What does the Investigator use Intelligence for?


Investigator Playtest

1 to 50 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a bit puzzled - the investigator has intelligence as key stat, but what do they actually use it for? There are a handful of Intelligence-based skills, but your most frequent checks are probably going to be Perception checks to Study Suspect.

Also, the "knowledge" skills are fairly split between Wisdom and Intelligence. Investigators can substitute Medicine for Perception to Study Suspect, but that's just moving one Wisdom-based thing for another.

Is there something I'm missing? What does Intelligence actually do for the Investigator?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Alchemical Sciences methodology gets a number of versatile vials per day equal to your Intelligence modifier.
Studied Bypass (L14 feat) functions based off Intelligence.
Class DC, but I can't find anything that actually uses it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if they mostly dropped the PF1 alchemist connection, I'm glad to see they kept the PF2 alchemist design of an awful waste of your key stat and pointless MADness.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I can't see any reason beyond being skill and knowledge based, but that doesn't really impact the Investigator's ability to do too much. I am very curious about this as well.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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


Yeah, I'm just starting to build an investigator, and keep looking for the rule that they use Int for Perception and not finding it. I'm ending up spreading my stat bumps around more than I'd expected, because I need higher Wis for my class abilities and Int only really gives me another skill or two.

I won't be surprised if this changes, but I doubt it will change in the very short timeframe of the playtest.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It won't change during the playtest. They even say it upfront in the blog and in the document. Because of the tight time frame, no changes will be made to the playtest rules.

But this is a very good point. Having a prime attribute that only helps a single build (alchemical research) is not very useful. Let's test it in actual play and put the results in the feedback thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:

It won't change during the playtest. They even say it upfront in the blog and in the document. because of the tight time frame, no changes will be made to the playtest rules.

But this is a very good point. Having a prime attribute that only helps a single build (alchemical research) is not very useful. Let's test it in actual play and put the results in the feedback thread.

I think the other problem is that you're allowing the Investigator to invest heavily in other stats. Other classes have a primary stat that contributes to their effectiveness. This acts as a type of drain on build and kind of keeps it in an appropriate lane. I would find it odd that a 18 INT Investigator wouldn't' be much different from one with a 12 INT.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gonna have to agree on the possible fix of at least having INT act as your Perception, seeing as the more basic feature of all methodologies, Study Subject, is based on your Perception, which is based on WIS and not INT.

Being MAD via DEX, INT and WIS is a bit much, especially if you also wanna dip a bit into STR for added flat damage. That's 3-4/6 stats you need to focus in on.


Feros wrote:
It won't change during the playtest.

Agreed, I was mostly voicing that thought because it would be cool to have Int to Perception as an option now, since it seems so vital, in order to evaluate more subtle aspects that might come up.

On a related note, and because it doesn't seem to merit its own thread:

Take the Case says "Whenever you attempt a check to investigate your subject, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus on the check" and that "checks to investigate are typically Perception checks or skill checks that use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma."

Study Suspect says "Attempt a Perception check against the Will DC of one creature you can see. If the creature is the subject of your open case, you can use this ability as a free action."

Any chance the circumstance bonus from Take the Case is applicable to your Study Suspect roll? It doesn't seem so, since Study Suspect already gets a benefit if your target is the subject of your open case, but perhaps it was meant to overcome the lower value that Int offers with the current rules? I don't mean to argue for cheese, just wondering what others think.


Ezekieru wrote:
Being MAD via DEX, INT and WIS is a bit much, especially if you also wanna dip a bit into STR for added flat damage. That's 3-4/6 stats you need to focus in on.

Not sure I understand. Are you suggesting the current Inv. is MAD? Wisdom is clearly important as is INT for an alchemist. How is the Inv. more MAD than any other class?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Current investigator has the same problem the alchemist does where it can't actually fight with its key stat. So your attack stat is going to be behind for big chunks of the campaign since it caps out at 16 for level 1.

Unlike the Alchemist, if you aren't an alchemical investigator you don't really get anything out of Int. That's kind of problematic.

They're also d8 like rogues, which means they probably want Con a bit more than the average martial.

First impression my biggest disappointment though is that the Investigator doesn't have a lot of interesting stuff to do in Combat. I was hoping they'd play into the studied combat angle and give them debuffs and unique actions that allowed them to fight in nonstandard ways.

But it looks like you're just going to be Studying so you can hit people with your not-sneak attack dice instead.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope the designers go the route of giving intelligence more to do rather than letting investigators choose other key abilities.

To bring up one point re:investigator durability, it seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Ezekieru wrote:
Being MAD via DEX, INT and WIS is a bit much, especially if you also wanna dip a bit into STR for added flat damage. That's 3-4/6 stats you need to focus in on.
Not sure I understand. Are you suggesting the current Inv. is MAD? Wisdom is clearly important as is INT for an alchemist. How is the Inv. more MAD than any other class?

INT for the main stat, WIS for perception and most of their basic class features, DEX for attacking with an agile, finesse or ranged weapon, STR for extra damage with a melee weapon, CON for more health if they're going to be in melee range a lot. That's 5 out of 6. That's pretty dang MAD to me.

If they focus on melee, they'll need all 5 of those. If it's just ranged, dropping STR and possibly CON would still be 3. That's a lot more than I'd be happy with. They really need to allow INT to be applicable to damage rolls aside from feats. Bake it into the Investigator and Alchemists' class features please.


Lots of classed need three or more stats if they want to be effective at combat and effective out of it. I don't see the Inv as somehow unique in that regard. And honestly, the class isn't designed to be the hammer, so the idea you need to have 14-18 STR/DEX/CON isn't really compelling.

However, I do wonder what satisfaction the class is going to get in combat. I would highly advocate that giving the class proficiency in the whip would dramatically help out its value in combat.


Excaliburproxy wrote:

I hope the designers go the route of giving intelligence more to do rather than letting investigators choose other key abilities.

To bring up one point re:investigator durability, it seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.

yeah, i was internally grumbling that they probably make much better "hyde mutagenists" than alchemist, but then it dawned to me that "hey... there's like 0 reasons to go melee, they can do everything just fine at range"

In between master proficiency, +1 to attack from mutagen, +1 to attack from studied target, and ranged sneak attack, they seem pretty awesome for a ranged build

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Ezekieru, You should be able to use Int for Attack and Damage with Finesse weapons, or at the very least let Int be used for Damage.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sin_Dark wrote:
I agree with Ezekieru, You should be able to use Int for Attack and Damage with Finesse weapons, or at the very least let Int be used for Damage.

I agree as well, at least for adding int to finesse melee damage. It also makes them a bit more thematic when it comes to precision and targeting weaknesses.


Sin_Dark wrote:
I agree with Ezekieru, You should be able to use Int for Attack and Damage with Finesse weapons, or at the very least let Int be used for Damage.

Int to damage is really not that great of a fix since the difference in % damage will be pretty negligible at higher levels. I also think int-for-accuracy is somewhat odd as well and not really a great solution as it takes away from dex/str's schtick.

shroudb wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I hope the designers go the route of giving intelligence more to do rather than letting investigators choose other key abilities.

To bring up one point re:investigator durability, it seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.

yeah, i was internally grumbling that they probably make much better "hyde mutagenists" than alchemist, but then it dawned to me that "hey... there's like 0 reasons to go melee, they can do everything just fine at range"

In between master proficiency, +1 to attack from mutagen, +1 to attack from studied target, and ranged sneak attack, they seem pretty awesome for a ranged build

Honestly, you should feel free to continue grumbling about that to a certain extent. That said, I think the alchemist is still doing okay comparably due to their sheer supply of alchemical items.

I actually wish there was some real way to get armor proficiency so I can build a strength investigator, though.

Dark Archive

It makes them less MAD.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is also kinda silly if you think about it. The road to 4e DnD is paved with avoiding MAD.


I see many comments worrying about INT as Key Stat despite little direct power tied to it, which almost assume Key Stat must be max 18.
I think there is legit class design built around assuming INT may not be highest stat at 18 (or even co-equal), while other stats limited to max 16.
Which is similar to Warpriest builds which have WIS as Key Stat yet de facto prioritize STR/DEX still at max 16, or even CHA/CON>WIS.
That helps balance it against standard martials like Rogue/Barb on same Master attack proficiency track (Rogue Sneak < Studied dmg).

With all the circumstance and alchemical item bonuses on INT skills you can do great on those even without starting max INT.
Of course, INT as Key Stat does specifically synergize with Wizard MCD, with INT helping to almost keep up with full caster power,
although doing so yields either worse weapon attacks (STR/DEX) or CON/WIS, while eating into Class Feats, so all part of trade space...

Really all part of the system making everybody "MAD", with tight math to make you feel every difference, yet also have viable options.
This class really isn't about solo martial dominance anyways, so I think this works out fine in big picture.
I don't actually see need for INT->attack or replacing WIS with INT->Perception or Medicine, or even major need to "do more with INT".
Different Investigators will be better or worse at different areas, with more variability in stat/builds: not a problem to me at all.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
It seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.

...All tremble before the Investigator:Multiclass Gunslinger god...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So just to make sure, the reason it's fine for the key stat to be Int even though it does almost nothing new compared to other classes is that it has synergy with Wizard MCD?

By that logic it would be fine for rangers to have Wis as a key stat because it has synergy with druid. But obviously it isnt the case.

What I'm trying to say is that key stats should have little to do with what other classes get, specially when it's about MCD.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's definitely a problem that Int is the key stat for the Investigator now, but there are a number of pretty easy fixes to that to make it more sensible. Int to Perception is such an obvious choice that I'm shocked it wasn't in the original script; I'd similarly give Int to Medicine for Forensic Medicine Investigators.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

or even major need to "do more with INT".

Why have it be a class' "key stat" if it doesn't do anything for them?

Quote:
I see many comments worrying about INT as Key Stat despite little direct power tied to it, which almost assume Key Stat must be max 18.

On the contrary. Nobody at all said this. Several people even pointed out that Int is especially ignorable for Investigators.

And it's kind of dumb, from a design standpoint, when a class 'key stat' is one you actively don't care about at all.


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

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

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

Quandary wrote:

Really all part of the system making everybody "MAD", with tight math to make you feel every difference, yet also have viable options.

This class really isn't about solo martial dominance anyways, so I think this works out fine in big picture.
I don't actually see need for INT->attack or replacing WIS with INT->Perception or Medicine, or even major need to "do more with INT".
Different Investigators will be better or worse at different areas, with more variability in stat/builds: not a problem to me at all.

I'm in this camp. I don't really want to see INT be over used. Doing so would essentially mandate everyone go 18 INT. The way the class sits now, there are real options for bumping multiple stats. Normally, I'd be worried that you'll get what happened in PF1, people using the Class, stacking bonuses/feats, and out doing other classes in damage. But the more I look at this class, there isn't much chance of an Investigator competing with a Ranger or Monk on the damage front. At this point, I think that's good thing.

My only caveat is whether the class feels futile with a weapon. As I've stated, giving whip proficiency would totally alleviate that, imo.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think I would settle for having some class resource be Int based (such as reagents for an Alchemist). But with alchemical studies being optional for this class and Inspiration no longer being a thing, the only thing driving intelligence up is the fact that the Investigator is virtually certain to be trained in at least one Int based skill.

Maybe they can gain the ability to use some Int based skill in place of a non-Int based skill or Perception (as the Chirurgeon Alchemist's ability to use Crafting for Medicine checks, for example)?


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


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

Do you honestly believe that it makes sense for the core combat mechanic of an intelligence based class to run off of wisdom?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I must agree that, unfortunately, Int doesn't do all that much for an Investigator at the moment. Which is unfortunate.

Letting them do something really legitimately cool with it would be a very good addition to the (otherwise pretty solid...mostly anyway), Class.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
This is the ability score that a member of your class cares about the most. Many of your most useful and powerful abilities are tied to this ability in some way.

This is how the CRB describes key ability scores.

So for all the people saying it's a good thing Int sucks for Investigators for whatever reason. Cool. Fine. It shouldn't be their key stat then.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Investigator seems to have int for key stat because they are skill monkeys .-. Like they do have combat abilities, but they seem to have even more non combat utility.

That does have problems though yeah, because they both already have lots of skills and get abilities that allow them to treat untrained skills as trained and you don't really NEED all skills as one character. They don't seem to have many DC based abilities which I think could help them.

That said yeah, I don't actually mind idea of class that is specialized in non combat stuff though obviously investigator still needs to be able to handle themselves in combat and be useful for other party members in there too

(BTW, I agree that they shouldn't get int on damage/accuracy because 1e really did have problem with making strength useless stat for melee :p All allowing them to replace strength with int would do is making strength based investigators completely pointless.)

Definitely agreeing with that they should get something cool that int helps them with besides more skills, I just don't think it should be at expense of making other stats more easy to dump.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I really do think that making Perception (and only Perception) based on Int for Investigators seems like a valid way to go. Right now the Class almost entirely revolves around good Perception in many ways, having that actually synchronize with their Key Stat is really good.

And it's not like half the Knowledge Skills and Will Saves aren't still good reasons for an Investigator to grab Perception.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess that is true yeah... The investigator comes across as wisdom class. And as you said, at least replacing wisdom with int for perception wouldn't make wisdom complete dumb stat like strength would be(at least investigators don't really seem like they'd need a lot of bulk)


Circumstance or item bonuses to Perception, Skills, Attacks let them do those without necessarily max stat.
I don't see reason they can't start with good WIS>=INT, the idea INT MUST BE HUGE is missing dynamic at play here, IMHO.
(I agree they should explain this dynamic in class description, likewise for Warpriest where WIS < STR,DEX,CON,CHA can be fine... as can high WIS)
Having moderate INT is useful for certain features, but depending on it for DCs like full caster isn't required.
At the same time other stats don't need to be maxed huge, because of the widespread bonuses.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really think the default assumption should be an 18 in your primary attribute. It's the only stat you can get an 18 in after all.

That's not to say there shouldn't be an argument to leave it at 16 or even 12, but there never being a good reason to max out intelligence as an Investigator is a real problem. If an 18 Int is always a bad thing to have then the Investigator's main attribute should be dexterity instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is valid, native Investigator abilities that benefit from max INT, Alchemy certainly does that.
On top of the benefit of INT skills class is built around, and even bypassing Resistance = INT mod (great for Persistent).
BTW,
I would guess it's highly likely APG will have Investigator Feats specifically synergizing Multiclass Alchemist.
Because it's ridiculous to not have Investigator Class Proficiency and Level carry over to MC:Alchemist infusions etc,
and need to spend 3 Feats like any other schmoe who can't already make the same stuff themselves with native Alchemy ability.

EDIT:

One thing I think is reasonable to allow swapping INT in for would be Medicine with Forensic Medicine Methodology, Medicine is already plausible INT fodder, so taking more 'scientific' approach to it makes sense. Although in reality I think a WIS>INT build is just as valid, at least helping out for INT>WIS builds who go Forensic Medicine seems reasonable.

I could also see Reason Rapidly being revamped to 1+INTmod Recall Knowledges as single action, so more powerful for max INT types, and less for those who neglect INT.

Maybe new abilities need to be thought up. I could see allowing INT to replace WIS for Will Saves vs certain things like evading Divinations or mundane attempts to discover you (vs disguise, or tracking, etc) since as Investigator you know how to not be Investigated. But it could be phrased to also offer benefit to non-INT maxers, like using different proficiency if higher (Class DC Proficiency?).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Is "this class's countersynergy is fine because it synergizes with an entirely unrelated class" the new "Fighters are fine because they can take UMD"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Although in reality I think a WIS>INT build is just as valid

Then Wis should be the key stat.


As a sidenote. My investigator might look into Pathfinder Agent.. The entry isn't amazing but
"Thorough Reports" feat can be pretty useful if you pull things right. You could get Lore: *insername*'s Creature Compendium. Where you're basically compiling a book on monsters to give/sell. Which is filled out as you identify more creatures with the standard identifications. Then for later similiar creatures (see thorough reports) you could roll Lore instead. which is INT and scalable.
it won't work on everything but with thorough reports and list keeping, you'll be able to do for quite a lot as time goes on, and even ones you can't you could still get thorough reports bonus on the normal (And then add to your creature compendium)

in my original idea's case, it was for an Alchemist, who was desiging booklets to sell and educate as many people as possible on the creatures near them, thereby lowering the death rates, improving lives, lessening new adventurer's deaths, and also lessening harmless creature's deaths (like creatures that help farms keep pest away-that might look s cary but are helpful if you don't provoke it in some way). TEaching folks if they plant X herb it tends to keep the local Boar beasts away. etc.

but my Alch can be far better as an investigator with Alch dip so far.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be happy with intelligence for perception for the investigator but I do not want to see stats which are not Str or Dex added to accuracy or damage on a mundane class ever.

Sovereign Court

11 people marked this as a favorite.

So what is an investigator supposed to be doing?

* Searching for clues
* Interviewing people
* Examining corpses
* Recalling lots of knowledge
* Doing some kind of clever way of fighting
* Having a lot of skills
> And some kind of particular methodology

Searching for clues is definitely done with Perception. Interviewing people is a combination of Charisma skills and Perception to Sense Motive. Corpses are examined with Medicine, which is a Wisdom skills. Recalling knowledge is split between Intelligence (Society, Arcana, Occultism, and sometimes Crafting) and Wisdom (Nature, Religion, and sometimes Medicine). Currently the clever way of fighting is Perception based. As for skill count, you start with Society, a methodology-based skill, a background skill, and 6 more skills. That's 9 skills before factoring in Intelligence.

Altogether, the contribution of Intelligence to what the investigator is supposed to be doing is on the small side. If you just looked at all these tasks and were asked, what should be their main stat, you'd say Wisdom.

And honestly that's not such a wild idea. Lots of detectives are described as very intuitive or perceptive. That's mapped to Wisdom, not Intelligence.

---

Possible solutions (mix and match)

* Key stat based on methodology Like a rogue, the choice of key stat could be linked to methodology. Analytical, alchemical investigators use Intellligence. So do forensic medicine/anatomist investigators. Intuitive/observant investigators use Wisdom. Social/provocative investigators goad suspects into revealing themselves with Charisma.

* Allow some stat-bending. Perception could be Intelligence-based, and forensic medicine and nature and religion also. These "knowledge skills" always seemed to me like they were Wisdom-based not because that was necessarily the most or only logical choice, but because that's the key stat of the classes that were supposed to use them most.

* Add more rider effects on studied strikes that force saving throws, making Intelligence an aggressive key stat.

* Consider whether Study Suspect even needs a check to succeed; spending an extra action to set up attacks every round is very punishing already. It could cripple your mobility, reducing the investigator to a slow-moving class.


A round about way to fix Int being more relevant without resorting to ability swaps for skills could be changing the Study abilities to trigger on Perception OR a relevant Recall Knowledge.

With 3/5 Recalls based around Int, and with the ability to pick up stuff like extra Lores to cover the last 2 categories, you could then build him with a normal Wisdom score and focus on Int.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

A round about way to fix Int being more relevant without resorting to ability swaps for skills could be changing the Study abilities to trigger on Perception OR a relevant Recall Knowledge.

With 3/5 Recalls based around Int, and with the ability to pick up stuff like extra Lores to cover the last 2 categories, you could then build him with a normal Wisdom score and focus on Int.

So basically, each round the investigator is trying to Recall Knowledge on a critter and if he learns something, he can use it.

I like the general idea, but what if:
- You run out of interesting facts about the creature?
- You are fighting multiple of the same creature?
- You fought the same kind of creature yesterday?

Also there's this bit:

CRB p. 506 wrote:

Additional Knowledge

Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check
to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover
more information. After a success, further uses of Recall
Knowledge can yield more information, but you should
adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a
character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed
a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has
recalled everything they know about the subject.

If the DC goes up each time that rather cramps the investigator's style.

I do like the general idea, provided that:
- The DC doesn't go up on repeated successes for the investigator
- And/Or: the investigator can try Recall Knowledge at the original DC but then won't get mechanical info about the creature, only Study Suspect. This gives the player a choice, do I raise the DC to learn more or do I just want to kill it quickly.
- You can keep recalling knowledge indefinitely to handle multiple monsters in multiple encounters. When the GM runs out of mechanical info he should feel free to instead feed you trivia about their ecology and society or how this individual seems to have some personal quirks. Kinda like how Sherlock looks at people and finds something minute about their appearance that lets him insult them where it hurts. When you get to the trivia stage, the DC doesn't rise anymore/resets to base.


Ascalaphus wrote:
shroudb wrote:

A round about way to fix Int being more relevant without resorting to ability swaps for skills could be changing the Study abilities to trigger on Perception OR a relevant Recall Knowledge.

With 3/5 Recalls based around Int, and with the ability to pick up stuff like extra Lores to cover the last 2 categories, you could then build him with a normal Wisdom score and focus on Int.

So basically, each round the investigator is trying to Recall Knowledge on a critter and if he learns something, he can use it.

I like the general idea, but what if:
- You run out of interesting facts about the creature?
- You are fighting multiple of the same creature?
- You fought the same kind of creature yesterday?

Also there's this bit:

CRB p. 506 wrote:

Additional Knowledge

Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check
to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover
more information. After a success, further uses of Recall
Knowledge can yield more information, but you should
adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a
character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed
a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has
recalled everything they know about the subject.

If the DC goes up each time that rather cramps the investigator's style.

I do like the general idea, provided that:
- The DC doesn't go up on repeated successes for the investigator
- And/Or: the investigator can try Recall Knowledge at the original DC but then won't get mechanical info about the creature, only Study Suspect. This gives the player a choice, do I raise the DC to learn more or do I just want to kill it quickly.
- You can keep recalling knowledge indefinitely to handle multiple monsters in multiple encounters. When the GM runs out of mechanical info he should feel free to instead feed you trivia about their ecology and society or how this individual seems to have some personal quirks. Kinda like how Sherlock looks at people...

I was thinking more of what type of check rather than the effects.

So, you can use Study either through Perception or Recall, but (like you don't get any extra benefits from the Perception check) you wouldn't actually the normal Recall benefits.

A way to look at it would be that instead of trying to remember interesting facts about the creature type, you actually recall interesting facts about the specific creature. ("oh every second swing his left foot is left open" kind of stuff)


Instead of recall knowledge which feels like it's a 1/creature thing as opposed to perception. Why not make it, "attempt a knowledge check vs the targets Will DC"?

This also opens up space to make a Loremaster, where you can use knowledge skills to get different benefits.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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


You are right, there needs to be some solid Int option.

But the knowledge check is a start for people who dont want stat substitutions of any kind.

On that note, I dont get what the problem is for Investigators to have Int to damage as a feature like Rogues have Dex to damage as a feature. I mean if done that way there is no way for a non Investigator to get even with dedication.

1 to 50 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Investigator Playtest / What does the Investigator use Intelligence for? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.