Please don't force Dubious Knowledge onto characters.

[Roadie]

Many of us already deeply dislike the preponderance of secret checks and the critical failure effect of Recall Knowledge (and extra burden that both issues put on GMs). Automatically getting Dubious Knowledge exacerbates both issues (not to mention it immediately being self-contradictory because you need to know the real result to know whether you can use Esoteric Antithesis), and it really makes me feel like Paizo hasn't bothered to look at the complaints that people have already had about this stuff.

[Captain Morgan]

It seems like the real problem here is the critical failure condition, not dubious knowledge, no? If you simply removed the false information on a critical failure (which already creatures problems), Dubious Knowledge seems fine. I mean it does create some additional work on the GM, but the player still gets some true knowledge. There's even a hilarious default way to play it-- the GM tells the player a fake weakness, which the Thaumaturge can apply by believing in it hard enough and no one else can replicate.

[Squiggit]

I like DK and thinks it fits the class really well, personally.

Captain Morgan wrote:

It seems like the real problem here is the critical failure condition, not dubious knowledge, no? Or you simply removed the false information on a critical failure, Dubious Knowledge seems fine. I mean it does create some additional work on the GM, but the player still gets some true knowledge. There's even a hilarious default way to play it-- the GM tells the player a fake weakness, which the Thaumaturge can apply by believing in it hard enough and no one else can replicate.

It's sort of amusing that failing your RK gives you bad information via dubious knowledge but Antithesis just works automatically regardless...

[Golurkcanfly]

Squiggit wrote:

I like DK and thinks it fits the class really well, personally.

Captain Morgan wrote:

It seems like the real problem here is the critical failure condition, not dubious knowledge, no? Or you simply removed the false information on a critical failure, Dubious Knowledge seems fine. I mean it does create some additional work on the GM, but the player still gets some true knowledge. There's even a hilarious default way to play it-- the GM tells the player a fake weakness, which the Thaumaturge can apply by believing in it hard enough and no one else can replicate.

It's sort of amusing that failing your RK gives you bad information via dubious knowledge but Antithesis just works automatically regardless...

The issue of the interaction of RK and Find Flaws is still there, however. Since being flat-footed and not being able to use Esoteric Antithesis from crit failing FF automatically informs you that you critically failed your RK, allowing you to ignore the incorrect information that you gain on a crit fail.

Though that happens without Dubious Knowledge anyways, so DK isn't the issue.

[Paradozen]

I think it's weird that Esoteric Lore is optional and Dubious Knowledge is mandatory, feels to me like those two should be the other way around. Thaumaturges all know about all sorts of weird monsters one way or another, but some use less-than-scrupulous sources to learn more makes more sense than Thaumaturges all use unreliable sources to learn and some know about all sorts of weird monsters. I don't dislike Dubious Knowledge and I see why it's a conceptually fitting choice for the class, but I don't think it fits all manner of Thaumaturges as well as Esoteric Lore if they're going to get a lore related feature by default.

[Captain Morgan]

Squiggit wrote:

I like DK and thinks it fits the class really well, personally.

Captain Morgan wrote:

It seems like the real problem here is the critical failure condition, not dubious knowledge, no? Or you simply removed the false information on a critical failure, Dubious Knowledge seems fine. I mean it does create some additional work on the GM, but the player still gets some true knowledge. There's even a hilarious default way to play it-- the GM tells the player a fake weakness, which the Thaumaturge can apply by believing in it hard enough and no one else can replicate.

It's sort of amusing that failing your RK gives you bad information via dubious knowledge but Antithesis just works automatically regardless...

Honestly having the ability key off confidence rather than actual knowledge is the best reason I have come up with for it be charisma based.

[Golurkcanfly]

Paradozen wrote:

I think it's weird that Esoteric Lore is optional and Dubious Knowledge is mandatory, feels to me like those two should be the other way around. Thaumaturges all know about all sorts of weird monsters one way or another, but some use less-than-scrupulous sources to learn more makes more sense than Thaumaturges all use unreliable sources to learn and some know about all sorts of weird monsters. I don't dislike Dubious Knowledge and I see why it's a conceptually fitting choice for the class, but I don't think it fits all manner of Thaumaturges as well as Esoteric Lore if they're going to get a lore related feature by default.

Esoteric Lore being built into the class in some way would be rather helpful.

Could be one feature that gives you a minimum proficiency when using Find Flaws so you don't have to spend all your skills on keeping up with the RK math (but you could still invest in those skills for other uses out of combat and for legendary proficiency), but when using that minimum proficiency instead of your actual proficiency, you are forced to use Dubious Knowledge.

In addition, you could simply make activating Dubious Knowledge optional.

[Paradozen]

Thinking about it more, I think there's some value to having an ability that somehow provides information on a normal failure, as abilities that trigger off of not getting information on a recall knowledge like Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover could have unintentional interactions on Thaumaturge. But I think that Find Flaws could be worded so on a failure the Recall Knowledge provides information on how to create the Esoteric Antithesis to prevent those interactions without Dubious Knowledge.

[vagrant-poet]

I like Dubious Knowledge, love it even. But it does put a certain requirement to ad-lib on people, and if the class ends up common, I'd be okay with it being a choice between dubious and something else. (Not Trick Magic Item, that's kind of a stronger skill feat IMO, something else equivalent and flavourful).

[QuidEst]

Just chiming in- the class already tells you what to grant instead of you don't want Dubious Knowledge in the game. It's labeled as "if you already have Dubious Knowledge", but if nothing changes, that's a straightforward fix for GMs that don't like it.

[Salamileg]

I love DK, but I don't think it would be an issue if the class let you pick between that and Additional Lore.

[The Raven Black]

I do not want Dubious Knowledge on any of my characters, especially RK-focused ones.

For one, I prefer the info I provide to the rest of the party to be trustworthy. The price for guessing incorrectly and using inappropriate tactics is really high in PF2.

Second, I do not want to have to deal with blatantly wrong info and pretend my PC believes it.

That is one of the big problems of RK in PF2.

Having no choice but to take Dubious Knowledge if I want to play Thaumaturge will leave a sour taste for me, to the point I would prefer having no feature at all rather than this free feat.

[nick1wasd]

I feel like the Esoteric Lore should be baked in, and then the feat Know It All should have DK mixed in to add to the chaos of guessing wildly and trying to Brain Blast what you know about how to make the monstie go splat best. It makes the haphazard eras of lore that the Brothers Winchester have to sort through on the regular to see what's nonsense and what's fact experienceable in the world of Golarian, which makes me smile

[RexAliquid]

Squiggit wrote:

I like DK and thinks it fits the class really well, personally.

Captain Morgan wrote:

It seems like the real problem here is the critical failure condition, not dubious knowledge, no? Or you simply removed the false information on a critical failure, Dubious Knowledge seems fine. I mean it does create some additional work on the GM, but the player still gets some true knowledge. There's even a hilarious default way to play it-- the GM tells the player a fake weakness, which the Thaumaturge can apply by believing in it hard enough and no one else can replicate.

It's sort of amusing that failing your RK gives you bad information via dubious knowledge but Antithesis just works automatically regardless...

In my head, that is why it takes an extra action to use Esoteric Antithesis when you fail. You have to figure out which thing you vaguely remembered was true.

[Zwordsman]

I've love to have esoteric lore instead of dubious knowledge.
I'd also like if it got to expert by level 10. and maybe master at higher than that.

[Captain Morgan]

Honestly at this point I think Dubious Knowledge is essential to the class's intended vision, in much the same way the inventor feat is essential to the vision of the Inventor class. I think they could probably stand to define how false information interacts with the class features.

[Zwordsman]

It could be. but I think it might be better to wrap up the functionality of "failure still get something" into Esoteric Lore and give that. In that way they could freely define within a class feature without it referring to a pre-existing skill feat.

Ultimately what its there for is to provide a means to always have some form of access to reliant class abilities, when not Crit Failing. Right?

So I think it'd be better to have it self contained within a class feature. upsize esoteric lore to a class feature "esoteric studies" or some such. It gives you that lore. But it also defines how RK's work when using that lore. That way the entirity of Thama's specific interactions with recall knowledge is tied into that one specific lore. So any skill feats they have now, or in the future can be tied to that specifically. Which allows for easier addition or subtraction in terms of allowances. Probably have failure still allow for the "custom weakness" damage but not the higher. But also have built into this specific lore rule that they can be retried in some way. Probably after "a hit" where you test the damage type and gain new information.
Further it would tie the DCs to RK to the "Specific lore" DC rules. Which provides for an advantage and helps prevent critical faiulres as well.

Which feels like it would just create a streamlined character within itself. I do't remmber Inventor's but Alchemists are tied to the alch crafting feat. but. fucntionally you don't need to read that feat to understand how the Alchemist's class ability works.

[Alex319]

I suspect that the reason that they have Dubious Knowledge is to prevent the use of Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover. Since KCC would be very good for this class if they could have it

[Ashanderai]

I want to add my voice for the dislike of Dubious Knowledge. Others have already mentioned all the rules and mechanical considerations that come with having the feat forced on the Thaumaturge, so I'll add that I avoid Dubious Knowledge on all my characters and I really dislike being forced into it (that goes for any normally optional feat with a drawback). I would be okay with it if it were a choice between that feat and another one, but getting a feat I don't like forced onto me for choosing to play that class only gives me a strong distaste for any class doing the forcing.

[Captain Morgan]

Ashanderai wrote:

I want to add my voice for the dislike of Dubious Knowledge. Others have already mentioned all the rules and mechanical considerations that come with having the feat forced on the Thaumaturge, so I'll add that I avoid Dubious Knowledge on all my characters and I really dislike being forced into it (that goes for any normally optional feat with a drawback). I would be okay with it if it were a choice between that feat and another one, but getting a feat I don't like forced onto me for choosing to play that class only gives me a strong distaste for any class doing the forcing.

I feel like the Thaumaturge concept is a bit of a non-starter then?

[Ashanderai]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ashanderai wrote:

I want to add my voice for the dislike of Dubious Knowledge. Others have already mentioned all the rules and mechanical considerations that come with having the feat forced on the Thaumaturge, so I'll add that I avoid Dubious Knowledge on all my characters and I really dislike being forced into it (that goes for any normally optional feat with a drawback). I would be okay with it if it were a choice between that feat and another one, but getting a feat I don't like forced onto me for choosing to play that class only gives me a strong distaste for any class doing the forcing.

I feel like the Thaumaturge concept is a bit of a non-starter then?

No; I like much of the rest of what it has going on and I see a great deal of potential. But, I do not want anything to do with Dubious Knowledge. It's fine if the class offers it in some way, but please do it by giving a choice so that I can choose something else and still be able to play the class. I do not find Dubious Knowledge essential to the class in the slightest, really. You can simulate acting on false information by simply failing a secret Recall Knowledge check. I don't need a feat to do that for me.

[graystone]

Ashanderai wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ashanderai wrote:

I want to add my voice for the dislike of Dubious Knowledge. Others have already mentioned all the rules and mechanical considerations that come with having the feat forced on the Thaumaturge, so I'll add that I avoid Dubious Knowledge on all my characters and I really dislike being forced into it (that goes for any normally optional feat with a drawback). I would be okay with it if it were a choice between that feat and another one, but getting a feat I don't like forced onto me for choosing to play that class only gives me a strong distaste for any class doing the forcing.

I feel like the Thaumaturge concept is a bit of a non-starter then?

No; I like much of the rest of what it has going on and I see a great deal of potential. But, I do not want anything to do with Dubious Knowledge. It's fine if the class offers it in some way, but please do it by giving a choice so that I can choose something else and still be able to play the class. I do not find Dubious Knowledge essential to the class in the slightest, really. You can simulate acting on false information by simply failing a secret Recall Knowledge check. I don't need a feat to do that for me.

This. All of it. I started off reading the class and first thing I see is a BIG turn off with Dubious Knowledge: it just put me off on the class right out of the box. Overall the class has potential but I know that Dubious Knowledge would annoy me greatly EVERY single time it activated and would make me unlikely to play the class once publish if it's a required feat. Recall Knowledge is wonky enough without tossing some extra enforced false info into the mix.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

graystone wrote:

Recall Knowledge is wonky enough without tossing some extra enforced false info into the mix.

Yep. I can see some players will absolutely love the schtick out of this, the Constantine Desedenites etc…but for general consumption given RK’s ambiguities and the false info risks there will be those that will point blank not play the class. Which is fine on the one hand - plenty of other characters to play; but disastrous on the other as there would be those who would absolutely love to play the thaumaturge presented differently. Perhaps an archetype can do away with DK…

[The Raven Black]

Class feature similar to but divorced from RK, like Battle Medicine and Treat Wounds. So as not to interact with RK feats that do something on a failure that gives no info.

Or RK with a special Failure result of getting some tidbits (like an true info you're not interested in) rather than no info. And definitely not wrong info that you cannot (supposedly) tell from truth.

And for those who really like DK (a minority IMO), a specific rule that DK works on this special Failure result.

So that DK is an opt-in choice and not an unwelcome core ingredient.

I love the concept of the class and much of its implementation, but I despise DK.

[The Raven Black]

Let's compare RK and an Attack :

- On a success or critical success you can try both again.

- If you try again, Attack is -5 while RK has no penalty.

- On a failure, you can try Attack again at -5, but you cannot try RK again ever on that creature.

- On a critical failure, you can try Attack again at -5 and you might have some bad effect that affects only you, but you cannot try RK again ever on that creature and you automatically get a bad effect (wrong info) that affects the whole party.

Yeah. Let's divorce the Thaumaturge's primary feature from RK so that it feels similar to an Attack efficiency-wise.

Also, with CHA-based and usually lower skill proficiency, the bonus already feels more similar to an Attack than to a Skill check.

[Squiggit]

The class loses too much of its identity if you strip out the RK elements. Keep them, they're important.

[The Raven Black]

Squiggit wrote:

The class loses too much of its identity if you strip out the RK elements. Keep them, they're important.

Note that I would love having the main feature be similar to RK but fixed.

[Ly'ualdre]

So, this is my interpretation on the matter. I don't know if my thoughts on the subject are right, but I figured I'd post it.

Spoiler:

Personally, I quite like the addition of Dubious Knowledge as part of the class. The Thaumaturge relies on information from questionable and possibly unreliable sources. The Feat provides a mechanical means of representing this. I think people are to hyper focused on the perceived negatives of the Feat. Par the course I suppose, since everyone wants to avoid any potential drawbacks, like Oracle Curses. Something I find to be kind of a shame, but that is neither here nor there.

Anyways, people seem to be looking at Dubious Knowledge as a strictly negative thing, which is kind of odd because the intended benefit is not meant to be. As it stands, when you make a Recall Knowledge check and fail, nothing happens. You just don't know anything. Dubious Knowledge provides you with the opportunity to act on some measure of information; basically turning the roll into both a success and a critical failure, and giving you the opportunity to still benefit from the information. Example; you make a Recall Knowledge check against an Hezrou to try and discover one of its weaknesses; we will use its Purity Vulnerability in this example. We will say the DC is 28; you roll a 27 and fail. Normally, that would be the end of it. But, with Dubious Knowledge, you are instead entitled to two bits of information, one is right and the other is wrong. In this case, your GM tells you that you aren't entirely sure, but you've heard that Herzou suffer ill effects from contaminated items being cleansed, and that casting either Prestidigitation or Purify Food and Drink may bring it further harm. Now you have the chance to to spend your next action acting on knowledge you otherwise would not have gained, and decid which of these two spells your going to try. That seems to me to be a net positive.
-------
Now, if you ask me, I believe the Feat should stay. I see no downside to giving you a chance to pick between two conflicting pieces of information and potentially benefit from it if you choose the right thing; which applies to all Recall Knowledge checks you are trained in. Even if you end up picking the wrong thing on the first turn, you or an ally can still capitalize off of this result by then acting off the other piece of information that is correct. Now, I will say, for those that are simply against this, I'd suggest the effect just be applied to the failure of Find Flaws instead of having the Feat baked into the Class. As it stands, the intended effect of the Find Flaw failure is basically the same as Dubious Knowledge (imo), so perhaps the inclusion of the Feat is redundant. You fail, but still gain the ability to apply whatever esoterica in an attempt to find a weakness in the creature, which allows you to use Esoteric Anithesis as an action. The action doesn't state anything about failing the previous check, so you seem to still apply some kind of weakness to the your following attacks regardless. I imagine, the intended effect here is to treat the attack as the "custom weakness" option, making the damage 2 + half your level (so 3 additional points at level 1). On a Success, this damage would instead function as the actual weakness (being applied normally) and has the benefit of not using an action as part of the Find Flaws.

Applying Dubious Knowledge to this makes this a little more meaningful imo. The GM gives you two options here, we will say Fire or Cold Iron, with the aforementioned Hezrou being weak to the latter. You fail your Find Flaw, but still gain the knowledge of these two weakness possibilities. Normally, you just gain the custom weakness effect. Instead, because of Dubious Knowledge, you have the opportunity to get the full weakness instead, with the benefit of still gaining the custom weakness for a bit of additonal damage if you are wrong.

If you take away Dubious Knowledge altogether, you miss out on the potential to do better based on your own informed decision instead of RNG. But, again, maybe we remove it as a Bonus Feat from a Class Feature. In doing so, your normal Recall Knowledge checks are just simple failures. If you remove it from the Find Flaw action, you still gain the benefit of dealing minimum bonus damage, but miss the chance to pick the better result. That's my examination on the matter.

That aside, I share the opinion that Esoteric Lore should be built into the Class. It's seems little weird that you have a class whose thing is to find of know everything, and then they have to kind of cherry pick what they know more of. I'd rather just have Esoteric Lore as the main feature, maybe with the effects of Dubious Knowledge built into it, and having a harder DC than a normal Recall Knowledge check to reflect the unreliable and broad nature of the information. In doing so, you can either use Esoteric Lore to cover all Recall Knowledge checks with a higher DC, or utilize one of your "Knowledge Skills" to have a more focused Recall Knowledge check at a lower DC that may not apply to that situation. If that make sense? That's probably how I'd like to see it handled.

[graystone]

Ly'ualdre wrote:

So, this is my interpretation on the matter. I don't know if my thoughts on the subject are right, but I figured I'd post it.

** spoiler omitted **...

IMO, if you like the inclusion, it's only a 1st level skill feat away and can even be picked up with a background so it's easy for someone to add it in if they feel it adds to the class. On the other hand, if you don't like it and it's hard locked into you taking it, you're stuck with it no matter how much you think it detracts from the class.... It's an easy call from my perspective, where there is an easy way for everyone to get what they want and that's to not bake it in.