Find Flaws / Esoteric Antithesis Ludonarrative Issues

[Golurkcanfly]

The more that I'm thinking about the class, the more convinced I become that these two features don't sufficiently sell the feel of finding the right tool for the job when hunting monsters.

They are the core of the class, but the actual rules and mechanics of the abilities do very little to suggest that Thaumaturge is actively rummaging through various trinkets and knickknacks to find a tool that can exploit the weakness of an opponent.

By spending an action (or two) to look at a creature, the Thaumaturge gets extra damage to attacks against a creature. This is hardly any different from the Mastermind Rogue, the Investigator's Strategic Strike, or the Ranger's Hunt Prey.

The primary mechanical differences are:

1) The Thaumaturge uses Charisma to access the damage boost
2) The Thaumaturge benefits *less* when exploiting the existing weakness of a creature
3) The Thaumaturge feature works around some of the issues of Recall Knowledge (which should just be fixed itself, rather than needing a class to patch it)
4) The Recall Knowledge is built in (which is the case for the Mastermind Rogue, but needs a level 1 feat for the Ranger and Investigator)

These differences just don't feel like enough, especially when the flavor doesn't do enough to support (1) existing, (2) is actively against the flavor, and (3) is needed because RK is way too vague atm.

This leaves a couple questions.

1) Should the mechanic be relegated to a side feature/feat of the class (with appropriate balance changes) or removed altogether in favor of greater focus on the Implements?

2) If the feature is going to stay the core of the class despite its similarities to the Investigator's core features, how should its mechanics change to better differentiate it and fit the different flavor?

3) If the feature should be removed/turned into a feat, what changes would you propose to the rest of the class to compensate for it?

[Jedi Maester]

This was my thought in a different thread here:

thread

From the responses, it doesn't seem like the most desired outcome. People really like Esoteric Antithesis and want it on this class.

EDIT: I got the link to work!

[Squiggit]

It's awkward that the thaumaturge feels like they 'lose' something when they discover an easily exploitable weakness. I think there should be some improvement there.

hard pass on fundamentally changing the mechanic, removing it or replacing it though. It is the mechanic for the class and one of the lynchpins of their identity. You might as well talk about replacing spellcasting on a wizard.

[Jedi Maester]

Squiggit wrote:

hard pass on fundamentally changing the mechanic, removing it or replacing it though. It is the mechanic for the class and one of the lynchpins of their identity. You might as well talk about replacing spellcasting on a wizard.

I disagree. This is a brand new class who's identity won't be defined until it's released. It has no previous edition baggage. You may be right in the end, but I think it's worth considering outside the box options. Someone may stumble on a great idea.

[Gaulin]

Ironically I was thinking today that esoteric antithesis should work more like bane (working against all enemies of the same type) - and remove the critical failure part of find flaws. This is in addition to any discovered weaknesses being added to with esoteric antithesis. Those three things to me fix most of the issues with the mechanic.

[Golurkcanfly]

Squiggit wrote:

hard pass on fundamentally changing the mechanic, removing it or replacing it though. It is the mechanic for the class and one of the lynchpins of their identity. You might as well talk about replacing spellcasting on a wizard.

That doesn't really answer the question of why it's current incarnation *should be* the main mechanic of the class, it just states that it *already is*. It's circular logic.

This calls into question the current conceptualization of the class. As it exists right now, it's two discrete ideas: one about exploiting monster weaknesses and the other about having special powers from tools. Neither interact with each other in a sufficient manner (half the implements don't interact with FF/EA in any way whatsoever and while the feats interact with FF/EA a good deal, they themselves don't interact much with Implements).

[goodkinghadrian]

I guess I'm confused by #2. You think it'll be disappointing when a thaumaturge discovers a weakness that their allies can exploit too? Because, boy, I look at that as a narrative upside (and, of course, it is literally numerically strictly better).

[Squiggit]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

That doesn't really answer the question of why it's current incarnation *should be* the main mechanic of the class, it just states that it *already is*. It's circular logic.

No, it's not circular logic. It's an opinion about the feel of the class. The Thaumaturge without FF/EA would lose a lot of the flavor and design that appeals to me, so I'm not interested in a version of the class that doesn't have it.

[Golurkcanfly]

goodkinghadrian wrote:

I guess I'm confused by #2. You think it'll be disappointing when a thaumaturge discovers a weakness that their allies can exploit too? Because, boy, I look at that as a narrative upside (and, of course, it is literally numerically strictly better).

It's more that when the thaumaturge benefits more by creating a weakness for a monster that doesn't already have one than it does by exploiting an existing weakness.

[Jedi Maester]

All just my opinion:

If you want the class to be Charisma based, then implements are the way to go. They make perfect sense as a Cha tool set (coaxing magic when you aren't), and are cool enough a class feature to base a whole class around. I think it could be expanded into a general Trick Magic Item class, with access to scrolls, wands, staves, and anything else. This would be a good place for the gloomblade to reside.

Find Flaws and Esoteric Antithesis are naturally Int or Wis. It's even called FIND Flaws, not MAKE Flaws. And I've yet to see it described as anything other than straight up magic. People emphasize stories, which is what bards use to do their spells. They use trinkets, which are just their material components. I'd love these abilities on a bard that shares them with the party. That would be awesome. But combined with implements and pacts, it feels like trying to put two separate classes into one.

[goodkinghadrian]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

goodkinghadrian wrote:

I guess I'm confused by #2. You think it'll be disappointing when a thaumaturge discovers a weakness that their allies can exploit too? Because, boy, I look at that as a narrative upside (and, of course, it is literally numerically strictly better).

It's more that when the thaumaturge benefits more by creating a weakness for a monster that doesn't already have one than it does by exploiting an existing weakness.

So I think the unstated (and incorrect, IMO) assumption here is that the party (or, really, the thaumaturge) would have already been able to exploit a pre-existing weakness. Because doing 2 extra damage against a kobold scout isn't better than doing 3 extra damage against an imp (taking all level 1 examples). It may feel like you did more, but you didn't, because you probably don't have a holy weapon.

[Golurkcanfly]

Jedi Maester wrote:

All just my opinion:

If you want the class to be Charisma based, then implements are the way to go. They make perfect sense as a Cha tool set (coaxing magic when you aren't), and are cool enough a class feature to base a whole class around. I think it could be expanded into a general Trick Magic Item class, with access to scrolls, wands, staves, and anything else. This would be a good place for the gloomblade to reside.

Find Flaws and Esoteric Antithesis are naturally Int or Wis. It's even called FIND Flaws, not MAKE Flaws. And I've yet to see it described as anything other than straight up magic. People emphasize stories, which is what bards use to do their spells. They use trinkets, which are just their material components. I'd love these abilities on a bard, and share them with the party. That would be awesome. But combined with implements and pacts, it feels like trying to put two separate classes into one.

This is pretty close to how I see it, except that those WIS and INT classes already exist in Ranger and Investigator.

The magic stuff is cool, but it's currently heavily overshadowed by this feature that, for all intents and purposes, already exists as the primary mechanic of two other classes.

Implements and other magic-but-not-spell shenanigans are the way to go, like those scroll creation feats. Alchemist-but-magic stuff + more powerful/varied/customizable Implements sounds super cool and actually leans into the idea of being strongest when it's prepared, rather than actually being strongest when it's not prepared and just kinda pretending that it is.

[Golurkcanfly]

goodkinghadrian wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

goodkinghadrian wrote:

I guess I'm confused by #2. You think it'll be disappointing when a thaumaturge discovers a weakness that their allies can exploit too? Because, boy, I look at that as a narrative upside (and, of course, it is literally numerically strictly better).

It's more that when the thaumaturge benefits more by creating a weakness for a monster that doesn't already have one than it does by exploiting an existing weakness.

So I think the unstated (and incorrect, IMO) assumption here is that the party (or, really, the thaumaturge) would have already been able to exploit a pre-existing weakness. Because doing 2 extra damage against a kobold scout isn't better than doing 3 extra damage against an imp (taking all level 1 examples). It may feel like you did more, but you didn't, because you probably don't have a holy weapon.

If you're actively roleplaying the concept it's trying to sell, and studying your enemies and staying ahead of the curve, then your marginal benefit is less than if you don't do that. It's funky. That and the more detailed stuff you could prepare (the Implements and scroll feats and whatnot) are actively less powerful because this really strong version of this idea is taking so much of the focus (and "power budget") of the class.

[goodkinghadrian]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

goodkinghadrian wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

goodkinghadrian wrote:

I guess I'm confused by #2. You think it'll be disappointing when a thaumaturge discovers a weakness that their allies can exploit too? Because, boy, I look at that as a narrative upside (and, of course, it is literally numerically strictly better).

It's more that when the thaumaturge benefits more by creating a weakness for a monster that doesn't already have one than it does by exploiting an existing weakness.

So I think the unstated (and incorrect, IMO) assumption here is that the party (or, really, the thaumaturge) would have already been able to exploit a pre-existing weakness. Because doing 2 extra damage against a kobold scout isn't better than doing 3 extra damage against an imp (taking all level 1 examples). It may feel like you did more, but you didn't, because you probably don't have a holy weapon.

If you're actively roleplaying the concept it's trying to sell, and studying your enemies and staying ahead of the curve, then your marginal benefit is less than if you don't do that. It's funky. That and the more detailed stuff you could prepare (the Implements and scroll feats and whatnot) are actively less powerful because this really strong version of this idea is taking so much of the focus (and "power budget") of the class.

That isn't what the thaumaturge is trying to sell, though. It's not a class that does studious research ahead of time to find weaknesses; it's one that carries a bunch of weird stuff around, knowing that they can find the right thing to use in the moment. It's extemporaneous. And that's exactly what Esoteric Antithesis does - come up with an answer to whatever they face, even if they didn't know it was coming.

[QuidEst]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

goodkinghadrian wrote:

I guess I'm confused by #2. You think it'll be disappointing when a thaumaturge discovers a weakness that their allies can exploit too? Because, boy, I look at that as a narrative upside (and, of course, it is literally numerically strictly better).

It's more that when the thaumaturge benefits more by creating a weakness for a monster that doesn't already have one than it does by exploiting an existing weakness.

But that's not even true most of the time. The thaumaturge only uses the existing weakness if it's larger than their created resistance. The exception is if it's one they're already prepped for. In which case… sure, but it's not terribly common. And it's fine to have some enemies where the Barbarian you've helped prep really shines.

You can plan around it too. Fire is a common weakness and resistance. So instead of getting a flaming rune, you can focus on something rarely resisted instead, like sonic or acid damage. You'll get the benefits of fire for weaknesses, but not for the drawbacks on resistance/immunity.

If you want to focus on bringing just the right weapon for the job and planning ahead, that's Investigator's wheelhouse. They get RK bonuses when they can take time to study something ahead of time, and Alchemical Sciences can whip up silversheen and the like.

Maybe the solution is a class feat. Give a fully prepared thaumaturge the ability to treat the target as flatfooted against their first attack each round or something like that.

[Jedi Maester]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

This is pretty close to how I see it...

Based on these forums, I think we might be only ones to feel this way. But I'm glad I'm not alone!

[Golurkcanfly]

goodkinghadrian wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

goodkinghadrian wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

goodkinghadrian wrote:

I guess I'm confused by #2. You think it'll be disappointing when a thaumaturge discovers a weakness that their allies can exploit too? Because, boy, I look at that as a narrative upside (and, of course, it is literally numerically strictly better).

It's more that when the thaumaturge benefits more by creating a weakness for a monster that doesn't already have one than it does by exploiting an existing weakness.

So I think the unstated (and incorrect, IMO) assumption here is that the party (or, really, the thaumaturge) would have already been able to exploit a pre-existing weakness. Because doing 2 extra damage against a kobold scout isn't better than doing 3 extra damage against an imp (taking all level 1 examples). It may feel like you did more, but you didn't, because you probably don't have a holy weapon.

If you're actively roleplaying the concept it's trying to sell, and studying your enemies and staying ahead of the curve, then your marginal benefit is less than if you don't do that. It's funky. That and the more detailed stuff you could prepare (the Implements and scroll feats and whatnot) are actively less powerful because this really strong version of this idea is taking so much of the focus (and "power budget") of the class.

That isn't what the thaumaturge is trying to sell, though. It's not a class that does studious research ahead of time to find weaknesses; it's one that carries a bunch of weird stuff around, knowing that they can find the right thing to use in the moment. It's extemporaneous. And that's exactly what Esoteric Antithesis does - come up with an answer to whatever they face, even if they didn't know it was coming.

It's about carrying the bag of stuff but nothing in the mechanics encourages interacting with the bag of stuff in any way besides to use Hunt Prey 2: Electric Boogaloo.

There is no filling the bag of stuff to make sure that you have what you need to use it in the future.

There is no mechanical representation of the rummaging and pulling out.

There is nothing that makes what you pull out *actually matter*, as the effect still applies

Just "look at thing" and "spend action to hit thing harder later"

It's a class that is best played by leaning away from the flavor its trying to describe.

[GameDesignerDM]

Isn't a lot of that stuff just like... roleplaying that part? Not every single thing has to have itself represented by explicit mechanics.

[Golurkcanfly]

GameDesignerDM wrote:

Isn't a lot of that stuff just like... roleplaying that part? Not every single thing has to have itself represented by explicit mechanics.

The problem is that they actively work *against* each other

And that mechanics should support the roleplay. This is Pathfinder, the system where things that are similar still have rules differences to correspond with differentiate flavors. There isn't one "catch-all" polearm, for example.

The class that is based around having the tool for the job has mechanics that at best don't care about it and at worst benefit *not* roleplaying it more than it does when you roleplay appropriately.

[Verdyn]

Isn't it common practice to start carrying alchemists' fire, acid flasks, silver/cold iron weapons as soon as it becomes affordable? How does this class jive with a well-prepared party?

[Golurkcanfly]

Verdyn wrote:

Isn't it common practice to start carrying alchemists' fire, acid flasks, silver/cold iron weapons as soon as it becomes affordable? How does this class jive with a well-prepared party?

It weirdly doesn't, in its current state. It shines when you'd be the least prepared, rather than having lots of benefits to preparation, more ways to prepare, and a bigger toolbox to prepare with.

It's like if the Alchemist could only Quick Alchemy and only one or two alchemical items instead of also having preparation stuff.

[Themetricsystem]

A stupid wishlist:

A half dozen "Class paths" that are distinct, one for each kind of implement, chosen at first level and double the number of implements you start with, keep the same progression as you level. The initial choice cannot be retrained but provides a unique bonus when using those implements.

Give them some kind of BASE universal Lore that counts as all four Traditions for all intents-and-purposes that is automatically improved as you level: T @ 1 > E @ 6 > M @ 11 > L @ 16.

Reduce Initial Skill Training as appropriate due to loss of spreading all your Skills between all four Traditions.

Provide them with Trick Magic Item for free, and them a bonus to help their "Flat Check" equal to their Cha Mod.

I know this sounds crazy but provide an additional 3 Bulk of carrying capacity and have their collection of Esoterica weight at LEAST 2 whole bulk distributed across their body. There is NO WAY in ANY of the planar dimensions that THAT Iconic simply has it all stashed away in just one little pouch, their collection itself IS and SHOULD BE visually burdensome, although I don't think it should be a penalty at the end of th day regardless.

[Golurkcanfly]

Themetricsystem wrote:

A stupid wishlist:

A half dozen "Class paths" that are distinct, one for each kind of implement, chosen at first level and double the number of implements you start with, keep the same progression as you level. The initial choice cannot be retrained but provides a unique bonus when using those implements.

Give them some kind of BASE universal Lore that counts as all four Traditions that goes T @ 1 > E @ 6 > M @ 11 > L @ 16.

Provide them with Trick Magic Item for free, and them a bonus to help their "Flat Check" equal to their Cha Mod.

I know this sounds crazy but provide an additional 3 Bulk of carrying capacity and have their collection of Esoterica weight at LEAST 2 whole bulk distributed across their body. There is NO WAY in ANY of the planar dimensions that THAT Iconic simply has it all stashed away in just one little pouch, their collection itself IS and SHOULD BE visually burdensome, although I don't think it should be a penalty at the end of th day regardless.

It is a big wishlist but some of these could honestly happen. Do think the Lore one is the best fix for their Find Flaw needing them to burn a ton of skill increases into the knowledge skills, but I wouldn't make it go up to Legendary just so there's a bit more room for specialization (since I know some people want that).

[Roadie]

I think a simple first step here would be to dump all the weakness stuff all together, and give the class a bane-type ability instead, similar to the bane ability that 1e's inquisitor gets. In one fell swoop all the nonsensical gameplay issues with Find Weakness go away, and the class instantly feels more like an actually Charisma-based concept because you're inflicting something rather than "finding" weaknesses.

[Golurkcanfly]

Roadie wrote:

I think a simple first step here would be to dump all the weakness stuff all together, and give the class a bane-type ability instead, similar to the bane ability that 1e's inquisitor gets. In one fell swoop all the nonsensical gameplay issues with Find Weakness go away, and the class instantly feels more like an actually Charisma-based concept because you're inflicting something rather than "finding" weaknesses.

This could also work if you want to keep the martial flavor. Could even have different effects so it's a bit more varied, like when you use Bane you can apply property runes to your weapons, and rather than working just on your target, it works on all similar or associated creatures (which helps differentiate it more from similar abilities from other classes).

[Roadie]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

This could also work if you want to keep the martial flavor. Could even have different effects so it's a bit more varied, like when you use Bane you can apply property runes to your weapons, and rather than working just on your target, it works on all similar or associated creatures (which helps differentiate it more from similar abilities from other classes).

That's about what I was thinking, yeah. Something where you can activate a bane effect targeting one creature trait (not a specific creature) and then it stays on for, say, 1 minute. That strongly differentiates it from the creature-specific abilities like Hunt Prey, and eases up significantly on the class' action economy in a way that helps make up for the lack of all the multi-action feats that the pure martials get.

[Jedi Maester]

If the class went full magic items, I'd like to see this expanded to just easily adding and swapping weapon runes. So not only are able to use any magic item, you also customized them freely. Including bane.

[Golurkcanfly]

Jedi Maester wrote:

If the class went full magic items, I'd like to see this expanded to just easily adding and swapping weapon runes. So not only are able to use any magic item, you also customized them freely. Including bane.

Adding extra weapon runes is something I want as customization for the Weapon Implement, just like I want customization for the wands by letting you choose a spell that you can cast with it several times a day, or armor runes for your amulet, or potions for your chalice.

[pixierose]

If I had to choose between Implements and Esoteric Antithesis I would choose Implements 100% but I don't think I have too. I do think E.A needs adjustments, but the two combined at least fulfill the fantasy in my mind.

[Golurkcanfly]

pixierose wrote:

If I had to choose between Implements and Esoteric Antithesis I would choose Implements 100% but I don't think I have too. I do think E.A needs adjustments, but the two combined at least fulfill the fantasy in my mind.

I think since Implements can stand on its own more, it should receive more focus (especially since mechanically and thematically similar abilities to FF/EA are the focus of two other classes). I also believe that some of the stuff currently relegated to feats, particularly the scroll and talisman creation ones, allow for more interesting options for core features to supplement Implements in a significantly more thematic way. However I do think FF/EA stuff is important for a good number of people, hence why it shouldn't be necessarily scrapped outright, but instead be worked into a less prominent feature with upgrades or a class feat.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

There is nothing that makes what you pull out *actually matter*, as the effect still applies

Just "look at thing" and "spend action to hit thing harder later"

It's a class that is best played by leaning away from the flavor its trying to describe.

That is a really good point. We can roleplay by narrative any class to rummage about in their backstory/weapon/feat/class feature and hit/cast/skill harder. There seems to be scope for something here that isn’t being utilised.

[Golurkcanfly]

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

There is nothing that makes what you pull out *actually matter*, as the effect still applies

Just "look at thing" and "spend action to hit thing harder later"

It's a class that is best played by leaning away from the flavor its trying to describe.

That is a really good point. We can roleplay by narrative any class to rummage about in their backstory/weapon/feat/class feature and hit/cast/skill harder. There seems to be scope for something here that isn’t being utilised.

I think one way would be to have the class actually pull out like a minor item to benefit, or allow them to pull out an existing item that does help, like an actual silver weapon if they have one.

Then make it have an interesting benefit if you target an existing weakness.

Though that doesn't quite help some of the issues FF/EA have with some of the flavor of using CHA for an RK check instead of something else.

[The Raven Black]

FF/EA is the core of the class to me. And Implements the secondary ability.

I don't think I will be interested at all in a class that is Implements first (or even worse, only), just as I was not interested in the PF1 Occultist.

The concept of establishing connections and using them to contribute in a fight is what draws me to the class.

Not the ability to be, thanks to Implements, a Light version of Champion, Cleric, Sorcerer, Fighter or whatever.