|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get people saying the Thaumaturge-like characters are smart (and thus should not dump INT). But I believe they are even more defined by their charisma. And if we go the INT way, why would Constantine or Van Helsing not dump CHA ? (I do not really know Dresden).
I honestly think CHA is even more core to these characters than INT.
What we need IMO is abilities based on CHA but that work even better if you have INT.
While Constantine is very charismatic, I wouldn't say the same about Helsing. At least the original Helsing. I'd actually say he would be primarily Int with secondary Wis. He's very much a professor that's fairly socially awkward. Helsing, however, also doesn't empower his tools. He knows the weaknesses and just pulls them out as needed. There is no making the garlic a weakness, it already is and he carries it on him. I think Helsing is a great example of an Int version of this class.I get people saying the Thaumaturge-like characters are smart (and thus should not dump INT). But I believe they are even more defined by their charisma. And if we go the INT way, why would Constantine or Van Helsing not dump CHA ? (I do not really know Dresden).
I honestly think CHA is even more core to these characters than INT.
What we need IMO is abilities based on CHA but that work even better if you have INT.
Van Helsing from the book is absolutely not a Thusumaturge at all; he'd probably be an Investigator. People have been talking about wielding a crossbow, hunting werewolves, etc., so they are talking about pop culture Van Helsing.
I feel like some of the people interested in an Int-based monster-hunting Thaumaturge might be pretty happy if Investigator got a methodology that increased weakness effects they trigger on studied strikes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the mostly Constantine version aren't charismatic too. He may be cool to spectators but not for others characters.
Constantine are many times called to be stupid, cynical, indifferent, cold and stubborn so on. Only few put up with him, less trust him and just fellow like him.
Mostly constantine capacities come from smartness than any other thing.
His personality remembers Batman but while Batman uses his "mundane" tools to solve the problems (investigator), Constantine uses supernatural itens and knowledge to do the same (Thaumaturge). But both uses smartness and intelligence to win.
This even become more clear when they are side by side (see Justice League Darkness).
Ironically the Batman could be way more charismatic than Constantine but it's really don't a charismatic character instead, translating to PF2 abilities, is just like he has some kind of "psychological studies" skill feat that allows him to use intelligence for diplomacy/intimidation checks :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the mostly Constantine version aren't charismatic too. He may be cool to spectators but not for others characters.
Constantine are many times called to be stupid, cynical, indifferent, cold and stubborn so on. Only few put up with him, less trust him and just fellow like him.
Mostly constantine capacities come from smartness than any other thing.
His personality remembers Batman but while Batman uses his "mundane" tools to solve the problems (investigator), Constantine uses supernatural itens and knowledge to do the same (Thaumaturge). But both uses smartness and intelligence to win.
This even become more clear when they are side by side (see Justice League Darkness).Ironically the Batman could be way more charismatic than Constantine but it's really don't a charismatic character instead, translating to PF2 abilities, is just like he has some kind of "psychological studies" skill feat that allows him to use intelligence for diplomacy/intimidation checks :P
I think part of the problem modelling after Constantine (or Batman, etc.) is that we're talking about high-level characters, extremely high in the case of those two. They have mental stats maxed out and tons of skills, some at levels among the best in the (superpowered) world. And they also have something akin to Untrained Improvisation because they're good at most everything and vast experience (level) sees them through. This, and their many iterations over decades, means that it's easy to find support for most any kind of argument re: the framing of their stats and abilities.
IMO it does read like Constantine, & Dresden too, have low Charisma scores as the hard-bitten supernatural-noir heroes that they are, driving people away and making poor impressions. Yet they're cunning protagonists too so often deceive, intimidate, and bargain their ways to success. And they both can exert their will quite well.
How much of that is from skill investment, skill feats, their level, or their base stat? Technically none, yet several routes could be used in an RPG to represent these abilities, including plot successes like accumulating the correct macguffins, unearthing the right facts, and doing favors for key people. PF has many scenarios where underskilled PCs can succeed by accumulating enough bonuses over the course of the adventure. Heck, even Reed Richards, one of Marvel's least socially savvy heroes, intimidated Galuctus w/ a bluff by acquiring the Ultimate Nullifier. Plot cannot be ignored.
Not that Constantine isn't a master conman, he's notorious for that, yet there are several ways to get one's numbers up w/o insisting on Charisma. And he's quite dangerous in melee too, but that's due to an artifact level sword. His melee skills are considered basic! Awkward to represent that in PF. Yet equally so he's known for his intellect and unique knowledge plus his superior willpower, resistance to mental influence. Constantine even resisted a mental effect that had been able to cause Batman (super Will save) to kill (super anathema to him!).
Anyway, yes, I'm writing in circles at this point so I'll wrap it up.
I guess my salient question is:
What's a Thaumaturge's default tactic when at their earliest stage in their careers before having all that accumulated ability of the media examples we keep pointing at?
I'd think research and item collection would be their bread-n'-butter methods, not so much charm, tricking the universe, or making a weakness-finding connection w/ one opponent at a time.
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree. No problem.
I would like some mechanics that allow a Thaumaturge to be prepared AND to improvise on the fly, with the ability to benefit from both.
Something that rewards boosting INT and increasing the RK skills AND the CHA-based ability to impose the subtle connections and weaknesses on your opponent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We'll have to agree to disagree. No problem.
I would like some mechanics that allow a Thaumaturge to be prepared AND to improvise on the fly, with the ability to benefit from both.
Something that rewards boosting INT and increasing the RK skills AND the CHA-based ability to impose the subtle connections and weaknesses on your opponent.
That's not impossible, but you'd need to give up on them being a weapon-wielder. I mean, the MAD is bad enough already.
Given that, I don't think that's going to happen. Structurally, the Psychic and the Thaumaturge are basically Paizo sneaking up on the slotless caster concept from both sides - a martial who leverages clearly magical abilities as part of their core function on the one side, and a caster with comparatively few slots who leverages extra access to focus effects on the other.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, MAD is a big problem and PF2 is already a game that doesn't support flat/broad statlines very well (even worse than Pf1 in some respects).
Honestly I think that's the biggest problem with the Thaumaturge. The flavor people are looking at values... pretty much every stat to some degree.
It's also why it's hard to lean too heavily on media inspiration. The whole notion that you have to give up being smart to be charming or that being good at noticing things means you're probably less athletic is a very D&D contrivance that doesn't map to real life or fiction very well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, MAD is a big problem and PF2 is already a game that doesn't support flat/broad statlines very well (even worse than Pf1 in some respects).
Honestly I think that's the biggest problem with the Thaumaturge. The flavor people are looking at values... pretty much every stat to some degree.
It's also why it's hard to lean too heavily on media inspiration. The whole notion that you have to give up being smart to be charming or that being good at noticing things means you're probably less athletic is a very D&D contrivance that doesn't map to real life or fiction very well.
I think the MAD comes from the current playtest version. I have full faith in the devs to make a far more streamlined version based on our feedbacks.
TBH, my image of potential Thaumaturges is primary CHA, INT secondary (or maybe WIS) and pretty good DEX. I do not see them as usually having high STR or CON, though that could be a build choice, for example over DEX.
STR and CON are required by the usual combat mechanics of PF2. Not by the Thaumaturge class itself. So I think we can end up with a less MAD version without needing to sacrifice CHA or INT.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are losing sight of what Charisma means to this class. Just because the 2 main inspirations for this class are not exactly social butterflies doesn't mean that they don't use the ability in their day-to-day. Constantine, in the comics, constantly uses deceit and negotiation, alongside broad knowledge, to prevail, and that is at the core of what this class does. Making deals with higher powers is already a fully-formed menu of features for the class, and the signature class feature, not to keep repeating this point, is an argument, not a recollection, in that you're claiming a new fact based upon old facts rather than merely remembering old facts.Except Charisma doesn't do enough for this class, those sorts of characters are defined much more by their knowledge, perceptiveness, and wit rather than their charm, this class literally uses Recall Knowledge, and all of the skills it uses for said feature are based on knowledge. It even specifies learning existing weaknesses of the creatures. In addition, making deals is just as much about other mental stats than it is Charisma, and the other classes that entreat beings of higher power are not Charisma-based. Meanwhile, this class's best dump stats are the other two mental stats.
I agree with this so much.
When so many characters that fill the monster hunter niche aren't based on CHA, I have to wonder why CHA is being flagged as the best approach.
It's unfortunate for me really, because if EA and Find Flaws were rewritten or weren't part of the Class at all, I wouldn't have built up the expectation of what that type of character is supposed to play like.
But alas, it does.
And so the parallels and comparisons with Dresden, Constantine, and Helsing are going to come up. And as you mentioned earlier, all of them are smart or at the very least extremely intuitive.
It isn't difficult to imagine them as uncharismatic. Heck, a social blunder or faux pas wouldn't be out of place with any of them really. But them getting outsmarted is always a critical juncture for them. Like it's meant to be impactful because of how unlikely it is to happen, and they frequently outsmart others.
It honestly feels like the CHA to RK checks was tacked on as a means to alleviate MAD, but I honestly feel like I'd be less frustrated if they got a boost to defenses in exchange for dropping the CHA to Find Flaws/EA entirely with some kind of compensation for investing in the skills themselves.
This is why I think maybe instead you could base Find Flaws on Perception, give them the fastest track progression for Perception, and run it like Combat Assessment. Maybe could be a good approach. Hand out a free increase progression in one of the 4 RK Skills (call it a specialty) and you can cover the Knowledge, Perception, and then leave CHA as the binding nature to the supernatural, and it won't be as MAD sincethe Ability scores matter less. And then you're still rewarding players that invest in INT and WIS separately.
I'm still not crazy about the idea of a Thaumaturge being the party face in a group, it just bugs me that they basically are required to be the face by extension (Sorcerer, Bard, and Oracle are really the only ones that edge them out). Like sometimes the role falls to the person with the highest CHA, that's typically how things can shake out sometimes. And for Sorcerer, Oracle, and Bard especially, that fits very well into their concept already. But for Thaumaturge, that's just... so outside of what I was expecting and was hoping to see.
And on top of that, not only is it a role I didn't want to see, it's a role I kind of have a responsibility to fill, but I can't even afford to fill it in due to skill increases being starved.
So I have an additional role that I'm likely to get forced into by extension of my Class attribute, and now it's way too expensive to afford to be smart! To the point where being smart is actually worse for my character because it's one of the only stats I can actually dump.
Rough.
I feel like even most of the feats pertain to knowledge-based things (knowing pacts, knowing how to draw a warding circle, combining two symbols for repulsion). And to me, the Feats and EA/Find Flaws give a certain vibe, and I just really struggle to see how CHA isn't going to be a literal detriment to character concepts in a lot of cases.
I suppose if the intent is that CHA is a representation of how off-putting they are as a person (almost like they personally repulse others), then that could work, but it needs to be explicitly given a stage in the concept.
It's just like, why are Shoonies and Gnomes better Thaumaturges than Dwarves? It just is a hard sell for me.
I think we are losing sight of what Charisma means to this class. Just because the 2 main inspirations for this class are not exactly social butterflies doesn't mean that they don't use the ability in their day-to-day. Constantine, in the comics, constantly uses deceit and negotiation, alongside broad knowledge, to prevail, and that is at the core of what this class does. Making deals with higher powers is already a fully-formed menu of features for the class, and the signature class feature, not to keep repeating this point, is an argument, not a recollection, in that you're claiming a new fact based upon old facts rather than merely remembering old facts.Except Charisma doesn't do enough for this class, those sorts of characters are defined much more by their knowledge, perceptiveness, and wit rather than their charm, this class literally uses Recall Knowledge, and all of the skills it uses for said feature are based on knowledge. It even specifies learning existing weaknesses of the creatures. In addition, making deals is just as much about other mental stats than it is Charisma, and the other classes that entreat beings of higher power are not Charisma-based. Meanwhile, this class's best dump stats are the other two mental stats.I agree with this so much.
When so many characters that fill the monster hunter niche aren't based on CHA, I have to wonder why CHA is being flagged as the best approach.
It's unfortunate for me really, because if EA and Find Flaws were rewritten or weren't part of the Class at all, I wouldn't have built up the expectation of what that type of character is supposed to play like.
But alas, it does.
And so the parallels of comparison with Dresden, Constantine, and Helsing are going to be brought up.
And as you mentioned earlier, all of them are smart or at the very least extremely intuitive.
It isn't difficult to imagine them as uncharismatic. Heck, a social blunder or faux pas...
I mean the semi magical folk who are known for collecting strange baubles shouldn't be good Thaumaturges, the collector of items.
The critters that are known for gaining special interests and curiosities that propel them to adventure to stave of super depression, wouldn't be good at hyper-focusing knowledge and connections to monsters.
Gnomes to me seem like the perfect Thaumaturges narrative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the semi magical folk who are known for collecting strange baubles shouldn't be good Thaumaturges, the collector of items.
I mean everyone is semi-magical, and if you're argument is that they collect more items than Dwarves? I would argue against that. Dwarves identities are practically steeped in crafting and the knowledges that surround it.
That said I think I'll reframe my argument.
The Gnome doesn't have anything preventing them from being a great Thaumaturge. The Dwarf does.
Gnomes to me seem like the perfect Thaumaturges narratively.
Why are Dwarves the worst Thaumaturges in the game when they are steeped in lore with specific enemies they will hunt, knowledge of crafting, knowledge of treasured items, and a profound understanding of the world.
The travelers of the world that literally seek out treasure and items to bring home don't deserve to be Thaumaturges?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the semi magical folk who are known for collecting strange baubles shouldn't be good Thaumaturges, the collector of items.
I mean everyone is semi-magical, and if you're argument is that they collect more items than Dwarves? I would argue against that. Dwarves identities are practically steeped in crafting and the knowledges that surround it.
That said I think I'll reframe my argument.
The Gnome doesn't have anything preventing them from being a great Thaumaturge. The Dwarf does.
Gnomes to me seem like the perfect Thaumaturges narratively.
Why are Dwarves the worst Thaumaturges in the game when they are steeped in lore with specific enemies they will hunt, knowledge of crafting, knowledge of treasured items, and a profound understanding of the world.
The travelers of the world that literally seek out treasure and items to bring home don't deserve to be Thaumaturges?
Really, "Don't deserve?" That is some heavy-handed language. They aren't restricted from being the class in anyway shape or form. You can easily get them to a fine 16 or with voluntary flaws get an 18. Any ancestry can literally be any class and its fairly easy to do in 2e. I don't think the balance or themes of the class should be chosen based off of your 1 ancestry, that you feel like it needs to reach some level of deservedness, when it can be built just find as a Thaumaturge. I also never said dwarves were a bad thaumaturge thematically either, just that the one of the ancestries you *singled out* as being less deserving then your preferred ancestry.
Gnomes are also excellent crafters as well. Almost every lore justification for Dwarves being your ideal thaumaturge fits for gnomes, and when they don't they have their own compelling reasons for it as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say gnomes don't deserve to be thaumaturges, but the variation on gnomes is pretty wide. The bleachling is of course great.
But what about shoon? That one is to me super weird.
A dwarf is literally at a 4 attribute differential to the gnome when both of them have an affinity for items. As mentioned above, their love of lore and items isn't really tied to CHA. And the shoony, the ancestry that lives the least long of almost all of them, is apparently amazingly knowledgeable and better at it than most ancestries?
Seems weird to me.
And we can act like anyone can be a thaumaturge, but it literally dissuaded one of my players from being a dwarf because it literally meant he had to be less dwarflike to be a thaumaturge.
It wasn't my preferred it was my player and it was a concept I tried to help him work out that he changed to a shoony. The original concept was a gruff carrier of items that has traveled the world and seen strange things.
And he swapped it into a shoony because it just didn't work very well when you have to do that as an already MAD class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of a tough, gruff PC, he made a ruff-ruff PC. :-)
So instead of a tough, gruff PC, he made a ruff-ruff PC. :-)
Haha it was actually a not bad character concept. Totally different with a side focus on tumble mechanics for positioning, but his chalice was a dog bowl.
It was an entertaining character, but then he stacked WIS anyways for Medicine Feats and went finesse weapons.
Since most of the damage came from EA, it actually didn't play terrible, but it wasn't what he wanted to bring to the table and I think he was bugged by feeling the weirdness of being charismatic while playing a character that felt like it wasn't.
I didn't say gnomes don't deserve to be thaumaturges, but the variation on gnomes is pretty wide. The bleachling is of course great.
But I see you don't want to discuss shoony which is to me super weird.
A dwarf is literally at a 4 attribute differential to the gnome when both of them have an affinity for items, and to the shoony the ancestry that lives the least long of almost all of them.
And we can act like anyone can be a thaumaturge, but it literally dissuaded one of my players from being a dwarf because it literally meant he had to be less dwarflike to be a thaumaturge.
It wasn't my preferred it was my player and it was a concept I tried to help him work out that he changed to a shoony. The original concept was a gruff carrier of items that has traveled the world and seen strange things.
And he swapped it into a shoony because it just didn't work very well when you have to do that as an already MAD class.
I picked Gnomes because I admit I have a strong attachment to them, and because I think they would make a stronger case in the parameters of the debate you already set up.
Also I would argue that by questioning why are Shoonys and gnomes better Dwarves, and then your later argument being about deservedness. Their at least in my mind when reading that paints a clear expectations of what ancestry "fits" a class. And unless I am misinterpreting you again you continue to do so by placing the bleachling on a higher level then the other gnomes, and seeming to think that a lower life span makes for a poor thaumaturge. If anything I would say their lore about being a pacifist ancestry would be what would cause them to have thematic issues if any, untill we remember that PC's are exceptional.
No one says you have to be less dwarflike to have higher charisma, you can still be connected to your answers. you can still be a great craftman, you can be hardy. and heck maybe you've even learned to weaponize your grumpiness into an especially fearsome presence because charisma isn't just charms. Dwarves historically anyways have been associated with two classes that have connections to charisma paladins/champions, and clerics, and why those are secondary stats for those classes they are still relevant.
I'm sorry your player felt that they would feel less dwarfy but I don't think that's the game forcing you to be or do anything.
No one says you have to be less dwarflike to have higher charisma, you can still be connected to your answers. you can still be a great craftman, you can be hardy. and heck maybe you've even learned to weaponize your grumpiness into an especially fearsome presence...
I mean you realistically have to have a stat that hits enemies, and you don't gain str or dex for free, so that means you kinda have to drop Wis or con most of the time to gain your much needed charisma.
That's by definition being less dwarf, because you're literally going against what a standard dwarf physical predisposition is. It also means theyd be rare to encounter.
The game does do a good job of not forcing things, but that doesn't mean there isn't some difficulty in making certain options work.
If we're going to act like there's absolutely no inhibitions for entry on Dwarf being a thaumaturge, then let's just refrain from here. It's pretty obvious it's an uphill battle and requires significant sacrifices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one says you have to be less dwarflike to have higher charisma, you can still be connected to your answers. you can still be a great craftman, you can be hardy. and heck maybe you've even learned to weaponize your grumpiness into an especially fearsome presence...I mean you realistically have to have a stat that hits enemies, and you don't gain str or dex for free, so that means you kinda have to drop Wis or con most of the time to gain your much needed charisma.
That's by definition being less dwarf, because you're literally going against what a standard dwarf physical predisposition is. It also means theyd be rare to encounter.
The game does do a good job of not forcing things, but that doesn't mean there isn't some difficulty in making certain options work.
If we're going to act like there's absolutely no inhibitions for entry on Dwarf being a thaumaturge, then let's just refrain from here. It's pretty obvious it's an uphill battle and requires significant sacrifices.
Yes there will be adjustments, Gnomes start with a penalty to strength and will have to spend resources to boost that, or Dexterity, dexterity will be easier but will result in lower damage and being able to carry less items.
Dwarf Thaumaturge can get a 16 a too hit stat and charisma and that is serviceable for both. It also will start with slightly more hp and can get ancestry feats that can make you even hardier, which will be useful with the 8hp thaumaturge. The dwarf has more of a curve but it is 100% possible to do so, be effective, and well be a dwarf because you have your ancestry feats to continue define what your ancestry means to you.
My point is that it isnt't impossible or you have to roleplay being less dwarfy.
In other places I have stated despite my preference for charisma I would ultimately be okay with wisdom if that was what was decided. I disagree with some of your opinions but I think you make strong arguments.
This didn't feel like a strong one or one that made all much sense in the context of the playtest to me.
1) it is doable
2) all ancestries inevitable come across a mechanic that would be thematically appropriate but feels off or takes a little work. ( half-lings are often described as athletic but have a penalty to strength, kobolds who want to be a draconic barbarian have to deal with low con, dwarves have to deal with low secondary stats when playing champions and clerics.)
Typically when a class has a penalty to an ability score, it conceptually matches what classes they won't favor.
It's easy to understand why a gnome will struggle being a heavy hitting barbarian, their small stature. Same for all the small ancestries really. Can you get an 18 str? Yeah but you'd be the exception among gnomes.
It's not easy to understand why a dwarf is a bad thaumaturge or an exception to dwarves.
If that doesn't make sense to some then alright but I think there's a large difference between being able to do it with little effort and having to use a specific ability score rule just to gain access to a class concept your ancestry feels like it should be really good at.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of a tough, gruff PC, he made a ruff-ruff PC. :-)
McGruff the Crime Dog! "Take a bite out of crime." ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure Dwarves are so well known for using the underlying connections that bind all of reality together.
And I feel Goblins would make naturally awesome Thaumaturges. More than Dwarves IMO. If we make Thaumaturge WIS-based, Goblin ones become the weird exception that you feel Dwarves Thaumaturges should not be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure Dwarves are so well known for using the underlying connections that bind all of reality together.
I mean that's the flavor text that the forums have come up with to explain the CHA, but the flavor text of the class has a lot of flavor text that indicates the Class sees and understands connections, sympathetic or not.
Infact the "bind all of reality together" text you mention isn't anywhere in the document at all.
Let's quote some actual flavor text:
You research deeper into the supernatural mysteries you discovered on your last adventure to see how they can be applied in the future
You research deeper into supernatural mysteries and see how they can be applied in the future.
Let's take a look at the Goblin:
Assume you can’t—or won’t—read.
Yep! I can certainly see how the Ancestry that doesn't read is absolutely going to be doing some deep research dives and be super knowledgeable.
Absolutely no conflicts at all! Best Ancestry ever to be a Thaumaturge because.... well... reasons.
And I feel Goblins would make naturally awesome Thaumaturges. More than Dwarves IMO. If we make Thaumaturge WIS-based, Goblin ones become the weird exception that you feel Dwarves Thaumaturges should not be.
I think it's pretty easy to see why the Ancestry that doesn't read isn't the best at doing deep dives into knowledge or research.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure Dwarves are so well known for using the underlying connections that bind all of reality together.
I mean that's the flavor text that the forums have come up with to explain the CHA, but the flavor text of the class has a lot of other flavor text that indicates the Class sees and understands connections, sympathetic or not.
Infact the "bind all of reality together" text you mention isn't anywhere in the document at all.
Let's quote some actual flavor text:
You research deeper into the supernatural mysteries you discovered on your last adventure to see how they can be applied in the futureYou research deeper into supernatural mysteries and see how they can be applied in the future.
Let's take a look at the Goblin:
Assume you can’t—or won’t—read.Yep! I can certainly see how the Ancestry that doesn't read is absolutely going to be doing some deep research dives....
And I feel Goblins would make naturally awesome Thaumaturges. More than Dwarves IMO. If we make Thaumaturge WIS-based, Goblin ones become the weird exception that you feel Dwarves Thaumaturges should not be.I think it's pretty easy to see why the Ancestry that doesn't read isn't the best at doing deep dives into knowledge or research.
We do not see the class the same way at all. And I would rather they change the flavor text so that some people would not be so opposed to CHA.
I feel the class is all about having the right piece of junk within reach and imposing its effect on the target. Not about endlessly researching snippets of lore. Why would we even have esoterica if all that mattered was prepared knowledge ?
But it's OK. Thanks to the thread about Thaumaturge as a WIS-class, I do not expect to convince you any more than I expect to be convinced by your arguments.
The very best I hope for is that they find a way to satisfy both those of us who want INT or WIS and those who want CHA.
This way, both Dwarven Thaumaturges and Goblin Thaumaturges will make sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do not see the class the same way at all. And I would rather they change the flavor text so that some people would not be so opposed to CHA.
Clearly. I read the Class as is in the document, saw research, knowledge, and other corroborating mechanics that all pointed to a non-CHA primary.
It's not even just the flavor text, the mechanics are all like that too, the flavor text just doesn't support CHA either.
You wanna know what's easier to change than an entire classes flavor text and 50% of the mechanics? Doing a ctrl+f and replace for CHA. It's basically effortless.
The very best I hope for is that they find a way to satisfy both those
Maybe that's possible, but I can't help but feel the attachment to CHA is.. idk.. like why?
You can't really afford the Skill increases on the Social skills anyways because you need to pump knowledges to use your main class features.
I mean, as is, the Class doesn't even get to enjoy the fruits of CHA that normally come with that.
What exactly is CHA really allowing you to play that WIS would completely remove? I don't want an explanation for how CHA works as a concept, I want to know what it's letting you play that you can't play if it's WIS. Because realistically, you can still be social even if WIS is the primary.
I genuinely do not see the value in keeping CHA as the primary other than the attachment people seem to have for it as the current primary. I'd love to learn why that's so important to people that they would be upset if it weren't CHA.
|
|
TBH with the class in its current version, if you go WIS, you will not be able to raise social skills. And then you will dump CHA because even INT will bring more to the table.
I want to be able to play a viable Thaumaturge with high CHA and social skills, and definitely not CHA as the foretold dumping stat.
I see CHA as essential to the concept of efficiently using esoterica, as well as something common to the Thaumaturge models (especially Constantine) the way I envision them.
An example : using the cross against the vampire in Fright Nights. Both characters know it is supposed to hurt him, but only the one who is really sure it will work actually gets a result. So, it is neither knowledge nor the item that hurt the vampire on their own. It is something else that IMO is CHA in PF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I fell in love with the Thaumaturge because of the way Mark Seifter introduced it before we had the playtest document and also the 101 connections thread. It really spoke to something deep within me that I have not seen in 3.5/PF1, or even in any TTRPG since Ars Magica 30 years ago. And in a way I have rarely felt over anything in my nerdy hobbies.
So I will fight and argue tooth and claw to get that image into reality.
Now, the Wisdom Thaumaturge thread helped me realize some people feel as strongly for an INT or WIS version of the Thaumaturge. So I am now OK with a version with any mental stat so that we can all get to play the characters we feel so strongly about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH with the class in its current version, if you go WIS, you will not be able to raise social skills. And then you will dump CHA because even INT will bring more to the table.
I want to be able to play a viable Thaumaturge with high CHA and social skills, and definitely not CHA as the foretold dumping stat.
I see CHA as essential to the concept of efficiently using esoterica, as well as something common to the Thaumaturge models (especially Constantine) the way I envision them.
An example : using the cross against the vampire in Fright Nights. Both characters know it is supposed to hurt him, but only the one who is really sure it will work actually gets a result. So, it is neither knowledge nor the item that hurt the vampire on their own. It is something else that IMO is CHA in PF2.
The first bit is primarily an issue with how MAD the class is right now. It needs to have KAS to accuracy with Esoteric Antithesis.
The second is simply the training. It's how a Druid casts spells with WIS or an Investigator hits with INT. Certainty/faith also isn't based on CHA, either. In fact, the class that most directly works based on faith is the Cleric, who is WIS-based.
Divine Font works on CHA though.
Note that this does not need to be a zero-sum game. Bashing CHA and trying to lessen the arguments of those who are attached to it is less helpful to getting WIS as key stat than showing how WIS makes sense for some versions of the Thaumaturge.
In other words, there is no need nor value in explaining to me that I am wrong for wanting to have a CHA-based Thaumaturge. It is rather counterproductive actually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would welcome the Thaumaturge being the first non-rogue martial that can pick between any of the 3 mental attributes as a primary with different approaches to the aspects of the Class for each.
And honestly, initial implement selection doesn't actually have that much impact outside of what the selection grants you. Like you can just pick a different implement at level 5 and choose it for your Implement Adept.
Sp maybe adding the Primary Attribute selection to your initial implement selection could work for that.
Chalice, Lantern -> WIS
Amulet -> INT
Weapon -> CHA
Then add "Mask" for CHA, and maybe "Tome" for INT. Wand I suppose can be the "pick one" of the bunch.
Just spitballing.
If we can't agree on a Primary, I say we agree on how to make multiple Primary abilities feasible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the idea of tying ability scores to implements, because I can see any ability score with any of the implements,
I don't like the idea of tying ability scores to implements, because I can see any ability score with any of the implements,I agree with this as well.
Any implement can reasonably work with any ability score.
If there is a choice of ability score, it should be a separate feature.
I mean, you can still select any of the implements at level 5 and advance it as you see fit, so its not like you can't be CHA and have a Chalice, you just can't do it at level 1.
But considering the class budget as is, I think it has to be attached to some existing mechanic in the Class, because you can't really add much more without bloating it, and a straight binary choice at initial class selection would feel pretty hollow on the themes.
You might be able to flex out Dubious Knowledge into selection between 3 separate skill feats corresponding to a different Ability Score, but even that would be pretty scant way to introduce a concept.
Rackets change the method of Sneak attack application. Spell lists determine sorc/witch. Those are pretty massive class features that the primary hinges on.
If it were simply a choice at class selection, most people would probably end up picking WIS anyways for its intrinsic merit across other skills, perception, and Will Saves.
Thus the only main mechanic left to hinge on is EA/Find Flaws, but I don't see a great way to integrate the themes of different ability scores into that mechanic as easily, unless the mechanic itself worked in fundamentally different ways entirely.
Like for instance, if the CHA was fooling the opponent to believing it were true (Deception), INT was Recalling Knowledge you've learned about the creature (RK), and WIS was simply Perception, then I suppose that could work, but then I'd like to see the outcomes for each in the implementation of EA to be unique as well.
Like maybe they all keep the weakness, but each gains a ribbon that suits the ability score.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think tying it to ea/find flaws would be way better then implements.
|
|
One idea I had : FF=usual RK, EA= free social skill check vs target's Will to impose a disadvantage (custom weakness in addition to an existing one, condition, curse ...), on your opponent. Costs 1 action if RK is a critical failure.
Some more thoughts about this :
GM gives a circumstance bonus to EA if they enjoy the connection described by the player.
Implement Empowerment allows you to choose a weakness to target with your Strikes (maybe just adds a trait to your strikes only for the explicit purpose of taking advantage of weakness or cutting through resistance), in addition to any custom weakness.
RK is any RK skill and applies to all creatures but with a bonus if the type matches the skill. So that you only need to max a single RK skill, which could increase automatically BTW.
So, WIS/INT-based will be better at FF, while CHA-based will be better at EA.
Some feat to use EA to get a bonus at skills where the connection makes sense.
Also, I fell in love with the Thaumaturge because of the way Mark Seifter introduced it before we had the playtest document and also the 101 connections thread. It really spoke to something deep within me that I have not seen in 3.5/PF1, or even in any TTRPG since Ars Magica 30 years ago. And in a way I have rarely felt over anything in my nerdy hobbies.
So I will fight and argue tooth and claw to get that image into reality.
Now, the Wisdom Thaumaturge thread helped me realize some people feel as strongly for an INT or WIS version of the Thaumaturge. So I am now OK with a version with any mental stat so that we can all get to play the characters we feel so strongly about.
So the thing that I notice is... basically, we have the fluff of the "101 connections thread" version of the Thaumaturge, and we have the fluff that can be actually drawn from the playtest document as written, and they are very, very different.
The 101 connections version should absolutely be Charisma-based, because it's not about them having learned it all in a book. Instead, it's about them understanding magical connections intuitively, and forging new ones and asking them for secrets, and listening to what they say. They should have something that lets them pull Recall Knowledge checks with Diplomacy, because they're actually getting their info off of a Request to the spirit of the world. Then if the Request is not enough by itself, they follow it up with Deception, because that's just a bog-standard Lie, again to the spirit of the world, having the world believe that your sword is super-stabby for just long enough. Something like that. They don't run into the repeated "recall knowledge" issues because as far as they're concerned, each new target is a new creature, that must be connected with anew.
The playtest doc version should be Int-based, and they run it all off Occultism, because as far as they're concerned, every one of these things is "esoteric lore, obscure mysticism, and supernatural creatures". Well, ti was obscure to them, right? They're not as good at lying about it, but they're a lot better at sharing the info with their buddies in useful ways, which makes them better suited for the role that stays further back and plays support. They also get the benefit of being replicable - once they've managed to get info on one creature, it holds true for other creatures like it, and they can continue to exploit.
Finally, the Wis-based version, because wisdom is a lore stat, and because "steeped in the lore of the church" is absolutely a thematic Thing for "the weird monster-hunter warrior guy who spends all of his time on ancient mysteries". Also, it lets us do right by the people who want to play Inquisitor thematically without inviting in the unfortunate implications. They get their everything-skill as Religion, and they're literally working off of divine inspiration and devotions and prayers. Unlike a priest, who devotes themselves to a singular deity, the wisdom-thaumaturge has pacts and relationships with a number of lesser entities that allow them to channel power in return for direct acts of devotion. They still have the connection thing going on, but they have help from Above (or Below) in exploiting it, and the long-term connections between them and their various bonds are more important than the in-the-moment connections they forge with whoever it is that they're trying to kill.
Okay, i admit it - I mostly just think that a solid, respectable, slotless inquisitor (without the unfortunate implications) would be really cool, and this would be the perfect place for it, and I feel like not filling that here would be wasting an opportunity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One idea I had : FF=usual RK, EA= free social skill check vs target's Will to impose a disadvantage (custom weakness in addition to an existing one, condition, curse ...), on your opponent. Costs 1 action if RK is a critical failure.
Some more thoughts about this :
GM gives a circumstance bonus to EA if they enjoy the connection described by the player.
Implement Empowerment allows you to choose a weakness to target with your Strikes (maybe just adds a trait to your strikes only for the explicit purpose of taking advantage of weakness or cutting through resistance), in addition to any custom weakness.
RK is any RK skill and applies to all creatures but with a bonus if the type matches the skill. So that you only need to max a single RK skill, which could increase automatically BTW.
So, WIS/INT-based will be better at FF, while CHA-based will be better at EA.
Some feat to use EA to get a bonus at skills where the connection makes sense.
This doesn't really work for me for a few reasons:
1. All of the power the Thaumaturge gets is in EA, so not being good at EA is essentially a huge drop in your efficacy in combat
2. Twice as many rolls means more opportunities for failure in PF2, it's almost never a good thing even if we reduce the downsides to Critical Failures only
3. It basically means both are required, because one heavily influences your action economy and the other is the only way you're going to be any kind of damage threat in an encounter.
4. The limited number of skill increases becomes even more of a problem when you have an additional skill to target.
_______________________________________
My approach would have been something like this.
Imposing Presence
You gain a specific method of insight into the world that allows you to exploit the bounds of reality. Select mountebank, savant, or stoic. Once this selection is made it cannot be changed. You gain the following benefits:
Mountebank - Your class key ability is Charisma. You become trained in either Deception or Diplomacy. If you choose Deception, may use Feint when taking the Exploit Flaws action and you gain the Lie to Me skill feat. If you choose Diplomacy, you may use Bon Mot when taking the Exploit Flaws action and you gain the Bon Mot skill feat.
Savant - Your class key ability is Intelligence. You apply your Intelligence modifier to Recall Knowledge checks for Nature and Religion and you gain the Dubious Knowledge skill feat. You may use Recall Knowledge when taking the Exploit Flaws action.
Stoic - Your class key ability is Wisdom. You may use Seek when taking the Exploit Flaws action against the Will DC of the opponent and when you get a critical success using Exploit Flaws the enemy is flat-footed to your next attack that turn. You gain the Canny Acumen general feat.
Exploit Flaws
You exploit a creature’s weaknesses, whether a literal weakness or a metaphysical one. Use the associated action of your Imposing Presence against the creature. The creature must be either one you can see or one you're specifically Investigating in advance during exploration. The result depends on the result of your check, which has the following additional effects as well as the usual effects of associated with your Imposing Presence.
Critical Success You gain the critical success for the associated action. You can then use Esoteric Antithesis without spending an additional action.
Success You gain the success of your associated action. You can then use Esoteric Antithesis without spending an additional action.
Failure You fail to succeed at your associated action and instead try a wide range of superstitions and narrow it down from there. You can use Esoteric Antithesis as your next action.
Critical Failure You suffer the effects of the critical failure of your associated action. You become flat-footed until the beginning of your next turn and can’t use Esoteric Antithesis this round.
__________________________________
Again, just spitballing. But for only 200 or so extra words, you can leave most of the Class intact with some extra flavor there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if they went about it this way?:
One mental ability score is used for Find Flaws as is.
A second mental ability score can be used for attack rolls against your chosen Find Flaws target.
The third mental ability score's modifier is added as extra damage in some way (might require a formula for balance) for Esoteric Antithesis or Implement's Empowerment.
You can choose whichever KAS you want to determine class DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wanna know what's easier to change than an entire classes flavor text and 50% of the mechanics? Doing a ctrl+f and replace for CHA. It's basically effortless.
Yeah but they could also just... not.
Yeah but they could also just... not.
You wanna know what's easier to change than an entire classes flavor text and 50% of the mechanics? Doing a ctrl+f and replace for CHA. It's basically effortless.
Then it shouldn't be surprising when a bunch of people read the flavor text written into the Class and are disappointed when "research", "knowledge", and the application of each have literally nothing to do with knowledge, research, or the application of either.
The person presented a "I'd rather them rewrite the entire flavor text to support CHA", so I stated that it would be a lot less invasive to do that. It wasn't meant to be offensive, I was merely pointing out that it would be a lot easier.
If the Class is supposed to be represented in the way Mark described with CHA as the focus in a completely other location outside the playtest document, then the flavor text is far removed to say the least from that concept (mechanics too, but I digress).
If we are changing Find Flaws to represent each attribute, I also hope that Esoteric Antithesis can be adjusted to fit more than one play style. I'd really like to play this class less dependent on a weapon.
In a way, I was kinda shooting for that with Actions that provided flat-footed as an option, but it could be refined. The seek one for instance I would probably alter to be a +1 circumstance bonus to your next Strike and you ignore Concealment/Cover or something of that nature.
Right now, picking up Weapon as Second Implement feels pretty mandatory to me.