Intelligence as Key Ability Score

[Et cetera et cetera]

I used crtl+f to search through the pdf and found that the inventor has only one class feature that utilizes intelligence. That feature being overdrive.

If intelligence is going to be the key ability score I think there should be more class features/feats that benefit from intelligence. Otherwise I don't see high intelligence as being all that important for an inventor.

[Keraki]

Crafting Skill (whole thematic premise) is Int. Out of curiosity which would you have instead as currently written?

[Bardarok]

For most classes the key ability is tied to their offensive capacity either Str/Dex for martials or the spell attack for casters.

The major exception currently is Alchemist which has some serious issues because of it.

Investigator is in a similar spot to inventor but Divise a stratagem lets them use their key ability to attack in certain situations so probably something like that. Currently the Inventor has Tamper which is close but likely not enough.

[Et cetera et cetera]

I still think intelligence is useful for an inventor, but as currently written I don't think it's the most important score. I do think that the key ability score should be intelligence giving the thematic ties it has to the inventor.

In the inventors current state I'd say having strength or dexterity as a key ability score would be more useful, and that intelligence is a good secondary stat. In the current state intelligence does not add a whole lot to an inventor's offensive or defensive capabilities. Additionally you can still succeed on crafting checks without maximizing your intelligence.

[shroudb]

they have their bonus damage based on Int and the check for said bonus damage is based on Int as well.

That said, having the "flat DC17" (which we know is looked at) be based on Int (like make it an "Int check" instead of Flat check) would be a nice touch to bring Int more forward.

[Serial Loafer]

It might break things, but I'd be interested to see how using intelligence to attack (but not damage) would work out based on the chosen innovation. The weapon innovation would use it as the default using the reasoning that the inventor has specifically accounted for things such as the perfect balance, aerodynamic design, and so on for them specifically to wield the weapon, whereas the armor innovation would have it so long as the inventor is wearing their armor and using their Overdrive linked weapon with the explanation of the inventor having some kind of aim assist built in. The construct minion innovation, but not the non-innovation version, might gain the inventor's intelligence modifier as a straight bonus to its attacks (partially to make up for having poor accuracy with only expert proficiency, no item bonus, and being limited to +6 to it's attack stat as well) to account for the pet being the primary focus for that path.

Alternatively, using intelligence to hit or giving some bonus to hit could be rolled into Overdrive. Just giving a bonus of some sort doesn't account for the MAD nature of stat placement, however.

[shroudb]

i also forgot to mention that all "meddling feats" as well as all "reconfigure" basic abilities do depend on Int since they are Craft checks (and some of them have high DC so for those you want as much as possible to better your chances). Same for Tamper.

So, Int definately has a place in an Inventor build.

As mentioned before, a bit of extra love there wouldn't hurt for certain, but instead of a straight up replacement I would prefer it to be (as i mention before) somehow build in the "Unstable" trait.

[Zoken44]

A modification for Weapon and armor using int would be nice. Allowing to use your Int for your attack roll instead of the normal stat(Or let your construct do it)

[SuperBidi]

I like the position of Intelligence right now for the Inventor. Using Intelligence for attack would negate nearly entirely the need for Strength or Dexterity (outside Reflex saves). Right now, a Strength-based Inventor is really a powerhouse in terms of damage once it adds overdrive into the mix. And for a Dexterity-based Inventor, Overdrive allows you to still have some decent damage even if you don't invest in Strength.

Also, remember that your class DC is based on Intelligence and as such your DC for Explode (and that would be completely illogical to have Explode based on Strength or Dexterity).

[Martialmasters]

I was surprised as well. But it's not terrible.

I'd likely build every starting inventor the same though. 16str. 12dex. 18 int.

While you only find one direct mention of using your int (basically got a rage mechanic). It's used a lot more. Every craft check they make you be exact.

This increases the value of int a lot, and since you cannot get 18 in str or dex with them. What else you gonna do? Getting 18 int and boosting crafting first just smooths the entire experience.

While I was initially worried. More I look at it. The more ok with it I am.

You lose -1 to hit vs regular martials for half your career. Notable but far from unplayable. And the overdrive mechanic is a nice base feature to boost damage. Wich makes up for one aspect of the issue at least.

[Dubious Scholar]

I think Weapon Boost at 7 on top of Overdrive makes up for the -1 to hit at half the levels. Plus weapon innovation in particular lets you take some good options for inflicting flat footed (Just adding grapple and trip traits to any weapon?).

[PossibleCabbage]

This is not totally different from how the playtest investigator was Int based but had basically nothing to do with intelligence. I think overdrive was intended to address this right out of the gate, but it might not be enough by itself.

If you have a construct, repairing that construct is going to involve a lot of craft checks, but these are less necessary for weapon and armor inventors. One thing I like is making Unstable checks depend on craft (and thus Int).

[Wind Chime]

I think because of the limit having inteligence as a primary stat imposes some sort of situation buff too accuracy is appropriate.

I think my favourite way to achieve that would be something like this

Compensating

There is no such thing as failure in invention only learning opportunities.

One Action
Pre-Requisite: Your last action was a missed Strike

Make another Strike using the same multiple attack penalty as for the missed Strike, if any.

[Martialmasters]

Maybe. I think it more depends on if they wanted that to be a factor in lowering their damage. Similar goal with reload property for gunslingers. Though I much prefer the inventors version if I am accurate in my assumption.

[Puna'chong]

If Crafting checks were used for Unstable (with a scaling DC) I think I'd be more ok with Int as the only KAS. As is it does feel like Investigator's first draft, a bit, especially because the Overdrive damage isn't really guaranteed. Otherwise I'd rather get that extra guaranteed point to hit and damage from Str as a KAS.

Also not a proponent of Explode as a basic ability (as a feat maybe). Something to replace it that's more general and interacts more with Int would probably also make it feel better as the KAS.

[Mathmuse]

Keraki wrote:

Crafting Skill (whole thematic premise) is Int. Out of curiosity which would you have instead as currently written?

Crafting checks do seem to be the inventor's main way of using Intelligence. However, basing everything on a single skill would lead to nearly-mandatory skill increases, "I increase Crafting to expert at 3rd level, I increase Crafting to master at 7th level, and I increase Crafting to legendary at 15th level."

If inventors are going to use skills to reflect their Intelligence, then they ought to get the other Int-based skills involved: Arcana, Lore, Occultism, and Society. For example, an armor innovation could train the inventor in Armor Lore and they make Armor Lore kill checks for feats with the armor. Likewise, Weapon Lore for weapon innovation and Construct Lore for construct innovation.

I admit that giving the inventor a decision at 3rd level of whether to make either Armor Lore or Crafting expert is still pretty boring. Anyone have ideas on how to make Arcana, Occultism, and Society important to an inventor?

Or maybe to soften the choice, we should give the inventor more skill increases than one every other level starting at 3rd. The rogue gains one every level starting at 2nd, so we have precedent.

[Dubious Scholar]

I'd lean against a third skills every level class.

I think int checks or class proficiency checks would be the way to go.

[inshal chenet]

Being able to make a crafting check to reduce the unstable penalty (like I mention in the Unstable Repair thread) would make Int very key for the Inventor.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Mark mentioned elsewhere about the possibility of getting a small pool of temporary gadgets, so that could a possibility to introduce uses for the magic skills; perhaps building magical apparatuses that cast int based innate spells that use your inventor class proficiency?

I'd actually love to see the class be able to weave in a little bit of magic or alchemy into their machines as an optional flavor choice. Blending in alchemy can get use a gun toting inventor who does all sorts of weird experimental stuff, while a shory scavenger would fit super well with a magic tinkering inventor

[Puna'chong]

Temporary gadgets would be great. Gadgets replicating some spell effects would also be fun, and make Int more prominent. Right now it feels like a cool modular martial, but if that could be shifted more to "combat engineer" then I'd be happy.

[Keraki]

I'd be happy with the Inventor get a small gadget pool to mimic talismans. Share them with party or be able to have multiple on yourself. Yes, I understand that it'd be imitating alchemists and bombs. But that does work for me, at least better than the Explode signature skill.

[Dubious Scholar]

Puna'chong wrote:

Temporary gadgets would be great. Gadgets replicating some spell effects would also be fun, and make Int more prominent. Right now it feels like a cool modular martial, but if that could be shifted more to "combat engineer" then I'd be happy.

We have some of that already with some of the unstable actions. One of them is literally the Jump spell. The healing action is sort of subbing for, well, Heal. But with FIRE.

Those are Unstable and linked to your main kit, though I think Unstable mainly covers the theme of "replicate spells" somewhat? Like you can get some effects with armor innovation for things that would be self-buffs maybe, while attack spells are limited to weapon innovations, etc?

[Alchemic_Genius]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

We have some of that already with some of the unstable actions. One of them is literally the Jump spell. The healing action is sort of subbing for, well, Heal. But with FIRE.

Those are Unstable and linked to your main kit, though I think Unstable mainly covers the theme of "replicate spells" somewhat? Like you can get some effects with armor innovation for things that would be self-buffs maybe, while attack spells are limited to weapon innovations, etc?

I see what you mean, but my ideas were specifically for a hypothetical inventors who actually dabbled in magic. I definitely don't think the class itself should be inherently magical, but there is certainly design space for an inventor who actually does blend magic and superscience

[Bardarok]

Puna'chong wrote:

Temporary gadgets would be great. Gadgets replicating some spell effects would also be fun, and make Int more prominent. Right now it feels like a cool modular martial, but if that could be shifted more to "combat engineer" then I'd be happy.

I like that idea. Maybe something like make a craft check to quickly put together cover in combat (mini wall of stone like effect). Could also be used to make a bridge or like a ladder perhaps.

[shroudb]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

We have some of that already with some of the unstable actions. One of them is literally the Jump spell. The healing action is sort of subbing for, well, Heal. But with FIRE.

Those are Unstable and linked to your main kit, though I think Unstable mainly covers the theme of "replicate spells" somewhat? Like you can get some effects with armor innovation for things that would be self-buffs maybe, while attack spells are limited to weapon innovations, etc?

I see what you mean, but my ideas were specifically for a hypothetical inventors who actually dabbled in magic. I definitely don't think the class itself should be inherently magical, but there is certainly design space for an inventor who actually does blend magic and superscience

i can only assume that there will be some form of eldritch tech archetype in the book dedicated for tech.

but since the "core" Inventor class has martial proficiencies, i think it'll be hard to somehow have it blending a good portion of magic by using core features.

otherwise, simply multiclassing into a caster class can give that eldritch technowizard feel (since we do not know how the opposite thing of caster multiclassing into Invenotr might look)

[manbearscientist]

I'll note the the class DC scales with Intelligence, which means Intelligence already interacts with:

Explode (Reflex vs class DC)

Overdrive (Crafting check)

Reconfigure (Crafting check)

any weapon trait whose critical effect requires a save vs class DC

No! No! I Created You! (Crafting counteract check)

Megavolt (Reflex vs class DC)

Gigaton Strike (Fortitude vs class DC)

Overdrive Ally (Crafting check)

Tinker's Meddling (Crafting check)

Gigavolt (Reflex vs class DC)

Shared Overdrive (Crafting check)

Eternal Meddler (Crafting check)

You've Failed to Account for ... This! (Crafting DC)

Ubiquitous Overdrive (Crafting Check)

While there is certainly room to expand on the active role of Crafting via gadgets, this is a not insignificant portion of the class that scales with Intelligence even if a lot is in the form of feat chains to Overdrive and Tinker's Meddling.

[Mathmuse]

manbearscientist wrote:

I'll note the the class DC scales with Intelligence, which means Intelligence already interacts with:

This is a good plan for analysis. However, the real question is how much does Intelligence benefit the inventor? Thus, we ought to factor in how often these effects occur. For example, unstable actions, as currently written, are once every 10 minutes except by a lucky 20% flat check.

Explode (Reflex vs class DC) Unstable

Overdrive (Crafting check vs standard level DC) Okay, this one is repeatable

Reconfigure (Crafting check vs high level DC) One day of downtime to use

any weapon trait whose critical effect requires a save vs class DC - Only on a crit

No! No! I Created You! (Crafting counteract check) Once per minute, and only when construct companion is controlled or confused

Megavolt (Reflex vs class DC) Unstable

Gigaton Strike (Fortitude vs class DC) Enhances unstable Megaton Strike

Overdrive Ally (Crafting check vs standard level DC) Okay, shares Overdrive

Tinker's Meddling (Crafting check vs high level DC) Okay. It's once per 10 minutes but lasts through a full combat[/url]

Gigavolt (Reflex vs class DC) [i]Enhances unstable Megavolt

Shared Overdrive (Crafting check vs standard level DC) Okay, enhances Overdrive Ally

Eternal Meddler (Crafting check vs very high level DC) Okay. It's once per day but lasts all day

You've Failed to Account for ... This! (Crafting DC vs enemy's attack roll) Okay, no problem

Ubiquitous Overdrive (Crafting Check vs standard level DC) Okay, enhances Shared Overdrive

manbearscientist wrote:

While there is certainly room to expand on the active role of Crafting via gadgets, this is a not insignificant portion of the class that scales with Intelligence even if a lot is in the form of feat chains to Overdrive and Tinker's Meddling.

The Overdrive line (1 class ability and 3 feats to enhance it) and the Tinker's Meddling line (3 feats) are fine, though the Meddler feat 18, Multifarious Meddler removes the Crafting check. You've Failed to Account for ... This! looks good, too. Explode, Megavolt, Gigaton Strike, and Gigavolt are all unstable, so they are powerful but largely limited to one per combat.

My conclusion is that this does offer significant contribution from Intelligence, but still falls short of what we players expect from a key ability.

My daughter reached the same conclusion as me. She is creating a 7th-level playtest inventor to temporarily add to my PF2 Ironfang Invasion campaign and she decided on Str 18 and Int 16 for that character.

[Nik Gervae]

Yeah, if you can't hit with your main attack, none of the riders based on Int are even relevant.

I went for a dwarf inventor cause it seemed an interesting combo, but could only manage Str 16 / Int 16 (unless there's some way of nabbing Str 18 I missed). Yay for stereotyped ancestries—but that's a whole 'nother kettle o' fish.

[Invictus Novo]

I seem to remember much the same type of discussion with the Summoner given their slower magic progression meant support and utility spells were much more desirable than spells needing to hit or save.

That said, to be on topic, I tend to agree that Intelligence isn't as useful given this class is meant to be in the fray of combat. I think Intelligence does belong as the Inventor's base class stat though.

Perhaps something as simple as adding INT to hit for the Weapon Innovation Inventor could fix this. I wonder how balanced it would be to say.

Weapon Innovation - Half INT modifier to hit
Armor Innovation - Half INT modifier to AC
Construct Innovation - INT modifier to construct's HP per level

[Verzen]

Invictus Novo wrote:

I seem to remember much the same type of discussion with the Summoner given their slower magic progression meant support and utility spells were much more desirable than spells needing to hit or save.

That said, to be on topic, I tend to agree that Intelligence isn't as useful given this class is meant to be in the fray of combat. I think Intelligence does belong as the Inventor's base class stat though.

Perhaps something as simple as adding INT to hit for the Weapon Innovation Inventor could fix this. I wonder how balanced it would be to say.

Weapon Innovation - Half INT modifier to hit
Armor Innovation - Half INT modifier to AC
Construct Innovation - INT modifier to construct's HP per level

I would support this with a modification.

Rather than construct gaining more HP, what it really needs is more attack. Half int modifer to constructs attack and it would be golden.

[Martialmasters]

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

[Javaed]

Don't discount Int too much, so far it is useful for:

- Increasing odds of a success or crit success on Overdrive
- Determining the damage boost of overdrive
- Class DC for Explosion, Megavolt
- Increases ease of repairs (important if you use a Construct)
- Success rate of Tamper
- Success rate of reconfiguring your innovation

While it's not a single all important stat, I actually think that's ok overall and I've found viable reasons to opt for maxing Int, Dex or Str at character creation. That's pretty decent for a martial character.

I would personally shy away from Int being added to attack rolls as that encroaches on ideas from the Investigator and also leads towards having one stat do way too much. Rather I think we can work within the existing design space that's been presented. Here are a few ideas for feats:

1. A cold based AOE feat. This lets us play out our Mr. Freeze archetype and adds another ability that cares about class DC.

2. They've already hinted at limited use per day free consumable gadgets. I suspect some of these would make use of the class DC. I could also see scaling uses per day based on Int.

3. Feats that provide additional uses for Crafting. I could see an Inventor using a gadget to Disable a Device or Pick a Lock instead of using Thievery for instance.

[Verzen]

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

You can if you random roll for stats instead.

[Verzen]

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

I'd actually support half Int to attack for weapon, half Int to AC for armor, half int to attack for constructs..

But the inventor only goes up to expert in attack rather than master. It would help balance things out. Makes int more useful. Gives them similar attack to a fighter at level 1 At level 20, they'd get a max of +3 attack I think (22 int) they'd be 1 attack behind a fighter at max level. (4 (expert) + 3 = 7) vs (8 legendary)

An idea!

[Invictus Novo]

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

I don't know, I personally like that the construct companion is weaker attack. I'd like to see it be the tank companion, highly defense oriented. If you want an offensive companion, then Animal Companion or opt for a partner in the Eidolon. I think all should have their niche. That's just my preference though.

[Martialmasters]

Verzen wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

I'd actually support half Int to attack for weapon, half Int to AC for armor, half int to attack for constructs..

But the inventor only goes up to expert in attack rather than master. It would help balance things out. Makes int more useful. Gives them similar attack to a fighter at level 1 At level 20, they'd get a max of +3 attack I think (22 int) they'd be 1 attack behind a fighter at max level.

An idea!

They only get to expert? A martial class with caster martial proficiency?

I missed that. If that's true. Well. That's a big issue in truth. Huge in fact. Terrible.

[Martialmasters]

Invictus Novo wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

I don't know, I personally like that the construct companion is weaker attack. I'd like to see it be the tank companion, highly defense oriented. If you want an offensive companion, then Animal Companion or opt for a partner in the Eidolon. I think all should have their niche. That's just my preference though.

I never said anything about the companion...

[AnimatedPaper]

Martialmasters wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

I'd actually support half Int to attack for weapon, half Int to AC for armor, half int to attack for constructs..

But the inventor only goes up to expert in attack rather than master. It would help balance things out. Makes int more useful. Gives them similar attack to a fighter at level 1 At level 20, they'd get a max of +3 attack I think (22 int) they'd be 1 attack behind a fighter at max level.

An idea!

They only get to expert? A martial class with caster martial proficiency?

I missed that. If that's true. Well. That's a big issue in truth. Huge in fact. Terrible.

It's not. They get weapon mastery at level 13.

Edit: Unless you mean the companion. They do cap at expert.

[Verzen]

Martialmasters wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

I'd actually support half Int to attack for weapon, half Int to AC for armor, half int to attack for constructs..

But the inventor only goes up to expert in attack rather than master. It would help balance things out. Makes int more useful. Gives them similar attack to a fighter at level 1 At level 20, they'd get a max of +3 attack I think (22 int) they'd be 1 attack behind a fighter at max level.

An idea!

They only get to expert? A martial class with caster martial proficiency?

I missed that. If that's true. Well. That's a big issue in truth. Huge in fact. Terrible.

No. Inventor goes to master. But if we change that to expert then add int to attack, they would get higher attack *close to a fighter* but their proficiency would only go to expert. It's to balance it out. Otherwise if we just add int to attack and they go to master, they'd be better than a fighter.

[Verzen]

To put the math like this...

Assuming 1/2 int = attack

18 int. +4.. +2 attack.

Trained martial at level 1 with 16 strength = 3(str) + 3(proficiency) + 2 int = 8 attack at level 1.

Fighter is at 4 str, 5 proficiency. They'd be at + 9 attack at level 1.

If we kept it up then at level 20, the inventor would instead have 24 (prof) + 5 (str) + 3 (int) = 32 attack compared to fighter getting 28+6 = 34.

This would make int be a bit more useful for the inventor as a needed stack as it directly ties into his attack like strength would.

[Martialmasters]

Verzen wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

While I'd enjoy int to hit.

I seriously doubt we'd get it without big but's attached.

Also, you cannot start with 18str (in response to the one poster mentioning a player in his campaign)

I'd actually support half Int to attack for weapon, half Int to AC for armor, half int to attack for constructs..

But the inventor only goes up to expert in attack rather than master. It would help balance things out. Makes int more useful. Gives them similar attack to a fighter at level 1 At level 20, they'd get a max of +3 attack I think (22 int) they'd be 1 attack behind a fighter at max level.

An idea!

They only get to expert? A martial class with caster martial proficiency?

I missed that. If that's true. Well. That's a big issue in truth. Huge in fact. Terrible.

No. Inventor goes to master. But if we change that to expert then add int to attack, they would get higher attack *close to a fighter* but their proficiency would only go to expert. It's to balance it out. Otherwise if we just add int to attack and they go to master, they'd be better than a fighter.

Ah now I understand.

Seems unnecessary. But it's an option.

[Verzen]

For those who might not have seen this *I didn't at first* doing it this way would actually make it so that starting with 16 in strength rather than 18 like other melee characters, it wouldn't knock them behind at all, like it normally would. Barbarians are always two behind fighters and inventors would end at level 20 being two behind fighters.

[Sporkedup]

My vote is that we stop trying to compare every martial to the fighter. Compare them to the barbarian or the ranger. Those kinds of classes sit on the front end of the normal curve. If the inventor can stack up favorably against a master/master martial, then Paizo's job has been done correctly.

I don't want to see all the power curved to match the fighter, gunslinger aside. As soon as you take the very strongest class and add in new things to match that class, you start removing the game from lots of interesting ones.

[Verzen]

Sporkedup wrote:

My vote is that we stop trying to compare every martial to the fighter. Compare them to the barbarian or the ranger. Those kinds of classes sit on the front end of the normal curve. If the inventor can stack up favorably against a master/master martial, then Paizo's job has been done correctly.

I don't want to see all the power curved to match the fighter, gunslinger aside. As soon as you take the very strongest class and add in new things to match that class, you start removing the game from lots of interesting ones.

I'm simply comparing new classes to what's already out there in the core in terms of martial capabilities when analyzing attack. Not calculating in damage or other additions. But being comparative in attack is essential for martials.

[Martialmasters]

Currently. Half your levels. You might be -1 behind basic martials.

I can live with that personally.

[siegfriedliner]

Martialmasters wrote:

Currently. Half your levels. You might be -1 behind basic martials.

I can live with that personally.

I'm this edition being - 1 behind other martials is a serious weakness statistically

[Verzen]

^^^^

[Martialmasters]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Currently. Half your levels. You might be -1 behind basic martials.

I can live with that personally.

I'm this edition being - 1 behind other martials is a serious weakness statistically

Yes and no. I'd say -2 is where it begins to really feel detrimental. -1 not as bad.

This is from the experience of dming my group who all but one player chose 16 add their highest stat. And have thus far not been overly punished for it.

And I haven't hand held them.

[Evilgm]

The issue is that for 4 of those "Half your levels" it's the start of the game, where characters have the least access to clever combat tools and are most reliant on just rolling regular Strikes. You are worse than a Ranger or Barbarian at regular Strikes and not any more useful in non-combat situations (unlike the Investigator who suffers similar issues) and don't bring lots of in-party utility (unlike the Alchemist who suffers similar issues).

The Inventor isn't actually a Crafting focused class that needs to start with Int 18 to do its main job. It's a Whacking Things In The Face focused class with some set dressing to explain having a slightly fancy weapon or Animal Companion, and a Rage-style damage buff that sometimes fails to justify having to roll a Crafting check. It needs to be as good at Whacking Things In The Face as the Barbarian, Ranger or Swashbuckler, because that's the role it occupies in a party.

This is the exact same issue the Investigator had in Playtest, one that was mostly corrected by the addition of Devise A Stratagem. And the Investigator has a lot more out of combat utility than "good at Crafting, but no more so than a Wizard who also Trained in it".