Thaumaturge and implements

[Verzen]

Thaum needs a bigger focus on implements in my honest opinion. I love the idea of implements but some, say wand, are just very weak for a class ability. When a cantrip can be taken for a feat and it's stronger than a class ability, something is wrong. (I'd much rather take a 2nd level feat to grab Electric Arc, for example, which deals more damage more consistently than the wand does)

There are barely any feats that deal with implements and imo, there should be at least 1 feat for implements per option level.

For example, level 1 feats should have an implement option, level 2 feats should have another one, level 4 feats should have another implement option, so on and so forth that would allow a player to HEAVILY spend feats and focus solely in their implements, which is the style of play I'd prefer for Thaumaturge.

[Lanathar]

I'd also suggest more implements be granted but expect them to rigidly stick to "rule of three"

A shame because there is so much scope for flavor with implements

For example I had a Rise of the Runelords Thaumaturge fashion their weapon from the Runelord decorative polearm the party find early in the first book (and sell in town). I had the Thaumaturge as an NPC and my players were anaologised it to someone rocking up and pulling out a WWI German Bayonet or a Nazi SS Dagger and saying "let's go hunt some monsters"

They were quite terrified of said NPC to by honest and I found it quite fun

[Zwordsman]

If they do more implements I very much want the option to still focus in on something.

For instance I have a lantern Wand thauaturge whose an "item guy" w/ talisman, scrolls, alcheical items.
I fluff this character's two implements as one item (since i can switch them as a free action to use features). Its an alchemy rod.

I don't actually want more implements but I wish I could emphisze the ones I do have. They're perfect flavor for the character.

Ultimately I would love if the final class had that option. You could havem ultiple ones at a weaker level. Or lesser but stronger. But in general I wish they were more useful earlier. Granted it ight be different for me when other implements are out

[Jedi Maester]

I've actually been really curious how others feel about this. I never had the chance to play an Occultist in first edition. For those who were fans of the Occultist, is three implements enough? Does this satisfactorily scratch your itch? I'd worry that if this the becomes the implement class, there won't be a more implement focused Occultist class coming to second edition.

As pointed out, the implements aren't very strongly tied into the class. If this doesn't scratch your itch, would you rather implements be cut from the the Thaumaturge and saved for an eventual Occultist? The power budget from implements could be put elsewhere, like strengthening FF/EA or a more integrated Trick Magic Item feature. And then a full blown implement class could be created later.

Or would you rather make this more the Implement class at the expense of other abilities, like FF/EA and such?

Again, as I never got to play an Occultist, I'm fairly neutral on these options. But I'm curious how others feel.

[Squiggit]

Implements are integral to the feel of the Thaumaturge right now. It'd be an entirely different class if you cut them, so no to that.

That said, yeah, implements definitely need to be expanded. It doesn't feel like they do enough and there should be more options to expand them.

I'm kind of ambivalent on the number, but I'd really like to see deeper implements personally. More options to expand a single implements powers (either per implement or categorically). Right now I think part of the problem is that each implement really only has like... one gimmick, which means even though it's one of your primary class features it feels like it doesn't add a lot to the character.
Ideally I'd like to be able to make a thaumaturge with a cool magic chalice and a bunch of interesting, powerful, scaling abilities that work around that chalice if they want to (or any other implement).

If implements are going to remain relatively shallow on the other hand, I think the thaumaturge should get more of them so it really feels like they have a big bag of tricks they can switch between depending on the situation.

I think both ideas are valid, but having 1-2 abilities for most of the campaign that don't feel like they individually change you that much is kind of the worst of both worlds.

I'm not sure talking about "at the expense of" is really relevant right now though. The Thaumaturge sucks, it needs more of everything.

[The Raven Black]

I do not want the Thaumaturge to be centered on Implements. I want them centered on forcing disadvantages on their opponent.

And Implements as a secondary ability that helps characterize them. That helps Thaumaturges feel and play different from one another based on the Implements they choose.

Thinking more about this, I would prefer the playtest feat chains to be rolled into Implements. Like a Book for the Scroll feats to give you this great pseudo-caster feeling.

[Lanathar]

I am confident there will be a time. Whether it rolls in the scroll feat chain is another matter . But I did mention in another reply that the consumable feat chains seem to be in a bad spot in terms of trying to pick them. You can’t get them all easily without severe compromise (it seems)

Not that you should be able to but there seems to be some clashes and the reasons aren’t currently obvious. Why would someone who makes talismans have to compromise on scrolls for example

[John R.]

Y'all are aware there should be a total of 9 implements to choose in the final class, right? Or are you just hoping that is changed and there end up actually being more?

[Lanathar]

*A tome

[Lanathar]

John R. wrote:

Y'all are aware there should be a total of 9 implements to choose in the final class, right? Or are you just hoping that is changed and there end up actually being more?

My request at least is for the chassis to provide more that 3. Even if this means all Thaumaturges get the majority it shouldn’t matter too much as you can prioritise them differently

[John R.]

Lanathar wrote:

John R. wrote:

Y'all are aware there should be a total of 9 implements to choose in the final class, right? Or are you just hoping that is changed and there end up actually being more?

My request at least is for the chassis to provide more that 3. Even if this means all Thaumaturges get the majority it shouldn’t matter too much as you can prioritise them differently

Gotcha. Yeah, I'm personally ok with 3 but I'd prefer them become obtainable earlier and progress a smidge faster. I think Intense Implement should come naturally and not be a feat as well.

[Lanathar]

To me the pacing makes no sense . 1 , 5 and 15? Really highlights the gap at 10 and 20

[John R.]

Lanathar wrote:

To me the pacing makes no sense . 1 , 5 and 15? Really highlights the gap at 10 and 20

Totally.

[John R.]

Jedi Maester wrote:

I've actually been really curious how others feel about this. I never had the chance to play an Occultist in first edition. For those who were fans of the Occultist, is three implements enough? Does this satisfactorily scratch your itch? I'd worry that if this the becomes the implement class, there won't be a more implement focused Occultist class coming to second edition.

As pointed out, the implements aren't very strongly tied into the class. If this doesn't scratch your itch, would you rather implements be cut from the the Thaumaturge and saved for an eventual Occultist? The power budget from implements could be put elsewhere, like strengthening FF/EA or a more integrated Trick Magic Item feature. And then a full blown implement class could be created later.

Or would you rather make this more the Implement class at the expense of other abilities, like FF/EA and such?

Again, as I never got to play an Occultist, I'm fairly neutral on these options. But I'm curious how others feel.

3 implements is a lot less than the 7 or so the Occultist got. However, the Occultists implements determined what schools of magic you could cast from. 3 in that case would be severely hampering. Without that aspect, 3 doesnt feel too restricting (at least not to me).

Implements are one of the few hold overs from the Occultist. The others are the magic circle and pact feats. I generally like the class as is and how they've put in elements of the Occultist and mixed in some other new interesting things. I think there just needs to be some tweaks, reorganizing and balancing and it should be near perfect.

[pixierose]

Looking at the survey and how Thaunaturge and Occultist are supposed to come from the same inspiration, I would rather get as many implements as I can and as much as a focus as it can because I don't see us getting a separate occultist class.

If more of an emphasis isn't put on implements I would at least like an archetype that has really strong implement focus for any class. Like how the bwastmastee exists for animal companions.

Or how blessed one puts a hard focus on lay on hands as a mechanic.

But that would also probably require imements being decoupled from E.A

[Midnightoker]

Gotta say I as well think implements are one of the coolest aspect of the class, and as a semi subclass I think given their current power level they could afford to be at every 5th instead of the current progression.

I also think it'd be cool if instead of automatic progression on already chosen implements, it was instead a class feat to open up the power budget a little more. I know that might sound bad to some, but if it means that implements can get a stronger base power level, that'd work for me personally and justify the better progression as well.

[Lanathar]

And I am sure reasons can be found for other numbers

5 is the points of a pentagram isn't it?

7 is a lucky number but also the whole sihedron, seven deadly sins, seven schools of magic thing

7 out of 9 would feel odd. 5 not so much. Perhaps with the possibility to have 2 at power level 2 and one at 3. This is assume approximate current power level

To stick with three only will need a power bump for some I would expect

[Lanathar]

What I would like is some way for it to be possible to hold two implements one of which is not a weapon and not be completely useless in a fight

Someone suggests that the book act like scrolls for example. And of course there is the wand (which needs to be stronger)

Because I like the idea of having two implements at once but would rather not be forced into going the weapon route. Indeed if combat stats aren't going to be key i'd like a build that is mental stat focused to be at least semi viable (since you always need AC and HP)

[John R.]

Lanathar wrote:

And I am sure reasons can be found for other numbers

5 is the points of a pentagram isn't it?

7 is a lucky number but also the whole sihedron, seven deadly sins, seven schools of magic thing

7 out of 9 would feel odd. 5 not so much. Perhaps with the possibility to have 2 at power level 2 and one at 3. This is assume approximate current power level

To stick with three only will need a power bump for some I would expect

8 schools of magic, but another option for a number of implements.

Also, 4 for the 4 traditions which seems significant for this class.

[Blake's Tiger]

There are already more cool feats for the Thaumaturge to choose from than one can take, so making implements dependent upon feats would be troubling. You'd essentially have "must take" feats.

As cool as EA feels, I would trade it away for more total implements granted and more implement advancement boosts except that EA almost seems to exist to make up for the MADness. A lot of the class features seem to be trying to make up for the MADness.

The drawing magic from physical objects is the cool part of the class. I'm not really interested in the old Occultist spellcaster where the implements open a school of magic to you (maybe if it opened the school irrespective of the spell lists, that might be something new). I've always liked the Haunt Collector that used implements to pull out Medium spirit abilities, and that's what Thaumaturge feels a something like. If they leaned more into that aspect, I'd be more interested in more implement focus.

Tangent: As I wrote the last two sentences, a "Book" implement that granted the effects of the MC Archetype Basic (novice), Expert (adept), Master Spellcasting feats (paragon) as a prepared caster but you get to choose the spell list (arcane, divine, occult, or primal) upon selecting the implement might be cool.

[pixierose]

You know I didn't think of bringing back the old implements tied to spell school system. But an Occultist or some class that used implements in that way and opened up spell lists based on what school instead of what tradition would actually be really interesting

[The Raven Black]

I would like for the Thaumaturge to be sufficiently modular for people to tweak in the direction they want, so that those who like the WIS and Monster hunting Inquisitor-like can get it, and ditto for those who want a heavy Implement focus, and also for those, like me, who love the concept of the playtest Thaumaturge and just want to have a more streamlined version.

[Blake's Tiger]

What might be interesting but would inflate the word count way too much given 9C3, would have been some sort of resonant power that was different based on the combination of implements you had. This effect could help fill in the dead space between the three implements. Even if they lumped implements into suits, it would still be a lot of text.

There's probably a lore that could be written up, dividing the implements into a small number of families like suits and making up powers for combinations of those (like 3 implements from Hammers, or 2 implements from Keys and 1 not, or 3 implements each from a different suit, but that'd still be 9 resonant powers).