What does the Investigator use Intelligence for?


Investigator Playtest

151 to 200 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
your responses have become increasingly combative and aggressive.

I mean..

N N 959 wrote:
What I'm trying to do is to tell people to step back and take off the blinders.
N N 959 wrote:
I understand them perfectly. They're just based on a fallacy.

Do you think telling people that stuff like this is really going to engender thoughtful debate? People usually don't react super well to someone asserting their preferences are invalid or being accused of willful ignorance whenever they disagree with you.

I figured you had been on the receiving end of that enough in the ranger threads from when PF2 was new to realize that that isn't a great way to have a healthy discussion about something.


Aswaarg wrote:
NN the problem with the Investigator is that right now there is 1 mandatory Stat and it is Wis. You can´t do a playable Investigator who don´t max Wis to 16. And if you could do an 18 Wis Investigator it would be the top choice and most people would take it.

Having an 18 WIS would make every character better, so the real question is whether taking points from WIS and giving them to INT or some other stat would provide a better character....well....that's a largely subjective call, isn't it? What is the measure of "better?" People are making a lot of assertions. I don't see any actual playtest data supporting these claims.

The class' primary role is to make skill checks. There are five INT checks if we count one Lore check. There are four WIS, four CHR, three nd DEX, and one STR. Pumping INT gives you access to more Skills and gets you a higher modifier on the majority of skill checks you're likely to make., And that's excluding adding a bunch of Lore Skills which will all be INT. INT is the most important stat for making skill checks, it's not debatable.

But let's get right down to it. What you really want is for INT to do Perception, so you can double down on INT and have Study Subject be as good as it can be while getting the most skills, languages, modifiers, what not. Sure. Why not? I'm sure it never occurred to Paizo to make this switch and they'll be making it post haste. Moving on.

Quote:
Having the Int as the Key stat makes your character get an upgrade in a stat that you don´t care that much, so is taking away choices from the players.

Well, that's false. INT absolutely matters for the class, so insisting you don't care about it is disingenuous. You're resorting to hyperbole to persuade Paizo that you want INT to be swapped in for WIS in numerous instances. Okay...done. Next.

Quote:
It´s like making Wis the Key stat for Wizards, or Int for Bards. If you don´t like the 18 characters it´s your choice, but a lot of the players want to be able to get an 18 stat at creation, and for that it has to be a relevant stat.

Why do they want an 18? Because it's about the mechanics, not the narrative. There's a comfort or reassurance in the simplicity of maxing your Key stat and not having to worry about whether you made the best decision. Sure, I get it. Next.

Quote:
I (and a lot of other players) want to be able to play an Investigator that has high Int and low Wis, who for example don´t understand why people pry to the gods (even if he has learned all about them).

You can. An 18 INT Inv will have more skills, higher modifiers on a majority of the skills, know more languages, and be better at any Recall K check involving INT and all Lore skills. Will you be better than an 18 WIS one in combat? Probably not, but it might be close enough that the variance of a d20 would mask the statistical difference. It would depend on whether you took all the Study Strike dependent feats and whether if you could consistently find a way to enter combat using an INT based skill for Init. 18 DEX might out perform 18 WIS, but it would really depend on the build and the playstyle.

When I look at the class, I'm not motivated to max WIS at the expense of INT. But, YMMV.


So, three days later, and no one had any thoughts on my suggestion of using Recall Knowledge for Study Suspect as opposed to Perception?


Squiggit wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
your responses have become increasingly combative and aggressive.

I mean..

N N 959 wrote:
What I'm trying to do is to tell people to step back and take off the blinders.
N N 959 wrote:
I understand them perfectly. They're just based on a fallacy.

Yup, it's great when you can cherry pick one side the discussion and completely ignore the other side's role in the tone and demeanor of the conversation.

Quote:
I figured you had been on the receiving end of that enough in the ranger threads from when PF2 was new to realize that that isn't a great way to have a healthy discussion about something.

The problem in the Ranger discussion was people accusing me of saying stuff I wasn't saying as it related to the legacy Ranger. By pretending that the legacy Ranger was "my vision" of the Ranger they tried to create an air of being oppressed, that I was preventing them from playing what they wanted to play, nevermind that these were people who openly admitted to not really liking the PF1 Ranger or any of its legacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Phntm888 wrote:
So, three days later, and no one had any thoughts on my suggestion of using Recall Knowledge for Study Suspect as opposed to Perception?

You'd be spreading your skill ranks pretty thin, and some would still use wisdom...


N N 959 wrote:
The class' primary role is to make skill checks.

This is a hardly an uncontroversial assertion. The playtest investigator is clearly quite good at skills in general (getting many skill increases and skill feats like a rogue). It is also quite exceptional at a specific subset of skills checks, knowledge rolls. I don't think it's a given this is the primary focus of the class, however.

N N 959 wrote:
Why not? I'm sure it never occurred to Paizo to make this switch and they'll be making it post haste.

The class is being playtested right now. I think you are absolutely right they will change the class to reflect the feedback they receive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Phntm888 wrote:
So, three days later, and no one had any thoughts on my suggestion of using Recall Knowledge for Study Suspect as opposed to Perception?
You'd be spreading your skill ranks pretty thin, and some would still use wisdom...

True, but it would make Int more useful to the class without necessarily changing any of the underlying paradigms of the system - a possible compromise between the two sides of the debate. The investigator also gets enough starting Skill trainings that you can have at least trained in all of them, and sufficient skill increases to, if not completely keep up, at least not be too far behind.

Basically, if one of the design goals of the Investigator is to be very good at Recall Knowledge checks, working that into Study Suspect would benefit Int while further focusing on that design goal.

I haven't done the math to see if it keeps up, but I figured it was worth throwing out as an idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phntm888 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Phntm888 wrote:
So, three days later, and no one had any thoughts on my suggestion of using Recall Knowledge for Study Suspect as opposed to Perception?
You'd be spreading your skill ranks pretty thin, and some would still use wisdom...

True, but it would make Int more useful to the class without necessarily changing any of the underlying paradigms of the system - a possible compromise between the two sides of the debate. The investigator also gets enough starting Skill trainings that you can have at least trained in all of them, and sufficient skill increases to, if not completely keep up, at least not be too far behind.

Basically, if one of the design goals of the Investigator is to be very good at Recall Knowledge checks, working that into Study Suspect would benefit Int while further focusing on that design goal.

I haven't done the math to see if it keeps up, but I figured it was worth throwing out as an idea.

The problem comparatively, then, would be the fact that you'd have to keep advancing all the Recall Knowledge skills in comparison to the auto-legendary Perception. Theoretically I was thinking that would also work with something like the Ranger's Master Monster Hunter (using Society in this example), but as a class base would require too heavy investment.


AnimatedPaper wrote:

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.

Sure. But I kind of feel like this is what Paizo did with On the Scene and I love it. The GM is kind of obligated to let you know if there is something worth spending more time on. I think that actually works more to the benefit of the GM than the player.

I also think the class would narratively benefit from something to make it the best at Recall K checks, but I don't know if that fits in with PF2's approach beyond what Keen Recollection gives out. I suggested that Keen Recollection be useful for all INT/WIS skills, or at least a larger subset and not just the unTrained ones. If there is something that I think works counter to investing in INT/WIS, it's Keen Recollection, but it was essentially the same in PF1. I think Paizo does this to specifically to free up skill choices for low INT and low WIS builds. KR validates both build choices by essentially always allowing you to make a roll on a Recall check, regardless of stats.

However, apart from the Fighter being the best at attack mod and Rogue getting the most bumps in skill Proficiency, are any of the other classes best at something general? So I'm not confident letting the Inv be the "best"at something based on pure mechanics is in the best interest of the game. Maybe. How would Paizo figure that out?
EDIT: I just realized the Inv gets the same skill bumps as the Rogue, so I guess the Inv is the defacto skill master?

Quote:
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.

That's not an accurate statement. I'm happy the class doesn't compel me to max out INT or WIS, but I can justify doing either.

Quote:
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.

So really, this is about combat, and the roll INT plays in it? People in this thread are clearly up in arms that Study Suspect uses WIS instead of INT.

Let me ask you, why do you think Paizo went WIS and not INT?

Quote:


As an aside, I’d like a class feat that speeds up urban tracking, the same way rangers get swift tracking.

Except...you don't really get Swift Tracker, you have to buy it. And honestly, it's not much better than the Class feat Experienced Tracker, unless you're melee.

Tracking has done jack squat in the scenarios I've played and GM'd. I'd rather the class got something that was actually useful in scenarios.


Phntm888 wrote:
Basically, if one of the design goals of the Investigator is to be very good at Recall Knowledge checks, working that into Study Suspect would benefit Int while further focusing on that design goal.

I think the class is obviously intended to be competent at all kinds of checks/skill, not just those using RK. I also think Known Weakness is meant to leverage INT/WIS via RK. If you go 18 INT or even WIS, then you really want to use Known Weakness.

Quote:


I haven't done the math to see if it keeps up, but I figured it was worth throwing out as an idea.

Yes, it'd be interesting to see how well 18/10 keeps up with 10/18 in the context of Known Weakness. Beyond just the lower chance of succeeding at INT based RK's, The WIS build is getting four less Skills. What does that cost character throughout its life cycle?


Is there a way for more skills to be used in combat? Stuff like feint, create diversion, and demoralize are all nice.

But if we give crafting, lore, and society something to do in combat, then the investigator just improves by virtue of having lots of skills.

Probably as a skill feat that investigators get for free, but also let's anyone else pick it up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know which class gets the same amount of bonuses from getting 18 Int, all of them. There is no difference at all with how Int works with other classes, except Wizard who uses it a lot and Alchemist that has barely any use for it.

So what is Inv getting to leverage his "key stat"? Str/Dex Characters have special attacks, Rogues get Dex to dmg; Spellcasters add their key stat to attack rolls and save DC which they use constantly; Inv get to do what with Int? Nothing. Take the Case? Nope that benefits all mental skills and perception. Study Target? Nope uses perception and has more support than Take the Case. Observe Expeditiously (Empyrist)? Oh wait that uses Seek (Perception) and sense motive (Perception). Doc? Nope medicine is a Wisdom check.

The only things actually using intelligence thats not default to every character is a lv 14 feat, crafting (which only gets 1 class feat and 1 skill feat, uses medicine), and a society based skill feat.


Mellored wrote:
Is there a way for more skills to be used in combat? Stuff like feint, create diversion, and demoralize are all nice.

From where I sit, that options already there. All those things are available to any class. The problem is not being able to increase your Proficiency as you level up. The INv doesn't have that problem. With a Skill bump every other level, you could bump a lot of the combat functional skill to Master.

What's more, because a moderate INT isn't punishing, you can invest some attribute points into STR/DEX/CHR as necessary.

Quote:
But if we give crafting, lore, and society something to do in combat, then the investigator just improves by virtue of having lots of skills.

What's interesting is that even with a moderate INT, the class has all these back-up tools to allow the class to still function in its primary roll. Yes, you'll be less successful statistically, but the increased combat viability might more than compensate for it on person by person basis. I mention this in the other thread, Keen Recollection lets you make all the Recall K checks at 0 + Level without even being trained. So the door is open for that stuff if you want to go that route. How rewarding it will be is going to depend on the player and the campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Should "Study Target" be a thing we need to roll for? The analogous ability in PF1 was just "spend an action to gain this bonus."

Sure, rolling for it lets you base things on "critically succeeding" but doing that puts even more emphasis on wisdom for the investigator.

Why not just have Study Target work like Hunt Target- you just spend an action to gain the bonus? If you want to key things off of "succeeding or critically succeeding" on rolling something, do it like Known Weakness- where you make a "Recall Knowledge" roll.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Should "Study Target" be a thing we need to roll for? The analogous ability in PF1 was just "spend an action to gain this bonus."

Sure, rolling for it lets you base things on "critically succeeding" but doing that puts even more emphasis on wisdom for the investigator.

Why not just have Study Target work like Hunt Target- you just spend an action to gain the bonus? If you want to key things off of "succeeding or critically succeeding" on rolling something, do it like Known Weakness- where you make a "Recall Knowledge" roll.

I actually did a whole thread advocating this. I think it combined with some solid extra Skill or Perception related Int option for the Investigator really solves a lot of the stat problems.

From N N 959's perspective, it also actually opens up stat options rather than closing them down, since it being a skill option makes it not actually necessary to raise Int (just useful), while eliminating the necessity of raising Wis, while from mine it makes Int more useful, improves their combat slightly, and eliminates the necessity of prioritizing Wis over Int.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
You know which class gets the same amount of bonuses from getting 18 Int, all of them. There is no difference at all with how Int works with other classes, except Wizard who uses it a lot and Alchemist that has barely any use for it.

I have to agree with this, I think personally, we should actually get some use out of the investigator DC, start applying some conditions.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Should "Study Target" be a thing we need to roll for? The analogous ability in PF1 was just "spend an action to gain this bonus."

Sure, rolling for it lets you base things on "critically succeeding" but doing that puts even more emphasis on wisdom for the investigator.

Why not just have Study Target work like Hunt Target- you just spend an action to gain the bonus? If you want to key things off of "succeeding or critically succeeding" on rolling something, do it like Known Weakness- where you make a "Recall Knowledge" roll.

While I agree that not rolling it would alleviate some of the need to raise WIS without putting more emphasis on INT, I don't think you'd want to use RK when you're already doing that with KW, or maybe I'm not getting something?

But before wanting to remove the roll, my response is to ask why do they want to us to roll it? Narrative? Hunt Target is not something you should be rolling. Spotting weaknesses, probably?? Or perhaps you are talking more about Monster Hunter?

I'm also curious what why this is linked to the foe's Will DC. This suggests that they want this class to have a minor advantage against a subset of creatures with weak Will DCs. What does this cross section of creatures typically include?

I would also submit that rolling the check is going to be more fun than automatically getting it, wouldn't you think? In the basest sense, you get to roll a die (gamble), which is really the core aspect of combat. So removing the die roll would make the class more effective, but potentially undermine some of the "gaming" aspect of combat?

I don't know. I tend to believe these these choices are deliberate and I'm not convinced I see all the angles.


N N 959 wrote:
With a Skill bump every other level, you could bump a lot of the combat functional skill to Master.

Exactly. And it would make sense to lean into that.

Quote:
Quote:
But if we give crafting, lore, and society something to do in combat, then the investigator just improves by virtue of having lots of skills.
So the door is open for that stuff if you want to go that route. How rewarding it will be is going to depend on the player and the campaign.

Or on the feat/feature.

But if the investigators job is to roll skill checks. Then (IMO) they should be able to roll skill checks in combat as well as out of it.
Including the Int checks.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

So really, this is about combat, and the roll INT plays in it? People in this thread are clearly up in arms that Study Suspect uses WIS instead of INT.

Let me ask you, why do you think Paizo went WIS and not INT?

Please stop doing that. Constantly playing "Gotcha! All you're really concerned about combat!" is acting as a discussion derailment.

If I was only concerned about combat, I would have simply stated that. There's no reason to lie about it. My concern, one repeated through the thread, is that wisdom in my opinion provides the greatest overall benefit to BOTH encounter and exploration. You get the most from your ability boosts by throwing them at wisdom. If it was just combat, I could live with it, because then you'd choose which aspect of the game you want to focus on by choosing either wisdom or intelligence.


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

Having an 18 WIS would make every character better, so the real question is whether taking points from WIS and giving them to INT or some other stat would provide a better character....well....that's a largely subjective call, isn't it? What is the measure of "better?" People are making a lot of assertions. I don't see any actual playtest data supporting these claims.

The class' primary role is to make skill checks. There are five INT checks if we count one Lore check. There are four WIS, four CHR, three nd DEX, and one STR. Pumping INT gives you access to more Skills and gets you a higher modifier on the majority of skill checks you're likely to make., And that's excluding adding a bunch of Lore Skills which will all be INT. INT is the most important stat for making skill checks, it's not debatable.

But let's get right down to it. What you really want is for INT to do Perception, so you can double down on INT and have Study Subject be as good as it can be while getting the most skills, languages, modifiers, what not. Sure. Why not? I'm sure it never occurred to Paizo to make this switch and they'll be making it post haste. Moving on.

Have you tried to do a low Wis Investigator? I did and the numbers are really bad. There are 4 Wis skill checks + Perception (it´s a skill check in disguise) + Will saves. Int gives you 4 skills + Lore skills + languages. INt is not the most important stat to do skill checks, at most is the one who applies to most skills (because of Lore skills), but they can matter or not for the skills you care (what does Int for the Dex skills or the Wis skills or the Cha skills..?).And that is the same for all the clases! But for the Inv the most important check is the perception, it´s the most used by far. Recall Knowleadge maybe you are going to use Ocultism for 1 kind of creature, Religion for another one, Crafting for other... But perception you are using it every combat, every time you are checking a room for traps or hiden things, every time you Seek or Sense motive, it has so many more uses and it´s attached to a lot of features/feats of the Inv. And I´m not saying using perception with Int, I´m saying give the Investigator something that to do SPECIAL with Int, not the same things that other clases do. I dont´care if they remove Preception form the Study suspect or they make it a Recall Knowledge or a free action or whatever. And make Int matter also in non combat mode, because right know what it is giving SPECIAL to the class out of combat?

I don´t know, if you don´t see this, I think I´m wasting time here. So moving on

Quote:
Well, that's false. INT absolutely matters for the class, so insisting you don't care about it is disingenuous. You're resorting to hyperbole to persuade Paizo that you want INT to be swapped in for WIS in numerous instances. Okay...done. Next.

Well that´s false. Int matter for the Inv as any other stat. If I could have every stat in a character at 18 it would be better, that is a fact, don´t matter the class. The fact is that I made a character and when I had to pick the stats to bump, I didn´t chose Int. And is not just me, you can check the QuidEst post, https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42u71?Making-an-investigator-120, he makes a Inv form lvl 1 to 20 with a Int 14, 16 Wis.

And that feels bad, at least for me, that is what I´m saying, that I want to be able to do a high Int, low Wis (or at least not a 16 Wis) but I can´t if I want that my characters does something interesting (combat or out ouf combat).

Anyway, as you said, PAIZO knows why he did the Inv this way. It´s a waste of time to write things over and over on the forum. I said what I would like for the Inv and we will se what comes out after the playtest. AYQTD


Phntm888 wrote:
So, three days later, and no one had any thoughts on my suggestion of using Recall Knowledge for Study Suspect as opposed to Perception?

What are you talking about?

I made this exact suggestion at the very first day...


shroudb wrote:
Phntm888 wrote:
So, three days later, and no one had any thoughts on my suggestion of using Recall Knowledge for Study Suspect as opposed to Perception?

What are you talking about?

I made this exact suggestion at the very first day...

Wow, I missed that completely. Sorry, shroudb. I didn't mean to jump on your idea.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I remember going down the list of attributes in order, rolling 3d6 and taking what I got, filling in the blank and moving on to the next one. And then trying to make a viable character with those stats. That was often fun, but sometimes not. Now we have a procedure that pretty much guarantees decent stats, and allows us to customize which are best, or at least highest. And people are still complaining. I bet if we arranged it so everyone started with all 18s some folks would still complain. Plus ça change, plus c'est là même chose.


Ed Reppert wrote:
I remember going down the list of attributes in order, rolling 3d6 and taking what I got, filling in the blank and moving on to the next one. And then trying to make a viable character with those stats. That was often fun, but sometimes not. Now we have a procedure that pretty much guarantees decent stats, and allows us to customize which are best, or at least highest. And people are still complaining. I bet if we arranged it so everyone started with all 18s some folks would still complain. Plus ça change, plus c'est là même chose.

In all honesty though, that was a different game.

I went I think the entirety of 2nd edition without using grid once (even if we had the rules in I think combat&tactics or something like that)

Stats were a lot less impactful than class back then, with a very limited customisation playing role in the actual Gameplay (using core rules. With powers optional rules and making your class from scratch basically, it was much more like 3rd+)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
I remember going down the list of attributes in order, rolling 3d6 and taking what I got, filling in the blank and moving on to the next one. And then trying to make a viable character with those stats. That was often fun, but sometimes not. Now we have a procedure that pretty much guarantees decent stats, and allows us to customize which are best, or at least highest. And people are still complaining. I bet if we arranged it so everyone started with all 18s some folks would still complain. Plus ça change, plus c'est là même chose.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the way we generate stats here. It'd be a problem if the Barbarian's best attribute wasn't strength, too.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I remember going down the list of attributes in order, rolling 3d6 and taking what I got, filling in the blank and moving on to the next one. And then trying to make a viable character with those stats. That was often fun, but sometimes not. Now we have a procedure that pretty much guarantees decent stats, and allows us to customize which are best, or at least highest. And people are still complaining. I bet if we arranged it so everyone started with all 18s some folks would still complain. Plus ça change, plus c'est là même chose.
I don't think anyone is complaining about the way we generate stats here. It'd be a problem if the Barbarian's best attribute wasn't strength, too.

i mean, i'd be okay with it being con, but what if it was like wisdom?

sure having a high wisdom is useful, but it's not something you'd focus on, it;s not something you'd really enjoy having a free stat boost in being a barbarian.

in the same way, an inv while thematically appropriate has no real reason to have int over anyone else, and thus is simply annoying to be forced with an int boost increase.

to make the annoyance stop, people either want int to do more for the class or to change what the core stat is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean "low wisdom detectives who are nonetheless effective due to their brilliance" are absolutely a thing in fiction that should be supported via the class. So making the class constantly have to make perception checks (more perception checks than literally everyone else- you make them every round in combat) hurts those characters unless we can substitute either the stat or the ability.


Is it me, or "Class DC" was created in pf2 to deal exactly with stuff like that?

If it's a class ability that you have to use every round, just have it based on your Class DC and be done with.

And while I was originally thinking that recall was the way to go, there's already a level 1 feat that gives recall every round on top of your study, so no need to double that roll... Class DC all the way imo.

Decoupling Perception from Study is the best imo. If an investigator then wants to be the perceptive guy or not, that's his own choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean "low wisdom detectives who are nonetheless effective due to their brilliance" are absolutely a thing in fiction that should be supported via the class. So making the class constantly have to make perception checks (more perception checks than literally everyone else- you make them every round in combat) hurts those characters unless we can substitute either the stat or the ability.

I would argue that Sherlock Holmes lacked particular intricacies of wisdom if Wisdom didn't apply so broadly to Perception.

He notices social cues, but misses a lot of the points of empathy through traditional means (he doesn't necessarily understand how the victim/perpetrator feels, just the reasoning behind).

His ability to retain information and deduce are where most of his insights come from.

I wouldn't call him low wisdom, but certainly his wisdom doesn't account for all the things he is able to notice about a person:

Inferring that a person is a drunk because his watch turn key has scratches on it is more of an intelligence based observation. As is inferring that the soot on his boots corresponds to a particular sector of London where that soot is prominent.

IMO of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean "low wisdom detectives who are nonetheless effective due to their brilliance" are absolutely a thing in fiction that should be supported via the class. So making the class constantly have to make perception checks (more perception checks than literally everyone else- you make them every round in combat) hurts those characters unless we can substitute either the stat or the ability.

I would argue that Sherlock Holmes lacked particular intricacies of wisdom if Wisdom didn't apply so broadly to Perception.

He notices social cues, but misses a lot of the points of empathy through traditional means (he doesn't necessarily understand how the victim/perpetrator feels, just the reasoning behind).

His ability to retain information and deduce are where most of his insights come from.

I wouldn't call him low wisdom, but certainly his wisdom doesn't account for all the things he is able to notice about a person:

Inferring that a person is a drunk because his watch turn key has scratches on it is more of an intelligence based observation. As is inferring that the soot on his boots corresponds to a particular sector of London where that soot is prominent.

IMO of course.

i think that this is what Take the Case is really about though:

you get +1, later +2, on all such checks.

So, even with a normal Wisdom, if you actually start thinking about your "subject" you get enough logical deductions that you basically have a "4 stats bonus" on those skill rolls.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Take the Case is not designed to be reliable on anything other than the session's end boss, if even that. You shouldn't expect to have it during most combats with that 1 minute setup time.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
shroudb wrote:

Is it me, or "Class DC" was created in pf2 to deal exactly with stuff like that?

If it's a class ability that you have to use every round, just have it based on your Class DC and be done with.

My understanding of Class DC (which may be flawed) is that it is intended primarily to provide something for targets to roll their savings throws against, in the same way that "spellcasting DC" is provided for targets to roll their savings throws against spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

i think that this is what Take the Case is really about though:

you get +1, later +2, on all such checks.

So, even with a normal Wisdom, if you actually start thinking about your "subject" you get enough logical deductions that you basically have a "4 stats bonus" on those skill rolls.

Sherlock employs this tactic all the time, regardless of whether the person is even relevant to the case.

In fact, both of the specific examples I gave in regards to SH (soot and drunkard) were in relation to non-case entities.

Sherlock most certainly falls under a "tone-deaf genius" when it comes to emotional intelligence, and emotional intelligence of people is even his self admitted weakest point (he sticks to facts because facts do not lie), though he does use rather broad deductions to gather some form of motive.

This is why, personally, I believe he is so drawn to Watson, because while Watson is not nearly as insightful as him, he does have a certain "Wisdom" that Sherlock himself lacks.


Ed Reppert wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Is it me, or "Class DC" was created in pf2 to deal exactly with stuff like that?

If it's a class ability that you have to use every round, just have it based on your Class DC and be done with.

My understanding of Class DC (which may be flawed) is that it is intended primarily to provide something for targets to roll their savings throws against, in the same way that "spellcasting DC" is provided for targets to roll their savings throws against spells.

PF2E has a pretty clear built in connection between check bonus and DC. That said, I think you are right and the investigator would need a couple extra lines of text to make their "studied suspect" operate off their "class DC".


Midnightoker wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i think that this is what Take the Case is really about though:

you get +1, later +2, on all such checks.

So, even with a normal Wisdom, if you actually start thinking about your "subject" you get enough logical deductions that you basically have a "4 stats bonus" on those skill rolls.

Sherlock employs this tactic all the time, regardless of whether the person is even relevant to the case.

In fact, both of the specific examples I gave in regards to SH (soot and drunkard) were in relation to non-case entities.

Sherlock most certainly falls under a "tone-deaf genius" when it comes to emotional intelligence, and emotional intelligence of people is even his self admitted weakest point (he sticks to facts because facts do not lie), though he does use rather broad deductions to gather some form of motive.

This is why, personally, I believe he is so drawn to Watson, because while Watson is not nearly as insightful as him, he does have a certain "Wisdom" that Sherlock himself lacks.

sherlock is not level 1.

From as early as level 2, you can take "Framing Case" to keep your ongoing case always open and simply investigate anything that pops in your mind, that's a cool RP prospect, like a (normal) paranoid investigator that is always suspicious about everyone and everything around him.

End game, "Everyone's a suspect" does so automatically for everyone you ever meet.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Take the Case is not designed to be reliable on anything other than the session's end boss, if even that. You shouldn't expect to have it during most combats with that 1 minute setup time.

i'm not talking about combat though? I'm talking about investigating things with a normal (like 12-14) Wisdom.

For Combat, my own Feedback is: Make study use Class DC.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What if Study Target worked backwards. So you're really good at reading people, so much that it's up to your target to hide whatever their weakness is from you.

So instead of a (wis) perception check against will-DC, make the target make a deception check against your class DC (int).


PossibleCabbage wrote:

What if Study Target worked backwards. So you're really good at reading people, so much that it's up to your target to hide whatever their weakness is from you.

So instead of a (wis) perception check against will-DC, make the target make a deception check against your class DC (int).

that's what i was thinking as well:

similar to how rogue can always find weak spots if he gets you flat footed, you look for such weak spots (action), and if the opponent can't hide them, you can hit them there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

What if Study Target worked backwards. So you're really good at reading people, so much that it's up to your target to hide whatever their weakness is from you.

So instead of a (wis) perception check against will-DC, make the target make a deception check against your class DC (int).

If you do this you need to bump Inv class DC up to legendary scaling, which is something I would advocate for anyways, frankly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

What if Study Target worked backwards. So you're really good at reading people, so much that it's up to your target to hide whatever their weakness is from you.

So instead of a (wis) perception check against will-DC, make the target make a deception check against your class DC (int).

I actually really like that if the burden of gameplay didn’t bog it down so much. For starters, it means I always have to roll whenever anyone says anything to the PC if I’m to maintain the illusion or pre bank rolls for such purposes.

But it’s intent is spot on IMO


AnimatedPaper wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

So really, this is about combat, and the roll INT plays in it? People in this thread are clearly up in arms that Study Suspect uses WIS instead of INT.

Let me ask you, why do you think Paizo went WIS and not INT?
Please stop doing that. Constantly playing "Gotcha! All you're really concerned about combat!" is acting as a discussion derailment.

So your response isn't actually a complete surprise, but I can't say I was fully expecting it.

1. There is no "Gotcha" behind my questions. You, and everyone who is favoriting your post, because they think you've caught me doing something, is essentially, tilting at windmills.

There is no attempt or intent on my part to trick you. There is no belief on my part that you are lying or attempting deceive me obfuscate your true intent. So the fact that you're accusing me of such is a statement on how you are approaching this conversation. It should also be a red flag that you've probably misconstrued a great many of my posts by ascribing an attitude or motivation that does not exist. At all.

Yes, there are times when I'm being sarcastic or asking questions rhetorically, , this was not one of them. I am simply asking for clarification.

Animated Paper wrote:
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).

Here, you ask a question because you're not sure about some aspect of my responses. Rather than accuse you of bad faith, I take the question at face value and answer it. But you can't afford me the same courtesy?

2. When I wrote my response, I originally proceeded as if you were speaking about combat. But then I realized it wasn't clear. So I asked the question. I didn't infer that you were and then proceed to talk about your concern with combat. I simply asked the question. Then I give context by pointing out there are many people in this thread who are concerned about WIS and Study Suspect, to see if you are going to include yourself in that group. Then I ask a question for which I did not have answer to see if you did.

There is nothing in the paragraph posted that suggests I'm trying to trick you or imply that I already know the answer. You say you have trouble comprehending my posts...I don't think it has anything to do with comprehension, but if you're ascribing a motivation that does not exist and thus infer something that is neither implied nor intended, I can see how you could misinterpret it what I'm saying.

Quote:
If I was only concerned about combat, I would have simply stated that.

The fact that you mention Study Subject twice is how exactly I thought you were doing that. People don't have to say, "I'm concerned about gravitational waves" before they start talking about colliding black holes. Talking about colliding black holes tells me that. But....I wasn't sure. So. I. asked. the. question.

Quote:
My concern, one repeated through the thread, is that wisdom in my opinion provides the greatest overall benefit to BOTH encounter and exploration.

Except....the Investigator isn't about "exploration." It's about having the answer, knowing things. Getting past skill checks, particularly knowledge based skill checks.

Playtest description wrote:
No crime, no disappearance, no mystery is too great for your sharp eyes and analytical mind. Knowledge is your greatest tool and most dangerous weapon. You lead investigations and study up on the foes and other dangers you may come across. Doggedly pursuing every lead, you arm the rest of your party with these same advantages that serve you so well.

The MO here is not "exploration." It's the ability to find clues and know what they mean i.e. beating the attendant skill checks. How do I find clues? I use Seek. Is there a limit to how many times I can use Seek on the same area? I'm not aware of any Is there a limit to how many times I can use Recall Knowlege? Yes. The DC goes up each time I try it. So there is more pressure to succeed with INT based checks than Seek.

Yes, I've used Indiana Jones as a example, but that majority of investigators in popular literature are not archeologist.

Quote:
You get the most from your ability boosts by throwing them at wisdom.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. If the measure of an Investigator is the number of knowledge based skill checks, you can succeed at, then it's not even accurate. What's more, you going to have to have some actual data that proves to me that there is no combination of non-18 WIS that is more successful at being an Investigator than one with an 18 WIS.

Sure, the 18 WIS ones will probably do better at combat because Init and Will saves, but your focus is not combat. And truthfully, if we are talking about a balance, If we give all versions the same Init modifier, then I'll bet the difference between 18 WIS and 14 WIS is masked by the variance in a d20.

Look, the way I read your post, it's the same argument others are making: WIS is the best stat. Except, there's no actual data that says failing to max WIS sabotages the class outside of combat, or for that matter, in it. Is WIS important? Yes, it absolutely should be. But that's true for every class, and more so for Knowledge based classes. I'm sure you don't think the Inv. should get a free pass on needing to have WIS?


Aswaarg wrote:
Have you tried to do a low Wis Investigator?

No, I haven't played a low WIS Inv in a campaign or scenario. Have you?

Quote:
I did and the numbers are really bad.

I see, so you haven't played one, you've just run numbers and and you don't like them. Okay. fair enough.

Quote:
INt is not the most important stat to do skill checks, at most is the one who applies to most skills (because of Lore skills), but they can matter or not for the skills you care (what does Int for the Dex skills or the Wis skills or the Cha skills..?

A lot going on here. Let me try and unravel this:

1. INT is the most important for doing skill checks because it give you the most skills. What's more the Inv has the Skill bumps to let you boost non-INT skills so that you can be good at them, even if you've maxed INT.

WIS would be the second most important going strictly off of number, but in terms of frequency or usefulness of checks, CHA might actually be higher/more important.

2. Lore skills? Now that's an interesting topic for the Inv. Did you see Keen Recollection?

Keen Recollection wrote:
You’re able to recall all sorts of pertinent facts on the case, even on topics that aren’t your specialty. Your proficiency bonus to untrained skill checks to Recall Knowledge is equal to your level instead of +0.

Now, I could be wrong about this. And, Paizo might change this, but as someone else suggested, as written, this means I should be able to make a Recall Knoweldge check using ANY Lore Skill the game identifies in a scenario. My INT modifier is the only one applies. Think about that. An INV can apply its INT modifier and roll every and all Lore Skills via Recall Knowledge. That could be pretty special.

3. So you're upset that INT does nothing for the DEX, WIS and CHA checks? So your feeling is that INT should help out with all checks, not just INT? Well, the classs gives you lots of Proficiency bumps to help with the classes you don't have a good modifier in, if you think those skills are important. What's more, because you don't have to max INT (Because INT isn't helping you do everything) then you might get away with a lower INT to bump one of the other stat. I don't know. Really depends on the type of Inv you want to play. But I'd think it's a good thing that INT at 14 isn't' cripplingly. YMMV.

Quote:
And that is the same for all the clases!

And that's part of the fallacy. You're ignoring the expected benefit. All the classes aren't predicated on making skill checks to the degree an Inv is. The actual benefit I get from a stat is the increase to the average outcome multiplied by the number of contexts I use a skill that depends on that stat. So if Tom has has a higher modifier on INT than Sally, but Sally has far more skills that she can use the modifier on, then INT is more valuable to Sally than it is to Tom. It doesn't matter if I have an 18 STR if I can only use it once per adventure. The guy with a 12 STR is getting way more benefit if he's using it five times an adventure.

So if the Inv is using its INT based skills more often than any other class, INT is more valuable to it than it is to another class. So by that logic, WIS should be the most valuable to an INV? Arguably, but it's complicated.

Quote:
But for the Inv the most important check is the perception, it´s the most used by far.

Yes. More to the point, WIS is a stat that will be called on more than INT via Initiative, Study Suspect, Will saves, Seek, etc. Except....I can Seek early and often. An Empiricist can even Seek quickly. Is there a limit on the number of times I can Seek? I don't think so. So a low WIS doesn't' stop you from finding clues.

Let's look at combat. The true value of WIS in combat is actually Init. Someone ran some numbers on stats and I think WIS was actually the most valuable stat for DPS. Getting to attack first, move first, set up Procs first, is probably more impactful than an extra +1 on Attack Damage. Everyone might be better maxing WIS on straight combat alone. That's before we get to Will saves.

Then there's Study Suspect. This gets you a +1 on combat and then as high as +2 in some circumstances. Sorry, I don't think +1 is a game changer. Not even +2 when you consider how little base damage an Inv is set up to do. Without martial weapons, high STR, action economy shortcuts, etc. I think you're talking about a less than 10% DPS boost to a compartively small number.

Is WIS valuable? Yes, of course it is. Do you think the Inv should be able to do an end run on WIS using INT? If you do, why do you think Paizo hasn't done it?

I don't have the answers. But in the absence of actual playtest data, I'd like to see Paizo move cautiously before substantively changing the value of INT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:

So your response isn't actually a complete surprise, but I can't say I was fully expecting it.

I don't want to get into a fruitless back and forth, but for what it is worth, if you were simply asking for clarification, I apologize. It didn't read that way to me, and frankly even looking at it now, it still does not, but I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and believe you that I'm misreading it.

I do want to clarify one point though before dropping this. When I said "exploration mode" in this thread, I was specifically talking about skill checks outside of combat. I realize that the specific Seek and Recall knowledge tasks are presented as part of encounter mode, probably due to how short the tasks normally take and that they do have in combat uses, but I generally treat them as part of exploration mode. They don't normally have that kind of time pressure, and your character can be assumed to be taking longer than 2-6 seconds to, say, search a room.

So when I'm talking the investigator exploring, I don't mean it in the same sense that I would when talking about, say, a ranger. I mean something like "searching for clues", "researching a story", or "tracking a suspect."


In regards to the original question....

So I am playing my Investigator in Fall of Plaguestone and I just noticed something I had forgotten.

Recall Knowlege p.239 wrote:
The GM might allow checks to Recall Knowledge using other skills. For example, you might assess the skill of an acrobat using Acrobatics. If you’re using a physical skill (like in this example), the GM will most likely have you use a mental ability score—typically Intelligence—instead of the skill’s normal physical ability score.

So apparently, using any Recall Knowledge with any physical skill could allow one to use INT


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there are 2 types of investigator that require 2 different approaches - the genius (Sherlock Holmes) who is based off Int, and the hard-boiled detective (from any noir, really, Blade Runner included) who works off Wis.

So why not having the player choose their key stat, like rogues do? Either Int or Wis.

Wis is a better choice as is, though - you use it for Perception, half the skills, Will save, and Study Suspect (arguably the investigator's main combat trick).

So, if Int is chosen to be the key stat, I suggest making Perception use its bonus. If Wis is chosen... well, it could give a different enhancement. I'll leave that to the devs.

This way we can have both Int- and Wis- based investigators. And they both would benefit from raising the other key stat, btw - but it's no longer a make it or break it scenario.

I suggest this solution because Charisma is often another rather important stat for an investigator, and Dexterity... well, you gotta be able to hit something, sometimes!


Roswynn wrote:
I suggest this solution because Charisma is often another rather important stat for an investigator, and Dexterity... well, you gotta be able to hit something, sometimes!

I'd even go a step further and say make one for all the mental stats.

Most spies would technically qualify as an Investigator heavily invested in Charisma and pumping information from perps through such means.

I do think a Wis vs. Int based Investigator concept is a decent one though, but it doesn't really translate to any of the current methodologies being used in the Playtest

You could migrate those methodologies to Class Feats though and still see that come to life.


N N 959 wrote:
Then there's Study Suspect. This gets you a +1 on combat and then as high as +2 in some circumstances. Sorry, I don't think +1 is a game changer. Not even +2 when you consider how little base damage an Inv is set up to do. Without martial weapons, high STR, action economy shortcuts, etc. I think you're talking about a less than 10% DPS boost to a compartively small number..

I may have to retract this. After taking a closer look at Study Subject and Strike, I'm thinking that WIS is a much bigger deal for combat as a crit success on Study Subject is giving the Inv 1d6 on any additional attacks that round. I'm not sure what that translates to in realized beneift, but the potential to roll a lot more 1d6's for damage is there.

I think we'll really need to see this in actual use to get a real sense of how good Subjct + Strike can be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, if someone is flat-footed (say you succeeded on a feint), a rogue gets to sneak attack twice for more than 1d6 damage on each hit (with a +2 to hit to boot). So how is Studied Strike much better than that? If you crit-succeed on the feint, you effectively get to do this for 2 rounds.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if someone is flat-footed (say you succeeded on a feint), a rogue gets to sneak attack twice for more than 1d6 damage on each hit (with a +2 to hit to boot). So how is Studied Strike much better than that? If you crit-succeed on the feint, you effectively get to do this for 2 rounds.

And you're not restricted to one target. Anyone that's flatfooted at any time can be targeted, which includes any number of support spells and abilities.

Study only works on one.


N N 959 wrote:

In regards to the original question....

So I am playing my Investigator in Fall of Plaguestone and I just noticed something I had forgotten.

Recall Knowlege p.239 wrote:
The GM might allow checks to Recall Knowledge using other skills. For example, you might assess the skill of an acrobat using Acrobatics. If you’re using a physical skill (like in this example), the GM will most likely have you use a mental ability score—typically Intelligence—instead of the skill’s normal physical ability score.
So apparently, using any Recall Knowledge with any physical skill could allow one to use INT

I was unaware of this. That is kinda neat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if someone is flat-footed (say you succeeded on a feint), a rogue gets to sneak attack twice for more than 1d6 damage on each hit (with a +2 to hit to boot). So how is Studied Strike much better than that? If you crit-succeed on the feint, you effectively get to do this for 2 rounds.

Yeah, this. It's rather vastly worse than Sneak Attack in almost every way. Yes, it's better at high Wis, but 'better' and 'actually good' are pretty different.

Getting an extra few d6 damage on an attack at -4 or -5 when you happen to crit is...not a great benefit, honestly. But it is much better than never getting the bonus damage in the first place, which is what will happen often if you don't max Wis.

151 to 200 of 227 << 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.