Revised Investigator Discussion


Class Discussion

201 to 250 of 830 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this class would be cool if they lowered the level access to talents. Give them a talent at every level that an alchemist gets a discovery: 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc..

Also, it would be nice if the studied combat/strike ability as a bit different, and was available at 1st level. I like the flavor, but the mechanics need tweaking. One suggestion: it takes a swift action, and then gives a +Int bonus to hit and +1d6/2 levels damage for one attack. You can repeat this. There are feats that let you apply other effects on a successful studied strike. Note this is not as good as sneak attack at totally wiping out a foe (because you can only get the bonus for 1 attack/round), but is more certain (because of the Int bonus to hit).


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
ubiquitous wrote:

Stephen, it would be great if you could give some kind of context as to where you see the Investigator's combat ability sitting. Should it be just below the rogue? How far down on the totem pole should they be?

For option 2, if you were playing at, say, 16th level and getting +7d6 damage to one attack every second round (and only being able to attack every second round), does that seem like a character you'd want to play?

It matters what you mean by combat ability. Constant ability to deal damage in melee? The ability to support a party and be fun and interesting to play. Given the amount of tricks this guy has in his arsenal (inspiration, alchemy, poison lore) I think I would love playing this class.

I'd rather look at this class as a whole, rather than just damage per round. As far as damage per round goes...yeah, he should not be as good as a rogue. And he wasn't in the first iteration, but he was a little better than he should have been.

I think that some people posting here are thinking to much in terms of DPR as the only meaningful way to contribute in combat and overlooking other possible combat build paths. I rather like the mechanic of studied combat. The first thing that popped into my mind was. "Wow look at that attack bonus you are better at combat maneuvers than a fighter is." When I see this class functioning in combat I see it functioning as a melee support not as a damage dealer. The damage is not there why try to build it?

Also I don't want the return of SA. I think that it is the biggest placebo class ability in the game, it feels great to be rolling all those d6s but you still lose out on damage compared to other damage classes and it is conditional to boot. However I think that there is a compromise, perhaps there could be a talent or feat at say 9th level that let you use studied strike on your full attack you could call it studied assault or something like that.

Oh and can we lose the once per 24 hour restriction on studied combat? It seems a bit silly to me but I still can't wait to give this class a try.

Keep up the good work Stephen and I hope you found my feed back helpful and/or useful. Keep up the good work.

Contributor

Xaratherus wrote:

Yup.

As currently written, the best use of Studied Strike is to wait until the very last attack you're guaranteed to have before Studied Combat's duration ends, then use it.

That kind of makes sense given the Sherlock Holmes movies, but design wise its pretty darn weak.

Some More Thoughts:


  • 4th Level is very front-loaded with a bunch of mechanics. I share the sentiment of moving Studied Strike earlier.

  • I found it *very* disorienting that the class earned new talents at odd levels instead of even levels. You don't realize it until it changes, but every other class has those customizable features on even levels. It sort of goes against your expectations in class design.

  • Overall, the entry level Investigator talents are dull. You either pick from a huge list of Alchemist discoveries / Rogue talents or you pick from a list of talents that applies the same benefit (free inspiration) to a different list of skills.

  • Ultimate Skill Monkey is an interesting theme for a class. From my Knowledge of Paizo APs, the majority of Paizo's Adventures have a horribly imbalanced Combat-to-Skill Challenge ratio, so this class is going to be strong in the aspects of play seen the least and weak in the aspects of play seen the most. I don't think that's an attractive niche for a class.

  • Studied Combat is very restrictive and doesn't help the class where it really needs help (damage). I think adding your level to hit and Intelligence to damage for the ability's duration (like a reverse Smite Evil) is an excellent suggestion. That way, Studied Strike becomes more of a finishing move.

  • Playtesting data on this class will likely be dull. "I solved all the traps, punched the bad guy in the face once, and then did nothing useful for the rest of every combat! Hooray!"

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Been thinking about it.

Perhaps Studied Combat can be given at first level with the minimum bonus to hit set at one (+1) with the same rate of bonus as the listed amount on the current playtest (Half of the Investigator level as Insight bonus). Then Studied Strike can be gotten at level two with the bonus damage of one (+1). At level four, the regular progression starts.

Thoughts?


Chris Parker wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
Chris Parker wrote:
So what I propose is Studied Combat be gained at level 1, letting you get the INT bonus AC and To Hit bonus early. This means that you can walk into combat and not be immediately murdered, and in fact actually make yourself useful. Then, at level 4 you receive the ability to end your Studied Combat early in exchange for adding a status effect to your target as well as dealing damage. Then, every level where you would currently gain an additional d6, you may apply an additional status effect before your Studied Combat goes down. Sure, you'll never out-damage a rogue, but if at level 15 you go up against a Stone Giant Fighter with four attacks, and walk away a round later with the Stone Giant...
my main problem with this suggestion (and other similar ones) is that i want to be applying debuffs early in the fight not after i've been hitting the enemy for a couple rounds. if the debilitating strike ends studied combat, i don't want to have to spend another standard or move reapplying it.
Fair point. How about if Studied Combat instead lasted a number of rounds equal to half your INT bonus as it currently is, and during this time, you could get your bonus to hit and AC from level 1, then from level 4 you can spend an attack to, instead of dealing damage, inflict a debuff? You pick a type of debuff you can inflict at fourth level, and every three levels after you pick a new type that you can inflict, with some of them having minimum levels.

why should you have to spend an attack though? you're already missing out on extra damage other classes contribute to combat. i really don't think it would be overpowering to let the investigator use a debilitating strike for every attack in a round against a studied target as though it were sneak attack that sickened, or deafened, or whatever instead of adding damage dice.

Contributor

Steven Lawless wrote:
I think that some people posting here are thinking to much in terms of DPR as the only meaningful way to contribute in combat and overlooking other possible combat build paths. I rather like the mechanic of studied combat. The first thing that popped into my mind was. "Wow look at that attack bonus you are better at combat maneuvers than a fighter is." When I see this class functioning in combat I see it functioning as a melee support not as a damage dealer. The damage is not there why try to build it?

Sure, you're better at Combat Maneuvers than the Fighter. Except this class has no bonus feats, so you're looking at one feat every two levels. Most Combat Maneuvers need two feats plus Combat Expertise to be effective; some like Dirty Tricks need a third (Quick Dirty Trick) and all of the Greater combat maneuver feats have a Base Attack Bonus prerequisite of +6, which the investigator doesn't qualify for until 9th level. So yes, you're better than the Fighter. But the Fighter has twice as many feats as the Investigator and mastered that combat maneuver two to three levels sooner.

Quote:
Also I don't want the return of SA. I think that it is the biggest placebo class ability in the game, it feels great to be rolling all those d6s but you still lose out on damage compared to other damage classes and it is conditional to boot. However I think that there is a compromise, perhaps there could be a talent or feat at say 9th level that let you use studied strike on your full attack you could call it studied assault or something like that.

I thought you just said you didn't want to look at damage anymore? :-P

The thing about making an attack like Sherlock's Studied Combat is that it is much more cinematic than Pathfinder can handle. Sherlock typically one-shots opponents with his Studied Strikes and studies multiple enemies simultaneously; most of his best scenes involve him staring down an entire room of enemies.

Contributor

Maybe adding an Investigator Talent / Ability along these lines would help:

Studied Maneuvers (Ex): Select 1 combat maneuver. When the investigator uses studied combat, he gains the benefits of the Improved feat of the selected combat maneuver when attempting to use this maneuver against the target of his studied combat. At 6th level, the investigator can expend one use of inspiration in order to also gain the Greater version of the selected combat maneuver. This talent can be selected multiple times. Each time it is selected, choose a different combat maneuver to apply its benefits to.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you drew a Venn diagram of Improved Feint and ninja Vanish, the revised investigator seems to get only the part that overlap. It's like a lollipop that has only two fuzzy ends.

I suggest a slowed sneak attack progression plus a delayed favored target (relative to the Slayer).

Is it too un-thematic to grant monk bonus feats as talents?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alternative suggestion:

Since combat maneuvers are more the domain of the Brawler, and since the Investigator can always get the Feats himself, instead make Studied Strike a scaling, variable debuff:

Studied Strike (Ex): While Studied Combat is active, the Investigator may, as a free action, transfer his Studied Combat bonus as a penalty to his target: the Investigator may choose whether to apply this penalty to Attack, AC, or Saving Throws.

The penalty persists for as long as there are remaining rounds on Studied Combat.

(I'd also increase the duration of Studied Combat to the Int Modifier)

EDIT:
And it can only be applied on a successful strike, same as the current Studied Strike.

DOUBLE EDIT:
And get Studied Combat at level 1, Studied Strike at level 4.

Liberty's Edge

Drives the final stake into the Rogue Class. I think the Ninja still comes out better. The lack of bombs is interesting, it's not as if the Investigator couldn't sift through the rubble afterwards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

Maybe adding an Investigator Talent / Ability along these lines would help:

Studied Maneuvers (Ex): Select 1 combat maneuver. When the investigator uses studied combat, he gains the benefits of the Improved feat of the selected combat maneuver when attempting to use this maneuver against the target of his studied combat. At 6th level, the investigator can expend one use of inspiration in order to also gain the Greater version of the selected combat maneuver. This talent can be selected multiple times. Each time it is selected, choose a different combat maneuver to apply its benefits to.

eh... i'd rather have something more unique than "use the same maneuver feats the martial classes already have access to."

something like this:
Studied Combat (Ex): With a keen eye and a calculating
mind, an investigator can measure the mettle and combat
skill of his opponent, and take advantage of any gaps in
talent or training. At 1st level, an investigator can take
a standard action to study a single enemy that he can see.
Upon doing so, he adds half his investigator level as an
insight bonus to melee attack rolls and armor class
against the creature for a number of rounds equal to his
Intelligence modifier (minimum 1 round).

An investigator can only have one target of studied
combat at a time. At 5th level and every 5 levels
thereafter, the investigator can study one additional
target at a time.

(Make the AC talent add damage instead--either in exchange for the hit or AC bonus or not I really don't care)

Studied Strike (Ex): Any time the investigator attacks the
target of his studied combat, he may apply a debilitating
effect to the target. The target may make an appropriate
save (10 + 1/2 Investigator level + INT mod) to resist the
effect.

(Insert list of debuffs and level at which they can be applied or list from which each Investigator may choose the debuffs in which he'll specialize and levels at which he may choose new ones.)

The investigator must be able to see the target well
enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach
such a spot. An investigator cannot use studied strike
against a creature with concealment.


I was going to make a statement about how the Investigator could use a bump on the average starting gold, but then I realized that's the same amount as the Alchemist starts with. Though I wouldn't have the mutagens or bombs at first level, I'd still have to gear roughly the same way. And it still probably wouldn't matter in some APs.

Anyway, I think I can agree that Studied Combat could be moved and altered to show up at 1st/2nd level. A bit of practice with using Studied Combat before throwing the Studied Strike would work out a lot better. But instead of damage, make it like a Stunning Fist or something that dazes/confuses/sickens the target. Or if not that exactly, then allow for a few Investigator Discoveries that can exchange the damage for a debuff.

The Studied Combat idea is definitely a step in the right direction, and I would have been content to just get that. The Studied Strike ability just needs a little fine tuning to make it fit a little better.


So in the first round I created an Elven Investigator loosely modeled after a couple of big game hunters from the late 1800's who eventually became big-game hunters. I fought with a longbow, using my many skills & extracts to become an expert tracker and hunter. My big damage came from using Blend extracts to let me stealth and get in that one large ranged sneak attack. The specific game play mechanic I was using was spend turn A to set up an attack, use turn B to land a sizeable blow. Overall I was going for an educated gentleman who enjoyed the thrill of a hunt and had the guts to wait for that one perfect shot.

So obviously I have a problem with the Studied Combat & Studied Strike abilities =P. I do like the core concept of the mechanic though, taking a turn to set up a single significant attack on the next turn is a fun idea. It just seems more like a sniper's ability rather than something you'd be doing in the midst of melee combat.

So let's ignore that build for now, and give my gentleman a +1 Rapier instead. If I'm mixing it up in melee (and not adding Dex to damage) then I need to spread my stats among at least 4 attributes. As an Elf I can go with Str: 14, Dex: 16, Con: 12, Int: 17, Wis: 10 and Cha: 8 at first level. Not a bad stat spread if I go with finesse fighting. Let's fast forward to level 4 and bump up my Int, as Studied Combat would only give me a bonus on Attacks of Opportunity otherwise.

At level 4 I'm dealing 1d6+3 damage with a +7 attack bonus. Wearing a chain shirt, I have 17 AC. With how this class is built using Combat Expertise is actually a decent idea so let's assume I picked the feat up at level 3. I've also got 31 HP as I've put my favored class bonus into HP at each level.

Let's say I've managed to insult a centaur and he has demanded satisfaction. I am now engaged in a fight with a CR 3 enemy =).

Seven Rounds of Combat:

Round 1:
I manage to win initiative and immediately down a Blend Extract and use Stealth to quickly duck behind a card and hide. I know I need some time to prepare if I'm going to win this fight. With blend I have a +12 to Stealth, but I really need a couple of rounds to prepare so I spend a point of Inspiration to boost my roll. I'm pretty lucky, rolling a 17 on my stealth check and a 5 on the bonus roll for a total of 34. The centaur moves forward to where I just stood, knowing that the cart is the closest place I could be hiding, so I give him a +2 circumstance bonus on his Perception check. He'd still need a natural 20 to spot me though, and he only rolls a 14.

Round 2:
I quietly move 10 feet, putting the cart between myself and the centaur. I roll a 13 this time, but had decided to save my Inspiration, so lets hope I'm not spotted. I consider my options and decide to down another Extract, this time it's Bull'S Strength which boosts my damage by 2 and my attack by 1. If I can get one more turn of buffing I'll drink down a Sickening Strikes extract and then move in for the attack. The Centaur moves around the cart searching for me, almost spotting me with a roll of 23.

Round 3:
I continue the dance, moving a few feet and drinking my extract. This time however I roll terribly and the Centaur manages to spot me. It moves in for that attack and swings with a longsword, but with a total of 7 it doesn't exactly have a chance to hit me.

Round 4:
I take a gamble and decide to use Studied Combat. First though I make an acrobatics check to jump back 15 feet. I roll well and decide to save my Inspiration, and with a 25 I beat the Centaur's CMD. I now study him gaining a =2 bonus to hit for 2 rounds. The Centaur moves forward and attacks again, managing to land a sizeable blow with a total of 22 and dealing 8 damage.

Round 5:
That really hurt! I step forward and and attack with my Studied Strike. I have 18 Strength now, with a +1 Rapier I have a +11 attack bonus after using Combat Expertise to boost my AC to 19. I roll low, but still manage a total of 23 and hit the Centaur for 13 damage. He only manages a 15 on his Fort Save and is now sickened for 1 minute. He goes for a full attack, rolling a 7 with his sword a 12 with first hoof attack and a 17 with the second. At this point I have 23 HP and he has 17.

Round 6:
I can't make another Studied Strike against this creature, so I just make an attack but I spend two points of Inspiration to boost my attack roll as it'll at least offset Combat Expertise. I don't crit, but I do hit the Centaur for another 7 points of damage. He misses with the first two attacks but manages to smack me with a hoof on a natural 20 that fails to confirm. The Centaur is at 10 HP and I'm at 20.

Round 7:
This time I luck out, rolling a 19 and confirming the crit. Minimum damage is enough to knock out the centaur, so I've managed to win this combat! I down one of my prepared extracts of Cure Light Wounds and go about my business.

So, as level 4 Investigator I was able to solo a CR3 Centaur with minimal danger. I used an extract to go stealthy and hide for a few rounds of buffing. The centaur got in a couple of hits, but by using an Extract to debuff him I significantly reduced his odds of hitting me. I was fairly lucky with my attack rolls, rolling over 10 on each attack. This combat could have ended on the same round had I ignored Studied Strike and instead used Inspiration to boost my attack rolls twice.

Studied Strike could be more useful at higher levels, but as a once per target per 24 hours ability it really isn't all that good in combat. I think that at level 5 taking Quick Study would almost be mandatory. Since my base damage is so low, even after pumping it up with extracts, I really don't see a problem with providing a bonus of half my level for rounds equal to my Int bonus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Err, was that supposed to be an endorsement?

Because taking 3 turns to buff to take on a CR -1 enemy and only winning mostly uninjured because you crit and he kept rolling low is ehhhhhh.


Rynjin wrote:

Err, was that supposed to be an endorsement?

Because taking 3 turns to buff to take on a CR -1 enemy and only winning mostly uninjured because you crit and he kept rolling low is ehhhhhh.

I should add, alchemist with a chance to buff are pretty beastly. Don't always get the chance to do that though, and its a limited gig.

Also helps to name your extracts.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Why scale it down? The class was just getting too much. It's often utility. It's often restricted to theme, but we did have to scale it back a bit.

No it did not. certainly it was not more than the vivisectionist.


MrSin wrote:


Also helps to name your extracts.

He did, in the spoiler.

Blend, Bull's Strength, and Sickening Strikes. Note that the first is the only reason he could sneak for 3 rounds, and that's Elf only (also, again, why? Why in the 9 Hells do Elves get all this random s!%+ that is limited to them but has nothing to do with Elf physiology or anything so doesn't make sense to be Elf only? "Elves are the only race that can sneak magically." "Elves are the only race that can shank people with point objects." AAAAGH).

Nicos wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Why scale it down? The class was just getting too much. It's often utility. It's often restricted to theme, but we did have to scale it back a bit.

No it did not. certainly it was not more than the vivisectionist.

Sadly, they decided to go the route we all feared. They're balancing it towards the Rogue, and not the Alchemist (a class worth balancing around).

Not to be melodramatic, but the Rogue ruins everything once again here. Man I hate that class' very existence sometimes.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Why scale it down? The class was just getting too much. It's often utility. It's often restricted to theme, but we did have to scale it back a bit.

No it did not. certainly it was not more than the vivisectionist.

Comparisons to one of the most powerful classes in the game doesn't produce anything useful really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
But we have to go into that discussion with our eyes open to the fact that being a better skill monkey is a HUGE advantage that should be a balance factor, rather than hand-waving it as meaningless.

Why?

Noncombat challenges are almost exclusively designed such that one person solves the challenge for the whole party. If one person is a diplomancer the rest of the party doesn't have to be. If one person can find and disarm traps the rest of the party doesn't have to.

Combat challenges are group challenges. Everybody has to be able to fight.

The rogue is widely agreed to be broken (as in nonfunctional). If it's being used as the primary balance point the class isn't worth the paper it would be printed on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


Sadly, they decided to go the route we all feared. They're balancing it towards the Rogue, and not the Alchemist (a class worth balancing around).

Not to be melodramatic, but the Rogue ruins everything once again here. Man I hate that class' very existence sometimes.

Since I saw the first document I had the feeling this class woudl be nerfed to not make the rogue more obsolete than it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Why scale it down? The class was just getting too much. It's often utility. It's often restricted to theme, but we did have to scale it back a bit.

No it did not. certainly it was not more than the vivisectionist.
Comparisons to one of the most powerful classes in the game doesn't produce anything useful really.

Comparing it against one (probably THE) weaker class in the game does not help at all either.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
But we have to go into that discussion with our eyes open to the fact that being a better skill monkey is a HUGE advantage that should be a balance factor, rather than hand-waving it as meaningless.

Why?

Noncombat challenges are almost exclusively designed such that one person solves the challenge for the whole party. If one person is a diplomancer the rest of the party doesn't have to be. If one person can find and disarm traps the rest of the party doesn't have to.

Combat challenges are group challenges. Everybody has to be able to fight.

The rogue is widely agreed to be broken (as in nonfunctional). If it's being used as the primary balance point the class isn't worth the paper it would be printed on.

Yet many tables (both PFS and at home) feature rogues. There's more to the game than theorycrafter's opinions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


Sadly, they decided to go the route we all feared. They're balancing it towards the Rogue, and not the Alchemist (a class worth balancing around).

Not to be melodramatic, but the Rogue ruins everything once again here. Man I hate that class' very existence sometimes.

Since I saw the first document I had the feeling this class woudl be nerfed to not make the rogue more obsolete than it is.

wouldn't it be great if they could just buff rogues? then when classes were balanced against them no one would have to cringe.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Yet many tables (both PFS and at home) feature rogues. There's more to the game than theorycrafter's opinions.

this is because people like rogues thematically not because they are a decent mechanical choice. you should not have to sacrifice mechanics substantially because you like a character concept.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Why scale it down? The class was just getting too much. It's often utility. It's often restricted to theme, but we did have to scale it back a bit.

No it did not. certainly it was not more than the vivisectionist.
Comparisons to one of the most powerful classes in the game doesn't produce anything useful really.

Honestly it's not the vivisectionist portion that pushes it over the top but Beastmorph alchemist. For an alchemist the Sneak Attack is the icing on the cake rather than the main feature.

However in the investigators case he won't have beastmorph. Or sneak attack.

And I have to agree with Atarlost that utility only gets you so far.

When a regular everyday bard outclasses you in action economy and numbers you are at a severe disadvantage to your peers. And it's extremely hard to argue that the bard is not all about utility.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
But we have to go into that discussion with our eyes open to the fact that being a better skill monkey is a HUGE advantage that should be a balance factor, rather than hand-waving it as meaningless.

Why?

Noncombat challenges are almost exclusively designed such that one person solves the challenge for the whole party. If one person is a diplomancer the rest of the party doesn't have to be. If one person can find and disarm traps the rest of the party doesn't have to.

Combat challenges are group challenges. Everybody has to be able to fight.

The rogue is widely agreed to be broken (as in nonfunctional). If it's being used as the primary balance point the class isn't worth the paper it would be printed on.

Yet many tables (both PFS and at home) feature rogues. There's more to the game than theorycrafter's opinions.

You are right,there are alchemist, inquisitors, bards, rangers and ninjas, they all are inthe game.


cuatroespada wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


Sadly, they decided to go the route we all feared. They're balancing it towards the Rogue, and not the Alchemist (a class worth balancing around).

Not to be melodramatic, but the Rogue ruins everything once again here. Man I hate that class' very existence sometimes.

Since I saw the first document I had the feeling this class woudl be nerfed to not make the rogue more obsolete than it is.

wouldn't it be great if they could just buff rogues? then when classes were balanced against them no one would have to cringe.

it woud be great, but 4 year later for a core class? I do not think so.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Why scale it down? The class was just getting too much. It's often utility. It's often restricted to theme, but we did have to scale it back a bit.

No it did not. certainly it was not more than the vivisectionist.
Comparisons to one of the most powerful classes in the game doesn't produce anything useful really.

Actually the vivisectionist isn't one of the most powerful unless you give it time to buff. Even then it loses out to a number of other classes, particularly at lower levels. At lower levels it also comes with many of the same faults as the rogue, and its not until you start to freak out with natural attacks they really get crazy and that's actually not a go to build that comes to mind(I like my vivisectionist with scalpels.)

Alchemist is closer to ideal than the rogue I think was the point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Yet many tables (both PFS and at home) feature rogues. There's more to the game than theorycrafter's opinions.

"theorycrafter"

Because your opinion is always 100% correct and everyone who disagrees never plays the game, right?


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


Yet many tables (both PFS and at home) feature rogues. There's more to the game than theorycrafter's opinions.

A class's popularity is not a measure of it's mechanical parity. Some people play a class purely for the thematics. Other times it's purely for the challenge of making such a class work.

And sometimes people look at all those sweet sweet d6's and not realizing what they're getting into.

Yes, we're aware of the actual game being played.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In my view, the Investigator's schtick of skill and utility generalist liberates the rogue of that burden, allowing the rogue to be the rogue. I would still prefer a rogue, both for thematics and for mechanical edges, because it does what I like to do and the investigator would struggle in those same scenarios. That is not to say that the investigator isn't strong; even with the studied strike, it's still a viable class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Err, was that supposed to be an endorsement?

Because taking 3 turns to buff to take on a CR -1 enemy and only winning mostly uninjured because you crit and he kept rolling low is ehhhhhh.

Nope, not an endorsement at all. I had to go invisible and prebuff using an elf only extract to do so. With some pretty nice buffs it took 4 rounds to down a CR-1 critter with all the rolls going my way. With more normal rolls I probably would have taken more damage forcing the use of my second Blend extract so I could hide and heal.

I also found Studied Strike to be minimally useful at this level. It might as well last Int rounds per level with the current mechanics. Then again, I don't think damage is where the class should be toned down. Scale back the freebie Inspiration bonuses instead.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Yet many tables (both PFS and at home) feature rogues. There's more to the game than theorycrafter's opinions.

"theorycrafter"

Because your opinion is always 100% correct and everyone who disagrees never plays the game, right?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

My argument is that many, including the designers of the game don't see the rogue as unplayably bad. The Investigator is half rogue and shouldn't outshine the rogue in its schtick.

The Studied Strike ability does need work, but people looking for "the rogue replacement" aught to recalibrate expectations.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can't figure out what's going on with Empathy. Am I getting a free Inspiration die?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

All my friends and I talked about it and agreed, this class and slayer should just replace the rogue outright. This can replace the stealthy investigative aspects and the slayer can play as a non-evil murdering machine assassin-lite. Just let those two be stronger than the rogue and we can pretend it doesn't exist.

Sadly it seems like this will forcibly be balanced against the rogue, despite the fact that that's just a terrible standard (balancing anything to rogue).

SS seems useless for damage aside from one burst at the end of SC. The set-up time ruins the SS aspect though. That said the 24 hours isn't terrible for the SC attack bonus but why include "well...it's okay I guess" in favor or something that fits thematically, works well and is exciting to play? Idk what the solution is. I would be okay with a retooled sneak attack and/or a sneak attack where they get less or a constant SC/SS without the 24 hr limit and maybe a move or something to activate, but it gets a nerf. That would make it constantly useful and yet not broken.

Ah well, the class is still loaded with flavor and I can't wait to play the improved version and see the final version.


Well, at least the Investigator now has access to some means of investigating magic.


MrSin wrote:

Actually the vivisectionist isn't one of the most powerful unless you give it time to buff. Even then it loses out to a number of other classes, particularly at lower levels. At lower levels it also comes with many of the same faults as the rogue, and its not until you start to freak out with natural attacks they really get crazy and that's actually not a go to build that comes to mind(I like my vivisectionist with scalpels.)

Alchemist is closer to ideal than the rogue I think was the point.

I have always thought that Rogues, and especially Vivisectionists, worked best at low levels. The difference between 3/4 and full BAB is mostly surmountable and less complicated combat makes flanking easier.

Vivisectionist more so with access to Feral Mutagen. 3 full attack bonus attacks with sneak attack per turn is monstrous.

TarkXT wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


Yet many tables (both PFS and at home) feature rogues. There's more to the game than theorycrafter's opinions.

A class's popularity is not a measure of it's mechanical parity. Some people play a class purely for the thematics. Other times it's purely for the challenge of making such a class work.

And sometimes people look at all those sweet sweet d6's and not realizing what they're getting into.

Yes, we're aware of the actual game being played.

I LOVE rolling big handfuls of d6's. Love love love love love.

I still don't kid myself into thinking the Rogue will work out well.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Please don't put words into my mouth.

My argument is that many, including the designers of the game don't see the rogue as unplayably bad. The Investigator is half rogue and shouldn't outshine the rogue in its schtick.

The Studied Strike ability does need work, but people looking for "the rogue replacement" aught to recalibrate expectations.

So... Appeal to Authority and ironically your the only one who said rogue replacement on the thread.

There's also a problem in ignoring a classes mechanics and dismissing people's claims as 'theorycrafting' rather than giving actual logic to back yourself up. That tends to agitate. One of the more progressive things you can do is suggest improvements about the class rather than others, when you start talking with others they tend to respond.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't. I asked a question.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
My argument is that many, including the designers of the game don't see the rogue as unplayably bad. The Investigator is half rogue and shouldn't outshine the rogue in its schtick.

Unplayable? No. Not even commoners are unplayable... But the Rogues is mechanically awful and half the classes in the game already outshine it in its supposed niche anyway. Well, at least Rogues are okay-ish at very low levels.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The Studied Strike ability does need work, but people looking for "the rogue replacement" aught to recalibrate expectations.

Studied Strike does need rework. Investigators are more effective than Rogues because... Well... Everyone is. If the Rogue is being used as an excuse to drag down other classes, then the game is better off ignoring its existence.

Liberty's Edge

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
williamoak wrote:
I'm getting the impression that this is just a way to convince people that sneak attack was better.

No. Not at all. It was a shot at giving something different, within the same vein, but something that people wanted.

Personally, I would rather keep a version of studied strike. I think it is interesting.

I am leaning toward these three options right now.

1) Make it a move action to start, and keep it so you can only use it on the same target once every 24 hours. Increase the duration to Int modifier.

2) Keep it a standard, and remove the 24 hour prohibition. Increase the duration to Int modifier.

3) Go back to sneak attack with a 1/3 level increase (to a maximum of 6d6 at 18th).

Comments, questionnaire, and playtest feedback all told us that the sneak attack progression it had in the last iteration was too much. It was fairly universal. So there is where we are sitting right now.

I must say I prefer option 2. I would be perfectly happy waiting for quick study, as long as I can keep beating on the same enemy.

That being said, I implore you to give serious consideration to the idea of utilizing studied combat to apply debilitating conditions. I'm sure you can gather from this thread how much this concept excites the community, while staying true to my impression of the investigator's role, both mechanically and in flavor.

Lastly, I'd like to echo the question of why cognatogen is not an available alchemist discovery. Was this intentional, or merely an oversight?

Thanks in advance for considering my input.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MrSin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Please don't put words into my mouth.

My argument is that many, including the designers of the game don't see the rogue as unplayably bad. The Investigator is half rogue and shouldn't outshine the rogue in its schtick.

The Studied Strike ability does need work, but people looking for "the rogue replacement" aught to recalibrate expectations.

So... Appeal to Authority and ironically your the only one who said rogue replacement on the thread.

There's also a problem in ignoring a classes mechanics and dismissing people's claims as 'theorycrafting' rather than giving actual logic to back yourself up. That tends to agitate. One of the more progressive things you can do is suggest improvements about the class rather than others, when you start talking with others they tend to respond.

Again, my argument is that dismissing the idea that the Investigator must be compared to a rogue, not just the alchemist since:

A) It should not be strictly better than the parent class at everything the parent class does (as the previous version was)
B) the alchemist (and its various archetypes) is an incredibly powerful and versatile class. Another alchemist isn't what the investigator should aspire to be.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


A) It should not be strictly better than the parent class at everything the parent class does (as the previous version was)
B) the alchemist (and its various archetypes) is an incredibly powerful and versatile class. Another alchemist isn't what the investigator should aspire to be.

A) Some core classes are better at being a rogue than the rogue. See: Bard. Aspiring to be mechanically worse or on par with a rogue is not something we want to see.

Arguably even in this version the investigator is still better than the rogue at pretty much everything. Inspiration and extracts pretty much clinch it.

B) I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the investigator should not be versatile and powerful? Or that you don't want it to mirror the alchemists abilities?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The Alchemist is one of the best balanced classes in the game.

EVERY CLASS should be compared to ones like it and the Inquisitor as a benchmark.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
A) It should not be strictly better than the parent class at everything the parent class does (as the previous version was)

i think the parent class concept is hurting design potential.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cuatroespada wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
A) It should not be strictly better than the parent class at everything the parent class does (as the previous version was)
i think the parent class concept is hurting design potential.

Agreed, and I've said something similar. Several of the classes have grown out of that, but some are still being crushed under that weight. The Investigator, the Hunter and the Skald are still feeling restrained. Better, for sure, but still held back by their parents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:

I would love to see the Investigator be able to attempt to emulate certain cantrips with skills checks.

DC 20 Perception Check: Emulate Detect Magic
DC 20 Sense Motive Check: Detect Alignment
DC 20 Heal or Craft(Poison) Check: Detect Poison
DC 20 Perception Check (Smell Based): Detect Undead
DC 25 Heal Check: Blood Biography (Requires either a body or the scene of the crime)
DC 20 Linguistics Check: Read Magic
DC 25 Survival Check: Follow Aura
Knowledge Check to identify creature DC+20: Locate Weakness

Just a thought

also, i would still really like to see this implemented. i think it's thematically a much better option than the magic rogue talents.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TarkXT wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


A) It should not be strictly better than the parent class at everything the parent class does (as the previous version was)
B) the alchemist (and its various archetypes) is an incredibly powerful and versatile class. Another alchemist isn't what the investigator should aspire to be.

A) Some core classes are better at being a rogue than the rogue. See: Bard. Aspiring to be mechanically worse or on par with a rogue is not something we want to see.

Arguably even in this version the investigator is still better than the rogue at pretty much everything. Inspiration and extracts pretty much clinch it.

B) I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the investigator should not be versatile and powerful? Or that you don't want it to mirror the alchemists abilities?

I think the alchemist is too far on the high end of power and versatility, the investigator should aim for a notch or two below that.

In any case I'm in agreement studied strike needs work. 1/2 Int mod is ridiculous, and frankly at this point the Investigator does need more of a kick to be combat relevant especially at low-levels.


No playtest data possible here (not enough time or players right now), but here's a quick idea for studied combat and strike that I have:

Studied Combat (Ex): With a keen eye and a calculating mind, an investigator can measure the mettle and combat skill of his opponent, and take advantage of any gaps in talent or training. At 4th level, an investigator can take a move action to study a single enemy that he can see.

Upon doing so, he adds his half his investigator level as an insight bonus to melee attack rolls against the creature for a number of rounds equal to half his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1 round).

An investigator can only have one target of studied combat at a time, and once a creature has become the target of an investigator’s studied combat, he cannot become the target of the same investigator’s studied combat for 1 minute after the end of the studied combat.

Studied Strikes (Ex): At 4th level, an investigator can choose to make studied strikes against the target of his studied combat as a free action upon successfully hitting with a melee attack to deal additional damage or other effects, each option can only be applied once per studied combat and one strike per round.

Powerful strike: Add 1d6 damage at 4th level and increases by 1d6 for every two investigator levels thereafter (to a maximum of 9d6 at 20th level). The damage of studied strike is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit; creatures that are immune to sneak attack are also immune to studied strike.

If the investigator’s attack used a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), he may choose to have the additional damage from powerful strike be nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. If the investigator chose to make an attack with a lethal weapon instead do nonlethal damage (with the usual –4 penalty), the studied strike damage may also deal nonlethal damage.

Weakening Strike: The target takes a -1 penalty to attack and damage rolls. The penalty increases by 1 at 8th level and every 4 levels thereafter (to a maximum of -5 at 20th level). A fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 investigator level + Intelligence modifier) negates this effect.

Gasping strike: A sudden attack to the windpipe gives the target a 50% spell failure chance for spells with a verbal component for a number of rounds equal to half your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1). The target also cannot raise vocal alarms. The target creature must have a vocal system similar to humanoids for this to be effective. A fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 investigator level + Intelligence modifier) negates this effect.

Deafening strike: A strike to the auditory organs imposes the deafened condition on the target for a number of rounds equal to your Intelligence modifier. The target must have an auditory system that depends on external sense organs for this to be effective. A fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 investigator level + Intelligence modifier) negates this effect.

The investigator must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. An investigator cannot use studied strike against a creature with concealment.

I know it's rough, but this is more what I would like to see. There should be more strike options with maybe a limit on how many strikes you can know, but yeah. It would be like a flurry of debilitating attacks (without massive damage) that can be tailored to the opponent (makes sense to me for an intelligence based fighter). Also, the 1 minute recharge time lets it be used against opponents that run away and come back, but not multiple times per combat (usually).

Very rough, but what do you guys think?

Note: Edited for formatting.


the half INT modifier duration is still an issue... the move action reduction helps, but i'd rather have it last longer even if i have to use a standard for it. also, i see no good reason to limit the investigator to one target for this for his entire career. it already almost feels like we're forced to take the quick study talent with the current standard action version, but even as a move action i feel like i need it if i can't eventually study even two things at once. the slayer gets additional targets...

i posted this above, but since i put it in a spoiler i'm sure it got overlooked. it occurs to me that i often skip opening spoilers, but will read huge blocks of text if i don't have to open them first.

Studied Combat (Ex): With a keen eye and a calculating
mind, an investigator can measure the mettle and combat
skill of his opponent, and take advantage of any gaps in
talent or training. At 1st level, an investigator can take
a standard action to study a single enemy that he can see.
Upon doing so, he adds half his investigator level as an
insight bonus to melee attack rolls and armor class
against the creature for a number of rounds equal to his
Intelligence modifier (minimum 1 round).

An investigator can only have one target of studied
combat at a time. At 5th level and every 5 levels
thereafter, the investigator can study one additional
target at a time.

(Make the AC talent add damage instead--either in exchange for the hit or AC bonus or not; I really don't care)

Studied Strike (Ex): Any time the investigator attacks the
target of his studied combat, he may apply a debilitating
effect to the target. The target may make an appropriate
save (10 + 1/2 Investigator level + INT mod) to resist the
effect.

(Insert list of debuffs and level at which they can be applied or list from which each Investigator may choose the debuffs in which he'll specialize and levels at which he may choose new ones.)

The investigator must be able to see the target well
enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach
such a spot. An investigator cannot use studied strike
against a creature with concealment.


Okay, Studied Combat and Studied Strike aren't nerfs, they're two sledgehammers to the kneecaps! The investigator ability to participate in combat (let alone contribute) has been completely crippled. Yes, Studied Strike and Studied Combat are more thematic then Sneak Attack, but at least Sneak Attack doesn't just stop working after one decent hit.

For comparison at 20th:

Studied Combat: +10 to attack for at most (assuming 36 INT from 18 starting, 2 racial, 6 enhancement, 5 inherent, and 5 from level up) six rounds. Requires a standard action to set up (move with talent, swift with talent and inspiration point). Only useable once per enemy per day. Only one enemy at a time.

Studied Strike: One attack at +9d6. Requires and immediately ends Studied Combat.

Versus Sneak Attack: +6d6 per attack (at most 6 attacks with dual wield) whenever flanking or enemy is denied DEX to AC.

I know that the investigator has tons of utility. But so do the alchemist and rouge; and at least both of them can do something to help the party when the bad guys decide that diplomacy/bluff/intimidate/etc. isn't going to stop them from attacking.

Liberty's Edge

Proton891 wrote:

Okay, Studied Combat and Studied Strike aren't nerfs, they're two sledgehammers to the kneecaps! The investigator ability to participate in combat (let alone contribute) has been completely crippled. Yes, Studied Strike and Studied Combat are more thematic then Sneak Attack, but at least Sneak Attack doesn't just stop working after one decent hit.

For comparison at 20th:

Studied Combat: +10 to attack for at most (assuming 36 INT from 18 starting, 2 racial, 6 enhancement, 5 inherent, and 5 from level up) six rounds. Requires a standard action to set up (move with talent, swift with talent and inspiration point). Only useable once per enemy per day. Only one enemy at a time.

Studied Strike: One attack at +9d6. Requires and immediately ends Studied Combat.

Versus Sneak Attack: +6d6 per attack (at most 6 attacks with dual wield) whenever flanking or enemy is denied DEX to AC.

I know that the investigator has tons of utility. But so do the alchemist and rouge; and at least both of them can do something to help the party when the bad guys decide that diplomacy/bluff/intimidate/etc. isn't going to stop them from attacking.

Everyone has agreed the Investigator needs a combat buff. Most do not want sneak attack. Some want more damage potential from Studied Combat/Strike (not bigger damage, but more damage overall), and some (including myself) want more debuff focus than damage focus.

I would suggest changing Studied Combat to be more like favored target and then allow the Investigator to spend points to add debuffs to a studied opponent (spend points instead of ending studied combat). This trades the sneak attack (and some other dmg abilities since I would expect more debuffs as the Investigator levels) which more thematically fit the slayer/rogue for debuffing the current target by taking advantage of weaknesses others overlook.

201 to 250 of 830 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / Revised Investigator Discussion All Messageboards