Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...

[Jacob Jett]

This is kind of an outgrowth of the rather inconsistent (all-but-haphazard) approach that seems to have been taken with proficiencies and their progressions. A more consistent design paradigm vis-a-vis proficiency progression would likely have ameliorated some of the confounding feel problems PF2 classes have. There are good reasons why classes in AD&D2 and D&D3.5 had chock-a-block to-hit, save, and skill progressions. Benchmarking is an important aspect of engineering.

[Sanityfaerie]

Themetricsystem wrote:

People say Monk can't get Legendary Unarmed Attacks because doing so would step on the Fighters toes

I wouldn't say that. Gunslingers are a thing. I personally think they can't get legendary unarmed because having dual legendaries would be kind of OP, and they went for the defensive side on that one.

[Finoan]

Also for Fighter with Gunslinger also getting Legendary proficiency progression, Gunslinger pays for it with their action economy.

Which interestingly, is the same balance point that is most relevant for Thaumaturge and Animist too. They get to do a lot of the same things that other classes do, but they pay for it with action economy.

[exequiel759]

I would argue that the only egregious part about the thaumaturge is that it laughs in the gunslinger's face so damn hard that it isn't funny. A gunslinger doesn't get nothing more than a +1 to damage with firearms, while a thaumaturge, literally at 1st level, already get a +2 and it eventually goes up to +8. Not to mention exploit vulnerability which increases this bonus to, at least, +10 extra damage.

All the other stuff is, IMO, fine. Esoteric Lore is a big step up against the other similar Lore feats in the game, though I would argue those options were bad to begin with which makes Esoteric Lore looks way better than it truly is. Implement's Interruption as an anti-magic AoO is fine I guess? Is not like AoO is the most important part of a fighter's kit either way. Tome transforms you into an off-hand rogue that can retrain their skills everyday though unlike a real rogue you aren't going to have skill feats with those skills so while incredibly useful it IMO isn't better than a rogue, but rather adjacent in power. Regalia becomes Inspire Courage-like at 7th level but is IMO worse than Inspire Courage because unlike IC it doesn't grant you a bonus to attack.

I also feel arguing that the thaumaturge steals lesser version of features that already exists in other classes is not knowing what a thaumaturge is. Thaums are directly inspired by PF1e's occultist that was a class that in a daily basis could literally chose to fulfill the role that it wanted often better than the classes that solely could take on that role. Thaumaturge in that sense is a much more sensible jack of all trades because it does a little bit of everything but with the exception of Esoteric Lore it doesn't do it better than other classes.

[Deriven Firelion]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

People say Monk can't get Legendary Unarmed Attacks because doing so would step on the Fighters toes

I wouldn't say that. Gunslingers are a thing. I personally think they can't get legendary unarmed because having dual legendaries would be kind of OP, and they went for the defensive side on that one.

Legendary Unarmed strike seems like too much.

I would prefer a flurry of blows upgrade. It fits what the class does.

[Easl]

exequiel759 wrote:

I would argue that the only egregious part about the thaumaturge is that it laughs in the gunslinger's face so damn hard that it isn't funny. A gunslinger doesn't get nothing more than a +1 to damage with firearms, while a thaumaturge, literally at 1st level, already get a +2 and it eventually goes up to +8. Not to mention exploit vulnerability which increases this bonus to, at least, +10 extra damage.

The gunslinger is ~3 points ahead on to-hit roll at all levels (one proficiency rank, plus 1 attribute bonus). A 15% better hit and often crit chance creates a lot of extra expected dpr.

[Dubious Scholar]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

People say Monk can't get Legendary Unarmed Attacks because doing so would step on the Fighters toes

I wouldn't say that. Gunslingers are a thing. I personally think they can't get legendary unarmed because having dual legendaries would be kind of OP, and they went for the defensive side on that one.

Legendary Unarmed strike seems like too much.

I would prefer a flurry of blows upgrade. It fits what the class does.

It would really help with the issue of the archetype basically granting everything anyone cares about from the class.

[Deriven Firelion]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

People say Monk can't get Legendary Unarmed Attacks because doing so would step on the Fighters toes

I wouldn't say that. Gunslingers are a thing. I personally think they can't get legendary unarmed because having dual legendaries would be kind of OP, and they went for the defensive side on that one.

Legendary Unarmed strike seems like too much.

I would prefer a flurry of blows upgrade. It fits what the class does.

It would really help with the issue of the archetype basically granting everything anyone cares about from the class.

From an easy poaching of monk abilities, I wish they would make their movement something other than status like an unnamed movement increase so the monk could maintain their speed advantage over 1st level spells. Seems lame to give monks this great innate speed that is easily matched by a level 1 spell.

The level 10 poaching of their primary offensive ability is pretty lame.

[Eldritch Yodel]

Themetricsystem wrote:

People say Monk can't get Legendary Unarmed Attacks because doing so would step on the Fighters toes but they're utterly silent when the Thaum can and frequently DOES have more Legendary Skills as well as the most and best Recall Knowledge Skills than any other Class, build, Archetype, or even optionally build PC using Free Archetype and Dual Class by all by itself (unless you're counting a comparison where the "other" is also a full or partial Thaum too).

To be fair, my personal objections to Monk Unarmed Attacks is that it would result in the Monk being greatly overtuned (I could maybe get by with it being the "You may get the legendary offense instead of defense at level 17 if you want" like some people suggest, but also see the argument that it'd make things a bit wonky compared to standard class progression), plus given how much weapon monks hurt as is, you would have to make it "All Unarmed Attacks and monk weapons".

But, this is off topic, so I'll leave it there.

[AestheticDialectic]

Problem with the monk is the fantasy is several different classes all crammed into one, and so historically has been a horribly undertuned class trying to do everything within that wu xia fantasy. At present it is a functional class and it is good at what it does. You can easily make the less defensive more offensive unarmed monk with a fighter just fine

On the thaumaturge, the issue is they cha is too good of a stat now, but the fact the thaumaturge just gets to decide something has a weakness is awesome, fun and funny, and I wouldn't have it any other way

[exequiel759]

I'd say the monk in PF2e is easily the best monk since...forever pretty much. I don't remember if the 4e monk was good or not, but I can certainly assure you that PF2e monk is better than 3.5's, PF1e's, and 5e's monk.

It still lacks some "oomph" and the archetype certainly doesn't help in that every class can easily take your class features, though I feel the class is still good and effective. Sadly, if PC1 is proof of something, since monks weren't revealed to be getting lift I'm inclined to think that Paizo isn't really going to do anything to make monks go one step above in the ladder since that's the only thing they need. I'm hoping to be wrong on that though.

[Squiggit]

Yeah, after seeing Rangers get essentially nothing of note I don't have a lot of hope for monks, since they're in a similar boat of being kind of acceptably mediocre.

[Red Griffyn]

Plane wrote:

of P2, steals abilities from other classes, and adds those abilities in better forms. There are no restrictions on all its whack mechanics, and I can't understand how it was released by Paizo.

- Esoteric Lore is an uber lore, but unlike Bardic Lore or the Loremaster, it auto-scales at the minimum level. The other lores cap at expert when you've spent 4 skill increases to reach legendary at 15th. It's also Charisma based?!? What sense does that make? Why does Charisma have anything to do with knowing things? 1 feat let's you apply it to any topic at a -2, but the accelerated, free skill increases nullify and blow past that compared to Bardic/Loremaster. Further, those other lores are Int-based. Thaum's class stat is Cha, so this is pretty much assured to be maxxed. There's another thread arguing that this is required for the Exploit Vuln shtick, but that grants bonus damage even on a fail, so why does lore have to break in favor of this 1 class?

Esoteric Lore:

Esoteric lore/diverse lore is not as bad as it seems. The role of 'jack of all trades recall knowledge' is in fact a thaumaturge's niche. Esoteric lore/diverse lore allow them to only be marginally better at that universal lore role vs. full casters who get to maximize casting stat and obtain similar universal lore (e.g., bardic lore, lore master archetype, gossip lore, etc.).

I've evaluated 6 cases in this spreads sheet to substantiate that point of view. The six cases include:

1.) INT Caster (wizard/witch) vs. Thaumaturge that wants to be good at arcana/occultism

2.) Druid with Familiar vs. Thaumaturge that wants to be good at nature/religion

3.) Cleric without Familiar vs. Thaumaturge that wants to be good at nature/religion

4.) INT Investigator vs. Thaumaturge that wants to be good at arcana/occultism.

5.) INT Caster Generalist Lore vs. Thaumaturge that wants to recall knowledge on anything.

6.) Non-INT Generalist Lore vs. Thaumaturge that wants to recall knowledge on anything.

These six cases are tested against 3 different thaumaturges that represent a Low (L), Medium (M), and High (H) level of investment into maximizing their esoteric lore. These include:

1.) Low (L) - CHA 16 to 18 at L5

2.) Medium (M) - CHA 18 to 20 at L10

3.) High (H) - CHA 18 to 24 at L20 (always boosted and APEX item at L17)

In cases 1 to 4 what is shown is that for the baseline knowledge skills, a INT or WIS based caster can easily maintain supremacy vs. the L/M/H esoteric lore optimized thaumaturge. So IF another INT/WIS caster class wants to be better at focused skills they can be. Your second focused skill will lag for L7/8 and L15/16 until your next skill increase, but the margin is there to still be better even with that.

In Cases 5 to 6 what is shown is that the thaumaturge is generally a better universal lore generalist, but only marginally so over either INT or non-INT casters (average is generally < than 1 ahead for all cases with most levels being between 0 to 2 ahead). Essentially they are given a niche that has them generally 2 ahead for other generalist lores which is higher from L5 to L9 before casting stats boost to 20 and when they have master with the -2 (or effectively expert vs. trained of other general lores).

There are many variations of what I've put in that sheet that people could take offense with, but the general trend won't change. There is tons of margin for people to be selectively better at 1-2 skills (even if you remove a source of bonus or apply a lower Lore based DC) than the thaumaturge (making it the secondary roller). As a jack of all trades lore roller that is the role its intended to fulfill and it is marginally better than others (so other full caster classes like bard/wizard/witch don't get to eat it's lunch when they already have tons of power from spells and class features).

Maximizing CHA (is not required and suboptimal)
There is very little incentive to maximize CHA on a thaumaturge and I'd recommend folks go for the Low CHA progression (16 to 18 at L5) vs. the medium or high CHA progressions from the last section of this post. The reason is because they only need a failure vs. a standard level DC to trigger personal antithesis. There is no level where you can critically fail except on a 1 (see tabulations here), so we have to evaluate the marginal gains between personal antithesis vs mortal weakness.

Bestiaries 1/2/3 have a total of 1072 monsters. Of those monsters only 33% have weaknesses at all (this doesn't exclude double counted monsters with multiple weaknesses so that % is lower). 11.85% of that the total 33% has weakness 1-5 so almost immediately the personal antithesis is higher/obsoletes it. You really are talking about a marginal DPR increase on about 21.2% of all creatures you might face. The improvement between CHA 16 to 18 vs. 18 to 24 is capped at 5% from levels 1 to 15 (at which point your personal antithesis is at weakness 9-10. So we can really discount a further 12.22% of monsters with weakness 5 to 10. That leaves us with about 9% of monsters in the bestiary 1/2/3 with weakness 10-20 in the level range of 15 to 20 where we see any significant improvement (10 or 15% increase to success rate or better) from pumping CHA.

Meanwhile we've wasted at least 3 attribute boosts (L5, L10, L15) and the Apex item (L17). The -1 to hit from the apex item alone will drop your DPR by ~15% and all but erase any benefit you could get from applying mortal weakness. But 3 stat boosts is a significant loss to give you marginal damage boosts on 9% of the monsters for the last 5-6 levels of the game. Remember that we started with ~70% of monsters not even having a weakness so heavy CHA investment is detrimental to the classes saves/hp/damage/AC since it is MAD (wants STR/DEX/CON/WIS/CHA whereas most casters want DEX/CON/WIS/Casting Stat).

Esoteric Lore Only Applies to Recall Knowledge (which misses tons of skill usage situations)

Esoteric lore only works on recall knowledge, which excludes a lot more things than you might think, things like:
- Disarming traps/hazards/haunts that typically have non-thievery skills
- Skill Application Challenges (e.g., use nature to find a path, but isn't a recall knowledge, figure out what stuff in this room with worth the most gold/recover it, using a lore like sailing lore to actually sail a boat)
- Chases Subsystem
- Listed uses for each skill (e.g., deciphering writing/taping ley lines/identifying magic/using various skill feats, etc.)
- Rituals
- Influence Subsystem
- Research Subsystem
- Infiltration Subsystem
- Hexploration Subsystem

So while the thaumaturge skill monkey can always roll to know about something, recall knowledge is NOT a substitute for the actual skill that others have (in particular the application of said knowledge vs. just knowing it).

Overall

Esoteric Lore gets a bad reputation. But mathematically it doesn't compete against caster's top 2 skills (i.e., nature/religion or arcana/occultism). It carves out a minor niche for the thaumaturge as a universal lore skill user where it is ahead by a slim margin from L1-L20 but never drastically ahead (i.e., other full caster's can't eat the thaumaturge's lunch in this niche). It only applies to recall knowledge and can't replace most of the uses of skills in the game that have versatile applications and interface with tons of skill based gameplay/subsystems in the game.

I suspect the major issue is that the community believes that having a INT or WIS primary class stat should entitle that class to being the best at two of the 4 primary recall knowledge based skills. As a community we need to reinforce that if someone wants to be better at a skill they have to invest in it. If they didn't the game would be deeply unsatisfying. If you just lazily put in a skill bump you simply might not be 'the best' at it vs. someone that is burning up 3 attribute boosts and taking a lower AC/HP/Saves/Damage and dropping their DPR by ~15% by wasting an Apex item.

[Karmagator]

Easl wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

I would argue that the only egregious part about the thaumaturge is that it laughs in the gunslinger's face so damn hard that it isn't funny. A gunslinger doesn't get nothing more than a +1 to damage with firearms, while a thaumaturge, literally at 1st level, already get a +2 and it eventually goes up to +8. Not to mention exploit vulnerability which increases this bonus to, at least, +10 extra damage.

The gunslinger is ~3 points ahead on to-hit roll at all levels (one proficiency rank, plus 1 attribute bonus). A 15% better hit and often crit chance creates a lot of extra expected dpr.

They also get +1 and later +2 to damage from weapon specialisation due to their higher proficiency. It's not much with how few attacks they usually get, but still.

And if you use the actual damage subclass - the sniper - then your reload has a very good chance of effectively increasing your attack modifier by another +2. Compared to the completely dead action the Thaum has to deal with.

The Gunslinger has serious problems, sure, but not being the best class for firearms isn't one of them.

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

Just wanted to make a few comments:

First:

Easl wrote:

In answer to Jacob's question, yes I think Thaums should get martial weapon and armor progression. They clearly do their damage via weapon use, not other ways. It's almost always melee, so tehy need a martial's armor progression too. And they are already at a slight disadvantage to other martials because they generally need to put CHA ahead of STR. So there is no need to gank their attack bonus further.

This is something I see a lot - folks seem to be worried about non-dedicated martials moving toward survivability. I don’t see the need to worry about Thaumaturges, they have far fewer HP, and are stretched to really maximise their combat prowess by the one handed limitation. So I fully support concepts like this. Just to completely enrage folks who think Thaumaturges are overpowered. Just kidding, I merely disagree,

Second:
“Niche protection”. I could die happy if I never hear this term ever again. Reading Ravingdork’s vignette horrified me. The idea that a random assortment of adventurers meet in a tavern (for example, or, really wherever they happen to meet) and just happen to not be the same or similar class and also just happen to cover all the necessary “bases”, and if they don’t, have the skills to pad it out drives me to tears. It’s my version of verisimilitudinous catastrophe.

Third:
Plane contends that the Thaumaturge “ignores, breaks, rewrites and steals” rules and abilities. I agree, but to me it’s a feature, not a bug.
Here’s how I look at it. Take Feats. The whole concept of Feats is central to Pathfinder. I’ve called it Featfinder in the previous edition. And the point of Feats is essentially to be exceptions, or tweaks or rewrites to the rules. As are class abilities. To me, every class rewrites core features of the game by these exceptions. That’s kinda central to game design. So the Thaumaturge probably does ignore things other classes can’t, rewrites certain rules by making exceptions to how they regularly function, and steals portions of (and rewrites them) other classes schtick. (Also see “niche protection” above.) To me, every class does to an extent. So for me….all the very best classes do exactly this.
Now you could say that any one of these changes/thefts/rewrites/tweaks is….inappropriate or overpowered. Or you could even say that a few, or some or even all are. But I don’t agree. And it certainly isn’t “whack”. Unless you really are using the stave of the bow. ;)

[Ravingdork]

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Reading Ravingdork’s vignette horrified me. The idea that a random assortment of adventurers meet in a tavern (for example, or, really wherever they happen to meet) and just happen to not be the same or similar class and also just happen to cover all the necessary “bases”, and if they don’t, have the skills to pad it out drives me to tears. It’s my version of verisimilitudinous catastrophe.

I'm playing in another group now where we had a switch-hitting trident ranger and a shape-shifting-focused druid join the party late. Immediately, the player of the archer ranger who was already in the party wanted to change characters.

I ended up talking him down from that ledge, for now, by pointing out that they had invested in completely different combat styles and strategies, class abilities, and skill sets. One is a cave-loving dwarf, the other a forest-loving half-elf. The only similarities are that they are both members of the Ranger class and that they both have mature animal companions (and even those--a badger and snake--couldn't be more different).

It continuously amazes me that even a little bit of redundancy is perceived by many roleplayers as nothing short of taboo.

I think that perhaps it comes from the driving need of internet-addicted younger generations to stand out and feel special in all things, which often causes them to miss the forest for the trees.

[exequiel759]

Karmagator wrote:

Easl wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

I would argue that the only egregious part about the thaumaturge is that it laughs in the gunslinger's face so damn hard that it isn't funny. A gunslinger doesn't get nothing more than a +1 to damage with firearms, while a thaumaturge, literally at 1st level, already get a +2 and it eventually goes up to +8. Not to mention exploit vulnerability which increases this bonus to, at least, +10 extra damage.

The gunslinger is ~3 points ahead on to-hit roll at all levels (one proficiency rank, plus 1 attribute bonus). A 15% better hit and often crit chance creates a lot of extra expected dpr.

They also get +1 and later +2 to damage from weapon specialisation due to their higher proficiency. It's not much with how few attacks they usually get, but still.

And if you use the actual damage subclass - the sniper - then your reload has a very good chance of effectively increasing your attack modifier by another +2. Compared to the completely dead action the Thaum has to deal with.

The Gunslinger has serious problems, sure, but not being the best class for firearms isn't one of them.

I'd argue that gunslingers not being the best class with firearms is, indeed, one of their biggest problems since that's what someone playing a gunslinger expects to be playing. If play a wand thaum, by 7th level, you can reliably make your targets flat-footed until the end of your next turn, which means that on your following turn you can also catch them on flames to deal 1d10 persistent fire damage. Then get yourself a one-handed repeating weapon like an air repeater, and you'll be dealing some serious ranged damage. Ofc you don't have fatal with an air repeater, and while you can use a regular firearm with fatal here, the action economy would be a little wonky.

I don't think gunslingers need to add their Dex mod to damage or anything like that, but if Singular Expertise at least added a +2 at 1st level that scaled up to +3 when you become a master with firearms and to +4 when you become legendary would be more than enough IMO, but the fact that currently all classes can end up dealing more damage than a gunslinger with firearms is IMO sad when most people are likely going to play a gunslinger because they want to deal damage while looking like a western cowboy.

[Finoan]

Ravingdork wrote:

It continuously amazes me that even a little bit of redundancy is perceived by many roleplayers as nothing short of taboo.

To say the same thing from the other side of the experience:

I am currently playing a Gymnast Swashbuckler in a game with a Monk. Both of us have the Wrestler archetype and even both took Suplex at level 4.

We don't find the overlap and redundancy to be a problem at all. As far as doing damage, we have different ways of going about it - the Monk is running around the battlefield pouncing on anyone and hitting them repeatedly with Flurry and then getting out of range of retaliation, while my Swashbuckler tends to tank almost as much as the Champion that is also in the group. And as far as the crowd control, I tend to use it more because it gives panache, but having backup to lock down more of the enemies is not a bad idea.

[Jacob Jett]

IRL, redundancy is good. It leads to what we call system robustness. "Redundancy is bad" views largely emerge from capitalism's drive for maximal efficiency and maximized profit margins.

That said, I would want a party with a little of everything before developing any redundancies...

[Karmagator]

exequiel759 wrote:

I'd argue that gunslingers not being the best class with firearms is, indeed, one of their biggest problems since that's what someone playing a gunslinger expects to be playing. If play a wand thaum, by 7th level, you can reliably make your targets flat-footed until the end of your next turn, which means that on your following turn you can also catch them on flames to deal 1d10 persistent fire damage. Then get yourself a one-handed repeating weapon like an air repeater, and you'll be dealing some serious ranged damage. Ofc you don't have fatal with an air repeater, and while you can use a regular firearm with fatal here, the action economy would be a little wonky.

I don't think gunslingers need to add their Dex mod to damage or anything like that, but if Singular Expertise at least added a +2 at 1st level that scaled up to +3 when you become a master with firearms and to +4 when you become legendary would be more than enough IMO, but the fact that currently all classes can end up dealing more damage than a gunslinger with firearms is IMO sad when most people are likely going to play a gunslinger because they want to deal damage while looking like a western cowboy.

In the case you are describing, the Thaum isn't better with guns than the Gunslinger. With the air repeater, you are dealing 1d4+2 damage per damage die plus weakness damage (not doubled on a crit) at a range of 60ft. With a -2 or -3 attack modifier compared to the Gunslinger who isn't using feats. Maybe with the off-guard from the wand, but that number of actions doesn't always line up, even if you only have to use it every other turn. That is all you are doing with the gun.

Statistically, the Gunslinger absolutely wins that contest. Even before you bring in stuff like OSOK, Sniper's Aim and Vital Shot. A Sniper Gunslinger's basic crit at level 7 (without property runes, without using a special attack, using an arquebus) will deal an average of 42,5 damage. A Thaum hit will deal 16 (or occasionally a bit more when you get a good weakness thing going). So a single crit from the Gunslinger is nearly 3 hits from the Thaum and unlike other ranged classes, the Thaum can't even make that up with volume.

That the overall damage output becomes problematic when you add in the wand as well is a whole different story. That's not the Thaum being better with a gun, that's the Gunslinger's damage output not being good enough, as usual.

[Easl]

Ravingdork wrote:

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Reading Ravingdork’s vignette horrified me. The idea that a random assortment of adventurers meet in a tavern (for example, or, really wherever they happen to meet) and just happen to not be the same or similar class and also just happen to cover all the necessary “bases”, and if they don’t, have the skills to pad it out drives me to tears. It’s my version of verisimilitudinous catastrophe.

I'm playing in another group now where we had a switch-hitting trident ranger and a shape-shifting-focused druid join the party late. Immediately, the player of the archer ranger who was already in the party wanted to change characters.

I ended up talking him down from that ledge, for now, by pointing out that they had invested in completely different combat styles and strategies, class abilities, and skill sets...

It's a shame, but I think it's a pretty common thing - to wrap up or see ones' character concept as being primarily about character class. I've always tried to make personality be a significant part of my table play, but I'll admit, other players may/can crave bigger capability differences. Or they just need that title; can't envision playing a pointy hat wizard if your class title says anything different from, literally, Wizard.

Honestly PF2E shouldn't have much of an overlap problem. Between feat selection and archetypes, you could give two players the exact same 1st level character and by level 5 they're probably going to be very different in both personality AND capabilities.

[Dubious Scholar]

Thaumaturge is a class that can have a ton of variation between builds too, since so much of what you bring to the table is dependent on your implement choices. It's a class where telling me the name of the class you're playing doesn't actually tell me much of anything about what your character does (beyond "hit things with weapons" presumably... and even that's not a given with some build paths).

And I think that's a good thing on the whole, and one of the reasons I like it so much - it speaks to the part of my brain that wants to keep coming up with new combinations of mechanics to try out.

[Squiggit]

Themetricsystem wrote:

incapable of seeing the cracks in the tidy niche protection

More like the more cracks the better. Niche protection is a blight and fatally poor design. There's a reason why PF2 has never had very much of it (and has steadily diversified ever since the CRB).

[Captain Morgan]

I don't think triggering off concentrate actions is that big a boon. The most common concentrate triggers are spells which usually have manipulate too. Most of the non-manipulate concentrate actions are almost exclusively used by PCs:

Hunt Prey
Recall Knowledge
Demoralize
Devise a Strategem

All of these technically can be used by NPCs but usually aren't.

[AestheticDialectic]

Niche protection is actually a very important aspect of the game as it is now. The only exception is the monk who's schtick can be stolen by anyone. I was way bing a roll for combat stream and Mark more or less said that classes are given a thing they do that no one else can steal, the fighter's +2, the ranger's edge, the cleric's divine font. Those sorts of things. What isn't "protected" is different classes assuming the same general role in the party. Anyone can learn thieves and pick locks, any cha class can be the face, anyone can pick up medicine, anyone can potentially recall knowledge. Some classes are better than others, but it's fine. The one thing I'll say is generally casters don't have as strong of a unique mechanic compared to martials that other classes can't really poach. Clerics have the divine font, but that is it. Wizards have their thesis, but that is it. The new animist will be the first to really have something very unique to them and it makes me want to give the other casters a makeover. I mean, what is the thing the druid gets that is solely their own? I genuinely have no idea

[Bluemagetim]

I am torn on the niche protection thing. It at the same time makes being a class feel good in its own way and makes dedicating into other classes seem very boring. Rogue sneak damage dice is probably done right. Anyone can get it but a rogue is better at it.

Hunt prey anyone can get but really I would have wanted a hunters edge even if it was a lesser version from ranger

[exequiel759]

Niche protection is only important as long as a class doesn't entirely replace another class, but that a class can do a little of another class isn't a problem. Also, if you want to seriously "protect niches" then we would only have 3 classes in the whole game; fighter, rogue, and magic user.

[AestheticDialectic]

exequiel759 wrote:

Niche protection is only important as long as a class doesn't entirely replace another class, but that a class can do a little of another class isn't a problem. Also, if you want to seriously "protect niches" then we would only have 3 classes in the whole game; fighter, rogue, and magic user.

Fighter, cleric, magic-user. The magic-user used to fill in for the rogue, but not for the cleric

But "magic-user" aka the wizard, is a poorly designed concept that eats everyone's lunch. It does too many things historically. When it was introduced it at least had to specialize in certain kinds of magic

[exequiel759]

The thing is, skills weren't really a thing back then, so having both cleric and magic user under this highly disfuctional "niches are protected" system wouldn't make much sense. I probably wouldn't call it rogue though, probably "expert" would be more broad, the same with fighter into "warrior" or something like that.

[AestheticDialectic]

Broadly my opinion is:
Each class should do something only they can do, and Multiclassing into them should only give a small fraction of this and the most key elements remain strictly their own

Classes should not be good at everything or even potentially good at everything. They should have things they can't do or are only okay at(this applies most especially to wizards prior to this edition)

Classes should have a few flexible roles they can do, but never too many at once and some mutually exclusive to each other

This is what niche protection means imo

[Squiggit]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Niche protection is actually a very important aspect of the game as it is now. The only exception is the monk who's schtick can be stolen by anyone. I was way bing a roll for combat stream and Mark more or less said that classes are given a thing they do that no one else can steal, the fighter's +2, the ranger's edge, the cleric's divine font.

But +1d8 damage once per round isn't a niche. It's a unique mechanic that supports a Ranger's niche of being good at single target damage, but 'good at single target damage' is definitely not a protected niche for Rangers (or anyone else). That's a really important distinction.

[Bluemagetim]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Broadly my opinion is:

Each class should do something only they can do, and Multiclassing into them should only give a small fraction of this and the most key elements remain strictly their own

Classes should not be good at everything or even potentially good at everything. They should have things they can't do or are only okay at(this applies most especially to wizards prior to this edition)

Classes should have a few flexible roles they can do, but never too many at once and some mutually exclusive to each other

This is what niche protection means imo

This really goes into what it means to choose a class at level 1 but what does it mean to dedicate into another class in a system that doesnt technically have multiclassing?

This is where Im torn. When i dedicate into something else i wonder what exactly it means if the main thing about the class i dedicate into is not learnable through dedication. If you get a reduced power or scope version of it then it at least feels like you are also that which you dedicated into to a lesser degree.

[AestheticDialectic]

Squiggit wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Niche protection is actually a very important aspect of the game as it is now. The only exception is the monk who's schtick can be stolen by anyone. I was way bing a roll for combat stream and Mark more or less said that classes are given a thing they do that no one else can steal, the fighter's +2, the ranger's edge, the cleric's divine font.

But the ranger doing +1d8 damage once per round isn't a niche. It's a unique mechanic that supports their niche of being single target damage dealers, but that's definitely not a unique thing for Rangers. That's a really important distinction.

I would say this is more of a semantic difference. All martials to some degree have the role of being a single target damage dealer, even if say, the champion, is more defensive. The niche protection is their specific way of doing a thing. We can swap words, but the point remains the same

[AestheticDialectic]

Bluemagetim wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Broadly my opinion is:

Each class should do something only they can do, and Multiclassing into them should only give a small fraction of this and the most key elements remain strictly their own

Classes should not be good at everything or even potentially good at everything. They should have things they can't do or are only okay at(this applies most especially to wizards prior to this edition)

Classes should have a few flexible roles they can do, but never too many at once and some mutually exclusive to each other

This is what niche protection means imo

This really goes into what it means to choose a class at level 1 but what does it mean to dedicate into another class in a system that doesnt technically have multiclassing?

This is where Im torn. When i dedicate into something else i wonder what exactly it means if the main thing about the class i dedicate into is not learnable through dedication. If you get a reduced power or scope version of it then it at least feels like you are also that which you dedicated into to a lesser degree.

I personally prefer things like spell trickster which can make your wizard more roguish as opposed to taking the rogue archetype which doesn't really modify your base class so much as tack on extra stuff that may not even compliment a caster kit, for example

[Perpdepog]

exequiel759 wrote:

The thing is, skills weren't really a thing back then, so having both cleric and magic user under this highly disfuctional "niches are protected" system wouldn't make much sense. I probably wouldn't call it rogue though, probably "expert" would be more broad, the same with fighter into "warrior" or something like that.

That's how Sine Nomine games work; you've got warrior, expert, and the special magic-y class de jour. It seems to work pretty well.

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

it was funny spell trickster turn fireball into a super spell

sadly no expansion for the archetype so far

[Gortle]

Ravingdork wrote:

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Reading Ravingdork’s vignette horrified me. The idea that a random assortment of adventurers meet in a tavern (for example, or, really wherever they happen to meet) and just happen to not be the same or similar class and also just happen to cover all the necessary “bases”, and if they don’t, have the skills to pad it out drives me to tears. It’s my version of verisimilitudinous catastrophe.

I'm playing in another group now where we had a switch-hitting trident ranger and a shape-shifting-focused druid join the party late. Immediately, the player of the archer ranger who was already in the party wanted to change characters.

I ended up talking him down from that ledge, for now, by pointing out that they had invested in completely different combat styles and strategies, class abilities, and skill sets. One is a cave-loving dwarf, the other a forest-loving half-elf. The only similarities are that they are both members of the Ranger class and that they both have mature animal companions (and even those--a badger and snake--couldn't be more different).

It continuously amazes me that even a little bit of redundancy is perceived by many roleplayers as nothing short of taboo.

I think that perhaps it comes from the driving need of internet-addicted younger generations to stand out and feel special in all things, which often causes them to miss the forest for the trees.

Different people are just more sensitive about it than others. They are overly protective of thier concept and its space. Some people don't easily see the team game. Its just life.

I just had two melee characters swap out in a long running campaign. The party suddenly became all ranged except for a melee focus Rogue. I had to pull people up and make them see that they were abandoning the Rogue who really can't hold the front rank himself and gets all his synergy from having a melee ally thereby creating a problem and more or less forcing another change. So sometimes these discussions have to be had.

[Deriven Firelion]

Gortle wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Reading Ravingdork’s vignette horrified me. The idea that a random assortment of adventurers meet in a tavern (for example, or, really wherever they happen to meet) and just happen to not be the same or similar class and also just happen to cover all the necessary “bases”, and if they don’t, have the skills to pad it out drives me to tears. It’s my version of verisimilitudinous catastrophe.

I'm playing in another group now where we had a switch-hitting trident ranger and a shape-shifting-focused druid join the party late. Immediately, the player of the archer ranger who was already in the party wanted to change characters.

I ended up talking him down from that ledge, for now, by pointing out that they had invested in completely different combat styles and strategies, class abilities, and skill sets. One is a cave-loving dwarf, the other a forest-loving half-elf. The only similarities are that they are both members of the Ranger class and that they both have mature animal companions (and even those--a badger and snake--couldn't be more different).

It continuously amazes me that even a little bit of redundancy is perceived by many roleplayers as nothing short of taboo.

I think that perhaps it comes from the driving need of internet-addicted younger generations to stand out and feel special in all things, which often causes them to miss the forest for the trees.

Different people are just more sensitive about it than others. They are overly protective of thier concept and its space. Some people don't easily see the team game. Its just life.

I just had two melee characters swap out in a long running campaign. The party suddenly became all ranged except for a melee focus Rogue. I had to pull people up and make them see that they were abandoning the Rogue who really can't hold the front rank himself and gets all his synergy from having a melee ally thereby creating a problem and more or less forcing another change. So sometimes...

My players hate playing the same class or combat type at the same time. They feel like it creates competition for items and makes your abilities feel unspectacular.

This is especially bad when someone does something better than the same class like paladin multiclass characters in 5e who could smite way more often and with higher level spells than a base paladin.

They like to feel like their character is mechanically unique.

[Easl]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

...Mark more or less said that classes are given a thing they do that no one else can steal, the fighter's +2, the ranger's edge, the cleric's divine font. Those sorts of things. What isn't "protected" is different classes assuming the same general role in the party...

I am totally fine with many (but not all) classes having a 'signature' mechanic which nobody else can get. However I'd like to see the archetypes have a bit more parity in proficiency grab; maybe 4 trained/12 expert /18 master for both caster and martial archetypes, rather than the current 4/12/18 for caster archetypes and 4/12/never for Fighter. Secondly...monk. As many other folks have complained, their signature mechanic isn't protected.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

My players hate playing the same class or combat type at the same time. They feel like it creates competition for items and makes your abilities feel unspectacular

How is that first issue an issue. Don't you, as GM, get to decide what loot they discover? So instead of one A and one B, put in two B's. Besides which, gold is fungible ;)

Quote:

This is especially bad when someone does something better than the same class like paladin multiclass characters in 5e who could smite way more often and with higher level spells than a base paladin.

Yeah, I can see that. Your IW Starspan Magus is a great example. Using class feats to pick up a caster archetype makes him a better archer than an alternate PC who uses those class feat choices to be a better starspan Magus. There's an argument that could be made that it shouldn't be that way. Still, I think we have to be somewhat pragmatic about the ability of playtesting and design to ferret out such things. There are just too many build combinatorials to expect the devs to be able to catch them or so precisely balance everything that the choice to spend feats on your archetype is different and useful but yet never better. Besides which, no doubt if they DID design it so that nobody could out-starspan the "classic" non-archetype starspan build, then I expect we same players would be complaining about how none of the archetype choices are actually worth it. We are often an impossible lot lol.

[AestheticDialectic]

Easl wrote:

I am totally fine with many (but not all) classes having a 'signature' mechanic which nobody else can get. However I'd like to see the archetypes have a bit more parity in proficiency grab; maybe 4 trained/12 expert /18 master for both caster and martial archetypes, rather than the current 4/12/18 for caster archetypes and 4/12/never for Fighter. Secondly...monk. As many other folks have complained, their signature mechanic isn't protected.

Baseline martial proficiency is master, so I think this is an unreasonable ask

[Karmagator]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Easl wrote:

I am totally fine with many (but not all) classes having a 'signature' mechanic which nobody else can get. However I'd like to see the archetypes have a bit more parity in proficiency grab; maybe 4 trained/12 expert /18 master for both caster and martial archetypes, rather than the current 4/12/18 for caster archetypes and 4/12/never for Fighter. Secondly...monk. As many other folks have complained, their signature mechanic isn't protected.

Baseline martial proficiency is master, so I think this is an unreasonable ask

It's also something we know is absolutely forbidden by design. That's why Sixth Pillar was nerfed. You are never supposed to get legendary spellcasting or master (or better) in attacks outside of class features.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Gortle wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Reading Ravingdork’s vignette horrified me. The idea that a random assortment of adventurers meet in a tavern (for example, or, really wherever they happen to meet) and just happen to not be the same or similar class and also just happen to cover all the necessary “bases”, and if they don’t, have the skills to pad it out drives me to tears. It’s my version of verisimilitudinous catastrophe.

I'm playing in another group now where we had a switch-hitting trident ranger and a shape-shifting-focused druid join the party late. Immediately, the player of the archer ranger who was already in the party wanted to change characters.

I ended up talking him down from that ledge, for now, by pointing out that they had invested in completely different combat styles and strategies, class abilities, and skill sets. One is a cave-loving dwarf, the other a forest-loving half-elf. The only similarities are that they are both members of the Ranger class and that they both have mature animal companions (and even those--a badger and snake--couldn't be more different).

It continuously amazes me that even a little bit of redundancy is perceived by many roleplayers as nothing short of taboo.

I think that perhaps it comes from the driving need of internet-addicted younger generations to stand out and feel special in all things, which often causes them to miss the forest for the trees.

Different people are just more sensitive about it than others. They are overly protective of thier concept and its space. Some people don't easily see the team game. Its just life.

I just had two melee characters swap out in a long running campaign. The party suddenly became all ranged except for a melee focus Rogue. I had to pull people up and make them see that they were abandoning the Rogue who really can't hold the front rank himself and gets all his synergy from having a melee ally thereby creating a problem and more or less forcing another change. So sometimes...

It depends on players too, there are players I don't want occupying the same skills space as another player because the niche protection is just required for the personalities at work-- otherwise they don't split the duties and the more active player does everything, and then the quiet player actively resists attempts to re-balance that out of a misplaced sense of pride. Much better to make sure that second player has a unique set of skills-- but meanwhile, there are players in the group who would absolutely stand out with the same niche.

But the other key is identifying what part of the character matters, both for boredom's sake (do we really need two sorcerers of the same bloodline, in narrative terms) but also what they do and how they do it.

[Dork Smurf]

Congratulations! It's twins!

[Alchemic_Genius]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Stuff

Yeah, I have somewhat similar experiences at my table; it turned me off of the "FA is the best way to play the game" pretty hard.

I had a player who got really angry when people had redundant abilities/skills with him; but he played a magus with Investigator as his free archetype, so like for him, melee, arcane casting, and most int and dex skills were "his niche". He butted heads a lot with the enigma bard; who would overlap with occultism rolls, the Gunslinger whonhad higher dps, and the fighter who was generally a better melee character because she didn't lock herself into a strategy of banking on doing spellstike -> recharge every single turn. Had I not run FA, he wouldn't have been able to just pick up almost every skill so his niche would have been more narrow and therefore would have spent less time "defending his niches" and more time actually shining in the ones he did take.

On the other hand, I played a game where 4 people all had soft overlap of social skills and it created AMAZING dynamics and friendships between the PCs because we were all really good about taking turns stepping back and rolling the aid check when another ally's skill was better. I had Deception, my sister had Intimidate, my friend had Diplomacy, and my wife had Society, but was packing all the feats like Streetwise and Underground Network

[Easl]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

I had a player who got really angry when people had redundant abilities/skills with him...

It's so weird. As you say, Aid is a thing. And in odd cases where multiple people can attempt a check and only one needs to make it, having two people with the same skill is basically like having True Strike on it. Have three people with it? Even better. Geez, as a player I would want every PC in my party to have every skill if possible. Why not? There's no downside. Alice on my left or Bob on my right succeeding at a check is just as good for the party as me succeeding at it.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Easl wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

I had a player who got really angry when people had redundant abilities/skills with him...

It's so weird. As you say, Aid is a thing. And in odd cases where multiple people can attempt a check and only one needs to make it, having two people with the same skill is basically like having True Strike on it. Have three people with it? Even better. Geez, as a player I would want every PC in my party to have every skill if possible. Why not? There's no downside. Alice on my left or Bob on my right succeeding at a check is just as good for the party as me succeeding at it.

You know it and I know it! The player in question was a hard time forum junkie and tends to regutgitate anything that looks official; so when he saw the term "niche protection", he took as jargon for a thing thats definitely well established and good and took it to heart.

As you said about the pseudo true strike thing though, for me personally, like yeah, it doesn't make a difference where I succeeded my lie to the the guard "we're on the list", my friend saying "we're on the list" with Diplomacy and a bribe, my sister saying "we're on the list" with implicit threat in her tone, or my wife pulling out a forged invitation and saying "We're part of Don Pelezzi's entourage, check that list again".

[Finoan]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Stuff

Yeah, I have somewhat similar experiences at my table; it turned me off of the "FA is the best way to play the game" pretty hard.

I had a player who got really angry when people had redundant abilities/skills with him; but he played a magus with Investigator as his free archetype, so like for him, melee, arcane casting, and most int and dex skills were "his niche".

I wouldn't blame that on Free Archetype.

It may be a good reason to not use Free Archetype with this particular player, but it isn't an inherent problem with Free Archetype or a good reason to promote not allowing it in general.

[Guntermench]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Stuff

Yeah, I have somewhat similar experiences at my table; it turned me off of the "FA is the best way to play the game" pretty hard.

I had a player who got really angry when people had redundant abilities/skills with him; but he played a magus with Investigator as his free archetype, so like for him, melee, arcane casting, and most int and dex skills were "his niche". He butted heads a lot with the enigma bard; who would overlap with occultism rolls, the Gunslinger whonhad higher dps, and the fighter who was generally a better melee character because she didn't lock herself into a strategy of banking on doing spellstike -> recharge every single turn. Had I not run FA, he wouldn't have been able to just pick up almost every skill so his niche would have been more narrow and therefore would have spent less time "defending his niches" and more time actually shining in the ones he did take.

That sounds like a player issue more than a FA issue, because you can still get all of that without FA.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Finoan wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Stuff

Yeah, I have somewhat similar experiences at my table; it turned me off of the "FA is the best way to play the game" pretty hard.

I had a player who got really angry when people had redundant abilities/skills with him; but he played a magus with Investigator as his free archetype, so like for him, melee, arcane casting, and most int and dex skills were "his niche".

I wouldn't blame that on Free Archetype.

It may be a good reason to not use Free Archetype with this particular player, but it isn't an inherent problem with Free Archetype or a good reason to promote not allowing it in general.

Even without that one specific problem player, I still tend to find the rest of the people in my group get overwhelmed by the options and usually end up not using them

I don't think FA is bad or anything, I just don't see it as something that's as mandatory to building cool characters and having fun as many people make it out to be

[Dubious Scholar]

A number of classes can already easily hit analysis paralysis with their options on a given turn of combat. Casters do it easily. Half the martials start accumulating things like focus spells or other special abilities and now you've got options you didn't at level 3.