Charisma and Find Flaws / Esoteric Antithesis thoughts

[Jedi Maester]

So this might be too outside the box. But I love the possibilities of this class and wanted to throw this out there.

Find Flaws and Esoteric Antithesis are amazing abilities, they are so good that I think everyone wants to use them on their preferred class. They would fit amazingly on an investigator, inquisitor, and even a ranger. And I think the reason people want to see the class with Int or Wis is to fulfill that idea, without even having to change the recall knowledge ability score. So my crazy idea is to drop these from the class.

Hear me out! I'm not incredibly familiar with the inspiration for this class (Dresden, Constantine, and the like), but I believe they operate similar to detectives. And the fun of a detective is figuring out something that is already there, not forcing a new thing to fit. If I want a class to force narrative cohesion on reality, it's definitely the bard. And even they keep their knowledge roles Int based, as Cha as they are.

So instead of forcing Cha here, what if we switch the focus of the class to anything magic adjacent where Cha makes sense. Without the above bonuses, the implements could become main combat tools. They start out magical, and gain abilities as they level up to stay on par. This could probably be a similar implementation(HA!) to the inventor innovations, but based off of magic and Cha. So the thaumaturge is able to unlock the hidden potential in the sword they picked up from a ruin. Or maybe even upgrade it themselves. I could even see a fun relationship here between an intelligent implement and the thaumaturge.

Cha was the Use Magic Device of first edition. Let's bring that back here. Give them the UMD version of Find Flaws: trained in all 4 magic tradition skills and uses Cha for all of them when using Trick Magic Item. This character may not be magical of themselves, but he knows how to play with any magical item he finds. This will help with using scrolls, wands, and any other knickknacks from all 4 traditions. The true dabbler. And maybe feats to increase proficiency when using these items, making this a main feature.

I think the Pacts are perfect for Cha. Using your Cha to gain favors of more powerful beings. Great flavor and mechanics. Someone else mentioned feats to boost racial spells. These are based on Cha and tying in ones limited natural magic makes perfect sense for this direction.

A version of finding flaws could remain, but toned down. Not the main part of the class. This would allow using Int as a secondary stat for a more party support role.

I doubt this will be a popular idea, but what does everyone else think?

[pixierose]

I could be wrong but completely dropping a major class feature tends to be ait out of the scope of the playtest. The main issue is that they don't do second rounds of playtest and whatever takes the place of the class feature they take out would ideally want another major playtest. It's better to talk more about adjusting mechanics, while keeping the same core theme or concept, or adjusting fluff to better fit a mechanic.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to making the implements more of the focus even though I do like Esoteric Antithesis.

[Squiggit]

Esoteric Antithesis is the whole point of the class so no thanks.

Now, internal support for Trick Magic Item, maybe with some Charisma based mechanic there? Yeah that sounds awesome.

[Jedi Maester]

Just to be clear, while I saying to remove Esoteric Antithesis from the Thaumaturge, that's because I want to save it for a class like the Inquisitor. Not only do I think the it fits better with the fantasy of the Inquisitor, which is already Wis based, but I think the Inquisitor will come with class options to help make Esoteric Antithesis even better. I think it will be able to get more out of the ability since it won't have to share space with using implements and other features.

I guess I'm worried only one class might get this feature, so I'm thinking ahead if this is the class I want to have it. If the Thaumaturge can work without it, maybe it could be saved for another class.

[Jedi Maester]

pixierose wrote:

I could be wrong but completely dropping a major class feature tends to be ait out of the scope of the playtest. The main issue is that they don't do second rounds of playtest and whatever takes the place of the class feature they take out would ideally want another major playtest. It's better to talk more about adjusting mechanics, while keeping the same core theme or concept, or adjusting fluff to better fit a mechanic.

So I suggested a similar total revamp of the gunslinger, losing legendary proficiency with guns to a grit system that's more weapon agnostic. Michael Sayre actually popped up to say it was indeed a possibility and being considered. So I figured, why not think more outside the box.

This is also why I referenced the inventors innovations. They already have playtest data on that, so it shouldn't be too hard to transfer here.

[pixierose]

Jedi Maester wrote:

pixierose wrote:

I could be wrong but completely dropping a major class feature tends to be ait out of the scope of the playtest. The main issue is that they don't do second rounds of playtest and whatever takes the place of the class feature they take out would ideally want another major playtest. It's better to talk more about adjusting mechanics, while keeping the same core theme or concept, or adjusting fluff to better fit a mechanic.

So I suggested a similar total revamp of the gunslinger, losing legendary proficiency with guns to a grit system that's more weapon agnostic. Michael Sayre actually popped up to say it was indeed a possibility and being considered. So I figured, why not think more outside the box.

This is also why I referenced the inventors innovations. They already have playtest data on that, so it shouldn't be too hard to transfer here.

Well im happy to be proven wrong, I still think they would only go so far though.

I also think wanting to save a mechanic for a class they may never come when their is a class that can have it now is maybe not the best way to look at things.

I get why you would wnat it on Inquiistor, and it would be very thematic, and I also want the inquisitor to come someday but we have no idea if that day will come.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Eh, I really like esoteric antithesis on this class, and I actually like the idea of it working because you convince the universe it works. Discovering existing weaknesses and then exploiting them is more of a ranger or investigator thing.

I would, however, like for there to be more emphasis on the implements in the class feats. I could also see room for treating your first implements as a subclass of sorts; make so your key attribute is based on which one to first take, Dex/Str for Weapon, Int/Wis for Lantern, Wis/Cha for Chalice, Int/Cha for wand, etc. Might make a cool way of making the flavor entry about how other other thaumaturges see you have a little more oomph; these assumptions are there because certain types are drawn to certain implements

[Unicore]

I echo that Esoteric Antithesis is my favorite part of this class and feels incredibly linked to Charisma, and is the strongest argument for the class being the charisma class. The ability to trick magic items is cool, but the idea of the Thaumaturge that tricks the universe itself rather than just items.

[Arachnofiend]

pixierose wrote:

I could be wrong but completely dropping a major class feature tends to be ait out of the scope of the playtest. The main issue is that they don't do second rounds of playtest and whatever takes the place of the class feature they take out would ideally want another major playtest. It's better to talk more about adjusting mechanics, while keeping the same core theme or concept, or adjusting fluff to better fit a mechanic.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to making the implements more of the focus even though I do like Esoteric Antithesis.

The Investigator got a full revamp of its mechanics, but the Investigator was in a much more dire position I think to warrant that, being a failure at achieving its goals at a fundamental conceptual level. If the Thaumaturge's ideas are cool enough that people want to rob it for their own pet classes then I don't think this is a comparable scenario.

[Sanityfaerie]

Jedi Maester wrote:

Just to be clear, while I saying to remove Esoteric Antithesis from the Thaumaturge, that's because I want to save it for a class like the Inquisitor. Not only do I think the it fits better with the fantasy of the Inquisitor, which is already Wis based, but I think the Inquisitor will come with class options to help make Esoteric Antithesis even better. I think it will be able to get more out of the ability since it won't have to share space with using implements and other features.

I guess I'm worried only one class might get this feature, so I'm thinking ahead if this is the class I want to have it. If the Thaumaturge can work without it, maybe it could be saved for another class.

Why not try to fit the inquisitor into the thaumaturge entirely? That's the way I've been trying to push things, and it gets you your fully viable inquisitor quite a lot sooner in the publication process. What do you love in the inquisitor that you couldn't fit into a thaumaturge with a few tweaks?

[pixierose]

Arachnofiend wrote:

pixierose wrote:

I could be wrong but completely dropping a major class feature tends to be ait out of the scope of the playtest. The main issue is that they don't do second rounds of playtest and whatever takes the place of the class feature they take out would ideally want another major playtest. It's better to talk more about adjusting mechanics, while keeping the same core theme or concept, or adjusting fluff to better fit a mechanic.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to making the implements more of the focus even though I do like Esoteric Antithesis.

The Investigator got a full revamp of its mechanics, but the Investigator was in a much more dire position I think to warrant that, being a failure at achieving its goals at a fundamental conceptual level. If the Thaumaturge's ideas are cool enough that people want to rob it for their own pet classes then I don't think this is a comparable scenario.

It's been awhile since the investigator playtest, so I probably forgot about how different it was. Thanks for the correction!

[Jedi Maester]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Why not try to fit the inquisitor into the thaumaturge entirely? That's the way I've been trying to push things, and it gets you your fully viable inquisitor quite a lot sooner in the publication process. What do you love in the inquisitor that you couldn't fit into a thaumaturge with a few tweaks?

I said this on the ability score thread, but it applies here too:

Inquisitor, Van Helsing, and Constantine all seem to be here on some level. While making different subclasses could cover each of these, I don't know if that is the best idea. While they have some overlap, I'm not sure it's much more than a Swashbuckler and a Rogue. And I would hate for one of those to be a subclass of another.

It makes me think this class has too many toys. Everyone focuses on their favorite toy and wants to the class emphasize that, such as knowing monster flaws or having a magic trinket for each occasion. Is the class spread too wide as is? Does it need a more specific focus so we aren't trying to cram every ability score into it?

So this was kind of an attempt to do that.