|
As soon as another playtest was announced seemingly immediately after one had ended, one thought ran through my mind: "OCCULIST PLEASE!"
Then another thought started slowly taking over: "Is it too soon? Has the system developed confidently enough to be ready for such an undertaking? Has the community discussed what it wants from the 2e Occultist enough to give the developers enough of an idea to match the greatness of the original?"
Therefore, I think it might be wise to start a discussion to have floating around the forums about what people want from the Occultist. From this, hopefully, the developers will then get a better idea of what we want before inevitably developing its playtest - at least us Occultist fans hope it's inevitable.
Some topics I think would be best to discuss would be:
- What should be the overall theme of the Occultist that makes it feel different form the other classes?
- What do we want for the chassis, the various proficiencies and their progression?
- What should be the unique mechanic of the Occultist that sets it apart from the other classes?
- What sort of class feats should there be? What sort of subclasses should it have?
- Should the Occultist even be a new class? Would it work better as a general archetype? A class archetype?
- Now that the occult spell list is a thing with the Bard as it's iconic, should the Occultist be renamed? If you think so, what are your ideas?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked "Antiquarian" as a name.
As far as the rest of your questions, I'll personally have a firmer sense in a couple weeks when we see the new playtest material. Right now it is all kind of muddled to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind seeing a dedicated prepared Occult caster (Bard is spontaneous, remember), with the Oracle's enhanced focus point progression and a heavy reliance on Focus Spells for a dedicated psychic magic sort of feel. I don't think it should be called occultist though, its too on the nose for the spell list. I wouldn't be averse to "Psychic" or "Medium." My only concern with antiquarian is that I suspect it may be better to have it cover more conceptual space, and make that a class path or something.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my sketch for the occultist class.
- Similar proficiency progression as the magus, M/M weapons/armor.
- No spell slots, but focus spells are occult spells.
- Class features are primarily built around focus spells and manipulating focus points; think about the champion or the ranger- instead of divine ally and a champion's reaction, or hunter's edge, trackless step, vigilant senses,etc. what you get are focus spells and things that relate to focus spells.
- The occultist selects implements, a la bardic muses, druidic orders, etc. except the occultist can have a great number of them.
- Each implement contains multiple focus spells, and this set can be expanded via class feats.
- A focus point can be either be spent to cast any of the spells any of your implements can cast or invested into an implement. Focus invested in an implement cannot be regained by refocusing until it is expended.
- Investing a point of focus in an implement has a multiplicative effect, it can be used to cast more than one focus spells specific to that implement but no focus spells from other implements.
-Investing a point of focus in an implement also gives you a passive effect that depends on the nature of the implement.
I think this effectively recreates the Occultist in 2e. Of all the 3/4 BAB 6-level caster classes in 1e, the Occultist was one of the most martially inclined (even ignoring specific builds, you start out knowing 2 1st level spells but you did have martial weapons and medium armor) and also had the most limited selection of spells to cast, and the whole "focus" nomenclature (also resonance in the playtest) was borrowed from the Occultist so that should be its schtick.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think with 2nd edition giving occult spells their own list, this makes me look at the 1st edition Occultist from two angles and ask, "Is the Occultist an occult-ish class or the occult-est class?" By this I mean, was the Occultist supposed to be a class that just dabbled in a few of the occult arts (psychometry, ritual circles, reading auras, etc.) or were they a true master of all such practices?
I would say that the entire package of the 1e Occultist would lean toward the later, but its mechanical heft revolved around implements and focus powers and may be remembered more as the former or even less so. Plus, with occultism being a skill anyone can train now, technically any character could call themselves an occultist with the right training.
I feel that if the class ends up sticking with the label of "Occultist", implements should become one of multiple paths to focus on (likely the one being centered around focus spells) and things like magic circles and various occult skills and rituals could be some of the other paths to build around. Otherwise, if implements and focus spells are to remain as the dominant mechanical focus, I think a new name is is needed as Occultist would be a bit too general and possibly misleading. Antiquarian or Reliquarian are good but I think Psychometrist would be best as it's a bit more all encompassing.
Probably a name change, Occultist doesn't make sense in the context of that being the name of the spell slots now, when the PF1 class really needed to go out of its way to be a particularly caster-y character (mage's paraphanelia or silksworn, generally). I like antiquarian a lot.
Psychometrist doesn't make any sense to me. I know it was the name of the vigilante archetype in PF1, but... a psychometrist is a person who administers and analyzes psychological tests. I don't know how you get from that to "specializes in drawing power from haunted objects/holy relics/magic items/weird gadgets."
I mostly agree with PossibleCabbage, although I wouldn't mind it being a 4-slot caster like the playtest Magus either. Also had the idea that you could make it start with Caster proficiencies and give it one class path that upgrades it to martial and another that instead gives them more spellcasting, to let you play into either the caster-y or martial-y occultist.
I really like the idea of a focus-spell based character though who can regenerate points more easily than other classes. It's unexplored design space, magical flavor, but sitting sort of halfway between a martial and a true spellcaster on the impact and frequency scales. It's underutilized space in PF2 for sure.
|
|
Psychometrist doesn't make any sense to me. I know it was the name of the vigilante archetype in PF1, but... a psychometrist is a person who administers and analyzes psychological tests. I don't know how you get from that to "specializes in drawing power from haunted objects/holy relics/magic items/weird gadgets."
You're not wrong but Google "psychometry". I may be using the wrong word or they could be homonyms.
|
|
I've got my occultist already. :)
That reminds me. TALISMANS! I really think talismans would be a great way to implement.....implements in this edition.
Probably a name change, Occultist doesn't make sense in the context of that being the name of the spell slots now, when the PF1 class really needed to go out of its way to be a particularly caster-y character (mage's paraphanelia or silksworn, generally). I like antiquarian a lot.
.... but pf1 had arcanist?
You're not wrong but Google "psychometry". I may be using the wrong word or they could be homonyms.
Fair, but I still feel like object reading was pretty far away from the focus of the class thematically in PF2 and wouldn't make a lot of sense to me being what you name the class around.
That reminds me. TALISMANS! I really think talismans would be a great way to implement.....implements in this edition.
Doing more with talismans would be neat, but I wouldn't like it to be the class' main thing, maybe some optional feats (ala snare crafting rangers) could work though.
but pf1 had arcanist?
Yeah, and the PF1 Arcanist was a full progression arcane caster whose whole flavor was around bending and mastering arcane magic.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unpopular opinion: Arcanist and Occultist were the two biggest examples of power creep that just flat out invalidated their Core Rulebook cousins with a mish-mash, "aw screw it, we give up just take whatever powers you want and be done with it" design in PFRPG, and I have absolutely no desire to see them return whatsoever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power bloat? They were pretty middle of the road.
And I mean, we're talking about the same system that had things like Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Oracles in it... odd place to draw the line, but everyone has their own tastes I guess.
|
|
I do personally think that once the Arcanist obtained Quick Study, it was the most powerful class in the game. But I've never heard of the Occultist as an example of power creep. Maybe versatility creep since I always liked the idea of an entire party of Occultists with having each one different from each other and filling nearly every role. Power wise, I think most people have found they were perfectly balanced.
I homebrewed up something similar to Possible Cabbage's suggestion.
I like the idea of implements being focus spells, and refocusing the implements or the Occultist. That is, the Occultist can have focus points invested in themself and be able to use powers from any implement, or put a focus point in an implement and also get a passive buff (but not be able to move it to another implement).
Also, a pathway to focus on rituals could be fun, though now with the Ritualist archetype that may not be necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF1 Occultist didn't really separate from the pack in "PF1's huge pile of tier 3 classes" anyway. Each of them had different strengths, and min-max builds, but the Occultist wasn't really stronger than the Magus or the Inquisitor or the Investigator, or the Alchemist.
The Arcanist on the other hand was another 9-level PF1 caster and every single one of those was tier 1 or tier 2 (The Arcanist being in Tier 1 with the Cleric, Druid, Shaman, Witch, and Wizard.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been of the opinion that unless they really really keen in to the whole flavor of the implements and their history, Occultist (or antiquarian as I prefer) would be an arcane caster in 2e. They use their minds to affect the physical world. Very little actually deals with spirits as written, but if they like, bring a lot of Haunt Collector flavor in it could stay occult.
|
|
I would like the Occultist to potentially have what would effectively be legendary proficiency in spellcasting and master proficiency and specializations in martial weapons and medium armor. I think these should require investment in the right implements and it should somehow not be possible to have all of these proficiencies maxed out at once.
Maybe these bonuses can be obtained from investing in certain combinations of implements (panoplies) and that would limit how many of these passive bonuses you could have. This might require limiting the maximum number of implements more than the 1e Occultist as well.
Without investments, I think the Occultist should peak at expert or master in spellcasting and expert or even just trained in weapons and armor.
I would like the Occultist to potentially have what would effectively be legendary proficiency in spellcasting and master proficiency and specializations in martial weapons and medium armor. I think these should require investment in the right implements and it should somehow not be possible to have all of these proficiencies maxed out at once.
Maybe these bonuses can be obtained from investing in certain combinations of implements (panoplies) and that would limit how many of these passive bonuses you could have. This might require limiting the maximum number of implements more than the 1e Occultist as well.
Without investments, I think the Occultist should peak at expert or master in spellcasting and expert or even just trained in weapons and armor.
I don't really see how one can set this up in a way that is balanced or sane within the precedents set by the system.
You can have master weapons with master casting, or expert weapons with legendary casting.
I could maybe see something akin to the Cleric's Doctrines being used, but it would still be a little awkward.
Caster Type:
Key Ability: Intelligence
7th level: Expert spellcasting
11th level: Expert weapons, weapon specialization
15th level: Master Spellcasting
19th level: Legendary spellcasting
Martial type:
Key Ability: Strength or Dexterity
7th level: Expert weapons, weapon specialization
11th level: Expert spellcasting
15th level: Master weapons, greater weapon specialization
19th level: Master spellcasting
Where all of this gets really messy is in that the former is balanced around a full loadout of spells, while the latter is balanced around the 9th level casting we'll see with the Magus and Summoner, and I think at that point things are getting split up too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you missed part of their point: the base chassis wouldn't have these maxed out proficiencies. You'd have to choose them each day via your implements.
Sort of like if you were able to bounce between a warpriest and a cloistered subclass every morning.
It seems reasonable on the face of it, and would give this class a semi-unique mechanical niche: editable proficiencies.
Though it likely seems reasonable to me through my work on my homebrew medium. If they don't do something along the lines of my flexible multiclass idea, flexible proficiency bundles seems like the next most obvious direction to go. Edit: though for this, I would expect the class to just be free with increased item bonus instead of directly giving temporary proficiencies. SO there'd be an ability that gives you "an item bonus of +2 to attack rolls on your weapon or unarmed strikes" rather than "master with weapons."
I've always been of the opinion that unless they really really keen in to the whole flavor of the implements and their history, Occultist (or antiquarian as I prefer) would be an arcane caster in 2e. They use their minds to affect the physical world. Very little actually deals with spirits as written, but if they like, bring a lot of Haunt Collector flavor in it could stay occult.
I tend to agree, although they were also able to heal.
PossibleCabbage's proposal would more easily allow the necessary cross theme casting; if everything is a focus spell, it is a lot more reasonable to let a occultist potentially heal AND get some good illusions AND a fire blast AND be able to summon a Frost Yai.
Probably a name change, Occultist doesn't make sense in the context of that being the name of the spell slots now, when the PF1 class really needed to go out of its way to be a particularly caster-y character (mage's paraphanelia or silksworn, generally). I like antiquarian a lot..... but pf1 had arcanist?
I would also like the Arcanist to get a new name, if it wanders into PF2.
|
|
Though it really is a broad term, I've found that occultism in Pathfinder is nearly identical to occultism in the real world: taboo or highly suspect beliefs and practices in the supernatural, mysterious and otherworldly. A lot of such things can be found in New Age stores. Tarot cards, Quija boards, energy crystals, secret societies, chakras, seances and many more are all good examples of occultism in our world that translate well into occultism in Pathfinder. I think if you were to make Aleister Crowley into a PF2 character with the current rules, a Bard would be the perfect fit.
So, yes, occultism does have its hand heavily in spirituality but it also deals equally in things like telepathy and telekinesis. This reinforces that if the Occultist is to keep its name, it should lean more heavily into these things and maybe even drop any aspects that gave it a more arcane feel. Otherwise, with a new name like "Antiquarian", it could really work with any spell list and it wouldn't feel too wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'd need to trade away basically every Bard class feature... probably even the spellcasting to some extent to be really true to form... then design a whole new set of feats to complement implements instead. Trying to put the Occultist in the Bard feels very square peg round hole.
I mean, the comparison to the bard I would make is that in the edition switch the Bard got more casty and less martial and I feel like the Occultist should get less casty and more martial.
Casting for an occultist in PF1 was always more about "A thing you eventually can do some cool things with" not your bread and butter.
|
|
I mean, the comparison to the bard I would make is that in the edition switch the Bard got more casty and less martial and I feel like the Occultist should get less casty and more martial.
Casting for an occultist in PF1 was always more about "A thing you eventually can do some cool things with" not your bread and butter.
I don't think the Occultist should get less "casty" and more martial. I think you should have the option to make the Occultist that way as well as make it the inverse or a balance between the two or something else altogether (e.g. above average skills).
My reasoning for allowing it to become a legendary caster is that legendary casting is not unique to one class and it would feel bad to focus on a caster build and still be whiffing on offensive spells compared to the full casters. This really only should be about spellcasting DCs and attack bonuses, not spell resources. Legendary weapon and armor proficiency should stay unique to the Fighter and Champion, respectively - along with whatever other future classes that have a reason to be just as proficient.
The thing that would keep the Occultist from feeling like it's overshadowing other classes would be that it would not be taking over the roles of other martials by taking their unique features while also using a non-Vancian casting system likely more limited on resources and spells known. It would always feel that a particular build could match the standard power of the role it was going for but not have that extra oomph to always make it a preferable choice. The trade of would it would still be fairly capable in some other roles.
To put it another way, let's generalize and say full casters are 100% caster and 0% martial. Martials are 100% martial and 0% caster. I think the Occultist should be able to be built anywhere between to 75%/25% to 25%/75% range while letting classes like the Magus still have their own unique playstyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'd need to trade away basically every Bard class feature... probably even the spellcasting to some extent to be really true to form... then design a whole new set of feats to complement implements instead. Trying to put the Occultist in the Bard feels very square peg round hole.
Frankly it'd be easier to get an Occultist out of an occult bloodline sorcerer, but that's still a huge stretch that would require trading out so many things it isn't a sorcerer anymore. Occultist implements are pretty unique, like many of the psychic classes it's way too out there to be built with the core classes.
I mean, the comparison to the bard I would make is that in the edition switch the Bard got more casty and less martial and I feel like the Occultist should get less casty and more martial.
Casting for an occultist in PF1 was always more about "A thing you eventually can do some cool things with" not your bread and butter.
I think it's worth taking into account that the Silksworn was pretty damn popular and despite just being an archetype should be looked at as something you can do from the get-go in PF2. The general idea of an Occultist really points to someone who does a lot of magic, at least as much and probably more than a Magus.
|
How about giving them simple weapon proficiency at the start and have a generic focus power that gives them proficiency with any common martial weapon for x rounds?
At higher levels they can spend more focus to be expert or master with the weapon or use exotic weapons.
This would let them get into combat if they wanted to spend the focus or they could keep it for spell effects and hang back.
Flavor wise they're connecting with the weapons previous owner and letting them "drive". Or the collective unconscious for a new weapon.
Rounds of proficiency sounds like a really awkward mechanic, your weapon just stops working for you mid battle? That doesn't sound fun, especially with how much of an investment weapons are.
I feel like if you want to set up martial or caster choices it should be more permanent. Give the class bad proficiencies and bad spellcasting, then give them mutually exclusive routes to get martial combat stats or caster spell options.
FWIW I still really like the idea of a focus-based caster that can leverage focus point mechanics better than their peers instead of traditional casting, fits the PF1 themes and is design space that doesn't exist in PF2 yet.
The PF1 occultist had martial weapons and medium armor by default. Having less than this (e.g. like a silksworn) is what class archetypes are for.
What I'm saying is the "more/less martial/casty" slider shouldn't only go in one direction with the edition switch.
First off, also noting that I like "Antiquarian" as the new name of the class.
Also, the big decision point in the class was definitely its occult implements, so those have to be pretty important. My thinking is that there should be 2 powers associated with them; a custom cantrip (kind of like how Witches & Bards get their own unique cantrips) and a stronger power that is essentially a focus spell.
There are a few things I really enjoyed about Occultist.
- Object Reading and related abilities. Just one Divination power was enough to make a completely unique detective or interrogator who died questions of objects, and even without that, reading an object's history is super useful for interaction with the GM. It's another tool for storytelling.
- The castiest partial caster. They got more spells known than any partial caster (eventually; they got the most top-level spells known quickly). They also had a second pool of casting with their SLAs. You could grab Evocation and have a decent number of blasts to round out your day.
- They could do everything, shining in multiple roles at once. Obviously, this is getting thrown out. Being able to cast decently, getting SLAs, being Int based with good base skills and occult skill unlocks, and getting free enhancement bonuses along with the ability to make their weapon Bane against whatever they fought meant they were the perfect fit for any party. And, it was easy to avoid overshadowing people- the overpowered Bane only gets pulled out in emergencies, for instance.
I just came up with this off the top of my head, but I'd like to propose the following:
Much like the Rogue gets skill increases and skill feats every level, maybe the Occultist can get school feats/increases every level. They start out untrained in every school of magic, and every level they can buy a proficiency in one specific school of magic (following the same rules as skill increases, you can become a Master in it at level 7, Legend at 15). With 8 schools of magic, you can be better at some schools than at others, and you don't have room to master all of them. Since it costs you 4 levels to max out one school of magic, you either specialise in some and neglect others completely, or be mediocre at everything.* Hell, maybe keep it at every other level, then you only have ten increases, max.
School feats work pretty much the same. They function like the Focus Powers from 1e. From a certain level of proficiency onwards, you can buy better school feats. Not character level-locked, but school proficiency locked. For instance: at Transmutation Trained, Jump is a focus Spell. At Transmutation Expert, you can choose Spider Climb. At Master, choose Fly. Hell, you can even gate certain feats behind a combination of school proficiencies.
After thinking this over, these should be every other level, otherwise you'll drown in Focus Powers. And now you'll really have to choose what to specialise in.
And this is then all on top of their regular class feats, otherwise your entire feat list will consist of magic feats, rather than combat options.
* I did some theorybuilding. If you do a school increase every level, that means at level 10 you can be Master in 3 schools, Trained in one more. Then, depending on whether you want to specialise or become a generalist, at level 20, Legendary in 5 schools, or Master in 6 and then either Trained in two more, or Expert in one more. Or, go extremely generalist and at level 20, Master in 4 schools, Expert in 4 more.
If you then also tie spell levels to magic proficiency, that'll create an interesting dynamic. Because spreading out means losing access to higher level spells, while specialising means less versatility.
If you did a school increase every other level you can only do 10 increases, which will most likely lead to people pursuing to max two schools because of sunk cost. If I want to reach Master at 7, I only have 4 possible increases, three of which go into one school. The other can be used for support, but at 15 you have the same problem. Grabbing those high-level powers might seem more appealing than diversifying and starting new schools.
I mean, there's something to be said for both approaches. One per level will maybe lead to homogenic builds as you drown in options, but there's much more wiggle room for experimentation. On the other hand, every other level means the class is held in check much more. My inner game designer says less is more, especially considering the 1e Occultist also couldn't access all schools until very late game.
How does this idea sound? I'm just throwing this out there, I'm sure it can be poked full of holes.
|
|
[ Quote ]
In the situation where you would pick an implements of a certain school at different levels, I like the idea in case someone wouldn't want to go into more than 4 schools but also don't want to feel like they are losing anything by not diversifying as much. It could also be used to decide how powerful your Resonant Powers could get.
However, the first issue I find with this is I think it would go against the simplicity the designers are trying to go with in PF2. This would require the player to keep track of quite a bit more proficiencies than other classes. Maybe this wouldn't be too big of a problem if they added a new section to the official character sheet but...I don't know. Also, I think those proficiencies should still not affect actual spellcasting proficiency. Otherwise, this would become a real mess.
Finally, just like the 1e Occultist, I don't think the 2e Occultist should get access to more than 7 schools. I actually think they should get access to no more than 5. I think this reinforces build diversity and keeps things simpler like 2e wants.
But yeah, overall, if the designers felt it was the right way to go with the Occultist, I'd probably love it as much as the original.
Well, I said I would give my thoughts after the playtest.
There's a couple potential avenues, but I think what would interest me the most would be a partial occult caster along the lines of the Magus/Summoner. But that's just the chassis; the meat of the class is of course the implements. And for those, I think I'd like them to have the ability to cherry pick other classes focus spells (but not focus cantrips).
One of the things that has annoyed me the most about PF2 is that focus spells are mostly not class agnostic (domain spells being about the only exception). So what I might like to is the ability to pick up the focus spells of other classes, tied to your implements each morning during your daily preparations. Probably should require you to be trained in specific spells, and you choose between your pool of known focus spells each morning. Might even make sense to limit it to Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Sorcerer at first, though Monk spells seem unobjectionable. Edit: On second thought, they should be able to pick any class. You can already pick up anyone's focus spells via MC, no reason to limit it here.
In many ways, that would make Occultist/Antiquarian the best focus casters. Perhaps letting them cast an additional focus spell when they're on empty would be appropriate as well.
Oh, also, there's an character that is specified to be an occultist in Abomination Vaults. He's just a Spontaneous Occult Full caster though; no real abilities beyond that and what kind of creature he is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The above post made me think about a class that could prep a different archetype every day. And even several at higher levels.
Not sure that should be the Occultist though.
Sounds similar to my idea for the Medium actually, where you get a slew of multiclass feats for free that you can switch out daily. There was a high level feat I wrote that let you add archetype feats into that pool.
Limiting that to just archetypes so that you can do the traditional 6-7 spirits as base chassis might work as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a couple potential avenues, but I think what would interest me the most would be a partial occult caster along the lines of the Magus/Summoner. But that's just the chassis; the meat of the class is of course the implements. And for those, I think I'd like them to have the ability to cherry pick other classes focus spells (but not focus cantrips).
One of the things that has annoyed me the most about PF2 is that focus spells are mostly not class agnostic (domain spells being about the only exception). So what I might like to is the ability to pick up the focus spells of other classes, tied to your implements each morning during your daily preparations. Probably should require you to be trained in specific spells, and you choose between your pool of known focus spells each morning.
Might even make sense to limit it to Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Sorcerer at first, though Monk spells seem unobjectionable.Edit: On second thought, they should be able to pick any class. You can already pick up anyone's focus spells via MC, no reason to limit it here.In many ways, that would make Occultist/Antiquarian the best focus casters. Perhaps letting them cast an additional focus spell when they're on empty would be appropriate as well.
I thought of this as well but it just didn't sit well with me. Partly because it feels like it might separate itself too much from implements in a mechanical way. I have an item that lets me cast [Focus Spell] so I cast it versus I can cast [Focus Spell] because I can. Feels insignificant to the lore of the original Occultist. Not saying they couldn't pull it off with more though. I also don't really love the idea either because to me, focus spells are what help give particular classes/subclasses their identity on a deeper level and poaching those feels wrong to me. Again, I could be convinced otherwise if they ruled it and flavored it right.
And again, it seems like there is a common but vague perception that there is still a lot of overlap in theme and the roles of Occultists and Mediums (spooky & super versatile). It really makes me want Paizo to just merge the two classes together more and more. It feels like it could make for something amazing. But maybe it'd be more of a "works in theory but not in practice" sort of thing....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rounds of proficiency sounds like a really awkward mechanic, your weapon just stops working for you mid battle? That doesn't sound fun, especially with how much of an investment weapons are.
Object Memory spell gives 1 min of proficiency in a weapon so those issues already exist.
|
|
Now that the Occultist is now coming back in the form of the Thaumaturge, I'm wondering what people think of the playtest version compared to our previous theories and expectations of what it could and should be. Personally, even as someone who preferred the caster elements of the Occultist slightly over the martial aspects, I am very happy with the Thaumaturge in its current form and am excited for the final iteration.