What does the Investigator use Intelligence for?


Investigator Playtest

51 to 100 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Recall Knowledge can be done almost as often with Wisdom as with Intelligence. Increasing reliance on it does not make Intelligence a meaningfully better stat for an Investigator.

Only nature and religion.

You can recall knowledge with lores as well.

As a high Int, high initial proficiencies, character that also skill increases every round AND has free "trained in everything+" ability, you should extremely easily cover all the nature and religion creature types with Lores.

Plus, you get like 9 extra (mostly Int based) Skill feats. Picking something like Additional lore: Undead autoscales it up to legendary.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

A different use for Int for each Methodology is an interesting idea. Making Medicine Int-based for the Forensics guy and letting the otherwise somewhat weak Empiricist be the one to use Int for Perception seems pretty reasonable, really...

Especially combined with removing the check to use Study Suspect, which really is pretty punitive the more I think about it.

shroudb wrote:
Only nature and religion.

That's two of the five non-Lore options, for the most part. Not a small number.

shroudb wrote:

You can recall knowledge with lores as well.

As a high Int, high initial proficiencies, character that also skill increases every round AND has free "trained in everything+" ability, you should extremely easily cover all the nature and religion creature types with Lores.

Sure, but anyone can do that, a Rogue certainly could, and needs less Wis and no more Dex, making them debatably better suited to doing that...which is pretty off. The issue is that, due to Perception being so important for them, you're probably still better off going Int 12, Wis 16 on an Investigator than you are actually focusing on Int.

It's not that you can't do cool stuff with Int, it's that it's mostly cool stuff anyone can do, and all the Investigator specific stuff (especially Study Suspect) really incentivizes Wis instead.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

A different use for Int for each Methodology is an interesting idea. Making Medicine Int-based for the Forensics guy and letting the otherwise somewhat weak Empiricist be the one to use Int for Perception seems pretty reasonable, really...

Especially combined with removing the check to use Study Suspect, which really is pretty punitive the more I think about it.

shroudb wrote:
Only nature and religion.

That's two of the five non-Lore options, for the most part. Not a small number.

shroudb wrote:

You can recall knowledge with lores as well.

As a high Int, high initial proficiencies, character that also skill increases every round AND has free "trained in everything+" ability, you should extremely easily cover all the nature and religion creature types with Lores.

Sure, but anyone can do that , a Rogue certainly could, and needs less Wis and no more Dex, making them debatably better suited to doing that...which is pretty off. The issue is that, due to Perception being so important for them, you're probably still better off going Int 12, Wis 16 on an Investigator than you are actually focusing on Int.


It's not that you can't do cool stuff with Int, it's that it's mostly cool stuff anyone can do, and all the Investigator specific stuff (especially Study Suspect) really incentivizes Wis instead.

Only rogue can match the skills, but more importantly, my whole suggestion was using those Lores and Recalls to proc Study Suspect.

So you're basically double dipping, since you can use both the normal lore/knowledge usefulness AND your unique combat buffs through the same, Int based, skills.

Liberty's Edge

shroudb wrote:

Only rogue can match the skills, but more importantly, my whole suggestion was using those Lores and Recalls to proc Study Suspect.

So you're basically double dipping, since you can use both the normal lore/knowledge usefulness AND your unique combat buffs through the same, Int based, skills.

It's an idea. I'm still not sure a version that requires quite a few more Skills (we're honestly talking at least five or six Lores to cover everything Nature and Religion cover) to do the same thing you can do with Wisdom and Perception alone is not exactly a huge advantage, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there is something missing for the Investigator. Having higher Int don´t improve that much the character (for example a Wizard has better spell atack and better spell DC and also get´s more skills and the Int skill´s get improved).

Why the core mechanics of the character aren´t tied to Int ? Make Studied suspect a Will check (or Perception or whatever) from the creature against the class DC of the Investigator.

Also needs more ways to use combat tricks against the enemy, using Int not another characteristic like Str. Again the best way I think is cheking against the class DC.

For the no-combat things, the Investigator should use the Int for improving his chances in the fields he is not that skilled. I picture an investigator that is not charismatic but with ingenius questions can make an interrogation, or another one that is really inteligent and has a lot of things in his mind but has a problem focusing on things (I interpret that as low wisdom), so for example in general he is not good treating wounds (he don´t have patience or care that much), but if he focus ont that matter he can pull an ingenious trick that will treat him.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Although in reality I think a WIS>INT build is just as valid
Then Wis should be the key stat.

Correction: then you should have the option of Wis as the key stat.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Although in reality I think a WIS>INT build is just as valid
Then Wis should be the key stat.
Correction: then you should have the option of Wis as the key stat.

Personally, on a thematic level, I hope neither of these wind up happening. Or not as a default one, anyway. Investigator is too strongly tied to Int thematically for it to be a good idea to adulterate that by making it not their key stat.

We just need ways to actually leverage it as one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aswaarg wrote:

Why the core mechanics of the character aren´t tied to Int ? Make Studied suspect a Will check (or Perception or whatever) from the creature against the class DC of the Investigator.

Also needs more ways to use combat tricks against the enemy, using Int not another characteristic like Str. Again the best way I think is cheking against the class DC.

Seconding this suggestion. Seems like the simplest solution, when I think about it. Honestly, a lot more of the martials' abilities should be using their Class DC.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Investigator should have been a Archetype.


If the “standard” Investigator build has 12 int that’d be a pretty huge flavor/mechanical disconnect.

I’m in favor of each subclass getting some additional int use (like the alchemy) and the class as a whole getting some int-based feature (maybe the int-perception, or int-perception on things related to your case)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have made an Investigator lvl 1, aiming for a Know all type of guy.

It´s a human Skilled (not for another skill, but for the expert at lvl 5), general training (Toughnes) and a 10/12/12/18/16/10 in characteristics with Empiricist Field and Known weakness as feat.

It have almost every skill inlcuindg a second lore, lacking only Performance, Intimidation and Deception.

Now I´m wondering, what this guy is going to give to the team in a fight? Almost nothing. Is a good skill monkey? For knowing things and searching things yes, for other things, barely.

I feal I can make a better character if I drop the Int and raise any other characteristic.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the single best update will be to have Perception be Int-based for the Investigator. That will make a HUGE difference, IMHO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aswaarg wrote:

I have made an Investigator lvl 1, aiming for a Know all type of guy.

It´s a human Skilled (not for another skill, but for the expert at lvl 5), general training (Toughnes) and a 10/12/12/18/16/10 in characteristics with Empiricist Field and Known weakness as feat.

It have almost every skill inlcuindg a second lore, lacking only Performance, Intimidation and Deception.

Now I´m wondering, what this guy is going to give to the team in a fight? Almost nothing. Is a good skill monkey? For knowing things and searching things yes, for other things, barely.

I feal I can make a better character if I drop the Int and raise any other characteristic.

But well, that was kinda your choice when you went 10str/12 dex.

You could have go with a 16 dex and 14wis, and still be good as an archer without impacting your "know it all" theme.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Although in reality I think a WIS>INT build is just as valid
Then Wis should be the key stat.
Correction: then you should have the option of Wis as the key stat.

We have precedent for more than one proposed fix for the Int issue.

Chirurgeon Alchemists can substitute Crafting (an Int skill) for Medicine (a Wis skill) in skill checks.

Rogue rackets can let rogues change their key ability scores.

Either one could be made to work for Investigators.


David knott 242 wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Although in reality I think a WIS>INT build is just as valid
Then Wis should be the key stat.
Correction: then you should have the option of Wis as the key stat.

We have precedent for more than one proposed fix for the Int issue.

Chirurgeon Alchemists can substitute Crafting (an Int skill) for Medicine (a Wis skill) in skill checks.

Rogue rackets can let rogues change their key ability scores.

Either one could be made to work for Investigators.

Chirurgeon one is close to a 100 times worse than Stat swap.

Since you still qualify for nothing medicine related with your crafting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For those who say "stat substitutions are inimical to PF2" or something like that, they were kind of there from the beginning. I mean, putting aside that rogues have always had the option to get dex to hit and damage, the playtest alchemist used intelligence for Resonance rather than Charisma like everyone else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
For those who say "stat substitutions are inimical to PF2" or something like that, they were kind of there from the beginning. I mean, putting aside that rogues have always had the option to get dex to hit and damage, the playtest alchemist used intelligence for Resonance rather than Charisma like everyone else.

I'm mostly searching for a different solution not because "swaps are bad" but because I would personally prefer Int to stand on its own 2 feet rather than rely on substituting for another stat.

Hence why I would prefer a mechanic that made Int useful for the investigator that's actually Int based.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel there should be more class setup similar to rogues: key ability based on methodology.

Researcher: alchemy route, int based

Investigator: scour environment for clues, wisdom based

Interrogator: diplomacy/intimidation of suspects, charisma based

Have class feats tired to your methodology. Studied strike still works fine because you're either recalling knowledge (int based check), observing behavior (Wis based), or intuiting through your gut (Cha based)

(Edited for spelling on phone lol)

(edit 2 for additional thoughts)

Even if Paizo is hesitant to replace abilities for skills (which i believe they've stated on at least one occasion) Give them something akin to Intimidating Prowess: a +1 or +2 based on INT as a bonus to the other skills to make up your more intellectual approach to an otherwise non-int based check


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
I'm mostly searching for a different solution not because "swaps are bad" but because I would personally prefer Int to stand on its own 2 feet rather than rely on substituting for another stat.

But "I am perceptive because I have a practiced analytic approach to dissect what's happening around me" is indeed quite thematic for the investigator.

Intelligence should stand on its own for the class, but it should also be able to be leveraged for perception to fulfill the fantasy of "being Sherlock Holmes."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:


But well, that was kinda your choice when you went 10str/12 dex.

You could have go with a 16 dex and 14wis, and still be good as an archer without impacting your "know it all" theme.

Then I´m lowering my chances with Study Subject because Perception is a Wis Skill. Also afects the Observe expeditiously wich uses Perception for Seek and Sense motive.

If I make the same guy but with a 10/16/12/14/16/10. I´ll lose 2 skills (I can drop Diplomacy and Athletics), and a +2 to the Int skills. But I gain a +2 in the Dex related skills, to atack (mele and ranged), AC and Reflex.

With this set of ability scores I´m trained with all the skills with positive bonus, I´m not the best in any skill but I can do better. So if there is not a wizard I can do an Aracana check, if there is not a Cleric I can make a Religion Check, if there is not a Rogue I can make Thievery checks. And my combat is way better (Int don´t give anything to combat with the Investigator).

For me right know, Wis is way more important than Int for the Investigator. I think there is not 1 1st lvl Investigator that can have low Wis and be viable, but you can do it with a low Int.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I feel like the class needs to add its intelligence to perception checks in general or at least in pursuit of your "take the case" or whatever.

Intelligence oddly seems like a prime dump stat given you already have plenty of skills to begin with.

With the tight math of 2nd edition, you'll never get "add stat bonus to another check". You might get a substitution of int for wis when performing certain action, though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Reminds me a bit of Alchemist. Where your INT only has a vague-ish determination on your actual class.

Alch they do get extra infusions. but almost nothing uses their actual Class DC. They can make some items use class DC via feats, or add INt to bomb's splash via feats.
but nothing base is that heavily INT useful. And most of it isn't really combat useful. (without heavy investment in awkward feat lines)

Investigators sort of feel that way. Except yakno,, they get far better weapon options/masters profiency.
Not sure if thats useful. Just something I noted when I was converting my Alchemist-P.agent skill guy into an investigator-alch guy. (though hits the issue of bomb profiency)

Investigator's have an easier time hitting IMO (profieincyes and studied stuff) but have a harder time getting some of it off (perc to get the buff) while alch gets more chances with Int but can't realy hit.

Not sure how useful that comparison is. but aspects might harken a bit too closely to the somewhat awkward (but loveable) Alchemist


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist definitely also has some issues with its key skill, but at least it powers your reagents and can be leveraged via feats.

Investigators get even less than that though. Nothing in-class runs off Int unless you take the alchemical sciences path.

Royaltivity wrote:
I feel there should be more class setup similar to rogues: key ability based on methodology.

While I don't disagree. I don't like your specific suggestion, because I like the fantasy of an int based investigator and I don't want that to be intrinsically tied specifically and only to Alchemy.

I know some people are arguing that substitutions are bad, but I think they really fit the theme of the class. The Empiricist talks about data analysis and inductive reasoning, which smells a lot more like Int than Wis to me, even if its unique feature runs off Wis.

Same thing with Forensic Sciences.


shroudb wrote:


Hence why I would prefer a mechanic that made Int useful for the investigator that's actually Int based.

I think the question nobody has fully answered is why Paizo elected not do either a swap or substitution.

After that, we need to identify what problem we are really trying to solve. Just insisting we should get INT for Perception doesn't solve an actual problem for the class. It makes the Inv more effective at doing what it does, but there's a valid argument, especially in PF2, it might be too good.

What are the actual problems with the class? Has anyone actually played it enough to determine whether they can effectively "investigate" in a scenario? Does the character provide a substantive benefit? Does it satisfy the narrative? Is it fun?

Personally I love the direction Paizo has taken the class. I am concerned with feeling useful in combat. But I fear I'm not going to agree with people who want to be able to use the Investigator chassis to build a combat primary because that's what they did in PF1.

The class has to feel useful in combat, but useful is a different bar than expecting to deal damage commensurate with any martial (monk, rogue inclusive). I expect the damage to be below a bard unless you go Alchemist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Suggestions:

1) Replace 1d6 of precision damage for +Int to precision damage. Makes their precision damage much more reliable. I feel that Investigators damage is supposed to mostly come from precision so adding Int here is a good choice.

2) Core class actions should be Int based. I would give them a concept similar to Bardic Lore and use that as a back up default for Take the Case and Study the Subject checks. DMs and players could agree to use a different skill if it was also appropriate and the investigator had a higher check but the fall back would always be an Int based check that goes from trained to Expert at higher levels. Not OP, gives a nice rounding out/fall back option without replacing other skills which an investigator wants to specialise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

The class has to feel useful in combat, but useful is a different bar than expecting to deal damage commensurate with any martial (monk, rogue inclusive). I expect the damage to be below a bard unless you go Alchemist.

All classes are supposed to be good in combat. If you aren't good at damage then you need to be good at something else. I see no reason why the Investigator should do less damage than the Rogue in its current draft, but I can see an sufficient argument for overhauling the chassis to focus on buffs/debuffs to be more comparable with a bard in role.


N N 959 wrote:
What are the actual problems with the class?

Why ask this 74 posts into a thread instead of just reading it?


swoosh wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
What are the actual problems with the class?
Why ask this 74 posts into a thread instead of just reading it?

It's rhetorical.

I'm trying to make a larger point. We can sit here all day and come up with obvious ways to improve some aspect of the class. But Paizo isn't going to be motivated to do that unless we show, through actual play, that the class can't do something it was intended to do and the suggested fix solves that problem.

INT to damage/Perception/whatever, isn't fixing an actual demonstrated problem. The fact that INT doesn't provide any benefit in combat isn't actually a "problem." What INT does do is provide bonuses to all the INT based skill checks, and provide more skills, which is a huge part of what the Investigator is about. So INT does help the investigator, just not in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
All classes are supposed to be good in combat.

Do you have definition of what it means to be "good"? Did Paizo define that as a DPS number, actions per round, actions thwarted per round, total buffs/debuffs?

The point is we need to know what the bar/expectation is before we can convince Paizo it isn't being met.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
I think the question nobody has fully answered is why Paizo elected not do either a swap or substitution.

Because they are very reluctant to do so. Which doesn't mean they never should...but they're concerned about how it will work and limiting it pretty heavily.

But limiting something to a very few cases is not the same as never doing it at all.

N N 959 wrote:
After that, we need to identify what problem we are really trying to solve. Just insisting we should get INT for Perception doesn't solve an actual problem for the class. It makes the Inv more effective at doing what it does, but there's a valid argument, especially in PF2, it might be too good.

Int to Perception is far from the only suggestion. Maybe you're right and that's too powerful, but if not that, ditching the Perception check for Study Suspect and figuring out something else useful for Int seems a must, since the issue of Int not doing anything, and Wis being overly essential, persists.

N N 959 wrote:
What are the actual problems with the class? Has anyone actually played it enough to determine whether they can effectively "investigate" in a scenario? Does the character provide a substantive benefit? Does it satisfy the narrative? Is it fun?

Well, it's been all of a day since it was released...so no. But some things can be inferred even before you do that. When almost literally every build choice you make reinforces that Wisdom is just better than Intelligence for the Investigator in every way, something needs to be done to make that not the case any more.

N N 959 wrote:
Personally I love the direction Paizo has taken the class. I am concerned with feeling useful in combat. But I fear I'm not going to agree with people who want to be able to use the Investigator chassis to build a combat primary because that's what they did in PF1.

Any class should be able to build a combat primary character in one way or another. Combat is too big a part of the game for it to be otherwise.

In particular, a Rogue can do so very easily, and Investigators are only very slightly superior to them in Skills (if they even are superior...I think they are, but it's a very narrow margin of superiority). Being any more than very slightly inferior to them in combat means you should pretty much always just play a Rogue instead. And that sucks, since Investigator is excellent thematically.

N N 959 wrote:
The class has to feel useful in combat, but useful is a different bar than expecting to deal damage commensurate with any martial (monk, rogue inclusive). I expect the damage to be below a bard unless you go Alchemist.

That's a terrible assumption, because Bard does things other than damage in combat. Investigator does not. So either you need to give Investigator ridiculous buff and debuff potential, like a Bard has, or you need to make it deal damage on par with a martial. It can be at the low end of martial damage (slightly below Rogue on average seems fine to me), but it has to be pretty close or the Class will feel weak.

And feeling weak sucks.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I have to agree with DMW.

The Int issue is self evident. The game says that Int is an Investigator's most important stat. The fluff constantly talks about analyzing and studying problems to fix them, which give the class an Intelligence-focused flavor.

The mechanics on the other hand, tell you to focus on Wisdom and Dexterity, because those are going to fuel almost everything you do.

If Paizo believes the chassis is fine as is, then they should adjust the fluff and the key attribute to match it. I'm not saying I want that, but right now there's a big disconnect between how the game suggests you should build an Investigator based on their writeup and how you should actually build an Investigator based on their class features.

As for combat. I'm not saying Investigators should run that side of the game. I'm not even saying Investigators as written are terrible.

My biggest issue with combat is that, again, the Investigator paints this fantasy of a highly technical, studious adventurer who carefully analyzes problem before coming up with a solution. The mechanics of the class, however, suggest that you roll a Wisdom check and then add sneak attack dice to one attack (or more if you crit the perception check).

That doesn't feel studious. That doesn't feel analytic. It's also kind of boring.

Mostly I just really love the three-action economy and the way Paizo has created class feats that give characters unique ways to fight outside simply Striking over and over and I wish the Investigator played into that and its own fantasy a bit more with the class options and feats it can take.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because they are very reluctant to do so. Which doesn't mean they never should...but they're concerned about how it will work and limiting it pretty heavily.

Well, obviously they are reluctant to do so, the question is why are they reluctant? What problem arises if we undertake the various suggestions? If you're going to convince Paizo to change these things, then you've got to be ablet to identify the specific things that Paizo wants to avoid and show them that the problem isn't as bad as they think it is. The first step is knowing the why they didn't do these things.

Quote:
... since the issue of Int not doing anything, and Wis being overly essential, persists.

Not sure I'm entirely on board with this reoccurring assertion. First, EDIT: the majority of Recall Knowledge checks are based off of INT and Recall Knowledge is the main avenue for acquiring information from INT based skills. Unlike the Ranger that gets Survival and Nature which don't use the Ranger's primary stats, the Inv.'s baked in Society is INT based.

Second, true intelligence is a combination of wisdom and intellect. So I don't really see problem with WIS being important, if not more important.

Third, if we make INT affect combat, it's going to compel players to max INT. I don't really want this. I actually really like the fact that the difference between a 14-18 INT is not that dramatic for the class. I dislike the current build paradigm which compels most classes to max out their primary for combat reasons.

Perhaps the conceptual answer is to make the primary INT or WIS. This would address some of the narrative disconnect.

Quote:
When almost literally every build choice you make reinforces that Wisdom is just better than Intelligence for the Investigator in every way, something needs to be done to make that not the case any more.

I think you're overstating the case. Alchemist is better with INT. Forensics is not. Empiricist is kind of in-between. Known Weaknesses is a RK feat and that's INT. Plus, Empiricist gives you a free INT based skill. So that's 1.5 out of 3 of the build options leverage Wisdom and the same number leverage INT. All build options are benefited from boosting both, so I welcome a class that is less benefited on maxing one stat.

Quote:
Any class should be able to build a combat primary character in one way or another..

What I mean by Primary is that your main contribution is damage dealing. To that extent, I disagree that should be an option for every class. Every class doesn't have a Skill Monkey build and skills are on par with combat contributorily if not emotionally.

But I agree that combat is a big part of the game and the class has to feel dynamic in that venue. Regardless of theme. I also agree that on paper, it looks underwhelming. But I don't think the answer for this class is just more damage.

Quote:
In particular, a Rogue can do so very easily, and Investigators are only very slightly superior to them in Skills (if they even are superior...I think they are, but it's a very narrow margin of superiority)

While I agree that a Rogue might spell many aspects of the Investigator in term of outcome, I don't' think there is any similarity in terms of gameplay. The Inv is a marked departure from the typical process for skill based puzzle solving. But your point is well taken that if the Rogue feels satisfying in and out of combat, so should the Investigator.

Quote:
So either you need to give Investigator ridiculous buff and debuff potential, like a Bard has, or you need to make it deal damage on par with a martial.

I don't know how "ridiculous" the Bard's support modifiers are, but I would absolutely like to see the Inv go the non-DPS route.


Just a thought here, I think Flexible Studies (Feat 1) would make a great standard class feat, and make the number of skills be based on your INT mod, this would commonly end up being Lore skills (maybe make it only lore skills), which would really fit the class.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Just confirmed, you can make a no Int Investigator and run with it without any problems.

I made a leshy to get it to the lowest value (10 Int). The characteristics was something like 12/16/14/10/16/10. I had all the skills in wich I had a bonus from the characteristics (all the Wis skills + all the Dex skills) and even got some Int skills (with a +0). So you can use Recall Knowleadge in a lot of things, but not in every single one (your allys can cover that bases)

In combat is way better that a full Int character and the +0 Int don´t afect a thing.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Well, obviously they are reluctant to do so, the question is why are they reluctant? What problem arises if we undertake the various suggestions? If you're going to convince Paizo to change these things, then you've got to be ablet to identify the specific things that Paizo wants to avoid and show them that the problem isn't as bad as they think it is. The first step is knowing the why they didn't do these things.

Well, from what they've said they're quite worried about the potential to make other stats useless for those characters and reduce build diversity. I think that's a fair worry in many cases, but am a lot less certain it would happen with the solutions suggested in this thread thus far.

N N 959 wrote:
Not sure I'm entirely on board with this reoccurring assertion. First, EDIT: the majority of Recall Knowledge checks are based off of INT and Recall Knowledge is the main avenue for acquiring information from INT based skills. Unlike the Ranger that gets Survival and Nature which don't use the Ranger's primary stats, the Inv.'s baked in Society is INT based.

If by 'majority' you mean around 60% while the other 40% are Wis based (technically, this is leaving out Crafting, but it's also leaving out Medicine which is Wis...neither are super common, and adding one to each actually decreases the percentage which are Int-based), you're correct. I don't think that's a sufficient incentive as compared to the other 40% of Recall Knowledge, Perception, and Will Save, and being vastly better in combat.

But more importantly, few Investigator features actually trigger off Recall Knowledge. There are a few but not many, and the most notable is Known Weakness, which provides a lesser bonus than the Wisdom-based check it's paired with. Really, 'better at Recall Knowledge' isn't any better for Investigators than it is for anyone else. So this is just listing the reasons that everyone should raise Int.

Investigators should have reasons to raise Int that non-Investigators don't. Just like almost every other Class does with their Key Ability.

N N 959 wrote:
Second, true intelligence is a combination of wisdom and intellect. So I don't really see problem with WIS being important, if not more important.

If this were true, then Wis should be their key stat. But more importantly, thematically, the fictional archetype that Investigator is trying to epitomize is not necessarily high Wisdom. Indeed, their Wisdom is often mediocre at best. Sherlock Holmes is, perceptiveness aside, definitely not a high Wisdom character in most depictions, just as the most obvious example.

Forcing everyone who wants to play an Investigator into high Wisdom is thus, well, super un-fun. And fun is rather the point.

Interestingly, this is almost the exact point you made about why the PF2 Ranger was unsatisfying to you (ie: the mechanics don't properly reflect the fictional archetype), though I think more people are invested in the high-Int Investigator than are in your vision of the Ranger, so it's interesting to see you on the other side of the argument.

N N 959 wrote:
Third, if we make INT affect combat, it's going to compel players to max INT. I don't really want this. I actually really like the fact that the difference between a 14-18 INT is not that dramatic for the class. I dislike the current build paradigm which compels most classes to max out their primary for combat reasons.

Well, firstly, it's basically just replaced needing to max Int with needing to max Dex and Wis. The Int 14 one (with Dex and Wis 16 each) is just flatly superior to the Int 18 in almost every way (barring the Alchemy Methodology, anyway).

But more importantly you're kinda focusing on the wrong thing here. Yes, some people want Int to aid the Investigator in combat...but that's hardly the only suggestion.

The point of this thread is that the Investigator needs more mechanical incentives to increase Int. My own suggestions for the last while have had nothing at all to do with combat (I suggested removing the check from Study Suspect entirely and giving Int additional Skill/Perception stuff based on Methodology).

N N 959 wrote:
Perhaps the conceptual answer is to make the primary INT or WIS. This would address some of the narrative disconnect.

The issue is that the Wis ones would be flatly superior. It would be like a Rogue Racket giving you the choice of Dex and Con but nothing to actually do with the Con. Sure, you have the option, but the Dex version is basically always superior.

N N 959 wrote:
I think you're overstating the case. Alchemist is better with INT. Forensics is not. Empiricist is kind of in-between. Known Weaknesses is a RK feat and that's INT. Plus, Empiricist gives you a free INT based skill. So that's 1.5 out of 3 of the build options leverage Wisdom and the same number leverage INT. All build options are benefited from boosting both, so I welcome a class that is less benefited on maxing one stat.

Alchemist does indeed have reason to raise Int, you're right, and I should've been specific that I was talking about those without it. I just wish they weren't the only ones with such an incentive. Know Weakness isn't associated with any Methodology, and works just as well with Nature and Religion as it does with Int skills, so it's not a compelling reason, and given the number of Skills an Investigator gets, I don't think getting a single extra Int Skill is a compelling one either.

I mean, a minimum Int Investigator will usually have Int 12. They'll be fine at Society and whatever other Int Skill they take even if they never raise it at all beyond that, and have plenty of Skills to take every Wis and Dex Skill in the game.

N N 959 wrote:
What I mean by Primary is that your main contribution is damage dealing. To that extent, I disagree that should be an option for every class. Every class doesn't have a Skill Monkey build and skills are on par with combat contributorily if not emotionally.

Every Class does get 10 Skill Feats and to take Skills to Legendary, though. They may not get the breadth of Skills a Rogue or Investigator gets, but they get the same depth. They can be as good at any one Skill as anybody, which does a lot to make the amount of Skills most Classes have feel better. Spellcasters can also use spells to supplement skills in a useful manner, which helps them in this area as well.

I'm not saying that Investigator should be as good in combat as a Fighter or anything, but they should be as effective as other Classes doing the same roll. Them having a bit less options in terms of that roll, just as low Skill Classes have less options in their Skills, would be fine, but they need to do about as well with their option as other people who focus on it.

N N 959 wrote:
But I agree that combat is a big part of the game and the class has to feel dynamic in that venue. Regardless of theme. I also agree that on paper, it looks underwhelming. But I don't think the answer for this class is just more damage.

I don't really think anyone is saying it is. Most damage bumps I've seen are relatively minor. More options, especially debuff type stuff, seems a fine alternative to most people. But they need something.

N N 959 wrote:
While I agree that a Rogue might spell many aspects of the Investigator in term of outcome, I don't' think there is any similarity in terms of gameplay. The Inv is a marked departure from the typical process for skill based puzzle solving. But your point is well taken that if the Rogue feels satisfying in and out of combat, so should the Investigator.

Oh, I agree entirely. But in terms of balancing the Class, we need to look at outcomes, since that's what game balance is predicated on.

N N 959 wrote:
I don't know how "ridiculous" the Bard's support modifiers are, but I would absolutely like to see the Inv go the non-DPS route.

Effortless +1 to everyone's to-hit is very good indeed, and their debuff spells are pretty potent.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I think the best/only change that really needs to be made to make Int more impactful is to make study a suspect some form of intelligence skill check.

Edit: Better yet, an enemy Will save against class DC as someone said upthread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, in general I think stat substitution should be very rare. In this case it’s such a flavor win that I think it’s alright though.

If you thought int-perception made Wisdom too ignorable as an Investigator, you could always limit it to Int-perception when perceiving case-related things. Personally I’d take the less complicated route but it’s an option.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I’d definitely like to be able to examine a scene with the benefit of “the little grey cells”, as Poirot would put it. And certainly, catching somebody lying by virtue of intellect rather than intuition is a rather important keystone of detective novels. Finally, keying studied combat off of wisdom really does make it feel like the class is getting a thematic but mechanically misapplied key ability score.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Interestingly, this is almost the exact point you made about why the PF2 Ranger was unsatisfying to you (ie: the mechanics don't properly reflect the fictional archetype), though I think more people are invested in the high-Int Investigator than are in your vision of the Ranger, so it's interesting to see you on the other side of the argument.

My issues with the PF2 Ranger were many. The most fundamental of those was that the class had no narrative purpose. At no point does a party look at each other and say, "Gee, wish we had a Ranger in the party instead of X" There is nothing intrinsic to the PF2 (or PF1) Ranger that makes the adventure easier. The one thing a Ranger should have as its calling card--tracking--can be performed by anyone with Wisdom and Survival. There are probably more Ranger themed abilities in the Skill feats, than in the actual class.

The Investigator doesn't have that problem at all.

The issue was that the mechanics don't support the narrative. The initial version of Hunter's Edge, which was only Flurry, has nothing do with being "first and foremost a hunter." But that issue was a minor issue. The investigator does not have that problem.

Quote:
But more importantly, few Investigator features actually trigger off Recall Knowledge.

Okay? Recall Knowledge isn't a class feature. My argument is that INT helps with RK and that is predominant (but not the only) tool of agency for the class. An Investigator is going to do more RK checks than any other class and having a higher INT is going to give the Inv. a decided advantage. It's no different than STR for a Fighter, only STR work in combat and INT works out of it.

Quote:
I don't think that's a sufficient incentive as compared to the other 40% of Recall Knowledge, Perception, and Will Save, and being vastly better in combat.

So really, this is about INT and combat, not INT and value to the class as an Investigator?

Quote:
Really, 'better at Recall Knowledge' isn't any better for Investigators than it is for anyone else. So this is just listing the reasons that everyone should raise Int.

I think this is more of a valid concern. A Fighter is better at fighting, an investigator should be better at knowing things. I would really like to see Keen Recollection provide a benefit to all INT/WIS based checks, not just ones you aren't trained in. My only concerns is if that's too good a benefit and to make sure the MC option doesn't provide it.

Quote:
Investigators should have reasons to raise Int that non-Investigators don't. Just like almost every other Class does with their Key Ability.

Fighters don't get any extra benefit from STR. Someone who wants to fight, gets just as much benefit from raising STR as a Fighter does. It just so happens that the main thing Fighters want to do is benefitted from high STR.

The same is true for an Inv. The majority of time, an Inv. is going to be using RK, even a Forensic. There are only a few limited times you're really going to need to do forensic analysis on a body. There's a reason why Paizo is trying to get people to use the Inv in Plaguestone. I just did Origins of the Open Road and the Absalom Imitative and neither scenario has any use for forensic medicine. Sure, Battle Medicine is going to be helpful (especially if you can't fight), but outside of combat, even the Forensic Inv. is going to be dong a lot of INT based RK.

Quote:
Well, firstly, it's basically just replaced needing to max Int with needing to max Dex and Wis. The Int 14 one (with Dex and Wis 16 each) is just flatly superior to the Int 18 in almost every way (barring the Alchemy Methodology, anyway).

So here, you kind of get yourself in to trouble.

The INT 14 isn't "flatly superior". The difference between 14 and 18 is +2 on all INT based checks, means you have two less languages, and two less skills. Later in this thread, you claim the +1 from a bard as part of its "ridiculous" buffing. If +1 is such a big deal, the +2 is a bigger deal. You can't dismiss a +2 on one side of the aisle and then exult a +1 on the other.

If we leave WIS the same, an 18 INT Inv is statistically superior to a 14 at investigating, regardless of DEX. The beauty of this class design is that the difference doesn't feel psychologically overpowering as it does with say a 14 STR vs 18 STR fighter.

Quote:
The point of this thread is that the Investigator needs more mechanical incentives to increase Int.

And I'm looking at the downside. I already have incentive to raise INT, I don't need more incentive because the flip-side of being incentivized to do something is being penalized for not doing it. As a player, there is a real psychological freedom in not feeling penalized for failing to maxi INT but still getting more value from it over the other stats (excluding WIS).

Quote:
My own suggestions for the last while have had nothing at all to do with combat (I suggested removing the check from Study Suspect entirely and giving Int additional Skill/Perception stuff based on Methodology).

Study Suspect is the Hunter's Edge of the Investigator. Honestly, if Paizo simply adds "At 1st level, your class gives you an ability boost to Intelligence or Wisdom" a lot of these arguments are dissolved. Paizo did this with the Ranger and there is no reason they can't do this with the Investigator--I'll address your concerns below.

Quote:
'm not saying that Investigator should be as good in combat as a Fighter or anything, but they should be as effective as other Classes doing the same roll. Them having a bit less options in terms of that roll, just as low Skill Classes have less options in their Skills, would be fine, but they need to do about as well with their option as other people who focus on it.

I think the key questions here is what does "as good as" mean. You, I and Squiggit may all have a different metric/range forf determining that. What I think we can all agree on is that the class can't feel useless or futile in combat. And as I've stated several places, I am inclined to agree that on paper, it looks/feels closer to the useless side than the fun side---whips whips whips (unpaid advertisement)

I do agree that every class needs to feel like it serves some non-trivial purpose in combat. I think we also agree that we are not going to get there via raising the class' DPS options. I don't think everyone in this thread is on the same page. I also agree that thematically, it makes sense combat viability to INT/WIS. But they already did it for WIS, they just need make it an option for Primary/Boost stat.

I also will concede that if there is a strong narrative benefit in allowing INT to be helpful in combat. Technically it is via KNOWN WEAKNESS. Is that enough? We can always want more, but is there a valid argument against it?

Let me also point out that narratively, the Inv has survived the transition to PF2 an order of magnitude better than the Ranger. The Ranger was truly gutted thematically. Removing spells, removing any real bonus to track, commoditizing almost all of its baked in themes and then giving a feat like Trackless step which has essentially zero in-game benefit....So if the Inv suffers a slight any thematic/narrative discontinuity, it's nowhere on the level that the Ranger and arguably Paladin when through, and yet we have them as they are.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know a lot of people are really opposed to the idea of skill substitutions, but I think part of the reason it doesn't feel bad to me in this particular instance to suggest is that a lot of the skill choices seem pretty arbitrary.

Like there's no real reason why understanding religious concepts or wild animals or medicine need to rely on intuition rather than intellect. It's just that Druids and Clerics run off Wisdom so they get their skills keyed appropriately.

Quote:
the Inv has survived the transition to PF2 an order of magnitude better than the Ranger.

Not sure I really agree. Again, the issues with Int are pretty significant narratively. The new version of Studied Combat is an incredibly underwhelming mechanic too. The class lost most of its alchemical flavor, which isn't a bad thing, but what's left behind looks and feels a lot like a variant Rogue right now rather than its own concept.

You keep saying Investigators can make RK checks, but Rangers have feats that key off RK too. An Int-based Ranger is just as, or possibly more, valid than an Int-based investigator right now. That seems problematic given the core theme of the Investigator, as much fun as I had with my high-Int ranger in another PF2 game.

The fact that Rangers went from a highly skilled expert to being a variant fighter sucks, but that doesn't mean the Investigator doesn't also have some glaring issues in the way its design has come together.


What if Study Suspect worked off Recall Knowledge instead of Perception?

EDIT: What I mean is that you could take the action to Recall Knowledge, and then gain the benefits of Study Suspect as part of that by comparing the roll to the target's Will DC?


Squiggit wrote:
You keep saying Investigators can make RK checks, but Rangers have feats that key off RK too.

Only for monster identification, nothing else. You're also overlooking the fact that the Ranger is incentivized not to take any other RK-option skills to use with Monster Hunter, because at lvl 10, you're getting it all with just Nature.

Quote:
An Int-based Ranger is just as, or possibly more, valid than an Int-based investigator right now.

That isn't even remotely true. INT is arguably a dump stat for the Ranger. A Ranger has STR, DEX, WIS, CON to leverage before INT.

Quote:
That seems problematic given the core theme of the Investigator, as much fun as I had with my high-Int ranger in another PF2 game.

I don't understand how you enjoying a high INT ranger invalidates the benefit a Inv gets from INT?

The problem with this argument and all its permutations is that other classes have key rolls that do not leverage INT. The Investigator does. Yes, it also leverages WIS, so simply add that as an option for primary stat and problem solved narratively.

The disconnect I have here is that no class gets more benefit form their stat than any other class. All classes get the same benefit. A rogue can get just as much damage from high STR as a Fighter. The difference is that the Inv's primary roll involves using those skil more than anyone else. Yes, you can build a high INT/DEX Rogue, but you're giving up a WIS or CON or CHR and that's going to make you less capable in some of your Roguely duties. That's working as intended. The Inv isn't supposed to completely dominate the Rogue in all things investigative.

Quote:
The fact that Rangers went from a highly skilled expert to being a variant fighter sucks, but that doesn't mean the Investigator doesn't also have some glaring issues in the way its design has come together.

Uh...I don't see any evidence that the Inv has the problems the Ranger has. I also don't see the "glaring" issues with INT. INT helps a an Inv, there is no getting around that. The idea that WIS works better for combat, is not automatically a problem. And honestly, if INT worked better for combat, I think that would be a problem given the paradigm and tight math (tm) of PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
A Ranger has STR, DEX, WIS, CON to leverage before INT.

And the Investigator doesn't? Con and Wis are arguably even more valuable on the Investigator, since they have lower base fort and HP and rely on Wisdom to power some of their key class features.

Quote:
The problem with this argument and all its permutations is that other classes have key rolls that do not leverage INT.

It uh, doesn't though. The alchemical subclass gets Int/day elixirs, but outside of that there's no innate Int synergy anywhere in the class. None.

Quote:
The disconnect I have here is that no class gets more benefit form their stat than any other class

That's just factually not true. You cannot use Dexterity as your damage stat if you aren't a thief rogue. You cannot use Wisdom as your attack stat unless you're a Cleric or Druid (or multiclass into them). And, uh, so on from there.

Quote:
I also don't see the "glaring" issues with INT

The game says it's their 'most important' stat. The mechanics of the class on the other hand, suggest avoiding it. There's a pretty clear disconnect between what the class describes and what its numbers actually shake out to be.

I get that you're okay with that and that's fine, I can see where you're coming from. Other people definitely aren't though and would prefer their Int based class actually feel Int based and I don't think that's nearly as bizarre a desire as you're making it out to be. We're kinda just talking in circles at this point though, so I think that's the last I'll say on the subject.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "Investigator" isnt meant to be the best at "investigating"......

Glad to know that's how the smart detective is supposed to play.


Squiggit wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
A Ranger has STR, DEX, WIS, CON to leverage before INT.
And the Investigator doesn't? Con and Wis are arguably even more valuable on the Investigator, since they have lower base fort and HP and rely on Wisdom to power some of their key class features.

How is CON more valuable to an Inv when the TWF ranger is expected to engage in melee as a matter of course?

I think the problem is that we are talking about different arenas of importantce. Yes, all PCs need CON to avoid dying. But the primary roll of an Inv isn't to rush into combat and expose themselves to the toughest enemy. Fighter, TWF Ranger, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, all have greater need for CON. More to the point, DEX, STR, and WIS are higher priorities for a Ranger than INT. Why? Because very little of what the Ranger is expected to contribute leverages INT. Same for Monk, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Bard, etc. Yes, Wizard, Alchemist, and to some extent the Rogue can benefit from high INT. That doesn't' mean the Inv isn't getting a benefit, which is what is being heavily implied.

And as I stated, simply add a Wisdom option and that solves the narrative problem with WIS being important or more important than INT. WIS based Investigators are as valid a trope as INT. It's not like the class dates back to AD&D with Spells and suddenly had them stripped. You're adding an aspect with WIS, not taking away INT.

Quote:
It uh, doesn't though. The alchemical subclass gets Int/day elixirs, but outside of that there's no innate Int synergy anywhere in the class. None.

That's not true. Getting INT based skills and having a high INT creates synergy. Do other classes have more synergy? Sure, so what? How is that specifically a problem?

Quote:
That's just factually not true. You cannot use Dexterity as your damage stat if you aren't a thief rogue. You cannot use Wisdom as your attack stat unless you're a Cleric or Druid (or multiclass into them). And, uh, so on from there.

Okay, I see what you mean. That is true for a few classes (maybe a majority), not all of them. Once we add WIS as a primary stat, that problem is solved. Next...

Quote:
The game says it's their 'most important' stat. The mechanics of the class on the other hand, suggest avoiding it. There's a pretty clear disconnect between what the class describes and what its numbers actually shake out to be.

That hyperbole isn't helpful. Inv benefit from higher INT. Once Paizo adds WIS as primary stat option, then this problem goes away.

Really, Paizo should say INT "and" WIS are the primary stats. That complete dissolves these concerns.

Quote:
I get that you're okay with that and that's fine, I can see where you're coming from. Other people definitely aren't though and would prefer their Int based class actually feel Int based and I don't think that's nearly as bizarre a desire as you're making it out to be. We're kinda just talking in circles at this point though, so I think that's the last I'll say on the subject.

Well, I wanted spells for a Ranger and that went nowhere, so disappointment is the porridge of PF2. But the problem I have is this just sounds like you want it because you want it. What problem does it solve? What is the Inv not able to do if some people can validly claim that INT isn't as valuable to a Inv as DEX is to a Rogue?

Why am I against it? Because it's not solving anything specific. Worse, it psychologically limits my build options if I am now compelled to max INT. I don't want to be MORE dependent on INT. I think you're undervaluing the freedom of not being totally dependent on INT that an Inv has.

I wanted Spells on a Ranger because it gave the Ranger a lot more utility/agency. Making some random adjustment that allows INT to form a stronger synergy isn't really solving anything. If you say it's a narrative thing, then add WIS and we're cool on narrative. If you say it has to be INT, just because...well, I'm gong to advocate against that (a little).

I think we both agree on giving the Inv more combat purpose, I just am reluctant to automatically make it result from INT becaue of the maxing pressure.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For me at least, the “problem” that needs solving is a flavor problem. The archetypal investigator relies on their impeccable intelligence to solve crimes, by putting all the clues together. If there’s no mechanical push to get any int as an investigator, that’s a flavor fail.

Or put another way; if building sherlock holmes (high Int, low Wis) as an investigator is really sub-optimal, that’s a flavor fail.


Henro wrote:

For me at least, the “problem” that needs solving is a flavor problem. The archetypal investigator relies on their impeccable intelligence to solve crimes, by putting all the clues together. If there’s no mechanical push to get any int as an investigator, that’s a flavor fail.

Or put another way; if building sherlock holmes (high Int, low Wis) as an investigator is really sub-optimal, that’s a flavor fail.

As someone posted in another thread, there are lot of Investigators that aren't Empiricist. Detectives are considered Investigators and they are decidedly not in the Empiricist model and are often operating on "hunches" which are decidedly Wisdom based. Indiana Jones is an Investigator but not a relentless intellect as he clearly relies on intuition and perception more than raw deduction.

I can see how the the fact that the Empiricist not getting more synergy from INT could be irksome conceptually. I was beat about the head and shoulders that "my vision" of a Ranger does not a Ranger make. Nevermind that "my vision" was merely the historical Ranger and not anything unique to me. Paizo never saw it my way. But I secretly think it had a lot more to do with the mechanics and the nature of PF2. They couldn't do the legacy Ranger with the PF2 tools. There might be something similar with regard to INT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making Wis a key stat option would help the mechanics, but it wouldn't do anything to make Int based investigators more compelling. So calling that the solution to the problem is missing the mark of what the issues people have are.

Quote:

How is CON more valuable to an Inv when the TWF ranger is expected to engage in melee as a matter of course?

I think the problem is that we are talking about different arenas of importantce. Yes, all PCs need CON to avoid dying. But the primary roll of an Inv isn't to rush into combat and expose themselves to the toughest enemy.

What do you think the Investigator is going to do in combat? Their combat options as written pretty much boil down to Studying and Striking with a bit of flexibility on their third action.

A melee investigator is going to be right up there with the TWF ranger.


Squiggit wrote:
Making Wis a key stat option would help the mechanics, but it wouldn't do anything to make Int based investigators more compelling. So calling that the solution to the problem is missing the mark of what the issues people have are.

Sure, but compared to the Paladin losing Smite Evil and the Ranger losing spells altogether, I guess I consider this really minor. More to the point, I feel like it's unlikely to be addressed.

Now, if you can show that stronger INT synergy is necessary functionally, then that's a different argument. But Paizo nixed the Ranger spells and the class got nothing by way of compensation, so I would not hold my breadth.

To be frank, I think what we see here, is going to be 95% of what we are gong to get in the final version, which is to say that I wouldn't anticipate a whole lot of substantive changes.

Quote:

What do you think the Investigator is going to do in combat? Their combat options as written pretty much boil down to Studying and Striking with a bit of flexibility on their third action.

A melee investigator is going to be right up there with the TWF ranger.

1. We agree that the Inv's combat presence is possibly lacking. But you know, until we play the class in combat, it's difficult to know for certain. I think clearly the class does not have tremendous damage dealing. 1d6 until level 5 is not much. Runes will help....

2. I disagree that the Inv is going to be right up there with the Ranger, the class is clearly not built for it. Light armor, 8 hit points, Neither CON nor DEX is the key stat. Every class is not intended to engage in melee.

I see this class as more of an opportunist and certainly not a round after round presser. I expect to kite and skirt the central fighting. Primarily using range weapons and only engage in melee against lower level foes when I succeed with SS. I think there's a deliberate reason why SS works with ranged weapons and something like Precise Strike does not. I'm telling you, give this class proficiency in a whip and it's going to dramatically increase the fun factor. Trip, and Disarm when you fail SS, and +1d6 when you don't...all out of melee?? I really hope Paizo makes this change.

I don't know. it may not be as bad as it looks on paper. One thing I've noted in GMing Origins of the Open Road...people are reluctant to use Recall K. in combat. This is one thing the Inv will most certainly be able to attempt. How useful will that be in the long term? I don't know. It will certainly be less useful as meta knowledge increases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's definitely a problem that Int is the key stat for the Investigator now, but there are a number of pretty easy fixes to that to make it more sensible. Int to Perception is such an obvious choice that I'm shocked it wasn't in the original script; I'd similarly give Int to Medicine for Forensic Medicine Investigators.

I think it's obvious that Paizo doesn't want INT to do double duty for the Investigator. Everyone keeps throwing out INT based Perception/Damage/Accuracy/Whathaveyou like Paizo hadn't thought of it.

My experience with the Ranger process in PF2 tells me that Paizo has deliberately nerfed a lot of what classes could do. The Investigator is no exception, fortunately, these changes don't gut the traditional narrative of the class as they did for the Ranger.

for whatever reason, this made me think that the investigator could do well to have a system similar to panache. using combat maneuvers that use their class DC to apply various debuffs. you do investigator like things to get inspiration and then do extra precision damage while you have it and then expend it to do strong debuffs (as opposed to more damage like a swashbuckler)

51 to 100 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Investigator Playtest / What does the Investigator use Intelligence for? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.