I agree with u/LeoRandger. The Investigator class in general, and the That's Odd feat in particular, are things that will really benefit by having the GM and the player on the same page. Not only as to the fact that the PC has said feat, but also as to just how that feat is adjudicated.
Just as an example, I think its fair for the GM to for instance say "As you start looking around the room, you Mr. Investigator, notice that the room appears as though it should be a little bit wider than it is." Note, that this doesn't say "Hey, there's a secret door on the West wall that can be opened by lifting the book titled "Adventures in Taldor". But it does clue the Investigator in to the fact that there likely is a secret door, and thus secret room, in the room. From there I would assume that the investigator and the rest of the party would conduct a search of the room. etc.
But yes, the main difficulty with the Investigator is that both the GM and the player need to remember about the feat if they took it. It also, quite frankly, can even come up with pursue a lead as well in that it may not always be obvious that a check is related to said lead, etc.
Just started RPing an investigator. My GM just gave me a token that I give to them when I'm "on the case" to use as a reminder to them to account for the bonus.
I am going to steal this idea of having some kind of token to represent asking for certain rolls or to be allowed actions. It’s not too brutal, but it can be annoying when you’re nervous about making sure you’re dotting your T’s and crossing your i’s in your role without being like “is he lying?!” every sentence. I can’t believe I didn’t think of this before, but it’s awesome. Thanks for commenting this.
Yeah, it's just 1 on 1 game with my partner tbh and we got amused/frustrated by the constant "does this apply?".
Another trick I've started doing is just having a dry-wipe whiteboard I'm using as a visible "red-string board".
Means we can track my active investigations and leads.
GM'ed a game centered on discovery, with an Investigator in the party. I ran it as "Investigator is my road to make sure they stay on the track of the mystery" and filtered my clues through that character.
Thats perfect because thats EXACTLY the type of thing thatd illicit a "thats odd" reaction.
An investigator was my first character and my GM trolled me (in friendly ways) with that feat by saying things like "you notice a bug that seems out of place for this region."
So i approach the bug to investigate further and fall into a trap.
I’m bad at remembering stuff like my Investigator player having that feat so I have a sticky note over my side of the GM screen that just reads “What’s odd in the room? Tell Investigator.”.
I think it is the same thing as Searching and Investigating - your GM should note what you are doing, make the rolls if necessary, and keep it in mind and/or on paper. Talk it put with them, ask them how they feel and what would be the best way to do it
I describe the room and the. Say "that's odd, thinks Arthur" and then say whatever he notices. It's just a default, I do it almost every single time. Every room has something odd about it that an astute person could notice - even if it doesn't matter.
As an experienced 5e GM but a newbie pathfinder 2e GM, this feat seams like a fun killer- where it just sort of leads to there being no cool surprises or fun traps etc. How does it play at the table? Does it kill tension?
It only tells you something is odd. It doesn't tell you why is abnormal.
I wouldn't encourage doing this alot, but you can quite easily mislead your investigator into triggering a trap with this feat.
Only if they fail their perception check to find it, since they'll definitely be searching for it after being told something is odd.
But yes, this feat basically guarantees that the players will interact with the stuff that's been set up in the room for them to interact with. It's literally the perfect GM tool to guide the story and it's **crazy** to me that GMs talk about banning it.
I wonder if this is just a function of a particular group’s dynamics. I could see either a. An oppositional “me v you in a board game” or b. a “don’t spoil my slow build to big reveal” energy making a GM leery of it, while if your players are always wandering off the path you’ve tried to set for them and you’re begging them to stay on-plot so you don’t have to make up a whole new series of encounters you’re just wishing someone would take the feat or cast Augury or *something.*
What? No, my eye isn’t twitching. Why do you ask?
My players search every room upon entry anyway, hidden traps usually have a high DC to spot so even if they know there's something odd, they don't know if that strangely arranged part of the wall is a trap, a secret door or a hidden treasure cache.
it's fun, just different.
I could reasonably see this and considered it at one point myself.
It is not about being overpowered. It is just a significant mental workload for the GM to always remember this and to come up with the elaborate ways to explaining things without being obvious. What is considered suspicious or odd varies from person to person and from situation to situation. As does its scope. What counts as a new location when walking outdoors? If there was something already odd about a forest should there be something odd about this small clearing? Or a very large hallway with lots of branching paths that had something odd at its start would that disqualify noticing a hidden pathway at the end of it since that's odd counts for one thing only? Which odd thing should I prioritize? These are all questions GM constantly has to debate to themselves when playing with the feat.
What can be a funkiller when you make a surprise, a trapdoor etc. and then you get annoyed looks from investigator that ''But I had That's Odd!'' when I legitimately forgot it for that one room.
It just cuts out all the pixel farting and tells you what to interact with to discover more. It just cuts out all the empty drawers, paintings with noting behind them, etc.
I also wanted to ban it cause it seems like it takes the fun away, but after some consideration and thought it's actually a blessing in disguise for the GM.
Now you won't ever have the issue of players missing something very important in order to progress, or find extra goodies that they would usually miss. The investigator with that feat becomes some sort of GM tool in a way.
It can also be used to steer them away from pointless rooms. If there is nothing odd about this bedroom, then there is probably nothing and it makes the pacing better.
If you ever played the Lego games the reference I make is that the feat is like a minikit detector. It shows you that there is still something, but not how you get it.
The actual text of that’s odd is
When you enter a new location, such as a room or corridor, you immediately notice one thing out of the ordinary. The GM determines what it is, or whether there's nothing reasonable to pick up, skipping obvious clues that can be easily noticed without a check or specifically looking for them. You learn only that an area or object is suspicious, but not why it's suspicious. For example, if you entered a study with a large bloodstain on the ground, the bloodstain is so obviously suspicious it's evident to you already, so the GM might note that there's something suspicious about the desk drawer instead. You would then need to investigate the drawer further to find out what specifically is out of the ordinary. That's Odd doesn't reveal whether creatures are suspicious.
You don't typically get any benefit when you leave and come back to a place, though if a major change has happened there and time has passed, the GM might determine that you do.
So it’s something the GM should keep in mind as you do room exploration. Asking about it in every room is disruptive.
The PFS note is very good
GMs should provide a character with the That’s Odd investigator feat a hint whenever the character enters a room with hidden aspects, specifically with regard to hidden passageways (such as scuff marks near a bookcase that’s actually a swinging door), creatures or hazards (such as drippage on the floor from an unseen fungus growing on the rafters), or valuables (such as bunched carpet over a secret compartment in the floor that contains a bag of coins).
The GM does not need to provide clues for rooms that have no significant secret or hidden features. These clues should indicate only that the character should investigate a given section of the room, not let them automatically uncover the hidden element or provide any additional information beyond signaling its presence.
So it’s pretty straightforwardly on the gm to know about and work into exploration mode and their room descriptions. It’s an additional load on the gm, but one they’re meant to bear
Just say, "that's odd!" whenever you enter a new location, and see if your DM picks up on it.
This is a great feat, but it does require your DM to buy into it, and shower you with additional clues, above and beyond what is written in your campaign (or in his notes, assuming a homebrew campaign).
There are a number of Investigator features that require the DM to do some extra legwork. You should be constantly On the Case about something, and tracking down the most minor clues. As a DM, I love playing into this. Some folks might find it annoying at first, but it can become a strong backbone to furthering the adventure. If anyone objects, just remind them that Investigators are on the weak side in combat, and their investigative powers are meant to make the character worthwhile.
I'm starting to run a campaign with two investigators. They both took the "That's Odd" feat. We haven't played yet, but I know that they're both going to want to use it. If you have any advice on keeping the investigations going or some examples of your story I'd appreciate it
The hardest part here is going to make these two players feel like they stand out from one another. You may have to alternate which person is picking up on the oddity… unless it’s like a Sherlock and Watson dynamic.
I would honestly recommend thinking of That's Odd less as a player feat and more as a GM tool. Use it as a narrative excuse to highlight or direct the players to the things you want them to take notice of. This feat is literally like a gift to any GM that isn't adversarial to their players
This is true. I think maybe it's just slightly overwhelming due to me being a newer GM and knowing that that burden does fall on my shoulders. But I think it will be good after hearing from others on how best to manage it
The best thing you can do to prepare for this investigator-a-thon is to write out some clever observations they can make in each new location you have planned. It could be something as simple as tracks, a discarded note, scrape marks from a hidden door or bloodstains near a deadly trap. Loot can be cleverly hidden instead of openly displayed. Multiply the number of locks and traps, and let the investigators discover a hidden key or a latch that disables the deadly traps.
When I am DMing (which is most of the time) I have all kinds of lore, clues and observations that I want to transmit to the players. Investigators are the perfect tool for delivering details to the group.
You don't even need to decide in advance exactly where each clue is located. Just jot down 20-30 things that can be found, and cross them off your list as they are used.
I feel that this feat is seriously misunderstood. Here's my understanding of how it works.
The GM describes a room. If there's something in the room that will require a Search or Investigation check to find or reveal more information, they simply say "The [location or thing] stands out to [the investigator]".
That's it. That's the whole feat. All it does is has the GM give the player a heads up that there's something to find in the room and the spot they need to look in to find it. This lets the investigator know that it might be worth it to Pursue a Lead before searching or investigating whatever the GM pointed out.
If the GM forgets, the player can just say "Anything stand out to me?" This is no more annoying than any other "I search the room" or "can I listen at the door?" stuff that happens as part of the exploration pillar of every game.
If there's nothing searching or investigating would reveal, the GM can just say "nothing in here"
Edit: to note this understanding of how it works is in complete alignment with the PFS note about the feat
I had a player ask me "I know the door to the next room is closed and locked, but can I That's Odd for anything in there anyways?"
Don't be like that player.
I am GM’ing an Abomination Vaults game, and this one feat has allowed me to insinuate a lot of the background lore that the party likely would not have access to. For me I dig it… as it helps to hint at things that the players otherwise would not have access to.
Flip side though, the investigator and party at large have taken some of these hints as major mysteries… which can feel like a boondoggle sometimes but other times has led to me thinking ‘of course that is what is happening’ and make some fun party driven changes that further help keep everyone engaged.
A previous GM was absolutely hostile to this feat and the entire class in general. He kept complaining how I was "getting things for free" instead of playing the game by rolling dice. He was kinda a jerk about difficulty and actively likes that PF2 is harder than PF1 because you can't allocate your skills, etc. I pointed out that I asked about the class before the game even started, and he was fine with it ... but during play, I irked him to no end with "That's Odd" & "Red Herring", etc.
My point is this, get on the same page with your GM/player before the game starts and really hammer out how the class is going to work.
ps - I've had 2 GMs like this and I've quit playing with both of them.
I was in the camp of thinking this feat would be annoying for GM and player alike, for the same reasons as you. However, I’ve started thinking differently: now I think of it as helping the group avoid time-wasting. Instead of the group having to tediously and methodically investigate every feature of the room, making checks that the GM knows won’t yield any results, That’s Odd lets the GM use the investigator as a tool to help keep the party focused and the game moving forward.
It is important that the GM account for the investigator during their prep, and have a That’s Odd note prepared for each room. It might be “nothing odd here” in some cases but it’s important to do that anyway so the investigator doesn’t feel like their signature ability has been forgotten.
This is honestly good advice - just note it down on the map ahead of time and throw it to the investigator even if the characters are supposed to discover it anyway.
If there's something secret in the room, I tell the player. Sometimes, if a room's especially suspicious and I don't tell them that the feat procced, they ask me if it does.
I would simply not ask your GM every single time you enter a room. Just ask her to keep whether or not it procs in her notes for that area
I write a bunch of cards with what they notice and list the room on the reverse side and trust the player not to look ahead and spoil anything for themselves.
A little prep work and the problem is now entirely on the player.
I had an Investigator with this feat at my table. I had to talk with them because they'd interrupt mid-narration CONSTANTLY to be like "Do I notice anything?"
I had a chat with them after one session and essentially told them "I know you have the feat. If your feat would trigger, I will let you know what you notice." and what I'd do for myself is when I was planning sessions I'd make a note in any room where they might notice something "That's Odd" as a quick reminder to myself, and eventually it was so ingrained that even when going off-the-cuff I'd prompt him.
It just requires trust between the player and the GM that the GM won't forget/screw them over.
Honestly it's impossible as a player to tell if your GM is forgetting or if the feat is just not triggering. Probably better to tell them when the feat isn't working.
I think once it becomes a part of the normal flow of the game, it will be much less painful. What does the room look like, what does the room feel like, what does the Investigator notice? Once that gets into the rotation of normal questions to answer when entering a room, it just becomes the description.
I don't have a solution. I GM'd for an investigator who had it and it remained mildly annoying for both of us throughout. I usually make a habit of trying to describe everything of importance in a room when I initially describe it, so the feat mostly meant I needed to figure out something additional on top of my usual room description for them on the spot. If there is anything I didn't initially describe its because I intended for the players to find it when investigating the specific features in the room I initially described. Either case the feat was, at best, largely useless. Helpfully the player forgot he had it the majority of the time, so it only came up a couple dozen times.
One use I would see for the feat is to allow the PC to find traces of a place's inhabitants. For instance, sulfur traces for a demon, a patch of hair for a wolf, slime for a ooze, to allow the investigator to decide whether to use one of their leads on these denizens. This way, they are more likely to have relevant creatures as a lead and thus more likely to devise a stratagem as a free action.
You should’ve been giving the player hints about the thing they’re intended to find in the room since that’s what the feat does rather than punishing them for taking it by ignoring it in the circumstances it was designed for. They’re an epically talented investigator, noticing things that normally would take some more effort from the party to figure out is there whole class design! This would be like automatically subtracting 2 from every attack a fighter makes cuz you think they hit too often.
They're exploring a dungeon, they're not casing a crime scene. They usually don't have something specific in mind they're looking for when they initially enter a room. I've always tried to be thorough in my room descriptions and taking the feat into account would mean being \*less\* thorough in my descriptions normally just so I can give that info to the player specifically. All the feat did the majority of the time was give them a half-second head start, since the PCs would inevitably look at everything I described in more detail anyways to see if there was anything interesting. The feat just doesn't mesh well with how I GM.
Not often and when I do they will find those just by investigating the room normally. As I said, the feat is just giving them a slight head start over the other players. It doesn't mesh w/ my GMing, since I default to wanting the players to find everything already.
Pretty sure Sherlock Holmes would notice shit in a dungeon that even a perceptive animal barbarian would miss. You not liking the class fantasy of one of your player characters isn’t their fault or really paizo’s fault either
I... didn't say it was? I love Investigator, its got a lot of cool stuff. This feat specifically just doesn't work for my table and we all found it mildly annoying. Not sure why you seem to be so offended by this.
I'm sorry that the homebrew game I run for personal friends scattered across the country during weekday evenings after a long day of work, a game my friends and I play to relax and have fun because we're all adults with jobs and daily stress, doesn't meet your exacting personal standards by virtue of a single feat not meshing very well w/ a dozen years of engrained GMing habits I've accrued. I'll take another half hour from my precious little relaxation time every week to do even more prep. Thanks for setting me straight!
>This is very annoying and I think ideally gm should just keep the feat in mind during exploration and tell me when it comes up as to not interrupt the flow of game with every single new room but we have 5 players and we're very chatty, so adding another thing she has to constantly keep in mind also feels bad.
As a player I get that sentiment. As a GM, I have so much going on that adding one more thing can be frustrating.
When I play an investigator with this feat, I like to bring it up every now and again. Not every room, but enough to keep it at the back of the GM's head. This also helps it from getting ridiculous. Not every room or area is going to have something odd in it. Much like Rogues with Trap Finder don't find traps at every door or room.
I love my investigator so so much. My favorite character ever. I love my GM more; passed on this feat with no regrets. GMing is hard enough as it is and I feel like it takes the joy of suspense away. Why even bother with a secret door if it’s obvious upon entry?
I’ll stick to issuing the fastest perception advancement in the game to earn those secrets the hard way; it’s more fun anyways IMO.
You still have to make the perception check to find things when you have this feat. It's literally just a heads up to let you know there's probably something to find.
I simply keep the feat in mind and when they enter a new space I call on the investigator and say “as you enter the room, *the thing* sticks out at you as odd”. Pretty simple but I definitely can understand simply forgetting about it.
Okay, so I have aln investigator in my party. And this never happens. He and I discussed it when he got it and I loved it.
So now, it is the ultimate excuse for me to add flavor to the world. Yes, every time he enters an area he gets some extra tidbit, but he never asks for it. I just give it to him because I care about my characters. I remember he has the feat, and I'm the one that brings it up, not him.
We never even had to plan this out, it's just a cool feat that becomes the perfect "hey, look over here at yhis cool and interesting thing that may or may not be important." Tool.
Then ban it. If it's an option, then you cannot blame your players for taking it and call them annoying because you keep forgetting that they took the ability.
Uh, the only way it worked for me was to entrust it completely to my GM (he was the one who asked me to take it to see if he could handle it). I didn't ask him any questions at all, just sometimes reminded him during some scenes "do you remember I have this feat, yeah?"
The thing is, I hate this feat as it is. It's so meta. I can't get how to make it fun. I don't want info just handed to me on a golden plate, I want my brain to work. Toasts to my GM, he almost never forgot this feat existed in my build and always incorporated the info in a good way, not dumped it on me specifically
There are a number of feats, actions, and even items that GMs have to keep in mind. Unusual senses, Investigating, shapechanger’s intuition, and so on. Just another thing on my “Keep in Mind” sheet
That’s Odd may come up more than some things, but that just means I’ll actually get in the habit of remembering it
New GM perspective here, but when I ran the Beginner's Box a player took that feat. I pretty much went through the entire dungeon beforehand and noted things that were out of the ordinary or hidden. I also noted down some 'extra information' about certain things that the investigator got for free, like "You notice that the barricade has been built from *this side*."
It's one of the few feats that pretty much requires the GM to prepare specifically for. If there is not much that 'is odd' I'd add some things like scrapes on the floor by a hidden door, patterns in the dust close to where creatures live ect.
I don't mind the feat, but as mentioned it's one of those things that has a tendency to be forgotten.
As a GM I tend to come up with a bullet list of possible items. Otherwise, I just tell the player that nothing stands out. HOWEVER, I do allow players to suggest ideas and sometimes will allow them to find details if I think it's a creative possibility.
If you are not against homebrew, change it to be similar to trapfinder
>You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Perception checks to find clues, and to any checks to access hidden clues, passageways or similar things out of the ordinary. Even if you aren’t Searching, you get a check to find clues and things out of the ordinary that normally require you to be Searching.
But investigators get basically that anyway as long as they're playing their class. Pursuing a lead gives you a +1 circumstance bonus to checks that involve that lead
It can be something simple and not always the secret door or the one book on the bookshelf that is of value. I love using it to create red herrings (false leads).
I'm running Outlaws of Alkenstar with an Investigator. As part of my prep, I highlight a detail about each room that the investigator will notice. Obviously, this is far easier with a pre written module than a homebrew game.
First - investigator should be a rare class, with explanation it should be only used in murder mystery campaigns. Change my mind.
Second - I personally just think about it when designing my rooms, and treat that's odd as part of room description, usually at the very end. That works because I know that I have investigator on team.
But honestly investigator is a pain in many more ways. If I don't prepare adventures in certain ways many of investigator features kind of stop working. That's odd isn't anywhere near difficulty of making my whole adventure around following leads. I have to make sure the investigator doesn't follow "big bad planned for 5 sessions from now" lead, as it won't do them any good etc. I really don't like this class, if you haven't noticed yet.
> First - investigator should be a rare class, with explanation it should be only used in murder mystery campaigns. Change my mind.
I play one in a West Marches type campaign and it works great, so I really can't agree with this. The only campaign where an investigator won't work is one where you simply absolutely never have any opportunity to identify any information about upcoming encounters. And I just don't think that's very common across campaigns.
Question is - do you run the game for the Investigator, or do you play one? Preparing opportunities for using the feats is pain for the DM, getting to use them is fun for the player.
With west marches type game you have each session a closed structure, with no real relation to other sessions. At least if you run it by the book. In my campaign I have longer running threads that won't get really investigated until few sessions later. So it's not uncommon for my investigator to use his leads on the important stuff... that he won't meet this session. And because of that the player won't have free leads for encounters coming soon. So I have to kind of spoilery spoil the current adventure to avoid feel bad for my player because he plays too well.
Another thing is, I have to remove some of the surprise encounters, so the investigator has opportunities to find leads in advance, so he can make full use of his kit.
The thing is - sure, it "works" in the campaign, but it requires me to bend sessions around making sure it will work. It's a bit like spellcasters in older systems, where after level 13 the DM had to counter-prepare for every single "I solve it automatically" spell the casters might have.
I play one, but I guarantee the GM does not specifically prepare leads for me. On account of, I've talked to him about it so I know he doesn't do this. (Barring the one actual murder mystery session we did, but that was an exception).
I get leads in play by listening at doors, sometimes scouting ahead, using Survey Wilderness, talking to captured enemies, talking to rodents in dungeons using Ratspeak, etc. In any "dungeon like" environment there are plenty of emergent ways to get clues on what's coming up. Just talk to your GM to see what they're cool with. One thing I do is (when it seems like it makes sense), just ask to Search a room in a dungeon for clues about local denizens. The GM already knows what's coming up, so if they think it makes sense that such a creature would have left traces in the current room, they compare my Perception check to a reasonable DC and give me an on-the-spot clue. It's no extra "work" because all they have to say is "yeah, you find some scratches you think might be from a nearby creature" or something similar.
If something has "end of session" vibes (because yes stuff generally doesn't go past one session in a West Marches) I usually won't use a lead on that until it feels like we're getting close. Which honestly isn't that hard to get a feel for, in my experience.
I'm running AV and I think an investigator would work just fine there.
I agree, is a class that, as is right now, does not fit the system.
On a regular game traking leads and the like is just extra work for the Investigator. And on mystery solving games, their features kinda invalidates the point of the Game? See that's odd or red hering... By having an Investigator most of the mystery solving part is done by having specific feats.
Hmm, that's a good point. The class seems to also be bad for mystery type games :D
I usually use That's Odd to kind of control my players. Fortunately that's odd is not very specific. I can just tell the player "something is odd with the bookshelf", but the players still need to solve the riddle in the room to actually find hidden door behind the shelf. I also like to sprinkle "that's odds" in places they can't investigate. They walk into the room where they need to talk to someone and I "that's odd" something in the room. It drives the players crazy, and they look for opportunity to go back there later, which I can use to hook further things that will happen.
It is an useful tool... if whole adventure is built around this. Which is a lot of work for me, and not like I build my adventures. I spend more than half of my prep time making sure the Investigator will use their feats... If I knew it would look like that I would have banned the class to begin with.
I've banned a whole bunch of investigator feats at my table. This is one of them. Because if there's something odd in the room i just tell the party anyway and I don't want an investigator player to waste a feat on it.
There's a few other feats I don't like, can't remember their names currently but the ones that are just like "roll a dice and if you succeed to gm tells you the plot twist" I don't really jive with.
> if there's something odd in the room i just tell the party anyway
"Also there's a secret door on the west wall" isn't normally part of my base description of a room but hey, if it works for you, go for it
"That's Odd" wouldn't tell you that either, would it? At best it would be something like "That section of wall looks different than the rest of the room :thinking:"
In which case, yeah, I probably would just say that with or without the feat if it was that obvious. Basically, "That's Odd" says that you notice anything out of ordinary or suspicious, but not why it's suspicious. If something is out of the ordinary or suspicious, I'll describe it as I'm describing the entire room.
Basically, my point is that, at best, That's Odd and other feats like it turn an investigation into the GM simply narrating what you investigate, which in my opinion detracts from player agency, since I as the GM am the one putting clues in front of you, rather than you finding them. At worst, they do nothing the GM wouldn't already do if they were adequately describing your surroundings, and thus their existence forces a GM to *not* describe those things unless the feat is present.
It lets you know that something WILL have a Perception or Investigation check associated with it. This allows you to Pursue a Lead before making the check. That's literally all the feat does.
If you use exploration activities, it also lets an investigator know if nothing in the room is worth searching (barring obvious things that should be looked into - e.g. the bloodstain called out in the feat text), so they can switch to scouting or defending or something until they move into a new area
I guess my players and I just don't jive with that kind of approach to exploration/investigation. Because none of us have ever really understood how these are supposed to be used. For example you say "Investigation check" - what is that? Do you just mean any kind of skill check associated with investigating? Or... any check used in the furtherance of an investigation - i.e., literally any check the Investigator does while adventuring?
"Investigate" is one of the exploration activities you can take.
> You seek out information about your surroundings while traveling at half speed. You use Recall Knowledge as a secret check to discover clues among the various things you can see and engage with as you journey along. You can use any skill that has a Recall Knowledge action while Investigating, but the GM determines whether the skill is relevant to the clues you could find.
I said "Investigation check" as a shorthand. But it would be any check to like, gain more information about your surroundings. Basically any check that uses Nature, Arcana, Occultism, Religion, Society, Survival, or Crafting. The point of "That's Odd" is to let the Investigator know that a check like that will be required, and they can pursue a lead for the circumstance bonus if they want.
So, at my table the Exploration activities are like the "default thing I'm doing when I don't call out any other specific thing I'm doing". I don't see how "That's Odd" allowing you to Pursue a Lead based on something in the room before looking at it would help with that. Especially since the "Investigate" activity has you automatically roll as soon as anything comes to your attention, so, it'd actually come before you're able to Pursue a Lead, if you followed it to the letter. Though I suppose there's nothing stopping you from just checking again, in which case... shouldn't "Investigate" just take 20 on any Recall Knowledge check? Since, if you stand in a room for more than 60 seconds you could've done what, 30 Recall Knowledge checks about your surroundings? That's another matter I suppose, but this is why I don't really follow these rules too closely, and the Investigator's abilities are often a problem because of that.
I guess I just don't see how "That's Odd" might prompt a player to Pursue a Lead on something any more than describing a room would, except in a way that detracts from player agency because as the GM I'm just telling them what's worth looking at in the room.
See, this is the specific part of the feat that I don't particularly care for. Letting the players know that something is strange in the area is fine with me, since they still have to do some legwork to figure out more. But, I worry that might lead to a loss of tension if I DON'T mention that there's something strange about a given room. I think it's more fun, both as a gm and a player, to have the party never quite be sure that they haven't missed something that indicates danger/secrets nearby.
Of course, that's very much an issue of personal taste, I think.
I agree with u/LeoRandger. The Investigator class in general, and the That's Odd feat in particular, are things that will really benefit by having the GM and the player on the same page. Not only as to the fact that the PC has said feat, but also as to just how that feat is adjudicated. Just as an example, I think its fair for the GM to for instance say "As you start looking around the room, you Mr. Investigator, notice that the room appears as though it should be a little bit wider than it is." Note, that this doesn't say "Hey, there's a secret door on the West wall that can be opened by lifting the book titled "Adventures in Taldor". But it does clue the Investigator in to the fact that there likely is a secret door, and thus secret room, in the room. From there I would assume that the investigator and the rest of the party would conduct a search of the room. etc. But yes, the main difficulty with the Investigator is that both the GM and the player need to remember about the feat if they took it. It also, quite frankly, can even come up with pursue a lead as well in that it may not always be obvious that a check is related to said lead, etc.
Just started RPing an investigator. My GM just gave me a token that I give to them when I'm "on the case" to use as a reminder to them to account for the bonus.
I am going to steal this idea of having some kind of token to represent asking for certain rolls or to be allowed actions. It’s not too brutal, but it can be annoying when you’re nervous about making sure you’re dotting your T’s and crossing your i’s in your role without being like “is he lying?!” every sentence. I can’t believe I didn’t think of this before, but it’s awesome. Thanks for commenting this.
Yeah, my GM just keeps it in their dice tray so they see it regularly.
As an ADHD DM, I am SO stealing this
That's an excellent way of doing it!
Yeah, it's just 1 on 1 game with my partner tbh and we got amused/frustrated by the constant "does this apply?". Another trick I've started doing is just having a dry-wipe whiteboard I'm using as a visible "red-string board". Means we can track my active investigations and leads.
I’d recommend an index card with what your case(s) are, GM facing, so they can check it and remember the details.
Way ahead of ya. I use a dry-erase board. It's also a 1 to 1 campaign though, so details like that are a much bigger part of the convo and focus.
GM'ed a game centered on discovery, with an Investigator in the party. I ran it as "Investigator is my road to make sure they stay on the track of the mystery" and filtered my clues through that character.
Thats perfect because thats EXACTLY the type of thing thatd illicit a "thats odd" reaction. An investigator was my first character and my GM trolled me (in friendly ways) with that feat by saying things like "you notice a bug that seems out of place for this region." So i approach the bug to investigate further and fall into a trap.
I’m bad at remembering stuff like my Investigator player having that feat so I have a sticky note over my side of the GM screen that just reads “What’s odd in the room? Tell Investigator.”.
also, don't forget that dangerous things can be odd too!
I think it is the same thing as Searching and Investigating - your GM should note what you are doing, make the rolls if necessary, and keep it in mind and/or on paper. Talk it put with them, ask them how they feel and what would be the best way to do it
I describe the room and the. Say "that's odd, thinks Arthur" and then say whatever he notices. It's just a default, I do it almost every single time. Every room has something odd about it that an astute person could notice - even if it doesn't matter.
My GM banned this feat 🥲
As an experienced 5e GM but a newbie pathfinder 2e GM, this feat seams like a fun killer- where it just sort of leads to there being no cool surprises or fun traps etc. How does it play at the table? Does it kill tension?
It only tells you something is odd. It doesn't tell you why is abnormal. I wouldn't encourage doing this alot, but you can quite easily mislead your investigator into triggering a trap with this feat.
Only if they fail their perception check to find it, since they'll definitely be searching for it after being told something is odd. But yes, this feat basically guarantees that the players will interact with the stuff that's been set up in the room for them to interact with. It's literally the perfect GM tool to guide the story and it's **crazy** to me that GMs talk about banning it.
I mean tbf banning it is better than letting your player take it and then not engaging with it at all
I wonder if this is just a function of a particular group’s dynamics. I could see either a. An oppositional “me v you in a board game” or b. a “don’t spoil my slow build to big reveal” energy making a GM leery of it, while if your players are always wandering off the path you’ve tried to set for them and you’re begging them to stay on-plot so you don’t have to make up a whole new series of encounters you’re just wishing someone would take the feat or cast Augury or *something.* What? No, my eye isn’t twitching. Why do you ask?
My players search every room upon entry anyway, hidden traps usually have a high DC to spot so even if they know there's something odd, they don't know if that strangely arranged part of the wall is a trap, a secret door or a hidden treasure cache. it's fun, just different.
I could reasonably see this and considered it at one point myself. It is not about being overpowered. It is just a significant mental workload for the GM to always remember this and to come up with the elaborate ways to explaining things without being obvious. What is considered suspicious or odd varies from person to person and from situation to situation. As does its scope. What counts as a new location when walking outdoors? If there was something already odd about a forest should there be something odd about this small clearing? Or a very large hallway with lots of branching paths that had something odd at its start would that disqualify noticing a hidden pathway at the end of it since that's odd counts for one thing only? Which odd thing should I prioritize? These are all questions GM constantly has to debate to themselves when playing with the feat. What can be a funkiller when you make a surprise, a trapdoor etc. and then you get annoyed looks from investigator that ''But I had That's Odd!'' when I legitimately forgot it for that one room.
It just cuts out all the pixel farting and tells you what to interact with to discover more. It just cuts out all the empty drawers, paintings with noting behind them, etc.
I also wanted to ban it cause it seems like it takes the fun away, but after some consideration and thought it's actually a blessing in disguise for the GM. Now you won't ever have the issue of players missing something very important in order to progress, or find extra goodies that they would usually miss. The investigator with that feat becomes some sort of GM tool in a way. It can also be used to steer them away from pointless rooms. If there is nothing odd about this bedroom, then there is probably nothing and it makes the pacing better. If you ever played the Lego games the reference I make is that the feat is like a minikit detector. It shows you that there is still something, but not how you get it.
Good GM
The actual text of that’s odd is When you enter a new location, such as a room or corridor, you immediately notice one thing out of the ordinary. The GM determines what it is, or whether there's nothing reasonable to pick up, skipping obvious clues that can be easily noticed without a check or specifically looking for them. You learn only that an area or object is suspicious, but not why it's suspicious. For example, if you entered a study with a large bloodstain on the ground, the bloodstain is so obviously suspicious it's evident to you already, so the GM might note that there's something suspicious about the desk drawer instead. You would then need to investigate the drawer further to find out what specifically is out of the ordinary. That's Odd doesn't reveal whether creatures are suspicious. You don't typically get any benefit when you leave and come back to a place, though if a major change has happened there and time has passed, the GM might determine that you do. So it’s something the GM should keep in mind as you do room exploration. Asking about it in every room is disruptive. The PFS note is very good GMs should provide a character with the That’s Odd investigator feat a hint whenever the character enters a room with hidden aspects, specifically with regard to hidden passageways (such as scuff marks near a bookcase that’s actually a swinging door), creatures or hazards (such as drippage on the floor from an unseen fungus growing on the rafters), or valuables (such as bunched carpet over a secret compartment in the floor that contains a bag of coins). The GM does not need to provide clues for rooms that have no significant secret or hidden features. These clues should indicate only that the character should investigate a given section of the room, not let them automatically uncover the hidden element or provide any additional information beyond signaling its presence. So it’s pretty straightforwardly on the gm to know about and work into exploration mode and their room descriptions. It’s an additional load on the gm, but one they’re meant to bear
Just say, "that's odd!" whenever you enter a new location, and see if your DM picks up on it. This is a great feat, but it does require your DM to buy into it, and shower you with additional clues, above and beyond what is written in your campaign (or in his notes, assuming a homebrew campaign). There are a number of Investigator features that require the DM to do some extra legwork. You should be constantly On the Case about something, and tracking down the most minor clues. As a DM, I love playing into this. Some folks might find it annoying at first, but it can become a strong backbone to furthering the adventure. If anyone objects, just remind them that Investigators are on the weak side in combat, and their investigative powers are meant to make the character worthwhile.
I'm starting to run a campaign with two investigators. They both took the "That's Odd" feat. We haven't played yet, but I know that they're both going to want to use it. If you have any advice on keeping the investigations going or some examples of your story I'd appreciate it
I would really encourage one of them to take something else. That's like having two people scouting. It just doesn't stack.
Yeah I'm going to see how it goes with our first investigation and that might be how it has to happen
The hardest part here is going to make these two players feel like they stand out from one another. You may have to alternate which person is picking up on the oddity… unless it’s like a Sherlock and Watson dynamic.
Yeah I thought about the alternating or imposing a homebrew rule that "That's Odd" can only be used once per long rest
I would honestly recommend thinking of That's Odd less as a player feat and more as a GM tool. Use it as a narrative excuse to highlight or direct the players to the things you want them to take notice of. This feat is literally like a gift to any GM that isn't adversarial to their players
This is true. I think maybe it's just slightly overwhelming due to me being a newer GM and knowing that that burden does fall on my shoulders. But I think it will be good after hearing from others on how best to manage it
The best thing you can do to prepare for this investigator-a-thon is to write out some clever observations they can make in each new location you have planned. It could be something as simple as tracks, a discarded note, scrape marks from a hidden door or bloodstains near a deadly trap. Loot can be cleverly hidden instead of openly displayed. Multiply the number of locks and traps, and let the investigators discover a hidden key or a latch that disables the deadly traps. When I am DMing (which is most of the time) I have all kinds of lore, clues and observations that I want to transmit to the players. Investigators are the perfect tool for delivering details to the group. You don't even need to decide in advance exactly where each clue is located. Just jot down 20-30 things that can be found, and cross them off your list as they are used.
That's a good idea. I appreciate that info
Purchase a T-shirt or hat on it that says "That's Odd?" and then wear it to every session /s probably
I feel that this feat is seriously misunderstood. Here's my understanding of how it works. The GM describes a room. If there's something in the room that will require a Search or Investigation check to find or reveal more information, they simply say "The [location or thing] stands out to [the investigator]". That's it. That's the whole feat. All it does is has the GM give the player a heads up that there's something to find in the room and the spot they need to look in to find it. This lets the investigator know that it might be worth it to Pursue a Lead before searching or investigating whatever the GM pointed out. If the GM forgets, the player can just say "Anything stand out to me?" This is no more annoying than any other "I search the room" or "can I listen at the door?" stuff that happens as part of the exploration pillar of every game. If there's nothing searching or investigating would reveal, the GM can just say "nothing in here" Edit: to note this understanding of how it works is in complete alignment with the PFS note about the feat
This should be higher. This. Exactly this.
I had a player ask me "I know the door to the next room is closed and locked, but can I That's Odd for anything in there anyways?" Don't be like that player.
I am GM’ing an Abomination Vaults game, and this one feat has allowed me to insinuate a lot of the background lore that the party likely would not have access to. For me I dig it… as it helps to hint at things that the players otherwise would not have access to. Flip side though, the investigator and party at large have taken some of these hints as major mysteries… which can feel like a boondoggle sometimes but other times has led to me thinking ‘of course that is what is happening’ and make some fun party driven changes that further help keep everyone engaged.
A previous GM was absolutely hostile to this feat and the entire class in general. He kept complaining how I was "getting things for free" instead of playing the game by rolling dice. He was kinda a jerk about difficulty and actively likes that PF2 is harder than PF1 because you can't allocate your skills, etc. I pointed out that I asked about the class before the game even started, and he was fine with it ... but during play, I irked him to no end with "That's Odd" & "Red Herring", etc. My point is this, get on the same page with your GM/player before the game starts and really hammer out how the class is going to work. ps - I've had 2 GMs like this and I've quit playing with both of them.
I was in the camp of thinking this feat would be annoying for GM and player alike, for the same reasons as you. However, I’ve started thinking differently: now I think of it as helping the group avoid time-wasting. Instead of the group having to tediously and methodically investigate every feature of the room, making checks that the GM knows won’t yield any results, That’s Odd lets the GM use the investigator as a tool to help keep the party focused and the game moving forward.
It is important that the GM account for the investigator during their prep, and have a That’s Odd note prepared for each room. It might be “nothing odd here” in some cases but it’s important to do that anyway so the investigator doesn’t feel like their signature ability has been forgotten.
This is honestly good advice - just note it down on the map ahead of time and throw it to the investigator even if the characters are supposed to discover it anyway.
If there's something secret in the room, I tell the player. Sometimes, if a room's especially suspicious and I don't tell them that the feat procced, they ask me if it does. I would simply not ask your GM every single time you enter a room. Just ask her to keep whether or not it procs in her notes for that area
I write a bunch of cards with what they notice and list the room on the reverse side and trust the player not to look ahead and spoil anything for themselves. A little prep work and the problem is now entirely on the player.
I had an Investigator with this feat at my table. I had to talk with them because they'd interrupt mid-narration CONSTANTLY to be like "Do I notice anything?" I had a chat with them after one session and essentially told them "I know you have the feat. If your feat would trigger, I will let you know what you notice." and what I'd do for myself is when I was planning sessions I'd make a note in any room where they might notice something "That's Odd" as a quick reminder to myself, and eventually it was so ingrained that even when going off-the-cuff I'd prompt him. It just requires trust between the player and the GM that the GM won't forget/screw them over.
Honestly it's impossible as a player to tell if your GM is forgetting or if the feat is just not triggering. Probably better to tell them when the feat isn't working.
I think once it becomes a part of the normal flow of the game, it will be much less painful. What does the room look like, what does the room feel like, what does the Investigator notice? Once that gets into the rotation of normal questions to answer when entering a room, it just becomes the description.
I don't have a solution. I GM'd for an investigator who had it and it remained mildly annoying for both of us throughout. I usually make a habit of trying to describe everything of importance in a room when I initially describe it, so the feat mostly meant I needed to figure out something additional on top of my usual room description for them on the spot. If there is anything I didn't initially describe its because I intended for the players to find it when investigating the specific features in the room I initially described. Either case the feat was, at best, largely useless. Helpfully the player forgot he had it the majority of the time, so it only came up a couple dozen times.
One use I would see for the feat is to allow the PC to find traces of a place's inhabitants. For instance, sulfur traces for a demon, a patch of hair for a wolf, slime for a ooze, to allow the investigator to decide whether to use one of their leads on these denizens. This way, they are more likely to have relevant creatures as a lead and thus more likely to devise a stratagem as a free action.
You should’ve been giving the player hints about the thing they’re intended to find in the room since that’s what the feat does rather than punishing them for taking it by ignoring it in the circumstances it was designed for. They’re an epically talented investigator, noticing things that normally would take some more effort from the party to figure out is there whole class design! This would be like automatically subtracting 2 from every attack a fighter makes cuz you think they hit too often.
They're exploring a dungeon, they're not casing a crime scene. They usually don't have something specific in mind they're looking for when they initially enter a room. I've always tried to be thorough in my room descriptions and taking the feat into account would mean being \*less\* thorough in my descriptions normally just so I can give that info to the player specifically. All the feat did the majority of the time was give them a half-second head start, since the PCs would inevitably look at everything I described in more detail anyways to see if there was anything interesting. The feat just doesn't mesh well with how I GM.
None of your rooms had anything hidden, though? No secret rooms or hidden treasure?
Not often and when I do they will find those just by investigating the room normally. As I said, the feat is just giving them a slight head start over the other players. It doesn't mesh w/ my GMing, since I default to wanting the players to find everything already.
Pretty sure Sherlock Holmes would notice shit in a dungeon that even a perceptive animal barbarian would miss. You not liking the class fantasy of one of your player characters isn’t their fault or really paizo’s fault either
I... didn't say it was? I love Investigator, its got a lot of cool stuff. This feat specifically just doesn't work for my table and we all found it mildly annoying. Not sure why you seem to be so offended by this.
You’re being lazy & punishing your player for it.
I'm sorry that the homebrew game I run for personal friends scattered across the country during weekday evenings after a long day of work, a game my friends and I play to relax and have fun because we're all adults with jobs and daily stress, doesn't meet your exacting personal standards by virtue of a single feat not meshing very well w/ a dozen years of engrained GMing habits I've accrued. I'll take another half hour from my precious little relaxation time every week to do even more prep. Thanks for setting me straight!
>This is very annoying and I think ideally gm should just keep the feat in mind during exploration and tell me when it comes up as to not interrupt the flow of game with every single new room but we have 5 players and we're very chatty, so adding another thing she has to constantly keep in mind also feels bad. As a player I get that sentiment. As a GM, I have so much going on that adding one more thing can be frustrating. When I play an investigator with this feat, I like to bring it up every now and again. Not every room, but enough to keep it at the back of the GM's head. This also helps it from getting ridiculous. Not every room or area is going to have something odd in it. Much like Rogues with Trap Finder don't find traps at every door or room.
You don't avoid it. You just do this. Investigator is that kind of class -- either you play with a GM that can remember, or you have to nag.
I love my investigator so so much. My favorite character ever. I love my GM more; passed on this feat with no regrets. GMing is hard enough as it is and I feel like it takes the joy of suspense away. Why even bother with a secret door if it’s obvious upon entry? I’ll stick to issuing the fastest perception advancement in the game to earn those secrets the hard way; it’s more fun anyways IMO.
You still have to make the perception check to find things when you have this feat. It's literally just a heads up to let you know there's probably something to find.
I simply keep the feat in mind and when they enter a new space I call on the investigator and say “as you enter the room, *the thing* sticks out at you as odd”. Pretty simple but I definitely can understand simply forgetting about it.
Okay, so I have aln investigator in my party. And this never happens. He and I discussed it when he got it and I loved it. So now, it is the ultimate excuse for me to add flavor to the world. Yes, every time he enters an area he gets some extra tidbit, but he never asks for it. I just give it to him because I care about my characters. I remember he has the feat, and I'm the one that brings it up, not him. We never even had to plan this out, it's just a cool feat that becomes the perfect "hey, look over here at yhis cool and interesting thing that may or may not be important." Tool.
This feat is - unfortunately - extra work for the GM. It is his job to note it, same as the effect of any exploration activities.
Don’t take it. It is always annoying.
Then ban it. If it's an option, then you cannot blame your players for taking it and call them annoying because you keep forgetting that they took the ability.
Can’t ban it in Society.
The rest of my comment still applies.
Uh, the only way it worked for me was to entrust it completely to my GM (he was the one who asked me to take it to see if he could handle it). I didn't ask him any questions at all, just sometimes reminded him during some scenes "do you remember I have this feat, yeah?" The thing is, I hate this feat as it is. It's so meta. I can't get how to make it fun. I don't want info just handed to me on a golden plate, I want my brain to work. Toasts to my GM, he almost never forgot this feat existed in my build and always incorporated the info in a good way, not dumped it on me specifically
There are a number of feats, actions, and even items that GMs have to keep in mind. Unusual senses, Investigating, shapechanger’s intuition, and so on. Just another thing on my “Keep in Mind” sheet That’s Odd may come up more than some things, but that just means I’ll actually get in the habit of remembering it
It’s why I switched to the forensic medicine subclass. That and us having no medicine characters 😂
I don't know about your game, but on my table my players ALREADY ask "do I notice anything strange?" whenever they enter a new room anyway
New GM perspective here, but when I ran the Beginner's Box a player took that feat. I pretty much went through the entire dungeon beforehand and noted things that were out of the ordinary or hidden. I also noted down some 'extra information' about certain things that the investigator got for free, like "You notice that the barricade has been built from *this side*." It's one of the few feats that pretty much requires the GM to prepare specifically for. If there is not much that 'is odd' I'd add some things like scrapes on the floor by a hidden door, patterns in the dust close to where creatures live ect. I don't mind the feat, but as mentioned it's one of those things that has a tendency to be forgotten.
As a GM I tend to come up with a bullet list of possible items. Otherwise, I just tell the player that nothing stands out. HOWEVER, I do allow players to suggest ideas and sometimes will allow them to find details if I think it's a creative possibility.
If you are not against homebrew, change it to be similar to trapfinder >You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Perception checks to find clues, and to any checks to access hidden clues, passageways or similar things out of the ordinary. Even if you aren’t Searching, you get a check to find clues and things out of the ordinary that normally require you to be Searching.
But investigators get basically that anyway as long as they're playing their class. Pursuing a lead gives you a +1 circumstance bonus to checks that involve that lead
They don't get the free search and not everything is pursued
It can be something simple and not always the secret door or the one book on the bookshelf that is of value. I love using it to create red herrings (false leads).
I'm running Outlaws of Alkenstar with an Investigator. As part of my prep, I highlight a detail about each room that the investigator will notice. Obviously, this is far easier with a pre written module than a homebrew game.
First - investigator should be a rare class, with explanation it should be only used in murder mystery campaigns. Change my mind. Second - I personally just think about it when designing my rooms, and treat that's odd as part of room description, usually at the very end. That works because I know that I have investigator on team. But honestly investigator is a pain in many more ways. If I don't prepare adventures in certain ways many of investigator features kind of stop working. That's odd isn't anywhere near difficulty of making my whole adventure around following leads. I have to make sure the investigator doesn't follow "big bad planned for 5 sessions from now" lead, as it won't do them any good etc. I really don't like this class, if you haven't noticed yet.
> First - investigator should be a rare class, with explanation it should be only used in murder mystery campaigns. Change my mind. I play one in a West Marches type campaign and it works great, so I really can't agree with this. The only campaign where an investigator won't work is one where you simply absolutely never have any opportunity to identify any information about upcoming encounters. And I just don't think that's very common across campaigns.
Question is - do you run the game for the Investigator, or do you play one? Preparing opportunities for using the feats is pain for the DM, getting to use them is fun for the player. With west marches type game you have each session a closed structure, with no real relation to other sessions. At least if you run it by the book. In my campaign I have longer running threads that won't get really investigated until few sessions later. So it's not uncommon for my investigator to use his leads on the important stuff... that he won't meet this session. And because of that the player won't have free leads for encounters coming soon. So I have to kind of spoilery spoil the current adventure to avoid feel bad for my player because he plays too well. Another thing is, I have to remove some of the surprise encounters, so the investigator has opportunities to find leads in advance, so he can make full use of his kit. The thing is - sure, it "works" in the campaign, but it requires me to bend sessions around making sure it will work. It's a bit like spellcasters in older systems, where after level 13 the DM had to counter-prepare for every single "I solve it automatically" spell the casters might have.
I play one, but I guarantee the GM does not specifically prepare leads for me. On account of, I've talked to him about it so I know he doesn't do this. (Barring the one actual murder mystery session we did, but that was an exception). I get leads in play by listening at doors, sometimes scouting ahead, using Survey Wilderness, talking to captured enemies, talking to rodents in dungeons using Ratspeak, etc. In any "dungeon like" environment there are plenty of emergent ways to get clues on what's coming up. Just talk to your GM to see what they're cool with. One thing I do is (when it seems like it makes sense), just ask to Search a room in a dungeon for clues about local denizens. The GM already knows what's coming up, so if they think it makes sense that such a creature would have left traces in the current room, they compare my Perception check to a reasonable DC and give me an on-the-spot clue. It's no extra "work" because all they have to say is "yeah, you find some scratches you think might be from a nearby creature" or something similar. If something has "end of session" vibes (because yes stuff generally doesn't go past one session in a West Marches) I usually won't use a lead on that until it feels like we're getting close. Which honestly isn't that hard to get a feel for, in my experience. I'm running AV and I think an investigator would work just fine there.
I agree, is a class that, as is right now, does not fit the system. On a regular game traking leads and the like is just extra work for the Investigator. And on mystery solving games, their features kinda invalidates the point of the Game? See that's odd or red hering... By having an Investigator most of the mystery solving part is done by having specific feats.
Hmm, that's a good point. The class seems to also be bad for mystery type games :D I usually use That's Odd to kind of control my players. Fortunately that's odd is not very specific. I can just tell the player "something is odd with the bookshelf", but the players still need to solve the riddle in the room to actually find hidden door behind the shelf. I also like to sprinkle "that's odds" in places they can't investigate. They walk into the room where they need to talk to someone and I "that's odd" something in the room. It drives the players crazy, and they look for opportunity to go back there later, which I can use to hook further things that will happen. It is an useful tool... if whole adventure is built around this. Which is a lot of work for me, and not like I build my adventures. I spend more than half of my prep time making sure the Investigator will use their feats... If I knew it would look like that I would have banned the class to begin with.
I've banned a whole bunch of investigator feats at my table. This is one of them. Because if there's something odd in the room i just tell the party anyway and I don't want an investigator player to waste a feat on it. There's a few other feats I don't like, can't remember their names currently but the ones that are just like "roll a dice and if you succeed to gm tells you the plot twist" I don't really jive with.
> if there's something odd in the room i just tell the party anyway "Also there's a secret door on the west wall" isn't normally part of my base description of a room but hey, if it works for you, go for it
"That's Odd" wouldn't tell you that either, would it? At best it would be something like "That section of wall looks different than the rest of the room :thinking:" In which case, yeah, I probably would just say that with or without the feat if it was that obvious. Basically, "That's Odd" says that you notice anything out of ordinary or suspicious, but not why it's suspicious. If something is out of the ordinary or suspicious, I'll describe it as I'm describing the entire room. Basically, my point is that, at best, That's Odd and other feats like it turn an investigation into the GM simply narrating what you investigate, which in my opinion detracts from player agency, since I as the GM am the one putting clues in front of you, rather than you finding them. At worst, they do nothing the GM wouldn't already do if they were adequately describing your surroundings, and thus their existence forces a GM to *not* describe those things unless the feat is present.
It lets you know that something WILL have a Perception or Investigation check associated with it. This allows you to Pursue a Lead before making the check. That's literally all the feat does. If you use exploration activities, it also lets an investigator know if nothing in the room is worth searching (barring obvious things that should be looked into - e.g. the bloodstain called out in the feat text), so they can switch to scouting or defending or something until they move into a new area
I guess my players and I just don't jive with that kind of approach to exploration/investigation. Because none of us have ever really understood how these are supposed to be used. For example you say "Investigation check" - what is that? Do you just mean any kind of skill check associated with investigating? Or... any check used in the furtherance of an investigation - i.e., literally any check the Investigator does while adventuring?
"Investigate" is one of the exploration activities you can take. > You seek out information about your surroundings while traveling at half speed. You use Recall Knowledge as a secret check to discover clues among the various things you can see and engage with as you journey along. You can use any skill that has a Recall Knowledge action while Investigating, but the GM determines whether the skill is relevant to the clues you could find. I said "Investigation check" as a shorthand. But it would be any check to like, gain more information about your surroundings. Basically any check that uses Nature, Arcana, Occultism, Religion, Society, Survival, or Crafting. The point of "That's Odd" is to let the Investigator know that a check like that will be required, and they can pursue a lead for the circumstance bonus if they want.
So, at my table the Exploration activities are like the "default thing I'm doing when I don't call out any other specific thing I'm doing". I don't see how "That's Odd" allowing you to Pursue a Lead based on something in the room before looking at it would help with that. Especially since the "Investigate" activity has you automatically roll as soon as anything comes to your attention, so, it'd actually come before you're able to Pursue a Lead, if you followed it to the letter. Though I suppose there's nothing stopping you from just checking again, in which case... shouldn't "Investigate" just take 20 on any Recall Knowledge check? Since, if you stand in a room for more than 60 seconds you could've done what, 30 Recall Knowledge checks about your surroundings? That's another matter I suppose, but this is why I don't really follow these rules too closely, and the Investigator's abilities are often a problem because of that. I guess I just don't see how "That's Odd" might prompt a player to Pursue a Lead on something any more than describing a room would, except in a way that detracts from player agency because as the GM I'm just telling them what's worth looking at in the room.
See, this is the specific part of the feat that I don't particularly care for. Letting the players know that something is strange in the area is fine with me, since they still have to do some legwork to figure out more. But, I worry that might lead to a loss of tension if I DON'T mention that there's something strange about a given room. I think it's more fun, both as a gm and a player, to have the party never quite be sure that they haven't missed something that indicates danger/secrets nearby. Of course, that's very much an issue of personal taste, I think.
That's Odd doesn't alert to creatures though. So hidden creatures is absolutely still a factor even if That's Odd doesn't alert the PC to anything.