Now that you mention it, I can't seem to find anythint that suggest bravado has downsides. I know I must have heard or read something along those lines to assume it was like that.
I think you may have read someone theorizing that all Bravado actions would function kinda like After You, despite that not being explicitly said on stream. I remember reading something along those lines too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
something which people tend to gloss over is that Investigators are natively better than Rogues outside of damage. They just are. Intelligence as a KAS (without saddling themselves with a dud subclass like mastermind) is great because so many skills key off INT and you can lower DCs with Additional Lore. Floating circumstance bonuses from Pursue a Lead and Clue-In just give them a mathematical edge
I like most of you points but not this.
Rogues have the edge because Dexterity is just a much better abilitity score to base off than Intelligence. Sure I appreciate that Recall Knowledge is useful. But it is not that useful. The Dexterity and Charisma skills are still much better. The extra skills from higher Int are useful but not important. The +1 you get from Known Weakness only arrives on a critical success. The bonuses from Pursue a Lead are just not to useful enough skills. I can trump all of those benefits simply by saying that Stealth is an easy initiative substitute skill and the slightly increased chance of going first makes it all worth while.
Rogues struggle with ranged combat much
No. Not seeing that for a Dexterity based class. Yes they have to work to get flatfooted at range, but there are ways like Dread Stalker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say I'd absolutely allow Intimidation to be used to Investigate a subject. Batman, and many other fictional characters, do that all the time.
something which people tend to gloss over is that Investigators are natively better than Rogues outside of damage. They just are. Intelligence as a KAS (without saddling themselves with a dud subclass like mastermind) is great because so many skills key off INT and you can lower DCs with Additional Lore. Floating circumstance bonuses from Pursue a Lead and Clue-In just give them a mathematical edgeI like most of you points but not this.
Rogues have the edge because Dexterity is just a much better abilitity score to base off than Intelligence. Sure I appreciate that Recall Knowledge is useful. But it is not that useful. The Dexterity and Charisma skills are still much better. The extra skills from higher Int are useful but not important. The +1 you get from Known Weakness only arrives on a critical success. The bonuses from Pursue a Lead are just not to useful enough skills. I can trump all of those benefits simply by saying that Stealth is an easy initiative substitute skill and the slightly increased chance of going first makes it all worth while.
Rogues struggle with ranged combat muchNo. Not seeing that for a Dexterity based class. Yes they have to work to get flatfooted at range, but there are ways like Dread Stalker.
I probably should have said Investigators are better out of combat. Stealth IS a really good skill in combat.
Also, I never said rogues couldn't work at ranged, but they have to work for it like you said. Investigator is in a similar spot for melee. The aforementioned great sword plus finesse bite option or just using free action DaS alleviates a lot of the problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But outside of the incomplete picture DaS and Strategic Strike paints, nothing really tells you what kind of weapons you're meant to use.
The class absolutely tells you what weapons you're supposed to use, at least at base.
DaS excludes melee/thrown weapons (and unarmed attacks) without finesse or agile traits. That's a whole bunch that are right out. Of what's left, you have a few d8 weapons that are 2-handed or uncommon or Advanced, but you're looking at a 1H d6 weapon most of the time in melee.
Or ranged, which is going to out-damage that 1H d6 weapon all the time. With a feat you can add 1H weapons from the club group, which are also d6 (although the leiomano is a Fatal d10).
The preference for Finesse/Ranged as well as only having Light armor proficiency encourages you to stack DEX rather than STR, which in turn means a small bonus if any to melee attack rolls.
You don't get Shield Block for free like most other martials, so you aren't encouraged to just stand in melee.
DaS working just once per turn and your key modifier being INT gives you a soft disincentive for multiple attacks, although an Agile weapon preference does address that somewhat. You also don't get any MAP reducers on a second hit or multi-action activities to hit twice. So you want to attack with a single action. Your other actions lean on mastery of the base actions of the game and can be movement, a skill check like Feint or Demoralize, taking cover, or whatever.
Your combat style, then, is either that of a skirmisher (move in/attack/move out) or ranged (with ample turns to reload). If you take the hints and go with DEX as your second stat, there is very little reason not to be primarily ranged.
In the category of ranged weapons, knowing your roll in advance is particularly useful with weapons that have the Fatal Aim trait so you can use an extra action to add damage dice.
So I'd say you're mechanically encouraged to use a reload 1 ranged weapon (Sukgung, Arbalest, or firearm). Thrown alchemical bombs may also be a good option even if you're paying gold for them-- you will rarely waste them. A rapier, short sword, or leiomano (with Takedown Expert) are the best common melee options.
But choosing an archetype for a combat style can shift that more drastically than most classes, and it's at least possible to have a good STR melee build with enough stat/feat investment. Taking a caster archetype might leave you at range but preferring a reload 0 bow. Taking Dual Weapon Warrior gives you MAP reduction for the cost of a single feat, making melee interesting with DEX. STR and a Wrestler archetype is fun.
But that's not to say that the ranged archetypes don't have plenty to offer too while leaning into the base class's options, whether that's Ranger, Archer, Eldritch Archer, Gunslinger, Pistol Phenom, Unexpected Sharpshooter, or whatever.
I just want to say I'd absolutely allow Intimidation to be used to Investigate a subject. Batman, and many other fictional characters, do that all the time.Doesn't he ... intimidate with Intimidation? I can understand interrogation through Intimidation, yes. But not investigation. Unless we have drastically different opinion of what 'investigation' means.
Unless we take a Chuck Norris approach and don't bother intimidating the suspect or the witnesses, but just go directly to the clues and intimidate them into telling us what happened.
Which, unfortunately, occult casters kind of can do with a rank 1 object read spell...so not really something that the investigator could be unique about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The aforementioned great sword plus finesse bite option or just using free action DaS alleviates a lot of the problems.
I feel like having one of the best ways to play the class involving largely ignoring their core mechanics entirely is as much an indicator of the problem as a potential solution.
So I'd say you're mechanically encouraged to use a reload 1 ranged weapon
Reload weapon feels kind of devastating given DaS action economy. More or less the same problem the magus has.
Devise, Strike, Reload is an entire turn spent for a single attack and nothing else. That's frighteningly bad, especially given the investigator's class fantasy of being tactically minded and analytical.
Which again sort of helps point to a lot of the problems with the class. The stuff it appears to want to do is at odds with its own mechanics.
It's also a class that talks about using "keen insights" to thwart foes and aid allies, but its central combat mechanic is, again, just weird sneak attack. Like everything else aside that feels creatively really underbaked. Where's the utility? The cleverness? The analytical mind at play? Even Rogues get debilitations on top of their unga. How is it that the Investigator has one of the most tactically barren toolkits in the game?
The class absolutely tells you what weapons you're supposed to use, at least at base.
DaS excludes melee/thrown weapons (and unarmed attacks) without finesse or agile traits. That's a whole bunch that are right out. Of what's left, you have a few d8 weapons that are 2-handed or uncommon or Advanced, but you're looking at a 1H d6 weapon most of the time in melee.
Devise a Stratagem may be applied to any weapon. However, you may only substitute your Int modifier for the attack roll -- and, thereby gain the added damage from Strategic Strike -- with a subset of weapons.
There are three distinct parts of rules for the action.
1. This is the pre-roll and it does not care what weapon you use.
You assess a foe's weaknesses in combat and use them to formulate a plan of attack against your enemy. Choose a creature you can see and roll a d20. If you Strike the chosen creature later this round, you must use the result of the roll you made to Devise a Stratagem for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling. You make this substitution only for the first Strike you make against the creature this round, not any subsequent attacks.
.
2. This describes the option to substitute your Int modifier on the attack roll and is what cares about the choice of weapon.
When you make this substitution, you can also add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, provided your Strike uses an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it's a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap.
.
3. And the final part is not germane to this particular reply.
If you're aware that the creature you choose is the subject of a lead you're pursuing, you can use this ability as a free action.
Reload weapon feels kind of devastating given DaS action economy. More or less the same problem the magus has.
Devise, Strike, Reload is an entire turn spent for a single attack and nothing else. That's frighteningly bad, especially given the investigator's class fantasy of being tactically minded and analytical.
I played an Investigator, multi-classed Drifter Gunslinger, in Agents of Edgewatch. I took Risky Reload and carried my Dueling Pistol empty. I also invested in Adaptive Cogwheels.
DaS meant Risky Reload was never really a risk. Adaptive Cogwheels meant that my nat 20s on DaS were Fatal D12 with an Arquebus. Into the Fray's free action stride on my first turn was just icing on the cake.
Sure, Dexter wasn't a combat powerhouse, but was still quite fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not asking for them to remove them btw, but I honestly think they aren't really needed. They don't exist as a balance tool, but rather as an easy way for GMs to prohibit something without creating too much fuss about it. I don't like that idea because TTRPGs are a hobby that mainly involves talking, and if a GM wants to remove certain options its as easy as that GM saying "This isn't allowed" instead of trying to justify that with the rarity traits. I also feel they are really arbritary because there's stuff thats uncommon but thats otherwise very average in terms of how it works or even in-setting stuff (because uncommon is kinda used for both things, which I assume is also confusing for new players).
The only more or less consistent rarity is rare (funnily enouh) because rare options are usually above the normal balance of the game, at least a little.
One of PF1's lessons that PF2 took to heart is that it is much easier for a GM to say Yes than No. Hence Rarity.
So I'd say you're mechanically encouraged to use a reload 1 ranged weaponReload weapon feels kind of devastating given DaS action economy. More or less the same problem the magus has.
Devise, Strike, Reload is an entire turn spent for a single attack and nothing else. That's frighteningly bad, especially given the investigator's class fantasy of being tactically minded and analytical.
Which again sort of helps point to a lot of the problems with the class. The stuff it appears to want to do is at odds with its own mechanics.
It's also a class that talks about using "keen insights" to thwart foes and aid allies, but its central combat mechanic is, again, just weird sneak attack. Like everything else aside that feels creatively really underbaked. Where's the utility? The cleverness? The analytical mind at play? Even Rogues get debilitations on top of their unga. How is it that the Investigator has one of the most tactically barren toolkits in the game?
Tactic: Bring two reload 1 guns. On turns where DaS fails hard, consider whether you want to reload both guns, take cover, RK, draw an item like special ammo or a bomb for next turn, retreat, demoralize, etc.
Tactic: Bring a reload 1 gun and an Air Repeater. Shoot the appropriate gun at the appropriate time. Only reload after you expect to crit.
Tactic: Bring a reload 1 gun and a melee weapon (possibly throwable with a Returning rune). Only reload when you're at long distance or expect to crit.
Tactic: Pick up Risky Reload from a gun-oriented archetype. For an Investigator it isn't actually risky, and you now have your action economy back.
Yeah, you need to know good tactics to use good tactics, but there's no "good tactics" feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'd say you're mechanically encouraged to use a reload 1 ranged weaponReload weapon feels kind of devastating given DaS action economy. More or less the same problem the magus has.
Devise, Strike, Reload is an entire turn spent for a single attack and nothing else. That's frighteningly bad, especially given the investigator's class fantasy of being tactically minded and analytical.
Which again sort of helps point to a lot of the problems with the class. The stuff it appears to want to do is at odds with its own mechanics.
It's also a class that talks about using "keen insights" to thwart foes and aid allies, but its central combat mechanic is, again, just weird sneak attack. Like everything else aside that feels creatively really underbaked. Where's the utility? The cleverness? The analytical mind at play? Even Rogues get debilitations on top of their unga. How is it that the Investigator has one of the most tactically barren toolkits in the game?
Tactic: Bring two reload 1 guns. On turns where DaS fails hard, consider whether you want to reload both guns, take cover, RK, draw an item like special ammo or a bomb for next turn, retreat, demoralize, etc.
Tactic: Bring a reload 1 gun and an Air Repeater. Shoot the appropriate gun at the appropriate time. Only reload after you expect to crit.
Tactic: Bring a reload 1 gun and a melee weapon (possibly throwable with a Returning rune). Only reload when you're at long distance or expect to crit.
Tactic: Pick up Risky Reload from a gun-oriented archetype. For an Investigator it isn't actually risky, and you now have your action economy back.
Yeah, you need to know good tactics to use good tactics, but there's no "good tactics" feat.
That... makes it sound like you've never played an Investigator.
You really cannot afford to "waste" MAP 0 as a martial class. If your DaS goes bad, in general you are attacking another target (or you can Trip the DaS target to get around using the roll).
Additionally, if you DaS a 20, the default "Investigator trick" to maximize that 20 is to first strike a different foe at MAP 0, then the DaS foe for the crit 2nd hit. This means that you likely have used all 3 actions. Without a prior lead, that's all you can do. There's almost no single Action boost that's going to be better than making a MAP 0 Strike, especially when the "other target" trick does not cost Feat budget (Eldritch Archer is very good for Invest because it has a 2A strike with a Stunned 1 crit hit rider, making that boost viable. But. It's L8. Too late for most games).
Moreover, you don't Draw special ammo. You spend (usually) 1 extra Activate action. Unfortunately, the game is super strict, and you cannot Activate ammo one turn and use it the next, it has to be in the same turn. Invest absolutely does like special ammo more than most (Imp, Ooze, and Exsanguinating are my 3 recommendations), but it's still a sometimes thing. As bad as they are, injury poisons do not add action cost, and with a reload 0 bow, you decide which arrow to draw as you shoot. Rare to use, but it is a thing.
Another issue is that you will not always know if a DaS roll is high enough. There are a lot more "I don't know if this will hit" circumstances than people seem to admit, I certainly cannot guess foe AC off the top of my head. The actual AC is something you have to guesstimate based on prior hits/misses, which means other PCs need to be sending attacks (and not saves) to that foe.
As Investigator struggles to improve their own to-hit stat, I do not generally recommend players invest in crit fishing.
It is super frustrating Invest needs to dip into a dedication to get Quick Draw, but if that Feat is available, that's when the idea of keeping a "break glass in case of crit" weapon on standby makes sense. Fatal/Deadly is good, keep a talisman on it for crit specialization, ect, ect.
But the "pre-crit maneuver" really needs to cost 0 actions to be an improvement. My first "insider tip" is Necrotic Bombs, they have a bizarre detail where as the bomb tier goes up, their Sickened X on crit hit rider also keep incrementing for some unknown reason. No save, one of the best debuffs in the game, and an appropriate gp/effect use of a consumable.
If Running Reload is not there, then IMO Investigator really does lean heavily toward reload 0 options. The extra actions they spend on DaS makes it soooo much worse to try to squeeze Reload into their turns.
One reason to recommend a Rogue Dedication is that I think it's the only one that will offer both Quick Draw, and cantrips (+Cast a Spell, so Sure Strike Scrolls, ect.) via Minor Magic, both L2 Feats. Not everyone is interested in Human ancestry nonsense, or will want to squeeze not just 1, but 2 different dedications to help out Investigator. Rogue is just one possibility of many, though.
Devise a Stratagem may be applied to any weapon. However, you may only substitute your Int modifier for the attack roll -- and, thereby gain the added damage from Strategic Strike -- with a subset of weapons.
I don't know how I didn't thought about this lol. The whole thing of the investigator was that it was a worse rogue but that it had access to better weapons (since it had full martial proficiency unlike rogues pre-Remaster) so if rogues received a buff to their weapons it would make sense for investigators to receive a similar buff, which would be to be able to use DaS with any weapons, even for Strategic Strike.
If the class is built around a single attack, I don't think a greatsword-wielding investigator that is dealing Xd12 + Xd6 would be that disruptive (if anything, the swashbuckler should receive a similar buff too). This could be paired with giving them medium armor proficiency too, plus other QoL improvements to Pursue a Lead and Devise a Stratagem (as I mentioned, IMO DaS should work similar to a thaumaturge's tome implement infensify vulnerability). If greatsword-wielding investigators would be too much, I would at least want for DaS to replace your Str mod for damage with Int too.
Devise a Stratagem may be applied to any weapon. However, you may only substitute your Int modifier for the attack roll -- and, thereby gain the added damage from Strategic Strike -- with a subset of weapons.I don't know how I didn't thought about this lol. The whole thing of the investigator was that it was a worse rogue but that it had access to better weapons (since it had full martial proficiency unlike rogues pre-Remaster) so if rogues received a buff to their weapons it would make sense for investigators to receive a similar buff, which would be to be able to use DaS with any weapons, even for Strategic Strike.
If the class is built around a single attack, I don't think a greatsword-wielding investigator that is dealing Xd12 + Xd6 would be that disruptive (if anything, the swashbuckler should receive a similar buff too). This could be paired with giving them medium armor proficiency too, plus other QoL improvements to Pursue a Lead and Devise a Stratagem (as I mentioned, IMO DaS should work similar to a thaumaturge's tome implement infensify vulnerability). If greatsword-wielding investigators would be too much, I would at least want for DaS to replace your Str mod for damage with Int too.
That's actually a pretty interesting idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The aforementioned great sword plus finesse bite option or just using free action DaS alleviates a lot of the problems.I feel like having one of the best ways to play the class involving largely ignoring their core mechanics entirely is as much an indicator of the problem as a potential solution.
So I'd say you're mechanically encouraged to use a reload 1 ranged weaponReload weapon feels kind of devastating given DaS action economy. More or less the same problem the magus has.
Devise, Strike, Reload is an entire turn spent for a single attack and nothing else. That's frighteningly bad, especially given the investigator's class fantasy of being tactically minded and analytical.
Which again sort of helps point to a lot of the problems with the class. The stuff it appears to want to do is at odds with its own mechanics.
It's also a class that talks about using "keen insights" to thwart foes and aid allies, but its central combat mechanic is, again, just weird sneak attack. Like everything else aside that feels creatively really underbaked. Where's the utility? The cleverness? The analytical mind at play? Even Rogues get debilitations on top of their unga. How is it that the Investigator has one of the most tactically barren toolkits in the game?
The greatsword build doesn't involve ignoring your core mechanics. It gives you an alternative option when your core mechanic has a bad roll. When DaS rolls well, you just finesse bite them. The higher strength buffs your damage either way.
Also, DaS is not a sneak attack just because it uses the same weapons. You can in fact use it quite analytical-- see my description of using your other actions to tilt the math exactly how much you need given the known roll.
The action economy problem gets in the way of that, though. Which is why free action DaS is so important, when why the class isn't a good choice when the campaign doesn't allow for it. And to be fair, this thematically makes sense. The class should be better against leads they already investigated. But in practice it creates a deeply uneven experience. Both thematically and mechanically, the class should be uncommon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both thematically and mechanically, the class should be uncommon.
A decent argument has been made for that yeah, but regardless or rarity it also should be good. Right now it just isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both thematically and mechanically, the class should be uncommon.A decent argument has been made for that yeah, but regardless or rarity it also should be good. Right now it just isn't.
I guess that's where you and I disagree. It CAN be good, but it needs the right kind of GM and campaign to be good really as specific builds choices. Part of that hinges on how good your table makes Recall Knowledge, though, and we all know how variable that is.
It occupies this weird space with the alchemist as a class that you have to use in really specific ways to make it sing, But the alchemist is at least useful in a wider variety of campaigns once you have that play style down.
All that isn't to say they shouldn't buff the class, but I object more to them being presented as core than their actual performance. I used to be able to say "the advanced player's guide is strictly for advanced players" and have it mean something. But that won't track now with player core 2. I suppose you could say player core 2 classes are more complex than player core 1. That would probably hold true if it weren't for the wizard and witch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that's where you and I disagree. It CAN be good, but it needs the right kind of GM and campaign to be good really as specific builds choices. Part of that hinges on how good your table makes Recall Knowledge, though, and we all know how variable that is.Both thematically and mechanically, the class should be uncommon.A decent argument has been made for that yeah, but regardless or rarity it also should be good. Right now it just isn't.
Good is pushing it IMO. It can be not completely awful to passible depending on the table. Even in games where Recall Knowledge is done in the best possible way, there are plenty of classes that interact with it and a have better base chassis to use it.
Forensic Medicine is a bit of an outlier, as combined with Medic it can make a pretty good non-magic healer. Even this though isn't so much a good investigator but a good healer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope methodologies receive a second pass honestly. Alchemical sciences is the best one by far because it not only keys from your KAS but also gives you the most stuff you'll need as an investigator (ehem, insight coffee). Empiricism is also nice but too GM reliant, forensic medicine allows you to create the best medic in the game but that's not too investigator-y, right? Interrogator feels like a joke. It doesn't use your KAS and it has too much moving parts when it could be as simple as "You receive a +2 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC against creatures that attempt to Lie to you".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It CAN be good, but it needs the right kind of GM and campaign to be good really as specific builds choices. Part of that hinges on how good your table makes Recall Knowledge, though, and we all know how variable that is.
From where I'm sitting "in a highly specific type of campaign with a GM who's willing to cater and build around your features the class can be passable" feels more like evidence of how bad it actually is, rather than a counter argument.
No other class really has caveats built into it like that.
You can contrive scenarios where other classes will suffer, but those tend to hinge upon specific expectations that are somewhat nonstandard (ooze heavy campaigns with rogues, wisps and kineticists, gunslingers without opportunities to craft or buy ammo), but with the Investigator it's the opposite, you have to contrive scenarios to make them work effectively.
The guidance being handed out is that if you're playing an adventure without those things (which is like, most APs even) you shouldn't play the class.
... That speaks to something being fundamentally broken that desperately needs to get changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It CAN be good, but it needs the right kind of GM and campaign to be good really as specific builds choices. Part of that hinges on how good your table makes Recall Knowledge, though, and we all know how variable that is.From where I'm sitting "in a highly specific type of campaign with a GM who's willing to cater and build around your features the class can be passable" feels more like evidence of how bad it actually is, rather than a counter argument.
No other class really has caveats built into it like that.
You can contrive scenarios where other classes will suffer, but those tend to hinge upon specific expectations that are somewhat nonstandard
I think that well this may be technically true. It is not a fair argument.
Recall Knowledge has been fixed. Yes you can run into a woeful GM but that is really not the games fault anymore.
The GM has to fundamental responsibility to make the game work. If they don't think a character does, then they should say no to a character. Be that because the character is going to incompatible roleplaying wise or incompatible campaign wise, or incompatible mechanically. So in this case if the GM doesn't understand the investigator then say no to it.
But there are reasonable ways to run an Investigator in a normal dungeon crawl. You just need to lean into it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM should be trying to make the game fun for everyone, but it's a little unfair to put it entirely on the GM to fit a poorly written, mechanically underpowered class.
This isn't the case of a GM running a mechanic poorly, or misunderstanding something critical, it's a case of the Investigator needing a significant amount of extra work above and beyond other classes. A great GM might be able to wrangle them into effectiveness in any campaign, but the mechanical realities of the class are what they are and that's coming from Paizo.
Like, there's good advice to be given about how to fix the investigator and how to adjust campaigns to make it fit in better, but by definition the underlying mechanics are not in a good place, otherwise we wouldn't need to be fixing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding that's odd, I had concerns initially but after running the game for an investigator I am less bothered by it. Is it auto success perception at times... sure... but it is only one thing that strikes the player as odd, often someone sees it anyway so the player gets extra context and it has sparked a number of the interactive player/GM conversions that people above indicated they were concerned about losing.
As for my remembering it, I had the player prompt me for a bit and gave them permission to do so Incas they thought I had forgotten something, but honestly just treating them as if they were doing a quick search of a room whenever they entered a location became pretty second nature to me.
That said, I had already overcome some of my hesitance to roll free gameplay after I embraced passive perception as functionally a roll floor in 5e.
This is not to say the investigator is fine though, devise a stratagem is an awful mechanic in play (at least during low levels) and follow a lead I find to be clunky.
They don't exist as a balance tool, but rather as an easy way for GMs to prohibit something without creating too much fuss about it. I don't like that idea because TTRPGs are a hobby that mainly involves talking, and if a GM wants to remove certain options its as easy as that GM saying "This isn't allowed" instead of trying to justify that with the rarity traits.
It isn't about prohibiting though, it is about creating a permissive environment where the onus is on the player to ask and not the GM to have to comb through every choice.
The core rules themselves say this in regards to uncommon trained stuff.Then there is the psychological difference for people between asking for something, people being told they have to ask for literally everything (the tashas cauldron approach) or being told no out of the blue like in pf1e.
Yes there are arbitrary elements, but it creates a structure for a GM to build off of or to lean on. The game is filled with arbitrary design decisions and cut off points.
But it very much exists for a purpose; beyond new or inexperienced groups.
As someone else said, the issue is what rarity traits cover rather than the trait themselves. As it stands rarity means both how common something is and whether it is restricted for choice or not. But I also get why paizo didn't want to create two traits for the same rough mechanical purpose. And rarity parses better for most than unrestricted, restricted, gm only, gm only unique.