Or put another way; if building sherlock holmes (high Int, low Wis) as an investigator is really sub-optimal, that’s a flavor fail.Sherlock Holmes is not a low Wis character. He's one of the most observant characters in fiction. His dump stat is Charisma.
And he only dumps Charisma in modern interpretations. The original is all right at it, even if it isn't a focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And he only dumps Charisma in modern interpretations. The original is all right at it, even if it isn't a focus.Or put another way; if building sherlock holmes (high Int, low Wis) as an investigator is really sub-optimal, that’s a flavor fail.Sherlock Holmes is not a low Wis character. He's one of the most observant characters in fiction. His dump stat is Charisma.
sherlock holmes is like a 20th level character he's got well above average stats in every category.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
N N 959:
There are really two important things here that you just don't seem to be understanding about those of us who want Investigator to get more out of Int (which appears to be a majority, by the way):
1. It's not really about Int rather than Wis being the Key Ability. Or rather, it is, but not in a 'making Wis Key would fix this' kinda way. I would dislike the Class notably more if they made that switch, even though it would be better mechanically. Because the fictional archetype that most people want to play when they do an Investigator is an Int-primary character. Might they also have Wisdom? Absolutely, but it's secondary to their brilliant intellect.
Nobody objects to a low-Int, high-Wis Investigator being an option or existing, but if they're better mechanically than the low-Wis, high-Int version, it really sucks. It would be like all Swashbucklers being better off going high Str and ditching Dex entirely...sure, there's probably a fictional archetype to be had there, but it's not the one most people who are interested in the Class are aiming for.
2. Every current Class except Alchemist can actively attack with their Key Ability. Alchemist is probably the weakest Class in the game. This combination of factors is not a coincidence. Not being able to actually use your Key Ability in direct combat is a large disadvantage as compared to those who do, and requires quite a bit of ground to be made up to make the Class good.
Alchemist does actually go fairly far to make Int good...and it's debatably still not enough. Investigator doesn't go nearly as far right now, so it's definitely not enough.
I say give them some sort of debuff attack and it's dc would be based on int naturally. hmm I know it's an avoid thing but if they could add int to damage for specific attacks like their strike that would make int better for them as well.
I wonder how many of these points the devs had already considered before the playtest doc was published.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how many of these points the devs had already considered before the playtest doc was published.
I'd like to believe the developers didn't realize how bad intelligence is for the Investigator when they were writing it - start from the statement "obviously Investigators are intelligent" and you can pretty easily forget to give the chassis a reason to be intelligent. I've made similar errors in my own writing and homebrews.
But if the devs saw the problems on their own and just decided it's okay for an int-based class's core feature to run off of wisdom? Yeesh.
One issue I have with so much narrative power relying on Recall Knowledge is that rk is supposed to be a secret check. Not even knowing if you succeeded or failed at the one thing you're supposed to swagger about seems unfun. Given that, I think I'd rather focus on something a that gives a bit more immediate feedback, like, you know, stabbing things.
The alchemy methodology is a good start. I think I'd like it if all Deductive methods had similar pools that used Int, each with a unique use and a shared one that all Investigators got. Given the limited nature, I think these can be on par with a spell in power.
I wonder how many of these points the devs had already considered before the playtest doc was published.I'd like to believe the developers didn't realize how bad intelligence is for the Investigator when they were writing it - start from the statement "obviously Investigators are intelligent" and you can pretty easily forget to give the chassis a reason to be intelligent. I've made similar errors in my own writing and homebrews.
I'm still a little gobsmacked that the barbarian class gives you more mechanical incentive to play an oath bound warrior than the monk class.
Okay, I thought it was still just a range attack. Updated.Casters don't actively attack with their key stat. Cantrips use DEX and most damage spells aren't boosted by CHR or WIS or INT for the various casters.No clue where you're getting this but it's just plain wrong. Targeted Spells, including Cantrips make a Spell Attack which uses the casters casting stat. The attack Cantrips add the spellcasting ability modifier.
I've been there. My brain is a mix of PF1 and PF2 rules right now. :)
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand them perfectly. They're just based on a fallacy.
No, they aren't.
Then the problem results from a mischaracterization or misrepresentation of what all Investigators have: Perception. Sherlock Homes, The Question, Monk, The Hardy Boys, Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones, etc. All of these characters have perception above all else. What separates them from others is their ability to notice clues that others miss. It is decidedly not that they all have relentless intellects. So the fault is actually Paizo's for making INT the key stat, it should be really WIS. All investigations start with finding clues. But we associate being "smarter" primarily with INT not WIS and Paizo probably had other reasons for not wanting to go WIS.
I strongly disagree. Not with the assertion about fictional investigators (though I do also disagree with that), but with the fact that this is at all relevant.
What's relevant is people's ability to play their vision of the archetypes that interest them, and for many people, probably most people, that vision of the Investigator is primarily about their deductive reasoning once the clues are found. The part that interests people and that they want to play, has Intelligence as its foundational element.
And, indeed, absent Study Suspect and with some other way to utilize Int, the current Investigator's Legendary Perception is more than enough to allow for solid clue gathering with even mediocre Wisdom, and thus enable that archetype to work mechanically.
Which means all we need are a couple small changes and this version will work.
That's an opinion based on a preconceived (and erroneous) notion that INT is the most important aspect of any real life or iconic Investigators and reinforced by Paizo making INT the Key stat and not WIS.
It's definitionally not erroneous if it's what people in general want in terms of a thematic archetype. I disagree with you on to what degree intellect is essential to an iconic Investigator in fiction...but you being right or wrong on that is actually irrelevant if people in general want the Int-based version.
I assume your iconic is Sherlock Holmes, and his powers of observation where second to none. In PF2, that's WIS, not INT.
His powers of observation are hardly his only quality. Indeed, I'd argue it's entirely secondary to his intellect. He sees things other people don't, sure, but that's irrelevant without his intellect making the connections between them that allow him to solve crimes.
Even we accept this assertion, the problem is solved by either switching entirely to WIS or making it an option for Key stat.
No. That solves nothing for those who want to be Int-based. Having both of them as Key Stats under these circumstances is actively terrible since it makes taking the Int route a trap option.
It doesn't matter whether INT is the key combat stat or not. What matters is whether the class can do what it needs to do.
I'm not saying it needs to be the key combat stat, I'm saying that if it isn't, it sure better get some other use or it's a bad Key Stat and the Class is badly designed.
I totally get where you're coming from. I went through the same fundamental problem with the Ranger, though categorically it is very different. But the fact is, Investigators stories start with their powers of observation, not their deduction.
Firstly, that's true only in the most literal sense (they start with observations, but end with deductions...and the ending is often the most important part), but even were it true in practice, it once again doesn't matter. What matters is not how such stories actually work, it's how people think they work and what part of them they wish to focus on and epitomize.
What I will concede is that there is a narrative disconnect with an Empiricist not getting more out of INT than the other two Methodologies. But Paizo's willingness to totally disregard narrative in favor of design goals, is nothing new.
The thing is, this is a playtest. Arguments like this verge on the nonsensical because they can change it to make the flavor work and, in this case, can do so easily. Saying 'Oh, they do this all the time.' (something I'm not at all sure I agree with) is not an argument that they should do that or that doing that is a good thing. Fixing this is entirely possible, and arguing that it shouldn't be fixed because of this is silly.
The rest of your arguments I disagree with, but make sense from the perspective you're using. This one's just weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a lot about wisdom and investigators and how they tie
sure, but information processing is (well this might have changed in 2e) generally considered to be intelligence. resisting being overwhelmed by knowledge is an intelligence check in 1e.
intelligence is being able to grasp the entire scene before you and make the connections. remembering that coal around the fingers means X and that on an older lady if there's no ring on the finger check for a tan line, etc.
it's having a large backing of knowledge and using common clues to put it all together.
I almost think that investigators should be able to do recall knowledge checks (society if none fits) after a perception to get a scrap of information (from remembering a detail the player themselves might have forgotten) on how the detail is important. like you notice a secret entrance, but the recall knowledge lets you realize it has been used recently.
actually, maybe the above or you can use recall knowledge against the DC of the check to improve the success by one, making a failure a success or a success a critical success, etc.
maybe as well, give them the ability to roll recall knowledge as a reaction if they used perception to roll for initiative.
actually in fact, being able to use recall knowledge checks to try to improve your rolls sounds like a really fun thing to do. like maybe it only starts out as above, but you can get feats to let it apply to more skills, like saving yourself from a nasty fall(while using athletics), by quickly thinking of something that can save you. you would have failed to pick the safe, but you recognize the name/insignia of the maker and know a few things he tends to forget when he makes a safe, and use them to stop the failure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want very much to see a unique investigator cue off of intelligence, but the problem I am seeing now is the same problem I am seeing with the alchemist, and the scoundrel that goes CHA, and really seems to stem all the way back to the decision to have spell attack rolls use a primary attack stat:
The balance of the game is too focused on expecting an 18 in an attack stat. If your primary ability is not an attack stat for your character, you end up almost forced into having to build for dexterity (to be able to use finesse weapons and have reasonable AC, and then either Con or Wis, but really both, because you already playing at a low average as far as combat goes. And building To STR with out in class armor proficiency options is incredibly resource intensive.
What does this have to do with casters? Because casters get to use off ability scores as attack stats, it makes these other classes a lot more lack luster and less exciting, or as Potential window dressing for casters to take as MC dedications. If every character needed to invest in STR or DEX to hit with attacks, and the game was balanced on a starting attribute of 14 with training being adequate, having a non attack based primary stat would be more acceptable. But I guess that would either have necessitated a touch AC or a return to proficiencies being +1 instead of +2 to keep the fighter from becoming too much of a slaughter machine.
Anyway, there is something not quite right about classes that have non-attack primary attributes right now, but I would hate for the solution to be to allow every class to attack with their primary attribute.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of these characters have perception above all else. What separates them from others is their ability to notice clues that others miss. It is decidedly not that they all have relentless intellects.
Part of the issue here is the question of what Perception represents in the clue-gathering context. Is it literally perceiving the existence of a clue or is it understanding the significance? Is there a difference between the two? If there is a difference, are they still both functions of Wisdom or is the latter a function of Intelligence?
Without discounting the fact that Holmes notices a lot that other people miss, a big part of what makes him memorable is that he already knows the significance of things that anyone would notice, but wouldn’t realize are significant.
After walks [Holmes] has shown me splashes upon his trouseres, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.
What’s memorable here isn’t that Holmes noticed that his pants were muddy (Wis), it’s that he knows what each splash of mud means (Int).
I think it’d help incentivize int if they allowed them to replace it to Perception as the attribute of choice as well as to one or more skills defined by the Methodology.
But outside that, I think it’s fine. Not having to scale your INT to maximum level can be freeing to pick different fighting styles.
For instance, Batman probably has a pretty insane strength and decent dexterity, but his stealth is probably from his intelligence (also his intimidation IMO).
Sherlock uses INT for climbing, survival, etc.
One interesting thing would be if they were able to give a weapon a trait it otherwise wouldn’t have while attacking. That would allow creative combat tactics that fit with an intelligent on their feet type of person while not being as direct as +int to damage.
Either that or easier to apply study suspect triggers so they can take advantage of their sudden strike more.
That said it’s not in a terrible spot. INT, WIS and DEX are fairly easy to get decent stats in and still be relatively effective (first one I made I did go halfling which seems to be a solid choice for this though).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you make INT do more, specifically in combat, then you're going to gimp a character for not having an 18 INT.
But a character maxing out their key stat and gimping themselves as a result is okay?
If this true, then Inv is the only class that offers freedom from that.
Not really true. Low-int alchemist is super functional, especially if you aren't a bomber or aren't going to spend a lot of time at lower levels.
Whether or not you care about your key stat as a caster depends entirely on your build. Gish builds like Warpriests can get away with fairly limited investment in their key stat. Granted, I think gish builds are kind of terrible in PF2, but nonetheless buffs don't care about your key attribute at all.
All of that aside, your comments about build freedom aren't even entirely true.
Yeah, the current Investigator lets you avoid needing to put an 18 in Int (in fact, it heavily discourages it!). But you're still going to max something, because that's what the game math expects you to do.
It's just going to be Dex/Wis instead of Dex/Int (or Str/Wis if you want, but that'd be harder to make work given their proficiencies).
You pretty clearly prefer Dex/Wis and that's fine, but being encouraged to max out those stats instead isn't diverse or freeing anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I hope they do:
- Allow all Investigators to use INT instead if WIS for Perception as a baseline class feature at level 1.
- Allow the Doc subclass to use INT instead of WIS for Medicine.
- Add a subclass that can apply INT instead of STR to weapon damage (only for weapons eligible for Studied Strike).
- Add some utility focus powers utilitizing their Class DC for use in combat. This would be akin to Monk powers but clearly Mundane and mostly utility based (ala-Batman utility belt). If not that, then some more abilities to use in combat that key off of INT.
Come to think of it most characters that would be Classed as Investigators have affects of varying degree like a utility belt.
In a way the “though ahead and bought it” Class Feat is kinda like that, it would be a neat concept to expand into something akin to a Monk Ki Pool but for INT based problem solutions (In a way this kinda resembles the old Inspiration mechanic).
Ya, I think the focus mechanic is pretty underutilized in general. I would like to see it used for more stuff. It could absolutely be used for a cool Investigator utility belt, imo.
I don’t know that it would need to be exclusive to a utiliry belt concept and maybe they can marry some of the alchemical concepts into it as well.
I don’t hate the current implementation but it just feels like there’s something deeper there.
For instance a pool you can use to create alchemical items but also depending on what you chose could be used for other things. In a way the “alchemist” provides some of the utility belt aspect but it’s a bit all or nothing in on it.
Investigators would probably benefit from something a little lighter weight, where the methodology grants a specific focus power, such as conjuring alchemical equipments or turning a sense from imprecise to precise/vague to imprecise or even healing effects that temporarily absolve sickness/fear/etc due to a clever remedy.
It’d be nice if these focus spells, while encouraged by methodology, could be mixed and matched.
If they existed of course. This would also give them a combat edge back because focus spells are primarily encounter mode driven.
The alchemical methodology could just be tweaked, Major testing crafting etc all occurs at the lab, but out in the field they resort to on the fly usage for quick gain.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good posts here.
1. My main objective in this thread and the others, is the same as everyone else's. Namely, I'm giving feedback on making this class the best it can be in my opinion, given the perceived constraints. In this thread, my position is largely expressed by Unicore here:
The balance of the game is too focused on expecting an 18 in an attack stat.I was accused of not getting it, and I'll fire back. If you make INT do more, specifically in combat, then you're going to gimp a character for not having an 18 INT. If INT does more, then that limits what the class can achieve in the absence of INT.
No, it doesn't. That's an utterly false dichotomy. Making Int better, if just piled on top of the current options, in no way and to no degree makes other builds worse. Some versions might make it essential, but by no means all.
For example, allowing, but not requiring, Int on Perception in no way changes the viability of the Dex/Wis Investigator, it just makes the Dex/Int Investigator who doesn't prioritize Wisdom actually work.
Also, as you yourself note I've said before, nobody is saying the Int buff needs to be categorically combat related. Some of the suggested ideas fall into that category, but by no means all of them, and I don't think anyone has actually said the Int boost needs to be combative. I certainly haven't.
If this true, then Inv is the only class that offers freedom from that. In my opinion, the fact that a 14 INT Inv is not considered gimped next to an 18 INT Inv is something that Paizo got right. Ask yourselves how much better this game would be if this were true for all the other classes?
No, it offers no greater freedom at all. In the same way that an 18 in a main stat is optimal for most Classes, at the moment, a Dex 16/Wis 16 is optimal for the Investigator. That's still restrictive and as absolute a requirement as getting Str 18 on a Barbarian is. Maybe more so since it's two stats. Making it not involve the Key Stat doesn't actually provide more freedom, just screws people who want that Int 18 for thematic reasons.
Also, being able to attack with your key stat in no way actually necessitates maxing it. It does if you want to be perfectly optimal, and want to use that stat to attack, but perfect optimization is hardly required to make viable characters, as Str 16 Warpriests and the like demonstrate.
While this is a great academic discussion it isn't really central to my the overall problem. I brought up this topic as an attempt to dissolve some of DMW"s identified issues: that his concept of an Inv has to be focused on INT because of Sherlock Holmes.
This is not what I said. Sherlock Holmes is one example, sure, but he's not my whole argument. I can come up with a crapload of other examples, Holmes is just the easiest because he's a bit of a cultural touchstone.
The Investigator is Int-based because the fictional archetypes it's based on, and also, now that I think on it, because it was Int-based in PF1. Making it no longer Int-based would be like having Wizards start using Wisdom as their casting stat, and just as annoying to existing fans of the Class.
To the extent others agree with him, I'm trying to help them understand that in reality, Inv rely more on noticing clues and that in truth, the vast majority of Inv in fiction and real life are not successful because of pure empiricism.
Real life is pretty irrelevant. I don't think this is as true in reality as you seem to, but it doesn't really matter even if it is. Pathfinder is pretty divorced from the real world, and realism arguments like this have very little place in it. An Archaeologist Class (should such a thing every exist) should have whip proficiency not because rel archaeologists use them, but because Indiana Jones did. A Swashbuckler or Rogue can have Str 10 and work fine even though, in reality, rapiers require a very strong arm to wield properly, because in fiction fencers are often entirely speed based (a falsehood fed into by fencing foils, which are not real weapons in most senses, being very light).
Likewise, the attributes that should be necessary for an Investigator Class should be those required of fictional detectives rather than real ones.
Neither Scully or Mulder in the X-files is a genius. Neither of them succeeds by doing computational wizardry or encyclopedic recall. The over-arcing point is to convince others that successful Inv doesn't require Sherlock Holmes level IQ. So this is more focused on being open minded to about how one conceptualizes an Inv. I'm not saying that INT isn't important or that the class should be switched to WIS only.
Mulder and Scully aren't really very good examples of Pathfinder characters. But also, both are in fact really smart. A cursory wikipedia search shows that Scully went to Medical School at Stanford, while Mulder is an FBI Profiler, and graduated from Oxford with Honors and a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. Saying they aren't Int-based is more than a bit of a dubious statement.
Neither is as smart as Sherlock Holmes, but then very few characters are.
3. I think the problem here, is really combat. In nearly every complaint about INT not benefiting the Inv, it boils down to combat. While DMW says it's not about combat, I have little doubt if the class got INT>DAMAGE, we wouldn't have be having this discussion.
That would really depend on how it worked, but maybe we wouldn't. We might well be having a different discussion about them being MAD if they needed Perception checks to get that bonus, though.
I intuit that DMW's complaint results from someone with an 18 INT not being objectively better than any non-18 configuration. My response is this is a feature, not a bug.
You intuit falsely, and based on your own prejudices. I don't mind an Int 16 or even Int 12 Investigator being viable, that sounds good to me. I mind an Int 12, Wis 16 Investigator being objectively superior to an Int 16, Wis 12 one. I mind that a very great deal.
That's not at all the same as thinking all Investigators should always have Int 18.
I want Paizo to know that the fact that I can make a competent Inv without having to go 18 INT is something that fantastic about this class. The fact that someone with an 18 INT isn't objectively better is something they got right. I am worried about combat viability/fun, but for me, that isn't about DPS.
The thing is, the current Investigator does not have more build freedom then other Classes (which is what you seem to want, and indeed a reasonable goal IMO), all that's changed is which stats they are absolutely required to max out, not the fact that they're required to do so.
Our party's Investigator has a 16 Wisdom and a 12 INT, and I think it was the right call. Paizo can either make WIS the class' preferred stat, or change the mechanics to favour INT instead of WIS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They said on the Twitch-cast on Friday that they definitely wanted to have Intelligence do more for the Investigator. That was the only thing they said, but it matches up with the general concept here: we get the stripped down chassis of the class and test it to see if it's fun and emulates what we want from an Investigator.
I will admit disappointment with the dearth of Int based options for the Playtest and it makes me wonder just how much could they add. I think they did make a mistake in not making Int more important for testing purposes, but we shall see. I always try to keep an open mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Straight INT to dame feels pretty boring and lack luster to me. Getting big bonuses from succeeding on INT based checks feels more interesting and purposeful. Having the bonus damage tied to perception instead of knowledge makes sense because of the ranger's abilities, but it does feel like a goof as far as over emphasizing wisdom for the class. But I think giving the investigator an option to use INT for perception would actually fit and be nice.
I think that should be what the Empiricist does.
I think the Doc should be allowed to use WIS as the class stat and focus on Wis instead of INT. Not all Investigators need to have the same base attribute and I think a non casting WIS based character could be interesting.
I think that is relatively simple and gives all three branches pretty unique space to operate out of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Straight INT to dame feels pretty boring and lack luster to me. Getting big bonuses from succeeding on INT based checks feels more interesting and purposeful. Having the bonus damage tied to perception instead of knowledge makes sense because of the ranger's abilities, but it does feel like a goof as far as over emphasizing wisdom for the class. But I think giving the investigator an option to use INT for perception would actually fit and be nice.
I think that should be what the Empiricist does.
I think the Doc should be allowed to use WIS as the class stat and focus on Wis instead of INT. Not all Investigators need to have the same base attribute and I think a non casting WIS based character could be interesting.
I think that is relatively simple and gives all three branches pretty unique space to operate out of.
Personally I hope all Investigators get int to perception instead. It’s so pivotal to the concept itself.
Empiricism could use INT to Survival for tracking and maybe to gather information, which would be fitting.
I don’t know, the investigator doctor is probably a high wisdom character anyway. Offering INT to perception for all investigators feels like it will punish those that want to focus on wisdom.
I don’t know, the investigator doctor is probably a high wisdom character anyway. Offering INT to perception for all investigators feels like it will punish those that want to focus on wisdom.
I suppose that’s fair but in the case of the doctor with wisdom, I would have the methodology add INT instead of wisdom.
Effectively your methodology gives you a few replacements for int.
Now wisdom is still going to matter for Knowledge skills that use wisdom or skills your methodology doesn’t cover like Medicine for non forensics and of course the ever important will save.
Basically will save will be a strong nice to have still but not essential which it would certainly be if Perception still required wisdom.
I managed to afford both on a halfling I made but that’s a bit narrow.
Edit: oh and of course as temperans mentions, it’s use the higher of the two in the case of any of these replacements.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can have the key ability at 8 and the class doesn't feel that it loses something, obviously it's not the key ability.
That's a major problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my issue is "what would an Investigator with max INT and 8 Wis even do?" Since that's not the main focus of the class, but that character should be viable. You're not going to be able to land "Study Target" reliably since it scales off Will DC, and a bunch of your feats rely in *critically succeeding* on that roll.
|
|
I actually had decided not to respond to your previous post to let you have the last word. Normally I am motivated to discuss aspects of the game, but your responses have become increasingly combative and aggressive.
That was not my intent, but I can see how it would come across that way. I was perhaps a bit annoyed at what seemed to be you being rather dismissive of my points and putting words in my mouth.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that was unintentional on your part, but it does tend to make me a bit more confrontational, not in a thought out or intentional way, just as an almost inevitable consequence of feeling like you're being dismissive.
On the other hand, from my perspective, your posts have become, as noted above, increasingly dismissive of my points and generally come off as kind of disingenuous, cherry picking mine for specific things you can use in your argument while often ignoring my main point. Once again, I'm perfectly willing to believe that's not your intent at all, which is why I haven't mentioned it before, but many of your posts do rather come off that way.
Misrepresenting what I have said to accuse me of misrepresenting what you have said is as ironic as it gets and tells me the the conversation is no longer productive.
It mostly seems to me to be an indication that there's some failure to communicate going on here. My reading comprehension is usually very good, but perhaps there's something in your posting style that makes it harder than normal for me to read your intent. Or perhaps there's something in mine that leads you to misinterpret me. Or, most likely, some of both.
But you do, in fact, frequently seem to misinterpret me and put words in my mouth. If I'm doing the same to you, I'm honestly sorry about that, but that just highlights the failure to communicate rather than being 'ironic' in most senses of the term.
And while I have some motivated to address that head on...eh. So what.
Didn't you just? Or did you mean addressing something else specific? I think this is a sterling example of the issue I'm talking about above. The more I think about this, the less sure I am about what exactly you mean by it.
Are you talking about going through and specifically noting what words of yours I misinterpreted? Or that you think I misinterpreted? Or do you have something else in mind?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It mostly seems to me to be an indication that there's some failure to communicate going on here. My reading comprehension is usually very good, but perhaps there's something in your posting style that makes it harder than normal for me to read your intent. Or perhaps there's something in mine that leads you to misinterpret me. Or, most likely, some of both.
I don't want to seem like I'm piling on, but I have genuinely had the same problem with your posts, NN (and I literally have a degree in reading comprehension). As an example, you've mentioned frequently the narrative of the Investigator class, but I don't think you've actually articulated what that narrative is to you. Given your upthread definition of narrative as an instance where you're really glad you had a member of that class around, I'm curious what you see as expressed by this class. Identifying that might help this discussion, since at least we'd all be taking your points with that in mind rather than trying to infer it (and possibly guessing wrong).
Given your clear passion and articulation, I know you have great things to say. I'd hate to think I'm missing some of it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that's not true. You aren't gimping yourself. The fact that you keep asserting that, doesn't make it any more true.If you make INT do more, specifically in combat, then you're going to gimp a character for not having an 18 INT.But a character maxing out their key stat and gimping themselves as a result is okay?
feel pretty true from where i'm standing, it'd be like a ranger putting an 18 into charisma, at best you're slightly better at skills that require that attribute, at worst, you aren't even using those skills that often and just end up being a subpar martial.
Neither Scully or Mulder in the X-files is a genius. Neither of them succeeds by doing computational wizardry or encyclopedic recall.
WAIT
have you actually watched the x-files? Mulder comes off as an damn encyclopedia of knowledge. he knows about things that have been happening in a region for the last 5o years off the top of his head, he remembers very specific facts that let him identify a fake from reality. he has to deal with being over saturated with information constantly and will pick out the one detail that's important in all of it because of how it interacts with some detail from memory.
scully is a Doctor...
Remember war didn’t get variant rogues with different attributes in the playtest. I have a feeling that we are addressing some core concepts with this playtest, and the core concept is INT investigator. Now pretty obviously, by the horse’s mouth, that concept is still coming together.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The narrative purpose of the Investigator is essentially to solve the mystery. In both PF1 and PF2, the class is built to do that. In a scenario, the Investigator helps the party get past all the knowledge based skill checks and that should make the rest of the adventure easier/safer/faster/more successful, etc.
Given your clear passion and articulation, I know you have great things to say. I'd hate to think I'm missing some of it.What I'm trying to do is to tell people to step back and take off the blinders. Stop with the hyperbole that INT isn't helping the class and you'll get a glimpse of how unique it is to have a class like this, that can still do its job (at least out of combat) with even a moderate INT.
INTis the Key stat. But despite the narrative synergy, somehow, that's not enough. Its obvious that some people aren't going to be happy unless INT is actually the mechanically superior stat to invest in, despite that not actually solving an extant problem. Okay..whatever. It's not that big of a deal on my end.
Thank you for articulating that. I suspected that was what you meant, but wasn’t sure.
My problem is still two fold:
1. Having a class built around secret checks strikes me as unfun. I know not all GMs will actually make them in secret, but enough will that I’m concerned about the lack of immediate feedback (knowing for sure if you succeeded or failed). A ribbon ability that eliminates the critical failure state for recall knowledge and takes away that check’s secret trait would help overcome my objections. Perhaps that is something that the Empiricist could get?
A pool of points allowing you to only do it a certain number of times per day equal to int might be appropriate if that is too strong innately.
2. As others have brought up, wisdom is acting for the class as written exactly in the manner you are happy int does not, improving both encounter and exploration modes and so feeling required to succeed at either. If perception wasn’t a default option for study suspect, and you were able to take either a methodology or class feat that added perception to the skills you could use with study suspect, that would encourage more investment in int, give the abilities that give you all the lore skills something to do in both modes, and create that intuitive detective methodology you are hoping for.
As an aside, I’d like a class feat that speeds up urban tracking, the same way rangers get swift tracking.
I was accused of not getting it, and I'll fire back. If you make INT do more, specifically in combat, then you're going to gimp a character for not having an 18 INT. If INT does more, then that limits what the class can achieve in the absence of INT.
I sort of agree.
Not needing to take Int to 18 is good, but I also think being able to so easily dump it is bad. Though I think the main issue with Int in general. It's a dump stat for everyone.
A suggestion...
Societal Sanctuary.
Humanoids attempting to attack you must attempt a Will save against your societal DC. If you use a hostile action, the effect ends and the target is immune for 24 hours.
Critical Success Sanctuary ends, and the target is immune for 24 hours.
Success The creature can attempt its attack and any other attacks against the target this turn.
Failure The creature can't attack the target and wastes the action. It can't attempt further attacks against the target this turn.
Critical Failure The creature wastes the action and can't attempt to attack the target for 24 hours.