| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really enjoy the concept of this class. My issue becomes in how it goes at the table.
Every table I've played at has either the GM sighing over the million questions that get asked in attempt to gain a lead and keep it applicable to future encounters yet unknown. Or they don't allow them because of how much this can slow down a session.
That's not to say the general impact at the table when other players feel like your slowing things down or taking up too much of the time.
Basically in a game that's gone above and beyond in many ways to codify and create rules. Investigator sticks out like a sore thumb.
So how do you codify it? How do you change it to work smoothly in a party without the constant "GM may I?" Situation.
I think one issue is das being so tied to persue a lead. Why does the investigator need them to be subject of a lead to devise a stratagem? They are basically analyzing their opponent for an opening or weakness. Let it be that, maybe give them a to hit bonus or something else when they are subject of their lead.
Das and therefore the classes precision damage being tied to a once an attack per round option is fine. But that option needs to be more consistent then
Also making it a fortune effect makes little sense
Your observation and strategy is not divine guidance or luck.
I wish I could say I had great ideas on this. So instead I ask you all. How would you run, interpret, or change this class to smooth it out.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never had an issue iwth investigators on either side of the table. I just tell the GM, "I'm now pursuing a lead of X" or ask when we get into a fight, "is Y related to my investigation of X so I can Devise a Strratagem as a free action?" and get a yes or no answer, and we move on.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue of the Investigator is how GM-dependent and campaign-dependent it is.
If the GM plays the investigation game, it can be quite rewarding. If the GM is nitpicky on your lead, it can become an endless frustration.
Similarly if the campaign is a lot about investigation and if it's fine allocating a lot of time to investigation then a lot of your feats (especially low level ones) may prove really useful and the whole class should work fine. On the other hand, if there's not much investigation in the campaign you will have to create an investigation when there's none and it can, again, feel frustrating.
I expect a lot of different experiences around the Investigator. One that is rather common is that it's not a combat beast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM should respond to the players. If there is an investigator in the party and the GM doesn't lean into it he is a bad GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM should respond to the players. If there is an investigator in the party and the GM doesn't lean into it he is a bad GM.
It's more complicated than that. I've seen many GMs being nice with the Investigator player, allowing them to get free action DaS and Pursue a Lead bonus outside the precise scope of RAW. On the other hand, nitpicky GMs following RAW to the letter will in general punish the Investigator.
Per strict RAW:
You don't get free action DaS unless your lead is specifically a single creature. I've seen many GMs allowing the Investigator to pursue larger leads, like "a gang" or "the robbers", and allowing free action DaS when facing members of this group. Similarly, if you investigate the stolen artifact I've seen GMs allowing free action DaS against the robber.
You only get the Pursue a Lead bonus if you are investigating your lead. I've seen many GMs giving the bonus when we were adventuring to solve the lead, even if it was not strict investigation. For example, if you are trying to convince the guard to let you in, you are not "investigating your lead" but some GMs allow the +1 if, obviously, the ultimate goal is to solve the investigation.
Hilary's answer is rather enlightening: "is Y related to my investigation of X so I can Devise a Stratagem as a free action?"
Y being related to the investigation of X doesn't allow a free action DaS per RAW, you only get free action DaS against X. Similarly, asking the GM is pointless as you need to be aware that the creature is X to get free action DaS.
I personally have difficulties with Investigators as a GM as on one side I'm fully aware the class is rather weak and that if I play it too strictly my player will get a rather bad experience but I also dislike to get too far away from RAW, especially in a PFS environment where I'm supposed to be rather impartial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I greatly agree with this for homebrew campaigns. For APs, I'd suggest that the player do some of the 'heavy lifting' by coming up with some investigation-rich plot hooks the GM can use when they generate their character. "I'm going into Abomination Vaults because the Duke has hired me to find his kidnapped son Examplo. There was a ransom note left by Grognach an infamous criminal, but the son's betrothed Cinderpunzel disappeared at the same time, so the Duke's hired me not only to find the boy but also determine if this is a real kidnapping or the kids themselves trying to run away."
I have the feeling you should read the Investigator more in detail. Because making up stuff won't help you at all. The main issue of the Investigator is to get the day to day bonuses, not the big end of plot ones.
As a side note, big end of plot leads are a trap. If, from your example, you follow the lead of Examplo and Grognach, then you'll be an Investigator during roughly 2 fights in the entire campaign and a featureless martial during the rest of it (not completely featureless, but with a significant lack of abilities). The main issue for the Investigator is to get a lead on the next fight, not on the last fight.
I've read it. It's still much easier for the GM to plant a relevant lead on this room's bad if you offer them suggestions on what sort of things could count as leads. If your GM is not willing to change encounters even one smidge, yeah, you're right. But then see Gortle's post for that situation.
We posted back to back. I was editing my previous message, as your example is the perfect trap for an Investigator player:
"As a side note, big end of plot leads are a trap. If, from your example, you follow the lead of Examplo and Grognach, then you'll be an Investigator during roughly 2 fights in the entire campaign and a featureless martial during the rest of it (not completely featureless, but with a significant lack of abilities). The main issue for the Investigator is to get a lead on the next fight, not on the last fight."
I don't hold much truck with the bad GM commentary.
Because if you want to try to get your free action das as much as possible it goes kinda like this
I'm making that noise I heard a lead
That smell I sniffed a lead
That barbarian seems angry I'm going to make him a lead
Or it goes as was said. I get to be a featureless martial most of the time.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think its going to happen, but I would really like the investigator to get a rework in Player Core 2.
The investigator pretty much shares the same chassis as the rogue. Both have skill increases every level, skill feats at every level, and a pseudo-sneak attack, though unlike a rogue the skill increases and skill feats are limited to Intelligence-, Wisdom-, or Charisma-based skills, and their pseudo-Sneak Attack forces them to attack once per turn, or not even that if they roll low in their Devise a Stratagem check. The only thing an investigator does arguably better than a rogue is being more "accurate" with their skills due to Pursue a Lead, but taking into account circumstance bonuses are not that uncommon in the system I feel the highs hardly outwight the lows. I guess pre-Remaster investigators had access to martial weapons, though rogues also have access to them now.
First, I think Pursue a Lead needs serious changes. It IMO should work like a ranger's Hunt Prey, requiring only an action and don't having a frenquency attached to it, allowing an investigator to change his lead as many times as they want. If Pursue a Lead happened to be a 100% out of combat feature I wouldn't have a problem with it, but since it affects your action economy with Devise a Stratagem I think its restrictions hamper how the whole class feels and plays. Which leads me...
Second, Devise a Stratagem should be a free action, always, and it should work like the thaumaturge's tome intensify vulnerability works. Rolling your DaS only to be forced to use a roll of 4 is one of the worst feelings in the system and needs to change. The thaumaturge's version allows you to roll a dice and use it if you want which is a much better implementation of something that is supposedly planning ahead rather than being forced into a situation. Free action DaS would also allow investigators to have more actions to use in skill actions, which I feel is the intention of the class since you have a boost to all skill checks due to Pursue a Lead. I don't think both of this buffs should be applied to DaS necesarily, but at least one of them should IMO.
Third, Strategic Strike should deal more damage. If you play a mastermind rogue and take Investigator Dedication and Analyze Weakness you'll effetively be playing an investigator that deals twice as much sneak attack damage and that in the process leaves the target off-guard (and is allowed to make a free RK check if you take Known Weakness). I don't know if damage should be doubled for Strategic Strike or not, or make it a baseline of d8 like with insight coffee, but even then I feel its not that much damage when taking into account a rogue can deal as much damage and multiple times per round.
Keen Recollection is a poor man's Esoteric Lore. This one is simple; make it scale somehow. Make it that at 7th level your bonus is equal to 2 + your level, then at 15th level increase it to 4 + your level. This would make it similar to something like Loremaster Lore or Bardic Lore.
Methodologies need to be revised. They feel...inconsequential? Interrogation feels like not having a subclass at all, Forensic Medicine is nice I guess but with skill feats alone you are a fantastic healer so its not that useful honestly, Empiricism is nice too but way worse than Alchemical Sciencies which is kinda a must have if you want to have free insight coffees to deal some decent damage. Either make all methodologies to be on par with Alchemical Sciencies or (if you buff the investigator's baseline damage) put all of them on par with each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My girlfriend ran an Investigator in our Abomination Vaults game. We eventually grew tired of determining if her lead was relevant or not and just had the buff on all the time. It didn't change much and was much less relevant than the extreme amounts of precision immunity in that dungeon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that it is very difficult by RAW to get the free action Devise against any enemies. For the reasons SuperBidi mentioned.
But that isn't the biggest problem that I have. My biggest problem is actually with 'That's Odd'. Constantly having to remind the GM that I have that is annoying. Basically I have to mention that the ability exists every time the party enters a new location. And since the result is usually, "there is nothing Odd here", it becomes very forgettable for even me.
My girlfriend ran an Investigator in our Abomination Vaults game. We eventually grew tired of determining if her lead was relevant or not and just had the buff on all the time. It didn't change much and was much less relevant than the extreme amounts of precision immunity in that dungeon.
What was your experience with permanent free action das?
I don't hold much truck with the bad GM commentary.
The GM has to respond to the players. If the player takes a few steps down a path the GM needs to go along for the ride. A GM who says no to playing the i nvestigator as an investigator should have said no investigators.
It is a cooperative game on all sides.
I don't hold much truck with the bad GM commentary.The GM has to respond to the players. If the player takes a few steps down a path the GM needs to go along for the ride. A GM who says no to playing the i nvestigator as an investigator should have said no investigators.
It is a cooperative game on all sides.
I think there's both sides to this argument.
Yes, a GM has to support a player to make their choices meaningful, but there's also options that are harder or more bothersome to implement in a campaign.
A common complaint is that Survival is kinda...not the best in the system, which most people respond to "but it is useful in survival campaigns!" which is a valid answer, though doesn't remove the fact the outside of that area Survival has its flaws. Probably the player that chose to be an investigator didn't really want to play an investigator but wanted a different flavor of rogue, but still has access to the options an investigator has and thus is kinda "forced" to ask a ton of questions the GM didn't though about. I also don't think GMs should be constantly behind the players asking everything they are planing to do with their character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM should respond to the players. If there is an investigator in the party and the GM doesn't lean into it he is a bad GM.
I mean, a GM should do what they can.
But the Investigator is really at the whims of adventure design in terms of how well its class features work. Stuff like your free-action DaS could be an every fight thing or almost never happen, purely based on how the adventure was put together, before any GMing intervention.
There's also some awkwardness with the more metanarrative Investigator feats. I've seen people on both sides of the issue complaining, with people feeling like it's hard to sometimes justify the information the class wants to be given, and other people expressing that following good GM tips basically undermines the class because they were already giving players clues and trying to signpost important/unimportant aspects of the campaign.
Basically, yeah, as a GM I can do things to try to accommodate the investigator... but if I'm running an AP part of that might be homebrewing entire class features away because they don't work properly, and even if I'm not there's significantly more I need to move around to make their features work.
Trying to write it off as simply 'bad GMing' is a gross oversimplification, because no other class in the game has such a high chance to simply fail to function under reasonable assumptions about the game.
A GM who goes the extra mile to make the Investigator work despite all of the abject hostility the system throws in their way is a great GM. Failing to cope with all of that doesn't make them a bad one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think de-coupling devise a stratagem from the investigation target, aka just make it a free action, would make the class better, but not overpowered.
It should keep the failure though, forcing the character to either attack a different target without the bonus or doing something else entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its really funny to me that a side feature from the thaumaturge (tome's intesify vulnerability) is a much better feature than the main gimmick of a class (devise a stratagem). Yeah, one is a 9th level feature, but the other is the central feature of a class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its really funny to me that a side feature from the thaumaturge (tome's intesify vulnerability) is a much better feature than the main gimmick of a class (devise a stratagem). Yeah, one is a 9th level feature, but the other is the central feature of a class.
Tome's Intensify Vulnerability doesn't give precision damage or let you use a mental stat to hit, and you can only use it against a target you have already spent an action on in a previous round. The fortune effect part is definitely better (and how I hope Devise a Strategem will work), but the ability overall is appreciably worse.
So this all begs the question in how you would at least let the main shtick, devise, more importantly free action devise. Function without a lead.
My thought is as others. Das is always a free action. And give some other bonus to the rare lead. Like a +1 circumstance bonus to hit with a das strike.
They stay locked into once a round.
Still feel weird about it being a fortune effect but maybe that's fine for balance sake
Still feel weird about it being a fortune effect but maybe that's fine for balance sake
I took a quick look into the parallel dimension where Devise a Stratagem wasn't a fortune effect, and brought back a topic with seven pages of discussion.
Investigator and Sure Strike
My investigator player took a caster multiclass and is getting Sure Strike. Do they cast it before the strategem roll or before the actual attack? Does the stratagem replace one roll, or both?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hilary's answer is rather enlightening: "is Y related to my investigation of X so I can Devise a Stratagem as a free action?"
Y being related to the investigation of X doesn't allow a free action DaS per RAW, you only get free action DaS against X.
Looking at this again, it isn't quite as bad as it seems because of the wording of Pursue a Lead itself.
You spend 1 minute examining the details of one potential clue, designating the subject related to that clue as the target of your active investigation.
The clues are not your lead. The subject of those clues is.
However, the natural language that players are likely to use is, "I see these footprints in the dust. I study them and designate them as one of my investigations. Then start tracking the footprints." That makes it sound like the footprints are the lead and the free action devise wouldn't apply to the enemy once it is tracked down.
But that isn't accurate. The footprints are not the lead. The creature that made the footprints are.
Once the party tracks down the creature, then free action devise would be allowed. And would cause the wording that Hilary mentioned, "Is this creature the creature that we are tracking?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just toss my 2 cents onto the pile.
Played and completed a full dual class Alch/Invest in Abomination Vaults (was originally 3 players w/ 2 pf2e noobies, hence the dual class)
The GM had to ban some Feats outright, most notably That's Odd.
The RaW instruction for the Feat to make the GM "indicate that the character --should-- investigate" breaks the concept of exploring/investigating rooms outright. Normally the result of a skill check is ambiguous. With That's Odd, it both slows things to a crawl, and enables players to race through things. You have groups that wont leave until they pass a check on the Odd thing, or that will rush though and only bother searching if That's Odd triggers.
In general, Investigator has HUGE issue with "gameifying what should not be gamified"
This is to say things like puzzles / plots / investigations are intended to be in the realm of the players, not the PCs. Getting extra clues or +1 to a skill check is fine, but even the base Pursue a Lead can really break things. If an Invest examines a murder scene, that numerical bonus, and the Free Action DaS, both give away the game of it. Either the GM has to break the rules and deny the bonus to not let the players know, or the mystery is over early.
Moreover, when running an AP, GMs will be called on to know things they can't, all the time. There's an overturned bit of clutter on the map? The Invest is trying to make that into a Lead, and the GM has no clue if / which creature is responsible. That amount of hurried book scanning can be for *every room.* Because otherwise the Invest has to pay a an Action tax every turn to get access to half the class.
----------------
On the mechanics / balance side of things Invest is also arguably worse off than even the Alchemist. Especially with the Mastermind Rouge *right there* to compare against, there's just no reason for the Invest to be that poor.
Rogue design knows to tie their "big hit" mechanic into a foe condition, both allowing allies to factor in, and for each sub-type of Rogue to offer more ways to inflict that condition. It augments and enhances the existing martial gameplan.
Invest instead invents both PaL and DaS. You need to layer BOTH of them in order for the class to even come online. And guess what? While the Rogue is hitting Sneak Attack on all foes, Invest is still stuck with 2 max PaL targets. It's just sad. A fully planned Invest cannot compare to a Rogue in combat. And what do they get out of combat to compensate? A +1 to investigations?
The #1 bad bit of design that can be changed in short edit would be the Invest and their attribute stats. Rogue is allowed to pick their KaS, and always Strikes with one single stat.
Invest is stuck with Int only. By itself, that means they cannot max an attack stat. DaS text has a "can" use Int to hit, great right? They can dump Int. Nope, the Strategic Strike not only requires the use of DaS, but it requires the use of Int on that attack. This means that every Invest -must- max not one, but both Int & another attack stat. Un-f%!@ing-believable. It has the same hyper-restrictive design as a lot of the Alchemist problems, but within the very foundational class features. And while the Alch can actually dump Int a fair bit, the Invest cannot.
If both of those were removed; the Invest was allowed to pick their KaS & did not need to use Int on their DaS hits, that would go a long way toward letting the Invest function as an admittedly still inferior martial. That change is also the sort of tweak that's quite possible to see in a Remaster. There's no shame in playing something that's fun and knowingly suboptimal, but being strangled by your own features into an absurdly narrow flowchart is just unfun.
---------------
IMO, the entire trade off of dealing with the Invest's PaL and DaS jank should be to allow the class to uniquely attack with Int **all the time**
Keep it limited to the class and not archetype if one must, but there needs to be *some* unique feature of the class -chassis- and not just their jank actions. The idea of a unified attack stat would let the Invest actually have a neat quirk of being a flexible switch hitter, using the same stat to shoot a bow as they would swing a sword. And because it's Int and does not otherwise boost said attacks, (and spellcasting archetypes will always lag in their DC) it's not a balance worry. (reminder that Kin gets to use Con for everything they can do)
---------------
Alchemist may be a class broken under the weight of its jank and mediocrity, but it's not a fundamentally bad idea implemented in the worst way like Invest is. I honestly think the enjoyment of many players would have been enhanced by the nonexistence of the Investigator, due to a combo of it really being that bad to play RaW, and there has never been a closer theme/fantasy comparison to the Mastermind Rogue. FFS, the designers couldn't help themselves so badly, they really did just do the "Rogue's extra skill Feats but worse" for the Invest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is to say things like puzzles / plots / investigations are intended to be in the realm of the players, not the PCs. Getting extra clues is fine, but even the base Pursue a Lead can really break things. If an Invest examines a murder scene, that numerical bonus, and the Free A DaS, both give away the game of it. Either the GM has to break the rules and deny the bonus to not let the players know, or the mystery is over early.
I agree the Investigator has a lot of problems but kind of take issue here.
If a mystery breaks down because someone rolled well (re: numerical bonuses), or has to rely specifically on denying character competency ('in the realm of the players, not the pcs') then I'd argue that mystery is not well designed.
Someone wanting to play a character who's better at investigating things than they are in real life is totally valid and not something a GM should undermine.
Rest of the post I pretty much agree with though... except for the Mastermind bit, Mastermind is stronger but even more half baked and beyond saving (since Paizo didn't do anything for it with the remaster). At least there's hope for investigator improvements.
I agree the Investigator has a lot of problems but kind of take issue here.
If a mystery breaks down because someone rolled well (re: numerical bonuses), or has to rely specifically on denying character competency ('in the realm of the players, not the pcs') then I'd argue that mystery is not well designed.
Someone wanting to play a character who's better at investigating things than they are in real life is totally valid and not something a GM should undermine.
Rest of the post I pretty much agree with though... except for the Mastermind bit, Mastermind is stronger but even more half baked and beyond saving (since Paizo didn't do anything for it with the remaster). At least there's hope for investigator improvements.
The unavoidable problem is that the +1 literally tells the players if they are correct.
If the Investigator simply got a +1 to all activities that could be considered an investigation, it would not only steamroll the uneven jank, but avoid this mystery-breaking problem.
Because, no, I can say 100% that Invest as written just breaks the concept of investigating. The moment I need to ask the GM "Do I get my PaL +1 to this?" the class is a fun killing disaster.
"Whenever you attempt a Perception or skill check to investigate a designated subject, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to the check."
How do you know two different incidents in town were done by the same guy? Because you got a +1 to the 2nd roll.
You don't need to be a professional game dev to figure out that the mechanical trigger of the effect is itself the greater impact than the +1 could ever be. And even a professional game dev of a GM could not, and did not manage the absurd ask of dynamically trying to adjust the DC of checks in a player-unaware manner to hide the "that's the guy" alarm.
The RaW outright says a single footprint is enough of a clue to make a lead out of. GMs are just screwed if their player actually wants to engage with that mechanic.
----------------
If a Player wants to be a PC that is better at investigating, IMO the game would be more fun for all if Investigator did not exist. They would still have more than enough options via Dedications, other Int classes, ect. There's an actual Archaeologist Dedication FFS. Investigator is a "trap" option that entices players while hurting fun.
--------------
While Mastermind is limited in Rogue-side support, those designers knew how important it was to key off a normal action. There's loads of ways for a Rogue to boost their Recall Knowledge. Not just Loremaster, ect. They can even dip Fighter for a 2 in 1 Strike + RK!
But an Investigator only has the scant tools within their own class.
If the Mastermind Rogue is half-baked, I suppose that leaves the Investigator as a gelatinous slop of unrisen bread oozing out of the pan to burn on the floor of the oven.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone wanting to play a character who's better at investigating things than they are in real life is totally valid and not something a GM should undermine.
Thank you. I'm glad that there are at least some people who recognize this - that wanting to play a character able to do things that the player can't doesn't just apply to combat and magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Whenever you attempt a Perception or skill check to investigate a designated subject, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to the check."
I'm not really seeing the issue here. Suppose you see a footprint, so you make "the person who left this footprint" as your subject. You go up to somebody, and you inspect their shoe. The GM gives you a +1 on your roll, and you roll great (presumably with a hidden check). The GM says, "This is obviously not the person who left the footprint". You have investigated your subject, "the owner of the footprint", by eliminating somebody. You get the same bonuses on asking anybody where they were at the time, etc.
Let's say, you're also looking into the matter of who stole your pastry this morning, but you can't afford to spare one of your two subjects for personal matters. So, you talk to the butler about the footprint. Unbeknownst to you (thinking the GM would never do something so obvious), the butler left the footprint. You do not get the +1, because you are not investigating "the owner of the footprint".
Similarly, if the butler panics over the pastry questions, and grabs a lamp to hit you, you don't get a free studied strike until you know that the butler left the footprint.
Investigator has HUGE issue with "gameifying what should not be gamified"
This is to say things like puzzles / plots / investigations are intended to be in the realm of the players, not the PCs. Getting extra clues or +1 to a skill check is fine, but even the base Pursue a Lead can really break things. If an Invest examines a murder scene, that numerical bonus, and the Free Action DaS, both give away the game of it. Either the GM has to break the rules and deny the bonus to not let the players know, or the mystery is over early.
This point of view has some value; the Investigator can break some sorts of games. This is why the Investigator should be an uncommon class, and require GM approval. Because it requires additional capability on the part of the game master. If the GM is not prepared to take it on then the players shouldn't take it.
However it can work fine. The GM should note that during investigations, there are a lot of dead ends, and leads that head off in different directions, and that it is still possible to run a complex investigation with the class. After all knowing the right question to ask is often much more important than the answer to a question.
Not as PaL (or DaS) is written. I'm afraid it's the exact opposite.
PaL explicitly puts creatures as subjects, not "mysteries." PaL essentially tags the creature, item, ect with an effect not unlike Hunted Prey.
The PaL +1 is for any investigating of the -creature- that left the footprint. Saying the GM would not allow the bonus to work unless the Investigator already suspects the subject of a crime is opposite to the rules.
The whole point is that +1 is needed for the investigator to implicate your pastry butler in the first place.
If there's a bloody footprint on the carpet and a dozen suspects in the manor to interview, the Investigator gets the +1 only when they are questioning the correct owner of that footprint.
You not NOT "investigate the footprint" and get +1 to checks about the footprint. It's the creature who left it that is tagged.
--------------------
We must have read the Investigator rules a dozen times during the campaign, and each re-read we came away less and less happy with the rules as written.
Even the DaS catch of "if you are aware that [it's the PaL target]" is outright broken. How the flying f*ck is the PC supposed to know which goblin of 5 made the footprint?
They simply cannot. Meaning the GM tells them which target the PaL is tracking. Meaning, that rule is being explicitly broken for it to at all function. The ambiguity of your PaL target is usually incompatible with the certainty required for the free action DaS.
This point of view has some value; the Investigator can break some sorts of games. This is why the Investigator should be an uncommon class, and require GM approval. Because it requires additional capability on the part of the game master. If the GM is not prepared to take it on then the players shouldn't take it.
However it can work fine. The GM should note that during investigations, there are a lot of dead ends, and leads that head off in different directions, and that it is still possible to run a complex investigation with the class. After all knowing the right question to ask is often much more important than the answer to a question.
And Red Herring is another Feat that outright: "When you Pursue a Lead, the GM tells you if the lead you chose is inconsequential."
Do you think the class would be improved if Feats like Red Herring and That's Odd were deleted from the class? Or do you think rarity locks would really be sufficient there?
I honestly just cannot see them as a positive for any table's enjoyment. Mandating the GM does things like that just incentivizes such unfun behavior.
|
Not as PaL (or DaS) is written. I'm afraid it's the exact opposite.
PaL explicitly puts creatures as subjects, not "mysteries." PaL essentially tags the creature, item, ect with an effect not unlike Hunted Prey.
The PaL +1 is for any investigating of the -creature- that left the footprint. Saying the GM would not allow the bonus to work unless the Investigator already suspects the subject of a crime is opposite to the rules.
The whole point is that +1 is needed for the investigator to implicate your pastry butler in the first place.If there's a bloody footprint on the carpet and a dozen suspects in the manor to interview, the Investigator gets the +1 only when they are questioning the correct owner of that footprint.
You not NOT "investigate the footprint" and get +1 to checks about the footprint. It's the creature who left it that is tagged.
--------------------
We must have read the Investigator rules a dozen times during the campaign, and each re-read we came away less and less happy with the rules as written.
Even the DaS catch of "if you are aware that [it's the PaL target]" is outright broken. How the flying f*ck is the PC supposed to know which goblin of 5 made the footprint?
They simply cannot. Meaning the GM tells them which target the PaL is tracking. Meaning, that rule is being explicitly broken for it to at all function. The ambiguity of your PaL target is usually incompatible with the certainty required for the free action DaS.
Trying to figure out who left the footprint is investigating the creature who left the footprint. That's what investigating them means.
You figure out which creature that is by investigating them. At the point where you're fighting several creatures and you know that it's one of them, you can ask the GM if you can tell which it is. In your example, "Which one has dried blood on their shoe?" But sometimes you can't tell. The restriction wouldn't mean anything if it never came up--and it's there specifically so that it doesn't give it away if you don't know yet! (Although at that point you're fighting them, so it's probably too late to matter.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This point of view has some value; the Investigator can break some sorts of games. This is why the Investigator should be an uncommon class, and require GM approval. Because it requires additional capability on the part of the game master. If the GM is not prepared to take it on then the players shouldn't take it.
However it can work fine. The GM should note that during investigations, there are a lot of dead ends, and leads that head off in different directions, and that it is still possible to run a complex investigation with the class. After all knowing the right question to ask is often much more important than the answer to a question.
And Red Herring is another Feat that outright: "When you Pursue a Lead, the GM tells you if the lead you chose is inconsequential."
Do you think the class would be improved if Feats like Red Herring and That's Odd were deleted from the class? Or do you think rarity locks would really be sufficient there?
I honestly just cannot see them as a positive for any table's enjoyment. Mandating the GM does things like that just incentivizes such unfun behavior.
For what it's worth, Red Herring and That's Odd are the two most well-liked Investigator feats at the tables I've run, both for me (as the GM) and the players of the investigators. I enjoy having elements of investigation and mystery in my plots, and I feel that these feats add to the enjoyment of these stories. I've not had any experience with That's Odd slowing down gameplay or speeding up the resolution of particular storylines in a way that makes them less enjoyable either. The role of That's Odd in my campaigns is fairly simple - if they walk into a room and there's something plot-important in there, whether for a big main part of the storyline or for a small side part of the storyline they're enjoying getting into, they know it's there. It speeds up some wasted time looking into irrelevant things, but I'm very happy for that time to be removed. For the players who become concerned about missing important parts of the plot, it provides peace of mind; for the players that struggle to keep all the box text in their mind it helps take the pressure off them, and for players who get frustrated with wasted time, it helps ensure that the game feels like it's progressing forward. If I feel a focus on getting a clue is bogging down the game, I might provide a narrative prompt to move on if appropriate - time pressure, something else happening, or something similar. Either way, I don't think it bogs down too much - though I tend to be pretty liberal with what checks would be applicable to get a clue, so long as it makes sense. Either way, That's Odd definitely fulfills a role in my games both mechanically and in creating the story of a character! Red Herring is even less controversial in my games - it literally just is a tool to let me say "hey everyone, I know you're interested in this clue, but it's not connected to anything of import for the story we're telling". Very useful, sells the story of a character well, and not obtrusive in my experience at all!
And Red Herring is another Feat that outright: "When you Pursue a Lead, the GM tells you if the lead you chose is inconsequential."
Do you think the class would be improved if Feats like Red Herring and That's Odd were deleted from the class? Or do you think rarity locks would really be sufficient there?
I honestly just cannot see them as a positive for any table's enjoyment. Mandating the GM does things like that just incentivizes such unfun behavior.
inconsequential is highly subjective.
I don't have as much experience with the Investigator as others on here, but I do agree on several of the common criticisms:
Overall, I think the idea behind the Investigator is brilliant, and with the right GM buy-in and an investigation-heavy adventure the class can really shine, but outside of those specific circumstances they can also frustrate and underwhelm. I'd have to give the Investigator more thought to give more in-depth opinions on how to change them, but the broad lines of what I'd like to see changed include the following:
Right now, the Investigator feels to me like how a lot of classes looked in their playtesting stage -- lots of solid stuff, but also quite a few kinks that could do with some ironing out, and perhaps a bit of a power deficit. I don't think the class necessarily has to go through an overhaul to become great, but there are definitely some pain points that, if addressed, could really help them shine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ight now, the Investigator feels to me like how a lot of classes looked in their playtesting stage
I think this is a perfect description of the APG as a whole.
Everything from that book should receive appropiate reworks, not just the oracle and witch.
I do see a lot of ideas of Keen Recollection being replaced with a catch-all/universal Lore skill and that seems... I don't know, boring and antithetical to Investigator gameplay to me?
Part of the fun of Investigator was pinning down what Lore skill to use for Keen Recollection, so I could keep up with the Thaumaturge in the party (since the GM qualified that for reduced DC's.)
I know that might seem annoying to others, but that was really part of my core Investigator gameplay loop, and just saying "I roll Keen Recollection" seems so utterly boring instead.
I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive if done right. If citing a Lore skill you're at least trained in gave you a circumstance bonus in appropriate situations when using that catch-all Lore skill, you'd get the baseline of being very good at RK in general, with the added benefit of still getting something extra out of the tidbits of lore you're specialized in.
Investigators are a class that tries to apply d6 based game design to a d20 game. How well it works will rely on how comfortable you are with those d6 games and applying their philosophy to Pathfinder, which does not natively support them. If you'd like to get a feel for how to handle Investigators in a fun way, try playing Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark.
It doesn't help that the Investigate exploration activity is a hot mess, though.