Dean wrote:I was really sad when they nerfed the Investigator class because it was an Uber-Rogue. A rogue with 6th level spellcasting and some cool class abilities was at the exact perfect power level. They almost pulled a Beguiler/Summoner/Psychic Warrior grade hole in one. One of those few classes that can play at all levels but never breaks the game. Pathfinder burnt the second class it almost made right at the stake to not overshadow the most overshadowed class in their ruleset.
They really watered down Sneak Attack. The Studied Strike thing and all the limitations on Investigators are clearly so people don't look at the class and go, "Why the hell would I play a Rogue over THIS?" because if it just got vanilla Sneak Attack as a Rogue and could use its abilities ranged, nobody would ever play a Rogue apart from the broken, cool ability of getting to write "Rogue" on your character sheet.
The class is "broken" because its so much better than arguably the worst out of 20 classes in Pathfinder. The game would be better without Fighter, Monk and Rogue because from a class creation and power standpoint you wouldn't have to limit new class power to the absolute floor of the system and you could put it at a more reasonable "Barbarian-Paladin-Ranger-3/4 Caster" point.
People still think that the investigator needs a nerf? The investigator was already only barely better than a rogue and that's only at the tail-end of games that people commonly play. For the first 4-6 levels of the game the investigator is just a weaker version of rogue, full stop.
Studied Opponent is crap because you can apply it at most to two strikes in a round. The investigator talents are crap because you're locked out of the good stuff until near the end of the game, when you don't care. The spellcasting is also crap because you gain it at a 2/3rds rate (at level 9, you will still have 3rd-level spells--sorry, extracts) and the alchemist list isn't even very good. The best formulae makes you a better short-range combatant but the stuff isn't as good as even the inquisitor; you don't get much plot fuckery stuff at all, so your spellcasting is a sham that's only good for increasing your combat prowess, 4E D&D style. The icing on the urinal cake is that the class is MAD what with being a melee combatant that needs intelligence to justify picking it over a rogue skill-monkey at low level and to use its 'spells' at all. Weapon Finesse won't even really help you close the MAD gap because you don't even get your first die of pseudo sneak-attack until level 4. Yes, as a level 3 character I sure would love to dish out 1d8 + 1 damage as a melee combatant unless I rolled Da'Vane stats.
Basically, it's a stupid-ass class that sits in power between a 3.5E D&D rogue and a Pathfinder rogue. It has a ton of stupid bullshit you can do which you don't care about because it's all smalltime crap and is subject to action clog.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Yeah that's it. It had full sneak attack, 6th level alchemy spellcasting and talent every other level which could be their own talents, rogue talents, alchemist discoveries, or feats. It was like a gestalt Fighter/Rogue/Alchemist. It's really great. I haven't gotten to DM a game since it came out but in my future games that version of the class is going straight in as an option. It's Batman in a class, I love it. It's great and it was almost the second thing Pathfinder had ever done right and they fucking blew it, because they're actually worse than a thousand monkeys with typewriters they're a thousand monkeys with Jason Buhlman as their editor rejecting all the greatest works of Shakespeare.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
they're actually worse than a thousand monkeys with typewriters they're a thousand monkeys with Jason Buhlman as their editor rejecting all the greatest works of Shakespeare.
Fuck I think I have a sig for this forum now. Do you mind?
Last edited by Seerow on Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seeing as Studied Combat grants a bonus to hit and damage, I'm pretty sure it ends up being a lot better than sneak attack. And past the early levels, all it requires is a swift action to set up. They don't get it until 4th level but the playtest version didn't start getting sneak attack until 4th level either. +2 hit and damage to +10 hit and damage has a pretty fricking big leg up on the damage output of conditional 3.5 damage to conditional 31.5 damage that can't be multiplied by criticals (where certain targets will be immune or resistant to it). Studied Strike is ass but you can just not use it.
It's barely relevant, because high levels nobody plays at, but a 20th level Investigator with Greater Combat Inspiration straight up gets +2-12 to hit, and with an Inspired weapon also +4-24 damage, making them obliterate things with attacks.
The list of Alchemist Discoveries they can access is identical to what they had in the playtest, and the list of Rogue Talents they can pick up might as well be "any rogue talent that matters" (why they bothered replacing it with a gigantic list is beyond me).
If you hate the release Investigator you must have really hated the playtest version, because it's pretty much a strict upgrade.
Actually, I take it back. I don't think I'd use Rogue, Soulknife, Monk and Bard on a cleric, they might layer pretty well on a barbarian given favourable interactions (like mindblade counting as a monk weapon)
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Studied Combat is a bag full of ass. First of all, it doesn't get multiplied on a crit either. But the really important thing is that it requires a move action to set up, and then it only applies to one target (and only for a few rounds at that). And you can't move the bonus to the next target without spending a new move action. And it only applies to melee damage.
It's fucking useless. You can't full attack the turn you use it. You can't move and attack the turn you use it. And you can't cleave with it. Even if the enemy obligingly all ran into melee with you so that your inability to move, study, and attack in the same round wasn't fucking crippling, it still wouldn't be any good in that situation because you still can't full attack or cleave!
Axebird wrote:...past the early levels, all it requires is a swift action to set up.
ACG wrote:Quick Study (Ex): An investigator can use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a move action.
Ranged Studied Combat requires extra feats, which is pretty lame. And it has the same limitations as ranged sneak attack. At least you get "turn into a pouncing creature" and greater invisibility on your spell list.
ACG wrote:Ranged Study You can use a limited form of studied combat and studied strike with a weapon of your choice. Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, studied combat class feature.
Benefit: Choose one kind of ranged weapon. You gain the bonuses for studied combat with your chosen weapon and can use studied strike with your chosen weapon as long as the target of your studied strike is within 30 feet of you.
Normal: You gain the bonuses for studied combat and can use studied strike only with melee weapons.
I'm not trying to argue the Investigator is amazing or anything. But I certainly don't think what they published is worse than what was in the playtest.
Last edited by Axebird on Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
Seerow wrote:Fuck I think I have a sig for this forum now. Do you mind?
Quite the opposite. It's valuable ground gained in my eternal shadow war to have more sigs than DSMatticus.
DSM I will destroy you. I will stop at nothing to destroy you.
If you hate the release Investigator you must have really hated the playtest version, because it's pretty much a strict upgrade.
Your mouth is lies! I would trade new investigator for the old one any day. New one is bullshit that eats up your action economy for bullshit bonuses while the old one is literally a Vivisectionist Alchemist with the option to grab 10 bonus feats or rogue talents with his Discoveries. It is sex hot. Every number you've posted on the new alchemist relies entirely on it's 20th level class feature to be numerically relevant and that's retarded. A 10th level alpha doc Investigator is a totally valid character and didn't have to wait til after the campaign was over to be good.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
Just so you know, you forgot Vebyast and Grek in your last tally and my sig lead is two higher than you thought. I didn't have the heart to tell you at the time, which is honestly just code for "it's the soul-crushing trap card I was saving incase you ever actually caught up." Did it work? Does your soul feel crushed?
Playtest packet Level 10 Investigator gets real deal Sneak Attack only 1 die behind a Rogue and 4 bonus feats by 10th level. It has a good Will save as the updated one does, too.
It is like a Rogue archetype where you trade in Evasion/Improved Evasion, Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge, a Rogue Talent feat and a die of Sneak Attack for Keen Recollection, Alchemy, Swift Alchemy, Poison interaction, a good Will save and 3/4 casting. Seems like a damn good trade to me. The Investigator Studied Strike and all that crap is obviously not as good as Sneak Attack.
DSMatticus wrote:Just so you know, you forgot Vebyast and Grek in your last tally and my sig lead is two higher than you thought. I didn't have the heart to tell you at the time, which is honestly just code for "it's the soul-crushing trap card I was saving incase you ever actually caught up." Did it work? Does your soul feel crushed?
YOU SONOFABITCH YOUR BLOOD WILL BE MY WINE!
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
At levels 1-3, an investigator is an alchemist without bombs, mutagens, or discoveries. Seriously, your entire character is alchemy and inspiration. You don't even have a talent yet because you took quick study and you don't have studied combat yet.
At level 4, you get +2 attack and damage. If you're willing to give up your swift action each round, you can also have +1d6 damage per round (not per attack). Because you still have to melee dudes, and that means you have to actually move, realistically you're making a single attack at +2 for an extra 1d6+2 damage. Meanwhile, the rogue could be making two ranged attacks for +4d6 total.
At level 5, if you've blown a feat on weapon focus you now have the same ranged capability with studied combat/studied strike as the rogue. So you can make maybe two attacks at +2 each for an extra 1d6+4 total. And the rogue is making two ranged attacks for +6d6 total. The rogue also has two talents now, and you effectively have zero because you blew your's making your shitty damage class feature matter.
And at level 10, let's say you and the rogue have four attacks. The investigator has +5 attack each and deals a potential 4d6+20 total. The rogue, meanwhile, is looking at up to 20d6. Yes, for each extra point of damage studied combat gives you the rogue is rolling an entire d6 worth.
Last edited by DSMatticus on Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Here's a better question; is a rogue that can't get sneak attack on (practically) every single attack they make ever worth playing?
A sneak attacking rogue is is the bar you have to make it over (or at least get near) before anyone gives a shit about the damage you can deal in combat. That is the amount of damage it takes to murder the fools you will have to murder, and if you can't supply that damage you should be doing something else. Like playing an alchemist who can, or being a wizard and casting the spells that make fools lose.
At 10th level you can drink a potion of Greater Invisibility you made with your alchemist progression. Before that you're going to need to use the Rogue's tricks and stand in cloud effects with a magic item or feat that lets you see through concealment. At 10th level and beyond you're fine even without them.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
Dean wrote:Yeah that's it. It had full sneak attack, 6th level alchemy spellcasting and talent every other level which could be their own talents, rogue talents, alchemist discoveries, or feats. It was like a gestalt Fighter/Rogue/Alchemist. It's really great. I haven't gotten to DM a game since it came out but in my future games that version of the class is going straight in as an option. It's Batman in a class, I love it.
And it is not even stronger than the current Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist who also has full sneak attack and retains mutagen (with badass improvements from Beastmorph) and discoveries to match the Investigator's talents and inspiration. In fact, their power level seems quite close. Except that the Investigator's fluff does not lock you into being Doctor Moreau.
DSMatticus wrote:
Because you still have to melee dudes, and that means you have to actually move, realistically you're making a single attack at +2 for an extra 1d6+2 damage. Meanwhile, the rogue could be making two ranged attacks for +4d6 total.
What means a rogue have to always sneak attack from ranged? And then take note that the designers, as, IIRC the FAQ evidences, operate under the assumption that if you full attack from stealth, only the first attack receives the sneak attack damage.
FatR wrote:What means a rogue have to always sneak attack from ranged? And then take note that the designers, as, IIRC the FAQ evidences, operate under the assumption that if you full attack from stealth, only the first attack receives the sneak attack damage.
You have to full attack from range because you have to full attack, and your enemies generally won't just stand there and let you stab them to death.
The point isn't actually "you're worse than the rogue you could be playing" it's "you're worse than the damage benchmark, so you suck".
RadiantPhoenix wrote:
You have to full attack from range because you have to full attack, and your enemies generally won't just stand there and let you stab them to death.
The point isn't actually "you're worse than the rogue you could be playing" it's "you're worse than the damage benchmark, so you suck".
Well besides the fact I'd like to know with what items you can set up full sneak attacks from range for my own optimization purposes, I'm pointing out that this damage benchmark does not exist in the world in which PF designers live. Even if their interpretation of the sneak attack rules is dumb and I personally disagree with it.
PF monsters on the whole seem to have comparable to superior AC, saves and HP.
Apart from comparing the damage threshold to Rogue Sneak Attacking as a floor, what do you supposed a 10th level character should be dealing a round? I was always told that a good rule of thumb was about 4 or 5 HP damage per level a round is to be expected.
FatR wrote:And then take note that the designers, as, IIRC the FAQ evidences, operate under the assumption that if you full attack from stealth, only the first attack receives the sneak attack damage.
I'm not sure about that - while it is not about full attacks (a quick search didn't show me results connected with full attack sneak attacks), I saw one thing that could be used for arguing otherwise*
Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?
No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast. Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).
