What does the Investigator use Intelligence for?


Investigator Playtest

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus, flat-footed is the easiest condition to inflict in the entire game with a lot of different avenues for inflicting it, whereas there's precisely one way to study target.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, this. It's rather vastly worse than Sneak Attack in almost every way.

Ish. It has some odd power spikes to it. Like at level 9 your SA is one higher than the rogue's and because of the way ability boosts work your attack bonus will be the same. A crit at that level makes you almost as accurate as a Fighter and with a damage boost as big as a Titan Mauler for the round.

After level 13 you're always one die ahead of the rogue too (albeit with the stricter usability requirements we've talked about).

I'm not sure "is good at exactly level 9" is much of an endorsement of the feature, but it's there.

One thing I kind of don't like is that the attack bonus from SS is a circumstance bonus. I know Paizo has generally tried to avoid excessive bonus stacking in PF2, but most other class' combat modifiers are designed to play nice with party buffs.

Circumstance modifiers to attack aren't the most common, but it does feel kind of bad to know that stuff like Sweep and Backswing weapons or a Ranger's Monster Hunter (not that that's going to ever proc either) conflict with your combat mechanics.


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 why are we comparing this to Sneak Attack? What has Sneak Attack have to do with whether an Inv has the potential to pump out damage with Subject + Strike?I don' believe I've made any claim that Subject + Strike was better than SA?

But let's cherry pick some monsters and see how it lines up and then we can get a sense for what things might factor into that type of comparison

Feint requires Deception (CHA) vs Perception DCs.

Subject is Perception vs Will DC.

A Rogue using Feint is going to have to pump CHA. You get some extra benefit for Diplomacy and Inimidate for that, but it comes at the expense of your own WIS, STR, and CON. So there are some tough choices there. But let's look 16 CHA + 18 DEX.

Let's also consider the 16 WIS for the Inv, because i've been told you "can't" play one with less than 16 WIS, with a 12 DEX.

Now let's take some random creatures... Goblin Warrior for start.

HP 6 (Dies on 2d6 damage) AC 16, Will +3, Perception +2, Level -1.

To Feint Rogue will get +6? vs DC 12. So 70% chance of success. 25% for Crit success, and %5 crit fail. This lowers AC down to 14. Rogue is getting +7 to hit, so hit on a 5, 75% chance of 2d6 = 5.25 damage. Crit attack on 15, so 30% So another 1.05 expected amage. So goblin is expected to die after two actions on a round where Rogue can Feint and attack.

A Feint Crit means the Rogue gets a second attack, so not really important here.

For the Inv. Subject is vs Will DC , which is 13 for the goblin. Inv gets +8 on Perception? So that's 75% chance of success, 30% chance to crit. Crit on Will means both attacks get 1d6. With Subject, Inv gets +5 to hit. So that's a 50% chance, expected damage 3.5. Crit attack on a 20. So total expected damage = 3.675 on first hit. Second hit needs a 15. That's 30% 1.05 with a 20, that's 1.225. So that's 4.9. for the round, if you don't crit with Subject. Adjusting for potential crit of SS. I get around .367 extra expected damage. 5.26

So yes. A 18 DEX 16 CHA Rogue feinting against Gobline Warriors is more effective than a 12 DEX 16 WIS Inv using Study Subject Probalby doing about half the damage. Did I suggest otherwise?

From this napkin analysis, the real difference is the Rogue's DEX allowing more hits and higher chance for plain crits. In fact it's the Rogue 30% chance to crit on the first attack that gives it a one-attack kill.. It'd be interesting to set up a spreadsheet and see where the best DEX / WIS balance fo the Inv is.

If we look at an Orc Warrior, the Perception DC goes to 16. The Will DC is only 14. This tilts the damage back in the Invs favor. Probably not enough to over come the DEX disparity. Most creatures seem to have a higher Perception DC than Will DC, but it's not like I've done an actual tally.

Quote:
Plus, flat-footed is the easiest condition to inflict in the entire game with a lot of different avenues for inflicting it, whereas there's precisely one way to study target.

Flat-footed may be the most common condition to impart compared to other conditions, but it still is a condition that has to be imparted. And the Inv gets to take advantage of that fact when it comes to AC as well.

Again, I'm not sure how SA being better means Subject+Strike sucks.


Squiggit wrote:
Circumstance modifiers to attack aren't the most common, but it does feel kind of bad to know that stuff like Sweep and Backswing weapons or a Ranger's Monster Hunter (not that that's going to ever proc either) conflict with your combat mechanics.

Well, maybe that's something Paizo might be really willing to change. If Paizo doesn't want too many stacking buffs on a party level, then make it Insight for the Inv and Circumstance for the party, or....just say it stacks with other Circumstance buffs for the Inv alone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
And why are we comparing this to Sneak Attack?

Because both abilities are ways to add conditional d6s to your damage rolls and have identical value for about half the game.

Quote:
A Feint Crit means the Rogue gets a second attack, so not really important here.

Worth noting the Scoundrel Rogue gets flat footed on all their attacks with a regular success.

Not as strong as a thief, but probably easier to compare to the Investigator.


In theory SS can also give a +2 to hit at higher levels, be used to buff your allies against the target, inflict bleeding damage if you're a Doc, and you have more stuff that helps you in fights as you level up.

Not that I'd refuse a nice helping of extra damage on it (or debuffs... that's something that would certainly work) but personally what's bumming me out the most is the Int/Wis MADness. There should be some way to dispense with it.

Check this out, I was building an investigator with the following stats:

Str10 Dex16 Con10 Int18 Wis12 Cha12

... because I wanted her to be a freakin' genius along the lines of Holmes and Co., and I wanted her to hit often enough with a crossbow.

Of course I soon noticed it's very hard to SS with that Wis... so, let's say I dump Str and Con:

Str8 Dex16 Con8 Int18 Wis14 Cha12

Because I don't want her to fail all her interrogations forever... so I'm left with substandard hit points and Fort save, and my Perception shifts from a +6 to a grand total of... +7. Yay.

I mean, perhaps Studied Strike could be stronger, but at this rate I'll rarely notice.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Let's also consider the 16 WIS for the Inv, because i've been told you "can't" play one with less than 16 WIS with a 12 DEX.

Told by whom?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to be able to play an 18 Int, 8 Wis investigator who is more useful in combat than "someone with no class features save for proficiencies."


Squiggit wrote:
Because both abilities are ways to add conditional d6s to your damage rolls and have identical value for about half the game.

Yes, PF has a Precision damage concept and other abilities operate on the same fundamental concept, but are categorically very different in mechanics and impact on game play.

As Roswyn points out, Subject is a gateway to other things and is intended to provide substantively different impact on the character than SA.

These Precision damage abilities are all context driven. If you want to compare it to SA, then you have to provide us with metrics and a specific context that were going to talk about, you can't just throw out random examples as if it proves something. My example above, doesn't prove anything. It's just an exercise to see what things we need to consider when looking at them in a specific context.


Ed Reppert wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Let's also consider the 16 WIS for the Inv, because i've been told you "can't" play one with less than 16 WIS with a 12 DEX.
Told by whom?

I can't remember. It's somewhere in these threads. I interpreted as "I" can't play an Inv with less than a 16.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Let's also consider the 16 WIS for the Inv, because i've been told you "can't" play one with less than 16 WIS with a 12 DEX.
Told by whom?
I can't remember. It's somewhere in these threads. I interpreted as "I" can't play an Inv with less than a 16.

I should think that hypothesis needs to be tested. :-)

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
And why are we comparing this to Sneak Attack? What has Sneak Attack have to do with whether an Inv has the potential to pump out damage with Subject + Strike?I don' believe I've made any claim that Subject + Strike was better than SA?

Because they're very similar in number of dice, restricted to basically the same weapons, and the rogue, who gets Sneak Attack, is by far the most comparable class to Investigator (being almost equally good at Skills). If Investigator isn't at least very close to as good as the Rogue in combat (a minimum of 80%-90% DPR or so unless they get serious debuff effects or some other equivalent advantage...the Rogue is at least 80%-90% as good outside combat, after all), then the Investigator winds up a bad class people basically shouldn't play.

Which would suck because their non-combat features look very neat and I really like the concept.

And comparing a Rogue using feint to Study Suspect is really stacking things in the Investigator's favor. Like, a lot.

In most PC groups, a Rogue can get Sneak Attack and Flat Footed simply by flanking with another melee character, spending one action with no chance of failure and relatively minimal risks. And if they can't, Dread Striker is a vastly better option than feint most of the time, and allows them to throw penalties on top of flat footed at their victim.

In short you're comparing the least effective possible Rogue action choice to get their bonus with the most effective Investigator one. The fact that it's still ahead is hideously bad for the Investigator's combat viability.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Because they're very similar in number of dice, restricted to basically the same weapons, and the rogue, who gets Sneak Attack, is by far the most comparable class to Investigator (being almost equally good at Skills). If Investigator isn't at least very close to as good as the Rogue in combat (a minimum of 80%-90% DPR or so unless they get serious debuff effects or some other equivalent advantage...the Rogue is at least 80%-90% as good outside combat, after all), then the Investigator winds up a bad class people basically shouldn't play.

If that's Paizo's metric for Subject, then we'd need actual playtest data to figure it out then. We'd need to see what happened in actual encounters.

You want to test it?

And as an aide to Paizo. I would absolutely play the Investigator if the damage were outside that range. I'm sure a ton of people would.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Because they're very similar in number of dice, restricted to basically the same weapons, and the rogue, who gets Sneak Attack, is by far the most comparable class to Investigator (being almost equally good at Skills). If Investigator isn't at least very close to as good as the Rogue in combat (a minimum of 80%-90% DPR or so unless they get serious debuff effects or some other equivalent advantage...the Rogue is at least 80%-90% as good outside combat, after all), then the Investigator winds up a bad class people basically shouldn't play.

If that's Paizo's metric for Subject, then we'd need actual playtest data to figure it out then. We'd need to see what happened in actual encounters.

You want to test it?

And as an aide to Paizo. I would absolutely play the Investigator if the damage were outside that range. I'm sure a ton of people would.

First of all, NN 959, I think you have a lot of very strong points to consider and have contributed immensely to my own evaluation of the investigator, as a class that I enjoy very much in PF1 and think they have are testing some very interesting things with in PF2. Thank you.

My question though, is how different classes need to be in order to feel justified existing as a separate class?
My concern about the Investigator stepping on the Rogues toes stems primarily from the fact that they are so similar in terms of proficiencies and advancement far more than about the narrative, because the narrative of a class archetype or subclass can easily be changed and tied to the new thing with a paragraph of text explaining how the new archetype or subclass works.

The fact that the Investigator is SO close to the rogue in terms of skill proficiencies, skill feats, Saving throw proficiencies, weapon proficiencies and Armor Proficiencies, makes it feel reasonable to ask why most of the Investigator feats cant be available to the rogue or a rogue archetype and then the subclass or archetype just modify the sneak attack/surprise attack mechanic to be more like the take the case/study target mechanic?

Now I agree with you that it is important to put this into actual play test, but it is difficult for some of us to find games where we will get to do that very much over the next month, so I will only do the best I can, which is character build.

Right now, when I build an investigator, The alchemical sciences investigator feels different from the rogue, and the alchemist, but not really that different than a MC version of the two.

The Forensic Medicine build feels suspiciously better than what a Chiurgeon can be (because of what it can do with the Medicine skill and the sheer number of skill feats it gets), except that it is tied to a key stat that doesn't fit any of the things it sets out to do.

The Empiricist pretty strongly feels like a rogue with access to better investigator feats. Which doesn't feel unique enough to me, because a rogue with access to INT as a key attribute and the investigator feats would feel like the better character AND Investigator, which can pretty easily be accomplished as a sub class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Let's also consider the 16 WIS for the Inv, because i've been told you "can't" play one with less than 16 WIS with a 12 DEX.
Told by whom?
I can't remember. It's somewhere in these threads. I interpreted as "I" can't play an Inv with less than a 16.
I should think that hypothesis needs to be tested. :-)

I said that I tried to do a low Wis Inv and it looked really bad on paper, but didn´t test it. Never said to anyone that you can´t play it xD What I can tellis that nobody in my group wants to try it because it feels that doesn´t give anything special for the team.

About the flat-footed thing, you have to consider that this condition can be aplied by other players, this makes it way cooler .Let the other players feel that they bring something to the combat, even if the rouge is dealing the damage. The Study Subject can only be aplied by the Inv and the only one who can do the extra damage is the Inv, so is more of a loner player, and that doesn´t feel that good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aswaarg wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Let's also consider the 16 WIS for the Inv, because i've been told you "can't" play one with less than 16 WIS with a 12 DEX.
Told by whom?
I can't remember. It's somewhere in these threads. I interpreted as "I" can't play an Inv with less than a 16.
I should think that hypothesis needs to be tested. :-)

I said that I tried to do a low Wis Inv and it looked really bad on paper, but didn´t test it. Never said to anyone that you can´t play it xD What I can tellis that nobody in my group wants to try it because it feels that doesn´t give anything special for the team.

About the flat-footed thing, you have to consider that this condition can be aplied by other players, this makes it way cooler .Let the other players feel that they bring something to the combat, even if the rouge is dealing the damage. The Study Subject can only be aplied by the Inv and the only one who can do the extra damage is the Inv, so is more of a loner player, and that doesn´t feel that good.

That is a really interesting idea, what if pulling off the studied strike could allow the investigator to allow any one attack to do additional precision damage, but only if the attack was not already subject to bonus precision damage?


Unicore wrote:
That is a really interesting idea, what if pulling off the studied strike could allow the investigator to allow any one attack to do additional precision damage, but only if the attack was not already subject to bonus precision damage?

I like it. Umm a conditional damage that don´t stack with another conditional bonus? Maybe related with the Int stat instead of random d6? I like more than Clu in combat wich I fell bad and clunky also.

And it gives something special for he Investigator, a good damage buffer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
First of all, NN 959, I think you have a lot of very strong points to consider and have contributed immensely to my own evaluation of the investigator, as a class that I enjoy very much in PF1 and think they have are testing some very interesting things with in PF2. Thank you.

The extent that the conversation is helpful is more a statement about how you are approaching it. Part of the learning process is testing one's logic and having someone ask probative questions. If one spends their time looking for ways to be outraged when someone challenges their thought process, then they will succeed in being outraged and get little from the discussion. So thank you for having the right frame of mind.

Quote:
My question though, is how different classes need to be in order to feel justified existing as a separate class?

Sounds like this is a question you're aiming more at Paizo than me.

Quote:
My concern about the Investigator stepping on the Rogues toes stems primarily from the fact that they are so similar in terms of proficiencies and advancement far more than about the narrative, because the narrative of a class archetype or subclass can easily be changed and tied to the new thing with a paragraph of text explaining how the new archetype or subclass works.

Well...I think there are a lot of element that go into creating what I would call substantive differentiation. To provide an example, I used to play, a now unavailable, MMO called City of Heroes designed by Cryptic Studios. The game was a superhero game based on five "archetypes." The archetypes were designed with around Primary/Second powersets specific to that archetype. Cryptic did an amazing job of defining functional roles for each archetype and by virtue of the Secondary power set, let each archetype function as a backup for another archetype (so you could get by with gaps in team). One archetype was called a Scrapper and was essentially melee fighter. All the Scrappers have the exact same functional role on a team.. But Cryptic designed each Scrapper Power set with different powers, so the experience was significantly different. The options were Martial Arts, Claws, Dark Melee, Spines, Katana, Dual Blades.

Ultimately they were all interchangeable. But how they all had a specific context in which they excelled and required slightly different approaches to game play and they all contributed to a different narrative/concept for the hero.

The point here, is in my experience, how a class does its jobs--the context factor-- and the concept behind the outcomes can allow a wide range of characters to all do the same thing without feeling redundant.

Now, there's a difference when you're just doing combat vs skill checks because usually there are not enough skill checks to go around. There's only so much healing you need after a battle. With Treat Wounds, the same person can do it for everyone, every battle, and obviate the need for anyone else to even try. So I think you're bringing up a very good fundamental question for Paizo about these non-combat roles. What does Paizo expect to happen when you have two non-magic healers in the group? How do you design this classes so that that one doesn't completely obviate the need for the other? I can imagine there might be similar issues with dedicated Skill monkey's.

Quote:
Now I agree with you that it is important to put this into actual play test, but it is difficult for some of us to find games where we will get to do that very much over the next month, so I will only do the best I can, which is character build.

Yup. You do what you can. And I absolutely believe that talking about the classes before playing them is extremely important, even if you don't get to play it. It helps people figure out what to test and what to look for if they do play.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Was kind of hoping Empiricist would get an Int for Perception/Sense Motive type thing like PF1's did.

I know PF2 generally doesn't like those sorts of attribute replacers, but it feels really thematic and would make Int seem more relevant.

As is the OP has a point, if you're not an Alchemist Int doesn't really do anything for you that it doesn't do for anyone else.

Personally, I think that the investigator should get Int to Perception by default. You're right that the PF Design Team doesn't seem to like X to Y, but the rogue has Dex to damage as a core option so that's already something that's supported by the system. I'm of the opinion that it's silly for the skill that determines whether or not you get to use your best combat option is associated with anything but your key ability modifier. (Sense Motive isn't a separate skill in PF; it's based off of Perception so if you gave them Int to Perception your Sense Motive actions would also benefit.) Furthermore, making the investigator more able to use Studied Strike doesn't really break the game, considering rogues have so many options to make foes flat-footed that it's not difficult at all for them to sneak attack, even without assistance from fellow PCs.

I do agree with other people in the thread who expressed that the forensic methodology should get Int to Medicine instead of Wisdom as well.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
My question though, is how different classes need to be in order to feel justified existing as a separate class?

This is an interesting philosophic question that is going to differ from person to person. My answer would probably be "about as different as PF1's summoner compared to PF1's spiritualist." From a flavor perspective, those classes are night and day apart. From a mechanical perspective, the summoner has an innate summon monster power and some cool shielding / position swapping and the spiritualist has a psychic spell list, some cool ghost powers, shared consciousness, and a more support-focused pet that doesn't have build-a-monster elements. Despite a staggering amount of shared design templating between the two on a mechanical level, no one would confuse the spiritualist for the summoner or vice versa because the things they do different have dramatically different game play experiences.

Quote:
The fact that the Investigator is SO close to the rogue in terms of skill proficiencies, skill feats, Saving throw proficiencies, weapon proficiencies and Armor Proficiencies, makes it feel reasonable to ask why most of the Investigator feats cant be available to the rogue or a rogue archetype and then the subclass or archetype just modify the sneak attack/surprise attack mechanic to be more like the take the case/study target mechanic?

From a flavor perspective, rogue is overwhelmingly coded as a criminal. The investigator isn't. I think it's valuable to have a skillful class that isn't inherently assumed to fit a particular character mold.

Quote:
Right now, when I build an investigator, The alchemical sciences investigator feels different from the rogue, and the alchemist, but not really that different than a MC version of the two.

I think this is a fair critique of the alchemical science investigator, and it likely stems from the fact that the core PF1 investigator (which got a "limited alchemy") basically did just nab the alchemist's alchemy as-written. Investigator's origins is literally a hybrid between investigator and alchemist, after all.

Quote:
The Forensic Medicine build feels suspiciously better than what a Chiurgeon can be (because of what it can do with the Medicine skill and the sheer number of skill feats it gets), except that it is tied to a key stat that doesn't fit any of the things it sets out to do.

As someone who's played forensic medicine, I personally disagree with this. Alchemist gets to use Crafting for Medicine checks instead of Medicine, which means the alchemist is using their key modifier on the checks (Medicine is usually Wisdom based). While an alchemist would need to take Battle Medic at 2nd level compared to the investigator, who gets it for free, the number of feats you need to take to be a competent healer is basically just Battle Medic and Ward Medic until the late game, meaning the alchemist isn't really far behind the investigator in terms of skill feats. But the alchemist DOES pull ahead in rapid healing simply by virtue of being able to rapidly produce elixirs of healing, which a forensic investigator can't match without Multiclassing into alchemist (and even then, they have fewer uses of infused regents).

The investigator being able to Battle Medic more is nice, but its not an option that'll let you be your party's primary combat healer the way a cleric or a well-prepared (and well-stocked) alchemist can.

Quote:
The Empiricist pretty strongly feels like a rogue with access to better investigator feats. Which doesn't feel unique enough to me, because a rogue with access to INT as a key attribute and the investigator feats would feel like the better character AND Investigator, which can pretty easily be accomplished as a sub class.

I agree with this; the investigator's feats are overwhelmingly aimed at making Take the Case bearable because it isn't fun by default (I wrote a thread on this today in the playtest form). This, coupled with the fact that investigators are so limited in how they Take their Case and that they lack any real combat options or tactics makes them feel incredibly limited.


Alexander Augunas wrote:


From a flavor perspective, rogue is overwhelmingly coded as a criminal.

In PFS, I've had no trouble playing a rogue who isn't a criminal. I don't use the words "rogue", "thief", or "thievery" in character and have declined when the player of a non-rogue suggested gratuitous burglary.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
whew wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:


From a flavor perspective, rogue is overwhelmingly coded as a criminal.
In PFS, I've had no trouble playing a rogue who isn't a criminal. I don't use the words "rogue", "thief", or "thievery" in character and have declined when the player of a non-rogue suggested gratuitous burglary.

That doesn’t mean the Rogue in the Core Rulebook isn’t coded as a criminal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

"Coded"? What does that mean?

Contributor

Ed Reppert wrote:
"Coded"? What does that mean?

In this context, the word "coded" means "to express in an indirect way." Which might not even be accurate considering the rogue class overwhelmingly and overtly uses terminology that evokes criminal undertones.

For example
—"Racket" means "a dishonest scheme for making money."
—The Brutal Beating feat's name.

Other Examples:
—The "In Downtime" entry of the class's flavor only lists illegal things your character could do when not adventuring. "You might pick pockets or trade in illegal goods. You can also become part of a thieves’ guild, or even found one of your own."


Alexander Augunas wrote:

As someone who's played forensic medicine, I personally disagree with this. Alchemist gets to use Crafting for Medicine checks instead of Medicine, which means the alchemist is using their key modifier on the checks (Medicine is usually Wisdom based). While an alchemist would need to take Battle Medic at 2nd level compared to the investigator, who gets it for free, the number of feats you need to take to be a competent healer is basically just Battle Medic and Ward Medic until the late game, meaning the alchemist isn't really far behind the investigator in terms of skill feats. But the alchemist DOES pull ahead in rapid healing simply by virtue of being able to rapidly produce elixirs of healing, which a forensic investigator can't match without Multiclassing into alchemist (and even then, they have fewer uses of infused regents).

The investigator being able to Battle Medic more is nice, but its not an option that'll let you be your party's primary combat healer the way a cleric or a well-prepared (and well-stocked) alchemist can.

The issue with Chirugeon and their craft for medicine skill is it just isn't well written. You need to use healers tools as all the medicine actions require them and Chirugeon provided no exceptions. Since healers tools require 2 hands, you can't use alchemy tools which means no item bonuses to your craft check for better quality tools... This means the stat kind of evens out. So it's not as easy as a 1 for 1, int for wis trade. A 14 on secondary wisdom that gains a +1 item bonus [a 3rd level item] isn't at much of a lose to a primary 16 or 18 int.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:

As someone who's played forensic medicine, I personally disagree with this. Alchemist gets to use Crafting for Medicine checks instead of Medicine, which means the alchemist is using their key modifier on the checks (Medicine is usually Wisdom based). While an alchemist would need to take Battle Medic at 2nd level compared to the investigator, who gets it for free, the number of feats you need to take to be a competent healer is basically just Battle Medic and Ward Medic until the late game, meaning the alchemist isn't really far behind the investigator in terms of skill feats. But the alchemist DOES pull ahead in rapid healing simply by virtue of being able to rapidly produce elixirs of healing, which a forensic investigator can't match without Multiclassing into alchemist (and even then, they have fewer uses of infused regents).

The investigator being able to Battle Medic more is nice, but its not an option that'll let you be your party's primary combat healer the way a cleric or a well-prepared (and well-stocked) alchemist can.

The issue with Chirugeon and their craft for medicine skill is it just isn't well written. You need to use healers tools as all the medicine actions require them and Chirugeon provided no exceptions. Since healers tools require 2 hands, you can't use alchemy tools which means no item bonuses to your craft check for better quality tools... This means the stat kind of evens out. So it's not as easy as a 1 for 1, int for wis trade. A 14 on secondary wisdom that gains a +1 item bonus [a 3rd level item] isn't at much of a lose to a primary 16 or 18 int.

That's an interesting point. I might try to see if you can get a designer to see that point. Maybe a future errata / campaign clarification can rule that an alchemy kit can sub for a healer's kit for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:


That's an interesting point. I might try to see if you can get a designer to see that point. Maybe a future errata / campaign clarification can rule that an alchemy kit can sub for a healer's kit for them.

That would be great if you could. The Chirugeon ability also has an issue with all the skill feats requires ranks of medicine to take and the ability doesn't allow you to use ranks of craft alchemy so you have to keep up ranks of medicine just for taking the feats. Ranks of medicine are also needed to increase the DC of treat wounds for increased healing also. So the ability requires spending 2 of your skill slots you pretty much have to raise together.

Until both things are fixed the forensic medicine ability takes a lot less work/resources [1 skill, 1 kit]. Once they do though, it'll feel a lot better compared the two.

201 to 227 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.
Recent threads in Investigator Playtest