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 feedback


Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'll preface this by saying I haven't had a chance to playtest. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for any table time right now, so playtesting is not possible. That being said, I still want to provide my thoughts on the inquisitor in the hope they will be useful or at least thought-provoking.

Overall, the class seems to be in a bit of an identity crisis. On one hand, many of the abilities want to contribute to individual combat ability, but limited armor, weapons, HP, and BAB make it unlikely for the inquisitor to make a meaningful contribution. On the other hand, some abilities contribute to spell casting, but limited casting progression relegates the class to a support role. In addition, the class has a decent number of skills, but his skill selection really only make him useful as a "front man" or tracker/skirmisher, and his class abilities only complement the tracker/skirmisher role. Finally, the interplay of judgements vs. solo tactics (oddly named, as it requires teammates around to receive benefits) confuses me as to whether the inquisitor wants to be self-sufficient or a good teammate.

I'd like to give some detailed feedback on some of the specific abilities.

Domain - I think this should grant domain spells as spells known. Even if this is accompanied by reducing the general number of spells known to compensate, doing so helps to tie the Inquisitor to his faith, and helps define his method of Inquisition. Wouldn't you think an Inquisitor with the Fire domain would use fire and brimstone in his techniques? I would.

Judgments - I see three problems with this ability. First, the benefits only apply to the Inquisitor, but the Inquisitor isn't good enough at either combat or spell casting to make them useful. Second, the benefits don't really kick in until the 3rd round, and by that time the fight will usually have been decided. If the fight is still evenly matched, the benefits are minor enough that they probably won't be the deciding factor. Finally, the Inquisitor has a very limited number of uses of the ability.

Monster Lore, Cunning Initiative, Track - These look good. Seems to want to make the Inquisitor a "monster hunter" role, despite what the skill list indicates. Shades of skirmisher here.

Solo Tactics + Tactical Feat - Aside from the confusing name (I would have expected that the Inquisitor could use these without anyone else around), this looks useful. Seems to want to make the Inquisitor a "works well with others" role.

Bane - A decent ability. There is some confusion in the wording. When the Inquisitor drops/sheathes the weapon, does the duration continue to expire? If so, there is no way for the non-consecutive rounds clause to apply. If not, there is no need for the limitation on returning the weapon before the duration expires. Reading this, I'm inclined to think it can only be used 1/day.

2nd Judgment - Here the judgments begin to become somewhat more useful, and 3/day at this level (8) is a decent number of uses. However, it still suffers from the problem that the Inquisitor is neither a primary combatant nor a primary spellcaster, and it still takes 3 rounds before full effect.

Evasion - A strong ability that arrives late. Puts the Inquisitor more firmly in the skirmisher role.

Greater Bane - Makes Bane even better. Makes the Inquisitor want to take a primary role in combat. This is a good upgrade and seems appropriately placed in the level progression.

Exploit Weakness - Seems to be a very weak and confusing ability. The first part only happens on a critical hit (which occurs infrequently enough) and only applies to either creatures with DR the Inquisitor can't already overcome (probably rare, given judgments and equipment) or regeneration that cannot be overcome (also rare). The inquisitor will not be dealing a lot of dice of energy damage, and there aren't many creatures with vulnerability to energy types, so the second part is extremely weak.

There are also two points of confusion with the wording of the ability. First, the phrase "if the creature's regeneration can be bypassed" has me completely stumped. I thought the creature didn't regenerate already because of the ability? I honestly don't know what that is referring to. Second, the placement of the energy damage description after the critical hit description could lead people to think the extra energy damage only applies after a critical hit. Or does it? This could be made more clear by either describing the extra energy damage first, or specifying the extra energy damage occurs in the round following a critical.

3rd Judgement - Just a minor upgrade to judgments. Previous criticisms still apply.

Slayer - While it begins to address the slow build-up problem of judgments, it comes very late. Judgments still have the problem that they are primary combat or caster buffs to a secondary combat or caster chassis.

True Judgment - If I read it right, this is a very strong ability and a fitting capstone. Basically, every three rounds the Inquisitor can get a free attack as a swift action that forces a save-or-die. If the attack is not a free attack and is part of a normal attack sequence (either one attack out of a full attack, or a standard action), that should be specified.

Spells - The spell list looks pretty useful. There is a good mix of buffing and blasting, with some utility thrown in. However, the Inquisitor will always feel like a distant second fiddle to a primary caster due to his limited number per day, limited known spells, and retarded progression. He will be able to contribute meaningfully at key times with proper selection, but not as often as he would like. His most powerful spells will have been in play already for several levels from the primary casters. The Inquisitor will get the most use from his spell list by primarily choosing buff and healing spells with a few key offensive and utility spells.

...

So, at the end of the day the Inquisitor looks like a skirmisher who wants other people around, that can provide a secondary role in combat or spellcasting but a primary role in neither, and yet whose abilities would most benefit a primary role. The most effective Inquisitor I can imagine is one who sneaks around, tracking down enemies, then using ranged combat and buffs (spells and bows) to support a battle. While it could be effective, that's definitely not what I pictured the class to be based on flavor text and my own imagination of what an Inquisitor would be like.

I think the class could be improved by deciding on whether the Inquisitor wants to be the lone ranger, or if he wants to lead the pitchfork-wielding mob. If the former, I might recommend something like the following:

* Increase to full BAB
* Make judgments take full effect sooner, or increase the effect
* Expand weapons available
* Decrease number of spells known (perhaps reduce the ceiling of known spells per level by one)
* Remove Solo Tactics
* Allow domain spells as spells known

If the latter, I would recommend changes along these lines:

* Make judgments apply to team members
* Instead of bane applying to the Inquisitor's weapon, make it something he applies to a single foe, so that all weapons striking the foe are treated as Bane weapons.
* Increase number of spells known (maybe an extra 1/spell level)
* Remove Cunning Initiative
* Remove Evasion
* Allow domain spells as spells known

Wow, that was a mouthful. I have some more general feedback on inquisitor vs. monster hunter, but I can save that for another post :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1st. The Inquisitor is not a prepared caster, so his spells are a lot better.

2nd. The Inquisitor's spell list is huge and has almost every skill I can think of for it. What is it missing? I don't understand why you say he will be relegated to specific roles.


Caineach wrote:

1st. The Inquisitor is not a prepared caster, so his spells are a lot better.

2nd. The Inquisitor's spell list is huge and has almost every skill I can think of for it. What is it missing? I don't understand why you say he will be relegated to specific roles.

Yes, I agree that spontaneous casting will help. But when you only have, for example, two spells to chose from, it doesn't help that much. You have to choose spells carefully. At 1st level, you know 2 1st level spells. What do you pick?

If you pick a buff or healing spell, you know that you will pretty much always have an opportunity to use it. If you choose something like Detect Undead, you could go entire adventures where it doesn't come into play. A wizard could adjust his prepared spells to account for these situations, an inquisitor cannot, so the inquisitor will be pressured to choose buffs and heals in order to get the most use out of his spell list.

Another example. You've just gained 16th level as an Inquisitor, so you can choose 2 6th level spells. What do you choose? Picking something like Heal and Blade Barrier means you'll always have something to use, but picking Forbiddance and Legend Lore is likely to leave you with unused spell slots quite a bit of the time. The wizard can pick a couple spells, then enhance his selection with a couple of scrolls, and end up with a lot more variety and utility.

Like any other class with a very limited selection of known spells, the player has the incentive to choose the spells which are most widely applicable, which are generally buffs, healing, and a few key offensive/utility spells.


I dont know why you seem to think the inquisitor cannot be a primary melee combatant.

Divine Favor, Aid, Prayer, Bless, Divine power. All of these can easily make up for a 3/4 BAB and then some. The trick to a caster/martial mix is they shouldnt be primary melee combatants untill they are buffed. Round 1 cast buff spell get judgement going, round 2 start laying into things judgemet is in its second round. Use bane for a little added punch. You are doing plenty of damage there. If you are worried about lighter armor, make it a dex based character, and use protection or resiliency judgements.

No Bard casting progression class should have full BaB or HD, that would not be balanced because a full bab class with divine power up would be the best fighter in the game even without all the other extras the Inquisitor gets.


Kolokotroni wrote:

I dont know why you seem to think the inquisitor cannot be a primary melee combatant.

Divine Favor, Aid, Prayer, Bless, Divine power. All of these can easily make up for a 3/4 BAB and then some. The trick to a caster/martial mix is they shouldnt be primary melee combatants untill they are buffed. Round 1 cast buff spell get judgement going, round 2 start laying into things judgemet is in its second round. Use bane for a little added punch. You are doing plenty of damage there. If you are worried about lighter armor, make it a dex based character, and use protection or resiliency judgements.

No Bard casting progression class should have full BaB or HD, that would not be balanced because a full bab class with divine power up would be the best fighter in the game even without all the other extras the Inquisitor gets.

Well, Divine Favor is hard for anyone else to get, that's true. Aid, Prayer, and Bless can all be put on anyone, including your friendly fighter who's ready to go with full BAB, lots of strength, HP, and armor, and a big weapon. Divine Power doesn't do much for a full BAB class except provide +6 enhancement to strength, which can also be done with an item and is also just 2 more than Bull's Strength.

I guess I look at it this way. At 20th level, with 3/4 BAB, the Inquisitor spends rounds 1 and 2 casting Divine Favor and Divine Power to become a full BAB class with an additional +3 luck bonus to hit/to damage, while the fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger has already had two rounds of fighting with his innate bonuses to hit and damage (smites, specialization, favored enemy, rage, etc), and once he digs in, the Inquisitor dies faster than all but the ranger. I think the full BAB classes generally win out here.

If the Inquisitor were a full BAB class, he would need less time buffing for offense, though still squishy.

Maybe a better comparison is with an Eldritch Knight. I'll have to think about that one for a bit.

Andoran

Schmoe wrote:

Well, Divine Favor is hard for anyone else to get, that's true. Aid, Prayer, and Bless can all be put on anyone, including your friendly fighter who's ready to go with full BAB, lots of strength, HP, and armor, and a big weapon. Divine Power doesn't do much for a full BAB class except provide +6 enhancement to strength, which can also be done with an item and is also just 2 more than Bull's Strength.

I guess I look at it this way. At 20th level, with 3/4 BAB, the Inquisitor spends rounds 1 and 2 casting Divine Favor and Divine Power to become a full BAB class with an additional +3 luck bonus to hit/to damage, while the fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger has already had two rounds of fighting with his innate bonuses to hit and damage (smites, specialization, favored enemy, rage, etc), and once he digs in, the Inquisitor dies faster than all but the ranger. I think the full BAB classes generally win out here.

If the Inquisitor were a full BAB class, he would need less time buffing for offense, though still squishy.

Maybe a better comparison is with an Eldritch Knight. I'll have to think about that one for a bit.

I think you may need to reread Divine Favor and Divine Power. They do not stack with each other, and are actually luck bonuses applied on top of enhancement bonuses you get from Belts. Along with getting an extra attack and temp HP, I'd say Divine Power is quite a buff even for a full BAB fighter.

Combined with Righteous Might, the Judgments, selective Greater Bane, and all the tactical feats he can bring to bear just by being near someone, I'd say the Inquisitor is easily capable of holding his own in combat compared to the full BAB classes.

And for the buffing time, assuming you aren't getting the surprise round, which is not an immediate assumption give the Inquisitor's tracking abilities, the first turn is spent casting divine power and activating judgment. Next turn, you swift action another buff spell, probably righteous might if you have the room and a rod of quicken, and charge in. Your judgments are already on round two, and you've spent no more time buffing yourself than the average cleric does.

This is not to say that the Inquisitor doesn't have any issues, I just don't think your picking up on the right ones that need to be fixed. Exploit Weakness is definitely a rather weak and confusing ability. And I agree that Slayer is too little too late for the build up time of Judgments. However, if Exploit Weakness were replaced with say, an ability to share half your Judgments bonus with the party, I think that would add a good ability to the class.


Schmoe wrote:

* Make judgments apply to team members

* Instead of bane applying to the Inquisitor's weapon, make it something he applies to a single foe, so that all weapons striking the foe are treated as Bane weapons.
* Increase number of spells known (maybe an extra 1/spell level)
* Remove Cunning Initiative
* Remove Evasion
* Allow domain spells as spells known

I would actually agree with most of your post, and would probably say that your second example would be pretty good. That said, I actually think he should stay with evasion, and actually get it even earlier. I don't think an extra spell level would be necessary, but I wouldn't mind it.

The other version sounds like a Divine duskblade, which would be great, but not what I envision for this guy. Although this guy is a stalker, and tracker, he is defiantly a team player. Possibly working as the brains, while the paladin works as the brawns. Probably be better with a fighter though, since he could actually get some of the tactic feats with him.


I also find little reason to remove Cunning Initiative, kind of gives the class some flavor if you ask me, its a nice addition.


Lockgo wrote:
Schmoe wrote:

* Make judgments apply to team members

* Instead of bane applying to the Inquisitor's weapon, make it something he applies to a single foe, so that all weapons striking the foe are treated as Bane weapons.
* Increase number of spells known (maybe an extra 1/spell level)
* Remove Cunning Initiative
* Remove Evasion
* Allow domain spells as spells known

I don't see this at all..

An Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf...

He would never form true, lasting connections with his allies…
Why?

because, in the back of his head he knows that one day he may be called upon to strike them down for the betterment of his faith.

What happens if one day they find the equivalent of the davinci code exposing something about the Inquisitor’s faith! He would have to find a way, not only to destroy the items in question, but to kill off or permanently silent anyone that can expose it.

What happens if one of the characters, a cleric of the same god, decides to change gods!!

The Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf.

The recommendations you propose are more for a battle cleric… a leader of men! “Strike Down Our Foe! Now!! Strike at the Heart of darkness may my gods hand guide you!!”

Not a man that one day may be called upon to kill his best friend to protect his faith.


Nunspa wrote:


I don't see this at all..

An Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf...

He would never form true, lasting connections with his allies…
Why?

because, in the back of his head he knows that one day he may be called upon to strike them down for the betterment of his faith.

What happens if one day they find the equivalent of the davinci code exposing something about the Inquisitor’s faith! He would have to find a way, not only to destroy the items in question, but to kill off or permanently silent anyone that can expose it.

What happens if one of the characters, a cleric of the same god, decides to change gods!!

The Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf.

The recommendations you propose are more for a battle cleric… a leader of men! “Strike Down Our Foe! Now!! Strike at the Heart of darkness may my gods hand guide you!!”

Not a man that one day may be called upon to kill his best friend to protect his faith.

While talking about the davinci code, was the best these guys could do was a single Albino Ninja Assassins. I would have had at least 5 of them ready. All kidding aside.

It's unlikely he would have to kill his friends, that's all situational in terms of a campaign. He probably wouldn't be working with that person in the place, except on a mission. Which goes for anyone who might be placed in a possition where they are force to work with people they don't like. Most common example would be if a party has to higher a ranger tracker, he likes to giggles every so often, simply because of the lack of contact he has had with people in recent years. You tend to not want to sleep around him without someone keeping look out.

For example, I see an Inquisitor easily working with a Paladin. Where the Inquisitor is the brains, and the Paladin is the brawns. If an Inquisitor is in a party with a Paladin and a Cleric of the same faith, its unlikely he would be thinking of ways to kill them outside simple paranoia. Which isn't always a bad thing.

"Be polite be efficient have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

However, I see what your saying, this guy seems to be covert Ops type of a character. Gather information, lay down some tactical plan of attack, and then smite those who oppose his god with the help of the paladin and cleric. I see, lore wise, Inquisitors working in groups, to achieve an overall goal. However, he would sometimes scout out ahead, and gather information before returning to brief his two friends.

Now working with charters of other religions I think would have the problems any paladin or cleric would have. Now that said, could he have lone wolf tendencies? Why yes, if he few him as some type of spy, he can ether work really well with others, but be able to act alone when the situation arises.


Lockgo,

The more and more we talk about this, it makes me wonder if Monster Lore is a good fit for the class...

Threats to Inquisitor’s religion will more often come from other humanoids, not from monsters (maybe infernal and intelligent monsters like dragons)

Just thinking allowed here.

That reminds me need to post my playtest report from last nights game


Lockgo wrote:
However, I see what your saying, this guy seems to be covert Ops type of a character. Gather information, lay down some tactical plan of attack, and then smite those who oppose his god with the help of the paladin and cleric.

That's very similar to my view, yeah.

Nunspa wrote:

The more and more we talk about this, it makes me wonder if Monster Lore is a good fit for the class...

Threats to Inquisitor’s religion will more often come from other humanoids, not from monsters (maybe infernal and intelligent monsters like dragons)

Naw, it still fits, IMHO. Inquisitors hunt the enemies of their faith. For some faiths that's other humanoids, for others, it's definitely going to be monsters. Inquisitors of crusader-type deities would hunt demons, devils, and perhaps undead, Inquisitors of woodland deities would track down unnatural beings that defile nature, and Inquisitors of Bahamut would definitely need to know how to fight Tiamat's spawn. As just a few examples.


Tim4488 wrote:


Naw, it still fits, IMHO. Inquisitors hunt the enemies of their faith. For some faiths that's other humanoids, for others, it's definitely going to be monsters. Inquisitors of crusader-type deities would hunt demons, devils, and perhaps undead, Inquisitors of woodland deities would track down unnatural beings that defile nature, and Inquisitors of Bahamut would definitely need to know how to fight Tiamat's spawn. As just a few examples.

solid points all...


I will so go Supernatural on the inquisitor, James and Dean to the rescue ^^ (ok they might accidentally have set lucifer free, but they meant well)

1) It should be noted that an inquisitor can select spells from the domain he / she picks, possibly two domains wouldnt be a bad idea since it is actually quite limited.

2) I rather see the Monster Lore ability add + 1 per two levels, rather than base it on wis, more like a bard, but limited in application.

3) I miss Use Magic Device as class skill, I find it a suitable skill for this roguish character, also it could make the exploit weakness ability quite a bit more interesting, only real energy attack the inquisitor has is flamestrike. I'd love to have some wands with acid arrow, scorching ray, and possibly orb spells. would work nicely with the Monster Lore ability.

4) Evasion ability is nice, though I think the ability is quite weak without good reflex saves, also I think reflex saves deserve a good save rather than fortitude. Since it strikes me of a character thinking on his / her feet rather than a robust warrior type.
the ability in itself is a good stimulant to not wear heavy armor.

well that is it for now, it is pretty well done I definately going to play one for testing. I will spend some time browsing the spell list in more debt, but at first glance it is quite nice.


Remco Sommeling wrote:

Evasion ability is nice, though I think the ability is quite weak without good reflex saves, also I think reflex saves deserve a good save rather than fortitude. Since it strikes me of a character thinking on his / her feet rather than a robust warrior type.

the ability in itself is a good stimulant to not wear heavy armor.

Someone in another Inquisitor thread suggested replacing Evasion with Mettle.

Those unfamiliar with the Mettle ability. It allows the character to completely ignore effects that allow a Will or Fort save on a successful save.

Think this is more fitting than Evasion. Using force of will and fortitude over nimbleness is thematically a better representation of what the Inquisitor embodies and meshes well with their good Will and Fort save progression.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

Great discussion folks. Nunspa, your post really captures what we were going for with this class as a theme...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Nunspa wrote:

Lockgo,

The more and more we talk about this, it makes me wonder if Monster Lore is a good fit for the class...

Threats to Inquisitor’s religion will more often come from other humanoids, not from monsters (maybe infernal and intelligent monsters like dragons)

Just thinking allowed here.

That reminds me need to post my playtest report from last nights game

Keep in mind that monster lore, although it does have "monster" in the name, applies to any knowledge checks to identify the abilities or weaknesses of any creature. Even humans are creatures. A Knowledge: Nobility check to decide that Baron Harkess is overly fond of his whisky is within the mechanical purview of the Monster Lore ability.

Also note that, in D&D, religions are threatened or opposed to different things than they are in real life. Sure, in real life, religions are most threatened by people. In D&D, religions can be threatened by all sorts of nonhumans -- demons, devils, various humanoids worshiping different deities (Lamashtu being especially common among monstrous races), undead, etc etc -- in addition to the 'player races'.


sysane wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

Evasion ability is nice, though I think the ability is quite weak without good reflex saves, also I think reflex saves deserve a good save rather than fortitude. Since it strikes me of a character thinking on his / her feet rather than a robust warrior type.

the ability in itself is a good stimulant to not wear heavy armor.

Someone in another Inquisitor thread suggested replacing Evasion with Mettle.

Those unfamiliar with the Mettle ability. It allows the character to completely ignore effects that allow a Will or Fort save on a successful save.

Think this is more fitting than Evasion. Using force of will and fortitude over nimbleness is thematically a better representation of what the Inquisitor embodies and meshes well with their good Will and Fort save progression.

my main problem with mettle as an ability is it wasnt well thought out and at times in 3.5 seems.. weird.

for instance an evocation spell deals 10d8 points of damage on one target no save just ranged attack roll, excellent, now we have an improved version of that spell besides also dealing 15d8 force damage it also stuns you IF YOU FAIL A FORTITUDE SAVE.

In this case the improved version could very well suck more, because you get a save to negate the whole spell.
In my opinion mettle is best left alone, unless you are willing to test every spell against it.

I am also not at all convinced good fortitude is a better fit than reflex saves. more so I just find it odd to give evasion to a class with poor reflex saves, I rather see good saves in all categories than evasion with poor reflex saves.

I am wondering why the designers chose for this ability, yet did choose good fortitude saves over reflex saves ?


I wonder if I am missing something. I am extremely enthusiastic about the Inquisitor concept and most of the design.

But closed spell list classes are not a good idea. As a game expands, open spell list classes expand as well. Unless the designers are willing to do a class-by-class expansion of closed-list classes' access to new spells, the closed-spell-list class becomes playable only in campaigns that are limited to core rules. I wonder why Bulmahn got rid of assassins as hybrid casters (a move I applaud!) only to introduce many more classes in which spellcasting is a stand-in for flavorful crunch.

Of course, DMs can expand the list by fiat. But DMs can do anything, so that's no help.


It is not something that bothers me if the class is worth a little extra effort to judge a few spells that a player might want and it fits well with the class or his character, I'll allow it and I will have a player who is quite happy with his character, even more so because I gave him access to something 'special' ... players are such simple creatures really :p


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zurai wrote:


Keep in mind that monster lore, although it does have "monster" in the name, applies to any knowledge checks to identify the abilities or weaknesses of any creature. Even humans are creatures.

Here is an ability that could be expanded upon in a way that benefits the class. Perhaps by using knowledge checks to "discover" or "create" a weakness in a creature giving the Inquisitor and allies a bigger advantage against certain foes.

Yes, the Inquisitor is a monster hunter and the class almost looks that way. More focus should be spent on this.


Joshua Fairfield wrote:

I wonder if I am missing something. I am extremely enthusiastic about the Inquisitor concept and most of the design.

But closed spell list classes are not a good idea. As a game expands, open spell list classes expand as well. Unless the designers are willing to do a class-by-class expansion of closed-list classes' access to new spells, the closed-spell-list class becomes playable only in campaigns that are limited to core rules. I wonder why Bulmahn got rid of assassins as hybrid casters (a move I applaud!) only to introduce many more classes in which spellcasting is a stand-in for flavorful crunch.

Of course, DMs can expand the list by fiat. But DMs can do anything, so that's no help.

Yeah. I have that worry too: Alchemist, Inquisitor, Summoner and Witch all have unique lists. That's 2/3 of the book. On the other hand, Paizo releases accessories like this far less often than WotC did, presumably so they can focus more on supporting what they DO have rather than just constantly adding new options. In that light, maybe they'll support these classes better when they do release new material, rarely as that is.

Some people have asked for a unique spell list for Oracle and oh, no, no. I oppose that one too.

Shane LeRose wrote:

Here is an ability that could be expanded upon in a way that benefits the class. Perhaps by using knowledge checks to "discover" or "create" a weakness in a creature giving the Inquisitor and allies a bigger advantage against certain foes.

Yes, the Inquisitor is a monster hunter and the class almost looks that way. More focus should be spent on this.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: similar to the Archivist. On the other hand, that's not a bad thing at all. I liked the Archivist a lot, and its flavor and the Inquisitor's flavor have some overlap, especially when it comes to monster knowledge. It'd be cool to me to see some Archivist-y elements in the Inquisitor, so long as it's possible to do while maintaining copyright law and all that. I'm sure Paizo can build new mechanics to cover similar ideas.


I do like the archivist as well, though the abilities of the archivist seemed to need more work than the inquisitor class.
I think it is really well built flavourwise and abilitywise without being overpowering in certain areas, though playtesting will be needed to confirm this.
The archivist had more of a powercreep in the abilities it provided for the party and also did not like those particular bits much, the mechanics seemed a bit too forced for me.
The abilities of an inquisitor seem to run more natural and smoothly from it's role and way it will act in an encounter.


Remco Sommeling wrote:


my main problem with mettle as an ability is it wasnt well thought out and at times in 3.5 seems.. weird.

for instance an evocation spell deals 10d8 points of damage on one target no save just ranged attack roll, excellent, now we have an improved version of that spell besides also dealing 15d8 force damage it also stuns you IF YOU FAIL A FORTITUDE SAVE.

In this case the improved version could very well suck more, because you get a save to negate the whole spell.
In my opinion mettle is best left alone, unless you are willing to test every spell against it.

I think spells like the one in your example are far and few between. While I'm not positive, there are probably reflex spells that would fall into the same category. Does that mean that there's a problem with the evasion ability or a problem with the spell? I think neither. I think its just a matter of a DM judgment call on whether the damage is negated as well as the Stun or just the Stun and Mettle was just not applicable in this instance (I opt for the latter).


sysane wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


my main problem with mettle as an ability is it wasnt well thought out and at times in 3.5 seems.. weird.

for instance an evocation spell deals 10d8 points of damage on one target no save just ranged attack roll, excellent, now we have an improved version of that spell besides also dealing 15d8 force damage it also stuns you IF YOU FAIL A FORTITUDE SAVE.

In this case the improved version could very well suck more, because you get a save to negate the whole spell.
In my opinion mettle is best left alone, unless you are willing to test every spell against it.

I think spells like the one in your example are far and few between. While I'm not positive, there are probably reflex spells that would fall into the same category. Does that mean that there's a problem with the evasion ability a problem with the spell? I think neither. I think its just a matter of a DM judgment call on whether the damage is negated as well as the Stun or just the Stun and Mettle was just not applicable in the instance (I opt for the latter).

no Evasion has been a part of the game since created and is used only for save for half damage spells.

Mettle doesnt just work for save for half, but also partial I think it an odd function for those spells.
generally such a spell has an effect which you do not have a save against, but BECAUSE it adds something extra to the spell you get a save to negate the spell completely.

I see where I would want it to apply and where not, the mettle per RAW will cause problems though and it will cause discussion with players.

Thus I think mettle is too crude to implement as an ability.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Great discussion folks. Nunspa, your post really captures what we were going for with this class as a theme...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Jason,

I was thinking about this last night, and there is one thing the class is missing, something no other class has.

I can so see the guy from “Lie to Me” being an Inquisitor.

As they would be constantly seeking out corruption within and outside of the church, they would also seek to guild their allies down the “right path” by always “looking out for them”. Thus they would learn how to read people better than the average person.

Sounds like a bonus to Sense Motive to me, a niche no other class has.

Maybe doube their wisdom bonus to Sense Motive? I would say have it at 4th level to stop clerics from dipping into it for the Uber bonus it would be for pure spellcasters.


Shane LeRose wrote:


Here is an ability that could be expanded upon in a way that benefits the class. Perhaps by using knowledge checks to "discover" or "create" a weakness in a creature giving the Inquisitor and allies a bigger advantage against certain foes.

Yes, the Inquisitor is a monster hunter and the class almost looks that way. More focus should be spent on this.

Someone posted above an idea were the Inquisiter would get a bonus on damage depending upon the roll. (I think it was +1 for every 5 that you surpass the targets HD) which would work with all targets, even other humanoids.


Remco Sommeling wrote:

no Evasion has been a part of the game since created and is used only for save for half damage spells.

Mettle doesnt just work for save for half, but also partial I think it an odd function for those spells.
generally such a spell has an effect which you do not have a save against, but BECAUSE it adds something extra to the spell you get a save to negate the spell completely.

I see where I would want it to apply and where not, the mettle per RAW will cause problems though and it will cause discussion with players.

Thus I think mettle is too crude to implement as an ability.

I will agree that Mettle as an ability could stand to be revised and wouldn't take much to do so.

Limiting it to just damaging effects that allow Will or Fort saves (like evasion) for half would do it IMO.


Nunspa wrote:
Shane LeRose wrote:


Here is an ability that could be expanded upon in a way that benefits the class. Perhaps by using knowledge checks to "discover" or "create" a weakness in a creature giving the Inquisitor and allies a bigger advantage against certain foes.

Yes, the Inquisitor is a monster hunter and the class almost looks that way. More focus should be spent on this.

Someone posted above an idea were the Inquisiter would get a bonus on damage depending upon the roll. (I think it was +1 for every 5 that you surpass the targets HD) which would work with all targets, even other humanoids.

that seems too much complication to make for every roll


Remco Sommeling wrote:
that seems too much complication to make for every roll

He's talking about Knowledge checks. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure Knowledge checks ain't it.


Zurai wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
that seems too much complication to make for every roll
He's talking about Knowledge checks. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure Knowledge checks ain't it.

you are absolutely right >_<

I was thinking attack rolls, not even sure why

*bows head in shame*
*starts whiping self*

BAD ! BAD ! BAD !


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The +1/5 for the knowledge check still seems like a lot of extra damage. Also, it would make you more or less required to keep as many knowledge skills as possible maxed, or do a short lvl dip to bard and kill things. I mean, I've seen lvl 3 characters with +15 to a skill, without wierd bonuses. This would allow a knowledge check to get someone +4-6 damage per attack fairly easily at that lvl.

Perhaps a better check would be DC 15+HD granting +1 /3 class lvls.


Caineach wrote:

The +1/5 for the knowledge check still seems like a lot of extra damage. Also, it would make you more or less required to keep as many knowledge skills as possible maxed, or do a short lvl dip to bard and kill things. I mean, I've seen lvl 3 characters with +15 to a skill, without wierd bonuses. This would allow a knowledge check to get someone +4-6 damage per attack fairly easily at that lvl.

Perhaps a better check would be DC 15+HD granting +1 /3 class lvls.

To be honest I'm no a big fan of the idea... the Bane ability fills it's role quite well.

Hell if I was playing an Inquisiter in a home game I would have to muti-class assassin just to pick up the assassination ability (which I can soooo see an Inquisiter using)

But I'm playing one in PFS so no assassin for me


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nunspa wrote:

Sounds like a bonus to Sense Motive to me, a niche no other class has.

Maybe doube their wisdom bonus to Sense Motive? I would say have it at 4th level to stop clerics from dipping into it for the Uber bonus it would be for pure spellcasters.

Honestly, I think that's a great idea, but, I would not ever do it as a straight bonus. It should scale with level. I would do it similar to the rogue trapfinding, make it a 1/2 class level bonus to sense motive.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mdt wrote:
Nunspa wrote:

Sounds like a bonus to Sense Motive to me, a niche no other class has.

Maybe doube their wisdom bonus to Sense Motive? I would say have it at 4th level to stop clerics from dipping into it for the Uber bonus it would be for pure spellcasters.

Honestly, I think that's a great idea, but, I would not ever do it as a straight bonus. It should scale with level. I would do it similar to the rogue trapfinding, make it a 1/2 class level bonus to sense motive.

It could also be skill focus as a free feat, but I like your scaling bonus.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mdt wrote:
Nunspa wrote:

Sounds like a bonus to Sense Motive to me, a niche no other class has.

Maybe doube their wisdom bonus to Sense Motive? I would say have it at 4th level to stop clerics from dipping into it for the Uber bonus it would be for pure spellcasters.

Honestly, I think that's a great idea, but, I would not ever do it as a straight bonus. It should scale with level. I would do it similar to the rogue trapfinding, make it a 1/2 class level bonus to sense motive.

Really nice idea all around.

Sczarni

I really like the idea of the Inquisitor but I’m not a fan of them gaining spells, I feel the class would work better if you give them more of an expert feel. Give them some spell-like abilities but not spells, I see them working more for a church than a god and I see them gaining training and power from that church than there own faith. I do like the other abilities though I don’t really like the tactical feats for them I find it odd that the same time they introduce the tactical feats they also introduce a class that gains an ability that allows them to use those feats without others having them, I find this very odd.

Sczarni

I really want to see fewer spellcasters


R_Chance wrote:
mdt wrote:
Nunspa wrote:

Sounds like a bonus to Sense Motive to me, a niche no other class has.

Maybe doube their wisdom bonus to Sense Motive? I would say have it at 4th level to stop clerics from dipping into it for the Uber bonus it would be for pure spellcasters.

Honestly, I think that's a great idea, but, I would not ever do it as a straight bonus. It should scale with level. I would do it similar to the rogue trapfinding, make it a 1/2 class level bonus to sense motive.
Really nice idea all around.

Very Nice...

/approve

:o)


not sure it is needed, it is already a wisdom based class with sense motive as a class skill. so if you really want it max it out your skill modifier should be pretty good.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
not sure it is needed, it is already a wisdom based class with sense motive as a class skill. so if you really want it max it out your skill modifier should be pretty good.

the point is.. he will be no better then a cleric,

This is my point,

It's the Inquisitor's job to read and understand the motives of those he "looks over".. to look for those who have lost their way.. to look into the souls of men.

Much like it's the rouges job to know and understand traps.


Nunspa wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
not sure it is needed, it is already a wisdom based class with sense motive as a class skill. so if you really want it max it out your skill modifier should be pretty good.

the point is.. he will be no better then a cleric,

This is my point,

It's the Inquisitor's job to read and understand the motives of those he "looks over".. to look for those who have lost their way.. to look into the souls of men.

Much like it's the rouges job to know and understand traps.

I agree that a bonus to sense motive would make alot of sense. Inquisitors should be better then a cleric or monk at sense motive because they are by their nature investigators of sorts. Though possibly it should be preceeded with an intimidation check? To represent an 'interogation'?


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:


I agree that a bonus to sense motive would make alot of sense. Inquisitors should be better then a cleric or monk at sense motive because they are by their nature investigators of sorts. Though possibly it should be preceeded with an intimidation check? To represent an 'interogation'?

Fluff-wise, that works good. Crunch wise, it adds extra rolling.


mdt wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


I agree that a bonus to sense motive would make alot of sense. Inquisitors should be better then a cleric or monk at sense motive because they are by their nature investigators of sorts. Though possibly it should be preceeded with an intimidation check? To represent an 'interogation'?

Fluff-wise, that works good. Crunch wise, it adds extra rolling.

It does but generally this is an out of combat situation where an extra die roll may not hurt much.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:
Nunspa wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:
not sure it is needed, it is already a wisdom based class with sense motive as a class skill. so if you really want it max it out your skill modifier should be pretty good.

the point is.. he will be no better then a cleric,

This is my point,

It's the Inquisitor's job to read and understand the motives of those he "looks over".. to look for those who have lost their way.. to look into the souls of men.

Much like it's the rouges job to know and understand traps.

I agree that a bonus to sense motive would make alot of sense. Inquisitors should be better then a cleric or monk at sense motive because they are by their nature investigators of sorts. Though possibly it should be preceeded with an intimidation check? To represent an 'interogation'?

No, if you wanted that I would give them an intimidate check to force someone to tell the truth.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:
mdt wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


I agree that a bonus to sense motive would make alot of sense. Inquisitors should be better then a cleric or monk at sense motive because they are by their nature investigators of sorts. Though possibly it should be preceeded with an intimidation check? To represent an 'interogation'?

Fluff-wise, that works good. Crunch wise, it adds extra rolling.

It does but generally this is an out of combat situation where an extra die roll may not hurt much.

Unfortunately, Sense Motive is the opposing roll for bluff, and I can't see an inquisitor not being the best at noticing that, but also can't reconcile interrogating them with intimidation as part of the bluff resistence check either.


mdt wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
mdt wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


I agree that a bonus to sense motive would make alot of sense. Inquisitors should be better then a cleric or monk at sense motive because they are by their nature investigators of sorts. Though possibly it should be preceeded with an intimidation check? To represent an 'interogation'?

Fluff-wise, that works good. Crunch wise, it adds extra rolling.

It does but generally this is an out of combat situation where an extra die roll may not hurt much.
Unfortunately, Sense Motive is the opposing roll for bluff, and I can't see an inquisitor not being the best at noticing that, but also can't reconcile interrogating them with intimidation as part of the bluff resistence check either.

In my head the intimidate check comes first, then someone tries to bluff, then the sense motive comes. I guess i just see it as an inquisitor just being good at seeing through lies, untill he breaks out the thumb screws, then he's exceptional.


possibly true, though in all honesty the Inquisitor type model is already built in the cleric class really, you could make a cleric Inquisitor and max your skill, you would do a fine job.

The Inquisitor could follow that course though, I do not see a point in overloading it with abilities it doesn't really need, these classes are already ability heavy compared to core.

Everybody loves getting abilities for free, but hardly ever will invest feats in it. You already get a bunch of feats you can use to flesh out your character concept, though I imagine few people actually will take skill focus sense motive.

Just working skill focus in as a bonus feat at some point would be ok I guess.


Hi all.Reading the thread imho a pair of changes would be enough.

First,add domain spells to the inquisitor list.

Second,change track for something like "Heretics Hunter" that adds half's level on sense motive and diplomacy (gather information) skill checks.

Finally,I`d change "Exploit weakness":When an inquisitor use her "Bane or Greater Bane" his attacks overcomes all DR unless /-.In addition when he strikes a monster with fast healing or regeneration it loses this ability during a number of rounds equal to the inquisitor wisdom bonus.

Sorry for my english,but i´m spanish.


Whoa! I take off for a few days, and the thread really picks up! First ,thanks for everyone's considered and thoughtful responses. I'll try to provide some of my thoughts where appropriate.

Nunspa wrote:
Schmoe wrote:

* Make judgments apply to team members

* Instead of bane applying to the Inquisitor's weapon, make it something he applies to a single foe, so that all weapons striking the foe are treated as Bane weapons.
* Increase number of spells known (maybe an extra 1/spell level)
* Remove Cunning Initiative
* Remove Evasion
* Allow domain spells as spells known

I don't see this at all..

An Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf...

But, is that true? Solo Tactics is a sizable part the abilities, which implies that the Inquisitor wants allies around. He would be better off surrounding himself with those of true faith, and leading them to purge the heretics.

Nunspa wrote:

He would never form true, lasting connections with his allies…

Why?

because, in the back of his head he knows that one day he may be called upon to strike them down for the betterment of his faith.

What happens if one day they find the equivalent of the davinci code exposing something about the Inquisitor’s faith! He would have to find a way, not only to destroy the items in question, but to kill off or permanently silent anyone that can expose it.

What happens if one of the characters, a cleric of the same god, decides to change gods!!

The Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf.

The recommendations you propose are more for a battle cleric… a leader of men! “Strike Down Our Foe! Now!! Strike at the Heart of darkness may my gods hand guide you!!”

Not a man that one day may be called upon to kill his best friend to protect his faith.

I think this gets down to the confusion I have with the class. Does the inquisitor prefer working with allies, or does he prefer to be solo? And to be frank, I don't think the flavor for the class specifies one direction or the other. There could be a very good case made that the Inquisitor should be a Divine Bard, inspiring his allies to root out enemies of the church. Same basic chassis (BAB, HD, saves), similar spell progression, similar skill points, and some abilities that work only with allies.

The difference right now is that, despite some "better with allies" abilities, the Inquisitor is predominantly a selfish character, and I'm not sure the abilities are enough to compensate for the Bard chassis to make the Inquisitor an effective solo character.

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor / Inquisitor feedback All Messageboards

©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.