"and then I faked it" - the Thaumaturge's theme problem.

[Sanityfaerie]

So... there are a lot of heroes out there who do what the Thaumaturge does... almost. They learn all of the weird little bits of lore, they constantly collect little mystical thingamabobs, and they know how to put the two together. Constantine, Geralt, Helsing - there's this image of the crazy-prepared occult Batman/McGuyver who always has lots of little tricks up their sleeve, and knows how to leverage them because he's studied the stuff that no one else has studied.

The Thaumaturge is almost those guys. He does the thing where he learns all of the weird little bits of lore, and he does the thing where he's always carrying around these little bits and bobs to properly exploit it... but then for the last 10% of the journey he just fakes it with magic, and it turns out that he doesn't actually know his stuff. It's all just set dressing to let him convince himself and the world that it's supposed to work, so it does.

That seems like almost a slap in the face of the fictional characters that the class most represents. Like, you can play someone very much like Constantine or Geralt or Van Helsing, but if you do that, you're admitting that the lore they claim to have acquired (and believe they have acquired) isn't necessarily true, and isn't even all that important. Their carefully accumulated store of mystical trinkets are heavy on the trinket and light on the mystical.

It seems kind of a shame that the class that seems most obviously intended to play those characters can't play them straight.

[Deathsworn]

From what I've understood, a success on the roll translates to "Ah, I know, let's use silver!", then you quickly apply a silver chain to your weapon with a free Esoteric Antithesis. A failure says "Hmm, one of these must work.", taking a moment longer to apply a few different trinkets.

In both situations you know (or are convinced you know) what the target's weakness is and it just works, due to your raw confidence in saying "This will work".

The person who truly knows what to do and the person who thinks they know what to do are both supported by the Thaumaturge, it's up to how you flavor the action's results at that point.

[YuriP]

Instead of fake why not use the concept of create?

"I don't find or don't existe a flaw against this foe. So I will create one! When I apply this seal/scroll/trinket/talisman/whatever that will add a explotable weakness to use againt it!"

I think this is a flavor that we can apply to thaumaturge is way more cool than strange explanation that it can convice the world or some other forced concept like this. (that's one reason I think that int or wis makes more sense to thaumaturge than cha)

[Jedi Maester]

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

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

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

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

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

[Squiggit]

Jedi Maester wrote:

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

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

[QuidEst]

It's not fake. If it were fake, it wouldn't work, and it does work. It's not reproducible, but broadly speaking it's leaning more occult than arcane, and occult isn't necessarily reproducible. The thaumaturge's magic uses the connection to form the weakness, which is a different fantasy than Van Helsing and the rest. A wizard can manage to feel like Gandalf without being basically an angel and wielding a sword. (My apologies for the very crude summary of whatever Gandalf has going on.)

"But it doesn't matter what you use." Yeah. But it also doesn't matter what the wizard says while casting, or who the witch's patron really is. When people play the game, they're usually agreeing that the wizard isn't using "rubber baby buggy bumpers" as verbal components, that the witch's patron isn't a regular innkeeper, and that generally speaking, we're here to tell fantasy stories in a very broadly shared style. That usually involves providing some appropriate flavor- or at least not insisting on something inappropriate.

Is it interesting to have the shards of a chain of a freed slave injure the tyrant that imprisoned them? Yes. Can the game write up rules for that kind of narrative connection without leaving a lot in player and GM hands? No. So that's where we are.

It's only faking it if you make it faking it. And that's also fine as a character concept, but it's not one that you'd use, or have to use, for any of the characters you mentioned.

[Jedi Maester]

Squiggit wrote:

Jedi Maester wrote:

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

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

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

[Sanityfaerie]

QuidEst wrote:

It's not fake. If it were fake, it wouldn't work, and it does work. It's not reproducible, but broadly speaking it's leaning more occult than arcane, and occult isn't necessarily reproducible. The thaumaturge's magic uses the connection to form the weakness, which is a different fantasy than Van Helsing and the rest. A wizard can manage to feel like Gandalf without being basically an angel and wielding a sword. (My apologies for the very crude summary of whatever Gandalf has going on.)

"But it doesn't matter what you use." Yeah. But it also doesn't matter what the wizard says while casting, or who the witch's patron really is. When people play the game, they're usually agreeing that the wizard isn't using "rubber baby buggy bumpers" as verbal components, that the witch's patron isn't a regular innkeeper, and that generally speaking, we're here to tell fantasy stories in a very broadly shared style. That usually involves providing some appropriate flavor- or at least not insisting on something inappropriate.

Is it interesting to have the shards of a chain of a freed slave injure the tyrant that imprisoned them? Yes. Can the game write up rules for that kind of narrative connection without leaving a lot in player and GM hands? No. So that's where we are.

It's only faking it if you make it faking it. And that's also fine as a character concept, but it's not one that you'd use, or have to use, for any of the characters you mentioned.

You're letting the IC and the OOC collide. I'm talking about what happens in the fiction. In the fiction, the precise syllables that he Wizard uses are critically important, as is the identity of the witch's patron. The patron isn't a standard innkeeper, because the innkeeper isn't a creature of sufficient magical power to support a witch in that way. We don't OOC know or particularly care about what the precise verbal component is for the wizard, but there absolutely is one, and if they get it wrong, then the spell doesn't work. It's about what's gong on in the fiction.

The thing is for the Thaumaturge, the thematic combination of "it runs on charisma" and "it works even if you get it wrong" means that a lot of the study they do is just window dressing. It's not actually about having lots of esoteric knowledge, because if it was actually about having lots of esoteric knowledge, then it wouldn't work when the esoteric knowledge failed you. That's not what's actually being tested here.

So... I guess that the Thaumaturge is basically someone who's covered in charms and bangles that don't actually work until the thaumaturge says they work, who's studied a bunch of lore of dubious veracity, but has the power to make all of this stuff work in spite of that, and that's okay. I mean, the bit where the party wizard goes apoplectic because this idiot is totally convinced of a theory of magic that's blatantly incorrect but there's no way to convince them otherwise because they force it to work every time anyway - that has some potential for humor. It just seems like it's a real shame to get so close to Magical Batman and then refuse to reach out the last bit of distance to seal the deal.

[Squiggit]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

means that a lot of the study they do is just window dressing.

I mean you could say the same thing about the wizard's gestures or the witch's patron.

But "window dressing" is incredibly important in a roleplaying game for holding together concepts. It sort of reads like you're presenting your vision of the character in a really specific way and then getting annoyed at that same presentation.

It's like the difference between calling a wizard a master of the arcane and a weirdo in a bathrob wiggling their fingers and babbling nonsense.

[QuidEst]

Quote:

"it works even if you get it wrong"

Well, that's just it. It doesn't work if you get it wrong (crit fail), but it does work if you haven't narrowed it down (regular failure). When that happens, it takes an extra action. So what does that look like, if you don't care for the haphazard approach? The character isn't certain, and simply applies all relevant possibilities, rather than wasting time trying one by one.

If you want the character to appear more Batman-esque, it's probably important for them to acknowledge the limitations and strengths of what they do. "Most people can tell you that a troll is weak to fire. But what is a human's weakness? An elf's? Such things are imprecise. And again, if one has fire, fighting a troll is easy. To remind the world that your sword was forged in fire, and is in its own way a manifestation of fire? That is a more difficult task. But in this manner, I am never without what I need most."

[Captain Morgan]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

That seems like almost a slap in the face of the fictional characters that the class most represents. Like, you can play someone very much like Constantine or Geralt or Van Helsing, but if you do that, you're admitting that the lore they claim to have acquired (and believe they have acquired) isn't necessarily true, and isn't even all that important. Their carefully accumulated store of mystical trinkets are heavy on the trinket and light on the mystical.

It seems kind of a shame that the class that seems most obviously intended to play those characters can't play them straight.

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

Take Geralt here. The only common ground is that Geralt is a dabbler and a monster hunter. But there are already much clearer ways to make the character with existing classes. Make a versatile heritage human ranger with the alchemist dedication and a few spell feats. You can swap the exact specifics to match whatever build you want to emphasize, but all the elements are there.

IMO the real problem is this expectation wasn't clearly set from the beginning. But I really think people should be focusing on how to make the intended theme pop, not replace it with an entirely new character concept. If only because they aren't going to throw out the character concept they already have.

[Jedi Maester]

Captain Morgan wrote:

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

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

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

[Captain Morgan]

Jedi Maester wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Jedi Maester]

Captain Morgan wrote:

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

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

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

[Sanityfaerie]

Squiggit wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

means that a lot of the study they do is just window dressing.

I mean you could say the same thing about the wizard's gestures or the witch's patron.

But "window dressing" is incredibly important in a roleplaying game for holding together concepts. It sort of reads like you're presenting your vision of the character in a really specific way and then getting annoyed at that same presentation.

It's like the difference between calling a wizard a master of the arcane and a weirdo in a bathrob wiggling their fingers and babbling nonsense.

Just to address this, there is a fundamental difference in the fiction.

In the fiction, if you are a witch, who your patron is matters. At least as best I understand it, your power descends directly from your patron. If your patron doesn't have access to a particular spell, you cannot get that spell from them. OOC, that's not an issue you need to worry about unless you want it for RP reasons. IC, it's very real. Sure, if you want to play a pure silliness game where you have a pact with the Innkeeper, and your GM is cool with it and the other players are fine with the idea, then there's nothing that prevents it, and you'll function just like any other witch. In the fiction/fluff as actually presented in the books, though, that's not how it works.

In the fiction, if you are a wizard, your power comes from deep study and arcane lore. Your spells work because that's the way that spells work, and you know the actual arcane words and gestures that can make it all work. If somehow another wizard offered to teach you how to cast a spell, and then lied about the spell in question so that your information was incorrect, then it wouldn't work. OOC, we get to decide whatever we like about what the invocations or gestures might be, but that's not what's going on with the character. At the character level, one set of gestures is correct, and the rest are incorrect, and they're doing the correct one, because they know what the correct one is.

In the fiction, the Thaumaturge spends a bunch of time studying and "learning forgotten lore"... but how good they are at studying (based on Int) does not matter. they could be dumb as a stone, with the memory retention of a rabbit, and it has zero effect on how well they can do their job.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like "I am actually convincing the universe that things work this way, but it doesn't look like I'm doing anything at all" is consistent with most versions of John Constantine.

[Sanityfaerie]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "I am actually convincing the universe that things work this way, but it doesn't look like I'm doing anything at all" is consistent with most versions of John Constantine.

I... okay. I admit, I don't actually have an answer to that. The idea that the time spend acquiring proficiency in Nature, Occult, Religion, and Arcana is not so much valuable for the learning things as it is for the moral equivalent of waving around the doctorate and convincing the universe that you know what you're talking about and it should just go along with what you're saying? That... basically tracks with the class features as written. Likewise, as you say, it basically tracks with John Constantine. Why shouldn't he be constantly pulling one over on the universe at he same time as he pulls one over on everyone else?

All I can say at that point is that there are character archetypes that I would want to play (and see played) that the Thaumaturge falls just short of describing, and it feels like it would be so easy to allow them into the space with a bit of tweaking - not disrupting the base thaumaturge, and almost no additional effort necessary for balancing - but if this really is the hero we deserve, then it is what it is.

[DrakeRoberts]

Perhaps their Forgotten Lore was not dug up in some dusty old tome, but by talking to people, hearing their folklores and stories, etc? Perhaps their force of personality, the belief they put behind those fabled relics and remedies and superstitions is why they can benefit from weaknesses that others can't? But it is reasonable (from a fantasy/fiction standpoint), IMHO, for stories to hold a grain of truth, and for such stories to only hold power for those who truly believe them, and have the inner fortitude to enforce that will upon reality. Exorcisms in fiction settings, for example, often emphasize this.

[Jedi Maester]

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

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

I have no desire to recreate an typecast character of to lean on any previous IP, so for me the class is doing great. These discussions of “window dressing” and IC/OOC descriptions leave me screatching my head. I don’t see the disconnect between the witch patron/wizard waggling/thaumaturge abilities at all. Thry all make no sense in our world and all sense in the game world. And if I were to look hard enough I could find narrative problems with spellcasting and Patrons - but perhaps folks are seeing the Thaumaturge’s narrative leaps are too far or are baffling?

Two minor, unrelated points:

1: people keep pointing to the trinkets/talismans/bangles etc the Thaumaturge wears that might resonate etc. And I’ve seen folks point to fiction/media of this, but unless I missed something, the panoply of items does…nothing. The Esoterica is weirdly…a little bag…of infinitely narrative and actual items.

2: the witch’s Patron could be the Innkeeper. Who knows who that innkeeper really is!?!

[Ascalaphus]

This is making me want to make an innkeeper witch whose patron literally comes around for drinks on fridays.

[GM Suede]

The class honestly feels like a good representation of modern fantasy magical systems.

Rules of three, implements, demesnes, pacts, and all that fun stuff you see in series like Dresden Files or Pact.

The finding flaws thing I take as either just knowing such detail you can muster up a solution where there shouldn't be, or more likely... in the Pact setting anything you do is observed by the spirits of the universe, if you convince them something should work by being confident in it, then they make it happen.

And repetition strengthens that influence. Do something a certain way a lot and anytime you do it it's going to happen. I'm actually quite happy and excited about the Thaumaturge's theme.

[YuriP]

"Convince the universe" IMO is a thing more like a spellcaster do. Is a context far more closer to how a spellcaster like Marvel's Doctor Strange do or a "psychic" like Matrix's Neo do than a DC's Constantine who tricks using diverse itens and stratagems to exploit flaws from universe/creatures/spells do.

That's why the concept provided by Mark justifying CHA and the class mechanics who exploit flaws don't meet. The concept who thaumaturge class claims simply doesn't meets with what it does.

[DrakeRoberts]

YuriP wrote:

"Convince the universe" IMO is a thing more like a spellcaster do. Is a context far more closer to how a spellcaster like Marvel's Doctor Strange do or a "psychic" like Matrix's Neo do than a DC's Constantine who tricks using diverse itens and stratagems to exploit flaws from universe/creatures/spells do.

That's why the concept provided by Mark justifying CHA and the class mechanics who exploit flaws don't meet. The concept who thaumaturge class claims simply doesn't meets with what it does.

I don't know. What if it isn't convincing the universe? The idea is that SOMETHING should work, if only you knew what. If that's the case than a successful charisma-based Find Flaws represents the delving into stories, folklore, etc. Things that are spoken rather than written. Things that require less intellect and more social skills to acquire. More a reading of the Supernatural and Superstitions Gestalt. if you will. That interpretation is certainly in line with Dubious Knowledge being given as a by fiat feat, doesn't it?

[YuriP]

You are describing Wis no Cha.

The oral and more instinctive knowledge are describe as wisdow. The charisma represents your emotional presence and your social abilities. That's why for many people wis also make more sense than cha.

That's why nature and religion are wis based.

Just remember of skills bases:
Intelligence is mora analytic and methodic that's why it's used for arcane and occult.
Wisdom is more sensitive and instintive and less methodic that's why it's used for nature and religion.
Charisma represents social and emotional abilities that's why is used for performance and society.

The universe isn't usually a sentient intelligence similar to human like creatures to you talk about it's rules and convince it. Usually just spellcasters use cha to change reality using their emotional capabilities but this is based in inner powers to do spectacular things (sorcerer) or to redirect outside forces that overwhelm them (oracles) or to using music/acts (bards) reverbereting them with reality. But it's too strange to a class that's specialized to use many trinkets (implements) that it has at hand choosing them based on each situation be based on charisma. If not why we have different implements at all? If you just need to convice the universe you just need to use a focus item of your preference and your emotional force does the rest.

[Squiggit]

YuriP wrote:

That's why nature and religion are wis based.

I mean, let's be real. They're wisdom based so Clerics and Druids could be really good at those skills (as opposed to 1e where they weren't) more than anything else. There's no real logical connection there.

[DrakeRoberts]

YuriP wrote:

You are describing Wis no Cha.

The oral and more instinctive knowledge are describe as wisdow. The charisma represents your emotional presence and your social abilities. That's why for many people wis also make more sense than cha.

That's why nature and religion are wis based.

Just remember of skills bases:
Intelligence is mora analytic and methodic that's why it's used for arcane and occult.
Wisdom is more sensitive and instintive and less methodic that's why it's used for nature and religion.
Charisma represents social and emotional abilities that's why is used for performance and society.

The universe isn't usually a sentient intelligence similar to human like creatures to you talk about it's rules and convince it. Usually just spellcasters use cha to change reality using their emotional capabilities but this is based in inner powers to do spectacular things (sorcerer) or to redirect outside forces that overwhelm them (oracles) or to using music/acts (bards) reverbereting them with reality. But it's too strange to a class that's specialized to use many trinkets (implements) that it has at hand choosing them based on each situation be based on charisma. If not why we have different implements at all? If you just need to convice the universe you just need to use a focus item of your preference and your emotional force does the rest.

Because part of convincing the universe is the stories, folklore, and superstitions of the Mortal Zeitgeist of belief. That's the entire point to the esoterica. That's why they can create custom weaknesses. And why they can trigger actual weaknesses, not with the appropriate weapon, but with the essence of that thing. Like hitting a vampire with a sword when you've wrapped the hilt with the chain of a necklace with a cross hanging on it. Such a contraption shouldn't mechanically do anything, but folklore and the general belief of the population is that crosses injure vampires, and the thaumaturge is able to channel that belief to power his weapon.

[The Raven Black]

I feel the biggest problem for many lies not with the mechanics but with the stat used, ie CHA, where it would make more sense to them if it was INT or WIS.

To me CHA makes sense because most people I think of in connection to the Thaumaturge concept as presented really exude CHA.

So using CHA to stengthen the connection so much that the weakness becomes strong enough to have a mechanical effect is fine by me.

The Wizard might know (INT) about the theory of the subtle connections, but they lack the utter conviction that has been identified as a requirement for it to work. Far less reliable than spellcasting after all.

And the Cleric sees how it works (WIS) but they lack the ability to impress the connection so strongly on their opponent that he cannot help but be impacted with it.

This ability to have others take you into account even if they'd rather not is exactly what CHA is all about.

[Malk_Content]

It's possible that my love of the class comes from my background in rpgs being primarily WoD. I see no problem with magic operating outside of the traditional spell slots and levels paradigm.

The thaumaturge reminds me of several Mage characters I have played.

[Anna Thomas 798]

Malk_Content wrote:

It's possible that my love of the class comes from my background in rpgs being primarily WoD. I see no problem with magic operating outside of the traditional spell slots and levels paradigm.

The thaumaturge reminds me of several Mage characters I have played.

I think this is where folk are slipping up: Thaumaturge isn't a "research it until I find a way to kill it," class, as much as it's an "I believe I can kill it, based on the stories I've internalized and I will prove that they are true" class. That's where Charisma comes in.

[Paradozen]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

In the fiction, the Thaumaturge spends a bunch of time studying and "learning forgotten lore"... but how good they are at studying (based on Int) does not matter. they could be dumb as a stone, with the memory retention of a rabbit, and it has zero effect on how well they can do their job.

Intelligence isn't the primary metric to determine how good you are at a skill, proficiency is. It is the metric that determines when you become an expert or a master or a legend at that skill, not your intelligence. Someone with a full plus 7 modifier to intelligence can have only a plus 7 bonus to studying arcana, and even have no bonus or a penalty to studying religion (since those are not intelligence based). But someone who is legendary in arcana will have their level plus 8 to arcana even if they have a low intelligence modifier. Int is a secondary measure of how good you are at arcana, the CRB even says to replace the ability score with another if the circumstance is appropriate.

Core Rulebook wrote:

Each skill is tied to a key ability. You add your modifier for this ability to checks and DCs when using that skill. For example, skulking about the shadows of a city at night with Stealth uses your Dexterity modifier, navigating the myriad personalities and power plays of court politics with Society uses your Intelligence modifier, and so on. The key ability for each skill is listed on Table 4–1: Skills, Key Abilities, and Actions on page 235 and also appears in parentheses following the skill’s name in the descriptions on the following pages. If the GM deems it appropriate for a certain situation, however, they might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC.

Find Flaws is a case where the game deems it appropriate use charisma instead of intelligence to recall knowledge, I assume because Find Flaws is not supposed to represent the same thing that recall knowledge is. Doubly so because it only works on one creature instead of all creatures of the same kind (I.E. the werewolf on the right, not every werewolf in the pack).

[The Raven Black]

Small counterpoint that Known weaknesses works the same (single target) despite being a straight INT RK check. Even more odd is the critical result that gives your allies a bonus against that specific creature. I RP it like "this skeleton has a weak lower jaw."

Oddly, this has never raised the kind of arguments about RK and, in this case, INT vs WIS that we see here.

[The Raven Black]

Anna Thomas 798 wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

It's possible that my love of the class comes from my background in rpgs being primarily WoD. I see no problem with magic operating outside of the traditional spell slots and levels paradigm.

The thaumaturge reminds me of several Mage characters I have played.

I think this is where folk are slipping up: Thaumaturge isn't a "research it until I find a way to kill it," class, as much as it's an "I believe I can kill it, based on the stories I've internalized and I will prove that they are true" class. That's where Charisma comes in.

I see it as "Don't you dare ignore this subtle weakness I know you have."

The other PCs cannot replicate it because they do not have the precise esoterica held in the exact right way with the precise intonations, making it easy for a creature to just ignore such feeble attempts whereas yours cannot be denied.

[BaronOfBread]

Paradozen wrote:

Intelligence isn't the primary metric to determine how good you are at a skill, proficiency is.

If you assume trained, because anyone who cares will be trained, then additional proficiency is in a pretty tight running with the ability score. The 8 INT master of the same level as the 18 INT trained is at a disadvantage. The master might have a couple of skill feats beyond the trained, but their bonus is worse.

Paradozen wrote:

Find Flaws is a case where the game deems it appropriate use charisma instead of intelligence to recall knowledge, I assume because Find Flaws is not supposed to represent the same thing that recall knowledge is.

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

The Raven Black wrote:

Small counterpoint that Known weaknesses works the same (single target) despite being a straight INT RK check. Even more odd is the critical result that gives your allies a bonus against that specific creature. I RP it like "this skeleton has a weak lower jaw."

Oddly, this has never raised the kind of arguments about RK and, in this case, INT vs WIS that we see here.

Why would there be any problem with Known Weaknesses? It is a regular RK. I have thought of the attack bonus as a "this one has a particular flaw in its defense that some of its kind possess."

[Golurkcanfly]

It is certainly bizarre to have this Charisma-keyed ability use Recall Knowledge, especially without a unique skill. If it is going to remain Charisma-based, it should be something more akin to the Psychic's Mental Scan.

Now, if it were given an option to flex between Key Ability Scores like the Psychic (which would be nice since the concept works really well with INT or WIS), then I could see the INT version use Recall Knowledge, the Wis version use Seek or something, and then Charisma using some other sort of skill action.

Or, regardless of the Key Ability Score chosen, they all do the same thing, and there could be feats to further differentiate them, though that is not terribly necessary.

[Squiggit]

BaronOfBread wrote:

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Why wouldn't it be? You're recalling knowledge. So it's... recall knowledge.

[Golurkcanfly]

Squiggit wrote:

BaronOfBread wrote:

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Why wouldn't it be? You're recalling knowledge. So it's... recall knowledge.

I think it's moreso that actually Recalling Knowledge doesn't seem right to tack on to a CHA ability as opposed to something that actually informs you. That and the mechanics of it are messy as-is to the point where other ability scores also make more sense when you take into account the rest of the class as well.

It's an incongruency that bugs people and has some really nasty mechanical implications with its current implementation.

[BaronOfBread]

Squiggit wrote:

BaronOfBread wrote:

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Why wouldn't it be? You're recalling knowledge. So it's... recall knowledge.

If it's recalling knowledge, why doesn't it use the attribute that is supposed to be used with the skill you are using?

Also, the important part of the statement I quoted was this:

Quote:

I assume because Find Flaws is not supposed to represent the same thing that recall knowledge is.

Because if that is correct, than recall knowledge should not be the action that the thaumaturge takes.

[Squiggit]

BaronOfBread wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

BaronOfBread wrote:

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Why wouldn't it be? You're recalling knowledge. So it's... recall knowledge.

If it's recalling knowledge, why doesn't it use the attribute that is supposed to be used with the skill you are using?

Because you're using a special feature that changes that attribute. Find Flaws is not the first nor will it be the last ability that does this.

[BaronOfBread]

Squiggit wrote:

BaronOfBread wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

BaronOfBread wrote:

Then it shouldn't be recall knowledge then, should it?

Why wouldn't it be? You're recalling knowledge. So it's... recall knowledge.

If it's recalling knowledge, why doesn't it use the attribute that is supposed to be used with the skill you are using?

Because you're using a special feature that changes that attribute. Find Flaws is not the first nor will it be the last ability that does this.

Sure. So you would be okay with a non-magic class feature that let someone use Constitution for Acrobatics checks to Squeeze? Or how about Charisma to Perception for finding secret doors? Or Dexterity for bulk limits?

An ability like that needs to be narratively justified. Charisma for recall knowledge is very difficult to justify. The closest thing I have thought of so far is flavoring as a retroactive Gather Information, but then there is the problem of Gather Information being a Diplomacy check (or Society with a feat, but then you use intelligence as normal for Society) so it still shouldn't be recall knowledge.

That said, I think there could be a Charisma based ability that has the same benefits as recall knowledge, but that ability isn't actually recall knowledge.

[Malk_Content]

Non magic for that particular example? Yeah I'd have a problem. But the Thaumaturge is using magic, just not spells.

Like if we had a con based class that can shift their form, I'd be totally happy for them to use con to squeeze.

[aobst128]

Having charisma be the stat to recall knowledge is a bit strange, I guess it's about having the ability to evoke your knowledge to produce the effects through force of personality. So you're adept at all these skills to recall knowledge and you use your force of will to manipulate that understanding to your every advantage, producing magic-like effects. That's my take on it anyways. I like the class overall. I think esoteric lore should probably be a core feature, seems pretty necessary.

[Golurkcanfly]

Tying it to RK in it's current implementation introduces more headaches than it's worth, between needing to invest in 5 skills just to stay competitive in terms of activating your ability, the issues already present with RK's vague wording, flavor issues of using CHA to Recall Knowledge as opposed to some other sort of ability, and it contributes to some MAD-ness in the class.

If Charisma was instead used for your attack rolls once FF/EA is already applied, it'd be neat and save on some of the MAD-ness of the class. It'd even help remedy the flavor issue of INT being the best dump stat for the class, though the class would still want DEX/CON/WIS for defenses and STR for damage.

[BaronOfBread]

Malk_Content wrote:

Non magic for that particular example? Yeah I'd have a problem. But the Thaumaturge is using magic, just not spells.

And not for Find Flaws, as it does not have the magic trait and is therefore a non-magic ability.

[Castilliano]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Tying it to RK in it's current implementation introduces more headaches than it's worth, between needing to invest in 5 skills just to stay competitive in terms of activating your ability, the issues already present with RK's vague wording, flavor issues of using CHA to Recall Knowledge as opposed to some other sort of ability, and it contributes to some MAD-ness in the class.

If Charisma was instead used for your attack rolls once FF/EA is already applied, it'd be neat and save on some of the MAD-ness of the class. It'd even help remedy the flavor issue of INT being the best dump stat for the class, though the class would still want DEX/CON/WIS for defenses and STR for damage.

Yep.

It clogs up one's stats and clogs up one's skills.

An 8 h.p. martial w/ a poor Fort needs Con, and they need Dex for their medium armor & Ref saves, plus Str for damage, and one of the latter two needs to be 16 in order to hit. Legendary Will doesn't mean one can ignore Wisdom (Perception & RK for two of your emphasized skills), which yes, leaves Int, the stat most dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, as the one the Thaumaturgist could ignore. And you're just stuck w/ Charisma, despite the many "socially inept oddballs w/ gimmicky answers" in media, the library curators. Not that they have to be inept, i.e. Giles, but he's not the bastion of Charisma either. He simply knows his business and has the gear.

Low Int would just exacerbate the skills issue though! An adventuring hero often wants a bit of Athletics or Acrobatics, as well as infiltration skills to get into guarded collections. So IMO another variant of the Thaumaturgist gets ignored, the "procurer" of odd items.
Not that they couldn't expend several feats to get those skills, but it's nearly impossible to maintain them w/ the FF/EA DCs scaling so much.

Really seems like there should be at least those three strains of Implement user: librarian, procurer, and charmer of the cosmos (?). Not sure why Paizo's leaning hard into the Charisma-model. A simple solution would be to make the FF/EA/Charisma aspect optional for the core abilities including Implements (as well as the key stat).

Apologies if that sounded a bit like a rant, but I love the Thaumaturgist concept and yet dislike its implementation (pun partially-intended). In fact my "Dwarf w/ a beer mug in battle" idea finally can work! Well, except Dwarves aren't so good w/ gimmicky item usage it seems (another disconnect IMO).

[Golurkcanfly]

Castilliano wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Tying it to RK in it's current implementation introduces more headaches than it's worth, between needing to invest in 5 skills just to stay competitive in terms of activating your ability, the issues already present with RK's vague wording, flavor issues of using CHA to Recall Knowledge as opposed to some other sort of ability, and it contributes to some MAD-ness in the class.

If Charisma was instead used for your attack rolls once FF/EA is already applied, it'd be neat and save on some of the MAD-ness of the class. It'd even help remedy the flavor issue of INT being the best dump stat for the class, though the class would still want DEX/CON/WIS for defenses and STR for damage.

Yep.

It clogs up one's stats and clogs up one's skills.

An 8 h.p. martial w/ a poor Fort needs Con, and they need Dex for their medium armor & Ref saves, plus Str for damage, and one of the latter two needs to be 16 in order to hit. Legendary Will doesn't mean one can ignore Wisdom (Perception & RK for two of your emphasized skills), which yes, leaves Int, the stat most dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, as the one the Thaumaturgist could ignore. And you're just stuck w/ Charisma, despite the many "socially inept oddballs w/ gimmicky answers" in media, the library curators. Not that they have to be inept, i.e. Giles, but he's not the bastion of Charisma either. He simply knows his business and has the gear.

Low Int would just exacerbate the skills issue though! An adventuring hero often wants a bit of Athletics or Acrobatics, as well as infiltration skills to get into guarded collections. So IMO another variant of the Thaumaturgist gets ignored, the "procurer" of odd items.
Not that they couldn't expend several feats to get those skills, but it's nearly impossible to maintain them w/ the FF/EA DCs scaling so much.

Really seems like there should be at least those three strains of Implement user: librarian, procurer, and charmer of the cosmos (?). Not sure why Paizo's leaning hard into...

I made a separate thread for discussion of ways to help address the class's current mechanics clogging up freedom since it's super MAD and wants you to pump 5 different skills just to stay in the game. It's a serious issue for the class and anyone who wants to flavor their character to a slightly different concept.

[aobst128]

Intelligence or wisdom would support the class a little better. Being able to choose between the two would be even better. Would support a skill junkie and a crafter for intelligence, and a perceptive monster hunter type character for wisdom. Charisma isn't doing much for the class, other than find flaws. I'm not against charisma being the key, but they need the class to support it more. They could also just make it strength or dex for the key but that could make it to similar to the ranger.

[Phntm888]

Given how close Find Flaws is to Devise a Stratagem, I think that if you were to make Thaumaturge Int-based, it becomes similar enough to Investigator to beg the question, "Does this really need to be its own class, or could it just be a Methodology?"

Honestly, I like how the class is tied to Charisma. Sure, it seems like the Thaumaturge tying a piece of broken chain to their weapon to fight a tyrant seems like "faking it", but I view it more as them doing that and saying an incantation along the lines of "With this broken symbol of slavery, your reign of terror is at an end!" and then imbuing a bit of magic into their weapon that attunes it specifically to the foe they used Find Flaws on. The Thaumaturge isn't a spellcaster in the traditional sense, but they have their own brand of magic.

I do agree that tying the Find Flaws check to Recall Knowledge is a bit wonky for that kind of implementation. I think that kind of flavor might work better if they worded Find Flaws something like, "Make a check using the skill for Recall Knowledge on this opponent against the DC for Recall Knowledge. You use your Charisma modifier in place of the original ability modifier for the purposes of this check."

That would make it so the Thaumaturge is using the Skill for that creature against the Recall Knowledge DC, but isn't a Recall Knowledge check. I suspect that's the reason they said to make a Recall Knowledge check in the first place.

[aobst128]

Phntm888 wrote:

Given how close Find Flaws is to Devise a Stratagem, I think that if you were to make Thaumaturge Int-based, it becomes similar enough to Investigator to beg the question, "Does this really need to be its own class, or could it just be a Methodology?"

Honestly, I like how the class is tied to Charisma. Sure, it seems like the Thaumaturge tying a piece of broken chain to their weapon to fight a tyrant seems like "faking it", but I view it more as them doing that and saying an incantation along the lines of "With this broken symbol of slavery, your reign of terror is at an end!" and then imbuing a bit of magic into their weapon that attunes it specifically to the foe they used Find Flaws on. The Thaumaturge isn't a spellcaster in the traditional sense, but they have their own brand of magic.

I do agree that tying the Find Flaws check to Recall Knowledge is a bit wonky for that kind of implementation. I think that kind of flavor might work better if they worded Find Flaws something like, "Make a check using the skill for Recall Knowledge on this opponent against the DC for Recall Knowledge. You use your Charisma modifier in place of the original ability modifier for the purposes of this check."

That would make it so the Thaumaturge is using the Skill for that creature against the Recall Knowledge DC, but isn't a Recall Knowledge check. I suspect that's the reason they said to make a Recall Knowledge check in the first place.

Yeah. I like the charisma as the key too. What they're going for I think is the thaumaturge's ability to forge sympathetic connections through their willpower. It's just weird that it uses recall knowledge. That should be retooled to make more sense as well as have implements utilize charisma in some way. Your ability to evoke magic out of otherwise mundane objects should reflect your key ability more.

[aobst128]

It's all very "occulty" at least from the secrets of magic description of how occultism works. You find the underlying connections of the world around you and evoke them through objects instead of spells. Those connections were always there, but you can see them more clearly and with a bit of your power, bring them to life. So I guess you're faking magic as much as a bard is.