Investigator combat options feel lacking


Investigator Playtest

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
With the way the skill system works every class is useful out of combat unless you specifically choose not to be. A Fighter can be your party's main patch-up healer if he wants to be, and Rogues honestly aren't any better at any specific skill, their advantage is wide coverage.

Except...it doesn't really work out that way, IME.

Sure you can pick up a WIS or INT skill as any class. But without Take 10 and the stat modifier, you're not going to do a whole lot of succeeding, especially if you're not bumping the Skill proficiency.. Yes, you can make a lot of rolls out of combat, but actually succeeding is limited. And I'll also point out that Crit Failure on skill checks is a big deal. You may have your +7 at 5th level from being trained, but with DCs in the 20's, you're taking a big risk in rolling vs someone with +11. So the "everyone is useful" motto, imo, is overstated. It just feels like that at 1st level because the DCs aren't considering anything higher than Trained.


I know that you have a bad habit of completely misrepresenting other people's arguments, but that is just absurd. The Fighter who is "your party's main patch-up healer" isn't f~+&ing Trained in Medicine at 5th level.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I know that you have a bad habit of completely misrepresenting other people's arguments, but that is just absurd. The Fighter who is "your party's main patch-up healer" isn't f$%#ing Trained in Medicine at 5th level.

I didn't misrepresent your argument so stop foaming at the mouth. You said this:

Quote:
With the way the skill system works every class is useful out of combat unless you specifically choose not to be.

And IN MY EXPERIENCE it isn't true. So chill out.


Maybe build your characters better then? There's really no excuse for any PF2 character to not have at least a couple skills they excel in.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, a Fighter who wanted to be a main healer is probably Expert with a starting Wis of 14, raised to 16 at 5th at a minimum. He's rocking a solid +12 at DC 15 to 20 with that (meaning he crit fails only on a 1), and probably pretty optimal in combat to boot (Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Wis 14 is a very nice initial stat layout for a Fighter).

Similar bonuses are readily available for anyone who wants to be decent at a Skill. It's not hard.

And Rogues certainly have Skills very much on par with an Investigator. At anything less than 9th, the only real advantage an Investigator has over a Rogue is maybe a +1 when investigating something. That's some advantage, sure (and goes to +2 at 9th), but it's not worth any particularly large combat disparity.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Maybe build your characters better then? There's really no excuse for any PF2 character to not have at least a couple skills they excel in.

I'm not talking about "my characters." A "couple of skills" does not automatically make you useful out of combat. There a lots of situations where characters are not "useful" without "specifically choosing not to be."


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

No? Why not? Seems to me that in theory at least he could be expert in medicine at 5th level, or even 3rd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to note is that the successful thing investigators do in combat doesn't have to be damage. In PF1 I managed to make an investigator that managed to bolster her allies AC to the point where bosses would spend fights never hitting them. Effortless aid and infusion is a fun combo.

Personally I'd love for more combat support options even for the non-alchemist guys. Stuff for maneuvers/debuffs after doing studied strike would be cool too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that investigator combat options shouldn’t be damage. “Mark an enemy and then deal extra damage to it” is very similar to Ranger.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


And Rogues certainly have Skills very much on par with an Investigator. At anything less than 9th, the only real advantage an Investigator has over a Rogue is maybe a +1 when investigating something. That's some advantage, sure (and goes to +2 at 9th), but it's not worth any particularly large combat disparity.

But having Skills "on par" isn't the test, whatever you define that as. It's about being an "investigator" and the Investigator has a number of feats the Rogue can't touch, IMO.

Plus, a Rogue can't get an 18 on INT to start out, so it's not going to have as many skills or as many languages or as high a modifier. SInce WIS is currently the main combat stat, the Rogue is falling further behind on Modifier and skill checks.

The Rogue doesn't get Keen Recollection, which might be the I-can-Lore-it-over-all-of-you homerun (but admittedly I think this will get scoped down).

So no, I don't agree the Rogue is "on par" with the Investigator at being an investigator. Now, if it was just making Skill checks, sure, the Rogue is probably on par. But the class isn't there just to make skill checks, it's there to solve the mystery.

But the real test is people actually building the characters and playing them. In practice, what happens? When people actually build the classes and play them, what results?

Maybe people over compensate for lack of damage and the Inv seems ineffective? Or maybe they build for damage and are amazed at how effective they remain at solving the mystery? I don't know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Henro wrote:
I agree that investigator combat options shouldn’t be damage. “Mark an enemy and then deal extra damage to it” is very similar to Ranger.

yeah, i really want them to be able to debuff enemies or expose weaknesses for allies. like imagine if they could as a higher level ability apply weakness to an elemental damage type to an enemy?


There's a lot of cross-thread posting on the same subject. Moving forward, I'm going to try and focus the combat discussion here.

I think the overwhelming consensus is that the Inv is going to be unsatisfactory in combat. So let's look at some of the steps in addressing that.

1. What is the bar for "viable," or "effective?" How does Paizo know a theme-based class whose focus is non-combat, has unintended deficiencies in combat?

2. What should the expectation be? I'm a 16 INT / 16 WIS Investigator. What effect should I have on combat? What should my DPS be? My total damage contribution? My non-damage contribution?

3. What are the metrics for evaluating this class in combat? Is it average DPS? Peak damage? Total negative modifiers applied? Positive Modifiers applied? In MMO's, they typically measure the difference in XP gained per hour with and without a class. What is the analogue for a pen and paper RPG?


N N 959 wrote:


1. What is the bar for "viable," or "effective?" How does Paizo know a theme-based class whose focus is non-combat, has unintended deficiencies in combat?

it is viable and effective as it is now.

The issue is that it is boring.

Quote:


2. What should the expectation be? I'm a 16 INT / 16 WIS Investigator. What effect should I have on combat? What should my DPS be? My total damage contribution? My non-damage contribution?

Seems like everyone wants to trade damage for non-damage.

And there should be some use for Int. Though not requiring it to be 18 at level 1 is probably good.

Quote:
3. What are the metrics for evaluating this class in combat? Is it average DPS? Peak damage? Total negative modifiers applied? Positive Modifiers applied? In MMO's, they typically measure the difference in XP gained per hour with and without a class. What is the analogue for a pen and paper RPG

Metric are how interesting it is to play. Both in combat and out of it.

Balance is easy enough after the fact. As you can easily adjust a die size up or down.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about adding a new condition: studied <value>.

The Study Subject could give the target a studied 1 on success and a studied 2 on a critical success.

NOTE: targets that have immunity to precision damage cannot have the studied condition.

The Studied Strike could be an action with certain weapon and studied condition requirements. Make a Strike and apply the studied condition value as a circumstance bonus to the attack roll. On a success it would deal the 1d6 precision damage that would increase as your level increases (5, 9, 13, 17). After the strike the studied condition is removed.

Now you can have new feats that support debuffs rather than damage.

Blinding Strike - precision damage is applied as a blinded condition for studied value rounds.

Kidney Strike - precision damage is applied as enfeebled condition: value equals studied value.

Additional feats could be made for the precision damage being applied for the stunned, stupefied, slowed, etc. conditions. The feat level would be used to ensure the strikes are only available when their power is on par with the character level.

In each case, the studied condition is removed after the Strike is made (successful or not).

With a studied condition, the value could be increased by *not* attacking the target, but continuing to study them. This way the circumstance bonus and other debuff values could also be increased.

In order to maintain the studied condition between rounds, you would need to perform a Sustain the Study action with the Concentration trait.

Thoughts?

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Investigator Playtest / Investigator combat options feel lacking All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Investigator Playtest