The Survey and Spellcasting

[John R.]

The survey is out now. I noticed there were a couple questions on what people thought about with adding spellcasting (full or bound and then focus spells) to the class. I'm curious what people think.

Even though I usually always play some form of caster, I "voted" to keep it as a full martial as is but to add focus spells as feats. At least I think that's what I chose. It was a hard choice. XD

[Golurkcanfly]

I'm in the camp "Add more ways to cheat spellcasting" such with wands, better scroll action economy, better rituals, but no actual spells.

It definitely needs more magical effects with varied application.

[John R.]

Agreed. In the in-depth survey, I stated that I'd prefer they push the magical items aspect and make it more of the focus versus FF/EA.

[The Raven Black]

I too prefer the aspect of Accessing magic powers I am not supposed to have by using items that are not supposed to work for me.

Scroll Thaumaturgy is the prime example to me.

Note that it is not even a Trick Magic Item based on CHA.

[Zwordsman]

I voted completely against adding spells or focus spells. I love mundane magic and item magic it has right now.

It's so unique built in flavor. So useful and fun.

I pushed magic item usage. Scroll trinket etc usages.

[Lanathar]

It's funny how the initial reaction seemed to be shock that the Occultist had lost their spells. And now people are used to it and many prefer the idea

I think that the scroll and talisman feats should be "better" than the archetype variants since the general pattern of things should be the base class is better than the archetype and not just exactly the same feats.

[The Raven Black]

I was never interested in the PF1 Occultist whereas I love the Thaumaturge. I hope we will not get too much of an Implement user feeling as opposed to the FF/EA focus, especially if the latter can inflict conditions rather than custom weaknesses.

[Lanathar]

I can't help but want more Implements. Especially if they stay at the (relatively low) power level they currently are

But they'd need to be a good way of using them more effectively. Likely that swapping ability as soon as you get the second one (doesn't make sense that it is two level later - why?)

At the very least I find the pacing utterly bizarre. 1st, 5th and 15th? That doesn't make sense. What about 10th and 20th?

Sadly if there are only going to be 9 to pick from and the focus on "rule of three" (which also seems to explain the three power levels) I don't see the number changing

1E implement pacing was odd as well. But you got loads

[Callibourc]

I said I'd be fine with focus spells. I think tying focus spells to the pacts would be one of the better ways to do it, and doesn't step on the toes of the class's identity as non-magical, since the magic you're drawing on is explicitly not your own but borrowed from the pact (which already allow you to cast spells anyways). Pact of Fey Glamour is very flavorful but underwhelming in actual power, I think instead of "you can cast Illusory Disguise as an innate Primal spell once per day", it would be much better if it granted you access to a Thaumaturge pact focus spell that allowed you to do something similar to illusory disguise. Focus spells in general are one of my favorite parts of 2e, so I'll freely admit I'm biased towards their inclusion, I think the way Monk and Ranger make use of them is a great solution to the usual issues half-casters face

[RyMarq]

I believe more explicit magic would be a drag on the class. It just needs more clear utility and rules text for recall knowledge interactions.

Pacts seem like a fine way to add them though, if they wanted spell access.

[Lanathar]

I’m not convinced Pacts should be Thaumaturge only . I think every class should have access somehow and Thaumaturge either have easier access, early access or gain more from them

But don’t disagree on the focus spell part. And the fey pact needing a boost

[Callibourc]

Lanathar wrote:

I’m not convinced Pacts should be Thaumaturge only . I think every class should have access somehow and Thaumaturge either have easier access, early access or gain more from them

But don’t disagree on the focus spell part. And the fey pact needing a boost

If other people want Pacts they can get them through a Thaumaturge multiclass dedication or pact-specific archetype the same way other classes besides Druid and Ranger can get an animal companion, but I don't think they should be taken away from the thaumaturge. The fact that they're cool and other people might want them is not a reason to take them away or make them into general feats, it's a mark of good design- ideally when looking at EVERY class, you'd go "Oh wow, that's really cool, I'd like to play a character who can do that."

Some people have suggested making them into general feats or the existing "contract" series of items and I pretty categorically disagree with both of those. Class feats are the most valuable resource you have as a player character, the fact pacts cost class feats to get is what allows them to be strong and powerful and interesting and really deliver on the flavor. A general feat would need to be so watered down as to be pointless, and needing to beg your DM for a specific Contract item is way too Mother May I for my taste compared to simply choosing a pact on level up, the average player is never going to get the former while the latter is a simple matter especially if some are changed to Common.

I think they're also the ideal way to introduce focus spells and possibly other spellcasting elements to people who REALLY want the Thaumaturge to have spells, without harming people who don't want that in the base class. The existing playtest pacts already grant the ability to cast some innate spells, after all.

[Golurkcanfly]

Callibourc wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

I’m not convinced Pacts should be Thaumaturge only . I think every class should have access somehow and Thaumaturge either have easier access, early access or gain more from them

But don’t disagree on the focus spell part. And the fey pact needing a boost

If other people want Pacts they can get them through a Thaumaturge multiclass dedication or pact-specific archetype the same way other classes besides Druid and Ranger can get an animal companion, but I don't think they should be taken away from the thaumaturge. The fact that they're cool and other people might want them is not a reason to take them away or make them into general feats, it's a mark of good design- ideally when looking at EVERY class, you'd go "Oh wow, that's really cool, I'd like to play a character who can do that."

Some people have suggested making them into general feats or the existing "contract" series of items and I pretty categorically disagree with both of those. Class feats are the most valuable resource you have as a player character, the fact pacts cost class feats to get is what allows them to be strong and powerful and interesting and really deliver on the flavor. A general feat would need to be so watered down as to be pointless, and needing to beg your DM for a specific Contract item is way too Mother May I for my taste compared to simply choosing a pact on level up, the average player is never going to get the former while the latter is a simple matter especially if some are changed to Common.

I think they're also the ideal way to introduce focus spells and possibly other spellcasting elements to people who REALLY want the Thaumaturge to have spells, without harming people who don't want that in the base class. The existing playtest pacts already grant the ability to cast some innate spells, after all.

Pacts fit perfectly as part of the Contract Magic Items (items in general aren't even necessarily physical) or as Rituals. Especially when they're primarily options meant to sell a role-play flavor rather than directly contribute to the class's abilities.

[Castilliano]

Pacts seem much more like RPing rewards than class feats IMO.

Whether all players should gain access (and how and how many) is a different question, but I can't imagine planning to take one as a Thaumaturgist except in a campaign centered around the pact's creature type. And then it might feel forced or like something that should arise out of the situation rather than purchased via a feat.

[Lightning Raven]

Explain to me why only Thaumaturgists get to make pacts with random creatures? Well, let me answer that for you, they don't. Witches already do that.

Contracts, which cover a similar niche (albeit with way less flavor), are already a thing as well, further solidifying the argument against Pacts being Thaumaturges only. The unique features of the Thaumaturge aren't the Pacts, in fact, I would argue that they are almost like a tacked on idea that only takes design space from the class.

Pacts being class agnostic are better for the game and probably better for the Thaumaturge itself. Specially when there's a huge aspect of Thaumaturgy not being explored, which is the "voodoo" aspect of attacking someone through some kind of fetish and other effects based on african cultures that are very rich, interesting and fits right in with Paizo's approach of offering diverse cultures.

[Callibourc]

Contract Magic Items are not guaranteed, class feats are. I think rituals are terribly implemented in general and absolutely don't want more interesting effects being shuffled off into that corner to waste away.
You can buy a horse with gold, that doesn't mean Animal Order druids should lose their animal companions. Making character-defining features into items is something that should stay in first edition. Also, once again the matter of access is worth bringing up: begging for a specific, Rare magic item that requires Investment and isn't even legal in PFS is completely different from just taking a pact on level up.
Should a Druid's Anathema and Champion's Code be turned into Contract magic items rather than remaining class features?
"But I want it too!" is not a convincing reason to me. There can easily be a Pact based Archetype the same way that anyone can take Beastmaster for an Animal Companion or Familiar Master for a Familiar. If they were turned into Contracts they would likely need to have their power level reduced as well, things that cost class feats are allowed to be unique and powerful because they have a high opportunity cost.

[Castilliano]

I'd note that in much of the lore, many of the pacts made by Constantine & company are short term to solve an immediate issue (often w/ negative long term consequences!) or long term as reward for a service (yet seldom strong enough to solve future notable obstacles!).
And as mentioned by Lightning Raven...Witches. To exclude them from Pacts seems counter-genre.

[Callibourc]

Castilliano wrote:

I'd note that in much of the lore, many of the pacts made by Constantine & company are short term to solve an immediate issue (often w/ negative long term consequences!) or long term as reward for a service (yet seldom strong enough to solve future notable obstacles!).

And as mentioned by Lightning Raven...Witches. To exclude them from Pacts seems counter-genre.

Witches have a lot more problems than that. Only getting a single Hex cantrip, Patron having barely any influence on your character, a mess of weak or useless class feats (the entire nails and hair line...), etc.

If a Witch wants to take a pact feat as an archetype they're free to do so. Just as an unarmed Fighter can take the Monk or Martial Artist dedication. I don't think Pacts should be so exclusive that nobody else can take them, but in 2E that sort of exclusivity only applies to base class chassis features. You can archetype into a familiar, animal companion, spellcasting, sneak attacks, Ki spells, etc. Somebody who wants a Pact can already get one if they want it even if they remain as Thaumaturge class feats.
"But I don't want to spend class feats on it", well, I don't want to spend class feats on getting a Familiar for my Summoner, but I'll still do it for flavor the same way a Witch who wants a Pact can spend her feats on one.

[Squiggit]

I don't think pact feats really make sense for the Witch though. The Witch's flavor is all about a single driving relationship between their source of power and themselves, not piecemeal back alley deals for minor benefits, which is what pact feats are closer to.

You could make an argument that other classes might be able to make those deals too, but ultimately you can make a similar argument about a significant number of the game's feats at the same time. That's just not really how PF2 is designed.

[Lightning Raven]

Castilliano wrote:

I'd note that in much of the lore, many of the pacts made by Constantine & company are short term to solve an immediate issue (often w/ negative long term consequences!) or long term as reward for a service (yet seldom strong enough to solve future notable obstacles!).

And as mentioned by Lightning Raven...Witches. To exclude them from Pacts seems counter-genre.

I was one of those that disliked the Witch's Patrons during the playtest and advocated for making them more prominent in the class. Sadly, the state they were shipped remained lackluster, even though miles above their playtest version.

Imagine my surprise seeing something very close to what I wanted for them done as an after though in a non-spellcasting class.

[Lightning Raven]

Callibourc wrote:

Contract Magic Items are not guaranteed, class feats are. I think rituals are terribly implemented in general and absolutely don't want more interesting effects being shuffled off into that corner to waste away.

You can buy a horse with gold, that doesn't mean Animal Order druids should lose their animal companions. Making character-defining features into items is something that should stay in first edition. Also, once again the matter of access is worth bringing up: begging for a specific, Rare magic item that requires Investment and isn't even legal in PFS is completely different from just taking a pact on level up.
Should a Druid's Anathema and Champion's Code be turned into Contract magic items rather than remaining class features?
"But I want it too!" is not a convincing reason to me. There can easily be a Pact based Archetype the same way that anyone can take Beastmaster for an Animal Companion or Familiar Master for a Familiar. If they were turned into Contracts they would likely need to have their power level reduced as well, things that cost class feats are allowed to be unique and powerful because they have a high opportunity cost.

You can remove all pact feats of the Thaumaturge and the class will not lose a single thing that makes them a Thaumaturge. Your examples are really, really terrible, because the aspects you mentioned are core to those classes, while a Thaumaturge has to wait several levels in order to have the OPTION of choosing a pact. In fact, it is likely, if the class were to remain as it is, that the majority of Thaumaturges would never pick up any of the Pact feats, both because some of them are undertuned and because of the roleplaying aspect it demands.

I won't stop repeating this: Pacts are too big and too interesting to be just a random mechanic tacked on to a single class, specially when it is clearly in discordance with every other of its aspects AND do not interact with anything else, not even each other.

Pacts being restricted to Thaumaturges would be a waste of a good idea and its potential.

[Callibourc]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I'd note that in much of the lore, many of the pacts made by Constantine & company are short term to solve an immediate issue (often w/ negative long term consequences!) or long term as reward for a service (yet seldom strong enough to solve future notable obstacles!).

And as mentioned by Lightning Raven...Witches. To exclude them from Pacts seems counter-genre.

I was one of those that disliked the Witch's Patrons during the playtest and advocated for making them more prominent in the class. Sadly, the state they were shipped remained lackluster, even though miles above their playtest version.

Imagine my surprise seeing something very close to what I wanted for them done as an after though in a non-spellcasting class.

A Thaumaturge can conceivably pick up EVERY pact if he wants to, which fits the "magpie who picks and chooses from every tradition to benefit himself, has an eclectic assortment of favors to call in from every plane" feel.

A Witch has only a single patron. It doesn't make sense for a Winter witch to be double-dealing her soul with Devils and Psychopomps, while also upholding Fey custom to disguise herself and evade his supernatural debtors. A Witch would have ONE pact, with their patron, but that's already represented by the very fact that you ARE A WITCH and not just a Wizard. All of your magic power and familiar come from your one singular patron.

Now, I could absolutely see a Witch player taking one of the Thaumaturge Pacts and roleplaying it as a restriction from their patron, but that's not what the feats actually are. What you want- more involved witch patrons that have an actual impact on your witch, with flavor and mechanical consequences for different patrons- is simply not in the game. Patrons are left so incredibly vague that you just get a single "theme" to play along with. A witch's Lessons aren't even restricted by Patron, every patron can teach every lesson.

That's not the class fantasy I want either, but trying to poach from the Thaumaturge isn't the solution to the Witch's lackluster design. The Thaumaturge Pacts are to represent someone like Constantine or Harry Dresden who each have a dozen supernatural entities with big IOUs for their soul competing to see who gets to drag him back kicking and screaming. The overlapping and potentially conflicting conditions of multiple bargains is key to that fantasy. Obviously you can just ignore them entirely, or just take one and roleplay it as part of your background like the Rare Feybound Background already does, but if these were made into Contracts requiring Investment you wouldn't get to achieve that same fantasy. The Thaumaturge's Pact feats are not a Witch's Patron making demands, even if I agree that flavor is sorely missing from the actual Witch class.

With just the three playtest pacts you can already see a very interesting character archetype that's more than the sum of its parts, Similar to a Druid who takes Order Explorer and intentionally accrues multiple Anathema to be bound by.

[Lightning Raven]

Seems like you're not even getting what I'm saying.

I just gave the example of how I imagined the Patrons should've been way back when the Patrons could've been changed. They weren't and I frankly am a bit pissed by the fact that the concept that would've fit the Witch/Patron relationship like a glove way back then, became just a weird attachment to the Thaumaturge and just as a bunch of feats that don't even fit well with the class... Or even in the form of feats at all, as others said here.

Now, taking the wishful thinking and bygones aside, I think that Thaumaturges shouldn't have the monopoly of Pacts, these feats should be removed from the class and turned into a mechanic that can be accessed by anyone interested. If the Thaumaturge were to remain related to the Pacts, then it would make more sense so that the class could have benefits tied to them (even though it's unnecessary).

Doesn't matter if these pacts take the form of items like Contracts are, special class-agnostic feats (Similar how Spellcasters share a lot of Feats and some Martial has cross-class feats) or outright a mechanic on their own, what's important is that the mechanic is fleshed out so that all kinds of characters have the chance to explore these kinds of things and so that a GM can use them in the narrative, rather than just random options that a Thaumaturge randomly chooses to have without input.

If the question is the benefits these pacts are granting and that some players feel like they're somehow integral to the thaumaturge experience (I don't think they are at all), then keep the mechanic benefit (Fey pact becomes Trickster's Mask implement, for example) under a framework that fits better with the core mechanics of the thaumaturges (implements and Antithesis/Find Flaws).

[Callibourc]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Seems like you're not even getting what I'm saying.

I just gave the example of how I imagined the Patrons should've been way back when the Patrons could've been changed. They weren't and I frankly am a bit pissed by the fact that the concept that would've fit the Witch/Patron relationship like a glove way back then, became just a weird attachment to the Thaumaturge and just as a bunch of feats that don't even fit well with the class... Or even in the form of feats at all, as others said here.

Now, taking the wishful thinking and bygones aside, I think that Thaumaturges shouldn't have the monopoly of Pacts, these feats should be removed from the class and turned into a mechanic that can be accessed by anyone interested. If the Thaumaturge were to remain related to the Pacts, then it would make more sense so that the class could have benefits tied to them (even though it's unnecessary).

Doesn't matter if these pacts take the form of items like Contracts are, special class-agnostic feats (Similar how Spellcasters share a lot of Feats and some Martial has cross-class feats) or outright a mechanic on their own, what's important is that the mechanic is fleshed out so that all kinds of characters have the chance to explore these kinds of things and so that a GM can use them in the narrative, rather than just random options that a Thaumaturge randomly chooses to have without input.

If the question is the benefits these pacts are granting and that some players feel like they're somehow integral to the thaumaturge experience (I don't think they are at all), then keep the mechanic benefit (Fey pact becomes Trickster's Mask implement, for example) under a framework that fits better with the core mechanics of the thaumaturges (implements and Antithesis/Find Flaws).

Archetypes and Multiclass Dedications are already available to everyone. They are, in fact, literally the single most accessible mechanic in the entire game besides General Feats.

Everyone gets Class Feats. Everyone can take a Multiclass Dedication. Some races can even take a Multiclass Dedication as an ancestry feat. Something being available with class feats makes it more accessible than virtually any other alternative way to gain pacts. Literally any character in the entire game could get one of these Pacts if they felt like it. How is that not accessible?
I'm not opposed to the idea of a pact-specific archetype being added the same way anyone can gain a familiar through archetyping into spellcasters that get them or directly through familiar master. But I don't see any reason why the Thaumauturge shouldn't get to keep them.

[Squiggit]

Lightning Raven wrote:

They weren't and I frankly am a bit pissed by the fact that the concept that would've fit the Witch/Patron relationship like a glove way back then, became just a weird attachment to the Thaumaturge and just as a bunch of feats that don't even fit well with the class.

I mean, they fit great with the class and don't really make sense on the Witch at all. No idea where this is coming from.

[Callibourc]

I also disagree with the idea that Pacts don't fit well with the Thaumaturge or are a weird attachment. The Thaumaturge is explicitly inspired by stories like the Dresden Files and the web serial Pact. The Thaumaturge's getting access to an Implement, Familiar, and Demesne (with those specific terms) is something directly out of Pact, for example. The Rule of Three also plays an incredibly important part in that series, and it's certainly no coincidence that Thaumaturges can take a class feat evoking that same power.

Characters like John Constantine and Harry Dresden owe their soul to a lot of people. Making a deal with the devil in exchange for your soul, then making a Fey bargain to disguise yourself and hide when he comes to collect, and trying to atone by getting in the good graces of Psychopomps is in the same vein as Harry Dresden making deals with demons while he's hounded by his fairy godmother and nearly dying when he unseals the master of necromancy he keeps trapped in a skull in his basement. The *variety* of possible deals, and the fact you can make more than one, with potentially conflicting obligations, is part of the class fantasy.

yes, you can ignore the pact mechanic entirely when building your thaumaturge. You can also play a monk without Ki spells. I don't think Ki spells should be made universally available to everyone who wants them, just because every character could conceivably take up martial arts and meditation and start cultivating their body.
"Every class wants high Constitution, how is it fair that only Monks get access to unleashing their body's potential?"
Would obviously be a very silly thing to try and argue.

I don't think Sour Grapes from the Witch's poor design is enough to take away the Thaumaturge's cool toys. If you want them, you can take them. if you don't want them, you don't have to take them. If you want them, but don't want to play a thaumaturge: congratulations, you're in luck! They're not something like a Fighter's permanent +2 bonus to attacks that can't be obtained with a Multiclass Archetype. If you want a Thaumaturge pact, take a Thaumaturge dedication.

Plenty of other classes have optional subfeatures that could conceivably be something everyone else has access to as well, Pacts are not alone in this respect. The nice thing about 2e is that if you want those...you can just take them.

[Golurkcanfly]

While Pacts certainly work well with the Thaumaturge concept, their mechanics do not lend themselves to feats terribly well. Rather than allowing a specific gameplay concept (such as feats that let you fight with two weapons better, cast specific spells, share weaknesses, etc.), they are primarily there for RP flavor.

Moving them to a different space and then giving Thaumaturges better ways to access that space would not negatively impact the class.

But picking up an archetype that will certainly come with other baggage just because you want a mechanic that represents an oath to some fey (which is equally valid for other character concepts) is a rather clumsy way to handle it. It also goes against theme, as part of those stories is actively making, twisting, and breaking the pacts, rather than just having them.

[Callibourc]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

While Pacts certainly work well with the Thaumaturge concept, their mechanics do not lend themselves to feats terribly well. Rather than allowing a specific gameplay concept (such as feats that let you fight with two weapons better, cast specific spells, share weaknesses, etc.), they are primarily there for RP flavor.

Moving them to a different space and then giving Thaumaturges better ways to access that space would not negatively impact the class.

But picking up an archetype that will certainly come with other baggage just because you want a mechanic that represents an oath to some fey (which is equally valid for other character concepts) is a rather clumsy way to handle it. It also goes against theme, as part of those stories is actively making, twisting, and breaking the pacts, rather than just having them.

How is this any different from the Champion's various Oath feats? They also are taken primarily for flavor but still have a mechanical benefit, and are absolutely something any other class could do. A fighter who wants to be a dragonslayer having access to the Dragonslayer Oath and Wyrmbane Aura would make perfect sense. he still needs to take the Champion archetype to get it.

Oaths and Pacts are very similar as far as I'm concerned. They're optional subfeatures of a single class that introduce additional flavor restrictions and roleplaying opportunities.

[Golurkcanfly]

Callibourc wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

While Pacts certainly work well with the Thaumaturge concept, their mechanics do not lend themselves to feats terribly well. Rather than allowing a specific gameplay concept (such as feats that let you fight with two weapons better, cast specific spells, share weaknesses, etc.), they are primarily there for RP flavor.

Moving them to a different space and then giving Thaumaturges better ways to access that space would not negatively impact the class.

But picking up an archetype that will certainly come with other baggage just because you want a mechanic that represents an oath to some fey (which is equally valid for other character concepts) is a rather clumsy way to handle it. It also goes against theme, as part of those stories is actively making, twisting, and breaking the pacts, rather than just having them.

How is this any different from the Champion's various Oath feats? They also are taken primarily for flavor but still have a mechanical benefit, and are absolutely something any other class could do. A fighter who wants to be a dragonslayer having access to the Dragonslayer Oath and Wyrmbane Aura would make perfect sense. he still needs to take the Champion archetype to get it.

Oaths and Pacts are very similar as far as I'm concerned. They're optional subfeatures of a single class that introduce additional flavor restrictions and roleplaying opportunities.

That's operating under the assumption that the Oaths being tied specifically to Champion baggage is a good thing, and that the Thaumaturge has anywhere near as strong of a mechanical claim to Pacts (as Champions are already mechanically restricted by RP by default). In addition, Oaths are also much more codified in both their benefits and restrictions and tie into specific class mechanics for the Champion.

If they were not tied to the Champion's unique abilities, I'd argue that they should be more freely available without the Champion baggage.

[Lightning Raven]

Callibourc wrote:

I also disagree with the idea that Pacts don't fit well with the Thaumaturge or are a weird attachment. The Thaumaturge is explicitly inspired by stories like the Dresden Files and the web serial Pact. The Thaumaturge's getting access to an Implement, Familiar, and Demesne (with those specific terms) is something directly out of Pact, for example. The Rule of Three also plays an incredibly important part in that series, and it's certainly no coincidence that Thaumaturges can take a class feat evoking that same power.

Characters like John Constantine and Harry Dresden owe their soul to a lot of people. Making a deal with the devil in exchange for your soul, then making a Fey bargain to disguise yourself and hide when he comes to collect, and trying to atone by getting in the good graces of Psychopomps is in the same vein as Harry Dresden making deals with demons while he's hounded by his fairy godmother and nearly dying when he unseals the master of necromancy he keeps trapped in a skull in his basement. The *variety* of possible deals, and the fact you can make more than one, with potentially conflicting obligations, is part of the class fantasy.

yes, you can ignore the pact mechanic entirely when building your thaumaturge. You can also play a monk without Ki spells. I don't think Ki spells should be made universally available to everyone who wants them, just because every character could conceivably take up martial arts and meditation and start cultivating their body.
"Every class wants high Constitution, how is it fair that only Monks get access to unleashing their body's potential?"
Would obviously be a very silly thing to try and argue.

I don't think Sour Grapes from the Witch's poor design is enough to take away the Thaumaturge's cool toys. If you want them, you can take them. if you don't want them, you don't have to take them. If you want them, but don't want to play a thaumaturge: congratulations, you're in luck! They're not something like a Fighter's permanent +2 bonus to attacks that...

Susan Rodriguez bargained with Leanansidhe in Grave Peril, do want to say that she only was able to do it because she had special abilities? Or how about all the musicians and artists that Lea inspired over the years?

The point is that pacts do not require any specialty from the mortal doing them... That's the whole point you bargain with a being and are granted power. Pacts are can be made by anyone in any medium you want to look for, because that's why they're dangerous. John Constantine and Harry Dresden just happen to be spellcasters that occasionally have to resort to pacts with other beings.

Pacts are too interesting and big to be just a side note on the Thaumaturge, the class has plenty of venues that weren't covered yet that fits with what the class is going for. There are no compelling arguments being made to exemplify why only Thaumaturges can make pacts with Demons, Fey, Psychopomps, etc.

Stop comparing apples and oranges. You're somehow equating making a pact with a being, a patron if you will, as something that only Thaumaturges can do while it interpretation flagrantly contradicts everything that exists in Pathfinder already. And I'm not talking specifically about mechanics, but about the actions behind it. Every Witch has made a pact. Several random people are trapped by them or use them to gain power. None of them had to specifically be a thaumaturge to do so.

If I were advocating to take away Implement feats or Esoterica and make them available to everyone else, then your argument would have made sense.

[The Raven Black]

I too felt like the pacts were slapped on the class and that they should be divorced from it to be open to all PCs.

It is only after the fact, while filling the survey, that I realized they were there to grant the Thaumaturge additional powers. I had not seen this before because of the heavy setting description of the feat. In my experience, it is better to avoid linking a given mechanic to a specific point of a setting. And even more when it is linked to a given class.

That said, I can see how people may feel that the concept of deal-making is quite at home with the Thaumaturge class.

I would make pacts a set of special feats available to all characters. And give the Thaumaturge the ability, through a class feat, to avoid the cost of violating the pact by rolling against a DC of the pact's level, with increased difficulty based on how many times the character has previously used this ability, no matter the pacts involved (because word gets around).

This ability (rather than the pacts themselves), being a class feat, would then be accessible to any character through Multiclassing.

[Castilliano]

Baba Yaga, Dr. Strange, and I believe Dr. Fate often made/make pacts, really, really important pacts necessary for their stories and which often drive further stories dealing with the ramifications.
Technically Dresden's a Wizard. :-P
And Constantine's a Sorcerer who's renounced his (very powerful!) spellcasting because of the destruction its caused to those he loves/loved. So he wields his arsenal of items instead, yet still retains those spells for emergencies.

There are tales of warriors who make life-altering pacts, yet don't have any specialty in pact-knowledge nor in item usage (as one would have with a Pact Dedication or Thaumaturge MCD). I believe Shannara featured a few pacts too with its Druids and Warlocks. And Shamans make pacts too in myths. Isn't Dracula the result of a warrior making a pact (though yes, that'd be too encompassing for an RPG mechanic!).

In fantasy & mythic lore, pacts are too prevalent across a wide swath of character types to limit to Thaumaturges, one of the less than common archetypes. Though as others have noted, I can see the class being better at making/maintaining/subverting their parameters.

I do realize the difficulty of fitting Pacts into a PC's power budget, as there doesn't seem an easy fit anywhere else either. There were RPing and quest rewards in maybe 3.X that had a value expressed in gold pieces. You couldn't buy or sell them of course, but the g.p. conversion gave the DM/GM an idea of their power level as a treasure. So if you went to Magic Hidden Pool X to swim and received boon Y, it was like getting Z amount of gold in terms of power. I'd thought back then it was a cool and innovative way to reward PCs, and wouldn't mind a similar mechanic in PF2. Many adventures already have similar rewards worked into them. The Pact system could mirror that, albeit in a more rigorous way (if possible).

[pixierose]

I don't thinks Pacts as a class mechanic remove the option for pacts as narrative or magical rewards/items. I mean 5e had both warlocks and dark gifts.

[Golurkcanfly]

pixierose wrote:

I don't thinks Pacts as a class mechanic remove the option for pacts as narrative or magical rewards/items. I mean 5e had both warlocks and dark gifts.

I think it's moreso that Pacts just don't do anything for the class, so they might as well be there for everyone.

Now, if they actually contributed to the class's mechanics instead of being wholly separate from everything else the class does, then that'd be a different argument.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

I agree 100% with posters saying pacts being able to be picked up by anyone will only make the game better. More options, less class-based pigeonholing where it is not specific to the theme where that be the theme of the class rather than the theme of the option.

And as far as verisimilitude goes, why are the Pact offerers being so choosy? Fighters and Rangers and Druids and Etceterans all can give that pound of flesh/essence of soul/bronzed circuitry/gnarled xylem…

Sure Thaumaturges delve into the unknown and encounter The Strange, but countless tales of Everypeep the Unfortunate or Generica the Uncommonly Eventually Agonisingly in the 8th Chronicle and Yet Somehow Completely Unsurprisingly Lucky abound. Make Pacts available to all. You know you want to. Do we have a deal?

[The Raven Black]

TBT Pacts remind me of PF1 Divine Boons, which anyone could get with the adequate feat investment and in setting behaviour.

I would love to have a robust framework for Pacts in Dark Archive. Sounds fitting.

[Temperans]

It's kind of funny seeing people say pacts aren't very "general". Even funnier seeing people saying that it doesn't fit a Witch's "Patron".

Pacts make 1000x more sense than lessons for Witches, just in the name alone. A blood pact to gain power, sacrifice to earn a reward, ritual to summon an entity. All things that are closer to a "pact". But lessons? Maybe if you treat Witches as Wizards... oh wait... PF2 Arcane Witch is pretty much a Wizard.

Then you look at PF1 and you have Pact Wizards, Pact Witches, a variety of Pact spells (Ex: Life Pact), a variety of Pact traits (which anyone who qualifies can take), Pact feats, and even items to help make Pacts and Contracts (Pact Parchment). The very idea that Pacts are some "exclusive thing" only for Thaumaturgist is frivolous at best. This is before we even look at what a Thaumaturgist actually is, what the name means, or literally looking at a ton of myths and stories.

*****************
Thaumaturgy by it's very definition

Quote:

The purported capability of a magician to work magic or other paranormal events or a saint to perform miracles.

Looking at the lore from the wiki

Quote:

the practice or study of magical and supernatural effects.[1] The term is sometimes used to describe a magical effect or object affected by magic, such as a construct or metamagical effect.

Tell me what part of that is making "pacts".

[Golurkcanfly]

Temperans wrote:

It's kind of funny seeing people say pacts aren't very "general". Even funnier seeing people saying that it doesn't fit a Witch's "Patron".

Pacts make 1000x more sense than lessons for Witches, just in the name alone. A blood pact to gain power, sacrifice to earn a reward, ritual to summon an entity. All things that are closer to a "pact". But lessons? Maybe if you treat Witches as Wizards... oh wait... PF2 Arcane Witch is pretty much a Wizard.

Then you look at PF1 and you have Pact Wizards, Pact Witches, a variety of Pact spells (Ex: Life Pact), a variety of Pact traits (which anyone who qualifies can take), Pact feats, and even items to help make Pacts and Contracts (Pact Parchment). The very idea that Pacts are some "exclusive thing" only for Thaumaturgist is frivolous at best. This is before we even look at what a Thaumaturgist actually is, what the name means, or literally looking at a ton of myths and stories.

*****************
Thaumaturgy by it's very definition

Quote:

The purported capability of a magician to work magic or other paranormal events or a saint to perform miracles.

Looking at the lore from the wiki

Quote:

the practice or study of magical and supernatural effects.[1] The term is sometimes used to describe a magical effect or object affected by magic, such as a construct or metamagical effect.

Tell me what part of that is making "pacts".

While I agree that their current status as Class Feats for the Thaumaturge is somewhat out of place, I do think using nomenclature as an argument is rather silly, especially in Pathfinder of all things.

Where Wizards cast using INT even though the term means "Wise Man" (like Drunkard), Barbarians are berserkers rather than non-Roman peoples, Swashbucklers don't all Swash and don't all use Bucklers, etc.

[Temperans]

I was more referring to the general expectation of the name being "deals with magic" not "can make pacts".

Like a Wizard is a "magician that casts spells" and a Barbarian is a "person who risk their body for more damage".