| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every class receives a functional combat option at 1st level. Why would the investigator have to wait until 4th to receive such a weak option?
Every class receives a functional combat option at 1st level. Why would the investigator have to wait until 4th to receive such a weak option?
Perhaps they believe that the viable combat option lies in inspiration?
Well, here is how I would do it:
Studied Combat (Ex): At 1st level, an investigator can study an opponent he can see as a move action. The investigator then gains a +1 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against that opponent and a +1 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls against it. These bonuses remain in effect until either the opponent is dead or the investigator studies a new target.
At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, the investigators bonuses against a studied target increase by +1. In addition, at each such interval, the investigator is able to maintain these bonuses against an additional studied target at the same time. The investigator may lose this connection to a studied target as a free action (allowing him to study another target in its place). The damage of studied combat is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit; creatures that are immune to sneak attack are also immune to studied strike.
And, yes, that is basically a copy-paste of Favored Target from the Slayer. It already captures perfectly what we want to achieve with Studied Strike (i.e. an ability similar to the Sherlock Holmes movies with Robert Downey Jr.), so why not use it here? The duration limitations from the current versions of Studied Combat/Strike really are just fiddly unnecessary stuff in my opinion and should be excised.
|
The idea behind studied strike, as an auto-working alternative to situational sneak attack is really cool. Patching its effectiveness is better than swapping back to sneak attack by far.
Int/2 rounds is really limiting. Int rounds would work better.
The standard, move/swift for a talent is fine if the bonus is there. The high, rare insight type to-hit bonus is a very valuable bonus.
On Studied Strike damage...what if it went the other way in damage? Buff the damage of that one special hit so it feels really meaningful, like holmes' unexpected bursty knockout blow in the boxing ring in the first movie.
Some ideas (not all, of course, pick and chose some) for options to make it feel more valuable:
- While in Studied combat, add int (up to level) in bonus precision damage on hit (either for free from the ability, or after expending inspiration)
- Add extra dice to the studied strike. (e.g., straight increasing the bonus dice, or scaling dice based on int mod, or bonus dice up to int mod extra dice that max at granted dice (eg. int mod of +3 grants 1d6 extra at 4, 2d6 additional extra dice at 6, 3d6 at 8, and 3d6 at 10 or higher.)
- Expend additional inspiration to add additional inspiration dice to damage for the studied strike (one point to add N extra, or double dice)
- A talent could increase the studied strike die size (a combat equivalent to amazing inspiration.)
- A talent could increase the number of sudden strike dice (potentially repeatable, limited by level)
- A talent to let you do an additional studied strike before ending your studied combat (potentially repeatable, limited by level)
Don't bake dirty trick into this. That option already exists with the dirty trick feat chain.
Every class receives a functional combat option at 1st level. Why would the investigator have to wait until 4th to receive such a weak option?Perhaps they believe that the viable combat option lies in inspiration?
I don't believe they do. Using inspiration for combat is penalized and doesn't provide any meaningful damage. The lackluster combat readiness of the the Investigator is probably a design overlook (I believe motivated by the whole "rogue became useless" and "no sneak attack" rage).
So the Investigator's combat ability is being balanced against the Rogue, arguably the weakest combat class in the game, with the exception of Commoners, Experts, and possibly Adepts (the Warrior is more-than-likely better than a Rogue in a fight). Monk is it's only real competitor.
Also, I think every person in this thread has said that Studied Combat/Strike's mechanics are awful (but the flavor is great). Not even just 'one tweak to fix', just plain awful.
The inspiration for the ability is based off the Sherlock Holmes scenes. I think it's worth noting that in the movies, Holmes makes multiple bloody strikes, not One and Done!
I have to wonder why it is that the developers think everyone but themselves are idiots? We aren't 10 year olds that don't realize something is a bad idea until we've already started it. We are intelligent human beings, and we are fully capable of looking at something and saying, "Hey, that isn't a good idea" without having to play it first.
There are multiple points about the proposed changes to Studied Combat/Strike.
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).
First proposal:Anything that keeps the 'once per 24 hour period' limitation is trash unless the benefits are very powerful. For examples, look at the Witch's hexes.
If you want to keep the limitation, then the duration needs to be extended so that a boss can't do something as simple as turn invisible or go ethereal or teleport away, or simply evade the Investigator, and thereby denying him the use of his class ability.
You could do this by making the duration equal to the Investigator's level, or changing it to 'until dead' like Smite.
I would also suggest allowing Studied Strike applies to all of the attacks made against the object of the Studied Combat.
Second proposal: This is the better of the 3 options. The only thing I would like to add to this is that, like the first proposal, Studied Strike should apply to all attacks made against object of Studied Combat during its duration. Otherwise, you're likely to see people only using Studied Combat as a means of increasing the attack bonus, and never for damage.
I would prefer changing it though, to the Investigator being able to add his intelligence modifier to damage for the duration of Studied Combat. It's less damage than sneak attack (even the extra damage from studied strike), and helps distance the Investigator from the Rogue.
I should point out, that the 36 is, for the most part, the highest intelligence score you can get, and this is a +13 modifier. A normal Rogue gets 10d6 sneak attack at 20th level, which averages ~35 points of damage per hit.
Third proposal: I dislike this one the most (even above the first one). Studied Combat/Strike is full of amazing flavor, far more so than sneak attack is, and should be the 'combat' option going forward.
The investigator can already add inspiration to his to hit. I think studied combat and studied strike are alright as is except for duration. The class has a number of other interesting options and I would like to see it deal less damage than the rogue. The vivisectionist alchemist already performs better than the rogue in most ways regarding sneak attack.
I would like to see studied combat add a +2 bonus to attack, armor class, saves, and damage against the target plus an additional one for every 4 levels of investigator after and last a number of rounds equal to his intelligence modifier +1. Studied strike could then be removed or be made into a talent. From a flavour perspective I feel an increase in defensive ability should be a part of studied combat from the start.
I would still play the class as is. But a further rework or increased duration to studied combat would be nice.
Honestly, I think the revised investigator is awful. He's useless in combat until 4th level, and then he's useless in combat until 20th level, and the he's useless in combat at 20th level.
My player who is playtesting an investigator doesn't want to playtest him anymore after the changes. They are that bad.
My players are more interested in the class now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Item Lore talent at 7th, and as a talent. I can see making this a talent, because doing so means that in a group with a real wizard, identifying things will be the wizard's job and the investigator won't ever take this. But having a lvl 7 talent to replace about 1/4 of the functionality of a cantrip (detect magic does a whole lot more than identify items) is underwhelming. Also, Spellcraft is not a class skill - making the identification with knowledge arcana would make this at least marginally useful.
Quick Study talent: This feels like a talent tax to be able to perform as a highly mediocre combatant. It should be inherent to how studied combat works.
Trap Sense: This is a lot less useful to an investigator than to a rogue, as the investigator does not have evasion.
Studied Strike: It is a bit unclear how this applies to spells like Scorching Ray or Holy Ice that do multiple attacks as a part of a single spell. An investigator would have to use these from a wand with Use Magic Device, but the combination with Holy Ice in particular is potentially very powerful.
Overall, the class seems like the rogue, only more so. It is basically useless in a fight and king outside of it. I could easily see the player of an investigator leave the room when a fight begins.
Studied Strike seems a bit underwhelming because of all the limitations to it. I am actually OK with it only applying once per Studied Combat (Or maybe it ends that round so you can get in as many Studied Strikes as you can attacks per round) but the short duration on Studied Combat coupled with the target then being immune to it thereafter for a day is a bit weak.
I'd love to see it so that you could use Studied Combat as often as you like, and maybe allow the Studied Strike to count as a rogue's sneak attack for certain rogue talents. That way you can cripple an enemy, but you wont match the rogue for damage.
Just me thinking! Oh and I don't know how useful it is (Because my groupd rarely comes across poisons) but I like the new idea behind Poison Lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started writing out a big long suggestion that tried to get studied strike usable while weaker than sneak attack and then realized that it would still suck. I love the concept of the rogue, I even occasionally play a rogue (well Ninja) but for the love of all that is system balance don't start with a baseline assumption of "Rogue-equivalent or worse at combat." That is a losing proposition.
While I have seen a number of Rogues played all of them have around 11th+ (at the latest) required some serious optimizing to keep themselves relevant at all in combat. That is not a happy place to be. Now while I understand that you want to balance the addition of extracts with reduced combat power,that really isn't needed.
Instead balance the addition of Inspiration to the Vivisectionist. when not played as a natural attack monster the Viv. seems to be an excellent class when I have played it/seen it played. The sneak attack can keep you relevant in combat in many situations. rarely the star player, but usually relevant as long as the conditions are met. And extracts can be used when those conditions are not met to still be useful. It did not excel at combat or magic but was competent in both as a happy medium, the investigator should be in a similar happy place, not trading an interesting useful mechanic for combat uselessness.
Guys guys guys
Why not bring back Cunning Surge?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
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).
I personally think that the first option would be perfectly fine, but either 1 or 2 will make the ability much more useful without making it strictly better than sneak attack. Don't do #3, that would be backtracking on a really good direction you've taken the class. Those are my votes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tels Your comments about the Developers' Intelligence isn't constructive. If this was my Playtest, I'd be inclined to ignore everything you said after that point so the fact that Sean, Jason, and Stephen even read your insult-ridden posts makes them better people than most.
That said, all of the people who are commenting on Studied Combat and Studied Strikes would do well to remember that this is the first round of playtesting for these mechanics, and generally speaking the Paizo Developers start out conservative. In Jason's interview, he flat-out said that he and his team aren't big into taking things away from classes which needs to come at the caveat that the changes they do make are going to be small, incremental ones. It would not surprise me in the slightest if we see a more powerful version of Studied Strike in the final product next year.
On another note:
I started building that cohort I mentioned early, and I have to admit that I was quickly growing apprehensive while reading the abilities. (Especially Studied Strike). The limitations are huge and I am worried that this cohort is going to be absolutely useless on the front lines with her character. Because one of my House Rules gives Leadership to everyone for free at the cost of allowing one cohort per adventure, I worry that my players aren't going to have a reason to bring this character as opposed to, say, their Cloistered Cleric, Switch-Hitter Ranger, or even their Arcane Trickster bard. I understand this is a unique situation privy to my games, but its worth mentioning.
That said, there is a lot to love about this class. The ability for someone who isn't a bard to make Knowledge checks untrained is huge. I love the skill focus of the class and inspiration is a neat mechanic. I'm working on statting her up; after I've run some tests with her, we'll see what happens.
Question: Can we hopefully get an Investigator talent that gives the Investigator Brew Potion as a bonus feat? As written, the Investigator doesn't qualify for it on her own because she technically does not have a caster level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, while niche, I do appreciate the flavor and use of Poison Knowledge. It's sort of got that Abraham van Helsing feeling to it, where to study your foe, you learn their tricks.
I really have to second Cheapys comment on the Poison Knowledge class feature. I feel it brings a lot of flavor to the Investigator as well.
@Tels Your comments about the Developers' Intelligence isn't constructive. If this was my Playtest, I'd be inclined to ignore everything you said after that point so the fact that Sean, Jason, and Stephen even read your insult-ridden posts makes them better people than most.
i don't recall Tels insulting the intelligence of the devs... what i read was Tels feeling insulted by the devs' apparent regard (or disregard) for the intelligence of their supporters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Tels Your comments about the Developers' Intelligence isn't constructive. If this was my Playtest, I'd be inclined to ignore everything you said after that point so the fact that Sean, Jason, and Stephen even read your insult-ridden posts makes them better people than most.i don't recall Tels insulting the intelligence of the devs... what i read was Tels feeling insulted by the devs' apparent regard (or disregard) for the intelligence of their supporters.
I thought you were referring to yourself in the third person there for a second.
Also, another aspect, and one I'd like to explore more, that I like is that you can probably use Inspiration on Initiative rolls.
Well, maybe not since it's a free action.
Oh, that reminds me...Stephen, I think it might be cleaner to just say that the free action Inspiration can be taken out of turn, as long as there's a qualifying roll you are making. This would remove the need for the immediate action language for saving throws, but would also allow inspiration to be added, RAW, to Perception checks you make out of your turn. For things like spotting ambushes or whenever they ask for Perception rolls :)
The Alchemist is already a strictly better version of the rogue anyway. Any attempt to make a hybrid between them balanced with its parent classes is doomed right out the gate: It's either going to be a weaker alchemist or a stronger rogue.
If I wanted to play a smart, puzzle solver, I'd just play a Ninja (better than a Rogue, but still not "good"), an Inquisitor (great at non-combat encounters, and a lot of potential in combat) or a Lore Warden (duh); all with a 14-16 INT.
Actually that list goes on a for a while, including to alchemist, bard, and wizard. Some of those classes not only have better or more utility but some of them come with better combat ability too!
A) It should not be strictly better than the parent class at everything the parent class does (as the previous version was)I'll disagree with this; when the parent class is bad, the child class should be better at everything.
Another way to look at it is to compare the investigator to all the other classes rather than just the rogue, or even without any classes and just giving it face value. Imo, it comes up subpar.
The investigator needs to bring better damage or something better than damage.
None you read Pulp Noir? Me help.
Summon Enemies (Ex): Free action. One of Investigator old enemies step into the room, weapons drawn, with 2d6 mooks. Old enemy want the Investigator dead! But want death his or her way. Will fight for chance get final information from Investigator. Or will fight for chance to tie up Investigator transport him to a different location.
Sam Spade Vines do have power turn combat into non-combat. Tense moment as more enemies step into room or from behind doors.
Me volunteer. Me monster. Me know Investigator from before he publish on paper. No more old foe than that!
Your Pathfinder have room for this new class ability? Why?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I wanted to play a smart, puzzle solver, I'd just play a Ninja (better than a Rogue, but still not "good"), an Inquisitor (great at non-combat encounters, and a lot of potential in combat) or a Lore Warden (duh); all with a 14-16 INT.Actually that list goes on a for a while, including to alchemist, bard, and wizard. Some of those classes not only have better or more utility but some of them come with better combat ability too!
Another way to look at it is to compare the investigator to all the other classes rather than just the rogue, or even without any classes and just giving it face value. Imo, it comes up subpar.A) It should not be strictly better than the parent class at everything the parent class does (as the previous version was)I'll disagree with this; when the parent class is bad, the child class should be better at everything.
Exactly. Don't let the deadbeat dead end low class parent kill off the Inquisitors potential! It's time to just let go of considering the Rogue while balancing anything. It's already broken. That ship has sailed. Don't let it hold back other incredible classes oozing flavor and potential.
This is a lengthy post so I'm going to put the larger bits in spoilers. I took the abilities as written, and tried to tweak them into something interesting and different. I looked at this ability and so a kind of domino effect, as in, you study your opponent, and beat on them in rapid succession, each hit more brutal then the last. This is what I came up with.
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 24 hours.
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 studied 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.
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.
At 10th level, with 18 Int and wielding a single weapon this would mean a +12/+7 attacks against a single opponent, dealing normal weapon damage + 4 (Int Mod) on the first attack that hits, and normal weapon damage +1d6+8 (Int Mod x2). If they had a 3rd attack that hits, it would be +2d6+12 (Int Mod x3) extra damage. I hope that makes sense.
Possible discoveries would add the insight bonus to saving throws and AC, increase the duration of Studied combat, increase the damage die type d6 to d8 on studied strikes, and/or an additional die to Studied Strikes.
That's my idea at least.
I'd love to see the Studied Combat and Strike do a bit more.
Maybe less restrictive on the studied combat. Maybe bump up the rounds it lasts, and an ability to add more. Like the Studied Strike could actually extend the length of the Studied Combat, but still only once per target.
Oh and I would love to see additional effects behind damage. Such as reduced damage, movement, AC, bleeding, etc.
Man, you people are down on the rogue, a Dex-based attacker with evasion who gets as much as +10d6 on multiple attacks per round and can poach any utility spells they want from wands and scrolls. The rogue needs help, but it's nothing like the issues facing the core monk and fighter (both of which people manage to enjoy, despite being very focused in what they are good at). Unless you flat-out give the Investigator full sneak attack, even with buffs, Finesse McRogue is still going to stab him to death. The alchemist may be more favorable, overall, but it's bizarre and wrong to say the rogue is "dead." A character in ground zero of a dragon breath without evasion or the right energy resistance is dead.
Even with heavy doses of Inspiration, the Investigator is only even with the rogue at vanilla Stealth and Acrobatics checks, and has no hope of competing in the sniping, fast stealth, tapdancing on an ice waterfall department.
I'm jumping off the bandwagon. Even with sneak attack, the Investigator is not notably better than a rogue with a reasonable selection of equipment.
I have to wonder why it is that the developers think everyone but themselves are idiots? We aren't 10 year olds that don't realize something is a bad idea until we've already started it. We are intelligent human beings, and we are fully capable of looking at something and saying, "Hey, that isn't a good idea" without having to play it
Really, Tels? Not sure why you have that impression. The fact that they have listened to our feedback and the fact that Stephen is considering changing the ability based on no play testing shows this to be false.
Really, it's pretty insulting to say this about the designers after all the awesome work they've done this playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to wonder why it is that the developers think everyone but themselves are idiots? We aren't 10 year olds that don't realize something is a bad idea until we've already started it. We are intelligent human beings, and we are fully capable of looking at something and saying, "Hey, that isn't a good idea" without having to play it first.
So, first, thank you for your input.
Second. No one has *ever* said this. We do playtest, ask for commentary, and we read this and the other comment boards, and we take it into account. We just give playtest feedback greater weight, for many reasons...but mostly because this is a playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, you people are down on the rogue, a Dex-based attacker with evasion who gets as much as +10d6 on multiple attacks per round and can poach any utility spells they want from wands and scrolls. The rogue needs help, but it's nothing like the issues facing the core monk and fighter (both of which people manage to enjoy, despite being very focused in what they are good at). Unless you flat-out give the Investigator full sneak attack, even with buffs, Finesse McRogue is still going to stab him to death. The alchemist may be more favorable, overall, but it's bizarre and wrong to say the rogue is "dead." A character in ground zero of a dragon breath without evasion or the right energy resistance is dead.
Even with heavy doses of Inspiration, the Investigator is only even with the rogue at vanilla Stealth and Acrobatics checks, and has no hope of competing in the sniping, fast stealth, tapdancing on an ice waterfall department.
I'm jumping off the bandwagon. Even with sneak attack, the Investigator is not notably better than a rogue with a reasonable selection of equipment.
rogue isnt a dex based attacker without at least two feats or a feat and monetary investment, and wont be as effective as a rogue who invested in strength instead. the rogue cant function in the dark without darkvision or another feat or two (shadowstrike or the twilight stalkers), cant function against concealment without an expensive item (headband of ninjutsu) or those aforementioned feats.
stealth is shut down hilariously easily by alternate sense types unless you invest at least 5 feats (dampen presense, hellcat stealth for HiPS (light), and either an SD dip--which has prereqs--for HiPS (darkness) or imp. eldritch heritage--which also has prereqs--for the same) and more money spent (boots of soft step, oils of negate aroma, etc). they are shot in the foot by their restrictive mechanics behind their core combat ability that no other class has to deal with.
and EVERYONE CAN USE UMD. EVERYONE can poach from wands and scrolls, even if theyre at 3 less from the skill not being a class skill (which, via trait, they can make it so!), that isnt unique to the rogue.
the fact that the investigator is worse than the rogue in combat is both an insult to the investigator and a backhanded compliment to the rogue--because hey, now someone's finally scoring lower than it in the special ed. class of combat, while still getting another class overshadowing it on the skill side, like all the other competitors!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, it's obvious the best way to go is to give them more to do with Inspiration.
Automatically give them Infusions at level 1.
Dump studied strike, studied combat, and sneak attack.
Dump the 1d6 thing and make it a flat Intelligence bonus, adding +1 to this bonus for the purposes of Inspiration every 4 levels (to a maximum of INT + 5 at level 20).
Applying Inspiration to an attack roll or saving throw uses only 1 point of Inspiration. If you apply inspiration to a weapon attack roll, the bonus applies to the damage roll as well. Taking Combat Inspiration lowers the cost of applying inspiration to an attack roll to 0 points, but not saving throws. Let combat inspiration be taken earlier.
8 + INT skill points per level.
Give them the following ability:
Exceptional Preparation (Ex): An Investigator always has a trick up their sleeve. As a swift action, the investigator can spend 3 inspiration points to retroactively change one of their prepared extracts that has not yet been imbibed into another extract in their formula book. This even works with an infusion currently being carried by an ally.
It's a start.
|
I love the IDEA of studied strike with this character. A couple of random ideas off the top of my head:
1) Have studied combat allow the player to decide for the damage dealt to be nonlethal without penalty. An investigator may want to question a culprit, and hitting a foe after having studied it in order to incapacitate them seems like a good idea.
2) Maybe studied strike should have some crit-related buffs. Perhaps it gives a bonus to critical hit confirmation rolls, or perhaps even it increases a weapon's crit range when using it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be Constructive.
rogue isnt a dex based attacker without at least two feats or a feat and monetary investment, and wont be as effective as a rogue who invested in strength instead. the rogue cant function in the dark without darkvision or another feat or two (shadowstrike or the twilight stalkers), cant function against concealment without an expensive item (headband of ninjutsu) or those aforementioned feats.
stealth is shut down hilariously easily by alternate sense types unless you invest at least 5 feats (dampen presense, hellcat stealth for HiPS (light), and either an SD dip--which has prereqs--for HiPS (darkness) or imp. eldritch heritage--which also has prereqs--for the same) and more money spent (boots of soft step, oils of negate aroma, etc). they are shot in the foot by their restrictive mechanics behind their core combat ability that no other class has to deal with.
and EVERYONE CAN USE UMD. EVERYONE...
What you are saying about the rogue is only true in higher level campaigns, by which time the rogue not only can but definitely will invest in tons of character options and equipment. If you do build a Str-based rogue, the skills aren't quite as sweet, but you will unquestionably outfight an investigator, and the alchemist will have their hands full. Most criticisms of the rogue IMO stem from a theorycraft that assumes the rogue exercises no character options at all, even though it's pitifully simple to build a blind-fighting rogue who grapples opponents and could kill most alchemists in a pitch black room. Sneak attack is Plan A, but a rogue's Plan B or C can be quite formidable, and could be any of a number of things. So, I'm not impressed by a comparison that assumes an investigator uses all their talents mimicking a rogue's capabilities and a rogue is caught in their underwear and spent all their feats on Skill Focus (Profession).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most criticisms of the rogue IMO stem from a theorycraft that assumes the rogue exercises no character options at all,
How dare people judge a class based on its class features instead of racial ones and UMD! Its not like just anyone can be a human for skills or dwarf for saves and pump UMD!
Edit: Woops! Forgot to mention feats. Not everyone can take a feat like power attack or martial maneuvers.
Removed post. Be constructive. Also, it pays to be mature and follow the first rule of the Paizo messgageboards. Just say'n.
Most criticisms of the rogue IMO stem from a theorycraft that assumes the rogue exercises no character options at all,How dare people judge a class based on its class features instead of racial ones and UMD! Its not like just anyone can be a human for skills or dwarf for saves and pump UMD!
Edit: Woops! Forgot to mention feats. Not everyone can take a feat like power attack or martial maneuvers.
Go ahead, show me your Power Attacking, grappling Investigator build.
honestly i would:
-remove the once/24-hour/target limitation (why in the name of all that's holy would you suddenly forget how to hit someone you JUST studied), and remove the text that it ends when you use studied strike.
-increase the duration to INT, rather than half INT (so as not to laugh in the face of the poor mortals with less than 18 int), and add a 1/4 level scaling damage (max +5 at 20) to attacks as well.
-grant studied combat at level 1, and studied strike at 2.
-remove quick study talent entirely and have studied combat increase from standard (level 1/base) to move (level 5) to swift (level 10) naturally, instead of requiring an ability tax.
-for studied strike add either a built-in option for debuffs, or add talents that let you trade the bonus dice for debuffs.
-limit it to once per round if you simply MUST for some reason.
there, now it's a less impressive version of favored enemy/smite/challenge and still not compltely lobotomized.
Go ahead, show me your Power Attacking, grappling Investigator build.Most criticisms of the rogue IMO stem from a theorycraft that assumes the rogue exercises no character options at all,How dare people judge a class based on its class features instead of racial ones and UMD! Its not like just anyone can be a human for skills or dwarf for saves and pump UMD!
Edit: Woops! Forgot to mention feats. Not everyone can take a feat like power attack or martial maneuvers.
The fact that the investigator now is a really weak class do not means the rogue sudenly becomes better.
And i fail to see how the rogue can be great at grappling.
Level 7 non-human rogue takes Blind-fight, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, and Agile Maneuvers. Assuming they use every rogue talent for the usual rogue-ish stuff, you can do all the stuff people expect rogues to do, including the much complained about sneak attack, and if people turn off the lights or start using concealment, you just walk up to them and start grappling them with a very high maneuver bonus until they agree to stop casting spells.
The thing is, a rogue really just needs a taste of Charisma or Intelligence, and then a high Strength or Dex with the other as secondary. Any comparison to the Investigator or alchemist has to deal with the fact that both have to lead with their Intelligence. Rogues have almost no MAD problems you don't create for yourself. They also have very few class abilities you can deplete through use. Those are two things going for them investigators don't have. An alchemist or investigator can be a two-trick monkey, too, but once of its tricks is always self-buffing. The rogue can always do something else, perhaps choosing a completely different approach for its Plan B, and rely on teammates and consummables for lesser buffs.
Level 7 non-human rogue takes Blind-fight, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, and Agile Maneuvers. Assuming they use every rogue talent for the usual rogue-ish stuff, you can do all the stuff people expect rogues to do, including the much complained about sneak attack, and if people turn off the lights or start using concealment, you just walk up to them and start grappling them with a very high maneuver bonus until they agree to stop casting spells.Go ahead, show me your Power Attacking, grappling Investigator build.Most criticisms of the rogue IMO stem from a theorycraft that assumes the rogue exercises no character options at all,How dare people judge a class based on its class features instead of racial ones and UMD! Its not like just anyone can be a human for skills or dwarf for saves and pump UMD!
Edit: Woops! Forgot to mention feats. Not everyone can take a feat like power attack or martial maneuvers.
The fact that the investigator now is a really weak class do not means the rogue sudenly becomes better.
And i fail to see how the rogue can be great at grappling.
Unless you are a tetori monk, Agile Maneuvers + Grappling is a terrible idea. You give yourself the grappled condition when you grapple someone, so you get -4 dex.
Also, it is pretty much impossible to keep up with CMB/CMDs as the rogue gets into the CR 10+ range (even with Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver, Three Grapple Feats, Anaconda Coils, and a high strength)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not for this thread guys. This is about the investigator.
I just gave you a rogue who can flank for sneak attack and strangle people in the dark. Also, even without a weapon, he can flank and deal 1d4 + Strength + 4d6 damage with his bare hand. Ranger is not a fair comparison; the rogue and investigator are heavy on utilities.