|
I'm having an issue with this class and determining what makes it unique. It feels like three goblins in a trenchcoat pretending to be an investigator. It's gimmick might be more interesting if my players weren't the sort that just regularly bring golf bags full of things to handle weaknesses. As a knowledge character it feels like its only knowledgeable in the exact moment of a fight. Even though it lets you prepare it with research it seems like the ability to use esoteric antithesis falls off if you if you use Find Flaws in a preceding encounter.
It's ability to add damage to something without a weakness limits its support abilities and stack weirdly with Implement Empowerment. You get damage on top of damage in a class that's a step behind other martial characters in hit chance. The theme sections read like "this is the guy who knows how to fight rare creatures" but it seems like you'll struggle to hit in those situations. Comparing it to the investigator (as the other big "know stuff" class) if that's the guy you've got Pursue a Lead tagged on, you're more likely to hit and know their weaknesses.
Comparing it to the things my players normally bring to the table it looks like a hitter that can't hit, a knowledge character who doesn't know anything, and a support character who can't support. GMing for it, I'm not sure what advice to give players.
If I had to propose a fix, make wisdom its key score and swap one of the damage buffs to some kind of hit fix. Everything about "right tool for the job" class screams wisdom to me. Maybe make the antithesis apply an AC penalty to the target if it doesn't have a weakness. Something like the ranger's knowledge feats might work?
To me, the idea is that you are interacting with magic without actually using magic. You are tricksy and cunning and RESOURCEFUL. You know what each enemies specific weaknesses are and can exploit them. You hoard every peice of esoteric stuff you come across, all this not because you want to but because you have to to hold your own. You are constantly seeking out every possible advantage, because you will probably need it.
The main distinction in my mind between you and the investigator is in the thought process. The investigator is about looking at all the discrete data and putting them together in a comprehensive synthesis like a neat library. The thaumaturge by contrast is as an ancient archive, vast, but with all the titles covered in dust, stacked in piles on the floor and organised not neccesarily without system but with one unapparent to any who haven't spent years studying it. They collect data, but do not attempt to combine them in a useful way, only hanging onto them until they may be needed.