Should the investigator be a rogue racket instead?

[S. J. Digriz]

It seems like the investigator is basically a rogue that takes a few special feats. Take the case, with its +1 circumstance bonus, is not better than the rogue racket bonuses currently available, and observe expeditiously could be an investigator racket specific feat.

Rogues with alchemist powers are another matter, but it seems that the alchemist dedication archetype covers that option as well as the alchemical sciences investigator methodology does. In fact, alchemical abilities are not particularly associated with detectives. Wizards are perhaps more prevalent as detectives in fantasy fiction (e.g. Too Many Magicians, The Dresden Files).

I don't think that PF2e should convert all of their PF1e classes to 2e in such a literal manner, and I think that converting the investigator to a full class, rather than a rogue racket does this.

[Lanathar]

Even if it should be it isn’t going to be. It is it’s own class and is being playtested as one. Nothing is going to change this

I also agree that not every class needs to be carried over but this is one the design team has decided has unique enough elements

[S. J. Digriz]

Lanathar wrote:

Even if it should be it isn’t going to be. It is it’s own class and is being playtested as one. Nothing is going to change this

I also agree that not every class needs to be carried over but this is one the design team has decided has unique enough elements

I imagine that anything can change between now and publication, even the existence of a class. If people would prefer a rogue racket investigator, the developers would want to know that.

[scary harpy]

If they do make Investigator into a Rogue racket, it should be called the Sleuth racket.

Investigator is such a mouthful.

[bags]

Of course it should be a racket instead of a separate class. But would that sell more books?

[Zwordsman]

I would not want it to be the rogue class.

I like it as a class itself.
IF it had to be "not its own class" it could be an Archetype, which would be narritively interesting.

but I don't want it to be a rogue path.

[Unicore]

I think it could fit as an INT based racket. I would like to see that kind of flexibility in classes

[LuniasM]

Nah.

[Luke Styer]

I suspect that a Rogue with the Investigator dedication will be more playable than an Investigator, and depending what the dedication offers, may be more effective at investigating to boot.

[Mellored]

Yes, and no.

Yes, this version should just be a rogue racket. There is not enough to make it different.

No, there should still be an investigator class. It just needs to have more unique features. IMO, it should play more like a bard, or a 4e warlord. With more focus on getting and giving out "clues" (possibly similar to swashbuckler) to others, and less damage.

[QuidEst]

No way, the Investigator trades some of Rogue's combat focus for even more skill focus. Its feats are much more oriented towards mental skills, and it provides a similar class without some of Rogue's shady baggage.

[S. J. Digriz]

QuidEst wrote:

No way, the Investigator trades some of Rogue's combat focus for even more skill focus. Its feats are much more oriented towards mental skills, and it provides a similar class without some of Rogue's shady baggage.

If the difference is just that its feats have a focus on mental skills and perception, then it should be a rogue racket, and then there should be more skill feats, rogue feats, and rogue feats specific to that racket that focus on mental skills and investigation. For example, the rapid recall feat that lets you make 5 recall knowledge checks as a free action could be a rogue feat that has the investigator racket as a prerequisite.

Also note that making the investigator a rogue gives them access to a rogues other feats, which is not outside of the concept of a detective, as investigators are sometimes spies, con men, or the like as well.

[AnimatedPaper]

If they did make it a racket, I'd want the majority of the Investigator class feats to become rogue or ranger feats (or both). There's a lot fo ways to use Recall Knowledge and Perception in combat here, and I'd want to preserve that playstyle.

[Aswaarg]

No, it needs to be a diferent class so the Investigator has more potential and ways to grow in different ways.

[Alyran]

I feel like it changes enough that it couldn't be a racket. However, it could be a rogue class archetype perhaps as it still fits well within the overall chassis of the rogue. But they still seem to have not nailed those down yet and haven't released any.

[Squiggit]

I don't think it should be.

But I think as written it feels like one.

I hope the final version of the Investigator does more to distance itself from the Rogue.

As it stands right now, yeah, you could just have a rogue racket that gave you take the case and fold investigator feats into the rogue list and you'd hardly notice a difference.

[Deadmanwalking]

Squiggit wrote:

As it stands right now, yeah, you could just have a rogue racket that gave you take the case and fold investigator feats into the rogue list and you'd hardly notice a difference.

Right now, I think this would be strictly better mechanically, more fun, and probably not unbalancing in any way with other Rackets and Classes.

But I'm really hoping that, by the end of the playtest, none of that is true any more and we get something unique, flavorful, and effective. It's not actually that far off on any of the things in question. All of them are achievable with just a few changes and some new Investigator Feats, IMO.

[AnimatedPaper]

I find it deeply ironic that swashbucklers scored an interesting cycling mechanic that makes it play different from existing classes, while the investigator, which most of us weren’t worried about, wound up too close to an existing playstyle.

Actually, how about adding an swashbuckler style that grants panache when you successfully recall knowledge? (Mostly kidding. Mostly)

[Squiggit]

TBH inspiration as some sort of panache-like mechanic would have been really cool.

Strikes me as odd that the PF2 investigator ditched Inspiration, which I always felt was their core mechanic, but kept Studied Strike, which always felt like just a way to tack on some combat viability and hit the rogue notes for the hybrid class paradigm.

[AnimatedPaper]

100% agree. I assume they didn’t want two classes in the playtest that had a similar “limit break” mechanic, but...yeah.

I’m curious why they didn’t just use focus.

Edit: of course, this is a playtest. It’s entirely possible the live Investigator will basically be a swashbuckler that uses int skills, and they’ll try this take the case/study suspect mechanic again later when they re-introduce the slayer or inquisitor or whatever.

[EberronHoward]

Before the playtest, one of my players made a Wizard that acted a lot like an Investigator from an Agatha Christie novel. It's okay if you can take a concept and do it with several different classes, because classes can do more than one thing. It feels like the Investigator class is based on modern day CSI investigators, based on their subclass builds. You can make a Sherlock Holmes with them, but it definitely leans closer into what you see on Primetime crime shows.

Personally, I'd like the Investigator to be unique by doubling-down on effects like On The Scene, where you get clues w/o rolling for it. Basically, take the Gumshoe RPG and steal liberally. I wouldn't mind if the class was really only good in a mystery-based system (but was excellent for that), since it's an optional class for the game, and it would be one way of slowing down the feeling of splat fatigue.

[DougSeay]

Zwordsman wrote:

IF it had to be "not its own class" it could be an Archetype, which would be narritively interesting.

I think that investigator would be better off as an archetype. Just the essential abilities mixed in with any class. Making it a rogue racket could work, but that seems needlessly limiting. Wizard and alchemist seem investigator friendly.

I understand they want it for CSI:Absalom. Changing investigator to something other than a class could affect that AP. So I'm afraid that choice has already been made.

[Malk_Content]

I like almost all the investigator feats as options I would consider for a character. Thus I have to be in the "own class" boat because there is no way they are adding a racket or archetype with an entire classes worth of options.

[RussianAlly]

There's definitely not enough about this class to warrant it being a separate class in the Play Test. Everybody I've shown the pdf so far came to the same conclusion, too.

An Investigator as is, is a bit too similar to its PF1 version, where a lot of classes were just hybridizations of existiing classes with very few unique mechanics of their own.

Right now, the Investigator seems to me to be the less interesting of the four new classes because it doesn't have neither a strong mechanic nor flavor identity to separate it from existing classes.

Mind me, this might change if Paizo gets this feedback and strengthens the Investigator's identity in some way.

[Zwordsman]

I'd actually rather love if they did the inspiration sort of rolling points ala Swash's just tailored for investigator. Or if they made it something like abilities that work off Focus Pool (which is the same as focus spell points, just different name cause not magic. or just make them spells i guess but thats less fun/unique).
So something like a reaction to add some amount of circ points maybe. Or something. With how tight things are I'm not sure how it would work

[Cyder]

Investigator as it stands feels more like a rogue racket than its own thing.

Alternatively it could be an archetype easily enough. It already has an issue that its primary stat isn't used for much of the class features and skill checks are for everyone.

I think unless it gets some other unique baseline mechanics it fits better as an Int rogue racket or an archetype.

[RexAliquid]

I would make the investigator a Ranger path, not a rogue racket.
I guess that as a hybrid class, the investigator pulls enough from both to warrant being it's own class.

[Umbra Witch]

RexAliquid wrote:

I would make the investigator a Ranger path, not a rogue racket.

I guess that as a hybrid class, the investigator pulls enough from both to warrant being it's own class.

Investigator makes a really nice hybrid class, but the combat is so lacking that I wouldn't choose it.

My thoughts, the Investigator would be a cool de-buffing class, where the investigator looks at someone's weakness and exploits it for extra damage.

[Ed Reppert]

Just watched the (recorded) Twitch stream from a while back about the Game Mastery Guide. Seems like there's gonna be some good stuff in there for Investigators, so I wouldn't dismiss the class just yet.

[Alexander Augunas]

I think not, if only because the rogue is very hard-coded as a criminal. Everything from the flavor to a ton of the ability names make the rogue sound like someone who is, at best, outside of the law.

The game needs a legal way to be a skill monkey. ;)

[Ed Reppert]

I wonder how a dual-class rogue/investigator would do. Or fighter/investigator.

So many options, so little time. :-)

[Nicolas Paradise]

No /10char

[Squiggit]

Alexander Augunas wrote:

I think not, if only because the rogue is very hard-coded as a criminal

It really isn't though. Nothing about the class necessitates it and this whole 'rogues must be criminals' meme is just stifling peoples creative freedom when it comes to character building.

[Deadmanwalking]

Squiggit wrote:

Alexander Augunas wrote:

I think not, if only because the rogue is very hard-coded as a criminal

It really isn't though. Nothing about the class necessitates it and this whole 'rogues must be criminals' meme is just stifling peoples creative freedom when it comes to character building.

I agree with this entirely, but think Alexander Augunas is speaking a bit tongue in cheek here...

[Squiggit]

Maybe, apologies if that's the intent but it's something I see get brought up unironically much more than I'd like.