Dark Archive Playtest Analysis

I mean, it's probable that the four traditions are just different techniques for accessing and channeling magical power which is actually just one thing. It's just that if you were really get a firm grasp of Magic at its source, you would probably end up like Nethys.

So the four magical traditions get closer to the source by using a cross-section of the truth, whereas the Thamaturge dabbles in seeing the whole truth at once but doesn't access as much power as a result.

Like imagine "the truth about magic" as an onion, and each tradition tries to get to the center of the onion through a different means, while the thaumaturge tries to peel off whole layers at a time.

Can I view "the truth about magic" as a parfait?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, it's probable that the four traditions are just different techniques for accessing and channeling magical power which is actually just one thing. It's just that if you were really get a firm grasp of Magic at its source, you would probably end up like Nethys.

So the four magical traditions get closer to the source by using a cross-section of the truth, whereas the Thamaturge dabbles in seeing the whole truth at once but doesn't access as much power as a result.

Like imagine "the truth about magic" as an onion, and each tradition tries to get to the center of the onion through a different means, while the thaumaturge tries to peel off whole layers at a time.

Can I view "the truth about magic" as a parfait?

Well said, Donkey. :)

AnimatedPaper wrote:

This is why I was most comfortable with thinking of Thaums as an explicitly Occult pseudo caster, as occult magic (as of secrets of Magic) includes this sympathetic, even psychosomatic, kind of magical working.

That they aren’t is still kind of weird to me, but I’ve made peace with it.

Also, regarding magic versus casters, I’m reminded that this is also covered in SoM. Casters use spells, which are likened to well worn wagon trails where the magic flows relatively easy. Thaums take the brute force approach, forcing magic to work the way they need it to. It is implied that these could become spells eventually, but that for now they are creating a magical effect without actually using spells, if that makes sense. It also makes CHA a better fit.

If you want to tackle it from Occult's opposite, Primal, consider that Nature is something that exposes weakness. A Thaumaturge using a more primal approach could be drawing on the nature of Nature to lay those weaknesses bare.

For Divine, there are so many gods and powerful supernatural beings that perhaps it's not a connection with the target being formed directly, but rather giving whatever deity would just as soon see this creature dead an opportunity to use your blade.

And Arcane… well, frankly, it's broad enough that you can come up with all sorts of explanations. Creating a resonant response to the flaws in their Material essence, that sort of thing.

All that works well enough, but not much of that was presented in the playtest class (though the pacts DO suggest it). So hopefully the fluff will be adjusted so that Thaums are broadened a bit.

The mechanics are fine, I just would like a bit of an adjustment on the flavor.

I hope the flavor doesn't change too much. It sounds like the final version is really leaning into the 'fake it till you make it' aspect of the class, but I really enjoyed the idea of collecting esoterica, dabbling in a bunch of different arts and finding the right tool for the job parts of the theme. Would be sad to see that go.

It’s definitely a bummer that the class about knowing secrets is actually about making them up.

It's almost about making things up I'd say. Knowledge and understanding are still key to how their magic works. A thaumaturge might know absolutely that werewolves are weak to silver, but what are they to do if they don't have a silver weapon? It's through their understanding of creatures weaknesses and antithesis's that a thaumaturge can recreate and reenforce these connections.

I think there is room for making stuff up but there is also room for the argument that in order order call upon a story you need to know the story first.

I think ther eis a room for making stuff up but there is also room for the argument that in order order call upon a story you need to know the story first.

That's my take. If they're going to be the make stuff up class a lot of the descriptions should be adjusted.

Unless that tidbit mark mentions is going to allow good stats in wis/int or wis/int based skills, then the whole "knowledge" thing isn't really knowledge.

Like cheating on a test and getting an A doesn't mean you actually know calculus or understand the test, even if you can reliable cheat the test the two are fundamentally different.

The flavor definitely needs to change for CHA to make sense. Everything about the playtest flavor text leaned heavily towards INT/WIS, which was also supported by the mechanics. Knowing things, seeing connections, understanding the esoteric, etc.

Even if you go the "Force of Will" angle, CHA isn't even the ability score used for the stat called "Will"

It’s definitely a bummer that the class about knowing secrets is actually about making them up.

I mean, in pure mathematics (possibly the closest thing we have to "magical studies" in terms of pure esoterica) one's intuition is extremely important. The process frequently involves a lot of "this really feels like it should be true" and in following up on that rigorously, you either make a strong argument (i.e. proof) that it is, or you figure out the situation in which it's not true and that itself is interesting.

That's sort of how I view the Thaumaturge's process.

keftiu wrote:

It’s definitely a bummer that the class about knowing secrets is actually about making them up.

I mean, in pure mathematics (possibly the closest thing we have to "magical studies" in terms of pure esoterica) one's intuition is extremely important. The process frequently involves a lot of "this really feels like it should be true" and in following up on that rigorously, you either make a strong argument (i.e. proof) that it is, or you figure out the situation in which it's not true and that itself is interesting.

That's sort of how I view the Thaumaturge's process.

I like this is an explanation as well.

On a side note. I'm wondering how people dealt with Bardic Knowledge for so long. There is like a longstanding history of charisma(or charisma based classes) being associated with knowledge that isn't found in books.

But also the fluff is being changed, and while knowledge may still place an aspect they specifically say they are focusing more on the connection aspect, and the sympathetic magic aspect.

Intuition is by definition Wisdom so I'm not really sure how that furthers the argument for charisma.

Wisdom measures your character’s common sense, awareness, and intuition. Your Wisdom modifier is added to your Perception and Will saving throws.

Bardic Lore is also still INT at the end of the day. One of the things I suggested in my playtest responses is that a monster lore would be appropriate to avoid the in and out of changes in knowledge

Intuition is by definition Wisdom so I'm not really sure how that furthers the argument for charisma.

Well, the default mathematical ontology is something like "weak platonism" basically "if you write down something that can be true or false, it is true or false even before you can prove it as such."

But the way magic works deep down could be something more inherently flexible than "sentences have truth values".

Like there is a tradition in modern magical practice ("chaos magic(k)") where the basis is that "all occult systems are arbitrary systems, and they only work because of the belief of the practitioner". As in, it's not the symbols you use that allow you to do the thing, it's that you believe the symbols are what allow you to do the thing. Other people can't necessarily use your symbols because they don't believe how you believe, but they might have other symbols that would work for them. So the Thaumaturge can use charisma to genuinely believe that the magic works, which is what makes the magic work.

We can sit here and explain away how the magic works however we please, but when you have to write a thesis to state how charisma does in fact represent knowledge using tautology that a Thaumaturge wouldn't be able to read without going dizzy... it loses oomph.

The thaumaturge isn't smart. So it should stop using words to describe them as smart, intuitive, or knowledgeable because they aren't any of those things.

We want to say they trick Magix into working? Fine. They do that but you can't have your cake and eat it too, they aren't both wildly intelligent and knowledgeable and the person who cheats the test.

If you're cheating, it's BECAUSE you don't know.

We can sit here and explain away how the magic works however we please, but when you have to write a thesis to state how charisma does in fact represent knowledge using tautology that a Thaumaturge wouldn't be able to read without going dizzy... it loses oomph.

But you're the one asking for that justification in the first place?

For a lot of people, the class just works and makes sense fine.

They do that but you can't have your cake and eat it too

I mean why not? Like, who are you trying to take a stand against and why?

What does the whole fun police routine do to benefit anyone?

We'll probably have to wait for the final release to nitpick the lore and flavor properly.

Midnightoker wrote:

We can sit here and explain away how the magic works however we please, but when you have to write a thesis to state how charisma does in fact represent knowledge using tautology that a Thaumaturge wouldn't be able to read without going dizzy... it loses oomph.

But you're the one asking for that justification in the first place?

For a lot of people, the class just works and makes sense fine.

Quote:

They do that but you can't have your cake and eat it too

I mean why not? Like, who are you trying to take a stand against and why?

What does the whole fun police routine do to benefit anyone?

You seem to be taking my posts personally, since you've gone with a pejorative. This isn't "the fun police" and it's already been acknowledged in the post that they are moving the emphasis from knowledge to bridging connections.

Frankly, I never asked for an explanation anywhere. I stated intuition is wisdom since cabbage used it as a justification for charisma. It's not charisma, and that's because of what is said in the core rule book.

This is about narrative consistency with paizos own game, and as seen upthread I'm not the only one that feels that way.

I've already said if there is compensation on knowledge skills I'd be satisfied because that explains the knowledge.

But the roundabout "charisma equals knowledge if you squint hard enough" is not what anyone asked for that I can see and I haven't really seen one that even remotely sounds like charisma anyways.

The thaumaturge isn't smart. So it should stop using words to describe them as smart, intuitive, or knowledgeable because they aren't any of those things.

We want to say they trick Magix into working? Fine. They do that but you can't have your cake and eat it too, they aren't both wildly intelligent and knowledgeable and the person who cheats the test.

The PF2 description of the Bard says that they are a scholar, and that they are "a font of knowledge, folktales, legends, and lore". The defining feature of their magic is said to be them learning to "draw upon magic from esoteric knowledge". Bards don't get any unique knowledge-based abilities (other than class feats), or anything along those lines. Charisma has been used in PF2 to describe knowing many things and using that to do magic - just not in the same way that INT has been used. INT in magic is about methodically understanding everything associated with a topic and using that understanding to 'solve' the magic. CHA in magic has been used to represent have a wide-but-shallow understanding of many sorts of stories, not necessarily knowing their details (or even veracity), but using some combination of intuition, guesses, and your force of personality/exerting your will over the universe to draw magic out of this. I'd struggle to name an example of this that isn't based in Occult magic, though - it does seem less intuitive to do the same thing with CHA for someone using arcane magic.

You could definitely say that the Bard running on Charisma and also being a font of knowledge, is that charismatic scholars are more likely to understand the important themes and motivations of a thing versus intelligent scholars who are going to be much better on the detail.

Bards are described as a lot of things and part of their knowledge is skill access, of which they get a lot of as well as bardic lore.

Bard is also based on a class that was previously in editions the jack of all trades.

And when they are scholars, their charisma does not play a single factor at all.

We will see how the end knowledge of thaumaturge is handled, but it's knowledge was charisma based before, which is being scrapped so we already know that's not going to be how it's handled.

The important thing to note is that just because a class is charisma based, doesn't mean it's not knowledgeable. The bard is a good example of that. I think the major weird thing the playtest did was tie charisma directly to recall knowledge, which is hard to rationalize. Without that, the identity is fairly straightforward in my opinion.

The important thing to note is that just because a class is charisma based, doesn't mean it's not knowledgeable. The bard is a good example of that. I think the major weird thing the playtest did was tie charisma directly to recall knowledge, which is hard to rationalize. Without that, the identity is fairly straightforward in my opinion.

Well the biggest factor for thaumaturge is they need physical stats to hit.

A bard can afford another mental since cha works for spells and cantrips, but as is int is a prime dump stat for thaumaturge

aobst128 wrote:

The important thing to note is that just because a class is charisma based, doesn't mean it's not knowledgeable. The bard is a good example of that. I think the major weird thing the playtest did was tie charisma directly to recall knowledge, which is hard to rationalize. Without that, the identity is fairly straightforward in my opinion.

Well the biggest factor for thaumaturge is they need physical stats to hit.

A bard can afford another mental, as is int is a prime dump stat for thaumaturge

I meant in terms of flavor, not balance. Maybe they'll do something like the investigators das, but I doubt it.

Midnightoker wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

The important thing to note is that just because a class is charisma based, doesn't mean it's not knowledgeable. The bard is a good example of that. I think the major weird thing the playtest did was tie charisma directly to recall knowledge, which is hard to rationalize. Without that, the identity is fairly straightforward in my opinion.

Well the biggest factor for thaumaturge is they need physical stats to hit.

A bard can afford another mental, as is int is a prime dump stat for thaumaturge

I meant in terms of flavor, not balance. Maybe they'll do something like the investigators das, but I doubt it.

If cha gets to be to hit when connections are forged, I'll be completely at ease. Wis/int will be easy secondaries to grab and I won't have to sacrifice anything.

Especially considering a sickly weak clumsy thaumaturge can then still kick ass which is very on brand IMO

Bards are described as a lot of things and part of their knowledge is skill access, of which they get a lot of as well as bardic lore.

Bard is also based on a class that was previously in editions the jack of all trades.

And when they are scholars, their charisma does not play a single factor at all.

We will see how the end knowledge of thaumaturge is handled, but it's knowledge was charisma based before, which is being scrapped so we already know that's not going to be how it's handled.

Bards have less skill access than the playtest Thaumaturge - the Thaumaturge gets more skill increases, and also gets a bardic lore-equivalent. I'd argue their charisma does play a factor in their knowledge - their magic is explicitly described as relying on their esoteric knowledge, and CHA is their spellcasting stat. That being said, I think the biggest issue for the playtest thaumaturge being knowledgeable and that knowledge being cha-influenced is (as aobst128 mentioned), that it was directly tied to Recall Knowledge. Having CHA-based Recall Knowledge felt strange thematically, and felt like a patch to keep the concept CHA-based mechanically. Keeping the recall knowledge as an option (with the feat to forge a connection and make a recall knowledge check at the same time), but keeping it WIS/INT based and making it optional is a good call, I think. I don't think there's much of a thematic dissonance in saying "the thaumaturge has learnt about magical stories from all over Golarion, and uses knowledge from those stories to hack magic through their force of personality and understanding the themes and messages of the stories over a literal understanding of what happens". However, they shouldn't be using their CHA to directly recall knowledge IMO - it works against the ineffable nature of how CHA has been used in these sorts of situations before, and also just feels strange mechanically and thematically.

For the record, we agree. My only issue is dwarf doesn't mesh with thaumaturge and RK didn't make sense with CHA. One of those is getting fixed.

And if you read the bard, there's a lot more mentions of their use of force of personality than the flavor text for the playtest thaumaturge and a lot of wis/int words are used for thaumaturge in the flavor text.

Cha isn't collecting stories either, that's memory, which is wisdom. Charisma isn't knowledge that's just not what it is, not in the rulebook anyways. Are we gonna argue sorcerer is knowledgeable too?

If a thaumaturge has knowledge it will be because they are a thaumaturge, not because they have charisma.

I could also see a case for Charisma as "emotional intelligence" which is probably useful when dealing with magic in a raw form.

I could also see a case for Charisma as "emotional intelligence" which is probably useful when dealing with magic in a raw form.

Sense motive is a perception based action which is wisdom based.

You might be able to make such an argument, but mechanically pf2 has it defined as reading a person.

Being able to get others to respond to your whims is still force of personality and I'd argue knowing how to be diplomatic is the training itself which is then INT.

- the fun police

I feel bad for Thaumaturge fans; as a Psychic girl, it sounds like I’m getting almost all of what I wanted. I hope y’all can enjoy the final version of your class, too.

Devise a Stratagem on the investigator is precedent for classes having a stat substitution under certain conditions, and they've already floated "Cha to Will" in a GMG variant rule. Doing something like this would probably be a less dramatic than "Int to Hit" that the Investigator has.

I feel bad for Thaumaturge fans; as a Psychic girl, it sounds like I’m getting almost all of what I wanted. I hope y’all can enjoy the final version of your class, too.

I love the psychic. Mark has said quite a bit in this post that seems like the jury isn't out on knowledge being on the table, the shape of which we just don't know yet.

If this is the first class mark makes that I don't like at completion I'd be surprised. Cha at the center is fine, it totally makes sense for the implements and the bridging of connections. Just a smidge of compensation so the cognitive abilities can work and you can actually afford cha skills and I think both camps will be happy.

It's far from decided, and in fact I don't really see it being 100% all CHA focused class because that's not even how its written now with CHA being at the center. They get 4 knowledge for free, a knowledge skill feat, and cha to knowledge checks. I'm sure they aren't just going to decouple EA/FF from RK and leave the other half of the themes in the class to drown.

Devise a Stratagem on the investigator is precedent for classes having a stat substitution under certain conditions, and they've already floated "Cha to Will" in a GMG variant rule. Doing something like this would probably be a less dramatic than "Int to Hit" that the Investigator has.

The more I think about the more I'm going to be surprised if bridging doesn't involve CHA to hit.

Will it be kinda on the strong side? Yes but considering their damage is mostly weaknesses anyways, I think it sort of works (critical don't double weakness so no risk there).

I'm happy for theses changes and additions.

That is all.

keftiu wrote:

I feel bad for Thaumaturge fans; as a Psychic girl, it sounds like I’m getting almost all of what I wanted. I hope y’all can enjoy the final version of your class, too.

I love the psychic. Mark has said quite a bit in this post that seems like the jury isn't out on knowledge being on the table, the shape of which we just don't know yet.

If this is the first class mark makes that I don't like at completion I'd be surprised. Cha at the center is fine, it totally makes sense for the implements and the bridging of connections. Just a smidge of compensation so the cognitive abilities can work and you can actually afford cha skills and I think both camps will be happy.

It's far from decided, and in fact I don't really see it being 100% all CHA focused class because that's not even how its written now with CHA being at the center. They get 4 knowledge for free, a knowledge skill feat, and cha to knowledge checks. I'm sure they aren't just going to decouple EA/FF from RK and leave the other half of the themes in the class to drown.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Devise a Stratagem on the investigator is precedent for classes having a stat substitution under certain conditions, and they've already floated "Cha to Will" in a GMG variant rule. Doing something like this would probably be a less dramatic than "Int to Hit" that the Investigator has.

The more I think about the more I'm going to be surprised if bridging doesn't involve CHA to hit.

Will it be kinda on the strong side? Yes but considering their damage is mostly weaknesses anyways, I think it sort of works (critical don't double weakness so no risk there).

I think It might actually reduce your damage output if it works like das. Since you could realistically only make one good attack per round like the investigator. But what it would do is allow your stats and skills to be more flexible. A decent trade in my book

I feel bad for Thaumaturge fans; as a Psychic girl, it sounds like I’m getting almost all of what I wanted. I hope y’all can enjoy the final version of your class, too.

I'm sure it will turn out good. From what they've put here, sounds like the major concerns are being addressed.

I feel bad for Thaumaturge fans; as a Psychic girl, it sounds like I’m getting almost all of what I wanted. I hope y’all can enjoy the final version of your class, too.

For what it's worth, the Thaumaturge was one of the playtest classes I've been most interested in, and I'm happy with almost all of the changes they've detailed. I'm very much looking forward to the final release of the class, and will likely be updating the playtest thaumaturge with some of these listed changes and playing one until the final version is out! :)

You could definitely say that the Bard running on Charisma and also being a font of knowledge, is that charismatic scholars are more likely to understand the important themes and motivations of a thing versus intelligent scholars who are going to be much better on the detail.

This idea seems strange to me. Understanding motivation is either "emotional intelligence" which feels like wisdom in this game, or being a psychoanalyst which feels like intelligence. As for themes, well delving into themes, allegory, symbolism, semiotics even, are all intellectual processes. Dissecting art is an academic process. I think the problem here lies in the tradition of the bard being a charisma class because of it's performance, and in moving away from being a rogue archetype into a full caster it's reliance on charisma feels stranger and stranger. At least, to me. I think the assumption at some point in design for 3.x or maybe even earlier is that a bard would use int and cha for different parts of their theme. Since knowledge skills still work off int in 3.x, and in 2e it seems nature and religion are wisdom so that druids and clerics can excel at their knowledge category where in the previous edition wizards, or bards, were better at religion rolls lmao. Fitting in my opinion, because I see wizards as theologians and esotericists of sorts since kabbalah is the source of the modern image of the wizard... But this is off topic...

I suspect that if charisma is not doing recall knowledge anymore, that the new knowledge implement (likely the tome), will give a sizable buff to recall knowledge similar to outwit rangers, +2 and +4 at higher levels to help offset the madness of the class.

One question arises from this: when forging a connection as a Thaumaturge, what's actually forming the basis for the check?

A class DC-10 check? Or a CHA-based skill check?

The difference between these two is very significant. The former likely caps out at Master with no bonuses, while the latter can hit legendary (and faster) and get item bonuses (and potentially status bonuses) as well, representing at least a 4 or 5 point difference in modifier.

One question arises from this: when forging a connection as a Thaumaturge, what's actually forming the basis for the check?

A class DC-10 check? Or a CHA-based skill check?

The difference between these two is very significant. The former likely caps out at Master with no bonuses, while the latter can hit legendary (and faster) and get item bonuses (and potentially status bonuses) as well, representing at least a 4 or 5 point difference in modifier.

If it were straight up negotiated as an attack roll with additional effects, then it would be splitting the difference with potency and standard martial progression.

I like the creature echo feats. I hope there are quite a few rather than just a handful. I’d like one that I can give to my player that died from the sea Hag special ability. Because I am still really annoyed that this happened to them!

Although our game could well be mostly done by then!

One question arises from this: when forging a connection as a Thaumaturge, what's actually forming the basis for the check?

A class DC-10 check? Or a CHA-based skill check?

The difference between these two is very significant. The former likely caps out at Master with no bonuses, while the latter can hit legendary (and faster) and get item bonuses (and potentially status bonuses) as well, representing at least a 4 or 5 point difference in modifier.

My preference would be either class DC-10, or even just a flat check.

Another benefit to moving away from recall knowledge is that you can set the DC to whatever the heck they want, ignoring rarity and other RK modifiers.

I also hope that Thaums get legendary class DC though. It would help the MADness at the top end. Maybe if they drop the free skill bumps (somewhat unneeded now) there’s room in the class budget for the additional class DC bump.

What do folks think about it being a will save vs class DC? Especially for debuffs type effects?

I guess it depends on the fluf for what makes the most sense. If I'm using my connection to divine the weakness or if I'm using it to create the weakness.

Like does the connection tell me the creature is weak to something or will be sickened by it or is th connection creating the weakness.

With all this, I am eagerly looking forward to Dark Archives' publication.

The psychic sounds like it will be more fun. I really hope we see more flexibility in how psychics access unleash options so that they can be tailored to define the way the personality of the psychic operates.

The thaumaturge sounds better, too, though I am holding my breath a little to see how forge a connection is finalized. I hope it doesn't demands much improvisation; or, rather, I hope the improvisation it demands is very structured. A frequent, core power that constantly demands freestyle improvisation about causality in the world seems like it could quickly veer into the sort of silliness that would weaken the narrative coherence of a campaign.

I like pact feats being broadly available; I would have almost certainly had use for that in the game I'm running now. I also wonder if they might be the sort of thing that a witch could use to build out their patron relationship in a more concrete fashion.

(I really want a thaumaturge class that, with a witch archetype and a couple pact feats with the fey, will allow me to fulfill my super-witchy witch fantasies in PF2. Forge connections sounds like it might be perfect for that--I'm crossing my fingers.)

I feel bad for Thaumaturge fans; as a Psychic girl, it sounds like I’m getting almost all of what I wanted. I hope y’all can enjoy the final version of your class, too.

Meanwhile I’m the reverse; the aspects I most liked about the psychic are going away, while the Thaum is getting fixed up in almost exactly the way I’d prefer (pending final mechanics on forge connection). Some minor reflavoring (which I can handle table side), I feel like this is going to be the class I wanted it to be.

If I gave an impression otherwise, I apologize for being unclear.

I also hope that Thaums get legendary class DC though. It would help the MADness at the top end. Maybe if they drop the free skill bumps (somewhat unneeded now) there’s room in the class budget for the additional class DC bump.

I think you mentioned this earlier and I wanted to say I agree. I thought about bringing it up during the playtest but thought, "Nah....no other class gets anything like that (other than spellcasters with spells). Why would the Thaumaturge? Why bother bringing it up?" Now I kinda regret not suggesting it. Lol.

One of the most common complaints I heard about the Thaumaturge (once you got past the issue of numbers at least) was that despite all of their esoteric flavor and themes they really boiled down to Just Another Single Target Martial Striker.

Legendary Class DC + alternative Forge Connections + Implement skills + Plenty of feats that give you debuffs/buffs/atypical abilities/aoe damage would be an amazing way of making them stand out more while also emphasizing their magical weirdness while also exploring design space that frankly just is not fleshed out enough in PF2.

I really like how the Inventor has a bunch of unique abilities they can pick up and I'd love to see the Thaumaturge run even more wild with that.

I love the thaumaturge, excited to see where it goes and would love to see legendary class dc.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

I also hope that Thaums get legendary class DC though. It would help the MADness at the top end. Maybe if they drop the free skill bumps (somewhat unneeded now) there’s room in the class budget for the additional class DC bump.

I think you mentioned this earlier and I wanted to say I agree. I thought about bringing it up during the playtest but thought, "Nah....no other class gets anything like that (other than spellcasters with spells). Why would the Thaumaturge? Why bother bringing it up?" Now I kinda regret not suggesting it. Lol.

Better now than never! Design doesn’t sound like it’s finalized, so there’s probably at least a couple more weeks to bend their ear.

Whether that fits with what they want to do, I’ve no clue, but it certainly be something that would make it stand out.

Perhaps they'll tie it to something other than class DC, such as a defined Esoteric Lore skill in the base class (should they keep some of the same flavor) or Perception (using CHA instead of WIS) since that also scales with classes naturally.

Class DCs just scale very awkwardly since they're both slow to progress and don't get item bonuses, so when targeted against the same DCs or statistics as other abilities, they fall behind.

A good comparison for this is just Demoralize/StD vs Spell DC vs Class DC all against a creature's Will save. That range, especially at higher levels, is enormous. At 15th level you can have Legendary + Item bonuses vs Master vs Expert against the same defense, which makes those rather tricky to balance.

It occurs to me that a big part of the problem here is that we all seem to disagree on what the boundaries between charisma and the other mental stats actually are.

Like someone said Charisma can't be Will because Wisdom is Will, but Sorcerers have been fueling their Willpower magic with Charisma for over two decades at this point.

Someone said knowledge is Intelligence, and memory is Wisdom, but Bards have oral traditions and esoteric scholarly lore written all over them and use Charisma.

My sense is that it intersects with both offensive willpower (the ability to project one's force of personality) and one's... creative intelligence? Like what you use to draw connections when discussing literature, or synthesize your influences to create something new, or feel something so completely you can understand it and project it outwards.

Its your 'sentiment' and strength of feeling, to borrow a term from the Tale of Genji.