Inquisitor - What changes would you like to see?


Round 3: Alchemist and Inquisitor

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Nunspa wrote:
As it stands the class seems to favor ranged weapons for one reasion only, all the melee combat feats require a +1 BAB.

It's class abilities favor attack methods with a high number of attacks per round which points right to archer or two weapon fighting. Since the class also favors high WIS it's unlikely the character will have three high ability scores. Inquisitors can pull off a high wisdom and high dex and have mediocre CON and be decent archers.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Nunspa wrote:
As it stands the class seems to favor ranged weapons for one reasion only, all the melee combat feats require a +1 BAB.
It's class abilities favor attack methods with a high number of attacks per round which points right to archer or two weapon fighting. Since the class also favors high WIS it's unlikely the character will have three high ability scores. Inquisitors can pull off a high wisdom and high dex and have mediocre CON and be decent archers.

To be honest you don't need a high wisdom score... a 12 or 13 at first level will suffice, Just pick buff spells or spells with no save DC.... greater magic weapon, Magic Vestment, Heroisum.... are just a few examples.

in the campaign you can build this character quite easy

Str: 14 (5) (16 with human +2)
Dex: 14 (5)
Con: 14 (5)
Int: 10 (1)
Wiz: 13 (3)
Ch: 10 (1)

looks like a balanced character to me..

Just sucks that I can't take any good melee combat feats that are worth a damn till 3rd level


For whatever reason, the last way I would want to play one of these guys is as a ranged fighter. Goes back to the Solomon Kane complex we all have


Blackerose wrote:
For whatever reason, the last way I would want to play one of these guys is as a ranged fighter. Goes back to the Solomon Kane complex we all have

I completely agree. If guns are in your campaign, I can see 1 dual wielding them. Or perhaps 1 dual wielding a sword and crossbow. But I never see this guy as a primary archer.


I like the class as a whole I have to say, buy I would like to see Rapier and Longsword Prof, and the replacing the Tactical Feats with Bonus feats. I am okay with the Judgments as they can last an entire encounter unlike Rage and bardic performance. Sneak Attack would be a nice addition but it may make the class OP


I'm extremely happy with the mechanics as written. The class could use a bit of nip and tuck in the mechanical language, but the concepts are sound.


I like the Inquisitor as it stands for the most part, but I'm probably going to echo some of the concerns other folks have had.

I actually like their Bard-like casting and the emphasis on a more skilled/knowledgeable character. I feel like this guy can be ranged or melee depending on if he wants to use the favored weapon of his deity over the longbow granted by the class (or go Elf for those options). I felt he should either lose tactical feats (which I don't think Paizo wants to do) or his judgments should extend to his allies or some given radius. It could be some fluff like he conveys his will to his allies or somesuch.
I realized what I liked, and what really detracts from the class, is that I feel no flavor with this class. I can very easily call it whatever I want without any interest in the "inquisitor" side of the class. I realize it should be more obvious, though.
I am a tad concerned about the frequency and strength of the judgments, but I won't recommend anything until I playtest and see for myself.
In the end, though, I feel like I'm comparing a ranger to the inquisitor and asking myself, "Which divine caster fighter type do I want to play?" Again, this probably links back to the fact that I'm not feeling the flavor of the Inquisitor, but I kinda feel as though these two are competing for a bit of a niche. Granted, I'd pick the Inquisitor any day, but that's just my feeling.


I was really looking forward to the Inquisitor. I was a little disappointed when I first read it as I mostly focused on the Judgments.

I finally got a chance to play test one. We set him to be level 6 and ran him through a couple encounters. With high wisdom and dex he made a great scout replacement. With detect magic and a high perception traps are no problem to find but disarming them is tricky. The second level spell Find Traps is great.

He also functioned surprisingly well in combat due to a few abilities I didn't seriously consider. Bane was the biggest one. Using it as a swift action adds a great deal of flexibility. The bonuses to hit and especially damage has a far bigger effect then the judgments. It would be nice if it lasted longer, maybe a duration along the lines of bardic music?

At level 6 the judgments were very underwhelming. I got 2 uses a day but could use one judgment at a time. I went with the bonus to hit. I can see how judgments could get really noticeable after the values double and you can apply several at once but at level 6 it a small buff and little else. One a short adventuring day the Inquisitor can contribute pretty well in combat, but in an extended dungeon trip where resources are rationed, he'll be about as effective as a bard, maybe less so since I've only ever seen our party bard run out of bardic music once. He'll just be standing at the back shooting arrows.

Like several other people commented on here, I'm surprised this class gets Evasion since it has a poor reflex save. Its not a big deal since its not available until level 11 but I still think its an odd addition.

The spell selection is excellent and it makes the class a very nice cleric/rogue blend which I think is what was aimed for. Lots of good utility spells with a few defensive and defensive options. I am not a big fan of spontaneous casting for a class like this as it limits the character's tool box. I guess you can still pick up wands and scrolls for the spells that you don't need quite so often.

I looked at the tactical feats and there might be some goodness in there. However, the test combats included no allies so we couldn't test them.
The 6 skills/level is nice. I set the inquisitor up as a rogue replacement but I could also see going down the "Party Face" route.

The Inquisitor needs a little tweaking but is pretty playable as is.


I kind of like the ranged slant, myself. The other two divine types -- cleric and paladin -- are pretty firmly melee, or at least I've always seen them played that way. The idea of a 'holy archer' kind of intrigues me. ;)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

IF you are looking for inspiriational reading for the character, Soloman Kane is one path, but I really suggest you read the Warhammer and Warhammer 40k versions of the Inquisitors. In 40K in particular, they are the most powerful agents of the Imperium, and they always have a kill team around them, as well as access to the highest tech (magic) and usually psi-powers.

Of course, they usually have several levels on their underlings, but you can't have everything the stories do.

==Aelryinth


Caineach wrote:
Blackerose wrote:
For whatever reason, the last way I would want to play one of these guys is as a ranged fighter. Goes back to the Solomon Kane complex we all have
I completely agree. If guns are in your campaign, I can see 1 dual wielding them. Or perhaps 1 dual wielding a sword and crossbow. But I never see this guy as a primary archer.

Oh yes..that is a lovely idea.

I think one thing that is easy to miss..I did on the first read through..is that inquisitors don't need anyone else in the party to use the tactical feats. It weakens the feats for any other class, but makes them higher powered for the inquisitor himself.


I was really hoping for improved combat abilities, personally. The lack of a martial weapon proficiency really disappointed me; I imagined alternating between a crossbow and a longsword or greatsword. Also, the base attack bonus progression is pretty weak. I think that the class would be much better with a higher BAB. The tactical feats seem a tad unnecessary in my opinion, it really could have been dropped. The monster lore abilities also seemed a bit undefined; it didn't give me too much to go on. Also, judgment seems a bit slow, especially at first. I wouldn't be surprised if it went unused because I was saving it for a more important occasion.

This is just my first reaction, though. The class could be fine in itself, I haven't had an opportunity to test it yet. Plus, a majority of my complaints are based off the fact that it doesn't play like I hoped it would. I'm sure that the class works well for what was intended, but I had hoped it would work differently.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I wouldn't mind trading off some spells for a Fighter's BAB progression and accompanying HD.

Also, Martial Weapon Proficiency.


Byron Zibeck wrote:

I wouldn't mind trading off some spells for a Fighter's BAB progression and accompanying HD.

Also, Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Yeah, but then you would have a 3rd full base attack but low divine casting class. I love the fact that this class gets a usefull and neat spell selection at reasonable levels.


Salty wrote:
I was really hoping for improved combat abilities, personally. The lack of a martial weapon proficiency really disappointed me; I imagined alternating between a crossbow and a longsword or greatsword.

You're in luck then! Inquisitors of Iomedae get longsword proficiency, and Inquisitors of Gorum get greatsword proficiency, because that's the favored weapon of those deities.


Zurai wrote:
You're in luck then! Inquisitors of Iomedae get longsword proficiency, and Inquisitors of Gorum get greatsword proficiency, because that's the favored weapon of those deities.

That's convenient! I had been meaning to look that up. For roleplaying purposes, my character probably would have ended up worshiping Iomedae anyways!


As it has already been posted, I thought I would comment that i agree that the tactical feat progression should be replaced by a progression of sneek attack instead. maybe every three levels?


Zurai wrote:
Salty wrote:
I was really hoping for improved combat abilities, personally. The lack of a martial weapon proficiency really disappointed me; I imagined alternating between a crossbow and a longsword or greatsword.
You're in luck then! Inquisitors of Iomedae get longsword proficiency, and Inquisitors of Gorum get greatsword proficiency, because that's the favored weapon of those deities.

But the classes bab slaps you down at 1st through 3rd level....

which is why I proposed a special ability were the character can take feats at 1st level as if he had a +1 BAB.

I started a new character in PFC and the fact that 90% of the melee combat feats (even quick draw!) require a +1 BAB realy messed me up.


Nunspa wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Salty wrote:
I was really hoping for improved combat abilities, personally. The lack of a martial weapon proficiency really disappointed me; I imagined alternating between a crossbow and a longsword or greatsword.
You're in luck then! Inquisitors of Iomedae get longsword proficiency, and Inquisitors of Gorum get greatsword proficiency, because that's the favored weapon of those deities.

But the classes bab slaps you down at 1st through 3rd level....

which is why I proposed a special ability were the character can take feats at 1st level as if he had a +1 BAB.

I started a new character in PFC and the fact that 90% of the melee combat feats (even quick draw!) require a +1 BAB realy messed me up.

So what do you take with your melee built rogue?

Shadow Lodge

Clerics are the same way. I couldn't find a single feat I wanted at first level because I can't even qualify for Power Attack or Weapon Focus anymore.

Rogues get Weapon Finesse.


Beckett wrote:

Clerics are the same way. I couldn't find a single feat I wanted at first level because I can't even qualify for Power Attack or Weapon Focus anymore.

Rogues get Weapon Finesse.

Toughness, selective channeling, Improved Initiative, Dodge, Combat Casting?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

Beckett wrote:

Clerics are the same way. I couldn't find a single feat I wanted at first level because I can't even qualify for Power Attack or Weapon Focus anymore.

Rogues get Weapon Finesse.

Combat Expertise, Extra Channel, Lightning Reflexes, Scribe Scroll, (if allowed the majority of the Sudden feats from CA)

Shadow Lodge

Kind of generic for a battle cleric. I mean there was nothing for the concept I had in mind. I eventually went with Toughness, but it just feels weak. Clerics have always been hard pressed for good feat choices, though.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

Well unlike a standard fighter they do have a whole slew of fancy spells to use as well. Taking metamagic feats for them is always useful if an often forgotten option.


Thinking about this more, I agree with the people saying swap out tactical feats for sneak attack. If this truly is the divine/rogue hybrid class it needs a little more rogue and a little less fighter. We already have the divine/tank hybrid ...Paladin.

That said, maybe the emphasis should be less on the self-buff (making it more fighter-esk) and more elsewhere. Bard has the corner on the group buff market. So maybe the divine/rogue should concentrate on utility? This is only an idea and, perhaps, better served by another base class in a future book since the Inquisitor's 'Shtick' is established, at this point.

Shadow Lodge

I am not sure about the Sneak Attack. Not satying it is bad, but I really want to try out the Tactical Feats much more before hand. Inquisitors having sneak attack would have a valid reason for it to work against Undead, though, so I could kind of see it. (Not a fan of Undead Sneak Attack in general).

Right now, the only thing I really want to change is the weapons. Drop the ranged and add either martial, or maybe melee martial.


I really like the Inquisitor but I agree some changes need to be done.
I too think that the Judgments should be similar to barbarian rage/bardic music with a rounds per day mechanic.
Drop the Solo Tactics ability. It seems it should go to the Cavalier. I think it should be replaced by something similar to the ranger's favored enemy ability but linked linked to their Monster Lore ability. For example:
Monster Hunter (Ex): As a standard action, the character studies his foe for weaknesses and makes an appropriate Knowledge check, DC: 15+CR. For every 5 points he beats the DC, he gains a +1 to hit and damage. At 7th level the character may do this as a swift action.

Dark Archive

Are inquisitors truly that bad? Like, Bane is their big effect, not Justice. +2 to hit and +2d6 to damage for level rounds per day is really good. Sure their "daily use" ability isn't anywhere close to a paladin; but then, they have a REALLY good spell list (I'd love my bard to be able to Divine Favor).

Overall they seem on par with a bard type class... they are more selfish and self-centered with their buffing, but have good spells, ways to REALLY up damage output, and a really flexible set of feats (the tactical feats seem really solid if you don't require a second person to have them).

Just thoughts, again have not seen one played, BUT I have a person in the campaign I am starting that is going to run one from level 1.


Dont Die wrote:

I really like the Inquisitor but I agree some changes need to be done.

I too think that the Judgments should be similar to barbarian rage/bardic music with a rounds per day mechanic.
Drop the Solo Tactics ability. It seems it should go to the Cavalier. I think it should be replaced by something similar to the ranger's favored enemy ability but linked linked to their Monster Lore ability. For example:
Monster Hunter (Ex): As a standard action, the character studies his foe for weaknesses and makes an appropriate Knowledge check, DC: 15+CR. For every 5 points he beats the DC, he gains a +1 to hit and damage. At 7th level the character may do this as a swift action.

I disagree entirely that solo tactics belongs on the Cavalier. Its about manipulating your allies to use them to your advantage. Cavalier should get the opposite where he gets tactical feats and if his partner doesn't have them he can give the benefits to his partner instead.

I see the Judgements as a 1 per combat ability that is pretty good, and I really like it.

I like the Monster Hunter ability.

As for people saying they should get sneak attack instead of tactics feats, I say no. They don't need that much extra damage, and the tactics feats work great and are something unique IMO. Let the rogue keep his sneak attack. Its what makes him special.


Dont Die wrote:

I really like the Inquisitor but I agree some changes need to be done.

Drop the Solo Tactics ability. It seems it should go to the Cavalier. example:
Monster Hunter (Ex): As a standard action, the character studies his foe for weaknesses and makes an appropriate Knowledge check, DC: 15+CR. For every 5 points he beats the DC, he gains a +1 to hit and damage. At 7th level the character may do this as a swift action.

I like this idea, or something similar.


Caineach wrote:


I disagree entirely that solo tactics belongs on the Cavalier. Its about manipulating your allies to use them to your advantage. Cavalier should get the opposite where he gets tactical feats and if his partner doesn't have them he can give the benefits to his partner instead.

You know after getting my requisite amount of caffeine, I realize that you are right. But I do think that Solo Tactics would make a great Rogue Talent. Manipulating your allies to use them to your advantage. That screams rogue.

Shadow Lodge

I don't know, to me it screams leader, so I can see the Cleric, Paladin, and Inquisitor using the solo Tactics much more than Rogue. Now on the other hand, should the Rogue take one, or more it's that much better for everyone.


Beckett wrote:
I don't know, to me it screams leader, so I can see the Cleric, Paladin, and Inquisitor using the solo Tactics much more than Rogue. Now on the other hand, should the Rogue take one, or more it's that much better for everyone.

Yes, I can see those classes getting tactics feats, but not solo tactics. Solo tactics isn't about leading others, or else they would get the benefit. Only you get the benefit, so its all about helping yourself.

Dark Archive

No changes what so ever. It is perfect as is.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:
Beckett wrote:
I don't know, to me it screams leader, so I can see the Cleric, Paladin, and Inquisitor using the solo Tactics much more than Rogue. Now on the other hand, should the Rogue take one, or more it's that much better for everyone.
Yes, I can see those classes getting tactics feats, but not solo tactics. Solo tactics isn't about leading others, or else they would get the benefit. Only you get the benefit, so its all about helping yourself.

It could. In the sense that you could lead by example, the character with solo tactics could show other characters the benefits of those feats, and if other characters start also taking them, it is better for everyone. Plus, the feats themselves require a certain amount of tactical team work, which would be perfect for the Solo Tactics and better if they don't need to use them as the group learns to work with each other.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

FaeBriona wrote:
Change Judgement to use the same rounds per day mechanic as rage and bardic music.

Please be to not doing this. Rounds/day is the clunkiest new thing PF added to 3e and I'd hate to see it rear its ugly head in a new place.

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
I kind of like the ranged slant, myself. The other two divine types -- cleric and paladin -- are pretty firmly melee, or at least I've always seen them played that way. The idea of a 'holy archer' kind of intrigues me. ;)

Paladins are one of (arguably the best) the best archers in PF, and cleric archers were the best archers by far in 3e especially with non-core material. Inquisitors don't hold a candle to either; it's just that archery is powerful and undemanding in PF.


Caineach wrote:
Nunspa wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Salty wrote:
I was really hoping for improved combat abilities, personally. The lack of a martial weapon proficiency really disappointed me; I imagined alternating between a crossbow and a longsword or greatsword.
You're in luck then! Inquisitors of Iomedae get longsword proficiency, and Inquisitors of Gorum get greatsword proficiency, because that's the favored weapon of those deities.

But the classes bab slaps you down at 1st through 3rd level....

which is why I proposed a special ability were the character can take feats at 1st level as if he had a +1 BAB.

I started a new character in PFC and the fact that 90% of the melee combat feats (even quick draw!) require a +1 BAB realy messed me up.

So what do you take with your melee built rogue?

Well melée combat rogue would start with improved init... Which is a damage boost for them, for when they go first (as they require high dex) and weapon finesse which once more plays off the classes high dex requirment. A two weapon fighting rouge is a nessessity due to sneak attack.

The inquisitor has no such damage bosster which they benifit from. Hell most of the gods weapons flat out nix it. Long sword for example is a strength weapon as is the greatsword

Dark Archive

A Man In Black wrote:


Paladins are one of (arguably the best) the best archers in PF

I know this is wickedly off-topic, (maybe you could make a topic on this outside of the playtest forums?) but how is this true, when the fighter receives more feats? I am not calling you wrong, but instead wish to be enlightened to abilities that I must have missed.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
I know this is wickedly off-topic, (maybe you could make a topic on this outside of the playtest forums?) but how is this true, when the fighter receives more feats? I am not calling you wrong, but instead wish to be enlightened to abilities that I must have missed.

The same reason that rogues make good dual-wielders. Flat bonus damage (smite) and extra attacks (archery) go together like two things that go really well together. Plus, all of the feats that archery needs to be awesome (Precise Shot, Rapid Fire) come together at level 3 for humans. You'll pick up Deadly Aim and Manyshot later but they're just gravy.

It's just weird for someone to say that "holy archers" are some sort of new thing when cleric archers are as old as 3e and paladin archers are a big reason why people complain about smite damage in PF.

Dark Archive

A Man In Black wrote:


It's just weird for someone to say that "holy archers" are some sort of new thing when cleric archers are as old as 3e and paladin archers are a big reason why people complain about smite damage in PF.

Okay, so this is only useful against evil then. That makes much more sense. Thank you!

And, yes, this is new to me, so, could you also explain the cleric thing? Thanks again, and sorry for hijacking this thread for this purpose!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
And, yes, this is new to me, so, could you also explain the cleric thing? Thanks again, and sorry for hijacking this thread for this purpose!

It takes a bit more explaining than fits into this thread to cover all of it. Basically, clerics stacked a bunch of always-on or long-lasting bonus damage on top of the inherent extra attacks of archery. The important parts varied greatly depending on whether you used 3.0 or 3.5, and core or class splats or setting stuff, but basically it was Divine Favor, Divine Power, and/or Righteous Might, married to every single +1 to damage you could possibly scrounge. It didn't take much in 3.0; War domain and a spell and maybe Bracers of Archery was enough to make a fighter jealous.

PF nerfed the big three, gave the other classes flat bonus damage, and gave archers a bunch of feats that boil down to "When you shoot someone, do more damage." Since clerics are short on feats and don't get that flat bonus damage, they don't overshadow the way they used to. Cleric archers can still do just fine (because they get all the other cleric stuff, after all), but they're more on par with bard archers than martial classes when it comes to doing damage.

I guess the idea is that inquisitors are supposed to work like old-school cleric archers, buffing with Divine Foo and Judging and popping Bane. It just seems like it's "I pop Smite and Other Smite and the Third Smite and kill you...and then quietly stand in the back for the rest of the day."


A Man In Black wrote:


It's just weird for someone to say that "holy archers" are some sort of new thing when cleric archers are as old as 3e and paladin archers are a big reason why people complain about smite damage in PF.

I guess this is why I still have trouble wrapping my head around these concepts as 3rd ed is still new to me almost 10 years after it came out.

Heck I still fondly remember when a ranged weapon was considered a dishonorable weapon for a Paladin to use and should only be used as a last resort in order to protect someone else.


Dont Die wrote:

Drop the Solo Tactics ability. It seems it should go to the Cavalier. I think it should be replaced by something similar to the ranger's favored enemy ability but linked linked to their Monster Lore ability. For example:

Monster Hunter (Ex): As a standard action, the character studies his foe for weaknesses and makes an appropriate Knowledge check, DC: 15+CR. For every 5 points he beats the DC, he gains a +1 to hit and damage. At 7th level the character may do this as a swift action.

THIS! Or something along these lines, is what I'd like. Inquisitor abilities are about knowing your foe - through mundane knowledge and divine magic - to know just how to take them down. In addition to a bonus to hit and/or damage, perhaps a high enough check to allow them to ignore DR, grant themselves a bonus to saves against its abilities, dodge bonus to ac vs its attacks. Perhaps the Judgements could key off the knowledge checks, so they are more potent the more the Inquisitor understands his foe. Keeping track of "charge up" rounds for judgements seems like it could be a hassle, but I haven't experienced this to know.

I'd like to see them without spells. But not a full BAB/d10 hit die class, or they will make the rangers of the world cry. They can still be divinely-powered, but I'd rather see supernatural/spell-like abilities. I think there's enough on their plate that they don't need spells on top of it all. Damage is delivered through their weaponry, they don't need direct damage spells (but they could channel some spell effects through their weapons, kinda like an arcane archer.) The buffing spells can be replaced by buffing abilities which can be limits per day, or selected each day and persist.

I like the Bane ability, but I don't like that they can change the creature type every round with a swift action. To me, there should be a little more forethought to the ability - a goal and a plan to hunt down this Abomination! Not "oh, a bugbear? 'k Bane goblinoids then." Each day, the Inquisitor could select his Bane type, and at higher levels he could add additional types to his bane for the day, like 1 per 4 levels above 5th. So a higher level Inquisitor can not only put the hurt on the villainous naga, but his orc bodyguards as well.

Evasion swapped for Mettle, or in addition. When it comes to the things that go bump in the night, it's the assaults on mind and internal body that are the real Stuff of Nightmares. That's what they should be steeled against through an iron resolve; not the dancy-fancy leaping out of fireballs. :)

This is a bit rambling and scattered, but I wanted to get some ideas out there. If I have time I can pull it together to something more coherent and cohesive.


tyweise wrote:
Dont Die wrote:

Drop the Solo Tactics ability. It seems it should go to the Cavalier. I think it should be replaced by something similar to the ranger's favored enemy ability but linked linked to their Monster Lore ability. For example:

Monster Hunter (Ex): As a standard action, the character studies his foe for weaknesses and makes an appropriate Knowledge check, DC: 15+CR. For every 5 points he beats the DC, he gains a +1 to hit and damage. At 7th level the character may do this as a swift action.
THIS! Or something along these lines, is what I'd like. Inquisitor abilities are about knowing your foe - through mundane knowledge and divine magic - to know just how to take them down. In addition to a bonus to hit and/or damage, perhaps a high enough check to allow them to ignore DR, grant themselves a bonus to saves against its abilities, dodge bonus to ac vs its attacks. Perhaps the Judgements could key off the knowledge checks, so they are more potent the more the Inquisitor understands his foe. Keeping track of "charge up" rounds for judgements seems like it could be a hassle, but I haven't experienced this to know.

So... the Archivist from Heroes of Horror?


Tim4488 wrote:
tyweise wrote:
Dont Die wrote:

Drop the Solo Tactics ability. It seems it should go to the Cavalier. I think it should be replaced by something similar to the ranger's favored enemy ability but linked linked to their Monster Lore ability. For example:

Monster Hunter (Ex): As a standard action, the character studies his foe for weaknesses and makes an appropriate Knowledge check, DC: 15+CR. For every 5 points he beats the DC, he gains a +1 to hit and damage. At 7th level the character may do this as a swift action.
THIS! Or something along these lines, is what I'd like. Inquisitor abilities are about knowing your foe - through mundane knowledge and divine magic - to know just how to take them down. In addition to a bonus to hit and/or damage, perhaps a high enough check to allow them to ignore DR, grant themselves a bonus to saves against its abilities, dodge bonus to ac vs its attacks. Perhaps the Judgements could key off the knowledge checks, so they are more potent the more the Inquisitor understands his foe. Keeping track of "charge up" rounds for judgements seems like it could be a hassle, but I haven't experienced this to know.
So... the Archivist from Heroes of Horror?

I see solo tack as an interesting / dynamic ability were the proposal above seems like a yawn fest. There is no spark, no zing, just roll X and gain bonus Y... Which brakes down to a flat damage bonus...

If that's what you want to do, cut down on the die rolls and give a damage bonus equal to the intell of the character if they have monsters HD+X ranks in the right skill.


Nunspa wrote:
Tim4488 wrote:
tyweise wrote:
Dont Die wrote:

Drop the Solo Tactics ability. It seems it should go to the Cavalier. I think it should be replaced by something similar to the ranger's favored enemy ability but linked linked to their Monster Lore ability. For example:

Monster Hunter (Ex): As a standard action, the character studies his foe for weaknesses and makes an appropriate Knowledge check, DC: 15+CR. For every 5 points he beats the DC, he gains a +1 to hit and damage. At 7th level the character may do this as a swift action.
THIS! Or something along these lines, is what I'd like. Inquisitor abilities are about knowing your foe - through mundane knowledge and divine magic - to know just how to take them down. In addition to a bonus to hit and/or damage, perhaps a high enough check to allow them to ignore DR, grant themselves a bonus to saves against its abilities, dodge bonus to ac vs its attacks. Perhaps the Judgements could key off the knowledge checks, so they are more potent the more the Inquisitor understands his foe. Keeping track of "charge up" rounds for judgements seems like it could be a hassle, but I haven't experienced this to know.
So... the Archivist from Heroes of Horror?

I see solo tack as an interesting / dynamic ability were the proposal above seems like a yawn fest. There is no spark, no zing, just roll X and gain bonus Y... Which brakes down to a flat damage bonus...

If that's what you want to do, cut down on the die rolls and give a damage bonus equal to the intell of the character if they have monsters HD+X ranks in the right skill.

Yep, I fully admit that the Archivist was the inspiration for the idea.

Int Mod for damage is a good idea or a a function of Skill Ranks. Every three rank a +1 to hit or damage perhaps.


Byron Zibeck wrote:

I wouldn't mind trading off some spells for a Fighter's BAB progression and accompanying HD.

Also, Martial Weapon Proficiency.

I second the motion for Martial Weapon Proficiency. My Inquisitor's combat options were severely limited with just bows and simple weapons.


Alex Root wrote:
Byron Zibeck wrote:

I wouldn't mind trading off some spells for a Fighter's BAB progression and accompanying HD.

Also, Martial Weapon Proficiency.

I second the motion for Martial Weapon Proficiency. My Inquisitor's combat options were severely limited with just bows and simple weapons.

Inquisitors can get martial weapons proficiencies and, hell, even exotic weapon proficiencies as class features. Just pick a deity with the appropriate weapon. Iomedae favors longswords, Sarenrae favors scimitars, and Zon-Kuthon favors spiked chains, for example. Inquisitors are automagically proficient in their deity's favored weapon, even if that weapon is martial or exotic.


Zurai wrote:
Alex Root wrote:
Byron Zibeck wrote:

I wouldn't mind trading off some spells for a Fighter's BAB progression and accompanying HD.

Also, Martial Weapon Proficiency.

I second the motion for Martial Weapon Proficiency. My Inquisitor's combat options were severely limited with just bows and simple weapons.
Inquisitors can get martial weapons proficiencies and, hell, even exotic weapon proficiencies as class features. Just pick a deity with the appropriate weapon. Iomedae favors longswords, Sarenrae favors scimitars, and Zon-Kuthon favors spiked chains, for example. Inquisitors are automagically proficient in their deity's favored weapon, even if that weapon is martial or exotic.

And what if one should worship Erastil, or any other god whos favored weapon is already covered, for story reasons that cant be changed?

Some GMs are rather conservative in their selection of appropriate deities for a particular campaign setting...

Giving Inquisitors Martial Weapon Proficiency would enhance their combat skills and add flavor by giving more of a "Slayer-esque" feel, while also serving to remove the class from the growing vision of a Cleric/Rogue.

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 3: Alchemist and Inquisitor / Inquisitor - What changes would you like to see? All Messageboards