Jedi Maester's page

I didn't see a thread on the Remaster Investigator, so I thought I'd make one! I know this wasn't one of the classes mentioned to get a significant overhaul, but I'm curious what everyone else is hoping to see for this class in the remaster.

My hope is to see the narrative scope of the class broadened. Compared to other classes, detective is incredibly narrow flavor to build a class around. I'd love to see the class branch into archetypes (not the mechanic) that have yet to really be covered. I'd love to see the addition of these methodologies: archaeologist and cryptologist. With this broadening, it would be neat to see Devise a Stratagem work in different ways for either method.

Archaeologist could have it behave more like an Indy Ploy that feels more improvisational. Something that is less Sherlock and predicting outcomes, but more like gambling.

During the Thaumaturge playtest, a few people wanted a character that uses intelligence to actually know about weaknesses. I think the cryptologist would be an excellent subclass to see that flavor realized. Their Stratagem could revolve identifying creatures and helping the party to exploit their weaknesses. A Thaumaturge that does spend all day in books but lacks that ability to create weaknesses. A very book accurate Van Helsing.

Well, let me say this. The 1e witch was my favorite class along with the wizard. My favorite thing about the which was their hexes which were at will supernatural abilities(which did not count as magic for the purposes of spell resistance) that allowed you to be a master debuffer combined with their cackle ability which sustained them. I liked that this was part of the full caster chassis. They traded a slightly worse spell list and a spell slot for the hexes in 1e. Wizard was baseline 5 and witch was baseline 4. I would be willing to go psychic style with 2 slots instead of three for massively improved at-will debuff and support capabilities, however I would prefer the witch be what it is now with better focus spells and focus cantrips but also 4 spell slots. Which should be just as good as the wizard or sorcerer. I do not, at all, want a "familiar specialist" at all ever. It's not why I loved the 1e witch, it is not why I was excited for the new witch and it isn't why I asked paizo in the playtest to make some of the focus spells into focus cantrips. To me the witch should be a support caster with a focus on debuffs and a secondary focus on protection and healing. Cackle in this edition sustaining *all spells* at once is awesome. Witch is the only class that can sustain multiple spells simultaneously given the focus points. It is precisely this feature I want developed for the class to turn it into a proper successor to the 1e version, sell the class fantasy and give it a unique identity

While the familiar is neat, I agree that this shouldn't be THE pet class. The idea of a witch is essentially you are cheating. Instead of studying for years in a school or being subservient to a deity or nature, you make a deal to cast spells yourself. And your familiar is just the cheat sheet your patron gives you. You are so good at cheating the system, you can learn divine spells without even needing to worship the divine! Cackle is a great example of this, but I'd love to see more ways the witch can cheat the system. Maybe learning spells from other traditions? Hexs as powers outside of the well known spells available to others? As much this as possible.

Also, I do admit bias in this. I want an aberration book... especially if they can fit a delicious new aberration-based class into it.

Yes! I would love a class around hosting an aberrant parasite!

In order to encourage staying sheathed, I could see the class granting different options if you roll initiative while your weapon is sheathed. So you could do the classic stare down with a free demoralize option when you roll initiative with your weapon sheathed. Things like that.

I think a reload weapon options would be great to tie together the thematic similarities between the Samurai and Gunslinger from their respective films.

I do think that both sheathed and unsheathed should have their own benefits though; I've noticed that a lot of people complain about classes that have action taxes to do their cool thing, so I feel with the class being modal, but each mode is interesting would be more satisfying. Making use of open for a lot unsheathing techniques, and press for sheathing techniques might encourage this flow between states while making each state feel powerful.

I think you are correct in that the objective should be about making both modes interesting in their respective modes of play. They need to both be useful, but different from each other so that the contrast is interesting. A reason the player wants to "ebb and flow."

Now, like I said before, my objection to naming a class or archetype "samurai" is because terms with mechanics attached become loaded in definition, so once one, mechanically, becomes a Samurai, the other cannot be a Samurai; which is why I propose the name kensei, a term thats loaded with mysticism.

Most people itching for a class want there to be mechanics for sheathing and unsheathing. While I've seen swashbulker's panache system mentioned, I actually feel like a slightly different approach is better; having cool moves you can do with your sword sheathed, and cool moves you can do with it drawn; but cause you to sheathe your sword. A (really) rough set of example feats:

Kensei Dedication
You gain quick draw with one group of weapons. If you have Attack of Opportunity, Retributive Strike, or a similar reaction that allows you to strike, you may draw a weapon from the chosen group as a free action before making that reaction's strike....

I understand the issue with the class name, though I think that's probably already true for other classes. Like introducing an NPC as a bard that is just a plain bard with no magic. Or a more western style religious monk instead of the warrior monk class. I'm not attached to naming the class Samurai, but I think it wouldn't be hard to differentiate the profession from the class in game if that's how things went.

I like your idea for how feats could work! One set of feats work with a sheathed weapon and the other set works with an unsheathed weapon. You pick between the two pools of feats, letting you dance back and forth between different abilities. I would love to see this fleshed out as a full class and not a dedication though. I wonder what class possible class paths this could branch into.

That's actually incomparable. Swashbucklers in media actually have distinctly different fighting styles than rogues in media; a distinct class absolutely makes sense.

I very much beg to differ. Back before the Swashbuckler existed in 1E, the Rogue has filled this niche since I have been playing (3.5). During the playtest, I made a very swashbuckling fighter using the Rogue multiclass. I would say the difference between him and the Swashbuckler are about the same as what others have been describing between the fighter and what they want from a Samurai.

You can still do that with the Quick Draw feat, so...mission accomplished.

Not quite. People want a reason to keep their weapon sheathed until they attack. This feat lets them do so in an emergency, but it is almost always more effective to just already have your weapon drawn so you can do more effective attacks, like power attack and swipe. As it is, quick draw only lets you make a normal strike. People want a mechanical reason to walk around with their weapon sheathed that doesn't purposefully hinder their ability to contribute.

I like the idea of a sort of inverse panache. Where panache is gained by doing something cool, what about gaining something like "focus" whenever you do nothing while your sword is sheathed. Like panache, you then enter a state where you get cool bonuses to things like defense and intimidate. And you can then spend your focus on a powerful attack that includes drawing your sword. Then you need to spend time to sheath to regain focus. Feats could build off of this allowing for drawing into multiple attacks and such. This encourages the feeling of letting your opponents come at you and punishing them severely for it.

I think something to consider is that if guns are made more useable themselves, then gunslinger needs a new niche. If any class can use guns, then most of the gunslinger's mechanics of making guns useful becomes much less useful themselves. Honestly, I'm all for this.

Thinking about the thematic disconnects, I see a few different gun using fantasies in media: pirate, cowboy, hunter, the matrix, and inventor. I really think these are distinct enough that if guns were more viable on their own, they could be more readily distributed between different classes, like swashbuckler, ranger, rogue, monk, and inventor.

But then what does the gunslinger do that is unique if everyone can use guns? I'd be curious what people would want to see from a gunslinger that needs to do more than just bring guns up to competent. Personally, I'd design a class around drawing weapons. So we get a unique class around quick drawing guns, katanas, anything. Essentially an inverse to panache, where you gain power by standing still and being stoic, before exploding with quick and efficient actions.

I'm just not sure how you run "I am a mind-controlling parasite who is infesting a human" and have them not be strongly biased towards evil.

What if it just needed dead bodies? You could play one that doesn't kill, it just uses the already dead.

Mostly, I look at the spaces yet left to fill, and I'm just not sure what would be enough.

Aberrations + Darklands?

I want reasonable reload weapon support for anyone that isn't the gunslinger, i.e. reload feats. And by reasonable I mean as a level 1 class feat and/or level 2 archetype dedication feat. Currently, the first available one is Running Reload at level 4 (!) for the ranger or 6 via archetypes. For what is essentially basic functionality, that is absurd.

My group wants to do an all-rogues-party for a low-level homebrew adventure, so I'm strongly considering Mastermind (with some adjustments for balance) to cover the ranged problems of my friends. A crossbow would fit very well narratively, but I'm pretty much discouraged from using it for mechanical reasons. Ofc, I'm gonna do it anyway, but that is still rather annoying.

Yes, please! Classes that need to have some form of decent reload weapon support (outside of gunslinger): Alchemist, Fighter, Inventor, Investigator, Magus, Rogue, and Swashbuckler!

All this investigator talk has me wanting a few new methodologies for them:

An archaeologist methodology that can be built more around exploration. More tools for dealing with traps, finding hidden places, and maneuvering through dangerous terrain. This could probably be handled with just an Empiricist with some new feats, but I'd be curious what could be done to make something unique here that feels closer to Indiana Jones than Sherlock.

A monster hunter methodology that is more akin to Van Helsing. I know many wanted an Int based Thaumaturge, but I think this would actually be a better fit. It'd be nice to have some way for the investigator to learn monster weakness, and then have access to triggering them. It wouldn't be as strong as the Thaumaturge as it can't make a new weakness when there isn't one. But a way to use intelligence to know and trigger weaknesses would be a cool niche.

Following with dark archive classes, a psychic investigator. This is a classic trope that I think would be a fun build. Maybe something similar to the Eldritch Trickster that gives you the psychic dedication? Or something more specific to the investigator like the chemist methodology (as compared to just getting the alchemist dedication).

I think these could really round out the investigator so it isn't as pigeon holed into just different shades of Sherlock.

This "unsheathe style" is actually what I wanted the Gunslinger to be: link.

I love how similar samurai and western movies are and thought it would be a cool way to keep the gunslinger less weapon specific. My thought was that sheathing would be the equivalent to reloading (needing an action in between attacks) so a unique gameplay loop would be able to encompass both. Based on the polls, it looks like I was in the minority.

I still dream about a Guns and Gears with the above class so that firearm mechanics could be easily shared with all classes without encroaching on the Gunslinger's niche.

If I wanted low level mythic, I'd want something akin to superheroes. The two I have in mind are: a really powerful single ability, or a panic button that upgrades everything.

For really powerful single ability, I could see something like at will invisibility, time manipulation, or super strength. It's enough to redefine your build, but your class still has an impact. Especially when your abilities don't come into play.

For the panic button, it'd need to be a last ditch effort with consequences, but would be ridiculous when used. Something capable of really fighting high level stuff, but limited by use number. That way, you're still mostly defined by your class, until you press the button.

I could see these using the archetype system to play on top of your class.

Jedi Maester wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Jedi Maester wrote:

That would be great for the alternate personality being another creature, I just hope they also include an alchemist version for the mad scientists out there!

Please tread at least a little carefully with the "evil alternate personality" trope. Lots of people out there have DID or other conditions that get stereotyped as making them dangerous, and they're real human beings, even if Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a classic.

Good point! Thank you for the suggestion!

Thank you for being so receptive! I've got quite a few loved ones who deal with psychosis, so it's a pet cause of mine - I really, really appreciate it.

No problem. Outside of your very valid point, it also opens up the plethora of possibilities for any kind of alignment situations! I would never call neither Banner nor the Hulk evil, and they should definitely be included within this concept.

Jedi Maester wrote:

That would be great for the alternate personality being another creature, I just hope they also include an alchemist version for the mad scientists out there!

Please tread at least a little carefully with the "evil alternate personality" trope. Lots of people out there have DID or other conditions that get stereotyped as making them dangerous, and they're real human beings, even if Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a classic.

Good point! Thank you for the suggestion!

A few things I'd like to see:

I want an option that lets me play similar to the final fight in the first PotC movie. Particularly Jack's style. So a lot of sword play, and then finishing with a strong, single gun shot. I think this could be replicated with a Swashbuckler feat that lets you perform a finisher with a one handed range weapon? The focus would still be on sword play most of the time using it as a set up for the gun. The reason I don't think the Drifter Gunslinger quite does this for me is because it is more 50/50 on sword and gun. I'd like to use the gun so little that the need to reload isn't an issue, a bandolier with multiple guns would work fine. And I want the panache mechanic so that the gun needs a set up, forcing me into sword combat for general fighting.

I know this is probably on a lot of lists, but a mechanical way to play essentially two characters that swap between one body. Looking at Jekyll/Hyde, Banner/Hulk, etc. I know the mutagenist exists, but I want a more extreme character swap. A completely different play style with new strengths and weaknesses. I want to feel like I'm a different person, with even a new alignment. I know it's suggested to take the barbarian dedication on alchemist, but then my scientist side would also have barbarian abilities. I'd like to see the two personalities more segregated. I'd be happy with just focusing this as an alchemist option, but opening this up to an archetype with more mixing and matching would allow something closer to the movie Split, which would be pretty cool.

I know living vessel is an archetype, but I really want to see it as a full class with way more options. I think the idea is way too awesome to not be available as the main aspect of your character. I'm expanding this to be any situation where your primary abilities are through another creature that is some how connected you your body. Inspiration to me comes from Blue Beetle from Young Justice (just replace the technology with magic.) I think this would be best as a bounded caster/gish. So you can emphasize body transformation as a martial or channeling spells from the entity. Maybe this could be done as a summoner, but I don't want this to be full body swapping like above. More a constant push and pull between the two about how much control you are willing to give the entity. Like letting it give you a tentacle arm, but still keeping the rest of you you.

I know it's from a TTRPG, but it isn't in PF1 so maybe that's okay? It's the Beguiler from 3.5! You can get kind of close by taking rogue dedication on a wizard, but it's missing my favorite mechanic: your spell DCs are higher when you target a flat-footed opponent! It was so fun to play like a rogue, trying to set up your opponents up, but then hit them with debuff instead of just straight damage. And with PF2's multiple success levels, I think this would be even cooler!

There are others for sure, but these are at the top of my head right now.

Currently running a game where I'm having to home-brew laser guns. Clamoring for a technology guide ASAP!

I hope Drow are their own ancestry so we can get a half-Drow human heritage. That's what I'm mostly interested in.

A half-drow bodyguard (drifter gunslinger for full rapier + hand crossbow) to her matron, trusted because her half-blood meant she could never gain the throne herself. Then her half sister assassinates their matron and takes over the throne. Given a death sentence to clear out those loyal to the old matron, she is on the run seeking vengeance against her sister.

I know people want some big event to explain a change in why they are now playable, but I don't think it's necessary. If this was the core rule book, then like goblins you'd need something as the expectation would be that not evil Sekmin are common. But if made a rare ancestry in a side book with an explanation that this would be extremely uncommon, I see no reason not to let them be playable as is. I don't need 10% of them to be different, just one. That uniqueness in itself is part of the fun.

I'd love to see Black Blood return in an Aberration book. Good place to cover the Dominion of the Black a bit as well. An in depth look at Alghollthu seems like a given. In fact, I feel like an Aberration book would likely focus on examining some of the more major abberant creatures found on Golarion and have player facing options that stem from them or are good to combat them.

If Neothelids are included, yes please! I've always been fascinated by the brief mentions of the ancient war between the Alghollthu and Neothelids. Would love a book that fleshes out both with other aberrations.

Just wanted to add another voice asking for Darklands ancestries! Would love a Lost Omens: Darklands book!

Squiggit wrote:

The original D&D axis was basically LG to CE as a straight line and it kind of shows, with how a lot of CN characters are CE light or how LE often feels more like NE with a different paint job.

That said I think you're overstating a few things. Proteans specifically dislike purely destructive acts of Chaos, it's why they're considered enemies of demons, qlippoths and don't get along well with hunduns.

Quote:

And I have never understood the association with chaos and entropy

I mean, entropy is the break down of ordered systems into disorder. That's literally what the word means.

Technically true, although what people might think of as ordered and disordered might not match up so it can lead to incorrect conclusions at time.

For example, one day our universe will reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium which will also be a state of maximum entropy in which the heat energy of the universe will be evenly distributed through everywhere.

Personally, I find the concept of the equilibrium state to be very orderly, so the words to describe it breakdown for me on a personal level.

Anyways, you have an accurate description.

I actually agree with this. From a physics perspective, entropy is a result of statistics from high sample size systems. For instance, imagine a room where all the air is on one side and a vacuum is on the other. Entropy is increased by the even spreading out of the air through the room.

If you ask me, any situation where the air clumps at specific points in the room would be chaotic in nature. It's unpredictable and not uniform. But that reduces the entropy. Only in the most uniform spreading of the air is entropy maximized. That seems more lawful to me.

Though maybe the lesson learned here is that when chaos is too great, the randomness averages out and suddenly becomes lawful.

I assume I'm in the minority because the polls went a different way, but I really don't like the Gunslinger as it's own class. I love the feats, I love the ways, I even (mostly) love the firearm mechanics themselves. I just wish they weren't gated behind a class. I was really hoping that GnG would bring firearm/crossbow mechanics to every class. I'd love for sniper mechanics to be available with ranger's hunt prey or rogues sneak attack. I'd love to see how the drifter mechanics could interact with Swashbuckler's panache. And so on. Kind of like how many classes have access to similar TWF feats to build unique options with that fighting style for different classes.

I also really liked the idea of a more generic drifter class that could use many weapons and worked with its own unique combat system. Midnightoker's Wanderer is much closer to my wish. Especially because we then get some nice Samurai fantasy as well instead of waiting for another dedicated class.

In total what I wanted was: A class with some unique design space specifically for guns but not restricted to ranged weapons, and feats/class paths for integrating firearms into different classes.

I'm particular feeling this right now because I'm about to GM a campaign taking place in a more Wild West setting. As such, advanced firearms are more common. But there is a pressure on some players to all take Gunslinger to have access to different shooting feats. The inventor, the rogue, the fighter, all my martials (except the monk) want access to certain gun feats on Gunslinger. I know they can take the archetype, but it feels like it shouldn't be necessary. They'd rather take more flavorful archetypes than something that feels required for them.

We haven't actually started yet, so maybe it will all work out! Just wanted to vent on my current struggle.

"So much of the world does not make sense. The weight of one's sins does nothing to us here in the mortal world, but they are heavy enough to drag a soul to the wastes of Abaddon. The fey, endless and undying in the First World, are weighted by the heavy chains of mortality when they walk in our lands, but they feel no difference at all. I do not impose my will upon the world, as a mage would- I merely remind it of the underlying poetry that could be there. At times, the world chooses to listen."

This makes me want to play them as a bard. A part of me wonders if stronger connection between the two would be beneficial. Like the Cleric and Champion mentioned above. The bard focuses exclusive on the poetry, making many connections. The Thaumaturge is a much more focused on the stories used to fight. Hence the focus on weaknesses.

A lot of the sympathetic ideas used for the Thaumaturge sound so much like a bard, I wonder if they could resonate with each other.

Magic can come in any forms, magic items, staves, dragons breath weapons, spell slots, focus spells, cantrips, various feats that are, Magical abilities, champion reactions etc. The thaumaturge is using magic in a new way, that does not mean it is not magical. It focuses on sympathetic magic and dabbling across the traditions of magic. The ability to dabble between all four would be difficult to do in 2e. And the fluff of a magic user doing strange esoteric things outside the usual bounds of spells is fun.

Also its simple, as to why they can't cast spells via spell slots, thats not the Thaumaturge magic works, unless they spec into it. They can learn how to use scrolls, and do rituals, and can pick up archetypes. But the base concept of a Thaumaturge uses a different form of magic.

Why cant champions cast spells via slots, they are blessed by their gods.

I'm not saying it shouldn't work this way, it's just that all the flavor I've heard for it is so broad I wonder why the application is so limited. If it's all about finding/creating and using hidden connections, I'd like to see that completely fleshed out beyond just enemy weaknesses. That opens up so many possibilities, a spell list starts to seem like a natural fit.

I think the Champion and Cleric are great examples. The cleric has a more versatile relationship with their deity, they ask for a variety of affects. As such, the spell list makes sense. The champion has a singular purpose, fighting evil. As such, their deity blesses them with much more narrow, combat oriented abilities. I don't disagree that the Thaumaturge feels like a champion in this regard. But then I want to see the class that drops the combat focus and goes all in on the underlying connections between everything. I can't help but wonder how that class would look. And if it isn't coming, then I'd like at least a little reasoning why Thaumaturge magic is more limiting compared to the others. Just my thoughts. I'm excited for the final version regardless!

notXanathar wrote:

I'm going to bring it up again: I don't see why, if the fantasy of being a thaumaturge is being able to trick the universe into doing what you want, the thaumaturge is not a spell caster. That is literally the definition of what spell casting is (for whatever variation on the method). The charisma thaumaturge was a mistake, it should have been wisdom or maybe intelligence from the get go. There is a space for the class described, but it doesn't even come close to aligning with the mechanics for the thaumaturge.

Spellcasting isn't tricking the universe into doing your bidding, though. It is a highly regimented and documented process that people have written in-universe books about.

For a wizard. This would be much more comparable to a bard, and tricking the universe falls well within their purview. I have a similar question about why they can't cast spells, and I hope the final write-up of the class addresses this.

Short Level 1 Thaumaturge playtest

My playtest was fairly short, but there is one unique aspect to it. As the game took place in modern England, I actually tried to build it as close to my understanding of Constantine as I could.

So I got to playtest the Thaumaturge in a very unique setting: modern England. As such I decided to see how much like Constantine I could build.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level 1 Thaumaturge
Human Changeling (Moon May)
Str 10 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 10 Cha 18
Implement: Wand
Class Feats: Esoteric Lore
Party: Time Traveler Summoner with a Dragon, A modern day Investigator

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So Changeling to get some innate magicness, and wand to focus more on ranged attacks. Because Constantine is an investigator of sorts, I maxed Cha and Int as much as I could.

The game started with a lot of RP, which was fun. I accidentally resurrected Morgan le Fey into modern England by stealing her wand. Good stuff. Esoteric Lore was really fun here, just randomly getting to know all kinds of things. I was glad to have pushed Int so high. At low level with high Int, I was trained in a good number of skills without worrying about skill increases. So I had lots of utility here, but I know that would be different at higher levels.

Combat started when she sent 6 zombies to retrieve Excalibur from the sorcerer. The summoner and investigator tanked while I stayed back with my wand. The wand implement was nice as basic saves meant I did damage every turn. However, as Esoteric Antithesis has no interaction outside of a weapon, and my Str and Dex are fairly low, I had no incentive to use it. Which was a shame, because that meant I also had no reason to use Find Flaws. So while I was doing consistent damage, it was fairly low (I rolled 1 for damage 3 times). It would be nice to combine the Wand with EA for at least some way to nova occasionally. Or add debuffs as others have suggested.

We almost lost the fight, mostly due to the investigator and me RPing a little too much, but squeaked a win. We probably won't get to play again before the playtest ends, so this is probably all I'll have to report.

This confuses me too. The spell casting system was designed specifically to unify the rules for all forms of reality bending. If this class is going to bend reality by creating new weaknesses, I struggle to understand why it isn't a spell caster.

So my personal preference is to remove the sympathetic magic-lite stuff from FF/EA so that the class can't make new weaknesses. Let the class focus more on the using magic without being magical: items, pacts, runes, etc.

But then build another new class that fully pushes the sympathetic magic angle. Give it spell casting and all kinds of ways to make connections between mundane items.

I want the first class more, so that's what I'd like to see here. But I'm perfectly happy to have the second one first. Either way, I hope both ideas get the full exploration they deserve.

My approach would have been something like this...

If we are changing Find Flaws to represent each attribute, I also hope that Esoteric Antithesis can be adjusted to fit more than one play style. I'd really like to play this class less dependent on a weapon. When I think Constantine, I don't see him swinging a sword but pulling out some relic from his coat that damages/traps/banishes his opponent. I've seen suggested that implements could adjust how EA works, which I think would be nice as well. Wand for a ranged attack. Maybe chalice can buff your allies to fight better, like an alchemist? Idk. But I wonder if there is room for both FF and EA to have multiple variations to mix and match?

You just can't bluff with an empty gun.

You just gotta ask yourself one question. "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

I think the fact that the observation you've made is "If it wasn't required I'd probably dump CHA!" pretty much sums up exactly why I don't see why it exists in the Class at all.

It's literally a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the reason CHA is so important is because the Class dictates that it be used.

As for reasons to use it, social skills are valuable skills to have. No one would argue Demoralize isn't a good action or that granting flavorful feats (Demon Tongue, Fey charms, etc.) isn't a good way to enable some social aspects.

But as a general point, the fact that the incentives to use CHA is an artificially created one to me seems like a damning one for making it required in the first place.

I agree with this completely. I think there is amazing potential for a charlatan class that uses pacts and magic items to pretend they are a spell caster, but that idea doesn't need Find Flaws. It needs a universal trick magic item that runs off CHA and the class proficiency. If the investigator can find the weakness, they have the means to use it, but they aren't about finding weaknesses. They find ways to use magic without study/a patron/bloodline/curse/etc.

Or go full spell caster and just make the material component version of the bard. Cha to give your macguffins power and a spell list to unlock all the potential. (See my above posts for more details.)

But if recall knowledge is the important part of the class, if knowing/understanding monsters and attacking their weaknesses is what we are doing, I don't know why we want Cha.

But I think this comes back to how everyone likes a different aspect of this class, and wants that aspect to be THE main feature. And I don't think anyone is wrong. Each of these aspects could fill out an entire awesome class on their own. And I'd much rather get one great focused class and wait for two or more other classes to cover the other design spaces, than a combination class trying to do multiple ideas at once less great in a single package.

If the class can do something supernatural with enemy weaknesses, why is that the extent of its magical abilities? Because making a weakness is not something anyone can do, hence the Charisma and Wisdom arguments. It's either seeing something that can't be seen, or making something that didn't exist to begin with. But if you can do that with enemies and items, why not more connections? Magically buffing and debuffing with all kinds of little nicknacks.

But without a spell list, we need to rely on the scroll and trinket feats or something else, like focus spells. But to cover the wide range of possible sympathetic connections, a ton of new focus spells would need to be printed that would just be trying to mimic a spell list. It seems inefficient. As for scrolls and trinkets, these feats are already spells with extra steps. You get so many a day based on spell level, but you have to actually pull them out. If you fixed their action economy, then they are effectively just like spells.

I really like the flavor in this thread, but if this is THE sympathetic macguffin class, I'd like the class to fully explore that potential. And the spell lists were made to give supernatural abilities to a class in a balanced way. This would mean being less martial, but that's because this is THE sympathetic macguffin class, not the sympathetic one trick macguffin class.

However, I too would love a martial class that mimics being a spell caster, but intrinsically isn't one. But being able to make up weakness/connections doesn't fit in that concept for me, that's intrinsically magic. Knowing esoteric weaknesses that others don't and applying them would fit (Int or Wis), but making them (Cha) just makes me wonder why I'm limiting myself to such a narrow application if I'm so persuasive to the universe.

Yeah, MAD is a big problem and PF2 is already a game that doesn't support flat/broad statlines very well (even worse than Pf1 in some respects).

Honestly I think that's the biggest problem with the Thaumaturge. The flavor people are looking at values... pretty much every stat to some degree.

It's also why it's hard to lean too heavily on media inspiration. The whole notion that you have to give up being smart to be charming or that being good at noticing things means you're probably less athletic is a very D&D contrivance that doesn't map to real life or fiction very well.

I think it's more that Constantine and Batman are many times solo heroes. They have to do everything themselves, which means no dump stat. In a team, doing everything makes others feel redundant, TTRPG and fiction wise. Helsing is a good example of a character in a team. He provides the knowledge and weaknesses, but leaves the fighting to others. It's hard to make TTRPG characters based on solo heroes because they can't have dump stats.

I get people saying the Thaumaturge-like characters are smart (and thus should not dump INT). But I believe they are even more defined by their charisma. And if we go the INT way, why would Constantine or Van Helsing not dump CHA ? (I do not really know Dresden).

I honestly think CHA is even more core to these characters than INT.

What we need IMO is abilities based on CHA but that work even better if you have INT.

While Constantine is very charismatic, I wouldn't say the same about Helsing. At least the original Helsing. I'd actually say he would be primarily Int with secondary Wis. He's very much a professor that's fairly socially awkward. Helsing, however, also doesn't empower his tools. He knows the weaknesses and just pulls them out as needed. There is no making the garlic a weakness, it already is and he carries it on him. I think Helsing is a great example of an Int version of this class.

One of the things I really like about the new bard is it's a full caster. The first edition bard was a mix of song casting and skills and martial. But if you just want to sing, now you can do it to 10th level spells. And if you want something more similar to first edition, dedications are now for that.

I do think it's better for the game when introducing a new thematic concept to start with a specialist. Make the wizard and fighter before making the magus. The implements and connection-making is a really versatile tool thematically, wouldn't it be better to make the specialist first before making a hybrid for a more martial bent? Push the limits of that class feature in all directions before narrowing in for something with other features?

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

I do think this is a unique playtest in that not only is this a new class, it's also a fairly original one. The inventor is new, but largely builds on the tropes it needed to fill. Parts of this class are brand new to me. With these new mechanics, I think there is a question of what the full potential of them are.

Imagine if there was no wizard (int and book based full caster) in TTRPG history (which is silly, I know, but bear with me), and Pathfinder comes out with the magus. The magus is a great class that uses this new spell book idea. I think many would ask, why can't I have a full caster, like the sorcerer, based entirely on this new book thingy! I like this magus book mechanic, but want to focus exclusively on that.

I think parts of this class ask that question. Is that a different class? Sure, as much as the magus is different from the wizard. But I do think it's worth discussing. If anything, to see for future new class directions.

However, if this discussion is not useful: Mark, please let us know! I'm enjoying seeing all the potential this class has, but we could do this in the home-brew section if that would be more helpful.

littlebattler wrote:

highly dislike CHA as key stat for reasons elaborated by other users.

Besides if their magic works by convincing the universe then why are they limited to just exploiting weaknesses and not bigger effects? They're basically already using a very minor form of wish for everything.

I'd rather the class flavour be grounded in knowledge or observation to suss out specific weaknesses, but the actual theme is probably already locked in by this point and that kinda does step on the toes of the investigator so idk.

That's an interesting point, and IMO an awkward implication.

It's like these guys have the power to talk to and persuade the cosmos, yet only to soften up enemies, to bash them better, and to make one-three items do cool stuff (mostly minor)? Lol, I'm reminded of a playground where a kid just wants to play with toys, and get back at that bully trying to take them away. They can't even manage Prestidigitation effects with all their persuasiveness.
Yeah, somebody who's studied their enemies or can suss out Weaknesses by examining their enemies makes a lot more sense than somebody able to convince the universe in one very particular way. It seems there'd be more "universe-tweaking" options for a Thaumaturge than the current feats cover (much like the 20th level one that gives a spell)...

That's been my impression of the class. That's why I suggested at one point removing the Find Flaw/Esoteric Antithesis feature, because it's an overly restrictive feature for how much potential the in world mechanics should be able to cover. But many inspirations were given for this class, including "the monster hunter," and some people are really invested in that aspect.

I'm really starting to think the class is trying to do too much. I see three (though there are probably more). There is the "monster hunter" part: recall knowledge and the feats building off of Esoteric Antithesis focusing primarily on combat. Then there is the "connection finder/maker": making weaknesses and the class feats about turning mundane objects into magic (including the implements). And then "magic item collector" which fakes being a spell caster: the pacts, scrolls, talismans, and familiar. There is significant overlap between the three mechanically, but I think each is very distinct thematically. A lot of the nuances and disagreements I see tend to be about which one or two are the most significant to each person.

I think significantly expanding in one direction will require weakening the others, if not because of balance then simply page count. Keeping it as is is an option that many people want, but I think the class would be better served specializing in its most thematically/mechanically unique elements. While I like the monster hunter, I wonder if that would be better served as the class with a martial dedication. Ranger is already the "hunter" class, maybe even a new ranger subclass to use some of the abilities from this class? People already want the same for the investigator.

People have made very good comparisons between the fluff of making connections and bard spell casting. So if we wanted to expand the connection maker to its logical conclusion, there would be too many necessary abilities to cover. But that is the whole point of the spell system. Give them spells, and like all bard spells need a sonic basis for singing/performing, this class always needs a material component. Give them some unique cantrips/focus spells for some of the more unique abilities and I think this version would be pretty fleshed out. Implements would be great here too.

For the magic item collector, I think alchemist is the best comparison. Always having the right tool. I haven't played alchemist since the initial playtest, but I think this could be a chance to better nail down the non-martial/non-caster play style. Maybe something closer to the inventor? (I haven't seen the final version yet.) But either way, the class should have the access to the right magic tool in and out of combat. Less focus on the above two more go with the flow versions and more on preparation.

I'm sure most will disagree with something I've said here, but I really like thinking about his class and what it could be!

I disagree that perform should be excluded; dance is important to many spiritual practices, and the mechanics of this class support monks and shrine maidens tossing deadly demon slaying talismans as it does gothic horror werewolf and vampire hunters; and performing a kagura dance to call for the aid of a benevolent spirit to slay a devil is very much on point for the class.

While I see the connection to dancing, I'd actually really love this to be a Wis route for the class. It does tie more so in to spiritualistic aspects of monks and shrines. And I think it'd fit much more than inquisitor with an inherent basis on focusing on having the right objects (I'd much prefer to see the inquisitor be it's own class as well.)

As someone who prefers Intelligence, I'm open to an investigator methodology. My only concern is that I really like most of the class feats too. I doubt they will allow the investigator to also have a lot these feats, and a dedication only gives them to me at half my level. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

I agree the Recall Knowledge mechanic is a bit wonky. I didn't really get what was happening with it at first glance. Personally I am closer to Squiggit in that I actually rather like it at this point, but I definitely think changing the mechanic to better fit Mark's vision (or perhaps more accurately, to help the rest of us see his vision) is a more fruitful line of discussion than trying to impose your own vision. (Not what you personally are doing here, but other people have been.)

I know I've posted a lot, but I've just been trying to get a handle on the class. My third attempt to focus mainly on making new weaknesses was trying to see the class through Mark's vision. I think that is an interesting idea on its own. But the class feats don't really seem to follow through on that idea. The pacts, scrolls, and familiars seem to go along closer to Constantine who, based on the thread about him, uses his Int to pick the right item, not Cha to make a new weakness.

I think what I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, there are two or three different classes/themes vying for prominence here. I think there is a discussion to be had that if they aren't separated, are those other themes less likely to show up elsewhere? Some like the mix as presented here, but some definitely want a different mix. Does one mix preclude the other from getting created?

This attitude is the crux of where I disagree with the most vocal posters. People keep posting about who the class is intended to emulate. But only one of those 3 characters has been cited by the creator as an influence. (Constantine.) I really don't think this class is intended to be the things people keep trying to make it.

I agree with this, but I think the recall knowledge function also plays a part. Recall knowledge is inherently Int or Wis based, and finding flaws immediately speaks to an encyclopedic knowledge about monsters. Some people don't mind it as is. Others really want to be able to use Int or Wis. And others want to drop the finding part entirely and only make completely new flaws through Cha. And I'm sure there are more groups.

Until the survey, we won't really know the numbers for each group. But I think a lot of people are resonating strongly with the class in different ways, and people are really invested in seeing their dream version of the class a reality.

Jedi Maester wrote:

I like how the themes mesh in these three more than the current version. But none of them make everyone happy.

Man speak for yourself. I love the way the class comes together right now. IMO all three of your suggestions would break something fundamentally about what makes the current version of the class so cool.

I am speaking for myself. That's why I said "I like..." I'm glad you like the class as is. You've been very adamant as such the whole playtest. Some of us disagree, but that's what the surveys are for. To see what's best for the group.

I have seen three different versions of this class in my head:

Just make intelligence the KAS and you easily get what you're talking about. This was my first thought as soon as I saw the class, but many jumped up to say that is too close to the investigator. Just make a methodology to cover it instead. We don't need more int dependent classes. I can see their points.

So I figured if we are keeping charisma, but avoiding spells, Esoteric Antithesis made no sense to me. We are forcing a weakness where one doesn't exist. That's just magic with more steps. So I figured we should drop it, make implements the main focus, and have Trick Magic Item work off of charisma. Between a plethora of magic items and pacts, it's like the kid who flunked wizard school, but learned how to fake it anyways. But everyone loves Esoteric Antithesis, seeing that as the main function of the class.

So finally, I came up with dropping pacts, dropping recall knowledge from Find Flaws, and making the class all about creating new weakness with random mundane items. It essentially bluffs the everyone around them into believing their random junk is magic. This ties the implements, trinkets, and charisma together. I think it's an incredibly original idea, but people really want that recall knowledge aspect as a main part of the class.

I like how the themes mesh in these three more than the current version. But none of them make everyone happy. I think everyone sees that there is some theme issue with the class, everyone just disagrees on how to fix it.

I think this is the distinction at the heart of the issue. If the class stays Charisma focused, I definitely want it to lean into option 2. But for option 1, Int or Wis would be more applicable. But as others have stated, Int is distinctly the investigator's territory and this would work well as a methodology. And Wis would just make this the inquisitor, which I think would need to shift much more of the class.

Honestly, this is the most unique take I've see for a charisma based martial. So I hope the class ends up fully at option 2. I know we will get some version of the inquisitor soon, which will give many here what they are looking for. And an investigator methodology should help with rest.

I don't particularly see why this class is more unique than others for making deals with outer planar creatures. So I'd prefer to remove the feats altogether and make each one into different archetype feat chains. So you get the starting dedication feat and can then proceed further in the archetype, getting more powers but becoming more indebted to the devil/fey/whatever you made the initial bargain with.

Okay, so after thinking about, I think removing recall knowledge from finding flaws is indeed the best fix. I think the class should focus primarily on making new weaknesses. These come from a scrap of paper here, a thread there, and a splinter here. Just a bunch of junk that the class always has on them, hence there is no need to prepare. Then when you "Find Flaws" there is no knowledge check involved, and you make this piece of junk into a secret weakness. I think this meshes much better with the charisma KAS and using implements.

It's essentially the con artist class, convincing the universe your junk is important.

Reveal Machinations let's you RK with deception, it's not the first time you can get information with cha that doesn't involve gathering it

That's a legendary skill feat with very specific flavor to match the mechanics. It involves actually communicating with the individual. I don't think that really applies here, unless we want to make Find Flaws language dependent.

Bard is also cha based, and yet we don't contest the fact that 2 of 4 muses are based on knowledge (enigma for recalling information and rituals, polymath for spell focused learning), nor do we assume magi aren't well learned because they are str/dex based.

Cha based doesn't mean knowledge isn't important, it means that your ability to influence is most important

But those do show my point. When they are recalling knowledge, it's still Int or Wis based, depending on the skill. Bards don't substitute Cha for Int. That feels incredibly weird to me. If I can have 8 Int, but function perfectly fine as a thaumaturge, I want to play the class dumb as rocks and still make sense. I don't know anything, but I'm gonna con the universe with my baubles.

The knowledge aspect of bard isn't a primary feature, you can build into if you want. That's what I'd like here. Make RK an optional choice, not the primary ability.