Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Inquisitor - What changes would you like to see?


Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor

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

Everyone here should take a moment to look at the movie trailer for Solomon Kane (just google Solomon Kane Trailer)

:oP


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

Then you spend one whole feat, of which Pathfinder gives you extra compared to 3.5 anyway.


Tactical feats are a clever idea (although I doubt anyone will actually ever take them). Giving the solo tactics class ability to the cavalier would be a great idea. Applying either or both to the inquisitor, however, really seems overly-forced ("I've got an idea for tactical feats! Who can I give 'em to? ... Aha! The inquisitor needs a new ability!"). Giving the inquisitor limited sneak attack progression instead, as recommended upthread, makes perfect sense to me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tactical feats are a clever idea (although I doubt anyone will actually ever take them). Giving the solo tactics class ability to the cavalier would be a great idea. Applying either or both to the inquisitor, however, really seems overly-forced ("I've got an idea for tactical feats! Who can I give 'em to? ... Aha! The inquisitor needs a new ability!"). Giving the inquisitor limited sneak attack progression instead, as recommended upthread, makes perfect sense to me.

Why do you want to add straight damage already coved by annother class over an ability that is cool, unique and versatile?

Personally, I don't think the inquisitor needs any more damage output. Other things like their Bane ability would need to be toned down if they get more. Add limitted sneak and you will see this class doing way more damage than you want it to IMO. It already gets a bunch of cool abilities.

Second, Solo tactics is the antithesis of the Cavalier, and is perfect for the Inquisitor. I have explained my reason above.

Of all the new classes, I think this one is the most complete and balanced out of the gate, as well as the most unique. I hope you don't take offense, but I really hope the designers don't listen to the calls for change on this one.


Caineach wrote:
Second, Solo tactics is the antithesis of the Cavalier, and is perfect for the Inquisitor. I have explained my reason above.

(Shrug) If not sneak attack, maybe a bonus feat drawn from some class-appropriate list. My opinion remains firmly that the Tactical feats don't suit the solitary inquisitor at all -- not in terms of flavor, nor in terms of the mechanics. I remain convinced they were added to the inquisitor simply because Jason wanted to introduce them, and they didn't seem to fit the Alchemist, Summoner, or Witch.

Taldor

From what I've seen the main points are:
* give the Inquisitor full BAB/d10 hd
* give them Martial Weapon prof.
* Remove the Tactical feats
* remove their spells.

My .02 dollars:
I like the idea of giving them the Martial weapon proficiency. The d10/full BAB is a little much without removing one of the class' other abilities. And both the Tactical feats and spells give them flexability.
So only increase weapons known.


Tim Statler wrote:

From what I've seen the main points are:

* give the Inquisitor full BAB/d10 hd
* give them Martial Weapon prof.
* Remove the Tactical feats
* remove their spells.

My .02 dollars:
I like the idea of giving them the Martial weapon proficiency. The d10/full BAB is a little much without removing one of the class' other abilities. And both the Tactical feats and spells give them flexability.
So only increase weapons known.

I more or less agree. I still haven't made up my mind on tactical feats... I get the "using your allies instead of aiding them" argument, but they also do seem a little funky, mechanically and thematically. I could probably be okay with or without them.

Giving them full BAB/d10 HD would have to go hand-in-hand with removing spells to keep the class balanced, and then we've got an alternate Paladin or Ranger instead of a new and (at least somewhat) distinct class.


Tim4488 wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:

From what I've seen the main points are:

* give the Inquisitor full BAB/d10 hd
* give them Martial Weapon prof.
* Remove the Tactical feats
* remove their spells.

My .02 dollars:
I like the idea of giving them the Martial weapon proficiency. The d10/full BAB is a little much without removing one of the class' other abilities. And both the Tactical feats and spells give them flexability.
So only increase weapons known.

I more or less agree. I still haven't made up my mind on tactical feats... I get the "using your allies instead of aiding them" argument, but they also do seem a little funky, mechanically and thematically. I could probably be okay with or without them.

Giving them full BAB/d10 HD would have to go hand-in-hand with removing spells to keep the class balanced, and then we've got an alternate Paladin or Ranger instead of a new and (at least somewhat) distinct class.

Well I ran a little playtest with the Inquisiter (using him as a one shot NPC) and the Tactical feats worked well....

Though, I did feel they needed a "big attack", (the game I ran was a political one, ended up thinking that the next time the NPC shows up, he will have a few levels of Assassin.. how are you suposed to take out a threat to the church, if its from within? What if you need to be able to take him out qiuck and quite...)

but thats off topic,

the Tactical feats worked very well, fitting the "Lone Wolf" feel of the class.


Zurai wrote:
Alex Root wrote:
And what if one should worship Erastil, or any other god whos favored weapon is already covered, for story reasons that cant be changed?
Then you spend one whole feat, of which Pathfinder gives you extra compared to 3.5 anyway.

Umm because we would end up spending mutiple feats to get what the players are shooting for with the class...

if Pathfinder went with weapon groups insted of singel weapon pros this would not be that much of an issue...

weapon groups make the most sence, if you know how to use a longsword, you know how to use a short sword...


Here's a new idea, just for the mixing up of the thread. I dont know if there are going to be alternate class features, like in the PH II, but I can definitely see inquisitors rocking a monk-style AC, where they get their Wisdom bonus and a small addition in place of armor. If the class is supposed to be a divinely influenced hunter, it stands to reason that their chosen deity might grant them an insight bonus to AC. It probably shouldn't go into changing the normal class, but as I said, it would make one heck of a variant. Don't hate on me for it, it's just a thought.


Alex Root wrote:
Here's a new idea, just for the mixing up of the thread. I dont know if there are going to be alternate class features, like in the PH II, but I can definitely see inquisitors rocking a monk-style AC, where they get their Wisdom bonus and a small addition in place of armor. If the class is supposed to be a divinely influenced hunter, it stands to reason that their chosen deity might grant them an insight bonus to AC. It probably shouldn't go into changing the normal class, but as I said, it would make one heck of a variant. Don't hate on me for it, it's just a thought.

Funny I was thinking something like this, in the sense that I can come up with great characters that work well with the spells..and great ones that don't. Kind of a class options thing..I agree with the Mettle..love the Bane ability.and have come to like the tactical feats.


MerrikCale wrote:
drop spells

That would make him an underpower powered paladin.

Personally that's the main interest with this class is the spell progression, along with some of the nifty abilities. However, I would say replace the tactic feats with bonus combat feats, or perhaps the ability to pick ether tactics or combat feats, or perhaps, instead of feats, starting on the third level, and third or forth level after that gain an addition +1 bonus to an attack roll when attacking the same target of the inquisitor. Or perhaps an additional dodge bonus if you are near the inquisitor. Something to that effect.

The bane ability I believe should stay, as it gives the inquisitor some much needed damage, and I wounder if it is possible to give it even more damage at latter levels, maybe + 1/2 inquisitor level, and as a swift action, you will never run into those situation where you may never end up using it because the campaign does not have that type of monster. Much like the faith of rangers favorite enemy, where many times, I would only ever fight them, if the DM though to be generous to make you feel like you didn't waste your picks.

Perhaps let the Inquisitor use the bonus domain spells, as well as give them a bonus slot for the spell?

I think this class is pretty well rounded support class, with some interesting powers that allow it to stand up on its own. I'm a bit iffy on the tactic feats however, since I have rarely ever found opportunities to use them, but that's not the problem with the feats though, that's the problem that most players tend to never want to use them in the first place as most players will build their characters and tend to use feats that will only benefit themselves, having two players get the same feat if they are not fulfilling similar roles in the party, especially a feat that they can not use on your own is rare.

Perhaps he could use one of his "judgments" abilities, and everyone around him would also gain that feat for a limited amount of time.

Cheliax

Remove their spells? What the? This is a divine judger; one who goes in and finds corruption. They should be divine based.

In general, I find them "perfect" for the most parts. The "Judgements" are badly named, but that's a moot point, "Devotions" I think is used up by someone else; some other word that represents calling on the holy spirit.

The tactical feats are cool; but are probably more Cavalierish. I do NOT see these guys as sneak attackers, more of the "charge in the front door and slay the heretics" type. If anything the Cavalier's Challenge would be more in-line, but still too powerful.

I don't want another non-caster; I like the "old school" cleric feel of the Inquisitor, I think it works well. I have a player playing one in my campaign, and another who would have if it wasn't already picked, so people like them as they are just fine :).

But I will talk more once I have actually seen them in action.


Thalin wrote:

Remove their spells? What the? This is a divine judger; one who goes in and finds corruption. They should be divine based.

In general, I find them "perfect" for the most parts. The "Judgements" are badly named, but that's a moot point, "Devotions" I think is used up by someone else; some other word that represents calling on the holy spirit.

The tactical feats are cool; but are probably more Cavalierish. I do NOT see these guys as sneak attackers, more of the "charge in the front door and slay the heretics" type. If anything the Cavalier's Challenge would be more in-line, but still too powerful.

I don't want another non-caster; I like the "old school" cleric feel of the Inquisitor, I think it works well. I have a player playing one in my campaign, and another who would have if it wasn't already picked, so people like them as they are just fine :).

But I will talk more once I have actually seen them in action.

Indeed, and further more I want him to keep his spells too. In case I wasn't clear last time.

Although he seems to be a tracker, a hunter, so he hunts and stalks those who are against his god, and there for would probably be "sneaky". Not that I disagree with you, entirely, the kick in the door and purging evil would be great as well. Not to mention that sneak attack would not to much to the undead, something he would most definitely want to purge. Which I think they should some how boost his bane ability.

This class though seems like a planner though, so probably wouldn't want to kick in the door. A "Divine Batman" as someone put it earlier.


Thalin wrote:


In general, I find them "perfect" for the most parts. The "Judgements" are badly named, but that's a moot point, "Devotions" I think is used up by someone else; some other word that represents calling on the holy spirit.

I like this!

But I would still want them to have a power called "Judgement" its just so..... Inquisitor


I've been searching this site but can't find the answer. Could an inquisitor qualify for the Arcane Stike feat, if he knows a spell such as True Strike? I know they use their swift actions for other things like changing their judgments, but wondering if the feat prerequisite of casting arcane spells would be limited by class.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
menschi wrote:

I've been searching this site but can't find the answer. Could an inquisitor qualify for the Arcane Stike feat, if he knows a spell such as True Strike? I know they use their swift actions for other things like changing their judgments, but wondering if the feat prerequisite of casting arcane spells would be limited by class.

Thanks.

Arcane strike requires the ability to cast arcane spells. Even if the Inquisitor has spells that are normally arcane, he still casts them as divine, so he cannot use arcane strike. If he took 1 level of wizard, he could take the feat. I'm not sure if his inquisitor levels stack then, as it just says caster levels, but I don't think they should. Its pretty clear that the intent was for it to be arcane caster levels only.


Caineach wrote:


Arcane strike requires the ability to cast arcane spells. Even if the Inquisitor has spells that are normally arcane, he still casts them as divine, so he cannot use arcane strike. If he took 1 level of wizard, he could take the feat. I'm not sure if his inquisitor levels stack then, as it just says caster levels, but I don't think they should. Its pretty clear that the intent was for it to be arcane caster levels only.

Thanks for the help. I'm looking forward to testing out this class.


I am all for giving them martial weapon proficiency or at the very least some additional proficiencies like short swords and others

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor / Inquisitor - What changes would you like to see? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.