Investigator suffers from a significant problem in Pathfinder 2E

[Cyrad]

Recall Knowledge and other information gathering mechanics in 2nd Edition tend to be nebulous and leave the DC as well as the quality and quantity of information entirely to GM fiat with little to no direction or guidance. This is an issue for the investigator, a class centered around using Recall Knowledge and gaining information.

Many investigator abilities and feats feel very “meh” because they have a non-discrete effect with a value that heavily depends on the GM’s adjudication. Others feel useless because they hinge on vague or nonexistent rules.

Thorough Research is an egregious example – it gives you one extra fact when using Recall Knowledge and even more information with GM discretion if you get a critical success. However, Recall Knowledge doesn’t tell you how many facts you recall and leaves the quality of the information entirely to GM discretion anyway.

[Gorbacz]

And we must assume that Mister Cavern is a power-mad monster who is set out to eliminate any fun the players could have, so we need the rules to protect us from them, right?

[Cyrad]

Gorbacz wrote:

And we must assume that Mister Cavern is a power-mad monster who is set out to eliminate any fun the players could have, so we need the rules to protect us from them, right?

This is -- in no way -- the argument I'm making.

I'm saying it's difficult for player options to have discrete, meaningful value if they hinge on nebulous rules.

[Anguish]

Gorbacz wrote:

And we must assume that Mister Cavern is a power-mad monster who is set out to eliminate any fun the players could have, so we need the rules to protect us from them, right?

Just pointing out that this argument cuts both ways...

If GMs aren't vindictive, hostile, ego-maniacal, adversarial entities then why do they need so many words in the rulebook expressly granting them more latitude to make things worse for players. There's rarely an instance of "your GM may chose not apply this penalty/restriction/limitation in the name of fun", and plenty of "the DC may be higher if your GM wants to tell a story where the baseline mathematical expectations of the game are too lenient."

Evidently players expecting their chosen abilities to do something consistent is a problem. But it's okay to embolden GM-whim, because GMs only override the rules in players' favor. Yeah, no.

[Gorbacz]

Cyrad wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

And we must assume that Mister Cavern is a power-mad monster who is set out to eliminate any fun the players could have, so we need the rules to protect us from them, right?

This is -- in no way -- the argument I'm making.

I'm saying it's difficult for player options to have discrete, meaningful value if they hinge on nebulous rules.

You mean like the Palad...Champion code, and yet here we are?

Orrrr...divination magic?

Orrrrrrrr....pretty much most of the skills chapter of PF2, which doesn't tell you any more what's the DC of hearing a squealing pig behind a 3" thick door made of wood that's 34 feet away and the wind is blowing at 49 mph from north-west and instead basically tells the oppressive Mister Cavern to come up with some more or less arbitrary number?

[BishopMcQ]

Gorbacz - I'm having trouble seeing what value you are bringing to this conversation. There has been a lot of apparent sarcasm and rhetorical questions, but nothing to directly address the post.

Cyrad - The investigator in its current form is very reliant on the GM and the type of campaign. In reviewing the class prior to playing, I thought about Rise of the Runelords which is a fairly straightforward story. The investigations in the 2nd book and mystery would be ideal for a campaign with the investigator, but most of the campaign isn't mystery driven unless the GM changes things around. Other APs have bit more mystery and intrigue to them, others have a lot less.

While I agree that the Recall Information rules can be vague, that is something that as a player I would ask about before making a character that uses them a lot. The Investigator can also get abilities like Known Weaknesses, which make the Recall Knowledge check a free add-on to another check which is more clearly defined. When I frame it that way, the abilities which effect Recall Knowledge feel nice because they're free, assuming the opportunity cost was negligible.

Keen Recollection lets me add my level to Recall Knowledge checks that I otherwise wouldn't have any bonus to, neat.

Thorough Research is vague, but when it's compared against Accurate Study and Ongoing Investigation, it doesn't feel as bad. If the rest of the team can't move at full Speed during their Exploration activities, then Ongoing Investigation doesn't help me. Accurate Study depends on the type of Investigator that I'm playing a +2 on my next attack might be better than a +1 on multiple attacks, presuming I tend to make single attacks but if my character tends to make multiple attacks or has reactions that trigger strikes, then the single boost isn't worth it.

Maybe that means that we should re-evaluate all of the 6th level feats because none of them really called to me. At least, they're all balanced against each other though.

[N N 959]

Cyrad wrote:

Recall Knowledge and other information gathering mechanics in 2nd Edition tend to be nebulous and leave the DC as well as the quality and quantity of information entirely to GM fiat with little to no direction or guidance. This is an issue for the investigator, a class centered around using Recall Knowledge and gaining information.

Many investigator abilities and feats feel very “meh” because they have a non-discrete effect with a value that heavily depends on the GM’s adjudication. Others feel useless because they hinge on vague or nonexistent rules.

Thorough Research is an egregious example – it gives you one extra fact when using Recall Knowledge and even more information with GM discretion if you get a critical success. However, Recall Knowledge doesn’t tell you how many facts you recall and leaves the quality of the information entirely to GM discretion anyway.

I get where you are coming from. One thing that's different about PF2 vs PF1/3.5, is that the rules and the latitude given to GMs is decidedly from a skewed perspective of Paizo seemingly expecting all GMs to have a uniform sense of fairness and perspective that comes with experience. The rules read like they are written specifically for me (and other GMs I respect) given several decades of playing D&D/Pathfinder. However, when I read the forums, I see all kinds of GM rulings that make me cringe and the rulebooks approach does nothing to curb or guide these GMs. A lot of players/GMs just flat don't get it. I didn't get a lot of things when I started out. There are still things I don't get.

That having been said, I actually like the open-ended/nebulous aspect of how the feats are written. I think that I maybe be blinded by the maturity in which the rules treat the game/players. I would not be surprised to hear that, as written, GMs are royally screwing ov er Investigators so that the class can't disrupt the "story." Nevertheless, I think that as a player, you have to just roll with it. If the GM doesn't do the class justice then don't play it, or don't play with that GM. But I think this class is actually a story-telling GMs best friend. Hopefully most GMs will see that.

[Ediwir]

Alright Gor, that's enough :)
While we don't need to put up a shield, Investigator's performance *will* vary from table to table because some integral part of the class is up to GM's ruling.

That's a fair point.

However, I have difficulty seeing how Investigator could be decoupled from that. Even if you were to rewrite the CRB with harder guidelines for recall knowledge... How? It's not like you can cover all expected uses of that. Whichever way you write it, it will vary...

[Cyrad]

There's ways you can do investigation mechanics that provide discrete, tangible value to the player. There's plenty of investigation TTRPGs that do it well. Even rules lite ones like Monster of the Week.

The occultist's object reading class feature was a great example of a good investigation mechanic. It provides tangible value to the player, it specifies the quality and quantity of information you learn, and still provides room for the GM to expand upon it if they wish. The information it provides usually requires little effort from the GM.

[Elmdorprime]

N N 959 wrote:

I get where you are coming from. One thing that's different about PF2 vs PF1/3.5, is that the rules and the latitude given to GMs is decidedly from a skewed perspective of Paizo seemingly expecting all GMs to have a uniform sense of fairness and perspective that comes with experience. The rules read like they are written specifically for me (and other GMs I respect) given several decades of playing D&D/Pathfinder. However, when I read the forums, I see all kinds of GM rulings that make me cringe and the rulebooks approach does nothing to curb or guide these GMs. A lot of players/GMs just flat don't get it. I didn't get a lot of things when I started out. There are still things I don't get.

That having been said, I actually like the open-ended/nebulous aspect of how the feats are written. I think that I maybe be blinded by the maturity in which the rules treat the game/players. I would not be surprised to hear that, as written, GMs are royally screwing ov er Investigators so that the class can't disrupt the "story." Nevertheless, I think that as a player, you have to just roll with it. If the GM doesn't do the class justice then don't play it, or don't play with that GM. But I think this class is actually a story-telling GMs best friend. Hopefully most GMs will see that.

I find the investigator the most interesting of the playtest classes because almost all of it seems to be pointed at the exploration part of the game and very little at combat which makes for a very different table experience.

On the Scene being a level 1 feat however is basically throwing a literal bone at the GM who too many times has had the players roll low on Perception and just move past the plot device placed right there.

I do think that it needs a lot more combat utility than it does because combat is such a heavy component of PF2 but it's nice to see them take a completely different tack on building a character class.

[N N 959]

Cyrad wrote:

There's ways you can do investigation mechanics that provide discrete, tangible value to the player. There's plenty of investigation TTRPGs that do it well. Even rules lite ones like Monster of the Week.

I'm sure there are. But...and this is the important part...can you do it without raising the hackles of GMs? If you recall in PF1 there was much hue and cry from GMs about Take 10 being an "I win" button. Even though Take 10 is decidedly not an I win button, some small percentage of GMs threw a fit about player agency they seemingly couldn't invalidate. Paizo seems particularly sensitive to vocal minorities and Take 10/20 are gone.

The more you mandate for the Investigator, the more likely some GMs will see the class as the enemy. From my perspective, the way in which the feats are written seem much more inviting to a GM to collaborate with the class as opposed to blocking it. Granted, I could be wrong. And truth told, any GM who is anti-player agency isn't going to be stopped by any rules, no matter how they are written.

The other problem you have with hard coding benefits is the class becomes less flexible. Consider Investigate (the feat formerly known as "Take the Case"). There's a lot of latitude in what the GM can designate as the focus of Investigate. This can allow a GM to give a player a much broader and more useable benefit. If you mandate what can be designated, this could end up hamstringing the class and deny benefits in situations not covered by the rules, but logically should have been.

Also, keeping these type of feats loose, helps to future proof them.

[ooc]The occultist's object reading class feature was a great example of a good investigation mechanic. It provides tangible value to the player, it specifies the quality and quantity of information you learn, and still provides room for the GM to expand upon it if they wish. The information it provides usually requires little effort from the GM.

Not familiar with that class feature, but I am compelled to agree that there could be some room for improvement. I think that your case is helped if you can provide specific examples of the problem and how a specific solution solves it without breaking something else.

[Cyrad]

N N 959 wrote:

The more you mandate for the Investigator, the more likely some GMs will see the class as the enemy. From my perspective, the way in which the feats are written seem much more inviting to a GM to collaborate with the class as opposed to blocking it. Granted, I could be wrong. And truth told, any GM who is anti-player agency isn't going to be stopped by any rules, no matter how they are written.

When I see arguments like this, I see "The GM has to do more work in order to justify a player option because it wasn't written well enough to have inherent tangible value." On both sides of the table, I ran into this problem, especially in Pathfinder Society, where it slows down play. It places a large burden on the GM to add value to this ability.

As a counterexample, Object Reading is great because it explicitly lists what information the player character learns while also giving the opportunity for the GM to expand on it if they desire.

The Monster of the Week game avoids this problem by having a clear set of rules around investigation. When you succeed on an investigation check, the game allows you to choose from a list of questions you can ask. You're getting discrete, tangible value (an answer to a single question that will help you solve the mystery), the GM has freedom to answer that question as they wish, and it doesn't burden the GM because the game tells them ahead of time what questions the player can ask.

[Samurai]

It does raise the obvious question in every Investigator PC's mind though... "So, I got a Critical Success on my Recall Knowledge test. What do I know without having taken the extra feat, and what extra bit of knowledge do I get if I do take the feat?"

Because there are plenty of choices for feats, and I don't need to take the nebulous "You get even more knowledge" Level 6 Thorough Research feat. It would be better if instead of letting the GM decide, say "You gain the usual results of a Recall Knowledge, and in addition, the player can choose 1 additional fact that he also learns. He can decide this extra bit of knowledge after you hear the base skill check results."

[Elorebaen]

Cyrad wrote:

The Monster of the Week game avoids this problem by having a clear set of rules around investigation. When you succeed on an investigation check, the game allows you to choose from a list of questions you can ask. You're getting discrete, tangible value (an answer to a single question that will help you solve the mystery), the GM has freedom to answer that question as they wish, and it doesn't burden the GM because the game tells them ahead of time what questions the player can ask.

It feels like the main thrust what you are asking for is more direction when it comes to Recall Knowledge. We do get "some" direction in the same knowledge recall tasks. It is my understanding that we will be getting this in the GMG. As an aside, you will also find a number of 3PP supplements that are starting to offer suggestions for Recall Knowledge as well

RE: MotW
I just played a couple sessions of MotW. It was a lot of fun, and while the move, Investigate a Mystery, does offer the list of questions, there is still elements to be adjudicated on the spot, and often the questions don't really apply to the particular situation. It is a cool mechanic, but I want to point out that it isn't paragon of game investigative game mechanics :)

[Squiggit]

Cyrad wrote:

The GM has to do more work in order to justify a player option because it wasn't written well enough to have inherent tangible value.

It does have inherent tangible value though. The feat tells you exactly what it does. It's just up to the GM to codify what that bonus represents because its benefits extend beyond a portion of the game that is merely numeric.