Hmmm. Doesn't sound particularly strong like I heard. Seems more a class about versatility with some single target striking ability.
This is my personal assessment as well, and in my opinion the Thaumaturge is an excellent cautionary tale against just reading about a class's abilities online and making hasty judgments based on no practical experience. When a friend played a Thaumaturge with a weapon implement alongside my melee Fighter, their Implement's Interruption was overall far less effective than my Attack of Opportunity, because they were limited to just one target whereas my character could just whack anyone who triggered the conditions within range. It also didn't help that my attacks had a relative +3 over theirs at early levels and were landing much more often. They certainly did get to do a lot of things my character couldn't, and could deal a lot of damage in one hit even if they didn't crit, but at no point did I feel like my character was getting beaten at their own game, or even close to that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have trained-only actions but nothing beyond that, I think it could have been interesting to take some existing feats and consolidate them into expert/master/legendary actions to create a real sense of defining what it means to be legendary in a skill.Or at least more options to allow you to increase the DC for extra benefit like with Medicine, though I agree some skill feats should probably just become things you unlock by virtue of having a higher proficiency (ehem, Continual Recovery and Ward Medic).
I feel quite differently about those two feats. Continual Recovery was invented just so people would have a good feat to pick-- there was no one hour cool down in the playtest treat wounds. I also don't know what the cool down is supposed to represent in fiction, though whole Treat Wounds system is pretty bad for immersion. Continual Recovery is also mandatory.
Ward Medic, on the other hand? Good feat design. Treating twice as many people at the same time is exactly the sort of design space I'd like from a feat because it noticeably amps up your power in a way the player is unlikely to ask to do without the feat. (In contrast to your Read Lips example, where players would likely try it without the feat.) It also scales with proficiency, a feature more low level skill feats should have. And it isn't really mandatory in the same way Continual Recovery is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buddy, I'm talking PF2 strong. The fighter, rogue, champion, barb, druid, bard, magus, and most higher level casters are strong.I fully expect that compared to what you are used to with your gaming group, nothing published by Paizo for PF2 ever will be.
I'm not meaning to bash the play style. Just trying to manage expectations. Powergaming is not the target any more.
Again, I am not trying to say that you can't powergame PF2. I'm just pointing out that it isn't a goal of the design team to enable it.
I also note that aside from Magus (which I expect is also getting your houserule buffs for spellcasting that makes them all-day casters rather than only getting 4 slot spells per day), all of the classes named are core classes, and the simpler ones at that.
My point is that those core classes are the peak of power and simplicity. That is why those are the first classes introduced to new players. Paizo isn't going to be creating new classes that are more powerful than those. Instead they are creating classes that are more 'interesting'.
By 'interesting' I mean that they have more meaningful decisions and tradeoffs that have to be made. Their upsides are hindered by downsides.
Oracle is a very good focus spell caster. It doesn't make your list because of the curse mechanics causing downsides.
Swashbuckler is a fun martial class to play. It doesn't make your list because of the dual points of failure of its combat routines.
Ranger and Thaumaturge are both good damage dealing classes with utility on the side. They don't make your list because of the action usage downsides.
Animist and Exemplar are going the same route from what I have seen. Both are very good classes with a lot of depth of meaningful choices and tradeoffs. Neither will make your list of powergaming-friendly classes because of the downsides of those tradeoffs.
I'm not trying to say that powergaming is bad or wrong or not fun. I'm saying that from what I have seen of class design in PF2, powergaming isn't a goal of the design team.
I mean, versatility is strong in this system. Rogue is probably the second strongest class in the game and the versatility of a rogue is entirely skill-based.What is the "Strongest" Class then if it isn't Rogue?
Fighter. Braindead easy to play, gets the best numbers in almost every chart in both attack or damage, and the feats make your chosen playstyle even better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter. Braindead easy to play, gets the best numbers in almost every chart in both attack or damage, and the feats make your chosen playstyle even better.I mean, versatility is strong in this system. Rogue is probably the second strongest class in the game and the versatility of a rogue is entirely skill-based.What is the "Strongest" Class then if it isn't Rogue?
Yup. Braindead easy to play.
The fighter, rogue, champion, barb, druid, bard, magus, and most higher level casters are strong.
Fighter: Stride, Strike, Strike.
Champion: Raise Shield, Stride, Strike. Use reaction on Shield Block or Champion reaction.Barbarian: Rage, Stride, Strike; then Stride, Strike, Strike like the Fighter.
Magus: Stride, Spellstrike; then Recharge Spellstrike, Spellstrike. (because Starlit Span is the only Magus)
Bard: Dirge of Doom, Harmonize, Inspire Courage. Every round. I'm gonna browse reddit for a bit, let me know when the battle is over.
I think Rogue is the only one that has any meaningful decisions to make during the round or for building for party synergy. Where to Stride to to get flanking while not getting squished. Whether or not to take Dread Striker depending on if the Bard exists and has and uses Dirge of Doom or not.
[/snark]
The point is that we all have our biases. Personally I am biased against classes that have little depth of decisions. That is why I like classes such as Thaumaturge, Swashbuckler, Oracle, and Witch.
But not everyone does, and that is fine.
Buddy, I'm talking PF2 strong. The fighter, rogue, champion, barb, druid, bard, magus, and most higher level casters are strong.I fully expect that compared to what you are used to with your gaming group, nothing published by Paizo for PF2 ever will be.
I'm not meaning to bash the play style. Just trying to manage expectations. Powergaming is not the target any more.
Again, I am not trying to say that you can't powergame PF2. I'm just pointing out that it isn't a goal of the design team to enable it.
I also note that aside from Magus (which I expect is also getting your houserule buffs for spellcasting that makes them all-day casters rather than only getting 4 slot spells per day), all of the classes named are core classes, and the simpler ones at that.
My point is that those core classes are the peak of power and simplicity. That is why those are the first classes introduced to new players. Paizo isn't going to be creating new classes that are more powerful than those. Instead they are creating classes that are more 'interesting'.
By 'interesting' I mean that they have more meaningful decisions and tradeoffs that have to be made. Their upsides are hindered by downsides.
Oracle is a very good focus spell caster. It doesn't make your list because of the curse mechanics causing downsides.
Swashbuckler is a fun martial class to play. It doesn't make your list because of the dual points of failure of its combat routines.
Ranger and Thaumaturge are both good damage dealing classes with utility on the side. They don't make your list because of the action usage downsides.
Animist and Exemplar are going the same route from what I have seen. Both are very good classes with a lot of depth of meaningful choices and tradeoffs. Neither will make your list of powergaming-friendly classes because of the downsides of those tradeoffs.I'm not trying to say that powergaming is bad or wrong or not fun. I'm saying that from what I have seen of...
What house rule do you think I have that makes them all day casters? Do you even know my house rules? It doesn't sound like you know them because nothing in them makes anyone an all day caster. A flexible caster, yes, but slots and all that are exactly the same. You sound like you are mentioning something you know nothing about. The magus is a 4 slot caster same as the summoner.
Oracle is middle because it depends on the mystery. Some are pretty good like cosmos or ash, others are niche.
Please stop talking about my house rules unless you know what they are because nothing in my house rules makes anyone an all day caster. I'm not even sure where you got that from.
Only thing I changed was all casters are like 5E casters where all their spells are signature spells. So they do a preparation load out and can use their slots as they wish. They don't have more slots or some ability to refresh them other than daily preparations.
It doesn't powergaming to make a good character. I do it in every game. And I make them interesting with fully written backgrounds and roleplay them well.
There is strange idea that if you make a powerful character, somehow you don't make them interesting or roleplay them well. That isn't true at all.
You can make an excellent character with a great background and play them in an extremely efficient fashion and give up nothing for story or roleplay. I don't know why some consider that how the options work.
Main thing I'm looking for on these forums is someone with experience that knows how to build a character well providing an overview of their actual experience with a class. That has nothing to do with powergaming.
I don't like playing classes that haven't been well-designed in my opinion and are poor performers in the PF2 teamwork paradigm. It's not fun and I don't enjoy it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that we all have our biases. Personally I am biased against classes that have little depth of decisions. That is why I like classes such as Thaumaturge, Swashbuckler, Oracle, and Witch.
But not everyone does, and that is fine.
Weird seeing Swashbuckler on that list, given how restrictive its gameplay loops tend to be if you want to do anything useful with it.
I'd honestly put the Fighter higher on the list, since between athletics and its handful of situationally useful action feats you have some meaningful choices to make while the Swashbuckler flounders around trying to generate panache.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weird seeing Swashbuckler on that list, given how restrictive its gameplay loops tend to be if you want to do anything useful with it.The point is that we all have our biases. Personally I am biased against classes that have little depth of decisions. That is why I like classes such as Thaumaturge, Swashbuckler, Oracle, and Witch.
But not everyone does, and that is fine.
Yeah. I'm just weird like that. It's my list though. I'll put the classes there that I want to.
Fighter. Braindead easy to play, gets the best numbers in almost every chart in both attack or damage, and the feats make your chosen playstyle even better.I mean, versatility is strong in this system. Rogue is probably the second strongest class in the game and the versatility of a rogue is entirely skill-based.What is the "Strongest" Class then if it isn't Rogue?Yup. Braindead easy to play.
The fighter, rogue, champion, barb, druid, bard, magus, and most higher level casters are strong.Fighter: Stride, Strike, Strike.
Champion: Raise Shield, Stride, Strike. Use reaction on Shield Block or Champion reaction.
Barbarian: Rage, Stride, Strike; then Stride, Strike, Strike like the Fighter.
Magus: Stride, Spellstrike; then Recharge Spellstrike, Spellstrike. (because Starlit Span is the only Magus)
Bard: Dirge of Doom, Harmonize, Inspire Courage. Every round. I'm gonna browse reddit for a bit, let me know when the battle is over.I think Rogue is the only one that has any meaningful decisions to make during the round or for building for party synergy. Where to Stride to to get flanking while not getting squished. Whether or not to take Dread Striker depending on if the Bard exists and has and uses Dirge of Doom or not.
[/snark]
The point is that we all have our biases. Personally I am biased against classes that have little depth of decisions. That is why I like classes such as Thaumaturge, Swashbuckler, Oracle, and Witch.
But not everyone does, and that is fine.
Performance is not bias.
Bias: I don't like bards. Don't enjoy playing them. Fully acknowledge they are a high performing powerful class. Still doesn't make me want to play them.
We do all have biases. But that has nothing to do with how a class performs in play. That's what I'm asking about. I'll accept you have no interest in building a high performing Thaumaturge.
This is what I'm looking for: any players that have some idea of how a Thaumaturge performs in the 9 to 18 level range with level appropriate gear and a quality build. Your experience would be helpful.
Damage metrics. Defensive abilities. Useful abilities that seem to come up in the PF2 teamwork paradigm.
I just don’t see the Weapon implement being very useful, and the fact that Implements are mostly interrupts/reactions drives me up the wall. The idea of implements seems cool, and I think Mirror really actually is, but the rest all seem “meh” and not very usable. The fact that my big “Implement”, my Weapon, only triggers when my single target does something that isn’t even an attack boggles my poor lil mind. Playing one now, admittedly only at level 2. A bit…deflated…
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don’t see the Weapon implement being very useful, and the fact that Implements are mostly interrupts/reactions drives me up the wall. The idea of implements seems cool, and I think Mirror really actually is, but the rest all seem “meh” and not very usable. The fact that my big “Implement”, my Weapon, only triggers when my single target does something that isn’t even an attack boggles my poor lil mind. Playing one now, admittedly only at level 2. A bit…deflated…
I think this is a matter of perception.
Because no the majority of implements are not interrupts. In fact the implements are perfectly balanced(in terms of the amount of implements) between reaction, active abilities, and passive abilities.And that was a very intentional design goal.
I just don’t see the Weapon implement being very useful, and the fact that Implements are mostly interrupts/reactions drives me up the wall. The idea of implements seems cool, and I think Mirror really actually is, but the rest all seem “meh” and not very usable. The fact that my big “Implement”, my Weapon, only triggers when my single target does something that isn’t even an attack boggles my poor lil mind. Playing one now, admittedly only at level 2. A bit…deflated…I think this is a matter of perception.
I wouldn’t call “being wrong” a matter of perception. But thanks for the kindness.
Because no the majority of implements are not interrupts. In fact the implements are perfectly balanced(in terms of the amount of implements) between reaction, active abilities, and passive abilities.And that was a very intentional design goal.
Yep. Right you are. Three reactions/interrupts (amulet, bell, weapon), three passives (lantern, regalia and tome) and three active (chalice, mirror and wand).
But I still stand by them not being very good. Which is a matter of opinion, and thus, a matter of perception. Luckily, while I can’t change being wrong in the past, I can change my perception in the future. I think. I’m not sure, but I might be later. Weapon is still hugely deflating. Now. In the present. And I still like the idea of Mirror.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I'm looking for: any players that have some idea of how a Thaumaturge performs in the 9 to 18 level range with level appropriate gear and a quality build. Your experience would be helpful.
I am missing your requirements by a bit, my Thaumaturge is only level 7, playing it in Alkenstar with FA, for now two levels after my bard died. Implements are tome and weapon (asp coil).
The restriction of the weapon implement is very annoying and fiddly. You can control only one enemy with it, but the control is a bit stronger than reactive strike as it also triggers on concentrate actions, of which there are a lot. Asking the GM "is that a concentrate action" is one of the annoying parts.
Unless you crit it's "just" free damage, on a crit it also interrupts.
I will add reactive strike with an archetype at lvl 8 to have both options.
Exploit vulnerability is quite a trap as it has the manipulate trait, triggering reactive strikes from enemies if you do it in their reach. Can be very ouch if you forget it, as i did yesterday, and got downed instead of helping my ally.
Speaking of crits, as you cannot start with a 18 str (or dex) you are at -3 compared to a fighter, and -1 compared to other martials, which adds up.
Damage is quite good though, +2 per die in addition to personal antithesis (2+lvl/2), and excellent if there is a weakness to exploit.
Being reliant on recall knowledge is annoying if an adventure path (like Alkenstar) tags everything and their brother as unique.
I enjoy being able to use all scrolls (scroll thaumaturgy), creating free retrieval prisms for them (talisman esoterica) and having flexible skill proficiencies from my tome.
Esoteric lore is also handy to know it all - at least if its not unique.
This is what I'm looking for: any players that have some idea of how a Thaumaturge performs in the 9 to 18 level range with level appropriate gear and a quality build. Your experience would be helpful.I am missing your requirements by a bit, my Thaumaturge is only level 7, playing it in Alkenstar with FA, for now two levels after my bard died. Implements are tome and weapon (asp coil).
The restriction of the weapon implement is very annoying and fiddly. You can control only one enemy with it, but the control is a bit stronger than reactive strike as it also triggers on concentrate actions, of which there are a lot. Asking the GM "is that a concentrate action" is one of the annoying parts.
Unless you crit it's "just" free damage, on a crit it also interrupts.
I will add reactive strike with an archetype at lvl 8 to have both options.Exploit vulnerability is quite a trap as it has the manipulate trait, triggering reactive strikes from enemies if you do it in their reach. Can be very ouch if you forget it, as i did yesterday, and got downed instead of helping my ally.
Speaking of crits, as you cannot start with a 18 str (or dex) you are at -3 compared to a fighter, and -1 compared to other martials, which adds up.
Damage is quite good though, +2 per die in addition to personal antithesis (2+lvl/2), and excellent if there is a weakness to exploit.Being reliant on recall knowledge is annoying if an adventure path (like Alkenstar) tags everything and their brother as unique.
I enjoy being able to use all scrolls (scroll thaumaturgy), creating free retrieval prisms for them (talisman esoterica) and having flexible skill proficiencies from my tome.
Esoteric lore is also handy to know it all - at least if its not unique.
Thank you. That is the kind of info I'm looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think the implements are poorly balanced. Most of the Thaumaturges I've seen tend to pick the same combo; Tome and Regalia or Weapon. These three I feel boost what the Thaumaturge is already good at while the other implements not as much.
Tome (plus the already talked about diverse lore) completely eats the Investigator's lunch.
Regalia provides too many benefits for a 24/7 always on ability imo.
Weapon simply is the only way in-class to get an AoO.
All the other implements only provide niche benefits and/or are too action cost dependent (bless you, mirror my love) to be viable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tome (plus the already talked about diverse lore) completely eats the Investigator's lunch.
That would require the Investigator to have a lunch to eat.
That would require the Investigator to have a lunch to eat.
Tome (plus the already talked about diverse lore) completely eats the Investigator's lunch.
Investigator is better than I thought it was, but it definitely needs a punch up. The feats that make it viable are way too high level and it has a lot of GM fiat to decide how effective its abilities will be. d8 damage for Strategic Strike should probably be standard rather than require coffee.
The restriction of the weapon implement is very annoying and fiddly. You can control only one enemy with it, but the control is a bit stronger than reactive strike as it also triggers on concentrate actions, of which there are a lot. Asking the GM "is that a concentrate action" is one of the annoying parts.
Yes better triggering conditions but only the one target. This came up last week for our group. Once on just a concentrate and once it failed because of the failed Exploit Vulnerability. Which was stark as there was a Barbarian with AoO as well.
Paizo have these little differences in abilities throughout their books. there are some many it seems to be deliberate. It does push up the complexity though, so I'm sure many groups just gloss over it.
Elf w/ Ancestral Longevity feat line + Tome Implement + Diverse Lore could be really flexible with skills, huh.
Investigator is better than I thought it was, but it definitely needs a punch up. The feats that make it viable are way too high level and it has a lot of GM fiat to decide how effective its abilities will be. d8 damage for Strategic Strike should probably be standard rather than require coffee.
I honestly find that you are much better playing a mastermind rogue rather than an investigator in almost every scenario, or even better, a mastermind rogue with the Investigator Dedication. Take Known Weakness, Investigator's Stratagem, Shared Stratagem, and Analyze Weakness, and by 6th level you'll be doing same thing an investigator does but way better. Also, if you can manage to sneak a Loremaster Dedication somewhere in there, likely through the ancient elf heritage, then take Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover you won't be exactly replacing a Diverse Lore thaum with it, but you'll be able to use all your skill increases for whatever you want instead of spending everything in all RK skills.
Elf w/ Ancestral Longevity feat line + Tome Implement + Diverse Lore could be really flexible with skills, huh.
Investigator is better than I thought it was, but it definitely needs a punch up. The feats that make it viable are way too high level and it has a lot of GM fiat to decide how effective its abilities will be. d8 damage for Strategic Strike should probably be standard rather than require coffee.I honestly find that you are much better playing a mastermind rogue rather than an investigator in almost every scenario, or even better, a mastermind rogue with the Investigator Dedication. Take Known Weakness, Investigator's Stratagem, Shared Stratagem, and Analyze Weakness, and by 6th level you'll be doing same thing an investigator does but way better. Also, if you can manage to sneak a Loremaster Dedication somewhere in there, likely through the ancient elf heritage, then take Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover you won't be exactly replacing a Diverse Lore thaum with it, but you'll be able to use all your skill increases for whatever you want instead of spending everything in all RK skills.
Rogue is probably the best class in the game or at least one of them, so not surprising.
I've found the investigator to be not as bad as I thought it was at higher level, but that is due to feats that are useful. That being said it definitely needs a punch up. It has a lot of worthless, empty feats and abilities.
I agree the rogue is one of the best classes in the game, though a rogue isn't replacing a fighter in doing fighting stuff, or a barbarian at doing barbaric stuff, though an investigator even in flavor is just an hyper-specialized rogue that watched too many Sherlock movies. Most of the cool stuff that investigators have could have been a class archetype for the rogue, but not a full class.
I honestly find that you are much better playing a mastermind rogue rather than an investigator in almost every scenario, or even better, a mastermind rogue with the Investigator Dedication. Take Known Weakness, Investigator's Stratagem, Shared Stratagem, and Analyze Weakness, and by 6th level you'll be doing same thing an investigator does but way better. Also, if you can manage to sneak a Loremaster Dedication somewhere in there, likely through the ancient elf heritage, then take Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover you won't be exactly replacing a Diverse Lore thaum with it, but you'll be able to use all your skill increases for whatever you want instead of spending everything in all RK skills.
This is a really cool build. I'm not sure the Shared Stratagem feat nets you much, but the Shared Strategem addition is better on the rogue. The Thaumaturge's tome ability also does the free, use it or not on first strike, roll. So that's another way to do investigator better when taken by another class.
That has me wondering now. What if you had the thaum tome free roll and devise a strategem and used both on the same creature? There's a clash there, but what if you were hasted and could do free-roll, strike, free-roll, hasted strike?
|
|
The Thaumaturge's tome ability also does the free, use it or not on first strike, roll. So that's another way to do investigator better when taken by another class.
Not quite. Tome offers "intensify vulnerability" - which is 1 action - to roll a d20 and set it aside to attack the target. It's nice, a kind of true strike without spending a spellslot (minus ignoring concealment), but it takes an action and works only against the target you exploited.
As an investigator you have to spend the action if your target is not currently part of one of your investigations, otherwise it's a free action.Yes better triggering conditions but only the one target. This came up last week for our group. Once on just a concentrate and once it failed because of the failed Exploit Vulnerability. Which was stark as there was a Barbarian with AoO as well.
Failing at exploit vulnerability still creates a personal antithesis and "targets" the creature for implements interruption and other abilities.
As far as i understand only a critical failure causes you to not fulfill the requirements of "benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability against a creature".
Yes better triggering conditions but only the one target. This came up last week for our group. Once on just a concentrate and once it failed because of the failed Exploit Vulnerability. Which was stark as there was a Barbarian with AoO as well.Failing at exploit vulnerability still creates a personal antithesis and "targets" the creature for implements interruption and other abilities.
As far as i understand only a critical failure causes you to not fulfill the requirements of "benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability against a creature".
The typical ruling is that if you critical fail the Exploit Vulnerability roll, then you can't claim to be benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability, but even that is debatable. The Implement rule only says that you have to target them - not have any degree of success. But that ends up feeling like cheese similar to fighting Golems and their Golem Antimagic where you only have to target the Golem with the right spell, you don't need to succeed at your spell attack roll or affect them with the spell in any way.
But targeting an enemy and non-critical failing Exploit Vulnerability definitely still meets the requirements of having targeted the enemy and be benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability because of Personal Antithesis.
Honestly, I think Weapon is definitely overrated by a lot of people. Amulet is my pick for the best reactive implement because in most cases the condition not being met only happens because the enemy died or missed completely.
Weapon Implement biggest strength is that it is, well, that it is undoubtly a weapon.
Allows you to wield 2 weapons, 2 implements at the same time with your weapon out or free 1 hand for consumables.
Personally I think it is at its best when you pick it at 1 or 5 and never bother upgrading it.
Exactly. The biggest benefit of weapon is that you effectively have a free hand with a weapon on it.
Allows you to wield 2 weapons, 2 implements at the same time with your weapon out or free 1 hand for consumables.
You don't benefit from Implement's Empowerment while wielding two weapons so there's not much (any?) benefit.
Relevant text: "...to use an action from the implement you're switching to. To do so, you can Interact as a free action immediately before executing the implement's action." Attacking with a weapon seems like a viable action. Where is their language that suggests this isn't viable? I acknowledge your restriction, however. I still think this is an example of breaking mechanics. Implements and 1 handed weapons aren't actually a drawback if you can use those hands for desired tasks anyway, and this doesn't even require feats like skirmish strike or quick draw.
I see how you can interpret it like this RAW but I'm not sure that's the intent. It seems pretty clear that "...to use an action from the implement you're switching to" refers to specific implement actions like the wand's Fling Magic etc. not striking with your weapon, though I'd love to be wrong on that one.
You don't benefit from Implement's Empowerment while wielding two weapons so there's not much (any?) benefit.
Allows you to wield 2 weapons, 2 implements at the same time with your weapon out or free 1 hand for consumables.
I don't know why you think that's the case.
Relevant text: You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.
If you are wielding a weapon implement in one hand and a one handed weapon in the other you are fullfiling the requiremente for both. Implement hand is holding a single one handed weapon and nothing more and you are holding an implement. Hand B is holding a single one handed weapon and nothing more and you are holding an implement. Neither hand is wielding anything that messes with the requirements for Implement's empowerment to work.
It is not that strong of a niche (best use I see for this is making use of Paired Shots with Repeating Hand Crossbows and that one can only trigger weaknesses once), but it definitively works and it is worth considering.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't benefit from Implement's Empowerment while wielding two weapons so there's not much (any?) benefit.
Allows you to wield 2 weapons, 2 implements at the same time with your weapon out or free 1 hand for consumables.
I don't know why you think that's the case.
Relevant text: You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.
If you are wielding a weapon implement in one hand and a one handed weapon in the other you are fullfiling the requiremente for both. Implement hand is holding a single one handed weapon and nothing more and you are holding an implement. Hand B is holding a single one handed weapon and nothing more and you are holding an implement. Neither hand is wielding anything that messes with the requirements for Implement's empowerment to work.
It is not that strong of a niche (best use I see for this is making use of Paired Shots with Repeating Hand Crossbows and that one can only trigger weaknesses once), but it definitively works and it is worth considering.
That's incorrect, read the text you just quoted: "if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon". You cannot hold more than a single one-handed weapon. Otherwise you could do two-weapon fighting, double slice, etc. which is against the design of the class to only be able to use a one single one-handed weapon and would be insane DPS with double slice + implement's empowerment + triggering weakness and you'd see everyone rocking these builds. It doesn't matter if your implement is a weapon or an amulet, you can only wield one weapon.
As I read it, the "single" there is to prevent shenanigans in which a player finds a way to wield several 1 handed weapons with 1 hand.
It says "either hand" instead of just saying "you can only wield a single 1 handed weapon for this ability to work", which is what I think they would have wrote were that their intention. I read what we have as "a hand can only hold up to a single 1 handed weapon".
Also, don't try to TGTBT this, combination weapons and Triggerbrand Salvo work both through your reading and mine since they are treated as a single weapon with 2 modes and that's leagues above wielding 2 weapons and using Double Slice or Paired Shots (which again, triggers weaknesses only once).
It is also 1 action instead of 2, applies weaknesses twice and second strike gets a +2. Triggerbrand is also finesse, letting you ignore STR to a degree, a thing Thaumaturge definitely appreciates. It is way above Double Slice, which is extremely clunky in practice for the class (seen it in practice applying the extra damage, it is alright at best. It also locks you out of Sentinel, which most melee STR Thaums definitely need).
Any other piece of PF2 text would use the wide-spread term "wield" were your ruling the case, yet this one in particular avoids it. That to me is an indication that this is intended to work differently (handy-ness and wieldy-ness are 2 different things completely).
Also, since the specific trumps general rule exists it makes sense for this text to be there with the way I read it. You can't generally wield 2 weapons in one hand until a rule specifically says you can. You can wield 2 weapons in one hand with that specific rule, but this way more specific rule dictates that you wouldn't get the extra damage. We already have similar rules that allow us to wield more items than normal (juggle), it makes sense to have a bit of future proofing text there.
I'm talking about future proofing, a thing that this system has done before and will keep doing in the future. I think the hand thing in Implement Empowerment is just that, a phrase to prevent weird stuff happenning several years after the Thaumaturge release. I was talking hypothetical there.
And about not being able to wield items, that is definitely true, but that is not enough reason to not use wield for the weapons and then "or hold" for everything else. Despite Paizo using regular english instead of strict terminology, they try to keep things consistent across the board. Two to three words is not enough to save any relevant page space, so the only reason I see for it to be worded differently is to be read as I read it. If your reading were the intended way to rule it, I believe the text would look more like:
You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are wielding more than a single one-handed weapon or holding anything other than other implements or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why you think that's the case.You don't benefit from Implement's Empowerment while wielding two weapons so there's not much (any?) benefit.
Allows you to wield 2 weapons, 2 implements at the same time with your weapon out or free 1 hand for consumables.
I realize that this is the ruling that you prefer, but saying that the opposing argument is completely incomprehensible is going a bit far. It makes you sound like you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting so that you don't have to even try to understand anyone else's point of view.
The requirement text of "You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica" is pretty clear. It means that holding two weapons is more than a single one-handed weapon and violates the requirements.
You are having to find very specific meanings and interpretations of words in order to allow it. And you have to admit that there is currently no available way to violate the requirements as written given your interpretation - it is apparently only for future proofing rather than a practical limit on the class.
Not getting into this argument on either -- or any -- side, but I found this video from the Rules Lawyer interesting. Make of it whatever you like.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a section that really needs a clarification from paizo
It really isn't. Although its admittedly slightly awkwardly worded I think that the intent is pretty much crystal clear. No two weapon fighting for you.
While it is slightly awkwardly worded with that interpretation it is INCREDIBLY poorly worded if the intent was to allow two one handed weapons to be wielded. And there is the power argument as well. It is quite balanced with the conservative interpretation (essentially, you get to do the damage of a 2 handed weapon since you cannot freely use the other hand to do things like raise a shield). But wielding 2 weapons would clearly be overpowered (arguments above notwithstanding).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a section that really needs a clarification from paizoIt really isn't. Although its admittedly slightly awkwardly worded I think that the intent is pretty much crystal clear. No two weapon fighting for you.
I for one initially interpreted it as "no two-handed weapons for you" and had a similar thread of my own not too long ago asking about this very issue.
The intent behind the rule could certainly be made clearer.