| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Investigator is one of those classes that could definitely use some kind of unchained rework in PF2e, and the Unchained discussion thread got me thinking about what that kind of rework would look like. I first wanted to break down the class's problems, particularly since despite some of those problems being obvious, others were a bit more difficult for me to clearly articulate in my head to start with. After giving it some more thought, I think the Investigator's issues come down to three major pain points:
The TL;DR being that the Investigator being tied to heavily to their minigame makes for a very gimmicky class that isn't terribly strong or even wholly functional, and that can be very annoying to GM for to boot. Although the Investigator ought to feel good when investigating, they shouldn't feel like a fraction of a class when their gimmick isn't relevant to an encounter or challenge, which is often.
Based on this problem statement, I've worked on a proof of concept for how the Investigator could be made to change: this is the result. The main points of change are as follows:
The TL;DR here being that the above brew makes the Investigator the most versatile skill-based generalist in the game, able to use a huge variety of actions at minimum decently. Their investigations and their performance in encounters are decoupled, allowing them to be amazing detectives during exploration while having a consistent and fully functional range of features in combat. Let me know what you think, and I hope you enjoy!
I'll start saying that I think we don't really need an investigator class. As you said, the investigator is effectively a more restricted and overall worse rogue, so if there's a class that should have been a class archetype instead of a class (a thought some people have about the new playtest calsses) it IMO should be the investigator. With that said, the investigator class already exists and we can't really do anything about it, so going from there, I'll engage with this post trying to search for a fix for the investigator. Who knows, probably we can make something interesting out of this!
In regards to your brew, I think Intelligence to every skill is a bit too much. I'd rather merge Attack Stratagem and Skill Stratagem allowing the investigator to use the result of the d20 for both an attack or skill check (or an attack and a skill check, allowing the investigator to use the result of the d20 twice, once for an attack and once for a skill check, or roll two d20 and have a result for each). This could probably lead to feats (likely high level) or class features to allow the investigator to use the skill d20 for an attack d20 or vice versa (effectively doubling your uses of one of them for that turn), or probably "expend" one of them for some kind of benefit, like expending the skill d20 for a martial-like benefit or the attack d20 for an utility benefit.
I'd also probably move the "You count as expert at every skill" at 3rd level, the "You count as master at every skill" at 7th level, and the "You count as lengedary at every skill" at 15th level personally. To compensate this nerf, I'd probably bring back the concept of allowing investigator to use Intelligence for every skill but to untrained skills instead. The class already has Untrained Improvisation baked into it in your brew, so it kinda fits IMO. If this should eventually apply to your Versatile Training class feature at 11th level I'll leave it to you. We can probably tweak the initial number of trained skills at 1st level a bit further as well.
I'll read the feats tomorrow.
This is much appreciated, thank you! I can definitely get behind letting the Investigator use DaS's d20 roll for their skill stratagem from level 1 as well, so long as it remains optional (so that you're not stuck if you roll a 1 or the like). There's definitely room for more stratagems as well in the class's feats.
As for the criticism of the skill progression, that's fair, and I've made the mistake of underestimating the versatility of skills in prior brews. I could probably move the "you count as an X in every skill" to higher levels, though the intent with making the class count as an expert in every skill at level 1 is for them to then be able to pick feats requiring them to be an expert at level 2: because the above only gives you as many skill increases and feats as a regular class, you'd have to choose which ones to pick more carefully, but you'd get to bypass a lot of the usual prerequisites and pick the ones that work best for you instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to chime in to say that while I've seen Investigator in play several times at my table, and the players enjoyed the class and it was overall very fun and effective, there were two pain points that arose from it.
1. That's Odd
and
2. The awkwardness of free action versus 1 action Devise a Stratagem
That's Odd is annoying as all heck to GM for, and it has to be at the forefront of your mind at all times while the party is exploring or you will stumble on it awkwardly. In actual play, it is a constant thorn in your side.
As for Devise a Stratagem, it was always a bit annoying to navigate when to give it as a free action or not, since the power of that feature encouraged gaming the Pursue a Lead system with investigations that allow for more potential free action DaS targets versus what actually narratively makes sense. For one game, I just let them get it as a free action all the time and it worked out fine.
So, to me, those are the only actual problems with the class, and in play at my table the rest of the chassis is just way better than online discourse would suggest.
I played one investigator into the mid-levels, and GM’d for one as well. These were my experiences with the class:
It is a ranged weapon class. You are way too frail to end turns next to enemies and too action starved to move twice/have no movement compression built into your class. This is without even thinking about trying to boost STR for damage. I think it is fine for that to be the case, I just think it needs to be spelled out better in the descriptive text. I think trying to make it accommodate a full melee build is just setting players up for failure.
Devise a stratagem, on its own, is often just wasting an action. Unless your attack has something attached to it that it is really wasted on a miss, it is only getting to use your INT for accuracy that makes it worth considering when you are not getting it as a free action. My solution was to use a shooter’s bandolier with firearms with different kinds of expensive ammunition and to usually not bother reloading. My player just used a bow and mostly didn’t devise a stratagem unless it was a free action. Their dex was equal to their INT for much of the heart of the campaign we played and even when it wasn’t, it was only one behind. We talked about how you could very easily just not max INT if you wanted to do more charisma stuff and the build would be fine. Whether you use it or not, it is a class that needs lots more to do in combat than attack, and spending an action to realize you have to do one of those things is kinda silly when you could just attack and do one of them anyway.
That’s odd was a delightfully quirky experiment of a feat that needed to be integrated better into the idea of exploration mode to not be so annoying. If it triggered when the investigator was investigating in exploration mode, and only when investigating results in something happening, it’d have been a lot easier and less stressful on the GM.
It is really nice to have a non-criminal, non-backstabby skill class.
I can definitely get behind letting the Investigator use DaS's d20 roll for their skill stratagem from level 1 as well, so long as it remains optional (so that you're not stuck if you roll a 1 or the like).
To be fair, I'd probably allow this for both skills and attacks if I'm totally honest. It feels really bad to not be able to attack one turn because you happened to have a low roll on your DaS. Yeah, the investigator is clearly an out-of-combat class, but this is still a combat-heavy system and the investigator is going to be fighting in it.
I think it would be really cool if there was a mechanic that could allow you to expend those low DaS rolls for some benefit, so in every turn that d20 can be useful in some way. I imagine something like Detective's Readiness, giving your Pursue a Lead bonus to saving throws against creatures related to your investigation. It could initially only apply to skills, and eventually apply to more things through feats like attacks or AC.
I think DaS acould work much better as a resource that you use for stratagems.
That's Odd is annoying as all heck to GM for, and it has to be at the forefront of your mind at all times while the party is exploring or you will stumble on it awkwardly. In actual play, it is a constant thorn in your side.
As for Devise a Stratagem, it was always a bit annoying to navigate when to give it as a free action or not, since the power of that feature encouraged gaming the Pursue a Lead system with investigations that allow for more potential free action DaS targets versus what actually narratively makes sense. For one game, I just let them get it as a free action all the time and it worked out fine.
These for sure are two of the biggest issues I have with the class as well, and I've tried to address both in my brew. That's Odd adds a constant mental burden on the GM to come up with something for the Investigator with every location, and I've tried to instead simplify it down to essentially always Searching for hidden doors and objects. DaS and its benefits hinging on investigations means that players often end up trying to game the system more than lean into the class's intended roleplay, which is why the above decouples the investigation minigame from combat benefits.
It is a ranged weapon class. You are way too frail to end turns next to enemies and too action starved to move twice/have no movement compression built into your class. This is without even thinking about trying to boost STR for damage. I think it is fine for that to be the case, I just think it needs to be spelled out better in the descriptive text. I think trying to make it accommodate a full melee build is just setting players up for failure.
While this is true for the Investigator in practice, I don't think it has to be true always. As a baseline, the class has similar defenses to the Rogue, and with a free-action DaS has the action economy to go for hit-and-run playstyles. With better support, I do think there's room for melee builds as well. I definitely agree with you that for all the overlap between the Investigator and the Rogue, it's good to have a skill monkey class that's more on the lawful side by default, just for variety's sake.
To be fair, I'd probably allow this for both skills and attacks if I'm totally honest. It feels really bad to not be able to attack one turn because you happened to have a low roll on your DaS. Yeah, the investigator is clearly an out-of-combat class, but this is still a combat-heavy system and the investigator is going to be fighting in it.
I think it would be really cool if there was a mechanic that could allow you to expend those low DaS rolls for some benefit, so in every turn that d20 can be useful in some way. I imagine something like Detective's Readiness, giving your Pursue a Lead bonus to saving throws against creatures related to your investigation. It could initially only apply to skills, and eventually apply to more things through feats like attacks or AC.
The way I see it, DaS is effectively how you avoid wasting an action on a Strike that was going to fail, as you're essentially making that same roll beforehand. Similarly, choosing a non-attack stratagem is how you're expending that low roll, as you're instead turning it into a skill check bonus. I have a homebrew class that plays with extra dice rolls that I think you'd really like in terms of substituting both high and low rolls, but that's a somewhat different theme from the Investigator's in my opinion.
A very odd remake.
Int for all skills reads *very* wonky in the game. I would recommend this instead for DAS skill replacement rather than just increasing the number.
For me, having a high number of skills is kinda *the thing* Investigator does that I want, so reducing that for a greater combat budget seems a bit strange to me.
I would prefer this for achieving your goals rather than the systems that go so strongly against game norms. Skills counting as different ranks? Int to everything? These are strange to track and not deeply thematically rich to me.
I'm a bit perplexed by this for a few reasons: the first is that substituting Int for other attributes is very much something the Investigator already does, including with Athletics via the Athletic Strategist feat. The reason given is simple: you apply your mind to find clever solutions to problems at hand, working smarter rather than harder in this case. Similarly, counting as a different rank in a certain skill is also a part of the Investigator's existing class features, namely their deductive improvisation feature at 11, and in my experience this has never been at all difficult to track.
The second reason is that the claim that I'm reducing the Investigator's skill budget in favor of their combat budget is entirely false: this rework gives you a far better baseline modifier to many skills, lets you use far more skill actions competently, and gives you far easier access to feats that require a proficiency rank in certain skills. It is because of this massive increase in skill-based power that I'm reducing the Investigator's skill increases and feats to the default, not because of any increases to their combat power.
One of my favorite D&D 3.5 classes was the factotum. It pretty much was a rogue+ like the investigator used to be in PF1e (and I'm pretty sure both the factotum and investigator were designed Jason Bulmahn AFAIK), but the class had a very unique flavor of "jack of all trades" that I haven't seen any other rogue-like class achieve. Even though the PF2e investigator is nowhere near as good as the 3.5 factotum and has a very different vibe, if you look at both classes you'll see there's a ton of overlap betweem them mechanically.
* The investigator's Strategic Strike is similar to the factotum's Cunning Insight (Int to attack, damage, and saves) and Cunning Strike (sneak attack).
* The investigator's Skill Stratagem is similar the factotum's Cunning Knowledge (your level to skill checks).
* The investigator's Athletic Strategist feat is similar to the factotum's Brains Over Brawn (Int to Str-based and Dex-based checks and skill checks).
* The investigator's Defensive Stratagem is similar to the factotum's Cunning Defense (Int to AC).
I mention all of this because I don’t think the investigator’s core chassis is the issue (most of it is drawn directly from the rogue) but rather, the problem lies in how Paizo has overvalued certain features. As I said earlier, Int to checks other than attacks (and probably untrained skills) could be a bit too much, but I think we could play a bit with DaS's d20 to evoke a similar feeling. I'm thinking something like this;
Devise a Stratagem [free-action] [1st Level]
You assess a foe's weaknesses in combat and use them to formulate a plan of attack. Roll a d20, then decide on an attack stratagem or skill stratagem.Attack Stratagem If you make a Strike before the start of your next turn, you must use the result of the d20 roll for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling. You make this substitution only for the first Strike you make this round, not any subsequent ones. When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. If you Strike with a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon, it must have the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution.
Skill Stratagem If you make a skill check or Perception check before the start of your next turn, you must use the result of the d20 roll for that check's roll instead of rolling. You make this substitution only for the first skill check or Perception check you make this round, not any subsequent ones. When you make this substitution, you gain your investigation bonus from Pursue a Lead to the check.
Skill Increases [2nd Level]
You gain more skill increases than members of other classes. At 2nd level and every level thereafter, you gain a skill increase. You can use this increase to either become trained in one skill you're untrained in or become an expert in one skill in which you're already trained.At 7th level, you can use skill increases to become a master in a skill in which you're already an expert, and at 15th level, you can use them to become legendary in a skill in which you're already a master.
Keen Intellect [3rd Level]
You can recall pertinent facts on topics that aren’t your specialty. Your proficiency bonus to untrained skill checks is equal to your level instead of +0. In addition, you can attempt skill actions that normally require you to be trained, even if you are untrained.
Defensive Stratagem [8th Level Feat]
By scrutinizing a foe, you learn how to better avoid its attacks. When you use Devise a Stratagem, you can choose a defensive stratagem instead of an attack or skill stratagem after you roll a d20.Defensive Stratagem You gain your investigation bonus from Pursue a Lead to your AC against the next attack made against you.
I'm also a big fan of the Factotum; it's my main inspiration for the above model of giving the Investigator universal competence in skills and easy access to lots of alternative actions like alchemy and magic.
Looking at the above proposals, here's the critique I have at the moment:
I will say, I do like some of the ideas behind the above, particularly pseudo-Untrained Improvisation to every skill. I do think the Investigator is the kind of class who ought to be able to do a little bit of everything decently, as is emblematic of many Intelligence classes.
1. Attack Stratagem I presented is almost a 1:1 with the current version, except it doesn't have the fortune trait and doesn't require a target. It also says right there you need a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon with the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution too.
2. That was certainly unintended (I wrote all of that as I went along pretty much) so I'd probably change it to "You can use the result" rather than "You must use the result" to avoid bad rolls. I removed the "You can't attack the target" because, well, I removed the target prerequisite and because I thinks its unnecesarily restrictive. I get the idea of "foretelling an attack" that DaS has but I think that brings unnecesary problems and makes the class clunky in play because a bad roll isn't just a failure in that particular check but likely the need for you to restructure your whole turn to avoid using it pretty much.
Even in the best possible scenario, I don't think the investigator is that strong to have such restrictions.
3. Not exactly. The investigator only has extra skill increases to Int, Wis, or Cha-based skills, unlike the rogue or Starfinder's envoy. That change was to make it equal to the other skill monkey classes. A rather insignificant change in terms of class budget if you ask me, but one that helps the class feel much better to play.
I initially was more on-board with your brew's approach of less skills but more class features to go around it, but the more I think about it the more I agree with RyMarq in that's a bit wonky and, ironically, it ends with the investigator being worst at skills which is arguably its main selling point making the rogue both better at combat and skills than it, while right now the rogue is just better and combat and slightly worse at skills. I can see an "untrained skill monkey" class or archetype working, but I don't know if it fits the investigator.
4. I'm not really a big fan of classes giving you feats (like a class giving you Toughness and Endurance, rather than giving you effectively the same effect and allow you to stack it with the feat), plus, I'm sure Untrained Improvisation isn't part of any feat's requirements. Not even Incredible Improvisation which used to require Untrained Improvisation pre-Remaster doesn't require it anymore.
5. This was because there's already a lower level feat that applies your Pursue a Lead bonus to saves, Detective's Readiness. I also think the higher AC bonus and lack of restrictions on attacks are compensated by the fact that you are missing on your Attack Stratagem's Int to attack (and thus Strategic Strike) or your Skill Stratagem's bonus to skills. It also applies to a single attack made against you, unlike the current feat which applies until the start of your next turn, so I think its perfectly fine.
Btw, I skimmed over the feats of your brew and I really like them! I didn't notice initially you removed methodologies, but turning their effects into feats was certainly a great move. All methodologies except for alchemical sciencies feel like trap options, so turning them into feats kinda gives the investigator some of that factotum-like feel of someone that can learn bits and pieces of other classes that I think the investigator currently lacks.
I do think Clue In having a 10 minute immunity is a bit too much though. I know the original has it too, but the original wasn't an Aid and, honestly, was really bad. If the gunslinger can have Fake-Out I think the investigator can have something similar as well.
Its not that substitutions cannot occur, thats fine (it occurs in many places, and I even recommend changing this to another one), its that changing *everything* goes against the norms of the game in a way I find quite staggering.
Its strong in a non-combat way as well, to be sure, but its a bizarre non-combat way. Sure, you see occasional single-skill stat replacements, but this is a sweeping change that really does feel unsettling to me, it rubs against the very nature and purpose of the attribute system
Putting aside how I find there are plenty of valid reasons to challenge the attribute system, particularly with a class as locked into their attributes as the Investigator, is changing the way one plays the game not the purpose of a class? Being legendary in any weapon group of one's choice also goes against the norms of the game in ways that have tremendous, sweeping consequences, yet that's what makes the Fighter great. Similarly, the Kineticist's entire model of having a legendary class DC and at-will magic breaks the game's norms, and that too is what lets the class shine.
1. Attack Stratagem I presented is almost a 1:1 with the current version, except it doesn't have the fortune trait and doesn't require a target. It also says right there you need a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon with the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution too.
While this may be true, that is still ambiguous writing that lends itself to gaming the system, which is why I simplified the attack stratagem in my brew to just "you substitute the d20 roll on your next Strike against the target".
I get the idea of "foretelling an attack" that DaS has but I think that brings unnecesary problems and makes the class clunky in play because a bad roll isn't just a failure in that particular check but likely the need for you to restructure your whole turn to avoid using it pretty much.
I still do believe this is a feature, not a bug. The whole point of anticipating and avoiding a bad roll is that you get to restructure your whole turn and adapt. If the Investigator isn't strong enough to afford not to Strike for a turn, then I'd say they ought to be made strong enough.
Not exactly. The investigator only has extra skill increases to Int, Wis, or Cha-based skills, unlike the rogue or Starfinder's envoy.
This is incorrect. You're thinking of Skillful Lessons, which grants extra skill feats that are locked to mental attributes. The Investigator's skill increases aren't locked to any attribute.
I initially was more on-board with your brew's approach of less skills but more class features to go around it, but the more I think about it the more I agree with RyMarq in that's a bit wonky and, ironically, it ends with the investigator being worst at skills which is arguably its main selling point making the rogue both better at combat and skills than it, while right now the rogue is just better and combat and slightly worse at skills. I can see an "untrained skill monkey" class or archetype working, but I don't know if it fits the investigator.
I'm not sure how this can be said for a class that would end up with a +29 minimum modifier to all skills, giving them a 50% baseline chance to succeed on standard skill checks of their level without any aid or investment (and this is before factoring in the +2 from a skill stratagem). This would in fact make you better at skills in which you're presently legendary, but for which you attribute mod is 0.
I'm not really a big fan of classes giving you feats (like a class giving you Toughness and Endurance, rather than giving you effectively the same effect and allow you to stack it with the feat), plus, I'm sure Untrained Improvisation isn't part of any feat's requirements. Not even Incredible Improvisation which used to require Untrained Improvisation pre-Remaster doesn't require it anymore.
But you are giving the class the equivalent of a feat, whether you like it or not. Spelling it out simply means that you don't end up with two mechanics doing the same thing, and means that if a future mechanic does have Untrained Improvisation as a prerequisite, your implementation would be ready for it. That's what future-proofing is about.
This was because there's already a lower level feat that applies your Pursue a Lead bonus to saves, Detective's Readiness.
Detective's Readiness applies only to creatures related to your investigation. Unless you're counting Person of Interest as a default part of the Investigator, you're not going to have that bonus to your saves all the time.
Btw, I skimmed over the feats of your brew and I really like them! I didn't notice initially you removed methodologies, but turning their effects into feats was certainly a great move. All methodologies except for alchemical sciencies feel like trap options, so turning them into feats kinda gives the investigator some of that factotum-like feel of someone that can learn bits and pieces of other classes that I think the investigator currently lacks.
I do think Clue In having a 10 minute immunity is a bit too much though. I know the original has it too, but the original wasn't an Aid and, honestly, was really bad. If the gunslinger can have Fake-Out I think the investigator can have something similar as well.
Much appreciated! With regards to Clue In, I think the key difference here is that the reaction can be used for any check, not just attack rolls. I think it could be fine to remove that immunity with a higher-level feat, but as a 1st-level feat, I'd say it's already quite strong.
I still do believe this is a feature, not a bug. The whole point of anticipating and avoiding a bad roll is that you get to restructure your whole turn and adapt. If the Investigator isn't strong enough to afford not to Strike for a turn, then I'd say they ought to be made strong enough.
"If the Investigator isn't strong enough to afford not to Strike for a turn, then I'd say they ought to be made strong enough." is the important part here. You can't really make the investigator strong enough to restructure their whole turn at random without making a ton of changes to the class. I'm sure we had a similar opinion of the daredevil and slayer; classes with a ton of restrictions that, even when those restrictions are lifted, is still underperforming. The investigator is the same.
We could theoretically discuss about multiple tweaks or even a possible remake of the class from the ground up, but I think we probably should stick to changes that Paizo could probably make if they were to hypothetically re-release the class again, and the thing is, Paizo is likely not going to make changes drastic enough to solve these problems, likely leaving most of the structure of the class as is and patch it together with buffs here and there.
I don't think you can make the investigator strong to compensate restructuring your whole turn at random in these circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding everything else, I acknowledge that I made some mistakes and I appreciate the corrections, but I still feel that your approach is too extreme and doesn’t align well with the overall design of PF2e. If you want to keep the Intelligence modifier to every skill bit, I'd probably make it part of Skill Stratagem. Attack Stratagem is the one that gives Int to attacks already, so it would make sense for Skill Stratagem to do the same for skills.
Skill Stratagem If you make a skill or Perception check before the start of your next turn, you can use the result of the d20 roll for that check's roll instead of rolling. You make this substitution only for the first skill or Perception check you make this round, not any subsequent ones. When you make this substitution, you add your Intelligence modifier instead of the original attribute modifier for that check.
"If the Investigator isn't strong enough to afford not to Strike for a turn, then I'd say they ought to be made strong enough." is the important part here. You can't really make the investigator strong enough to restructure their whole turn at random without making a ton of changes to the class. I'm sure we had a similar opinion of the daredevil and slayer; classes with a ton of restrictions that, even when those restrictions are lifted, is still underperforming. The investigator is the same.
I don't agree with this at all. The Daredevil and Slayer's restrictions came from limitations baked into their mechanics that disabled entire class features throughout the whole of combat; this has nothing to do with anticipating one bad Strike on your turn and adapting on the fly. Being able to instead become the equivalent of an expert at minimum in every skill in the game on a skill stratagem, with full access to their associated actions, I would say more than qualifies as being "strong enough", and more importantly, versatile enough to have plenty of alternative options. Importantly, being competent at all those skills out of combat is also what would give the class a big box of tools to play with during exploration and social encounters.
Regarding everything else, I acknowledge that I made some mistakes and I appreciate the corrections, but I still feel that your approach is too extreme and doesn’t align well with the overall design of PF2e. If you want to keep the Intelligence modifier to every skill bit, I'd probably make it part of Skill Stratagem. Attack Stratagem is the one that gives Int to attacks already, so it would make sense for Skill Stratagem to do the same for skills.
You may have to explain how a change can be, at the same time, "too extreme" and yet insufficient. The key issue I take with your approach isn't that it makes mistakes or even that it's too conservative, but that it's simply way too focused on diluting the Investigator's core gameplay in favor of more Striking, which I find incredibly dull. It's clear that you dislike the idea of the Investigator having to commit to a particular stratagem that isn't attacking, and rather than make those different stratagems more rewarding or give the Investigator strong options, your proposal just makes it so that they don't have to follow any particular stratagem at all, and instead just Strike as much as they can regardless.
What I find strange as well is that for all the changes you're proposing, which are deceptively extensive, there's no mention of strategic strike damage: even with your proposal, the Investigator would be a mediocre Striker compared to the Rogue, as the former gets to only apply their full precision damage once per round. By contrast, my brew proposes to dial that precision damage up a step, which can be increased further as needed. Effectively, I'm proposing a version of the Investigator that may not Strike every turn, but can deal some solid damage when they do, whereas your version encourages them to spend more actions making weak Strikes. I don't see how that really lends itself to the class's fantasy or makes for more interesting gameplay.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just dumping some thoughts on this;
Investigator as an archetype is a reasonable idea It's a bit like the Vigilante: that was a PF1 class that became an archetype and I think that was a good move. It makes it easy to say "in this masked superhero campaign, everyone gets vigilante as free archetype" for example. And it makes it less of a "this class mimics other classes, but you trade out some power for a cape".
I think the investigator is similar: a lot of classes can fit it in their flavor to "investigate". A wizard can be a researcher. A cleric can be a wise woman who knows just what questions to ask a troubled soul. A bard can be a schmooze who tricks hidden traitors into betraying themselves. A ranger can search for forensic evidence.
So I think turning it into a big archetype that lets any class focus more on investigation, would also be a realistic path.
---
"Meta" feats are not everyone's cup of tea like That's Odd. It's jarring to some GMs. I also think that sort of "plot power on steroids" is actually overkill for most written adventures, since they're basically already doable with regular abilities and regular players asking the right questions from time to time. Often to the point where villains will just reveal themselves, even without much investigation at all from the players.
Those sort of meta investigation abilities feel like they belong more in an indie style game that's more built around narrative co-control.
---
I don't think investigators should dominate all skills at the same time I think it's much better if they're very good at a limited set of skills. Sherlock needs Watson for medical expertise, Sherlock isn't also the best doctor in the world. This is also why I'm not a fan of these "trained in everything" sort of abilities. You're in a party of about four PCs, so as a skill monkey if you're really good at about 40%, that's probably about as much of the pie you should be taking.
---
I don't think Intelligence *has* to be their key skill You could be a wisdom or charisma based sleuth too, plenty of fictional examples.
---
"Attack roll preview" has been tried and isn't really great It looked interesting on paper but it's kinda annoying in practice. And with the recent errata taking away bombs, it's even less interesting. I think we might as well just come up with something completely different.
---
I feel investigators should tend toward light weapons which can be tricky to implement, just look at how much people try to find a way to let Implement's Empowerment count with weapons that it isn't meant for. But there should be some way that investigators have a decent combat contribution that just doesn't really gain that much from Strength.
It could be something somewhat odd, like:
Mastermind Strikes (class feature)
When using agile or finesse weapons or unarmed attacks, you use your highest mental attribute as to-hit bonus instead of strength/dexterity, and your second-highest mental attribute as damage bonus instead of strength (on any attack where you would be allowed to add strength to damage).
Deceptive Maneuvers (feat)
Through misdirection you get your foes off-balance. You can use Deception instead of Athletics for combat maneuvers.
You may have to explain how a change can be, at the same time, "too extreme" and yet insufficient.
The investigator borrows 90% of its class chassis from the rogue, which I think we can agree is one of the strongest classes, but to accomodate for its few new class features (DaS, Strategic Strike, Methodologies, Pursue a Lead, Clue In, Keen Recollection, Skillful Leasons, and Deductive Improvisation) it had to get nerfed versions of the class features it steals from the rogue to not literally become a rogue+ class. Out of all of its new class features, the only two that are worthwhile are DaS and Strategic Strike, and even then, I think they have issues from the fact they had to be made for a class that pretty much began with a really tight class budget. All the other class features (Methodologies, Pursue a Lead, Clue In, Keen Recollection, Skillful Leasons, and Deductive Improvisation) effectively bring next to nothing of interest to the class and make it even more bloaty than it already is.
I know you removed most of the bloat features in your brew and turned them into feats, which is a really good change, but the class its still tight in its class budget and that leaves too little room to improve a class that needs huge changes. Even some of the other changes you made in your brew, like the lack of extra skill increases, it was effectively compensated with Int to all skills, the ability to count as expert/master/legendary with skills, being trained at every skill at 11th level, and the take 10 at 19th. This is why I'm not entirely happy with your brew here; it made a bloaty class even more bloatier and in a way that I don't really think fits the class design of PF2e.
If I have to be totally honest, the real problem of the class are DaS and Strategic Strike. These are clearly the strongest features the class has, and thus the ones that take the most budget, and somehow they still have their own problems as even most people here can't seem to agree how to fix them, even if we agree they have issues. If you want to have a ton of free budget for the investigator, just remove both and make it so the investigator uses their Int modifier to attack rolls, damage rolls, and skill checks innately, but that would also be a really boring solution and I don't think most people would want that here.
While I can certainly empathize with the notion that the Investigator would probably be better-suited as an exploration-focused archetype, given how Pursue a Lead is arguably their most iconic feature and the rest is there mostly just to give them some level of combat effectiveness, I do think Intelligence is absolutely the attribute for the Investigator. Some detectives may be charismatic or strong, but they always have the smarts to solve a case. I also do think there's plenty of in-fiction examples of investigators being polymaths and otherwise at least a little bit versed in everything, something that's already partially represented by Intelligence giving lots of trained skills. A class that's competent at every skill in my opinion leaves room for others to excel at their respective specialties, potentially more so than a class that can overlap much more with those specialties via extra skill increases.
I know you removed most of the bloat features in your brew and turned them into feats, which is a really good change, but the class its still tight in its class budget and that leaves too little room to improve a class that needs huge changes.
I feel this assessment is really not correct, for a number of reasons:
I think one of the biggest problems at hand is that the Investigator's core mechanics are not everyone's cup of tea: while some of that stems from genuine issues that can be addressed (e.g. That's Odd being a constant annoyance to the GM), some of them are perfectly valid, just not for everyone, and that's okay. Anticipating rolls via DaS is in my opinion an excellent mechanic that works really nicely with many builds, particularly firearm builds, and it would be a shame to take that out just because a handful of people don't like the idea of knowing they're going to miss ahead of time. Perhaps being trained in every skill may not be quite what the class needs, but claiming that it's unprecedented or that it goes against the game's principles is patently false when there are plenty of examples of existing substitutions, as with the vanilla Investigator or the Chirurgeon Alchemist. Meanwhile, taking the fortune trait out of roll manipulation effects is both genuinely unprecedented and in my opinion far more likely to disrupt play, particularly as it's likely to encourage stacking those effects to take the randomness almost entirely out of rolling.
|
|
I think investigators need more "things to do" in combat, beyond merely striking. Defense stratagem is an interesting concept, but if you can't do hostile actions, then you're not left with very much to do that combat round.
I also think if you're not going to be Striking, you need a very VERY good plan about how you contribute to the party in combat. Classic answers are "cast combat spells" or "do kineticist blasts", but both of these still deal damage. In order for the party to defeat enemies, they need to deal damage; anyone not doing damage should be doing something extremely useful instead. A cleric casting Heal to make sure the barbarian stays in the fight is a good example. A wizard spending one action to move out of danger, another to recall knowledge, and a third to cast Guidance, is just a waste of space.
The RAW investigator struggles with this, because if you really lean on DaS/Strategic Strike, you're neglecting the regular to-hit stats for Intelligence, but only for one Strike with a middling damage bonus per round. That just doesn't cut it.
I do think investigators could be a class that's a bit less about dealing damage than others, but then the class should in itself have really good valuable ways to spend your actions. Doing the odd Demoralize or Recall Knowledge isn't enough. Having to take an archetype for Electric Arc isn't good either; it should be more significant and it should come from the class itself.
I do like the symmetry of Defense Stratagem: if you roll the d20 and it's good, you attack, and if it's bad, you don't attack but force the enemy to have a bad turn too. It might need some more polish but the seed idea is interesting. But you do need something else to do during that turn with your actions.
I like the above as a baseline option, though it would mean having to redo the Defensive Stratagem feat. I think that in practice, that would still make some rolls awkward (a roll of 10 might still fail for a Strike against a boss, for instance, but might be enough for them to succeed against you), but so long as skill stratagems are still an option, that should smooth things out somewhat still.
I also think if you're not going to be Striking, you need a very VERY good plan about how you contribute to the party in combat.
I think this is more of a failure of the skill system than of the investigator class itself, though the investigator being the class that seems to be less focused on combat its the one that suffers the most from it. I said in other threads about a possible future edition that I think that the system shouldn't try to game-fy actions and skills that aren't related to combat or that don't have a direct impact in combat (for example, crafting happens outside of combat but it impacts combat because its from where you get the items you are going to be using there), making every all character options (ancestries, classes, feats, etc) revolve entirely around combat. I say this because I feel most tables never use the "This enemy has an indifferent attitude towards your character, so you actually need to spend 2 minutes talking to them and make two Diplomacy checks to convince them, one after each minute passes" rules and usually handweave it, but regardless of that that's still taking page space that could be used elsewhere and there's feats designed to make it suck less.
In a system where every skill only has combat options, a class like the investigator would thrive because if a low roll forces you rethink your whole turn it wouldn't matter as much because you'll have dozens of skill actions ready to use from your skills alone, not counting possible actions that you could have from skill feats as well.
I like the above as a baseline option, though it would mean having to redo the Defensive Stratagem feat. I think that in practice, that would still make some rolls awkward (a roll of 10 might still fail for a Strike against a boss, for instance, but might be enough for them to succeed against you), but so long as skill stratagems are still an option, that should smooth things out somewhat still.
That's the main problem why DaS doesn't feel good to use, because you are working with half the information most of the time. You could easily roll a 12 on your DaS and still fail because you weren't flanking with that attack or because you were attacking a CL+2 foe or whatever. If I have to make plans around my DaS result I would want to know exactly the number I need to roll on the dice to be able to hit the foe, because otherwise even a supposed good roll can become worse than a bad roll because you engaged that turn with the idea of actually hitting the target, when in reality you were never going to be hitting it in the first place.
A mastermind rogue with the investigator archetype and the Known Weakness and Analyze Weakness feats can, by 6th level, make a DaS + RK, use Analyze Weakness, and make a Strike that deals double their sneak attack damage against an off-guard target regardless of flanking or range, and this assuming the the rogue doesn't get a free DaS as that could allow them to potentially do something else with their first action too. This isn't that different from the action rotation of a regular investigator in most turns, so why is another class that even without it can still easily overshadow the investigator and get to do the unique thing of the investigator much better?
I know Known Weakness is an investigator feat so they can take it too (and I honestly don't know why you wouldn't, looking at the other 1st-level investigator feats) but that alone won't make you good at RK. If everybody gets a RK skill baked into the class nowadays, I feel that if there's an old class that needs one is the investigator. It doesn't even need to be baked into the class (though an Investigation Lore skill to make things related to your investigation would be fantastic). It can be a feat as well.
If the investigator its supposed to be a class that plans turns ahead of time, then give them all the tools they need to plan those turns in advance.
Going with the "Investigation Lore" tangent a bit, I think there's room to explore a class feature similar to all those feats that give lore skills that can only go to expert after you become legendary in a particular skill, like Loremaster Lore or Bardic Lore, but in this case make it work in reverse for the purpose of class features like Teridax's Versatile Intellect, Deductive Improviser, Investigator Expertise, and Versatile Training.
What I mean is, what if you had an Investigation Lore with the 3/7/15 scaling most class skills get nowadays, but make it that when you become trained in this lore (1st level) you gain Untrained Improvisation, then when you become an expert (3rd level) you count as trained in every skill for the purpose of skill actions, then when you become a master (7th level) you count as expert in every skill for the purpose of skill actions and become trained at every skill, and finally when you become legendary (15th level) you count as master in every skill for the purpose of skill actions? I feel this would be a really smooth way of implemeting these abilities.
Edit: Something like this:
Investigation Lore [1st Level]
You become trained in Investigation Lore, a special lore skill that can be used to Recall Knowledge on topics that are related to your current investigations. It can also be used to Recall Knowedge about a creature that could could help answer the question at the heart of one of your active investigations. You gain the Untrained Improvisation feat, but your proficiency bonus to untrained skill checks is equal to your level.
Versatile Training [3rd Level]
You become an expert in Investigation Lore. You count as being a trained in every skill for the purpose of using skill actions, attempting skill checks, and meeting feat prerequisites; this does not change your proficiency modifier to skill checks.
Versatile Expertise [7th Level]
You become a master in Investigation Lore. You’re trained in every skill. You can immediately retrain any skill increases from your investigator class features that made you trained in a skill, but not an expert or greater in the skill. You count as being an expert in every skill for the purpose of using skill actions, attempting skill checks, and meeting feat prerequisites; this does not change your proficiency modifier to skill checks.
Versatile Mastery [15th Level]
You become legendary in Investigation Lore. You count as being a master in every skill for the purpose of using skill actions, attempting skill checks, and meeting feat prerequisites; this does not change your proficiency modifier to skill checks.
That's the main problem why DaS doesn't feel good to use, because you are working with half the information most of the time. You could easily roll a 12 on your DaS and still fail because you weren't flanking with that attack or because you were attacking a CL+2 foe or whatever. If I have to make plans around my DaS result I would want to know exactly the number I need to roll on the dice to be able to hit the foe, because otherwise even a supposed good roll can become worse than a bad roll because you engaged that turn with the idea of actually hitting the target, when in reality you were never going to be hitting it in the first place.
A mastermind rogue with the investigator archetype and the Known Weakness and Analyze Weakness feats can, by 6th level, make a DaS + RK, use Analyze Weakness, and make a Strike that deals double their sneak attack damage against an off-guard target regardless of flanking or range, and this assuming the the rogue doesn't get a free DaS as that could allow them to potentially do something else with their first action too. This isn't that different from the action rotation of a regular investigator in most turns, so why is another class that even without it can still easily overshadow the investigator and get to do the unique thing of the investigator much better?
While DaS could potentially tell you the result of your Strike if you were to attack ahead of time, I don't think that's strictly necessary: sometimes a roll will be ambiguous, and that creates a bit of tension when it comes to deciding whether to still go ahead with a Strike, at which point missing would still let you attempt another for the same number of actions. Similarly, if a Rogue can make better use of DaS than an Investigator, that to me suggests the archetype is giving too much by default, which is why I changed the archetype in the above brew to always have its version of DaS require a full action: in the scenario you mention, this would mean your Rogue wouldn't get to use Known Weaknesses, and would be spending three actions making a single Strike, which has its uses but wouldn't be as good as an Investigator using DaS to Strike with a +1 bonus and then follow up with another.
What I mean is, what if you had an Investigation Lore with the 3/7/15 scaling most class skills get nowadays, but make it that when you become trained in this lore (1st level) you gain Untrained Improvisation, then when you become an expert (3rd level) you count as trained in every skill for the purpose of skill actions, then when you become a master (7th level) you count as expert in every skill for the purpose of skill actions and become trained at every skill, and finally when you become legendary (15th level) you count as master in every skill for the purpose of skill actions? I feel this would be a really smooth way of implemeting these abilities.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm personally not terribly interested in yet another universal Lore skill, as I find that to be really uninspired. I also think it would take up a lot more power budget than simply being trained in the relevant Lore skills, and I don't see how this would ease the bloat or simplify anything at all by attaching those other features to its proficiency ranks. On a more fine-grained level, this would make levels 7 and 15 fairly overloaded for the Investigator and levels 9 and 11 pretty weak. If we want to rearrange the class's features accordingly to accommodate this, that to me just means more complication that these changes intend to reduce.