|
Not so much since the largest chunk of time sat down at the table is during combats. Not having an effect there would just make me remember how much my butt hurts from sitting in one place so long.
I have done combat maneuver specialists who could disable an enemy faster than whitling down their HP, but the playing experience was pretty much the feeling of one shot kills or fully disabling with a spell.
I'm not talking about buffing and other support characters, but actual nothing but plinking and smart player choices. Hide from the enemies, maybe flank or trip if you get a chance, deal a point or two of damage on a hit types.
Basically, a martial battlefield controller... A Dex-based character that leverages Agile Maneuvers and the trip feat chain can be very effective without dealing a lot of damage (especially when using a light or finesseable weapon with the trip special like an alkys, bladed scarf, hanbo, sickle, spiked chain, or even a whip).
Or a character with low Str can focus on Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Critical (Kukri), and Butterfly's Sting to give their critical hits to the party's high-Str melee damage dealer.
I don't know what "plinking" is. Google tells me it's a type of marksmanship, which doesn't seem like what you're implying. Shooting well seems very useful in combat. :)
I think D&D/Pathfinder is very much a combat game with other roleplaying elements added on. Even social interactions have an air of defeating an opponent.
I've considered non-combat PCs before. For example, I really wanted to make a wizard or druid in a Kingmaker game that focused their spell selection on the spells that help build buildings and terraform terrain. It would be fun, but that would put the burden of successful combat on the other players. And since combat is such a big part of D&D/Pathfinder, it tends to attract players who find combat a very important/enticing part of the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i did this all through pfs
my cavalier/bard/rogue/ranger used bodyguard and a mount with bodyguard to add something like 19 ac as an AoO, had a high AC myself, but only did like a d10+1 damage my whole career
had great skill checks, did AoE fear effects to break up enemies
my oracle of life only ever hurt undead.
had a bard archivist who used the bodyguard feat and only ever made the occasional trip attempt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of options other than straight damage in combat. Area control to isolate enemies. Buffing allies. Healing/status removal. Debuffing enemies.
I have several characters who, if they are trying to do damage then things have gone horribly wrong. But they are always contributing to the fight, even if only by providing a flank for the rogue.
The larger the party, the more room there is for non-combatants. There are a few intrigue archetypes with this in mind like the phantom thief.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melkiador is right about the party size. In your typical party of 4 having 25% of the party not contributing significantly to combat is going to hurt. In a party of 6 that drops it down to 17% of the party not contributing significantly to combat.
You also need to make sure the non-combat area you are focusing on is extremely useful to the party and occurs enough that your ability makes up for not contributing in combat. Having a single skill or ability at high levels is not enough no matter what the skill or ability is. For example, having a high bluff or diplomacy is not going to cut it. Having a high bluff, diplomacy and sense motive and a few other abilities to boost your ability to be useful in social situations would be more acceptable. Your abilities also need to be significantly higher than anyone in the party for this to work. If the bard in the party has an equal diplomacy and the inquisitor has a higher sense motive this concept does not work.
An inquisitor works well for this concept. I have a build I call the Voice of God that is extremely good at social situations. He is a half orc with an 8 CHA with the reformation inquisition and takes the half orc FCB of intimidate and identify. He maxed out diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive, and perform oratory. His bluff is also high, but not as high as the other social skills. At 12th level he matches the 15th level mythic paladin that also has maxed out diplomacy. I took signature skill for intimidate, but if you switch it to diplomacy, he would be able to alter the attitude of an NPC in one round with a +16 bonus after taking the -10 penalty.
This character is actually very good at combat, but you could change the build to be less focused on combat than he is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...So, does anybody have any good plinkers out their?
I've never played a character with no more combat use than whatever the minimum baked into the class chassis is, to use your terms, because our table places at least as much emphasis on battle as it does on social and utility aspects, but I think the Swashbuckler would be an excellent candidate for a class that achieves what you want while still remaining relevant in combat.
The Swashbuckler has access to Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. As a Human, he can take Focused Study to get a sizeable bonus on all three. Between Menacing Swordplay deed, the Signature Skill feat, the Dazzling Display line of feats, and the bare minimum of the Swashbuckler's combat prowess (full BAB, Weapon Finesse, Improved Critical) he could easily substitute terror for damage. Bonus points if you "waste" a feat on the Empty Threats feat and substitute Bluff for Intimidate on Focused Study, to make those impressive displays of swordplay nothing but bravado.
You could double down on the above with the Dashing Thief archetype, and add the Quick Steal feat to your repertoire. You don't lose out on much as the Violent Display feat eventually makes Menacing Swordplay redundant, but get Disable Device as a class skill (which could replace Diplomacy or Sense Motive for one of your Focused Study choices).
Even with minimum damage (and really, you might just be doing as much damage as one might with a foil rather than a rapier), such a Swashbuckler would be plinking with a purpose--and some effect, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will add that most “plinkers” could contribute something to combat with just a tiny amount of investment. Any character could help with flanking and positioning, even a wizard could carry a dagger for threatening. The aid another action can be better than dealing 1-2 damage per round. Just being in the mix to draw some attacks from teammates can be very helpful for damage distribution.
Basically, you don’t have to specifically contribute to damage to contribute to the combat.
Forgot to mention, Dashing Thief stacks with the Noble Fencer archetype, whose Social Aspirations and Incredible Aspirations deeds would go well with what you have in mind.
I like characters like this in books and films, so why not in games. I don't mean to say a character who's an actual detriment to a party. Not something built to actually cause problems. But rather, does anyone play with a character who's so useful or integral to the party off the battlefield, that it's okay that they don't do much on it?
But such a character is a detriment to the party, and does cause problems.
Three main issues:
1) It's not fun for anyone involved. The non-combat-PC (ncPC) player will get bored in combat and since they need to be the only one able to solve most non-combat challenges the party faces lest the ncPC becomes utterly useless, everyone else gets bored whenever such a challenge appears because all they can do is sit and watch the ncPC player.
2) Unless you have a very good reason why the party travels together, having a ncPC breaks immersion. Because why would the other characters be willing to have an ncPC accompany into dungeons and whatnot where they're fighting in life-and-death situations if the ncPC doesn't help them in such situations? In a heist movie having one guy who's only skill is opening the save or hacking the security system while the others do all the fighting works fine, but PF campaigns aren't movies, and challenges vary too much for that to work.
3) A well build character can do both. You could have maxed out every single skill and you'd still be less useful for overcoming non-combat challenges than a spellcaster, so the ncPC needs casting. But the main reason spellcasting is stronger than martial fighting is that you do not need to dedicate your entire build to something. Say you have a Wizard focused on outfight utility... why would you not include Haste? Spells don't have prereqs! Similarly, a gish already gets like 90% of their outfight utility without extra investment, so why would you give up your martial capabilities when you gain almost nothing in return?
As a player, I would hate to have such a character in my party. As a GM, I would not allow such a character in the group. The whole fun of PF is doing something together, an ncPC removes this. In short, playing such a character means refusing to play the same game as the others.
You talk about "a character who's [...] useful or integral to the party off the battlefield", but for that the GM needs to warp the entire campaign just to accommodate the special snowflake player. Otherwise, the outfight challenges can be handled by other party members as well and the ncPC is not integral at all.
I'm not talking about buffing and other support characters, but actual nothing but plinking and smart player choices. Hide from the enemies, maybe flank or trip if you get a chance, deal a point or two of damage on a hit types.
The "smart player choice" would be to build a character that actually contributes. Hiding does literally nothing to help your teammates, you could flank just as well with an actual useful character, and a trip will either not land, or you have an actual trip build in which case you're definitely not build exclusively for non-combat.
This character is actually very good at combat, but you could change the build to be less focused on combat than he is.
This perfectly showcases my point #3: You don't need to be useless infight to be useful outfight. You need to deliberately gimp your character for the purpose of gimping your character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played a character like that, but not in Pathfinder. I played a character in a Hero System game that had almost no direct combat ability but had skills that were incredibly high. The campaign was set in modern times, but we fought strange monsters. In many ways it was similar to Call of Cthulhu. Most of what we went up against was immune or at least highly resistant to normal damage. My characters job was to figure out how to kill the monster, then I let the rest of the party do the actual fighting.
I was also a highly skilled doctor and on more than one occasion saved the other PC’s from dying. We had no access to magic, so normal medicine was the only way to keep the characters alive. The campaign was also heavy on investigation, and my character was the absolute best in that area as well as in technology. In many cases I would invent or modify the weapons the other characters used to allow them to hurt the monsters.
So, while I did little or no damage, I still made major contributions to combat. In Pathfinder that is the equivalent of the buff and support that the OP does not want to do.
I believe it used to be popular for Bards to be played this way, which is why the Bard class itself was unpopular for a time. The Cleric class also has a tendency to occasionally be played as a pure healer in the back rather than a combatant which is also somewhat frowned upon as it often does not mesh well with the party's needs in such a combat-driven game, though the Cleric does at least heal the party that is now being more injured for lack of a combatant.
Personally, I believe this noncombatant form of play is better suited for systems other than Dungeons & Dragons and derivatives.
The Bard is one of if not the best buffing and support class in the game. The OP specified he was not talking about buffing and supporting the other characters, which leaves out the bard.
I think it's obvious that the game divides up PC roles and you have melee/ranged, magic, skill, and special ability focused classes.
Not only is it not "obvious", I say this is outright wrong. Any such separation is done by the players and only serves to make characters and games worse.
I think it's obvious that the game divides up PC roles and you have melee/ranged, magic, skill, and special ability focused classes.Not only is it not "obvious", I say this is outright wrong. Any such separation is done by the players and only serves to make characters and games worse.
I do think the base game is quite a bit like that. But then we added so many more options that blurred the lines so much.
I have to agree with Derklord on separating out characters. Part of the problem is players often feel if they are not specialized in something they cannot do it.
I had a paladin in a game I run that focused on melee combat but still had a bow. The party had finally confronted the boss of story arc, and the paladin had declared a smite evil on the boss at the beginning of the fight but had been delayed by the boss’s minions. When the battle turned against the boss it flew away. When this happened the player of the paladin gave up and complained there was nothing he could do. When I pointed out that he had a bow, his response was I don’t know how to use it. His chance to hit with the smite evil up was 1 point short of his chance to hit the boss without the smite evil but using power attack. If the paladin had run out of smite evil’s he would not have hesitated to attack the boss in melee. This was a high-level paladin, with a good CHA, so even though he did not take a single archery feat he still had a good chance to hit and was doing decent damage that bypassed all DR.
There are a lot of classes that have class abilities that work regardless of what type of weapon you are using. The ranger’s favored enemy and the inquisitor’s bane can be used on any weapon. If you are a full BAB class and are proficient in the weapon you can usually do some damage in any combat even when not using your preferred weapon. Even most ¾ BAB class can contribute something in combat when using a different method of attack. It may not be as much as your normal damage, but it can still win the battle.
Inspire Courage is a buff that affects the entire party including most summoned creatures. The bonus to attack and damage are competence bonuses so will usually stack with almost anything. If the bard is using inspire courage, he is buffing the party even if he does nothing else.
So, you are suggesting the OP plays a poorly played character? Anyone doing that is likely to be kicked out of most games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone needs to make a direct damage contribution during combat.
A bard that sings and cast buff spells and stand in the back is usually quite welcome.
But I don't think that's what the OP means. I think the OP means a character that has virtually 0 combat contribution, beyond what can be easily coincidentally had. Imagine the character hiding in combat and randomly tripping the enemy because the enemy hadn't noticed them.
I'm almost imagining a Rincewind type character. Rincewind rarely does anything to intentionally harm others and tries to avoid combat completely (but hilarious find himself in the midst of combat constantly). While it's funny to read that story, if I was a fellow player I might get annoyed.
You really have to have exceptional non-combat abilities, to the point of being well beyond what others could reasonably achieve. And I'm not sure Pathfinder actually makes that feasible (useful). Like if you trade in a lot of combat abilities via archetypes, or take a lot feats that enhance skills in non-combat ways, are you significantly better at those kind of things than someone who doesn't? Enough for it to impact things.
Not that such a thing exists, as far as I know in PF1, but if there were a feat that allowed a character to substitute their stealth modifier for all of their allies, that would be something that would be a significant non-combat contribution. Although that wouldn't necessarily be limited to such a non-combat character (and again doesn't exist as far as I know). But you need something that contributes outside of combat that other can't achieve close to. Something like skill focus doesn't really do it (IMO) because that +6 to the skill doesn't necessarily do that much for you.
Ultimately, I just don't think Pathfinder is a system well suited for this kind of thing.
And honestly, as a GM it could get frustrating. Because a player who has invested a lot into diplomacy for example might expect that they can eventually talk the king into handing over the crown, or just talk the BBEG down....and as a GM some things like that are always going to be off limits no matter how well you roll. There are many situations where having +10 more to a skill check than your ally makes no difference, because the result doesn't change.
Inspire courage can increase the DPR of a party significantly. It may not seem like much, but it adds up especially once you get to at least 5th level. Depending on the party inspire courage can boost the DPR by 25% and in some cases could double the DPR of the party. If the party has pets and summoned creatures it is even better. I would consider that a good contribution to combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The larger the party, the more room there is for non-combatants.OTOH, for a larger party the longer you spend waiting for your next turn, so the more potential there is for people wasting time to be galling.
The counter to that is if you are in a large party (largest I have experienced is 8), having one player say ‘I do nothing, next person’ speeds things up and is less of a wait than the guy who laboriously counts up every bonus on every attack to see if he hit (‘Dude, you missed on a 12 on your last attack, of course an eight misses, you don’t need to go through the flanking/prayer/bard/heroism arithmetic on your fingers for the third time this round…’)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s best if your adventuring party is like the A-Team. Each has their own specialty, but all can shoot and punch pretty good. Never mind that no one ever got hit by gunfire on that show.
Of course we don’t expect classes such the wizard to be able to actually punch anyone. But they can still contribute to combat in an active way. Actually, my PFS wizard did better at grappling Kalkamedes than anyone else. He had a 12 Str and rolled really well. None of the other players really had a grappler build though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What it comes down to is the all characters need to contribute their share to the success of the party. In most campaigns combat is the single most important and common obstacle. So, in most campaigns a character that is not contributing to combat in a meaningful way is going to need to solve the majority if not all the other problems the party encounters to do their share. If the character is not contributing to combat in a meaningful way the other characters in the group are going to need to make up the difference which will lower their ability to contribute to solving other problems.
At minimum the character will need to be able to fill the roles of face, healer (with all condition removal), trap removal (including magical traps), and skill monkey (including all knowledge skills and scouting). In addition to the above requirements the character needs to be able to survive the combat without any help from the party. If one of the other characters needs to protect this character that will reduce that character ability to contribute to combat and now the party is in even worse shape.
The only class I can see that might pull this off is a human empiricist investigator. They will need to have the infusion talent so they can use their extracts on others, and a few other talents to allow them to use inspiration to boost their skills without needing to spend inspiration points. They would also need the trait student of philosophy to allow them to use INT instead of CHA for Diplomacy and Bluff. Between the archetype and the trait, he can use INT on all parts of Diplomacy, but can only use Bluff to lie. Precise Treatment will get INT to heal. Focused Study will give him skill focus 3 times instead of any one feat. That will help with the skills that are not INT based. With INT being his highest stat and getting 6 skill points per level and the human extra skill point he should have lots of skill points. Studied Combat and Studied Strike will give him some combat ability even with no other resources are used for combat.
Since UMD will be INT based the character will be able to use scrolls and other magic items for spells that are not on his list. This is going to be how the character will be able to bring a dead character to life.
Heroism is going to be very useful for this character as it lasts a long time and gives a bonus to all skills, attacks and save.
The big problem I see is the other characters may not want to be relegated to playing beat sticks.
The counter to that is if you are in a large party (largest I have experienced is 8), having one player say ‘I do nothing, next person’ speeds things up and is less of a wait than the guy who laboriously counts up every bonus on every attack to see if he hitThe larger the party, the more room there is for non-combatants.OTOH, for a larger party the longer you spend waiting for your next turn, so the more potential there is for people wasting time to be galling.
The larger the party, the harder it is to have "a character who's [...] useful or integral to the party off the battlefield". The impact of the GM tailoring non-combat challenges to the one player just so that his non-combat PC is useful sometimes is also bigger (and harder for the GM!) the more players there are.
(‘Dude, you missed on a 12 on your last attack, of course an eight misses, you don’t need to go through the flanking/prayer/bard/heroism arithmetic on your fingers for the third time this round…’)
Off-topic, and I know you're just illustrating a point, but this is why I make character sheets that state all the attack and damage rolls, with various buffs. You can see some examples here. It's amazing how much it cuts down wasted in combat.
Ideally, you don't need to do calculations in your head during your turn (outside of 'die result+bonus'). In my experience, having to constantly calculate stuff is the number one time waste when playing! And to be clear, this has nothing to do with being "bad at math". I play with a guy who has a PhD in physics. I wrote a calculator for his attack and damage rolls because it took too much time!my cavalier/bard/rogue/ranger used bodyguard and a mount with bodyguard to add something like 19 ac as an AoO, had a high AC myself, but only did like a d10+1 damage my whole career
had great skill checks, did AoE fear effects to break up enemies
That's not a non-combat PC, that's a non-damage PC.
Please do understand, I'm not trying to gimp characters, make intentionally useless characters, or spoil anyone's fun.
Don't worry, I never thought that! I just want to be the voice of warning, because at most tables this will ruin people's fun. Also, I don't really see a way to make such a character without deliberately making it weaker in combat than necessary (that's what I meant with the last sentence in my first post) - if you can achieve 90% of your outfight usefulness while being decent in combat, why would you sacrifice the fighting capabilities just for that last 10% out-of-combat?
Other characters from film, t.v., and literature that kind of fit this bill.
- Be cautious with drawing from other media. If character A in a movie has only one tenth of the screentime of character B, that's fine. If player A only has one tenth of the 'table time' as player B, that's a critical problem.
Even if the ncPC player is fine with doing nothing in combat, the others may not, and also may not enjoy watching every outfight challenge from the outside without getting a chance to solve the problems themself. It also goes beyond what happens on gameday, having one player's character be only useful doe to outfight stuff puts high pressure on the other players to not give their character similar abilities - so the ncPC player is basically forcing the others to gimp their characters just so that the ncPC stays useful.
I thought about it a bit, and I think there are options. I actually played a character somewhat similar to what we're discussing here: A Summoner. My actual character did contribute to combat (by always casting Haste first turn), but outside of that often just plinked with Acid Splash (1d3+1 damage, yay!). There was even a fight where my PC never even showed up (the inn the party was sleeping in got attacked, and my character cast Unfetter and send her eidolon while she stayed in her room).
Of course, this only worked because I didn't play just the Summoner, but also so eidolon. And I think this is exactly the solution - even in the fight where my PC didn't show her face, I still had table time in combat, and still very much contributed to the success, because of the eidolon.
Doesn't have to be Summoner itself (stupid 2+int skill ranks/level!), but I think a sort of pet class is the best way to have a non-combat PC.
Oh, and as an anecdote: At one point I calculated the contribution my Summoner did to the party's DPR by just casting Haste, and found that it was on par with the strongest damage dealers in the party (the eidolon and a wildshape Druid). You don't need to do a single point of damage or even roll anything to be useful in combat!
At the risk of setting my own thread on fire, I will point out that both of your points are firmly in the realms of opinion.
This is why I said "I say this is outright wrong" and not "this is outright wrong".
To add to Derklord's point re: other media, those characters benefit from author's fiat. Malak the thief behaved, succeeded, and failed as determined by Richard Fleischer and Stanley Mann. R2D2 behaved, succeeded, and failed as determined by George Lucas (among others). Regis behaves, succeeds, and fails as determined by R.A. Salvatore. The outcomes of their actions were predetermined, and aimed to elicit specific responses from an audience.
Player Characters behave as determined by players, but they succeed or fail as determined by character creation and development choices, and by dice rolls. There's no guarantee that a deliberately broadly suboptimal approach to combat will succeed when chance is introduced.
Actually, I think these are some pretty great examples. I truly don't mean to be shifting goal posts, I'm just not always clear in my phrasing. The fact that these contributions to the other players' combat efficacy are done outside of the combats is what makes this work. When I said no to buffing and specific combat support buffs, I was specifically thinking of in combat actions. Things done before hand do fit the spirit of what I'm asking about.I have played a character like that, but not in Pathfinder. I played a character in a Hero System game that had almost no direct combat ability but had skills that were incredibly high. The campaign was set in modern times, but we fought strange monsters. In many ways it was similar to Call of Cthulhu. Most of what we went up against was immune or at least highly resistant to normal damage. My characters job was to figure out how to kill the monster, then I let the rest of the party do the actual fighting.
I was also a highly skilled doctor and on more than one occasion saved the other PC’s from dying. We had no access to magic, so normal medicine was the only way to keep the characters alive. The campaign was also heavy on investigation, and my character was the absolute best in that area as well as in technology. In many cases I would invent or modify the weapons the other characters used to allow them to hurt the monsters.
So, while I did little or no damage, I still made major contributions to combat. In Pathfinder that is the equivalent of the buff and support that the OP does not want to do.
I think not wanting to participate in combat is a mistake. If you are spending combat actions to help the party in other ways besides direct damage that is fine, but your character should be doing something in combat. Combat is too much a part of the game to sit out entirely. Doing so is likely to cause the other players resentment. Prebuffing the party is also going to mean you are not contributing in surprise encounters or other situations where you have no time before combat begins. Many of the best buffs are short duration so need to be done either in combat or right before it.
The game I ran Doc in was a lot different than Pathfinder in both mechanics and setting. The biggest difference was that 90% of the time normal weapons the party used were useless or at most highly ineffective. Without my character figuring out the monster’s weakness the party could not win. When we encountered a monster that was damaged by salt, I modified some paint guns to use highly concentrated salt water instead of paint. Even when we ran into werewolves my character not only figured out what they were, he also was the one to make the silver bullets. That is not something that was available for purchase in the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do stuff like this all the time, especially in PFS1 where I can reliably predict at least a couple of other players will play Super Combat Masters that can singlehandedly wipe the floor with foes. In effect, they give me the freedom to build a "quartermaster character who tries to carry everything that might be needed in an adventure", a "caveman who throws his boot at foes", or a "randomly generated character who's just fun to RP" without significantly affecting the outcomes of encounters.
Bards do not have access to heal, restoration or any spells that bring back the dead. That means they cannot deal with ability damage, ability drain, negative levels. Nor can they deal with insanity or some of the other things heal can remove. The investigator also lacks the ability to bring back the dead but can handle everything else. The bard is also a spontaneous caster with very limited number of spells, if they take all the condition removal spells that leaves them very few spells for other purposes.
Bards also do not get trap finding, nor do they get disable device as a class skill. As you said the bard’s primary stat is CHA, Investigators get the same number of skill points, but their primary stat is INT which means they get a lot more skill points than the bard. The Empiricist archetype and a couple of traits mean the investigator use INT for almost all skills. This means the investigator only really needs to boost his INT and can ignore or even dump the other mental stats. Which gives a higher bonus and more skill points. The investigator also gets inspiration so that he can add the inspiration dice to the skill check in addition to all other modifiers. With the right talents the investigator can make it so he gets to use inspirations without having to spend the inspiration points on most of his skills. In many cases the investigator can spend a single point of the skill and have a +8 bonus and roll a 1d6 in addition to the d20. The bard is a good skill monkey and has a decent spell list but cannot fully fill all the roles this character would need to do.
The investigator also gets studied combat and studied strike. That means his combat ability will be better than the bard, but since this is “baked into the class” it meets the criteria of the OP. So, not only will he be a better healer, trap finder and skill monkey, his combat ability will be better.
The OP stated they should have no other combat ability that was not baked into the class. Both Studied Combat and Studied Strike are baked into the class so are fair game for use to comparing other classes.
The big advantage the empiricist investigator has is he can use his INT modifier for nearly all his skills. This allows him to dump CHA and still have decent social skills. Starting at 2nd level he uses his INT modifier for disable device, perception, sense motive and use magic device as well as diplomacy when gathering information. The trait Student of philosophy allows him to use it for the rest of diplomacy and to bluff when lying. Precise healer will allow you to use INT for healing. That means the investigator is using INT for 19.5 skills, and the other 10.5 skills use other stats.
Versatile Performance does allow you to use one perform skill for the bonus for two skills. Perform is pretty much a useless skill otherwise. That means it only really gives you 1 extra skill per versatile performance. Where the bard is maxing out a perform skill to gain two skills, the investigator is maxing out one of those skills. So, the bard has one extra skill they do not have to put points into. There is also a lot of overlap on the skills so the bard may not get full benefit for all versatile performances. Four of the performance give bluff as one of the skills, four of them also give diplomacy as one of the skills. If the bard wants to use both counter song and distraction he needs to make sure, he has at least one preform from each list. This further restricts what performance skills he can chose from.
By lowering STR to 9. WIS to 8 and CHA to 7 the investigator can start with a 20 INT and 14 in both DEX and CON. If the Bard dumps INT, he ends up with less skills and the tanks some very important skills. Likewise dumping WIS is going to kill your perception and sense motive. In fact, the bard is likely going to dump STR a bit to get an extra point of INT. Assuming you go for a human for the extra skill point that means the bard gets 8 skill points per level to the investigators 12. By 8th level the investigator will have 13 skill points per level due to raising INT at 4th and 8th level. At 12th level the bard will have 3 versatile performances which will give him the equivalent to 12 skill points per level, which is still behind what the investigator has.
The investigator can add an inspiration dice to all knowledge; linguistic and spell craft rolls if he is trained in those skills (which he will be). Expanded Inspiration adds diplomacy, heal, perception, profession (probably not trained in) and sense motive to that list. Underworld inspirations add bluff, disable device, disguise, intimidate, and sleight of hand to the list. That is 21 skills the investigator adds a d6 without having to spend inspiration points. The investigator also has trap finding so adds half his level to all disable device roll, and perception rolls to find traps. The investigator can also spend inspiration points on any skill to get the extra d6 to the roll.
When it comes to knowledge skills the investigator has the advantage. The investigator with a 23 int that puts a single point into a knowledge skill has a +10 bonus. The bard at 12th level and a 12 INT that puts 1 point into a knowledge skill has a +11 bonus. But the investigator also adds 1d6 to the roll, which on the average will bring the bonus to 13.5 with a minimum of +11. As you mentioned the eidetic recollection gives the investigator the ability to take 10 on any knowledge skill and if the spend an inspiration point, they can take 20. Eidetic recollection is better than lore master because it can be used more often. A 12th level bard can take 20 on a knowledge skill twice a day, a 12th level investigator will have 12 inspiration points per day, so can theoretically take 20 12 times per day, but will probably use the inspiration points for other things besides just taking 20 on a knowledge skill.
The bard is not better at social encounters because the investigator is using his INT bonus instead of his CHA bonus on diplomacy and bluff to lie. They also use INT for perception and sense motive instead of WIS. They also get to add the inspiration dice to all those skills, plus intimidate, and disguise without spending and inspiration point. Being able to sweet talk and lie to your opponent is only half the battle in a social encounter, being able to spot what your target is doing or when they are lying to you is the other half. The investigator is way better at that then the bard.
The bard is good at skills, but they cannot match an empiricist investigator. An investigator without the empiricist archetype does not have quite the advantage the empiricist has but are still a bit better than the bard. The best bard archetype for what the OP wants is probably the archeologist bard, but they trade away all performances, well versed and versatile performance.