graystone's page

graystone wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

But the Research Field is based on feeding allies with Elixirs (of Life, mostly).

I'll agree to disagree. I never saw feeding as an intended requirement.

Feeding Elixirs to allies during combat is definitely a base of the Chirurgeon. To avoid it you'll have to forget about some class abilities, at least the Greater Field Discovery. And also all the Elixir of Life-based feats, like Merciful Elixir or Combine Elixirs.

Now, you play your character the way you want. On that I agree.

Nothing prevent you making an elixir and someone else drinking it [ie, the target spends the action to drink it]. Or tossing it as a bomb. 1/2 of merciful works by passing off one [only paralysis requires feeding]. This is especially true with Enduring Alchemy. Does it work great? No, but a lot of the class didn't work that great a the beginning.

But the Research Field is based on feeding allies with Elixirs (of Life, mostly).

I'll agree to disagree. I never saw feeding as an intended requirement.

Obviously. But DMs rarely create monsters, so the only case where AoOs will be a problem is if the enemies try to shut you down with them by moving next to you. Normally, you should rarely put yourself in harm's way.

I was more thinking about positioning and terrain/room design: sometimes there isn't enough room or space to get out of reach and some games/DM's tend to have this more often.

In my opinion, without this rule, you just can't play a Chirurgeon. The whole Research Field is based on feeding allies with Elixirs.

I never really saw it that way, as it's fairly untenable without some hoop jumping: needing 3 feats and 4th level to really start seems bad to me. At the same feats and 4th level I can toss healing bombs from a distance and battle medicine up close [and use doctor's visitation].

You have the Spiderthing Collar to get it for free at the beginning of an encounter. And at level 11, it lasts 1 hour.

1/2 an hour with the collar [cuts the duration in 1/2].

Notable that the temp hp lack the healing trait, so herbalist doesn't have access to them.

He does get the fast healing one though.

Oh. Must have misremembered that one then. Still a plus for fast healing.

The Familiar is a no brainer as, unless you go Bomber, it's the only interesting first level feat.

And then, before level 10, there's no interesting feat to take. So the Mount can be raised quite well. Also, ACs are interesting at low level for the Alchemist as it gives you an at-will ability that deals quite some damage.

I tend to archetype in a different way, like a caster: Psychic can give you access to a nice cantrip you can boost with focus for an a will and some burst damage: the fact that you can poach the feat that allows innate cantrips to work off of int is just frosting on the cake IMO.

You unfortunately can't take the Numbing Tonic as a Perpetual Infusion. And the Soothing one is not really strong, especially as a Perpetual Infusion. And it's only available at level 11+.

Yeah, got that one wrong, which is unfortunate.

The Numbing Tonic is quite awesome and in my opinion is worth giving during combat.

I'm iffy on the combat force drinking so I'd most likely pass them out and people could drink them before moving into combat when possible. I'd lean into battle medicine for in combat healing myself.

10' isn't bad but huge creatures can reach 15' so if you go in to heal someone in melee [without a reach weapon] you can get an attack.

In my opinion, you should not be bothered by AoOs before very high level.

Really depends on the DM and the module/game you're playing.

Just make a baba yaga witch and make the grimoire your familiar. :)

the other way to capitalize on it, and usable way before choking was having amount. You could interact from away, so no aoo to grab them, and then move for free with the mount and apply them.

That's spending feats on the familiar then spending enough to get a mount that has it's own action and can stay alive... Doable, but it's sucking up the feats.

it's generally only useful if you go full on healer though, which in reality, as a chirurgeon, before all those updates, it was kinda necessary to do to keep up.

Well, I never tried to be the main healer as a chirurgeon but more of a item dispenser that passed out elixirs after making them at preparation then toss spells, bombs and/or Aiding. It wasn't very fun, but I don't think juggling the mount/familiar would be either. With the new changes and items, I'll have to give it another look.

With the Tonics, you have more freedom on what you can deliver.

I saw them as more a way to pass out pre-buffs before the fight than in combat items: this is especially true if you they are Perpetual Infusions.

It's definitely the idea.

Even at low level, 10ft. reach is quite interesting, though. It puts you away from danger (as you need to reach your allies, so you are 15-20ft. away from enemies) and it should be easy to have multiple allies under your reach.

15'-20' is 11th and 17th, which is a bit high for me to plan a strategy around. 10' isn't bad but huge creatures can reach 15' so if you go in to heal someone in melee [without a reach weapon] you can get an attack. I've felt the pain with Battle Medicine... Hmmm. Now I'm wondering if I can fit an multiclass alchemist into the character for some free mutagens.

PS: I also noticed that the tonic give the herbalist archetype a boost: who says no to poultices that give fast heal/temp hp and get a roll to stop persistent damage?

graystone wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

First, as you have a Familiar with Valet, you can take Extra Reagents for one more reagent.

I've haven't found Valet [1 action] overly useful as you need to use both interact actions [to draw into your hand] from the familiar to get an action benefit: with Quick Bomber for bombs, I don't find I need to draw and use 2 non-bomb items most rounds.

it's good at high levels when a single elixir of life is not enough healing.

it allows you to draw 2 of them with 1 action and then spend 2 actions using them on the target.

Oh, I understand that there might be times when it could come in handy, I'm just says I haven't found myself in such situation often enough to make it worth while IMO: it requires a target needing enough hp heal to need 2 elixirs AND requires me to start next to that person to feed them AND needing to put my familiar in danger to do so [it's Interacting and since you have to be next to the target, it can be in reach of reaction triggered by Manipulate]...

Now if you go full on healer and start every fight with a choker-arm mutagen high enough to give you enough reach to multiple people and/or keep your familiar out of danger, I could see it become a solid option but that's a higher level combo IMO.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

But have been so overdone you reach the point of drow burnout.

I blame Drizzt.

One can stomach only so many dual wielding drows...

Back in and through the whole adnd 2nd edition it was almost customary that each of our playing groups had at least one of those in...

It started before Drizzt: in ad&d, drow where the only ones that could dual wield without penalty. I can remember quite a few spiked buckler and sword ones.

First, as you have a Familiar with Valet, you can take Extra Reagents for one more reagent.

I've haven't found Valet [1 action] overly useful as you need to use both interact actions [to draw into your hand] from the familiar to get an action benefit: with Quick Bomber for bombs, I don't find I need to draw and use 2 non-bomb items most rounds.

I think you are missing the point:

PC starting attributes actually have nothing at all to do with wether halflings generally are less strong than orcs or elves tend to be less hardy than dwarves. The bioessentialism question is whether in inherently has to be more difficult for halflings to be strong and good as mauler fighters for example. This whole conversation about attribute variance and ancestral tendencies is irrelevant to how players should feel free to make their character.

I don't understand your "milking" comment if it's no about attributes then: "it is a way to milk more power out of your attribute array". It why I replied, as you brought up attributes, no me.

I am not arguing against the new 2 free attribute variant rule, so I don’t understand the second argument at all. I am in favor of players not having to take optional flaws to “overcome” starting attribute penalties. As soon as that becomes an option than 3 boost ancestries appear to be better than other ancestries, just because of attribute stat array. I don’t think that is good for the game, which is why I don’t think we’ll see more of it going forward. Will existing ancestries get Errata’d out of it? I doubt it, but only because it is already done and would be a massive thing to change. Not because that change wouldn’t better represent what ancestries for PCs are supposed to represent about the character. Attributes should just not be the most important decision point in selecting an ancestry

That's not really true though: 3 boost ancestries would only be better IF both set boosts happen to fall into stats you care about and the flaw is in something you don't care about. That means a gnoll +str, +int, free, -wis isn't a boon for a sorcerer. Or take an elf: even if you want +dex and +int, no one wants -con. I think far more combos don't align than do, meaning it's not automatically more attractive.

Play by post is the way to go: I used to play that way when I still had dial-up so you'll be fine with a hot spot. The link Dancing Wind posted is a good place to start.

the idea goblin are somehow rare and out number 50 to 1 by human is absurd

When did anyone make an argument that goblins are rare? Now rare as a PC? Sure, that was made: it was a bit a whiplash to have them go from PF1's baby eating pyromaniacs to seeing them walking down he street peacefully in most town and expecting to see one adventuring with you.

As long as that's out of illusion / transmutation?

I too don't understand: you aren't under any spell or effect anymore. You ARE what you are so True seeing sees YOU: it doesn't matter HOW you got to be you, but you are what you are. So:

So, too, with the vocal minority who thought it was unreasonable to allow goblins to be a playable ancestry

This isn't true: it was a debate on them being a COMMON ancestry. Note that PF1 had options for making goblin PC's and no one said a word as they weren't presented as something you'd see as often as a human or gnome. It's understandable when PF1 material made the whole race out to be insane [pyromaniacs] vermin with recipes on how to cook human children and gnomes that all the major races attempted to commit genocide to get rid of [yes, all of that is in the PF1 material]...

PCs are exceptional. Nothing about how a player’s character gets built is representative of how members of X ancestry commonly exist on Golarion.

Sure, but nothing about the PC mechanics has to translate into NPC's as they don't have to follow the PC rules. The DM, or whoever made the material you're using, can put whatever stat they feel fits down without ever looking at the stat array players use.

As soon as you allow for that possibility with an alternative flexible stat array, 3 boosts and a flaw does not represent an alternate balanced stat distribution, it is a way to milk more power out of your attribute array, if you can match a flaw up to a stat you don’t plan on using.

OR, you can look at it as the alternate stat array is a way to milk the system to avoid getting a flaw in a stat you want and avoiding a boost in a stat you'll never use. So you can frame it to look bad if you wish, but I don't see the point: for instances, is an elf 'milking he system' by taking the alternate stats to get a boost in Str and Con when taking a fighter instead of +str, +Int, +free, -con?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Are these books only available buying the complete set, or will I be able to buy specific ones I want when they release?

I know we at least don't currently have any plans to sell them separately. For one thing, the Foundry module is all one module that auto-updates as each ancestry is added, so there would be complications with splitting things up.

Unfortunate, but makes sense. Dropping a hundred bucks on this is a bit steep for my circumstances but the pdf pledge getting down to fifty looks pretty guaranteed so I'll grab that to sate my mimic-related curiosity.

For me, the $50 right now is a bit much... I wish I had enough to make the pledge. Looks like it's up to 187 already, so it looks good for all of you that pledged.

graystone wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The reasoning behind the change was stated that the need for certain stats pushed people into some ancestries and away from others for a given class. The change was explicitly to make it easier to make Gnome Barbarians, Goblin Druids, Dwarf Bards, Poppet Gunslingers, Iruxi Alchemists, etc.

It's more fun to be able to put together any ancestry/class combination that catches your fancy and to simply make a viable character than to make that process more involved for some combinations than others.

The old voluntary flaw system already did this though, as you could turn a flaw into a boost [adding free and flaw boost to it] or add boosts to stats without one. So, if anything the new way makes things easier, as it has less steps, but I don't think it's a huge boon to making ancestries and classes match better. I know when I first saw the Sacred Nagaji, I though 'cool, but I don't need/want Str so I'll use voluntary flaws and turn it into a -Str, +Dex, +free ancestry' not 'oh, it's got Str so I'll pick something else.

Yes, but now you don't even need to take the STR flaw. The rule change is most useful for ancestries that started with a flaw that the player didn't want in their build.

That was never my point though: my point was that the old system didn't prevent me from playing the character I wanted that didn't need Str even though the race starts with a Str boost. As such, the new system, at least for me, isn't doing what was advertised: making it easier to play certain race/class combos. Again, the only boon, IMO, is it has less steps and therefor easier to use but both get you to the same place.

Ravingdork wrote:

I actually like the new rule (save for the loss of Voluntary Flaws). It's the illogical reasoning behind it that I can't stand.

The reasoning behind the change was stated that the need for certain stats pushed people into some ancestries and away from others for a given class. The change was explicitly to make it easier to make Gnome Barbarians, Goblin Druids, Dwarf Bards, Poppet Gunslingers, Iruxi Alchemists, etc.

It's more fun to be able to put together any ancestry/class combination that catches your fancy and to simply make a viable character than to make that process more involved for some combinations than others.

The old voluntary flaw system already did this though, as you could turn a flaw into a boost [adding free and flaw boost to it] or add boosts to stats without one. So, if anything the new way makes things easier, as it has less steps, but I don't think it's a huge boon to making ancestries and classes match better. I know when I first saw the Sacred Nagaji, I though 'cool, but I don't need/want Str so I'll use voluntary flaws and turn it into a -Str, +Dex, +free ancestry' not 'oh, it's got Str so I'll pick something else.

graystone wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

graystone wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Humans still have Natural Ambition, one of the best Ancestry Feats in the whole game.

Good thing that there isn't any way to get access to another ancestries feats...

I mean, if you spent either a general or an ancestry feat just to get access to human ancestry feats, at some point you've paid your dues right? And it still takes you until level 5 or so at the minimum before you can actually get human feats.

You can play an Anadi and NOT spend a general or ancestry feat for it at 1st. Skeleton can spend a feat for it at 1st and pick up Natural Ambition at 3rd with Ancestral Paragon for Natural Ambition. You can pick up Adopted in the background phase with Deep Backgrounds. That's off the top of my head, so NO, spending a feat and waiting to 5th isn't required.

See, this is why I hedged with "level 5 or so". My point doesn't change: you pay more for it and you get it later.

You have 2 ways to get it at 1st [Adopted AND Natural Ambition], so I don't get the later part. As to cost, well everything in the game costs you some opportunity cost.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Sorry to derail, but my own errata wish:

Just get rid of anathemas.

Kkkkkk

Way better just get rid of alignment and redone de alignment dmg
The anathemas was never a real problem in mostly cases.

We could always get rid of both. ;)

aobst128 wrote:

They still serve to fill out certain builds that need early prerequisites such as bastion builds. Humans still have the unique opportunity to grab 2 general feats at first level. Which adds a lot of extra potential to archetype flexibility at low levels.

However, that is somewhat mitigated by the extreme popularity of Free Archetypes.

He means you can double up on general feats to get medium armor or martial weapons at 1st so you can get an archetype at first: for instance, a wizard could get to medium armor to take Sentinel Dedication to wear plate or getting marital weapons to take Weapon Improviser at 2nd. Or a ranger could take weapon proficiency to get trained in Sawtooth Saber so they could go into red mantis assassin at 2nd. It's a niche I guess.

They still serve to fill out certain builds that need early prerequisites such as bastion builds. Humans still have the unique opportunity to grab 2 general feats at first level. Which adds a lot of extra potential to archetype flexibility at low levels.

Yep, Versatile Heritage is about all that's left: if you need 2 general feats at 1st, it's only human.

graystone wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Humans still have Natural Ambition, one of the best Ancestry Feats in the whole game.

Good thing that there isn't any way to get access to another ancestries feats...

Getting an extra level 1 class feat by spending a general feat and a level 5 class feat is not necessarily as appealing.

Who mentioned all that? It's not required.

graystone wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Humans still have Natural Ambition, one of the best Ancestry Feats in the whole game.

Good thing that there isn't any way to get access to another ancestries feats...

I mean, if you spent either a general or an ancestry feat just to get access to human ancestry feats, at some point you've paid your dues right? And it still takes you until level 5 or so at the minimum before you can actually get human feats.

You can play an Anadi and NOT spend a general or ancestry feat for it at 1st. Skeleton can spend a feat for it at 1st and pick up Natural Ambition at 3rd with Ancestral Paragon for Natural Ambition. You can pick up Adopted in the background phase with Deep Backgrounds. That's off the top of my head, so NO, spending a feat and waiting to 5th isn't required.

Humans still have Natural Ambition, one of the best Ancestry Feats in the whole game.

Good thing that there isn't any way to get access to another ancestries feats...

Sigh... I had wanted to let this pass...

Quote the line where it says you don't need an arrow in your hand to shoot the Ballista.

"Reloading it takes 1 minute and can't be done while worn. As normal, you can't wear a backpack ballista with another backpack." As such, there is no way to nock an arrow. At best, you can claim you are forced to have an empty hand for no particular reason because of the plus as it never says what you'd need that extra hand for that actually still applies.

If the Ballista was a one-handed weapon, they would have used the "1" number of hands. If they put the "1+" number of hands I think we can see the intent. And the intent is the same than the bow: You can't shoot it with only one hand.

I disagree, as 1+ makes no sense, IMO, with this weapon and can't be the same as the bow [you aren't reloading it and Striking in the same action with a reload 0 weapon]. There isn't a nexus between 1+ and what you actually need the extra hand for and the only explanation is under 1+ and that can't apply.

Now, you can say that because there's one sentence not working with the Ballista you can come up with whatever rule you want, but I don't expect any GM to follow you in this rabbit hole.

Actually, none of the sentences actually work without that sentence [it's about the strike]. That's kind of my point. Without it, you just have a free hand needed but you never use for anything [it's not to deal with the ammo and not for striking].

As to DMs, I actually HAVE talked it over with a few and so far haven't had an issue treating it as a 1 handed weapon. The logistics of a backpack crossbow just don't make sense when you think about it IMO. It's the reason I suggested firing the backpack ballista while holding a bow in the other hand because that's what that character did.

graystone wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

My interpretation is that it is clumsily worded and that it only prevents the types of magic that it specifically lists out. It doesn't even look like it prevents you from casting healing spells - just from benefiting from them.

Agreed: I read "you can't use magic" to mean 'you can't use magic to heal yourself'.

what about if you're a skeleton would it protect you from the heal spell?

Undead, Core Rulebook pg. 637

As Sibelius Eos Owm said, they don't have to worry as they already aren't affected by healing magic.

graystone wrote:

NO, it doesn't as it SPECIFICALLY mentions the reason for the extra hand is loading: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow."

Uh... you actually quoted right there that it SPECIFICALLY says that you need it for shooting. Aside from "the process of shooting" which is also right there, you know that "loosing" an arrow is shooting it, right?

You VERY CONVENIENTLY didn't quote the whole thing: "the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow". I'm quite aware of what loose means in this context. Do YOU know what retrieve and nocking an arrow means? It doesn't say shooting the weapon takes 2 hands, but that shooting AND retrieving AND nocking an arrow does. 2 of those don't happen with the weapon in question. Again, if 1+ is meant for other weapons, this text need fixed, FAQ'd or errata'd as it's clearly incorrect and misleading if it's meant for other weapons.

Str 12 Dex 18 Con 19 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 16.

I assume you meant con 10, not con 19 right?

The last sentence IS more relevant because obviously, it is not a bow.

IMO, that's why something is clearly wrong, not a clear reason to ignore it.

It is a clear statement of the function of the rule and not an explanation of it so it can be applied to non bow weapons.

It's not clear that it can ever apply to non-bow weapons, which is why I question it: if it's not about reloading the weapon, why not make it a 2 handed weapon then? I don't see the benefit/use of trying to shoehorn it into the bow's 1+. Maybe I'm missing something.

It's natural language as the last thing that is important in the text.

Natural language, IMO, would mean that the last sentence is informed by the sentences that came before it and form the context for things: natural language leads be to the conclusion that it can't possibly work as presented as the reasons for it being 1+ never happen. Natural language would never lead me to ignore everything but the last sentence of a paragraph.

On the topic of what it would look like, I assume it's like an over the shoulder bazooka.

The issue with that, is that it's a ballista, which means it has bow arms that extend from the body of it: if it's held like a bazooka, the arm is in your face. If you raise it higher, your arm is in your face. If it was more a slingshot or spring driven, it could work like a bazooka but then it's not a ballista anymore.

PS: we're getting a bit far afield from the investigator talk, so I can just say I disagree and we can debate this if/when a better thread for it comes up.

It's not worth the insult to the electrons it would take to argue with you on this one. Sorry.

*shrug* No ones asking you to: I was just saying, as presented, 1+ doesn't make sense on it as you have to ignore rules to make it work [however you want to rule it].

My interpretation is that it is clumsily worded and that it only prevents the types of magic that it specifically lists out. It doesn't even look like it prevents you from casting healing spells - just from benefiting from them.

Agreed: I read "you can't use magic" to mean 'you can't use magic to heal yourself'.

Hands

Hands wrote:

You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.

Sure, because "it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow":... so, when do you retrieve and nock a backpack ballista again? "Reloading it takes 1 minute and can't be done while worn. As normal, you can't wear a backpack ballista with another backpack." You can't pick and choice which parts of 1+ you use as 1+ "REQUIRES" that ammo is retrieved, it be nocked and you loose an arrow from it... If you do, you can't claim your read [that ignores part of the rules] is better than my read [that ignores part of the rules]. Myself, the context of the part you ignore makes ignoring the 2 hands needed make more sense to me. Secondly, I can't even picture HOW you use it 2 handed as it's over 1 shoulder, meaning one arm would have to be over your face...

I can point out the last relevant sentence in the rules on hands:

"To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free."

The previous text is irrelevant to the practical function of the rule. It's just like that because when it was written, there weren't anything but bows
with 1+ so it was for simple reference.

Since when can you ignore part of the rules to get to the part you like? You have to ignore part of the text to work, and I don't see how you can claim one cut is better than another.

1+ means you need 1 hand to hold it and a free hand in order to wield it. Loading doesn't have anything to do with it. So it's not more convenient in the way you think. Now, a pistol would work similarly since it is one handed and it does comparable damage to the backpack on a crit. That's probably the way to do it.

NO, it doesn't as it SPECIFICALLY mentions the reason for the extra hand is loading: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow." This just never happen with the backpack, hence the sentences that follow, that assume that this is happening, don't apply. Nothing in the description* of the backpack suggests it either. At best, you can claim you need the extra hand while reloading, but that isn't a combat activity.

Now, if they errata 1+ to read that it means something other than "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow", then I'll concede the argument.

*Backpack Ballista: "This complex wooden device, worn on the back, contains a miniature ballista on a retractable arm. As an Interact action, you can pull a lever to deploy or retract the ballista. As long as it remains deployed, you must hold the ballista using that hand or some of the components spill out onto the ground, just like dropping any other weapon. While deployed, the device opens and raises the ballista up over your shoulder. While retracted, the ballista and its mount slide down and are concealed within the device. Although a backpack ballista packs a punch, the device is a challenge to operate. Reloading it takes 1 minute and can't be done while worn. As normal, you can't wear a backpack ballista with another backpack."

Please point out where you "retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow" in that description". With the current 1+ description, he backpack should be hands 2 if it requires 2 to shoot.

Fleet and the Elven/Sylph ancestry feats are the only untyped speed buffs. Everything else (spells, class features, items) is either a Status Bonus or an Item Bonus.

Tiefling Nimble Hooves too.

Ballista is 1+ like bows are. You'd save actions if it was in your hand from the start and you're using a returning thrown weapon as your main I guess. I'd rather just grab quickdraw and blast with a...

The + is meaningless as you can't reload it when worn: as such, it's effectively a 1 handed weapon. The + is only when you take it off to reload it and take out a min to do so. So you only really need the action to deploy it and if you're willing to spend one to draw the jezail [or go out of your way to get quick draw], you can do the same with the backpack. I don't see the jezail as anything but a worse option unless you expect multiple crits but even them each additional crit is STILL extra actions with the jezail [or you're dropping weapons] or you're not getting fatal.

graystone wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Firearms are really bad for investigators though. There is no real class support for them. You very rarely crit on anything but a natural 20, so you are fishing for a very long time for your big hits. The gun slinger I played before the investigator easily crit 3 to 4 times as often.

Feats to support firearm use as an investigator would be awesome. Combine reload and devise a stratagem? Or have a ricochet ability that let you keep the damage bonus on a redirected shot taken when you shoot even with a bad roll? One or two feats in that vein could make it work. As is, it sounds cool in theory, but is very painful in practice. Aiding is probably your best bet, but my GM required actually firing the weapon to aid an attack roll so it meant ending the round with a loaded gun.

About the only firearms/crossbows that work well are the repeaters if you can get access to them: otherwise, it's compete with the bows' reload 0 [and deadly doesn't hurt]. The only other thing that might be interesting is a Backpack Ballista for those times when you roll a 20: Might as well load it with alchemic ammo while your at it too.

Having a backup jezail will do you better than the backpack ballista for that purpose. Not bad for a regular opening hit though.

jezail requires 2 hands to get the fatal dice, which means stowing your normal weapon, drawing the jezail, firing it, stowing it [or dropping it] and then drawing your normal weapon. The backpack just requires you use your off hand [if you have a bow] to deploy it, fire it then retract it [or 'drop' it] all while holding your bow in the other hand. You're saving 2 action over a Fatal Aim d12 or you're even but using lower dice for damage and lower range [if that matters].

Firearms are really bad for investigators though. There is no real class support for them. You very rarely crit on anything but a natural 20, so you are fishing for a very long time for your big hits. The gun slinger I played before the investigator easily crit 3 to 4 times as often.

Feats to support firearm use as an investigator would be awesome. Combine reload and devise a stratagem? Or have a ricochet ability that let you keep the damage bonus on a redirected shot taken when you shoot even with a bad roll? One or two feats in that vein could make it work. As is, it sounds cool in theory, but is very painful in practice. Aiding is probably your best bet, but my GM required actually firing the weapon to aid an attack roll so it meant ending the round with a loaded gun.

About the only firearms/crossbows that work well are the repeaters if you can get access to them: otherwise, it's compete with the bows' reload 0 [and deadly doesn't hurt]. The only other thing that might be interesting is a Backpack Ballista for those times when you roll a 20: Might as well load it with alchemic ammo while your at it too.

I feel like that kashrishi horn is meant to loose the finesse trait like the d8 jaw option does on the razortooth goblin. It's very out of the ordinary for an unarmed attack.

I assume it traded finesse for persistent bleed on crit while the horn in Brawling [fort or slowed]: also, there's a feat to boost the horn even more by adding two of the following weapon traits: disarm, grapple, shove, and trip. So a 5th, it could be a 1d8 finesse, grapple and trip weapon.

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Devise a strategem is about 80% of a True Strike or so (if Pursue a Lead is active, it's on par or better due to being a free action), with the caveat that you have to have a plan for low rolls.

Part of the problem is that (ironcially, considering the class themes) the Investigator isn't really well equipped to have a strong backup plan.

Like target switching is good, but target switching as a traditional investigator does a number on your damage by reducing your to-hit and depriving you of strategic strike, and might not be an option in certain fights. Cantrips work, but cantrips aren't exactly a power move even for full casters and you're going to be behind on proficiency a lot of the game. Athletics is okay, but can be swingy with a traditional investigator build.

None of these are really power plays. Casting Electric Arc or Telekinetic Projectile on a big solo boss is kind of lame, and you might potentially be doing it half the time. And it's not like the Investigator is kicking ass when their gimmick does work either.

Strength Investigator with a polearm gets around some of these issues by doing more consistent damage even while target switching and having better athletics and second attacks, but that's also a build that intentionally ignores some core aspects of the class so I'm not sure how great that is in terms of class design.

Against a boss, the best thing to do is something like an amped Message [have a barbarian Strike for you], Aid someone, ect if you roll low for Devise a stratagem.

Neat guide! One ancestry that I think is also worth a look is the orc, specifically because their Iron Fists ancestry feat lets you add the shove trait to your fist attack, which I will note is already agile. It’s especially nice if you’re going the monk route and plan to get Handwraps of Mighty Blows already.

If you take Iron Fists, you might as well take Bloody Blows too.

Fair, but also not a martial weapon.

That WAS my point: I can get a 1b8 finesse unarmed attack but I can manage a 1d4 or 1d6 martial weapon? Lame.

I generally play Forensic Medicine Investigators. If I have a ranged weapon and a cantrip or 2 [Psychic Dedication works well], I don't have an issue with combat.

Name a martial finesse weapon that would be unbalanced on a Rogue and why. I maintain my contention that if there is one, it’s probably the weapon that is the issue, not a Rogue using it.

If anything is out of bounds, it's a xyloshi kashrishi with Puncturing Horn so you start at 1st level with a 1d8 piercing damage finesse unarmed attack. No melee weapon matches that no-hand unarmed attack.

Sure. But now you have to actually plan and build for that. It isn't just a standard Trip action that anybody has available.

It's not a great deal of planning though: and if someone is asking about tripping flying creatures, it already sounds like they are trying to plan for it.

You can also be human and go the Unconventional Weaponry route [Shoanti use bolas, derro use aklys].

Deriven Firelion wrote:

So Trip is still better than say [i]Earthbind[/b] at bringing something to the ground, even if it arrests it's fall preventing damage.

Well, maybe. Though I am not sure how most characters are going to reach far enough to trip something flying overhead. Earthbind has a 120 foot range.

Ranged Trip comes to mind. Bounty Hunter gets access to bolas and inventor can attach it to any simple/martial ranged weapon [up to 180'].

Thoughts:

** spoiler omitted **

Dubious Knowledge isn't part of Investigator--it's Thaumaturges who get it as a class feature.

I love it, but preference aside it's not like these Investigator features at all.

Sorry, talking about Thaumaturges in one thread and read Dubious Knowledge here and my brain made the wrong connection. Myself, I REALLY dislike the 'give wrong info' for crit failed recall checks normally so the opportunity to trigger it MORE often isn't something I want, much less pay a feat for or want a class feature force me to have. rabble, rabble, rabble... :P

Ope just found this guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TRekzATFniY4ZRiCSWOYDvLAOaqefsBetqT_Kxf a71Q/edit

Still open to suggestions, though :)

Link says "Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist."

Grimmerling wrote:

What did they annoyme with instead, you ask? Dubious Knowledge, of course. Which to me is far worse than any Investigator feat, for what it‘s worth.

Dubious Knowledge is easy.

Give them the same thing you would on a success, and either the same thing you would on a critical failure or something that complements the success result.

Roll a die to make sure you don't have a predictable pattern (or just so they don't waste time trying to figure it out), and on an odd number tell the truth then the lie, and on an even number tell the lie than the truth.
You don't have to have any ideas for Dubious Knowledge that you didn't already need for any Recall Knowledge check.

Yes, they'll know which is which once they test it. They're supposed to. Remember that Dubious Knowledge is a feat. It's supposed to give them an edge compared to not having it.

Yeah, I'm going to second not liking Dubious Knowledge: it's the thing I dislike the most with the class.