|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the thread on Int not doing enough for Alchemist there's been a lot of discussion about how Wis is better for them than Int due to Study Suspect, and suggestions have been made to make Study Suspect somehow Int-based to compensate.
But, really, why does it require a Skill Check at all? Generally speaking, by my math, with maxed or close to maxed Wisdom, you usually have a 1/4 chance of failure on it vs. the average Will DC of on-level opponents.
But the thing is, again by my math, Investigator damage winds up around equal to Rogue (w/Sneak Attack) damage even when they succeed on that check. Often less, depending on level. And that's on the attack it applies to. A Rogue making a second attack will out DPR them by quite a bit (technically, the Investigator equals that on the rare occasions they crit). So...changing it to always be the next attack and not require a check still leaves them behind the Rogue in DPR (and what their DPR or other combat options should be is a separate issue, I'm just noting this wouldn't change it much).
Vs. on level opposition with average Will Saves these two options almost equal out (due to the odds of crits and failures being around the same, though a crit gains less damage than a failure loses out on)...but it makes Investigators verging on utterly worthless vs. bosses and, unlike spellcasters, leaves them rather unimpressive even against minions (who they'll do maybe as well on as a Rogue will, and even then only assuming they don't need to move).
Studied Combat in PF1 didn't require a check to succeed, and while an Operative's Trick Attack in Starfinder technically does, that's also designed so they'll rapidly start auto-succeeding at it vs. almost all foes. So it's hardly thematically necessary for it to work this way.
And having one in four attacks you make cost two actions to deal 3d6+2 damage at, say, 13th level, is not a very fun experience. More like one in two or three vs. a higher level threat. Yeesh.
Also, what do you do if you fail the check?
Let´s say you are using melee and 1st turn the creature is at 20 feet, and the Inv goes first. 1 action Study Suspect, if it a succes, move and try to Strike. If is not a succes, you can´t try again so... do you want to get in melee and try to hit without the buffs?
2nd turn you are now in melee. 1st action Study suspect, if succes you can make 1 Strike and move away, and if you Crit. you can try to do 2 Strikes, but if you fail? You move away?
For throwing weapons is even worts, because you don´t want to "waste" your weapons if you don´t have the buff.
Well, if the class was proficient in the whip, you could try and Disarm or Trip or Aid Another from a distance. As it stands now, it seems you're better off trying to use Recall Knowledge, avoiding combat, and....?
Yes, it seems like the class needs something that isn't depended on STR or DEX to be successful.
You don't need to be proficient with a whip to use it for combat maneuvers.
But you need Proficiency to use it as a viable weapon.
I'm confused. You mentioned using a whip to disarm or trip. That doesn't require weapon proficiency. They use Athletics proficiency.
Yes, but you won't be able to use it as a viable weapon without proficiency when study subject works.
I see. You wanted to use the whip in either situation. You had only mentioned using it as an option for when Study Subject failed. I was envisioning having a rapier in one hand and a whip in the other to cover either result.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Studied Strike and Study Target are the core combat loop of the investigator (leaving you a third action to do whatever), it feels really bad to have two chances to fail at it- first if you fail the perception check and second if you fail to hit your target.
I don't think a class's go-to option should require a roll to see if you can do it or not. There's no roll for a ranger to hunt their target, no roll for a barbarian to rage or not, and things like sneak attack and flurry of blows are just attack rolls.
Moreover, it's weird for an Int class to base its combat suite off of Wis and Dex/Str.
In the thread on Int not doing enough for Alchemist there's been a lot of discussion about how Wis is better for them than Int due to Study Suspect, and suggestions have been made to make Study Suspect somehow Int-based to compensate.
But, really, why does it require a Skill Check at all? Generally speaking, by my math, with maxed or close to maxed Wisdom, you usually have a 1/4 chance of failure on it vs. the average Will DC of on-level opponents.
But the thing is, again by my math, Investigator damage winds up around equal to Rogue (w/Sneak Attack) damage even when they succeed on that check. Often less, depending on level. And that's on the attack it applies to. A Rogue making a second attack will out DPR them by quite a bit (technically, the Investigator equals that on the rare occasions they crit). So...changing it to always be the next attack and not require a check still leaves them behind the Rogue in DPR (and what their DPR or other combat options should be is a separate issue, I'm just noting this wouldn't change it much).
Vs. on level opposition with average Will Saves these two options almost equal out (due to the odds of crits and failures being around the same, though a crit gains less damage than a failure loses out on)...but it makes Investigators verging on utterly worthless vs. bosses and, unlike spellcasters, leaves them rather unimpressive even against minions (who they'll do maybe as well on as a Rogue will, and even then only assuming they don't need to move).
Studied Combat in PF1 didn't require a check to succeed, and while an Operative's Trick Attack in Starfinder technically does, that's also designed so they'll rapidly start auto-succeeding at it vs. almost all foes. So it's hardly thematically necessary for it to work this way.
And having one in four attacks you make cost two actions to deal 3d6+2 damage at, say, 13th level, is not a very fun experience. More like one in two or three vs. a higher level threat. Yeesh.
I think the lack of benefit for int is a problem, but if paizo folks really wanted to keep a check in there then they could give some kind of studied strike benefit on a failure.
Do you know what the math breakdown would look like if a failed SS check kept the damage but not the accuracy bonus? Or the accuracy bonus and not the damage?
If the designers only what the check to make things more dynamic (and include riders that add certain effects on a crit success or whatever) then maybe that kind of tweak might work best.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think this is a solution I like.
Make Studied Target Work Backwards
So you're really good at reading people, so good you're going to spot their tell or their opening unless they're really good at hiding it from you. So instead of a (Wis) Perception check against Will, your target makes a Deception check against your Class DC (Int).
Then you can recontextualize the "critical succeed" for study target to a "critical fail" by your studied target. You can make this work like save spells (some of which are cantrips) where you get *something* unless they critically succeed. Normally it's more fun for players to roll stuff, but it's also more fun to succeed more often and not feel MAD pressure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Studied Strike and Study Target are the core combat loop of the investigator (leaving you a third action to do whatever), it feels really bad to have two chances to fail at it- first if you fail the perception check and second if you fail to hit your target.
I don't think a class's go-to option should require a roll to see if you can do it or not. There's no roll for a ranger to hunt their target, no roll for a barbarian to rage or not, and things like sneak attack and flurry of blows are just attack rolls.
Moreover, it's weird for an Int class to base its combat suite off of Wis and Dex/Str.
Panache and finishers work basically the same way; the main difference is that finisher are much stronger, and the initial roll to gain panache already has a benefit to it in debuffing so it isn't a complete loss if you miss the finisher.
I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think this is a solution I like.
Make Studied Target Work Backwards
So you're really good at reading people, so good you're going to spot their tell or their opening unless they're really good at hiding it from you. So instead of a (Wis) Perception check against Will, your target makes a Deception check against your Class DC (Int).
Then you can recontextualize the "critical succeed" for study target to a "critical fail" by your studied target. You can make this work like save spells (some of which are cantrips) where you get *something* unless they critically succeed. Normally it's more fun for players to roll stuff, but it's also more fun to succeed more often and not feel MAD pressure.
Under this paradigm, do monsters need to make an action to resist the save? Also, what about monsters that are untrained in deception? Are they going to almost always auto-fail at higher levels?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess "roll a will save versus your class DC" would be more symmetrical and wouldn't result in autocrits. I just want to use Int to Study Target (or just not roll), instead of Wis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess "roll a will save versus your class DC" would be more symmetrical and wouldn't result in autocrits. I just want to use Int to Study Target (or just not roll), instead of Wis.
I feel ya. That would land the investigator in the same trouble casters are in though: monsters tend to succeed their saves
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I wanna know is why recall knowledge isn't being used here. I mean, Investigator's thing is being a knowledge monkey, why are they not allowed to use that knowledge to hit harder?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather it be Int-based than Wis-based, but making it a Recall Knowledge check has serious problems of its own inasmuch as you can't really be equally good at all the skills involved, so the odds of success sink even lower.
That's bad, and unfun, and I'm against it.
I really and sincerely don't think a fundamental combat ability necessary to be meaningfully useful in combat should involve a check like this at all. Especially since that makes Study Suspect least effective on main villains...the people who, thematically, the Investigator has probably studied the most.
|
Also, if the investigator does get more combat feats, aren't they likely to key off successfully studying people?
A ranger only needs to hunt a target once, and then gets pretty big benefits against them and gets to make attacks on his key stat. An investigator needs to study every round and roll a check that doesn't come off his key stat, before attacking with yet another stat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proposal: make the ability work automatically, and after the first attack allow the enemy a save to cover their exposed weakness. If they do, the investigator needs to study them again to find another.
I don't know what the exact mechanics could be, but I think it could work.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proposal: make the ability work automatically, and after the first attack allow the enemy a save to cover their exposed weakness. If they do, the investigator needs to study them again to find another.
I don't know what the exact mechanics could be, but I think it could work.
This is interesting. Making it only require one action per enemy a fair portion of the time is a big buff, and possibly a necessary one, while the (presumably free) 'Save to counter' provides an interesting dynamic...
I like it.
Proposal: make the ability work automatically, and after the first attack allow the enemy a save to cover their exposed weakness. If they do, the investigator needs to study them again to find another.
I don't know what the exact mechanics could be, but I think it could work.This is interesting. Making it only require one action per enemy a fair portion of the time is a big buff, and possibly a necessary one, while the (presumably free) 'Save to counter' provides an interesting dynamic...
I like it.
To dig down a little bit more, how about this structure:
Study Suspect forces the enemy to make a will saving throw against your class DC (which they will make more often than you will fail the current perception check in all likelihood) and if they fail then you "have their number" and get the studied target benefits on your attacks. The move succeeds less often but the benefits are much longer lasting.Here is an idea that I like past this: let the monster use an action on their turn to make the check again to end the effects similarly to how creatures can use actions to try to end ongoing damage. I think this would make for interesting tactical decisions on the part of the GM/monsters/PVP opponent and also reduce some of the "swingy-ness" of an effect that could last the whole fight.
For my druthers, I would still want there to be some kind of benefit on an enemy's success as well but the designers could tweak the benefits of the effect to get things right.
Edit for further revelations: having study suspect be an ongoing effect opens the door for cool finishing moves that could end the effects of studied suspect. There is a lot of juicy design space here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had a pretty big test session today.
Investigator faced a bossifght and -I kid you not- walked away for a smoke. In character.
Perception +24. Will DC 42. Enemy wasn't at-level, was a lv+3 cleric-based lone boss. Died to the party, but Investigator did not take part.
There's indeed an issue here, too much core power locked behind a check that fails when you need it most.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I suppose it could become improved by one step of success against people relating to your open case? That would reward planning ahead, which seems appropriate for an investigator.
I'm not sold on this idea, but it could be interesting to explore at least. I think if you just remove the roll and keep the ability as-is, it becomes too similar to hunt prey.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sold on this idea, but it could be interesting to explore at least. I think if you just remove the roll and keep the ability as-is, it becomes too similar to hunt prey.
It's a lot worse, really. It applies to only one attack rather than 'one attack per turn until it dies'. The damage is higher at high levels, but still.
I think the solution is to remove the check, keep the restriction on it only being one attack, but then add a serious debuff of some sort on top of Studied Strike (I'm inclined towards Sickened for both theme and legacy reasons). The damage won't be great, but at-will debuff effects are great (and were very available in the PF1 version of the Class, so there's continuity there). That's then a very different thing from Hunt Prey without crippling the Investigator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sold on this idea, but it could be interesting to explore at least. I think if you just remove the roll and keep the ability as-is, it becomes too similar to hunt prey.It's a lot worse, really. It applies to only one attack rather than 'one attack per turn until it dies'. The damage is higher at high levels, but still.
I think the solution is to remove the check, keep the restriction on it only being one attack, but then add a serious debuff of some sort on top of Studied Strike (I'm inclined towards Sickened for both theme and legacy reasons). The damage won't be great, but at-will debuff effects are great (and were very available in the PF1 version of the Class, so there's continuity there). That's then a very different thing from Hunt Prey without crippling the Investigator.
Oh, absolutely. I just think that if all we're doing is removing the roll, then what we've landed in is "hunt prey, only worse" which is not an interesting central combat ability for the investigator to have. Making it less damage and more debuff is one way of making it more it's own thing.
I think exploring other avenues could be interesting too - for example having study suspect be a reaction or free action that triggers when an enemy attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why they don't make it Perception v. AC, I mean, you'retrying to find a weakness in their armor, why not SCAN THEIR ARMOR?!? Or, how about you can pick which of the 4 defensive stats you wanna target each time? "He's in plate, I wanna find a hole"(AC); "He seems dodgy, I wanna predict his movements"(Reflex); and the like, so it gives you the opportunity to target weak saves with impunity, but you have to be smart about figuring out which ones you want to go after at the start. I do like the idea of automatically working, but honestly, the guy who looks his foe up and down to learn where to strike fits super well with the theme of Invests. I do think there needs to be some compensatory failure effect since you just spent an action and didn't CRIT fail, you should be able to gain something interesting, even if it's not the full effect you wanted
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "rolling a die" is more crucial to the player experience than some low level constant benefit, especially if you can crit without rolling a 20. I also think that rolling a die in this format gives you a "spikey" experience, which may be desired. Without having lots of people play the class to see if the experiment works, I would strongly advise against Paizo removing the roll.
The problem is that we're talking about something involving multiple rolls here. A Perception roll followed by an attack roll, to be specific.
Anything that requires multiple rolls gets to multiply their success chances, and multiplying fractions is really bad for one's odds of success. For example, let's say you have a 75% chance of Study Suspect going off, and a 50% chance to hit with your attack (a very reasonable scenario). Your chance of both actually working is 37.5%. A 37.5% of your turn working when everyone else has more like a 50% chance feels really bad, especially when the thing you're doing with a 37.5% chance of success is not better than the thing they are doing with a 50% chance of success. And, in reality, they have much better than a 50% chance of success because they get two actions which, if either go off, are equivalent to your one combo...that ups the success chance to 62.5% if they're using a non-agile weapon (with a bit over a 6% chance of just doing twice as much as you).
And this inevitably gets worse vs. higher level foes, often much worse. If your Study is 55% and your to-hit is 30%, suddenly you're down to a 16.5% chance of the combo functioning while everyone else has 30% (or higher for the Fighter). Having only half the odds of success others do is really and sincerely bad and feels bad even if your 'ideal case' was better...which it isn't.
I think a better course of action is to fine-tune the outcome. Paizo has the ability to modify both the frequency and the amplitude of Subject+Strike and that might pay more dividends than completely abandoning the mechanic. Not convinced that spikey = fun, but as it stands now, I am very much interested to try out Subject+Strike across a wide range of combats. The Inv is going to be rolling this every round, against anyone. It's going to work some percentage of the time and I think the frequency is going to have a lot to do with how fun it is...that and the Inv's ability to leverage the result. That is a big factor too.
You'd need to vastly increase their effectiveness when they go their combo off to even come close to equaling out with what other Classes can accomplish. Like, 150% of the damage a single attack from a greatsword Fighter makes when it hits or something silly like that. We're talking full-on Barbarian damage levels here at a minimum. Likely higher, since the Barbarian has the 50% hit chance outlined above. So Barbarian times 1.3 or something. Which is pretty wildly over the damage they should have thematically, IMO.
But really, the whole idea of 'spikiness' in this area is deeply counter thematic to how Investigators work thematically. Batman (a character many people are thinking of when they think 'Investigator') is not a character who takes big gambles, he's a character who works very hard to take the smallest gamble he possibly can, stacking the deck in his favor as much as possible. Most fictional investigators are similar. They stack the deck.
Now, you could argue that the spikiness encourages doing precisely that...but it really doesn't, because PF2's system is such that everyone is always incentivized to do that as much as possible. Having a particularly 'spikey' attack routine just makes you bad at doing it. When an essential mechanic of the Class makes them worse at the main strategy they should be doing, fictionally, that mechanic has a serious problem.
I would surmise that this is all about the context in which this works. If there is a method or logic to how the Saves for monsters are created, then you decide who/what you want this to work against be choosing the Save. I asked this before and no one answered: What types of creatures have weak Saves?
Consider, Subject + Strike may be far more effective against mooks than bosses. That may be by design. Let the Investigator feel effective against low level creatures, but reduces its effectiveness against bosses--because here you want a class like the Ranger or Rogue to feel far more effective.
I don't know this is for certain, but I am speculating.
The issue with the Investigator being stronger against mooks and weaker against bosses is that, frankly, that's deeply and directly counter to their theme. Like stacking the deck, Investigators in fiction are generally known for their monofocus on the main villain. Having others mop up the mooks while the Investigator faces the mastermind is the most suboptimal possible thing right now, while it should be the optimal move from a flavor perspective.
The other issue with it right now is that even vs. the weakest possible mooks, their odds of success are likely still lower than everyone else (they're attacking with a 66.5% chance while everyone else has a 70%). So they're worse vs. everyone with it just getting much more damaging vs. bosses, rather than better vs. mooks and worse vs. bosses.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I was thinking about this more today and fascinated by the idea that there could be a studied target mechanic that could let the investigator give the bonus damage to any one attack before the end of their next turn, rather than just their own attack.
My vision for this would be that the investigator spends an action on their turn to be able to use their reaction to add their bonus damage to an attack that has already hit against their target.
This removes the 2 D20 roll issue, but keeps the excitement of the mechanic resting on a die roll. And let's the investigator act in even more of a support roll with things to do in combat that are not dependent on the character being the attacker, although they still could be.
So I was thinking about this more today and fascinated by the idea that there could be a studied target mechanic that could let the investigator give the bonus damage to any one attack before the end of their next turn, rather than just their own attack.
My vision for this would be that the investigator spends an action on their turn to be able to use their reaction to add their bonus damage to an attack that has already hit against their target.
This removes the 2 D20 roll issue, but keeps the excitement of the mechanic resting on a die roll. And let's the investigator act in even more of a support roll with things to do in combat that are not dependent on the character being the attacker, although they still could be.
I actually like this better. Flavor wise most investigators aren't combatants, so for them granting the bonus to others makes sense. Maybe forensic could keep the self buff, since that represents their knowledge of anatomy and hitting the weak points. But for empiricist I like the flavor better of them using their deductions to direct the big fighter on where to hit the thing, since these are not supposed to be people who get themselves into the mix of combat usually. Mechanically someone with a higher hit bonus is much likelier to actually apply your damage bonus, and will be very thankful for the boosts. It allows them to keep that flavor of "not really a combatant" while still being a useful combatant. Guess I'm neutral for the alchemical investigator.
my thinking is that this would also help create some distance between the investigator and the rogue, because the rogue uses other party members (flanking/other flatfooted giving effects) to increase their own precision damage, while the investigator can help others and be the added damage that can put one attack over the top. I would probably try to balance it a little by saying it could not be added to any other precision damage and, since it is applied after the attack roll resolves, it does not multiply on a critical.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, Studied Target is like telling a rogue that their sneak attack only works with feint.
So I was thinking about this more today and fascinated by the idea that there could be a studied target mechanic that could let the investigator give the bonus damage to any one attack before the end of their next turn, rather than just their own attack.
My vision for this would be that the investigator spends an action on their turn to be able to use their reaction to add their bonus damage to an attack that has already hit against their target.
This removes the 2 D20 roll issue, but keeps the excitement of the mechanic resting on a die roll. And let's the investigator act in even more of a support roll with things to do in combat that are not dependent on the character being the attacker, although they still could be.
My investigators are pretty used to having their DPS be the rest of the party so this would be an absolutely delightful change for me.
Maybe shifting the success down to a failure like Excaliburproxy mentioned, and place some group support on the success or crit success conditions.
Like,
Crit Failure: Gain double your take the case bonus on your next Study suspect.
Failure: Current bonus
Success: Current bonus to yourself and one ally
Crit Success: Current bonus to yourself for one round, and one attack for an ally.
Because you only really need a failure to function you're not just out of the fight in cases like Ediwir's, but you can give some pretty nice group support when you do get successes and crit successes.
This also pulls some burden from needing great wis, as you can go low wis, and high dex and just rely of the failure effect. Or high wis but lower dex, and make up for some of the lost personal accuracy and damage through your friends.