indecisive gal and spent literal months and a spreadsheet on my Divine Access pick ^ ^;
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. There are just people that confuse personal opinion with objective play. You do this quite often, then hope to win arguments by using ad nauseum posts to in your mind prove it.
What you are describing is literally your own behavior, though. At this very present moment, you are insisting that your opinions are the One True Way of viewing the Oracle, and you have added nothing to this conversation since the first time you've tried to bash people over the head with your opinion. All you've done is repeated yourself even on points where you've been proven wrong, just like when you argued across something like four separate threads to dispute the functionality of a basic action that you had very obviously gotten wrong. I would go as far as to say this is your default MO on these forums from what I've seen, which I've found makes it very difficult to have any kind of constructive discussion while you're active on a thread.
What is objectively true is the oracle is a very playable class from 1 to 20, as good as the other classes and better than quite a few.
This is the very picture of a subjective statement. I personally don't dispute that the Oracle is playable, because that's an extremely low standard to set, but it is an objective fact that the class's remaster has generated negative feedback, and several of its changes induced quirks that are often seen as poor design.
It is one of the few post-remaster classes that if you play it from 1 to 20, you will feel similar power to other classes like the cleric or sorcerer.
Again, not an objective statement. To be very clear on this, objective statements are generally statements of fact or evidence that are independently verifiable. What you are making here is a value judgment backed up by neither. And to be clear: you are perfectly allowed to have this opinion, but by that same token Tridus, I, and others are perfectly allowed to disagree, and you're not entitled to have us agree with you here.
It lost the more unique aspects of its curses and some individual abilities of varying quality, the best of which was probably cosmos DR.
That's all that happened.
At this point we've entered the territory of statements that are not only not objective, but that are objectively false. Just to point to a few other things that "happened":
People claiming the oracle isn't worth playing 1 to 20 are objectively wrong. The oracle would perform well 1 to 20.
They're not, though, and in fact they are objectively correct when stating that the Oracle isn't a class worth playing to them. Their opinion of the Oracle may be subjective, but pointing out how they feel a certain way about the Oracle is making a statement of fact. You do not get to choose what's worth playing for those players, only they do. You do not get to tell anyone that they're objectively wrong for liking or disliking something you feel differently about. And, most importantly, you do not get to pretend that your own subjective value judgments are objective, much less that your opinions give you license to invalidate those of others. You should perhaps try to advocate for your opinions on their own merits, instead of using them as a cudgel to beat others into submission.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Access aside, I'm an indecisive gal and spent literal months and a spreadsheet on my Divine Access pick ^ ^;
You are far more dedicated than I am! I had one spell I wanted (Dreaming Potential, because with Gnome Obsession that's just a fun time) and went looking for how to get it. Whatever other spells came along were a bonus.
I don't see the new oracle as playable at all. The Remaster totally gutted it of its heart and soul. A divine sorcerer has more flavor and better meets my character concepts now.
A class that is uninteresting will not get played no matter how capable it is.
I'm playing one in Spore War now, and was in Kingmaker before. I love the character so we figured out how to just bring them along when we quit Kingmaker.
I think it's important to distinguish "playable" and "interesting" here. They're two different things. RM Oracle is extremely playable. Setting Divine Access aside, the class chassis is good. It's got HP, Light Armor, and boatloads of spell slots. Even if you never use a Cursebound ability at all it's going to be effective and the Divine List today is pretty strong so any Divine caster with this many spells is going to be very playable.
I think the part of it Deriven actually agree on is that playability is good. (Less so for Life/Battle/Ancestors, but in general.)
It lost a lot of the unique ideas that made it interesting. I hate that part of the changes. I'm still playing mine because the concept I was doing still works fine, but I know people that opted out of the remaster entirely because it would break their character concept and the core of how it plays. That sucks, and it sucks even more for the PFS folks who didn't get to opt out the way those folks can.
That part is subjective, though. We've had folks on these forums who talked about how they didn't like the class before because of how complex it was that are now playing it, so it did work for them. And some people just don't click with some classes. Normally that's fine, like I loathe the Necromancer playtest on every level but I can just admit that class isn't for me and skip it.
What I dislike here is changing a class this drastically midway through an edition feels like a rug-pull for folks that liked the old version and wanted its issues ironed out and instead got "oh your build just isn't supported anymore, sorry".
Just speaking for myself, I was playing my Life Oracle more as an HP tank than anything else. I had access to really big heals, buffs, and bits of healing while buffing thanks to the curse, but the character also had Wellspring Mage and another archetype for flavor reasons, so the biggest and most interesting thing was taking damage for everyone and being a good target to consolidate healing on.
The remastering of the class didn't offer any kind of replacement for the extra HP or big/convenient heals (especially the AoE ones and healbuff combo), it removed the curse when using focus spells, and the actual curse for using cursebounds was ultimately harsher for my playstyle. Instead I got extra caster resources which weren't part of the character concept and antisynergistic additions.
So if not for deciding Wellspring was too conceptually important to give up, the best thing to do would've been switching to Champion with the Oracle archetype and item resources for support spells, flavoring the other magic resources as going to auras and the reaction, because the HP and curse-free Life Link were the most important things and mean the class (among others) arguably does the HP Tank playstyle better than Oracle itself now. ¯\_('v')_/¯
I didn't do that, electing to keep Numbing Tonics on hand for HP and heavily leveraging all those new spells for slower defense and support, but there's still holes I don't have much of a way to fill and compromises I had to make to stick to my character concept as best as I could. This is all particular to that character focus, of course, but Life Link is such a unique and powerful spell which gets relatively little support from the new class (just False Life, really, which only scales so much and still takes resources), so it's a notable example. Cursebounds are a big thing for those wanting to use or center on them too, since they're at full strength regardless of subclass or class.
(Oracle is pretty buffed as raw caster power goes, and it's a...
With the example of your life oracle from premaster I think one design decision was to roll back something they may have thought of as a mistake. ofcourse I dont know if thats it, but it looks that way to me. The oracle was doing things they felt spell casters should not be doing. Like with your idea of taking champion and oracle dedication as a way to do what you did premaster it really seems like the statement is that oracle should not have filled some of the roles their curse benefits enabled premaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You stated that all the "good" parts of the oracle can be poached by the archetype. I disagree and that is pure opinion.
I said the good Cursebound abilities as the unique Oracle thing can be poached by the archetype. They can. There's only two that can't, and neither of them are very good. Even the level 10 ones which can technically be taken by the archetype (at 20) are largely not very good either. (Roll the Bones of Fate is an exception, but it's downside is the amount of work it saddles the GM with when you roll a 4.)
It's just a fact that the Cursebound abilities are front loaded both in terms of quantity but also in terms of the most desirable ones.
The class is a good class to play 1 to 20.
Yep.
The old oracle was a jumbled mess with some mysteries extremely good like cosmos and most others mixed or bad.
"Jumbled mess" is opinion. It was definitely complex, but people played it just fine. It could also do a lot of unique things don't have an equivalent anymore.
The new oracle is far more playable and on par power with the core classes.
Yep.
As far as "good" goes, that is subjective. I find it a very playable class now. Do I miss things like the DR on Cosmos? Sure. Do I miss other clunky aspects of the curses, no, not really.
Subjectively, I only thought Cosmos was optimal. The other curses were a mixed bag.
The other curses are still a mixed bag. Life/Battle/Ancestors didn't get better, with one of them anti-synergizing with itself, one of them requiring external feat investment and an archetype to do what it's description says it should do (and an insultingly bad focus spell), and one of them losing its unique play style and got an extremely punishing curse out of the deal.
That's one of my problems with RM Oracle: wasn't this the opportunity to fix things like this?
I think the remaster makes the oracle far more playable, less clunky, and as far as Divine Access, the feat existed prior so I don't see the problem with it now that it is an inherent part of the class.
Divine Access was a problem before, too. But as a feat it was an optional problem. Now it's a mandatory problem, and adding more domains actually made it more complex. In a remaster all about simplifying the class, this change did not meet the objective.
Playability should be the goal with every class. Not niche design where more than half the options are barely playable. Now the oracle is playable all the way from 1 to 20, feels strong, and the mysteries are more in line with sorcerer bloodlines or wizard curriculums: a part of the class but not so powerful as the curse itself makes or breaks the class except maybe that battle curse...weakness to spell damage is unplayable.
I like it when the designers focus on playability, not niche design with small parts that make for a broken game.
Playability is important, but so is delivering a fantasy that people want to play. Despite its issues before, Oracle did that. What folks wanted out of the remaster was cleaning up those issues. Folks weren't asking to have their characters broken by the remaster.
Having a remaster update for your character effectively rug-pull the stuff that makes your character concept work and turn it into a Divine Sorcerer instead (albeit an extremely good one) is not a good way to go about class updates.
That seems to be the place where we're just not speaking the same language: RM Oracle can itself be good while also being a bad update for people who were playing premaster Oracle.
This oracle was definitely one of the classes buffed up to make it more powerful and playable than it was.
Obviously, the folks who were playing oracles prefer the more unique builds. I'd personally like to see them in play because in my experience, the old oracle had very narrow build options to be effective.
If you were just making some goofy, barely effective concept, then I guess you could dabble with some of the weaker curses.
I ran a Cosmos oracle and that one was very good, probably the strongest pre-Remaster oracle due to the DR.
I DMed an ancestor oracle. The player used it well, but the mechanics of the curse were clunky and annoying as a DM. The player forgot to make their roll all the time wanting to do some other action that would have been better, but couldn't due to the roll required with the curse. I had to call them on it all the time. As a DM I personally despise classes that require this much management, especially with forgetful players that almost always forget to their advantage.
I played a low level flame oracle. It was ok. Nothing special.
So far I've played two Remaster Oracles. I think the class is much more competitive and playable now. The amount they can expand their repertoire is pretty nutty. They can take the divine list which is much improved with spirit blasting then bolt on a ton of highly effective, useful spells.
The curse abilities are far more useful and work off a separate resource pool.
The focus spells are mostly the same, but very usable given they have their own resource pool.
I find the new oracle improved overall. I think the Remaster Oracle is one of the strongest, most versatile casters in the game and arguable the best divine caster in the game.
It's basically a sorcerer with 8 hit points, light armor, and a separate resource pool. If you could poach sorcerous potency, it would be better than the sorcerer. I can see why they made sorcerous potency a core class feature now because if the oracle had gotten it, they would probably eat the sorcs lunch.
If Ravingdork is playing a divine sorc over an oracle, he hasn't spent much time building a Remaster Oracle. It's a pretty amazing class now.
One thing I will say is the animist seems more like what I picture an oracle being. Some of their feats like that Perception feat should be an oracle feat. Oracle is supposed to be the caster that can see the future with supernatural sensory abilities, not the animist.
|
One thing I will say is the animist seems more like what I picture an oracle being. Some of their feats like that Perception feat should be an oracle feat. Oracle is supposed to be the caster that can see the future with supernatural sensory abilities, not the animist.
Oracle the class has never been specifically involved with seeing the future FWIW.
Heracles was actually given during the PF1 playtest/musings as a good example for an Oracle of Strength. Not much to do with divining fate.
One thing I will say is the animist seems more like what I picture an oracle being. Some of their feats like that Perception feat should be an oracle feat. Oracle is supposed to be the caster that can see the future with supernatural sensory abilities, not the animist.Oracle the class has never been specifically involved with seeing the future FWIW.
Heracles was actually given during the PF1 playtest/musings as a good example for an Oracle of Strength. Not much to do with divining fate.
Hercules would never be an oracle. He had way too much martial ability. Not sure why that comparison would be made.
The oracle is a pure caster with very little gishiness. It's why I like the new oracle because the old one was a bad GISH.
The oracle is tied to seeing the future. Seemed a good opportunity to build a class around seeing the future and developing abilities around that. Or prophesizing, though it does have some prophetic ability as much as such abilities are tied to how well the DM can convey something useful.
I mean a lot of the old oracles were very unique spellcasters with little gishness. Battle Oracle isn't the only oracle people miss. Blind Flame Oracle, Tempest Oracles who got the damage boost on the rarely used water/air spells, life oracles uniquely suited to spells that used hp as a power source... all of them are dead now.
Sure, we got a sorcerer-sidegrade with a bunch of stuff, but sorcerer already existed. Who cares about yet another 4-slot divine caster with ways to access off-tradition spells via deities and a second pool of per-encounter resources? Apparently a lot of people, but I'm still mad.
Cosmos oracle is the one I would think people miss. Battle oracle wasn't very good.
So you miss it for reasons other than playability or competitive power. That's fine. Some people like playing something unique they make work.
I did enjoy my Cosmos oracle that was a bit of tank. That was a fun build.
I miss Battle Oracle, it was a pretty fun and good class at early levels that I had played.
I mean a lot of the old oracles were very unique spellcasters with little gishness. Battle Oracle isn't the only oracle people miss. Blind Flame Oracle, Tempest Oracles who got the damage boost on the rarely used water/air spells, life oracles uniquely suited to spells that used hp as a power source... all of them are dead now.
Sure, we got a sorcerer-sidegrade with a bunch of stuff, but sorcerer already existed. Who cares about yet another 4-slot divine caster with ways to access off-tradition spells via deities and a second pool of per-encounter resources? Apparently a lot of people, but I'm still mad.
That's my felling too. Oracles now looks like more a light armored 8HP/lvl divine sorcerer but looses sorcery potency and bloodmagic and is locked to the divine tradition but can cast cursebound "spells" like an extra "focus spell" source at cost of some debuff and can get some domain spells along its own focus spells.
Could be an option if you want some of these things or like the oracle thematic, but IMO it now just directly competes with sorcerer more than ever.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically the class revision is balanced. However, it is not fine. There are tons of problems, as clearly evidenced by this thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I will say is the animist seems more like what I picture an oracle being. Some of their feats like that Perception feat should be an oracle feat. Oracle is supposed to be the caster that can see the future with supernatural sensory abilities, not the animist.Oracle the class has never been specifically involved with seeing the future FWIW.
Heracles was actually given during the PF1 playtest/musings as a good example for an Oracle of Strength. Not much to do with divining fate.
Hercules would never be an oracle. He had way too much martial ability. Not sure why that comparison would be made.
The oracle is a pure caster with very little gishiness. It's why I like the new oracle because the old one was a bad GISH.
The oracle is tied to seeing the future. Seemed a good opportunity to build a class around seeing the future and developing abilities around that. Or prophesizing, though it does have some prophetic ability as much as such abilities are tied to how well the DM can convey something useful.
The following post was written 16 years ago, almost to a day. It was in the thread of the blog post announcing the PF1 APG playtest. It does shed some light about class names.
Hey there folks,
Couple of notes here this morning.
1. The Oracle name is one that I really like. Oracle does not always mean the agent of a god specifically. It can mean someone who is the authority on a specific topic or sphere of influence, which is what we are going for here. The hercules example is a really good one. As the oracle of strength, he would be beholden to no particular god, but he would draw his power from the divine and would have relationships with all of the gods that carry the Strength domain. This can make for some very interesting rp opportunities in game. This, of course, is also my way of working a certain level of polytheism into the game, which I think is a good thing.
2. That said, the names are not, by any means, set in stone. We like some of them, and some of them will probably stay, but others will change. You can count on that. We are still working on a better name for the Summoner. I am open to suggestions.
...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
One thing I will say is the animist seems more like what I picture an oracle being. Some of their feats like that Perception feat should be an oracle feat. Oracle is supposed to be the caster that can see the future with supernatural sensory abilities, not the animist.Oracle the class has never been specifically involved with seeing the future FWIW.
Heracles was actually given during the PF1 playtest/musings as a good example for an Oracle of Strength. Not much to do with divining fate.
Hercules would never be an oracle. He had way too much martial ability. Not sure why that comparison would be made.
The oracle is a pure caster with very little gishiness. It's why I like the new oracle because the old one was a bad GISH.
The oracle is tied to seeing the future. Seemed a good opportunity to build a class around seeing the future and developing abilities around that. Or prophesizing, though it does have some prophetic ability as much as such abilities are tied to how well the DM can convey something useful.
The following post was written 16 years ago, almost to a day. It was in the thread of the blog post announcing the PF1 APG playtest. It does shed some light about class names.
...Hey there folks,
Couple of notes here this morning.
1. The Oracle name is one that I really like. Oracle does not always mean the agent of a god specifically. It can mean someone who is the authority on a specific topic or sphere of influence, which is what we are going for here. The hercules example is a really good one. As the oracle of strength, he would be beholden to no particular god, but he would draw his power from the divine and would have relationships with all of the gods that carry the Strength domain. This can make for some very interesting rp opportunities in game. This, of course, is also my way of working a certain level of polytheism into the game, which I
I see what he was saying. I would never make Hercules an oracle of strength. Hercules in his stories was a demigod fighter or maybe exemplar.
Even so, why is the animist getting a feat that shows a powerful ability to see the future and see deeply into the supernatural world and the oracle getting some cursebound feat for initiative only weaker than the animist?
It's little design choices like that that make you scratch your head and wonder why one class gets something awesome that doesn't even fit very well for what they do when another class that a feat would fit really well gets some lesser, weaker feat.
It happens every edition 3E/PF1 when feats were introduced. Just very inconsistent design that makes one class better than another by stepping into their class concept in a way that makes what they do feel less good.
PF1 actually had a curse named Powerless Prophecy that worked just like this.