Intelligence as Key Ability Score


Inventor Class

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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)

You can if you random roll for stats instead.

I mentioned that that playtest inventor character was 7th level. His starting stats were Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 12. After the 5th-level ability score boosts, his stats became Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 12.

That inventor, Arkus, was in his first game session today. This session had no combat, but Arkus did use his Inventor feat. I hope to post a full report in its own thread tomorrow.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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

I've ran for I believe four different PCs that started with a 16 in their primary ability score, all starting at level 1 or 2. None of them felt weak in play, and they made up for it by being a little bit better in other areas (like a 16 cha Barbarian being able to effectively demoralize and navigate social situations, or a 16 int sorcerer helping out on Recall Knowledge).

The math definitely looks worse on paper, but in practice it's not very noticeable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the Investigator sets a good precedent- substituting Int for accuracy should have an action cost (and perhaps other costs)- it should never be an "always on" thing you get for free.

Personally I prefer Int for "your inventions work better" rather than "you are better at harming people with them."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Personally I prefer Int for "your inventions work better" rather than "you are better at harming people with them."

But isn't your weapon [be it held, built in or attached to a mech] working better the same thing as making it better to harm people?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From what I can see from the inventor is that it's supposed to combo it's unstable gadgets, which are stronger than focus spells, but weaker than max level spells, and strikes (possibly enhanced through innovations) in combat, and I think rather than poach int to attack like the investigator, we could get away with making int play a role by making said gadgets more reliable.

Now, I'm fully of the opinion that inventor should just automatically level up crafting at the earliest levels a rogue or investigator can because expert, master, and legendary, because imo its just plain weird that a rogue or investigator can be better at crafting earlier than the crafting prodigy class. Keeping along this train of thought, I've seen a few people suggest using a crafting check for the unstable roll vs a flat check, and I think that would make int actually contribute more to the class, and actually make it feel like a key attribute. If my skills as a tinkerer actually made it so my gadgets reliably worked, I'd absolutely feel more rewarded for boosting int, especially when that means I'm getting more rocket jumps, bouncy lightning bolts, healing explosions, etc.

Also, I remember seeing Mark say elsewhere that inventor will almost certainly be getting "gadget pool" in the final take, and this would also make a nice place for int to shine


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The majority of my characters start off with a 16 in there main stats, the only time I've had a 18 from level 1 character is when I play a casting focus character.

yes an 18 you'll do great in, but like a 16 in strength didn't stop my barbarian from helping defeat the giant tick that was thrown at my party. In fact the +2 I put into dex because i didnt max out strength helped me tank the giant tick because my fellow players hadn't learned the game, and wouldn't move back so we could kite the dam thing.

Edit: I am all for making intelligence more relevant but I don't think it needs to be accuracy, and I don't think the kas should be switched at all.

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
The majority of my characters start off with a 16 in there main stats, the only time I've had a 18 from level 1 character is when I play a casting focus character.

A lot of people prefer having 18 in their starting attack stat because it's the roll you will make the most, and succeeding feels better than failing. No one is saying you have to have 18 in your main attack stat, but the option would be nice. And the reality is that +1 to attacks (and likely damage) is just more consistently useful than the +1 to Save DCs and Crafting checks (and sometimes damage) from Intelligence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
From what I can see from the inventor is that it's supposed to combo it's unstable gadgets, which are stronger than focus spells,

They really aren't as far as I can see, or at least not noticeably. Probably the strongest for its level is Megavolt, which has an effective higher die pool of 3d12 vs Dragon Breath's 5d6, but Dragon Breath has a higher DC, scales 1 level faster, and is less swingy, so might all wash out in the end.

Most of them seem pretty on par for focus spells, albeit often working slightly differently (Clockwork Celerity compares favorably with Ki Rush and a few other focus spells in its actual effect, though it mechanically achieves it quite differently).


Evilgm wrote:
pixierose wrote:
The majority of my characters start off with a 16 in there main stats, the only time I've had a 18 from level 1 character is when I play a casting focus character.
A lot of people prefer having 18 in their starting attack stat because it's the roll you will make the most, and succeeding feels better than failing. No one is saying you have to have 18 in your main attack stat, but the option would be nice. And the reality is that +1 to attacks (and likely damage) is just more consistently useful than the +1 to Save DCs and Crafting checks (and sometimes damage) from Intelligence.

I've certainly seen people claiming an 18 in the main stat is (still) critical, and even when not I've gotten a strong impression from many forum posts and class guides that such is the case. It's good to finally hear some people refuting that claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nik Gervae wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
pixierose wrote:
The majority of my characters start off with a 16 in there main stats, the only time I've had a 18 from level 1 character is when I play a casting focus character.
A lot of people prefer having 18 in their starting attack stat because it's the roll you will make the most, and succeeding feels better than failing. No one is saying you have to have 18 in your main attack stat, but the option would be nice. And the reality is that +1 to attacks (and likely damage) is just more consistently useful than the +1 to Save DCs and Crafting checks (and sometimes damage) from Intelligence.

I've certainly seen people claiming an 18 in the main stat is (still) critical, and even when not I've gotten a strong impression from many forum posts and class guides that such is the case. It's good to finally hear some people refuting that claim.

I might go so far as to call it critical for new players. Accomplishing your main combat goals for a class is pretty important for learning the system. However, just a bit of mastery and understanding later, and folks tweaking things down a notch to better enable an odder concept? Yeah, definitely viable!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

They really aren't as far as I can see, or at least not noticeably. Probably the strongest for its level is Megavolt, which has an effective higher die pool of 3d12 vs Dragon Breath's 5d6, but Dragon Breath has a higher DC, scales 1 level faster, and is less swingy, so might all wash out in the end.

Most of them seem pretty on par for focus spells, albeit often working slightly differently (Clockwork Celerity compares favorably with Ki Rush and a few other focus spells in its actual effect, though it mechanically achieves it quite differently).

According the main sticky, Explode should also get a d6 at level 3 and every level after, so the level you get megavolt, explode also does 6d6. I guess a d6 give or take isn't that big a deal


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sporkedup wrote:
Nik Gervae wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
pixierose wrote:
The majority of my characters start off with a 16 in there main stats, the only time I've had a 18 from level 1 character is when I play a casting focus character.
A lot of people prefer having 18 in their starting attack stat because it's the roll you will make the most, and succeeding feels better than failing. No one is saying you have to have 18 in your main attack stat, but the option would be nice. And the reality is that +1 to attacks (and likely damage) is just more consistently useful than the +1 to Save DCs and Crafting checks (and sometimes damage) from Intelligence.

I've certainly seen people claiming an 18 in the main stat is (still) critical, and even when not I've gotten a strong impression from many forum posts and class guides that such is the case. It's good to finally hear some people refuting that claim.

I might go so far as to call it critical for new players. Accomplishing your main combat goals for a class is pretty important for learning the system. However, just a bit of mastery and understanding later, and folks tweaking things down a notch to better enable an odder concept? Yeah, definitely viable!

I would argue telling new players they need a 18 in their main stat is the absolute worse time to have that conversation. I can say this for certain, because people told me that when I played pathfinder 1e and it took me awhile to no longer feel that way. It leads to the logic of, " i need every plus I can get," instead of thinking of who the character is, and the ability have a diverse skill set( which a diverse skill set i think is super important in 2e because their is so much more you can do then just attack).

Class guides or at least what they are currently like exhaust me but that is outside the scope of the forum post.

Int is the thematic key ability score for an inventor, if their are issues I would rather see more unique abilities that value int over, applying it to attack rolls or making str or dex the key ability score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A -1 at half of the levels is a real and meaningful detriment, but it's not so severe a detriment that it can't be compensated for with other neat stuff, especially on a class with such open-ended thematics. On a class that relies heavily on attack rolls, actually hitting is very important both for making the class numerically sound and for making it feel satisfying to play, but I think you can be a skosh behind other martials on that front and still get there -if- the rest of the class is designed around it.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think part of this could be solved by making the Inventor have the option to go into Lore/Recall Knowledge use. Since they're already Int-based, its an option that gels well with the class, and unlike most other martials, the Inventor is the class that seems like it'd be able to adhoc the right tool for any job once they know what they're up against.

Already plan on submitting the following feat to the playtest feedback, but other ideas could accomplish this goal as well, imo.

Quote:

- Adhoc Exploitation - Feat 8/10 (2 Action, Manipulate, Unstable, Secret)

Prerequisites: Weapon Innovation (could be on others as well, this was initially written because I was upset at the lack of mid-level Weapon Innovation feats)

Attempt a Recall Knowledge check about a target creature.
- Critical Success: You learn all of the creature’s weaknesses, if it has any. You may immediately reconfigure the extra damage from your weapon’s Offensive Boost in light of this new knowledge. After 1 minute has passed or upon using an action to Interact with the weapon, your weapon reverts to its previous Offensive Boost damage type.
- Success: As critical success, except you only learn one of the creature’s weaknesses.
- Failure: As critical success, except you learn that the creature has no weaknesses.
- Critical Failure: As critical success, but you instead learn of one of the creature’s Resistances or Immunities, believing it to be a Weakness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.

Or simply make it so intelligence provides both damage and attack instead of strength..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.
Or simply make it so intelligence provides both damage and attack instead of strength..

They could, but that's what 5e did with their Artificer class, which is alot like the Inventor. Paizo might be a bit wary about following 5e that closely. Admittedly, using Intelligence for attack and damage is a pretty cool idea.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
Verzen wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.
Or simply make it so intelligence provides both damage and attack instead of strength..
They could, but that's what 5e did with their Artificer class, which is alot like the Inventor. Paizo might be a bit wary about following 5e that closely. Admittedly, using Intelligence for attack and damage is a pretty cool idea.

The 5e artificer is pretty different if I remember right from how the inventor seems to be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.

Makes a ranged inventor (which is perfectly viable with the current build but not as supported with innovations if you make a ranged weapon your innovation) significantly less appealing to build. I'd rather they didn't.


Is the Inventor really more of a martial class than the alchemist or investigator?

I think if they were inclined to change the "-1 behind for half your levels" thing, they would have done something about it already. All three of these classes have something combat related to do with Int- bomber alchemists (the other kinds have issues, currently) get Int-to-splash damage, Investigators get Int-to-accuracy+ once per round for an action, and the Inventor gets Int or Int/2 to damage for 10 rounds for a single action (which they can share,eventually).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sedoriku wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.
Makes a ranged inventor (which is perfectly viable with the current build but not as supported with innovations if you make a ranged weapon your innovation) significantly less appealing to build. I'd rather they didn't.

In that case then just remove Int altogether and give people the option of Strength or Dex as a key ability. The class has virtually no utility out of combat, so it needs to have an "18" in whatever Ability is being used for attack/damage. Just like a Fighter or Ranger. Otherwise, it's a bust, just like the Alchemist.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

My Inventor fantasy has Intelligence as key ability. I'd far prefer class features to balance the class around this choice than having the choice with Strength and end up with 8 Intelligence Inventors.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:

My Inventor fantasy has Intelligence as key ability. I'd far prefer class features to balance the class around this choice than having the choice with Strength and end up with 8 Intelligence Inventors.

Sammee


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the same deal as the Investigator in the APG Playtest. If Intelligence isn't good enough to justify an 18 then you change the class to make Intelligence good enough.


HeHateMe wrote:
Sedoriku wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.
Makes a ranged inventor (which is perfectly viable with the current build but not as supported with innovations if you make a ranged weapon your innovation) significantly less appealing to build. I'd rather they didn't.
In that case then just remove Int altogether and give people the option of Strength or Dex as a key ability. The class has virtually no utility out of combat, so it needs to have an "18" in whatever Ability is being used for attack/damage. Just like a Fighter or Ranger. Otherwise, it's a bust, just like the Alchemist.

How do you have no ooc utility? It's a int based class whose many feature require a int based skill check. Did you decide against things like society, arcane, crafting, all 3 of Wich have strong ooc and recall knowledge application.

My inventor did not suffer from lack of ooc utility or even in combat utility.

Scarab Sages

Martialmasters wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Sedoriku wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Inventor is a martial class, which seems to require Strength more than Intelligence. I would offer a choice of Key Ability: Strength or Intelligence. Several other martial classes offer flexibility like that.
Makes a ranged inventor (which is perfectly viable with the current build but not as supported with innovations if you make a ranged weapon your innovation) significantly less appealing to build. I'd rather they didn't.
In that case then just remove Int altogether and give people the option of Strength or Dex as a key ability. The class has virtually no utility out of combat, so it needs to have an "18" in whatever Ability is being used for attack/damage. Just like a Fighter or Ranger. Otherwise, it's a bust, just like the Alchemist.

How do you have no ooc utility? It's a int based class whose many feature require a int based skill check. Did you decide against things like society, arcane, crafting, all 3 of Wich have strong ooc and recall knowledge application.

My inventor did not suffer from lack of ooc utility or even in combat utility.

This. Inventors are currently the best Recall Knowledge Martials in raw stats due to Int being so important, so I'd love to see that portrayed more in their combat options. Int is technically an even better RK stat, since you can always opt to take Lores to replace the Wisdom knowledge skills; e,g, Lore Fey/Beast, and Lore Demon/Devil/Undead. More abilities to support building these skills would be an excellent addition to the current class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem isn't so much a lack of ooc utility as much as it is you don't have any more than the witch or wizard, and definitely less than the investigator. The investigator has the same hp and proficiencies as you, but gets way more skills and skill feats, and even has a way to wield their Int in combat that scales well through your whole career instead of falling off at mid levels unless you take the share overdrive feats


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
The problem isn't so much a lack of ooc utility as much as it is you don't have any more than the witch or wizard, and definitely less than the investigator. The investigator has the same hp and proficiencies as you, but gets way more skills and skill feats, and even has a way to wield their Int in combat that scales well through your whole career instead of falling off at mid levels unless you take the share overdrive feats

I think people agree that overdrive scaling is a bit weak. But... Their knowledge is on par with wizards and only behind the class whose very identity is built around knowledge checks. For a full martial, especially one not built off the rogue model, I'd say that fills a decent niche.

Are people actively wishing this were less a full martial and more a rogue-mold skill class?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think as long as Overdrive gives a +1 Attack Bonus when active, it'd do enough to compensate for the lack of str/dex Key Stat. Damage scaling has already been discussed, but this would put Inventor roughly on-par with the other martials at a baseline. If its a Circumstance bonus, then t at'd also still give other martials a slight edge when buffed, which seems like if'd be a decent enough compromise.

Out of combat utility outside of skills would be nice. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a feat that lets you craft a shoddy object on the spot, perhaps using the Investigator's Predictive Purchase feat as a baseline but reworking it to fit the Inventor's spontanaity and crafting flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
Are people actively wishing this were less a full martial and more a rogue-mold skill class?

I asked two of my players. They said they want the inventor to be MacGyver (MacGyver (1985 TV series)), a character famed for improvising tools. I have never seen an episode of MacGyver myself.

One of those players is my wife. She has played a gadgeteer in Pathfinder 1st Edition in my Iron Gods campaign (Iron Gods among Scientists and Going Wild with Technology). Boffin started as a gunslinger with Experimental Gunsmith archetype and later took almost every Technology Guide feat dealing with the alien technology found in Numeria.

The party had no rogue-like character. Boffin had high Wisdom for more grit, which made her the most perceptive character for trap-finding. And she had Disable Device as a class skill due to her LOcal Ties campaign trait trait. And she had Technologist to use the e-picks for opening locked spaceship doors. Thus, she ended up in the rogue role in the party, disabling traps and opening locked doors. She later took two levels of rogue to fill out the skills for that role.

Retreating to reload her blunderbuss--before she acquired a sonic pistol--was also rogue-like combat behavior. Martials want to fight every round.

Thus, the invention-based character I have seen before this playtest was played like a rogue.

She was also played like a wizard in that her grappling gun (first an Experimental Gunsmith attachment on her blunderbuss and later a technological autograpnel) and her Targetting deed made her an excellent battlefield controller. This character was the only non-magical battlefield control expert I have ever seen.

I think Boffin had Int 16, along with Dex 16 and Wis 16 and all her other stats sacrificed to achieve those.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Is the Inventor really more of a martial class than the alchemist or investigator?

Yes. The Inventor is absolutely just a Martial Class of similar design to the Ranger. The Alchemist has significant party utility through elixirs and the Investigator has massive non-combat utility. The Inventor is no better at Crafting or Recall Knowledge checks than a Witch or Wizard, and that's basically the entirety of their out of combat utility.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely support the Inventor using Intelligence for attack rolls. Short of that, I don't see any way to make Intelligence worth it as a key ability. I'm concerned that what we'll end up with is a class that can't use its key ability to attack, and will have accuracy problems throughout its career, like the much-maligned Alchemist.

Maybe even dump Overdrive and have the Inventor use Intelligence for damage as well?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Intelligence to hit isn't the reason alchemist suffers or isn't the only reason, it also only has expertise in weapons if I recall.

I also think at some point the community will need to grapple with the fact that the devs do not see 18 in your core stat as the norm but rather a hyperfocus that trades out utility and diversity to super good at your main thing. AFter three classes built this way, numerous posts by devs, and the fact that you can play the game with a 16 and be just fine, should suggest that the average the base assumption is a 16 to start out with. I don't think the devs would continue to pump out these classes if they didn't work with the assumption that 16 is the baseline assumption. Now that may change, their maybe enough player feedback that they change their mind, but I don't think its the healthiest thing to suggest that the highest possible number is the expected number for everyone to play with.

Alchemist, Investigator, and Inventor do and should thematically be diverse classes, and with varying degrees be useful with utility and combat. They don't need an int to hit, but int to various other useful abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:

Intelligence to hit isn't the reason alchemist suffers or isn't the only reason, it also only has expertise in weapons if I recall.

I also think at some point the community will need to grapple with the fact that the devs do not see 18 in your core stat as the norm but rather a hyperfocus that trades out utility and diversity to super good at your main thing. AFter three classes built this way, numerous posts by devs, and the fact that you can play the game with a 16 and be just fine, should suggest that the average the base assumption is a 16 to start out with. I don't think the devs would continue to pump out these classes if they didn't work with the assumption that 16 is the baseline assumption. Now that may change, their maybe enough player feedback that they change their mind, but I don't think its the healthiest thing to suggest that the highest possible number is the expected number for everyone to play with.

Alchemist, Investigator, and Inventor do and should thematically be diverse classes, and with varying degrees be useful with utility and combat. They don't need an int to hit, but int to various other useful abilities.

I agree with this. I think the best place for int to play a combat role is a more refined overdrive, or factor it in to unstable.

Alchemist's main drawbacks in combat isn't int, it's an issue of resources and only getting expert in weapons.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Int-to-hit with weapons should always at least cost an action. Statistics other than dex or str for accuracy should never be passive things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
Are people actively wishing this were less a full martial and more a rogue-mold skill class?

Admittedly, it would be good to be able to play an inventor rather than 'A warrior who happens to have an exploding weapon with some extra traits'. Most people's mental images of 'Inventor' aren't high strength characters for example, but in this playtest most people seem to be going very high strength.

When people are wanting 'Str or Dex' as the key ability score for the inventor class, you likely either a) need a higher focus on the intelligence side of the class to justify it's position; or b) should reflavour the class to reflect the types of characters you are actually presenting with the mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lol they won't have near the same issue as alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm with Pixie and the Cabbage on this one.

INT to hit is the Investigator's special capability. To introduce a new class that doesn't require an extra action to hit, has significantly stronger weapon skills and defensive prowess, and can get as much or more out of the same stat in combat?

I just think that sounds rough.

Maybe it's just my personal bias that this game, while better than PF1 or 5e about it, still doesn't do great to add value into STR. It's largely valueless out of combat aside from a bit of climbing or swimming, and in combat it's mostly of decreasing importance as the levels wear on. I'm excited to see a new martial that both is great for STR and brings more to the table. Inventor is pretty great at that.

I do think it would be interesting to see people backing away from the idea that you must have an 18 in your accuracy stat or the game will be painful. That doesn't really seem to be the case, from what I've seen--alchemist and warpriest suffer more from proficiency issues and weapon options, though the accuracy isn't that helpful. I just see everything constantly compared unfavorably to the fighter, and to me that says there's something wrong with the fighter, not everything else.

Anyways, I personally love the idea of a class that isn't just one thing (not a ball of rage strength like a barbarian or a slinky dexterous thiefy rogue either), but requires some finesse and care to balance out. A character with two 16s and a different spread below that is much more interesting for me to see one of my players bring to the table. But I do acknowledge that this is all preference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Putting your brains into strikes isn't what's missing (or should be expected) from an inventor, and certaintly shouldn't come baseline in a system that has been very conservative with using different stats for to-hit/damage (requiring extra actions, sacrificing damage or both). It also doesn't make nearly as much narrative sense as Investigator's Devise a Stratagem - which derives from their expertise in analyzing foes and finding their weakness through logic -, Inventors are masters at tinkering with machinery/equipment, not scrutinizing enemies for precise/harmful attacks.

Honestly the image of an Inventor in my head doesn't line up as being equally matched with a ranger in regular weapon combat (outside of Weapon Innovation); so sacrificing a bit of that prowess (which they already do with 8 HP and worse perception) should be rewarded with extra skill usage and out-of-combat utility, since the deadliest inventor is the one that has time to prepare, they should be extremely comfortable with downtime (which is supported with the fast feat retraining and Complete Reconfiguration, but those are more about flexibility than boosts to their crafting identity). Leaning into crafting just a bit more with minor single-use gadgets that could be mass produced/distributed to allies would add a nice dynamic where the inventor contributes all over the battlefield through their creations, even if they're not physically there to offer support because they're on the other side of the mat whacking an isolated enemy with their robo-tiger trying to gain access to the enemy's energy core.

Whichever solution Paizo comes up with should reflect the Inventor actually fighting smarter and not just being bruteforced into viability with something as uninspired as unconditional Int to hit/damage.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
Are people actively wishing this were less a full martial and more a rogue-mold skill class?

Admittedly, it would be good to be able to play an inventor rather than 'A warrior who happens to have an exploding weapon with some extra traits'. Most people's mental images of 'Inventor' aren't high strength characters for example, but in this playtest most people seem to be going very high strength.

When people are wanting 'Str or Dex' as the key ability score for the inventor class, you likely either a) need a higher focus on the intelligence side of the class to justify it's position; or b) should reflavour the class to reflect the types of characters you are actually presenting with the mechanics.

So it's largely the name is setting different expectations for you? It's true that when people hear "Inventor" before reading the class, they assume they'll be making gadgets and gizmos all the time--not that they've already invented their greatest creation and are just going about hitting people with it while they gradually upgrade it. I've said my bit that both names of the playtest classes don't set expectations that well, and I've wished they would rename them both for the final product.

But you know as they say... if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

No one here is arguing against finding a better reason to promote INT. It's largely, to my mind, pretty good as a key stat. Keying the Unstable stuff off INT a bit more closely is really all I think that is necessary. Like I said above, people are way, way too concerned about starting with a 16 in their accuracy stat. Mathematically it looks very dire, but in play, so far it's seemed functionally not noticeable.

I think people are building a lot of STR-leaning Inventors because 1) they are third class in the game that can naturally acquire heavy armor proficiency, 2) focusing on a weapon seems to inspire making it as significant of a weapon as possibly, like a two-handed something to smoosh insects with, and 3) all the traits able to be built into the weapons key off athletics, which always uses STR.


Sporkedup wrote:
I think people are building a lot of STR-leaning Inventors because 1) they are third class in the game that can naturally acquire heavy armor proficiency, 2) focusing on a weapon seems to inspire making it as significant of a weapon as possibly, like a two-handed something...

With a str based build, I really don't even feel the effects much of the -1 compared to other martials since I'm actually incredibly accurate, more so than any other class, when it comes to combat maneuvers. Ensnaring weapon on its own lets me target both fortitude and reflex dc, possibly with reach, with a condition that impedes movement, and letting me add my weapon's bonus.

I think were dex kinda suffer here is that there's not much reason to use a finesse weapon as is, and there aren't as many cool ranged weapon options. Advanced Rangefinder is pretty cool, but with the errata that blocks finesse from doing dex based athletics, tangle line really more feels like it was put in for a str focused switch hitter (which is heckin cool, btw!) than a dex based character, so overall, dex lacks the evocative and unique choices that str has


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
I think people are building a lot of STR-leaning Inventors because 1) they are third class in the game that can naturally acquire heavy armor proficiency, 2) focusing on a weapon seems to inspire making it as significant of a weapon as possibly, like a two-handed something...

With a str based build, I really don't even feel the effects much of the -1 compared to other martials since I'm actually incredibly accurate, more so than any other class, when it comes to combat maneuvers. Ensnaring weapon on its own lets me target both fortitude and reflex dc, possibly with reach, with a condition that impedes movement, and letting me add my weapon's bonus.

I think were dex kinda suffer here is that there's not much reason to use a finesse weapon as is, and there aren't as many cool ranged weapon options. Advanced Rangefinder is pretty cool, but with the errata that blocks finesse from doing dex based athletics, tangle line really more feels like it was put in for a str focused switch hitter (which is heckin cool, btw!) than a dex based character, so overall, dex lacks the evocative and unique choices that str has

Good points. Just to add, I'm very happy this class has a STR bent to it. Not nearly enough of that in this game. Should be a great addition to the heavy hitters in Pathfinder.


Sporkedup wrote:
Good points. Just to add, I'm very happy this class has a STR bent to it. Not nearly enough of that in this game. Should be a great addition to the heavy hitters in Pathfinder.

I do wish it had more ranged options, but really, that's just a matter of putting in a couple more ranged options. I like though that it's totally possible to make a good str or dex build. 100% agree that we could use some more str based playstyles, and a smart bruiser is a character archetype we don't have yet, outside of presumably the magus


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Int-to-hit with weapons should always at least cost an action. Statistics other than dex or str for accuracy should never be passive things.

Well, Int-to-hit isn't the only option, but the developers do need to address the key ability issue and the accuracy gap in some way, otherwise they'll just end up with another Alchemist; a class that's widely disliked and rarely played.

Personally, I'm in favor of being very flexible with key ability; offering Strength, Dex and Int as options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Int-to-hit with weapons should always at least cost an action. Statistics other than dex or str for accuracy should never be passive things.

Well, Int-to-hit isn't the only option, but the developers do need to address the key ability issue and the accuracy gap in some way, otherwise they'll just end up with another Alchemist; a class that's widely disliked and rarely played.

Personally, I'm in favor of being very flexible with key ability; offering Strength, Dex and Int as options.

pixierose wrote:
Intelligence to hit isn't the reason alchemist suffers or isn't the only reason, it also only has expertise in weapons if I recall.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:


Alchemist's main drawbacks in combat isn't int, it's an issue of resources and only getting expert in weapons.

I doubt that it will reach the level of the Alchemist, unless the devs decide to give the Inventor similarly lackluster weapon scaling and initial proficiencies. Only able to use simple weapons, bombs, and unarmed strikes, being -1 behind at the first 4 levels, -2 for 2 levels, on par for 3 levels, -1 for 3 levels, -3 for 2 and then finally -2 for the last 5 is much more detrimental than say behind by 1 for 4 levels, on par for 5 levels, -1 for 5 levels, and then on par for 6 levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
So it's largely the name is setting different expectations for you? SNIP

Not just the name, but the overall flavour and the intelligence key score.

Quote:
But you know as they say... if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

... you realize this is a playtest right?

Quote:
No one here is arguing against finding a better reason to promote INT.

I don't know why you said this.

Quote:
It's largely, to my mind, pretty good as a key stat. Keying the Unstable stuff off INT a bit more closely is really all I think that is necessary. Like I said above, people are way, way too concerned about starting with a 16 in their accuracy stat. Mathematically it looks very dire, but in play, so far it's seemed functionally not noticeable.

I disagree, it makes perfect sense to put 16 in your accurate stat for Inventor. People are putting 16 in their accuracy stat for inventor because combat is the only thing the class especially does. Why would they invest in other stats heavily, when they're primarily irrelevant to the classes function?

If the main gameplay for members of a class is hitting people, then people of that class want to be good at hitting people. Because people want to be good at the primary gameplay of their class.

So the straightforward response would be either, make it so the class has more utility so they have more reason to care about their Key Ability Score, rather than attacks, or accept that people are going to invest in stats that are critical for their class... and are going to be trying to hit as often as they can with their martial class.

Quote:
I think people are building a lot of STR-leaning Inventors because 1) they are third class in the game that can naturally acquire heavy armor proficiency, 2) focusing on a weapon seems to inspire making it as significant of a weapon as possibly, like a two-handed something...

4) the primary use of intelligence in the class requires hitting the enemy first to trigger, so they want to actually hit so they can use their key stat.


Maybe if they could do more things that required a save vs. Class DC (based on Int)? My immediate imagery treads a bit much on Alchemist territory (Ex. AoE weapons), but with carrier effects there should be something (Ex. Electro-shock gloves = save or Slow 1).
Types of damages is a good niche, yet so is applying some of the conditions we don't see so often in other classes.
Tie Int to these and that's becomes important.
(Though I still wouldn't mind AoEs, especially lines and emanations which seem to suit this faux-Iron Man class.)


Sporkedup wrote:
1) they are third class in the game that can naturally acquire heavy armor proficiency

They don't actually gain heavy armor proficiency: "Your innovation becomes heavy armor, and your proficiency in your innovation armor (but no other heavy armor) advances to equal to your proficiency in medium armor."

For instance, an inventor with Heavy Construction would be unable to take Hellknight Armiger Dedication because they lack Trained in Heavy Armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

Maybe if they could do more things that required a save vs. Class DC (based on Int)? My immediate imagery treads a bit much on Alchemist territory (Ex. AoE weapons), but with carrier effects there should be something (Ex. Electro-shock gloves = save or Slow 1).

Types of damages is a good niche, yet so is applying some of the conditions we don't see so often in other classes.
Tie Int to these and that's becomes important.
(Though I still wouldn't mind AoEs, especially lines and emanations which seem to suit this faux-Iron Man class.)

I mean, the Inventor does get Explode baseline. TBH this might be the class to be spicy with and finally get a class with legendary class DC. The save-based unstable abilities should be strong.


Another way of increasing the desirability of Int is to reduce the importance of Dex/Int. When I picture an inventor, I don't see the inventor using his own strength/dexterity to hit the enemy, but more a character who uses some kind of piston-based mechanical arm that strikes enemies instead of him. I would really love to see an option where you can use a base accuracy value outside the inventor ability scores that represent the invention attack roll (for example the same progression Animal Companion have). So you could build a Strenght Inventor or a Dexterity Inventor, but you could also dump both of these stats and still have the Inventor expected accuracy because neither Strength nor Dexterity should be required for an inventor to be fully functional.

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Guns and Gears Playtest / Inventor Class / Intelligence as Key Ability Score All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.