I have a question concerning the oracle feat "Debilitating Dichotomy". I picked oracle as an archetype for a druid in a high level campaign. For level 16, I plan to pick "Debilitating Dichotomy". My gm says that this feat use the spell dc of the oracle because of the cursebound trait, but when I tested in foundryvtt it used the spell dc of my druid. The cursebound trait doesn't specify which spell dc exactly and foundry might have some problem with "advanced mysteries" so I'm really not sure which dc I need to use.
Edit: By spell DC I meant to use wisdom or charisma because this is what changes the dc in the end.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your Druid and Oracle Spell DC should be at the same level of training since the remaster made it so there's only one Spell DC across all casters.
It would differ on which ability to use (Wisdom or Charisma), however Oracle dedication specifies you use Charisma only for spells granted by the Archetype.
Debilitating Dichotomy is not a spell, so it should use your baseline Spell DC, which is the Druid one.
This is a bit confusing to me because the ability doesn't reference spell DC at all.
It makes me feel that it should be class DC, and not spell DC, though they are calculated similarly.
However, the main difference that will happen is that class DC proficiency often doesn't progress on caster classes.
Probably debilitating dichotomy should mention saving against class or spell DC, unless there is something that covers that generally class feats use one or the other that I'm not remembering.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a bit confusing to me because the ability doesn't reference spell DC at all.
It makes me feel that it should be class DC, and not spell DC, though they are calculated similarly.
However, the main difference that will happen is that class DC proficiency often doesn't progress on caster classes.
Probably debilitating dichotomy should mention saving against class or spell DC, unless there is something that covers that generally class feats use one or the other that I'm not remembering.
Which DC you use is in the Cursebound trait, which says:
"A cursebound ability that allows a defense uses your spell attack modifier or spell DC unless noted otherwise."
Debilitating Dichotomy doesn't note otherwise, therefore it uses Spell DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a bit confusing to me because the ability doesn't reference spell DC at all.
It makes me feel that it should be class DC, and not spell DC, though they are calculated similarly.
However, the main difference that will happen is that class DC proficiency often doesn't progress on caster classes.
Probably debilitating dichotomy should mention saving against class or spell DC, unless there is something that covers that generally class feats use one or the other that I'm not remembering.
Which DC you use is in the Cursebound trait, which says:
"A cursebound ability that allows a defense uses your spell attack modifier or spell DC unless noted otherwise."
Debilitating Dichotomy doesn't note otherwise, therefore it uses Spell DC.
Alright that's great. Thanks for pointing that out.
In that case, because it's from the cursebound trait, which is coming exclusively from Oracle....I would actually say it's using your Oracle spell DC.
Which I believe uses your charisma. I'm actually unsure how that works on a caster class with an caster archetype, if you have two spell DCs. It seems like it should, or else you basically get all the benefits of using a single spell casting stat.
I don't think it makes sense that a regular oracle would use their charisma based spell DC, but somehow when using the dedication you would use your other spellcasting DC (which might not be charisma based).
I just don't think that's right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, your best proficiency carries over from any spellcasting class since it's no longer narrowed to one of the four magics, but you still use the stat of the class you're casting from. Except that's for spells, which DD isn't. So it uses whatever spell DC/stat is highest. That rubs me the wrong way, but seems the most straightforward reading.
Martials w/ their Class DCs already benefited from using one's top proficiency, which is why I think Paizo mirrored that for casters. Also there's no "this is a Ranger ability so only use Ranger Class DC" nor a "this comes from a Dex-based class so use your Class DC Proficiency, but with Dex". In harmony with that reasoning, I wouldn't override the straightforward reading.
Thus, use your highest Spell DC.
(I do read Kineticist as having exceptions due to phrasing.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, your best proficiency carries over from any spellcasting class since it's no longer narrowed to one of the four magics, but you still use the stat of the class you're casting from. Except that's for spells, which DD isn't. So it uses whatever spell DC/stat is highest. That rubs me the wrong way, but seems the most straightforward reading.
Martials w/ their Class DCs already benefited from using one's top proficiency, which is why I think Paizo mirrored that for casters. Also there's no "this is a Ranger ability so only use Ranger Class DC" nor a "this comes from a Dex-based class so use your Class DC Proficiency, but with Dex". In harmony with that reasoning, I wouldn't override the straightforward reading.
Thus, use your highest Spell DC.
(I do read Kineticist as having exceptions due to phrasing.)
But Debilitating Dichotomy has the cursebound trait which says to use Spell DC. I don't think it's a fair argument to say "oh it uses spell DC, but since it's not a spell you don't calculate it the same way you would for a spell". That just doesn't make sense to me at all.
I mean, you may be right and they have unified everything....but the way things are written it doesn't come across that way.
I think this is something that happened in the remaster that I'm only really noticing now and it's awkward because the rewording of stuff is kind of awkward (for me).
This is a bit confusing to me because the ability doesn't reference spell DC at all.
It makes me feel that it should be class DC, and not spell DC, though they are calculated similarly.
However, the main difference that will happen is that class DC proficiency often doesn't progress on caster classes.
Probably debilitating dichotomy should mention saving against class or spell DC, unless there is something that covers that generally class feats use one or the other that I'm not remembering.
Which DC you use is in the Cursebound trait, which says:
"A cursebound ability that allows a defense uses your spell attack modifier or spell DC unless noted otherwise."
Debilitating Dichotomy doesn't note otherwise, therefore it uses Spell DC.
Alright that's great. Thanks for pointing that out.
In that case, because it's from the cursebound trait, which is coming exclusively from Oracle....I would actually say it's using your Oracle spell DC.
Which I believe uses your charisma. I'm actually unsure how that works on a caster class with an caster archetype, if you have two spell DCs. It seems like it should, or else you basically get all the benefits of using a single spell casting stat.
I don't think it makes sense that a regular oracle would use their charisma based spell DC, but somehow when using the dedication you would use your other spellcasting DC (which might not be charisma based).
I just don't think that's right.
Basically, when it comes to caster classes with caster archetypes, your Training in Spell DC (so, Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary) is going to be the same for all your spellcasting, whether main class or Archetype. Taking Expert/Master spellcaster isn't going to upgrade your proficiency in the Archetype, since your main class spellcasting DC will always be higher, it will simply give you more slots.
But while the training is the same, the spellcasting attribute might be different, as is this case. However spellcasting attribute always applies only to casting archetype spells, nothing else (you'll find the same wording on all archetype dedications).
So lets take OPs Druid/Oracle. At level 2, they pick up Oracle Dedication. They have WIS +4, CHA +2.
Their Spell Attack for Druid Spells is +4 (wisdom) + 2 (trained) + 2 (level) for +8. Spell DC is +18.
Their Spell Attack for Oracle Spells is +2 (Charisma) + 2 (trained) + 2 (level) for +6. Spell DC of 16.
Anything that calls for Spell DC/Spell Attack roll that isn't a spell, regardless of source, uses Druid DC, because Druid DC = Oracle DC for everything except spells. Including Cursebound feats.
It's weird, but it's how the rules shake out.
Martials w/ their Class DCs already benefited from using one's top proficiency, which is why I think Paizo mirrored that for casters. Also there's no "this is a Ranger ability so only use Ranger Class DC" nor a "this comes from a Dex-based class so use your Class DC Proficiency, but with Dex". In harmony with that reasoning, I wouldn't override the straightforward reading.Thus, use your highest Spell DC.
(I do read Kineticist as having exceptions due to phrasing.)
This is actually incorrect, if you read all the Martial Archetype dedications, every single one of them trains you in X Class DC (Alchemist, Barbarian, Exemplar, etc), which you're supposed to use for stuff that calls for Class DC from that particular class.
If you're an 11th level Fighter (Expert in Fighter Class DC), with Rogue Dedication (Trained in Rogue Class DC), you use your Rogue DC for Twin Disraction , not Fighter.
Alchemist, Commander, Exemplar, Inventor and Kineticist get feats to scale it up, but they all max out at Expert at 12th level, except Inventor (they get Expert at 15th) and Commander (they can get Master at 18th).
The dedications training you in specific Class DC and the feats to upgrade that Class DC do not make sense in a game where you're supposed to use your main Class DC for everything.
Anything that calls for Spell DC/Spell Attack roll that isn't a spell, regardless of source, uses Druid DC, because Druid DC = Oracle DC for everything except spells. Including Cursebound feats.
This is exactly the piece that I don't understand where it's coming from...and even if I did I don't think I would run it that way because it's completely unintuitive to me.
In my mind, it's part of the penalty for multiclassing into something that doesn't use your main ability scores. And also just insanely awkward that spells, the "main thing" you pick up from spell casting archetypes would use the specific ability score tied to it, but not other things coming from the class.
Edit: I just had a thought that they could have simplified everything (if there intent really was to "harmonize" the DCs) by simply saying that characters have a character DC, which is their proficiency + main class attribute. And that you use that character DC in place of class or spellcasting DC. Cause that seems like maybe what they tried to do....but way more awkwardly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that calls for Spell DC/Spell Attack roll that isn't a spell, regardless of source, uses Druid DC, because Druid DC = Oracle DC for everything except spells. Including Cursebound feats.This is exactly the piece that I don't understand where it's coming from...and even if I did I don't think I would run it that way because it's completely unintuitive to me.
It's completely unintuitive to you because it's just unintuitive in general.
It's not a corner case per se because it's not super rare, but in general people multiclass into something with the same spellcasting ability modifier (INT/WIS/CHA) as their main class, so this discrepancy never shows up at all. If OP was a Sorcerer MC-ing Oracle, there would be 0 difference between the Spell Attack and Spell DC for their spells. If they were a Fighter, and they multiclass Champion and then they also multiclass sorcerer, and then they also multiclass bard, same thing, their Spell DC and Spell Attack would be the same (all of them use Charisma).
Yet the rules are clear: an archetype's spellcasting ability only applies to spells and nothing else, which means there will a difference only when casting spells. So OP and foundry are playing completely by the rules, though their GM can see fit to change it.
Edit: I just had a thought that they could have simplified everything (if there intent really was to "harmonize" the DCs) by simply saying that characters have a character DC, which is their proficiency + main class attribute. And that you use that character DC in place of class or spellcasting DC. Cause that seems like maybe what they tried to do....but way more awkwardly.
This would just be a huge boon for Martials MC-ing into casters because they can use physical stats for casting, which is huge, while Spellcasters getting to use their casting stat for Class DC is basically worthless.
TheFinish, I used to reason how you're doing re: Class DCs/MCDs. It's a reasonable assertion, but just an assertion until you provide a citation. Note that I've seen no actual citation for what you're claiming and I'd scoured. I'd thought I'd read such a thing once or that some feat or ability had specified that class's Class DC. I couldn't find anything supporting that notion. So no, AFAICT you don't have to prefer your MCD's Class DC over your base class's. The abilities say to use one's Class DC w/ no such qualifications, so any Class DC will suffice.
So why do MCDs provide a Class DC?
Well, since any class's Class DC will suffice, it might be the MCD's if its higher. t=This can happen if one avoided one's KAS (which I've done w/ several experimental build concepts, a few which could actually work).
And while lack of a reason here may impel a player to provide one, that gap doesn't provide evidence there's an answer, much less any player's specific one. Paizo would kinda have had to specify which abilities need that class's Class DC exclusively (as it does under Impulses for Kineticists for example of how that would look).
Or the answer could be as mundane as carryover from when most casters lacked a Class DC, much like the semi-updated Magus MCD still grants Simple Weapon Proficiency. Or it could be futureproofing. And in cases where there's a feat to go to Expert (for casters stuck at Trained) it would be necessary to pass through Trained first, right?
Plus there are Archetypes which do not provide a Class DC yet have abilities that require one...abilities which mirror the same language.
Lastly, MCDs extract a steep cost by doubling the level. And many of these pricier feats would become worthless if stuck at Trained. There'd be an awkward inconsistency in value across the board.
TheFinish, I used to reason how you're doing re: Class DCs/MCDs. It's a reasonable assertion, but just an assertion until you provide a citation. Note that I've seen no actual citation for what you're claiming and I'd scoured. I'd thought I'd read such a thing once or that some feat or ability had specified that class's Class DC. I couldn't find anything supporting that notion. So no, AFAICT you don't have to prefer your MCD's Class DC over your base class's. The abilities say to use one's Class DC w/ no such qualifications, so any Class DC will suffice.
The evidence supporting the notion is all Multiclass Archetypes giving you specific Class DCs plus other feats in some Multiclass Archetypes upgrading them, which is a waste of space if you're not supposed to use the Multiclass' Class DC for those feats.
Well, since any class's Class DC will suffice, it might be the MCD's if its higher. t=This can happen if one avoided one's KAS (which I've done w/ several experimental build concepts, a few which could actually work).
Do you not see your double standard here? You are admitting there's more than one Class DC (because there are) and then you're assuming you just get to use the highest one for everything. Where's your source for that claim?
And while lack of a reason here may impel a player to provide one, that gap doesn't provide evidence there's an answer, much less any player's specific one. Paizo would kinda have had to specify which abilities need that class's Class DC exclusively (as it does under Impulses for Kineticists for example of how that would look).
You don't need rules to tell you that if you're a Fighter, Dazing Blow's Class DC refers to Fighter Class DC, not the Monk Class DC you got from Monk Dedication. And the Stunning Blows you get from Monk Dedication uses your Monk Class DC, because it's a Monk thing.
It's pretty easy to tell which Class DC applies to which ability.
Plus there are Archetypes which do not provide a Class DC yet have abilities that require one...abilities which mirror the same language.
Then you just use your main class DC, because the Archetype isn't providing an alternative.
Lastly, MCDs extract a steep cost by doubling the level. And many of these pricier feats would become worthless if stuck at Trained. There'd be an awkward inconsistency in value across the board.
Archetypes being lower powered than the main class is perfectly acceptable. Do you think it's fine for the Fighter that Multiclassed Monk to have the same Stunning Blow DC as an actual monk? Do you think it's ok for the Commander who multiclasses Alchemist to be better than an Alchemist at using DC based alchemical items from level 15 onwards?
This is a balancing act, and constraining a Multiclass' Class DC progression is expected. They should be weaker.
1. NOT all the MCDs give a Class DC.
2. Upgrading an MCD's Class DC Proficiency does sometimes give the PC a higher Class DC than the original class's; casters' don't increase beyond Trained. So the feats aren't a "waste of space" any more than Diverse Weapon Expert is for the Fighter MCD.
3. Those first two (false) assertions) would only have showed your reasoning to presume there's a gap in the rules, not actual evidence for your solution.
4. I never said PCs were limited to one Class DC. I had said you don't have to prefer your MCD's Class DC over your base class's (so obviously I had already "admitted" multiple sources for a Class DC were possible). Ability says to use Class DC, PC provides one. Since nearly all abilities don't distinguish, the PC simply uses their best.
5. This is also how Spell DC works, use your best. Except the rules explicitly say to use the stat of the class that provides the spell (or Cha as default for innate spells). Class DC lacks such differentiation.
6. "You don't need rules to tell you that if you're a Fighter, Dazing Blow's Class DC refers to Fighter Class DC," - TheFinish
Nope. They do. Otherwise it's just "Class DC" all the way down.
This is your best argument IMO because there's a non-zero chance that Paizo thought it was so obvious they hadn't bothered to write it. Anywhere. Well except under Kineticist Impulses. And when they clarified how Spell DCs work Paizo demonstrated they know sweeping rules should be addressed. They're even meticulous about repeating tons of generic PC data for each class. Since the rules don't say you're locked into using any MCD's Class DCs...then they don't say that. Anywhere.
7. You skipped addressing the part about the other Archetypes using the same language re: Class DCs. This is just a side example of how referencing "Class DC" isn't necessarily shorthand for something more like you're asserting it must be when written elsewhere.
8. I do think it's fine for a Fighter to have the same Stunning Blow DC as an actual Monk. Why? Because they've spent a 12th level feat! (They need Monk's Flurry at 10th as a prereq). While you stumbled into an extreme example, I actually was saying that spending higher level feat slots for the same abilities does justify having them work as well.
As for the Commander MCD Alchemist (a class I seldom read), isn't the ability to replace an item's DC w/ a Class DC unavailable via MCD? And if I'm overlooking a legacy feat that provides that ability, the Alchemist by default will be miles ahead of the MCD Alchemist in alchemy trickery & supplies. And if I did miss that, yes, I'm willing to accept one such glitch rather than corrupt the whole MCD framework with scores of feats becoming trap feats (and doubly expensive ones at that).
9. "This is a balancing act, and constraining a Multiclass' Class DC progression is expected. They should be weaker."
MCDs already are weaker at what the core class does. Progression is slower, defining abilities are often locked out as might be auto-upgrades to such abilities. An MCD Barbarian can Rage...but poorly. Then while the MCD PC is paying double for feat X, the base class can take an ability that augments feat X (if the class chassis doesn't already).
And while one might expect a lower Class DC, that's not represented in the rules. Hints that it might be that way don't suffice unless already beholden to the notion. And it's a flawed notion because as stated, scores of feats become trap feats if you're stuck at Trained (since most MCDs do not have feats to improve them).
Again, the most straightforward reading (and RAW for that matter w/o getting too lawyer-y) is that when an ability's asking for a Class DC, the PC can use their best Class DC. Anything any other reading requires extrapolation which yes, can sound reasonable, but isn't written anywhere.
Let the PCs play with their toys. I feel that's what Paizo would want.
A whole lot of points
1 - Yes, all Martial Multiclass Dedications (which is what I was talking about) give you training in the respective Class DC. We can argue the Magus straddles the line here, but I challenge you to find me a single non-spellcaster Multiclass Dedication that doesn't train you in their Class DC. Spellcasting dedications give you training in spell attack and spell DC, as expected, but not Class DC.
Which makes sense, because caster classes rarely have anything that calls for Class DC, and when it does, it allows you to use Spell DC instead.
You wanna know how many caster feats call for only Class DC? One:
And I don't think I need to point out why that might be the case.
2 - Diverse Weapon Expert isn't a waste of space for a ton of classes because Fighter Dedication only gives you Trained in Martial Weapons. Any class that never gets Expert in Martial (of which there are a ton) gets a benefit.
We can argue Weapon Proficiency is better, but my point stands.
3,4 - I have already responded to this earlier.
5 - Spell DC is literally called Spell DC and Spell Attacks in all (non-remaster) classes. Go look at the details of Remastered classes, you will notice they don't say "Trained in Class DC", they say "Trained in Alchemist Class DC", "Trained in Barbarian Class DC" and so on and so forth.
There's many class DCs, there's only one Spell DC. They are not equal and never have been.
6 -I don't know why you keep bringing up Kineticist Impulses. Even if Impulses only said "your class DC", it'd obviously still be Kineticist Class DC.
I mean, in that same paragraph, later on, it says "This means your impulse attack roll is typically 10 lower than your class DC."
You gonna tell me that's any Class DC? No, because it's obvious it's Kineticist class DC, like it's obvious with all other classes.
The whole part of Impulses is important because it defines Impulse Attack Modifiers, which no other class has an equivalent of.
7 - I didn't skip anything, I very clearly said if an Archetype doesn't provide a Class DC of its own, you use your base class DC. Clear as day.
8 - Replacing infused item DC with your class DC is part of the 12th level Alchemist Archetype feat that increases your Alchemist Class DC to Expert, called Alchemical Power.
9 - I actually wouldn't have expected lowered class DC if it wasn't right there. But it is, so I use it.
Again, the most straightforward reading (and RAW for that matter w/o getting too lawyer-y) is that when an ability's asking for a Class DC, the PC can use their best Class DC. Anything any other reading requires extrapolation which yes, can sound reasonable, but isn't written anywhere.
No, the most straightforward reading when archetypes and classes specifically grant their own Class DCs is that you're supposed to use that Class DC for abilities of said class or archetype that calls for it.
If it was hard to tell which ability came from which class or archetype, and therefore which DC I have to use, I'd agree with you. But it isn't hard at all.
If the classes and archetypes just granted training in "Cass DC" and not "X Class DC", I'd agree with you. But they don't, they grant specific DCs.
You're the one wildly extrapolating here, not me.
Again, the most straightforward reading (and RAW for that matter w/o getting too lawyer-y) is that when an ability's asking for a Class DC, the PC can use their best Class DC.Or that you use Class DC from the class you've got an ability from.
Just don't tell that's not straightforward, because it is. Even more so.
Nope. You're extrapolating.
When a Fighter feat says "Class DC" and you interpret that as "Fighter Class DC" you're adding specificity. I'm not saying that's unreasonable, you're in the Fighter section. I'm saying that's unnecessary and ultimately unsupported. Maybe I've missed some general rule out there about this, but until that surfaces: you have a Class DC stat, and you use it. Simple.Compare to how Spellcasting DC never differentiates between which class you cast spells from. A Legendary Bard can cast their MCD Sorcerer spells (only Trained) at Legendary Proficiency. Rules do specify that the casting stat matters, but also had to or we wouldn't. Similar here.
And in terms of dev principles, PF2 Spellcasting DCs used to be separated by which tradition, but no more. I reckon that's to balance better with the martials who can cross-train (as it were) w/o falling behind.
TheFinish
1. You misspoke, I accept that. I won't pretend I learned anything new from what followed.
2. Thank you for supporting my point that the MCD feats to improve one's Class DC aren't pointless under my interpretation.
"Diverse Weapon Expert isn't a waste of space for a ton of classes because Fighter Dedication only gives you Trained in Martial Weapons. Any class that never gets Expert in Martial (of which there are a ton) gets a benefit."
Ditto. Except in regards to a Class DC that never gets Expert.
In the same vein, EVERY martial MCD should then have high-level options for improving that specific Class MCD. That would demonstrate your mindset among the devs.
3. I don't think you've established you aren't just filling in a rules gap of your own imagining.
4. If you'd already addressed how I'd accepted there were multiple ways of establishing one's Class DC, why had you accused me of doing otherwise? Never mind. Tangential.
5. That's a reasonable point that the MCDs do specify which kind of Class DC they provide. That's solidly in your favor. If I recall I'd clung to it when defending your interpretation. Except there's no call for such specificity on the other end. It resembles futureproofing.
6. Kineticist pertains to this because it shows that the devs do know to specify, and only chose to do so there. Yes, under your interpretation it's just redundant, but under mine it's evidence that Paizo would've done so with the other classes if relevant.
7. Albeit minor, it's a point about language you don't seem to get, which might be on my writing skills.
8. Cool re: MCD Alchemist alchemy DCs. My miss. Also part of that:
"And if I did miss that, yes, I'm willing to accept one such glitch rather than corrupt the whole MCD framework with scores of feats becoming trap feats (and doubly expensive ones at that)."
This mechanical imbalance conflicts w/ Paizo's design principles (as seen in their phasing out having different Spellcasting DCs by tradition.) That imbalance is exacerbated by the higher costs, yet not reflected in all the other MCD feats. Peculiar under your interpretation.
9. "I actually wouldn't have expected lowered class DC if it wasn't right there. But it is, so I use it." -TheFinish
Right where?
Spellcasters aren't locked into lower DCs, why should martials be?
More: You returned to point 5, the reasonable one. And I'm glad you did because it occurred to me there is a reason Paizo might have had to specify which kind of Class DC: to inform/remind us which KAS to use. Yes, only oddball PCs with low KAS in their main class care, but those concepts exist.
"You're the one wildly extrapolating here, not me." -TheFinish
Who said wildly? I believe I wrote reasonable (or similar). Sheesh.
There's one core premise, no extrapolation required:
"Class DC" means "Class DC".
No referencing MCD language, no mind-reading of Paizo devs (who IMO are thorough enough for new players they would have clarified this under your interpretation), and no imbalance for scores of feats while leaving others just as competitive as always.
It actually takes a touch of RPG sophistication to get to your interpretation, so kudos, but I think that's a point against it.
I have derailed this thread enough, especially considering I answered OPs question ages ago, but I will respond to these two points before exiting the thread:
In the same vein, EVERY martial MCD should then have high-level options for improving that specific Class MCD. That would demonstrate your mindset among the devs.
This is simply nonsensical, because it assumes the developers want your multiclass DCs to be as good as your base class DC, which is clearly not the case. The multiclass dedications that get upgrades to Class DC are those that have several features that benefit from it.
It doesn't matter that Multiclass Fighter DC never goes past Trained, because the only Fighter feature that you can get from the Archetype that uses Class DC is Dazing Blow. It doesn't matter that Rogue DC never goes past trained, because the only thing that uses Class DC is Twin Distraction.
You're under the impression that having a lower class DC on a multiclass Archetype is crippling when the reality is most classes have 1, maybe 2 feats between level 1 and 10 that even use Class DC.
The classes that do care about their class DC get upgrades so they don't suffer as badly. Which is a clear sign that development intent is for each Class to use their own Class DC.
It actually takes a touch of RPG sophistication to get to your interpretation, so kudos, but I think that's a point against it.
I find this funny because it does not really take sophistication to realise that when a feat I took from my Fighter class says to use Class DC, I should use my Fighter Class DC. And when a feat I got from my Monk Archetype (which gives me Monk Class DC) says to use Class DC, it's quite natural to think it means Monk Class DC. Because otherwise, why give me specific Class DCs?
That's just the most straightforward interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in terms of dev principles, PF2 Spellcasting DCs used to be separated by which tradition, but no more. I reckon that's to balance better with the martials who can cross-train (as it were) w/o falling behind.
Yeah letting archetype spell slots scale at full speed proficiency wise was a real boon for casters. It also alleviated some points of confusion for players as to which one you're supposed to use in cases where it's not obvious since you have fewer numbers to consider.
Now this Oracle case is an oddball one since Cursebound abilities use your Spell DC but are not spells so the rule doesn't technically cover them. IMO they're probably intended to since its a class ability and it's just an oversight that it doesn't specify anywhere (which would be par for Remaster Oracle).
Can anyone help with one question: can I use cleric spell DC instead of class DC for alchemist archetype? Fourth Doctrine (11th): You gain expert proficiency with your deity’s favored weapon, simple weapons, and unarmed attacks. When you critically succeed at an attack roll using your deity’s favored weapon, you apply the weapon’s critical specialization effect; you can use your spell DC in place of your class DC. This is only for weapon?
It's only for you deity's favored weapon. For anything else you use the normal roll, which for Alchemist stuff would be Alchemist Class DC.
I suppose if you have a deity whose favored weapon is bombs, though I'm not aware of one.