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

[WWHsmackdown]

I'm down for keeping charisma and changing the mechanic from recall knowledge. Maybe have it be diplomacy/persuasion for making your case to the universe as to the symbolism you're employing.

[wegrata]

The example of the chain from a slave vs a tyrant, could come from an old legend/myth and your will combined with the known myth your ability. In my head there are two parts of this activity, knowing the lore and having your will enforce it in reality, this was represented mechanically by RK skills+charisma.

At least this is how my mind interpreted it.

[The Raven Black]

Agreed. With INT you know more things and with WIS you intuit more, but it is CHA that makes your will for the connection to occur something your target cannot ignore.

[TheGentlemanDM]

I've been thinking about different ways to help the class lean into niches, both flavourful and mechanical.

Ideas like Divine Disharmony can be expanded out to all different skills and be extra effective against different types of foes. Extraplanar foes, undead, creatures with elemental affinities, etc.

Another area I would like to see the class explore is more than just weaknesses; having the ability to apply debuffs like frightened, sickened, clumsy, et cetera with Esoteric Antithesis or Implement's Empowerment would help the class feel like its doing more than just pretending to be a Barbarian.

So here's an idea.

There are four subclasses; one focused on each core knowledge skill. (You might also have the key ability line up with that skill, thus making it an INT/WIS class, but that's not strictly necessary for this to work.)

Thaumaturges receive free boosts at 3rd, 7th and 15th for their core skill. They can use their core skill to Recall Knowledge about anything, but with penalties.

Then, when you Find Flaws using your core skill, your Esoteric Antithesis could different effects instead of just weakness.

There would also be Thaumaturge feats that expand on this, offering more unique options for Esoteric Antithesis against particular kinds of foes depending on the skill used. An Arcana-based one that works better against spellcasters, a Religion-linked one for sickening creatures of opposed alignments, Occultism could frighten or confuse creatures from different planes, Nature could be good at bypassing resistances... there's ways to expand on this.

With the free skill boosts, a Thaumaturge could always use the options matching their subclass at full effect, and could also spec into a different knowledge skill to add more options to their repertoire.

[littlebattler]

highly dislike CHA as key stat for reasons elaborated by other users.

Besides if their magic works by convincing the universe then why are they limited to just exploiting weaknesses and not bigger effects? They're basically already using a very minor form of wish for everything.

I'd rather the class flavour be grounded in knowledge or observation to suss out specific weaknesses, but the actual theme is probably already locked in by this point and that kinda does step on the toes of the investigator so idk.

[Golurkcanfly]

I think one of the biggest arguments against CHA is that right now, INT is the dump stat for the class.

And it's much harder to imagine an unintelligent character in the flavor Thaumaturge presents than to imagine an uncharismatic one. One thing these sorts of characters have in common (Van Helsing, Constantine, Dresden) is that they're intelligent.

[John R.]

Right now, the closest that makes sense to me for charisma being the key ability that also matches Mark's explanation is that Thaumaturges are animists (they believe all things, even inanimate lifeless objects have a consciousness or at least a spiritual essence). They then pretty much straight up communicate with and influence anything that exists within the universe, including persuading these things to give up secret knowledge.

But maybe everybody saw it like this already and I'm just now getting it.

[graystone]

John R. wrote:

Right now, the closest that makes sense to me for charisma being the key ability that also matches Mark's explanation is that Thaumaturges are animists (they believe all things, even inanimate lifeless objects have a consciousness or at least a spiritual essence). They then pretty much straight up communicate with and influence anything that exists within the universe, including persuading these things to give up secret knowledge.

That straight up sounds like Gather Information not Recall Knowledge. If that was the case, Cha to Gather Information from such things would make a whole lot more sense.

[John R.]

graystone wrote:

John R. wrote:

Right now, the closest that makes sense to me for charisma being the key ability that also matches Mark's explanation is that Thaumaturges are animists (they believe all things, even inanimate lifeless objects have a consciousness or at least a spiritual essence). They then pretty much straight up communicate with and influence anything that exists within the universe, including persuading these things to give up secret knowledge.

That straight up sounds like Gather Information not Recall Knowledge. If that was the case, Cha to Gather Information from such things would make a whole lot more sense.

I hear you on that.

My best reasoning for why you would still need the associated skills and not Diplomacy are that since these objects are being associated with a particular magical tradition, you need to use the corresponding skill which none have Gather Information but Recall Knowledge. I think you have to force it to make sense past what the mechanics allow and it might cause more issues if you force the mechanics around it too much.

[Castilliano]

littlebattler wrote:

highly dislike CHA as key stat for reasons elaborated by other users.

Besides if their magic works by convincing the universe then why are they limited to just exploiting weaknesses and not bigger effects? They're basically already using a very minor form of wish for everything.

I'd rather the class flavour be grounded in knowledge or observation to suss out specific weaknesses, but the actual theme is probably already locked in by this point and that kinda does step on the toes of the investigator so idk.

That's an interesting point, and IMO an awkward implication.

It's like these guys have the power to talk to and persuade the cosmos, yet only to soften up enemies, to bash them better, and to make one-three items do cool stuff (mostly minor)? Lol, I'm reminded of a playground where a kid just wants to play with toys, and get back at that bully trying to take them away. They can't even manage Prestidigitation effects with all their persuasiveness.
Yeah, somebody who's studied their enemies or can suss out Weaknesses by examining their enemies makes a lot more sense than somebody able to convince the universe in one very particular way. It seems there'd be more "universe-tweaking" options for a Thaumaturge than the current feats cover (much like the 20th level one that gives a spell).
They seem a bit caught between an Investigator and a Magus...

[Golurkcanfly]

I think part of the issue might be them trying to make the Thaumaturge a Martial instead of some sort of "Non-Caster Non-Martial" like the Alchemist. Lots of power in it's damage boosters but doesn't really feel like it's using a bunch of Esoterica to begin with.

Combined with other issues in the class (Recall Knowledge and Rarity, MADness, item switching action economy, etc.) it feels more like a dude who hits stuff really well and also happens to have some strange items rather than the inverse.

[aobst128]

Yeah, it hits good, but doesn't have much more of an identity with it's mechanics. Should probably drop the bonus damage with one handed weapons and focus on implements that benefit from higher charisma to justify your kas a little more. A lot can change though.

[Jedi Maester]

Castilliano wrote:

littlebattler wrote:

highly dislike CHA as key stat for reasons elaborated by other users.

Besides if their magic works by convincing the universe then why are they limited to just exploiting weaknesses and not bigger effects? They're basically already using a very minor form of wish for everything.

I'd rather the class flavour be grounded in knowledge or observation to suss out specific weaknesses, but the actual theme is probably already locked in by this point and that kinda does step on the toes of the investigator so idk.

That's an interesting point, and IMO an awkward implication.

It's like these guys have the power to talk to and persuade the cosmos, yet only to soften up enemies, to bash them better, and to make one-three items do cool stuff (mostly minor)? Lol, I'm reminded of a playground where a kid just wants to play with toys, and get back at that bully trying to take them away. They can't even manage Prestidigitation effects with all their persuasiveness.
Yeah, somebody who's studied their enemies or can suss out Weaknesses by examining their enemies makes a lot more sense than somebody able to convince the universe in one very particular way. It seems there'd be more "universe-tweaking" options for a Thaumaturge than the current feats cover (much like the 20th level one that gives a spell)...

That's been my impression of the class. That's why I suggested at one point removing the Find Flaw/Esoteric Antithesis feature, because it's an overly restrictive feature for how much potential the in world mechanics should be able to cover. But many inspirations were given for this class, including "the monster hunter," and some people are really invested in that aspect.

I'm really starting to think the class is trying to do too much. I see three (though there are probably more). There is the "monster hunter" part: recall knowledge and the feats building off of Esoteric Antithesis focusing primarily on combat. Then there is the "connection finder/maker": making weaknesses and the class feats about turning mundane objects into magic (including the implements). And then "magic item collector" which fakes being a spell caster: the pacts, scrolls, talismans, and familiar. There is significant overlap between the three mechanically, but I think each is very distinct thematically. A lot of the nuances and disagreements I see tend to be about which one or two are the most significant to each person.

I think significantly expanding in one direction will require weakening the others, if not because of balance then simply page count. Keeping it as is is an option that many people want, but I think the class would be better served specializing in its most thematically/mechanically unique elements. While I like the monster hunter, I wonder if that would be better served as the class with a martial dedication. Ranger is already the "hunter" class, maybe even a new ranger subclass to use some of the abilities from this class? People already want the same for the investigator.

People have made very good comparisons between the fluff of making connections and bard spell casting. So if we wanted to expand the connection maker to its logical conclusion, there would be too many necessary abilities to cover. But that is the whole point of the spell system. Give them spells, and like all bard spells need a sonic basis for singing/performing, this class always needs a material component. Give them some unique cantrips/focus spells for some of the more unique abilities and I think this version would be pretty fleshed out. Implements would be great here too.

For the magic item collector, I think alchemist is the best comparison. Always having the right tool. I haven't played alchemist since the initial playtest, but I think this could be a chance to better nail down the non-martial/non-caster play style. Maybe something closer to the inventor? (I haven't seen the final version yet.) But either way, the class should have the access to the right magic tool in and out of combat. Less focus on the above two more go with the flow versions and more on preparation.

I'm sure most will disagree with something I've said here, but I really like thinking about his class and what it could be!

[aobst128]

Jedi Maester wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

littlebattler wrote:

highly dislike CHA as key stat for reasons elaborated by other users.

Besides if their magic works by convincing the universe then why are they limited to just exploiting weaknesses and not bigger effects? They're basically already using a very minor form of wish for everything.

I'd rather the class flavour be grounded in knowledge or observation to suss out specific weaknesses, but the actual theme is probably already locked in by this point and that kinda does step on the toes of the investigator so idk.

That's an interesting point, and IMO an awkward implication.

It's like these guys have the power to talk to and persuade the cosmos, yet only to soften up enemies, to bash them better, and to make one-three items do cool stuff (mostly minor)? Lol, I'm reminded of a playground where a kid just wants to play with toys, and get back at that bully trying to take them away. They can't even manage Prestidigitation effects with all their persuasiveness.
Yeah, somebody who's studied their enemies or can suss out Weaknesses by examining their enemies makes a lot more sense than somebody able to convince the universe in one very particular way. It seems there'd be more "universe-tweaking" options for a Thaumaturge than the current feats cover (much like the 20th level one that gives a spell)...

That's been my impression of the class. That's why I suggested at one point removing the Find Flaw/Esoteric Antithesis feature, because it's an overly restrictive feature for how much potential the in world mechanics should be able to cover. But many inspirations were given for this class, including "the monster hunter," and some people are really invested in that aspect.

I'm really starting to think the class is trying to do too much. I see three (though there are probably more). There is the "monster hunter" part: recall knowledge and the feats building off of Esoteric Antithesis focusing primarily on combat. Then there is the "connection...

All good points here. Overall, it needs more identity surrounding it's psudo-magical abilities, and less just doing damage. I'm not sure about changing the kas though.

[Golurkcanfly]

Jedi Maester wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

littlebattler wrote:

highly dislike CHA as key stat for reasons elaborated by other users.

Besides if their magic works by convincing the universe then why are they limited to just exploiting weaknesses and not bigger effects? They're basically already using a very minor form of wish for everything.

I'd rather the class flavour be grounded in knowledge or observation to suss out specific weaknesses, but the actual theme is probably already locked in by this point and that kinda does step on the toes of the investigator so idk.

That's an interesting point, and IMO an awkward implication.

It's like these guys have the power to talk to and persuade the cosmos, yet only to soften up enemies, to bash them better, and to make one-three items do cool stuff (mostly minor)? Lol, I'm reminded of a playground where a kid just wants to play with toys, and get back at that bully trying to take them away. They can't even manage Prestidigitation effects with all their persuasiveness.
Yeah, somebody who's studied their enemies or can suss out Weaknesses by examining their enemies makes a lot more sense than somebody able to convince the universe in one very particular way. It seems there'd be more "universe-tweaking" options for a Thaumaturge than the current feats cover (much like the 20th level one that gives a spell)...

That's been my impression of the class. That's why I suggested at one point removing the Find Flaw/Esoteric Antithesis feature, because it's an overly restrictive feature for how much potential the in world mechanics should be able to cover. But many inspirations were given for this class, including "the monster hunter," and some people are really invested in that aspect.

I'm really starting to think the class is trying to do too much. I see three (though there are probably more). There is the "monster hunter" part: recall knowledge and the feats building off of Esoteric Antithesis focusing primarily on combat. Then there is the "connection...

I also agree it's being pulled in too many directions, and if I had to drop one, I'd drop the Monster Hunter bit since we already have two classes that can fit into that niche very well (Ranger and Investigator) and the mechanics tied to it are the most contentious and ill-fitting. As-is, FF/EA, rather than enhancing the fantasy of having the right tool for the job, takes away from it by being actively worse when you are prepared. It'd be like if the Rogue always got Sneak Attack instead of the mechanics encouraging the Rogue to be sneaky and backstab-y.

I think the most thematically sound part of the current kit that emphasizes "Weakness Specialist, Monster Hunter, and Item Collector" aspects of the Thaumaturge is Handy Esoterica. It lets you grab specific items to take advantage of specific weaknesses and lets you really feel what stuff you grabbed, but you save on actions if you specifically prepare stuff ahead of time. Focusing on abilities such as this, the Implements, and the other Esoterica, you could make an incredibly unique "Esoterica User."

But right now, FF/EA takes up so much of the power/design budget and lacks in uniqueness (among other issues) to the point that my own playtest experience (and that of others that I've talked to) made it feel more like a beatstick than a purveyor of strange objects.

[aobst128]

I like the weakness gimmick. Perhaps it would fit best with a ranger hunter's edge, but I like the flavor of the esoterica utilized. That can probably stay as your chief damage dealing ability, but the rest of the class mechanics should be more fleshed out as a magic item class. But rip precision rangers if they do a weakness exploit edge.

[Jedi Maester]

aobst128 wrote:

All good points here. Overall, it needs more identity surrounding it's psudo-magical abilities, and less just doing damage. I'm not sure about changing the kas though.

Firstly, thank you! Glad I'm making some sense.

If monster hunter gets absorbed into ranger/investigator along with other parts of the class, I think the other two actually work best with Cha still. The connection finder is a bard focusing on props, so that would still be charisma. It's metaphysically the same magic. The magic item user can't cast spells, so it would be a return of first edition's trick magic item, which was charisma based. It uses cha for tricking all 4 traditions, which makes some sense. Charisma also ties into getting the magic through pacts, making deals and such.

I like the flavor of Int for an antiquarian, but unless they focus on trinkets that require no internal magic or no tricking, I think Cha still makes sense overall. This more limited version could be a good methodology for the investigator.

[Golurkcanfly]

Jedi Maester wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

All good points here. Overall, it needs more identity surrounding it's psudo-magical abilities, and less just doing damage. I'm not sure about changing the kas though.

Firstly, thank you! Glad I'm making some sense.

If monster hunter gets absorbed into ranger/investigator along with other parts of the class, I think the other two actually work best with Cha still. The connection finder is a bard focusing on props, so that would still be charisma. It's metaphysically the same magic. The magic item user can't cast spells, so it would be a return of first edition's trick magic item, which was charisma based. It uses cha for tricking all 4 traditions, which makes some sense. Charisma also ties into getting the magic through pacts, making deals and such.

I like the flavor of Int for an antiquarian, but unless they focus on trinkets that require no internal magic or no tricking, I think Cha still makes sense overall. This more limited version could be a good methodology for the investigator.

Using mysticism to pull out power from seemingly mundane items could fit into INT or WIS pretty well, tbf.

[Jedi Maester]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Using mysticism to pull out power from seemingly mundane items could fit into INT or WIS pretty well, tbf.

It's all magic fluff, so you are right. I just meant that if we had to keep Cha, both of those fit that mold. Though now that I think on it, if FF/EA was removed, I'd be way more interested in playing the class with Charisma than anything else. It really is that monster hunter aspect that makes me want to go full original Van Helsing.

[Golurkcanfly]

Jedi Maester wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Using mysticism to pull out power from seemingly mundane items could fit into INT or WIS pretty well, tbf.

It's all magic fluff, so you are right. I just meant that if we had to keep Cha, both of those fit that mold. Though now that I think on it, if FF/EA was removed, I'd be way more interested in playing the class with Charisma than anything else. It really is that monster hunter aspect that makes me want to go full original Van Helsing.

True, though even without FF/EA, you could presumably make Van Helsing as a Ranger w/ Thaumaturge Dedication. He is significantly more mundane than say, Constantine (who is a Sorcerer) and Harry Dresden (who is a Wizard).

[John R.]

I do NOT want to get rid of the monster hunting aspects of this class. I don't mind if they bump them down as class feats but I really like this aspect of the class and Rangers have enough monster hunting built in already. Giving this to Ranger is practically like combining Precision and Outwit Edges.

[pixierose]

If a part had to be cut, I would cut the martial aspects. I am way more interested in Implements, and the sympathetic magic concepts. Finding flaws still makes sense for me charisma based it basically condenses two rolls into one in theory, you recall enough information that would create the weakness( this is basically the recipe.) And then the charisma is trying to enforce that to be true via sympathetic magic. In theory that is two different things

[John R.]

I'd be ok with moving Esoteric Antithesis onto the weapon implement. It reminds me a lot of Legacy Weapon and Philosopher's Touch from the Occultist so if it goes away entirely, there will be a large void to me.

[Golurkcanfly]

John R. wrote:

I do NOT want to get rid of the monster hunting aspects of this class. I don't mind if they bump them down as class feats but I really like this aspect of the class and Rangers have enough monster hunting built in already. Giving this to Ranger is practically like combining Precision and Outwit Edges.

They absolutely could, or have it connected to Implement's Empowerment. But when the design is already the forefront of two other classes, it's a hard sell to make the centerpiece of a third class that has flavor better serviced by something more unique.

[John R.]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

John R. wrote:

I do NOT want to get rid of the monster hunting aspects of this class. I don't mind if they bump them down as class feats but I really like this aspect of the class and Rangers have enough monster hunting built in already. Giving this to Ranger is practically like combining Precision and Outwit Edges.

They absolutely could, or have it connected to Implement's Empowerment. But when the design is already the forefront of two other classes, it's a hard sell to make the centerpiece of a third class that has flavor better serviced by something more unique.

Yeah, I am totally fine with FF/EA no longer being default but I definitely think they should stay as feats or implement powers. This class DOES need a martial combat ability and these, though needing some tweaking, are awesome.

[Jedi Maester]

pixierose wrote:

If a part had to be cut, I would cut the martial aspects. I am way more interested in Implements, and the sympathetic magic concepts. Finding flaws still makes sense for me charisma based it basically condenses two rolls into one in theory, you recall enough information that would create the weakness( this is basically the recipe.) And then the charisma is trying to enforce that to be true via sympathetic magic. In theory that is two different things

This is what I meant by being very close to a bard. While performance is Charisma based, no one questions that almost any performance does require a good bit of intelligence. Just knowing how an instrument works for instance. But it is assumed you have that foundational information. I think Find Flaws could be fluffed similarly. It's less about knowing this very obscure bit of trivia, and more connecting narrative dots from surface level information. The tyrant and the slave manacles are a great example. Neither bit of information is that hard to know, so you don't need Int for that. Enforcing the connection would be very Charisma. It's like a bard that only cares about McGuffins. (Elan would love this.)

But I do think this would function better as a spell caster. So many connections and affects could be made, that at that point, it makes sense to just open up spell casting. Just force the class to emphasis material components. I'd make it occult with the ability to steal from other lists, like the bard. Implements would make more sense as subclasses. And then make Esoteric Antithesis a cantrip/focus spell for the class. It's essentially a reskinned bard, but I think it makes the most sense if making connections is the theme.

[Bondoid]

I agree with the OP.

While I dont think its a problem to have the fake it to you make it CHA themed Thaumaturge,

I think its more important to get an INT and/or WIS based version of the class that is actually based on study and/or understanding.

Those character archetypes in fantasy fiction or fairly common. Warhammer Witchhunters, Van Hellsing, Constantine, etc are not well served by this CHA version of the class.

[Squiggit]

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

[Jedi Maester]

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

I do think this is a unique playtest in that not only is this a new class, it's also a fairly original one. The inventor is new, but largely builds on the tropes it needed to fill. Parts of this class are brand new to me. With these new mechanics, I think there is a question of what the full potential of them are.

Imagine if there was no wizard (int and book based full caster) in TTRPG history (which is silly, I know, but bear with me), and Pathfinder comes out with the magus. The magus is a great class that uses this new spell book idea. I think many would ask, why can't I have a full caster, like the sorcerer, based entirely on this new book thingy! I like this magus book mechanic, but want to focus exclusively on that.

I think parts of this class ask that question. Is that a different class? Sure, as much as the magus is different from the wizard. But I do think it's worth discussing. If anything, to see for future new class directions.

However, if this discussion is not useful: Mark, please let us know! I'm enjoying seeing all the potential this class has, but we could do this in the home-brew section if that would be more helpful.

[Sporkedup]

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

I think the dramatically divergent classes people look at the thaumaturgist and see really speaks to the class's somewhat unfocused nature. Much of the text talks about knowledge and preparation, but the mechanics don't deliver so well on that. So you get one group who likes the text and wants that clever, knowledgeable, studious thaumaturge and others really like how it plays and want to lean further into that.

Cool as the class is, I think we've got another witch, where people in discussions have vastly different hopes for the final product.

I'm just happy at this point as long as it commits to one direction or the other. The only way it can fail to succeed, in my opinion, is if it follows the example of the witch and tries to put too much into one class. Specificity is power and flavor, so cutting out which concepts don't fit is going to be hard but necessary work for poor Mark.

[aobst128]

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

Yeah, it's just hard to nail down what the identity of the class is and what paizo are trying to do with it. A lot could change with the full release.

[Puna'chong]

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

Fair, but it isn't a bad discussion to have to narrow down what the class really needs to be.

At the end of the day, for example, the Occultist was The Implements class. They basically had a toolkit power pool. You could build them different ways but the core of a person using items of power was there.

Here I think the Thaumaturge is a bit muddled because of FW/EA and implements. They're both sort of competing for space and identity. Implements are pretty agnostic, the theme is whatever you decide to build. FW/EA pushes the class towards feeling like the monster hunter, which is arguably space the Inquisitor would fill if they make one. It also sort of starts to feel Investigatory and Rangery with the descriptions, and then I think it falls apart for some folks.

For my money, implements is the core of the class, but I want Occultist 2e and I recognize that. I need to be sold more on FW/EA, and right now it feels like it takes up a lot of bandwidth as it's currently implemented.

[pixierose]

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

I will say for me, I am fine and happy with what the class is, my response was merely to engage in good faith with the people who are concerned about the class identity.

[aobst128]

Puna'chong wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

Fair, but it isn't a bad discussion to have to narrow down what the class really needs to be.

At the end of the day, for example, the Occultist was The Implements class. They basically had a toolkit power pool. You could build them different ways but the core of a person using items of power was there.

Here I think the Thaumaturge is a bit muddled because of FW/EA and implements. They're both sort of competing for space and identity. Implements are pretty agnostic, the theme is whatever you decide to build. FW/EA pushes the class towards feeling like the monster hunter, which is arguably space the Inquisitor would fill if they make one. It also sort of starts to feel Investigatory and Rangery with the descriptions, and then I think it falls apart for some folks.

For my money, implements is the core of the class, but I want Occultist 2e. I need to be sold more on FW/EA, and right now it feels like it takes up a lot of bandwidth as it's currently implemented.

Agreed. The implements are what make the class unique. Expanding that concept should be the focus I think. That and their magic item support like talismans and scrolls. Hopefully they add some good low level talismans because half your level leaves some not so good ones for a long time.

[Castilliano]

aobst128 wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

Fair, but it isn't a bad discussion to have to narrow down what the class really needs to be.

At the end of the day, for example, the Occultist was The Implements class. They basically had a toolkit power pool. You could build them different ways but the core of a person using items of power was there.

Here I think the Thaumaturge is a bit muddled because of FW/EA and implements. They're both sort of competing for space and identity. Implements are pretty agnostic, the theme is whatever you decide to build. FW/EA pushes the class towards feeling like the monster hunter, which is arguably space the Inquisitor would fill if they make one. It also sort of starts to feel Investigatory and Rangery with the descriptions, and then I think it falls apart for some folks.

For my money, implements is the core of the class, but I want Occultist 2e. I need to be sold more on FW/EA, and right now it feels like it takes up a lot of bandwidth as it's currently implemented.

Agreed. The implements are what make the class unique. Expanding that concept should be the focus I think. That and their magic item support like talismans and scrolls. Hopefully they add some good low level talismans because half your level leaves some not so good ones for a long time.

Yes for me too on the Implements being the focus. That's true even if some of them or some aspect of each loops back to supporting the martial/FF/EA aspects of the class. Slapping an Implement against the forehead of a demon is a trope after all.

If the Rule of Three stands and we only get three implements, I'd prefer each reaching Paragon, which as the third stage also fits the Rule of Three. That might require feats, and I'm okay with that.

[Golurkcanfly]

I feel like this might be suited to it's own topic. Since a lot of this is 1e Occultist stuff, but not quite there. Makes me wish there was an option in the poll to have a hybrid of playtest Thaum and 1e Occultist, since I like the much heavier Implement focus there, but it'd be cool if they did that but without "proper spellcasting".

[aobst128]

Castilliano wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

At some point it feels like some people in this thread are just looking for an entirely different class, which seems a bit beyond the purview of this playtest.

Fair, but it isn't a bad discussion to have to narrow down what the class really needs to be.

At the end of the day, for example, the Occultist was The Implements class. They basically had a toolkit power pool. You could build them different ways but the core of a person using items of power was there.

Here I think the Thaumaturge is a bit muddled because of FW/EA and implements. They're both sort of competing for space and identity. Implements are pretty agnostic, the theme is whatever you decide to build. FW/EA pushes the class towards feeling like the monster hunter, which is arguably space the Inquisitor would fill if they make one. It also sort of starts to feel Investigatory and Rangery with the descriptions, and then I think it falls apart for some folks.

For my money, implements is the core of the class, but I want Occultist 2e. I need to be sold more on FW/EA, and right now it feels like it takes up a lot of bandwidth as it's currently implemented.

Agreed. The implements are what make the class unique. Expanding that concept should be the focus I think. That and their magic item support like talismans and scrolls. Hopefully they add some good low level talismans because half your level leaves some not so good ones for a long time.

Yes for me too on the Implements being the focus. That's true even if some of them or some aspect of each loops back to supporting the martial/FF/EA aspects of the class. Slapping an Implement against the forehead of a demon is a trope after all.

If the Rule of Three stands and we only get three implements, I'd prefer each reaching Paragon, which as the third stage also fits the Rule of Three. That might require feats, and I'm okay with that.

If the rule of three is a big theme that stays, you could tie the paragon abilities to when you get all 3. Now you're complete powering up your all your implements. I hope the 4 missing implements will be good. I'd be mad if they split the weapon implement into melee and ranged.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Count me as less interested in the Implements because they are so specific and narrowly attached to the reactive/active/passive concept. I’d much prefer an open-ended non specific system rather than a more “iconic item” schtick.

I find FF/EA problematic because of the elasticity of the RK ruleset.

Thematically I’m totally ok with the monster hunting, “connections” and Implements. I feel Mark and the development team are more than capable of synthesising these elements to synergise, utilise Charisma and makes sense mechanically and thematically.

And I like the martial aspect. Charisma to hit!!!

[Puna'chong]

I suppose what I'm starting to feel is that I want an Occultist class with implements and a Slayer class that has an option for the esoteric anathema (and an Inquisitor subclass based on Wis with judgments). I want both of those to have really rich options for their schtick: nonmagical implement user, and monster hunter. They're both compelling, but I feel like they're fighting for space.

It's seeming like we're going to get something trying to do too much at once, without a lot of depth. I've rolled up what I plan to use for a playtest after about ten iterations, so we'll see.

[Squiggit]

I don't really get the "too much at once" thing. It has a pretty standard spread of abilities that all are part of a similar thematic portfolio.

Plus we already have a slayer class. It's pulling upon esoterica that makes the Thaumaturge stand out and why it's important to keep that part of the identity instead of simply gutting it.

[Golurkcanfly]

In practice the "pulling out esoterica" mechanic is just a raw damage boost that's a significant amount of the "power budget" simply because it's huge. Rather than encouraging gameplay that emulates the sort of fantasy, it just says you do X.

It's like if the Rogue, instead of being rewarded for setting up flat-footed, just always got Sneak Attack. Sure, it says you're always being sneaky, but it doesn't really feel like it mechanically.

[Puna'chong]

Squiggit wrote:

I don't really get the "too much at once" thing. It has a pretty standard spread of abilities that all are part of a similar thematic portfolio.

Plus we already have a slayer class. It's pulling upon esoterica that makes the Thaumaturge stand out and why it's important to keep that part of the identity instead of simply gutting it.

Where's my customization for FW/EA? Where are the feats adjusting it? Nothing plays with implements, the class is explicitly without focus spells, no subclasses, only one mental KAS so it's all down to my other stats, implement choice, and class feats to direct my character. If I pick lantern what am I doing at level 1? Smacking things and recalling knowledge. That's pretty much it. No focus spell to throw at things, no other use for my 18 Cha besides dpr unless I take electric arc from an ancestry feat, no other customization. Just me and my lantern against the world.

Forgive me if I think it's spread thin and trying to do too many things at once. I don't see the depth. I can't convince the universe to unlock a door, or protect me from the elements, or leap into the fray, or prevent a demon from teleporting away. All I can convince it to do is help me smack something hard, provided I don't already have what it's weak against.

And this is the slayer class? Where's my stuff that lets me track down monsters, throw their true name at them, interrogate enemies to find my quarry? What if it flies away from me? I'm kinda out of options. I could throw my lantern at it. Just a big bonus to damage doesn't feel like a Monster Hunter to me.

I'd love to be wrong!

[Squiggit]

I mean, I agree the class could use more feats and options to enable some of those ideas.

But that's an entirely different issue than gutting core class features.

[John R.]

Puna'chong wrote:

I can't convince the universe to unlock a door, or protect me from the elements, or leap into the fray, or prevent a demon from teleporting away. All I can convince it to do is help me smack something hard, provided I don't already have what it's weak against.

I'd love to be wrong!

Personally, my answer to these problems is Scroll Esoterica.

[Puna'chong]

Squiggit wrote:

I mean, I agree the class could use more feats and options to enable some of those ideas.

That's why I said it felt spread thin though. There's a bunch of little things to do, but not a lot of follow-up. A lot of superficial abilities, one of which just happens to load up an admittedly nice damage boost.

John R. wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

I can't convince the universe to unlock a door, or protect me from the elements, or leap into the fray, or prevent a demon from teleporting away. All I can convince it to do is help me smack something hard, provided I don't already have what it's weak against.

I'd love to be wrong!

Personally, my answer to these problems is Scroll Esoterica.

Sure, I could also take a caster dedication. But I can't craft the scrolls myself. Odds are I have a bad Int so my Crafting isn't great, and I can't cast the spells anyways. Gotta go buy them or ask someone else to make them (or cast the spell on my dinky crafting).

[Golurkcanfly]

John R. wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

I can't convince the universe to unlock a door, or protect me from the elements, or leap into the fray, or prevent a demon from teleporting away. All I can convince it to do is help me smack something hard, provided I don't already have what it's weak against.

I'd love to be wrong!

Personally, my answer to these problems is Scroll Esoterica.

Which has its own issues (not enough per day, action economy with it is awful, progression is slow) for a lot of investment when the main feature of the class rather clunky, incredibly powerful, and thematically unfulfilling.

[Golurkcanfly]

Puna'chong wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I mean, I agree the class could use more feats and options to enable some of those ideas.

That's why I said it felt spread thin though. There's a bunch of little things to do, but not a lot of follow-up. A lot of superficial abilities, one of which just happens to load up an admittedly nice damage boost.

"Admittedly Nice" is an understatement for how strong it is. It's an enormous DPR increase, especially when compared to the other "mark a target it to hit it harder" martial (Ranger).

[Puna'chong]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

I mean, I agree the class could use more feats and options to enable some of those ideas.

That's why I said it felt spread thin though. There's a bunch of little things to do, but not a lot of follow-up. A lot of superficial abilities, one of which just happens to load up an admittedly nice damage boost.

"Admittedly Nice" is an understatement for how strong it is. It's an enormous DPR increase, especially when compared to the other "mark a target it to hit it harder" martial (Ranger).

Yeah, I mean, it's Universe Rage. It's very potent.

[John R.]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

John R. wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

I can't convince the universe to unlock a door, or protect me from the elements, or leap into the fray, or prevent a demon from teleporting away. All I can convince it to do is help me smack something hard, provided I don't already have what it's weak against.

I'd love to be wrong!

Personally, my answer to these problems is Scroll Esoterica.

Which has its own issues (not enough per day, action economy with it is awful, progression is slow) for a lot of investment when the main feature of the class rather clunky, incredibly powerful, and thematically unfulfilling.

I think this class has a lot of magical abilities that are hard to see because they aren't blatantly spells. Scroll Esoterica plus the abilities from your implements and other feats like the Magic Circle feats and One More Activation and Thaumaturge's Investiture and the ability to get a familiar start to stack up fast. Yes, the class needs more stuff and some tweaking with mechanics but I think the theme is there. It's just not overt but I think that's also what makes the Thaumaturge special as well.

[Golurkcanfly]

John R. wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

John R. wrote:

Puna'chong wrote:

I can't convince the universe to unlock a door, or protect me from the elements, or leap into the fray, or prevent a demon from teleporting away. All I can convince it to do is help me smack something hard, provided I don't already have what it's weak against.

I'd love to be wrong!

Personally, my answer to these problems is Scroll Esoterica.

Which has its own issues (not enough per day, action economy with it is awful, progression is slow) for a lot of investment when the main feature of the class rather clunky, incredibly powerful, and thematically unfulfilling.

I think this class has a lot of magical abilities that are hard to see because they aren't blatantly spells. Scroll Esoterica plus the abilities from your implements and other feats like the Magic Circle feats and One More Activation and Thaumaturge's Investiture and the ability to get a familiar start to stack up fast. Yes, the class needs more stuff and some tweaking with mechanics but I think the theme is there. It's just not overt but I think that's also what makes the Thaumaturge special as well.

A lot of those abilities are especially narrow, and the ones that aren't are just bad. The strong ones are largely the plain ones.

So much of the power of the class is tied up in FF/EA, which is probably the most one-dimensional aspect of the class (and is similar to the main mechanics of other classes), and due to how Paizo balances power with versatility, will be holding back the more interesting, unique options of the Thaumaturge.