Zdan's page

Liz Courts wrote:

hogarth wrote:

If you're willing to wait a few months, I'm sure there'll be some third party publisher producing supplementary "Beginner Box Plus" products soon enough.

0One Games has begun the release of Basic Path adventures that are geared to play like in the Beginner Box.

Thanks Liz! :)

FYI, more Basic Paths products are on the way...

This looks...amazing! This is what I meant by BB Adventures/Adventure Paths. I like what I am seeing and I think it's time to buy. Quick question - ever thought to make a BB Plus supplement? More levels, more classes etc.?

I think the two sides will not come into agreement here. Let's agree to disagree. Both points have been laid out in detail here so there is not much more to say. The ball is in Paizo's court - they will do what they want.

For me - it's back to playing the BB and then rules-lite DnD - there are so many variants to choose :)

I quite like it - simple, fast, elegant. However does small stature also entail smaller weapons? My other concern was is it this balanced well enough? +1 AC and +4 to stealth seems pretty good, tailored to the rogue class.

Steve Geddes wrote:

That would be my guess too. Plus it runs directly counter to Vic's point above - providing a direct competitor to the AP line is unlikely to boost AP subscriptions, which seems so central to their success. Even if net subscribers went up, if the AP numbers drop significantly the cost per unit will necessarily go up.

So Paizo want people to jump into their APs. At the moment, they can:

1. Pathfinder Beginner Box > Core Rulebook > APs
OR
2. Core Rulebook > APs

Does this mean that if it were possible, Paizo would be keen to see a Beginner Box line if it allowed people to leap straight the APs?

3. Pathfinder Beginner Box > APs

I honestly don't see the mechanical issue of creating a Pathfinder Beginner Box that is compatible with its APs (and even its setting and bestiaries). Sure its a challenge, but its not an insurmountable one. The Pathfinder Beginner Box has already figured out the path needed. Sure, you end up with something needing a little work to make it fully usable with APs and modules but quite a few people seem happy to do that little extra work to have a ruleset more closely matching their tastes.

If the APs and setting are the bread and butter for Paizo and its mechanics a gateway, surely making that gateway as wide as possible is in Paizo's benefit?

This this and a thousand times this. If what Vic says is true (and we do not have any reason to doubt him) then what Skywaker said is of utmost importance. If AP's are the bread and butter of Paizo why not make a gateway to the AP's as wide as possible? The Beginner style play makes it so. It has been show it can done. I am not expecting an identical result in a second BB but surely such a product would sell. Hell, it might even sell to people who have not bought the first BB because they knew a second part is not coming. And speaking for myself - if I got a BB2 I would by AP's by the wazoo. Working on those is ten times less consuming then trimming down CRB content to BB style.

Of course as said - Paizo know what is best for them. What I am saying is just to consider this as an option as the voices the cry for a BB2 expansion are not few and far between.

Of course I can always go play Swords And Wizardry or Castles and Crusades or Crypts And Things or....etc :) I just like Paizo's approach to fans and would gladly pay them even more cash to produce Pathfinder-lite content. Just because the BB was THAT good!

So, it seems we have two factors--

1) Many folks, like me, seem to like the rules lite approach of the BB.

2) Paizo has a vested money interest in getting people into adventure paths because that pays the bills (and frankly, that makes more sense than the WotC model of system bloat to try and pay the bills).

So, perhaps a middle road idea. A 'Beginner Box 2' (or as I'd call it for the old school folks, the "Expert Box") and then a series of Adventure Paths for BB/EB that, having the same rules as BB/EB (which means, the same as CRB leaving out some stuff), would just as easily adapt to the full Pathfinder rules (and by adapt, I mean 'pretty much run as written'). I could see the main setting book (Inner Sea Guide) being useful to pretty much both. I've briefly looked through it (still debating on buy) and it seems not really crunch heavy except for NPCs.

Does that sound like a reasonable idea and compromise between the two desires? Anyone else think that sounds reasonable?

I'll be honest. I love the BB. I'd run that for my 'fantasy fix' game. But I have the CRB and I have the same issues with that that I did v3.5. I'll play if offered, but I'm not running that, and not buying adventure paths for it. I had my fill of running that intensive a prep game 5 years ago.

I would seriously consider Adventure Paths for a BB/EB line. And I would buy an EB in a heartbeat.

This is basicly what I wanted to say but took too long to say it. I completely agree with OperationsKT and as him I would jump on the EB in a heartbeat. Also calling it the Expert box prevents the mentioned above problem - which box do I choose? Also if offered BB versions of adventure paths I would jump all over them. All of them. Hell if I got versions of the existing Adventure Paths adapted to BB I would buy those too.

First of all Vic thank you for replying and speaking directly and openly without any obfuscation. I would agree that if I had to point to one thing Paizo does extremely well - that would be the Adventure Paths. They are, bar none, one of the best modules going on in the RPG scene today. Thank you for them.

The problem with the broad range of characters, monsters and player options is that is turns some people away because, while such a range provides great options in play, it can slow down the experience and to add to that it makes learning the game quite difficult. Of course one could say: "Why are you playing Pathfinder if you are not happy with the system?" - but that approach is counter-productive. You see - with the Beginner box people were given a sample of rules-lite Pathfinder play. And some people - me included - LOVED that approach. Keep in mind I left Pathfinder sometime ago because of the problems with the system and the crunch inherent to it. Beginner Box brought me back but I cannot imagine going back to the full rules after the smooth, simple play of the BB. So the problem is that some people either do not have the time or do not want migrate to full rules set. I understand that is none of your concern - just throwing it at there.

Plus - wouldn't the Adventure Paths be playable with the Beginner Box? I could very well imagine them being so and adapting future ones for such play is really a matter of few additional boxes of text ("If you are playing by the Basic rules ignore those feats and replace them with..."). That would be my approach and I will try to run Rise of the Runelords with the Beginner Box just to see if that is viable.

Zdan wrote:

Oh I can see commercial problems with it. However I will stick to my guns and say that while commercial issues might be spot on, the comment about the fragmentation of the player base is not. Oh sure some people might tune into the newer slimmer Pathfinder but this not a bad phenomenon. However I doubt this will be a significant amount as most people seem to be either as I said new or tunning in again.

The unknown is how many of those new players will now go on to PF who might otherwise go on to BB2. That's where the harm is - not in people who have already bought the PF core rules who would then go back to BB (like my group, for example).

.
Lisa Stevens has often described the multiple competing product lines as being a major factor in TSR's decline. Granted that is generally understood as being multiple campaign settings rather than multiple rulesets, nonetheless I dont see why the principle doesnt apply. I've also heard it put forth (by JJ maybe?) that this is a primary reason that Paizo are unlikely to put out post-apocalyptic, future, modern or any other ruleset (in the short to medium term, anyhow).

I may be misattributing these views to them, of course and apologies if that's the case. Nonetheless, if experts think it's a bad idea, it needs good evidence to doubt them.

Quote:

As for the price point - I do not think that 10 dollars more for a Pathfinder-lite set is that much if there is demand for the product. Nobody said the BB2 needs to be identical. People will pay good money for a good product - especially if they were clamoring for it.

I am utterly astonished at how often people comment on the price of RPG products. In my mind, Paizo are ridiculously cheap given their quality and the niche nature of the market. Nonetheless, people often complain about the prices as is and (from vague memory) I'm pretty sure Paizo had a keen eye on the price of the BB (though admittedly a BB2 would be a different kind of product).

.
Basically I agree with you that it...

First of all Paizo products are VERY cheap in relation to quality and the fact they are...well...RPG products which is a niche in a niche. As said before - people are willing to pay for product (I know being into collecting music) it's good product and they want it. Even if it's a little more expensive than the entryway product (in this case the Beginner Box).

Second of all the question to ask is - how many people who bought the BB are going to move towards the full game and how many are going to stay with it. Also how many people will quit Pathfinder if they do not get their post 5th level BB-fix on. Time will tell. Ultimately what matters to Paizo is what numbers did the BB pull in. This is the potential customer base of the BB2 (plus people who will move to it seeing some support for that style of Pathfinder rules presentation). That is the kicker here.

Plus I do not see the lines as competing. Both can be based in Golarion (and are!) and both use the Pathfinder rule set. The flow between two lines (and I hesitate to use that word - two modes of play is better) is pretty seemless in my opinion.

Of course I value the opinion of the Paizo people as experts - they probably have legtimate reasons to stay with the full game given that it has been, by all accounts, a success story. However what I'm saying is that by doing this there lot of converts and re-converts to the Paizo/Pathfinder cause to be had.

There are probably commercial barriers to further products anyhow (quite apart from Paizo's understandable nervousness about developing what is essentially a competitor to their currently well-selling RP game ruleset).

Part of the reason the BB has been so well received is no doubt the price. Pretty sure they've openly stated (and it must be true if they havent) that this is on a very slim margin. A company cant make a habit of producing lots of low-margin products or they dont earn enough to survive when the market shifts, slows momentarily or when they make the inevitable flop. That means any 6-10 box is already going to need to be pricier.

Coupled with the above is the probable significant drop in sales volume. We're all RPG fans, so the proportion of us who buy both the 1-5 and 6-10 set would likely be high. Quite probably though, there'll be a number of sales to more casual gamers who play the 1-5 set (or whose kids do) and then move on, or move back to the computer games they prefer. This lower volume is likely going to increase the price even more and suddenly those clamouring for it might come to think that fifty bucks for level 6-10 doesnt stack up so well next to forty bucks for levels 6-20, no matter how much easier it is to read.

As it is, my group doesnt play PF at the moment and I suspect this would change if a 6-10 set came out. So I'm not against the idea. I just really struggle to see how anything close to the BB for levels 6-10 is feasible though. Sounds to me like an obvious 3PP market, though the production values are necessarily going to suffer - unless we can persuade WoTC to put one out, of course. As it is, my WoTC 3.5 products are now ensconced in the 3PP section of my bookcase anyhow. :)

Oh I can see commercial problems with it. However I will stick to my guns and say that while commercial issues might be spot on, the comment about the fragmentation of the player base is not. Oh sure some people might tune into the newer slimmer Pathfinder but this not a bad phenomenon. However I doubt this will be a significant amount as most people seem to be either as I said new or tunning in again.

As for the price point - I do not think that 10 dollars more for a Pathfinder-lite set is that much if there is demand for the product. Nobody said the BB2 needs to be identical. People will pay good money for a good product - especially if they were clamoring for it.

So all in all - I think it is a feasible option. Plus the Expert/BB2 boxset does not need to include the same things as the BB. Remember - it would be an addition, not the base for play.

But you don't need to add in attacks of opportunity or combat maneuvers, or make them learn many rules or options. Continue with the BB tradition of making some options already selected for you. Or, like I said, ask the community for help on things like appropriate simple spells/feats. You don't even need to read the majority of the CRB! Pretty much just skim the feats chapter, 2 levels of spells, and 1/4 of the class descriptions for the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard.

I understand that you want Paizo to do it for you, but it just seems like a misguided request, in my mind, because that would be unnecessarily splitting the market, as has been explained elsewhere.

I also still can't reconcile the simultaneous desire for higher level content with the complaint that the CRB has too many options/is too complex. These two factors basically conflict with one another.

As said going through the CRB in such a fashion would be time-consuming and a load of work to keep it all balanced and fair. Plus I trust Paizo would do a much much better job then me. I would not have done such an AWESOME job if I was to design a Beginner Box. Paizo did. Again if I have to do stuff like described I am better off just going with Swords And Wizardry or Savage Worlds. Less hassle, more time for gaming.

Also as said I do not really think there is a splintering of the player base. The Beginner Box seems to be pulling two types of people: a) totally new player and b) players coming back because of it's basic and rules-lite nature. Both subsets do not play Pathfinder/have not played Pathfinder for a long time. In both cases it's a instant win-win.

Also the factors may seem in conflict but they do not. I want higher level content presented in a Beginner Box fashion. Not a carbon opy because there more complexity to be had, but not so much to turn off players from the table. It's simple really.

Alice: The problem is they made a Pathfinder player AGAIN (and I emphasize that because it is important) because they made a product in the style of the Beginner Box. Which has really much much less crunch than the full game. Enough for a beginner player to learn and for me to GM. I would much rather spend time making adventures and thinking up stories then getting tangled up in mechanics. Sure they stack up but it's still a lot less crunch. So if Paizo completely abandons the Beginner Box playstyle they will not profit from me as customer. I love Golarion and I am really behind Pathfinder (versus 4e anyway) and if I had to choose between the OSR games and Pathfinder lite-version I would go Pathfinder all the way. But if I am not given that choice I will go back to Swords And Wizardry etc. Why? Much less hassle to run and implementing character options there is MUCH less of a hassle than backwards engineering the CRB to my needs.

So Spidey is right - I would gladly pay Paizo for doing the work for me. Of course they will do what they think is right for them and I really wish the designers the best because they put a lot of work and time and dedication to this game and it shows. The Beginners Box rocks on toast. I just want more of it. Surely this is not much to ask? And by my reasoning this serves to put in new players to the game and bring back old ones (like me!). Some may graduate to the full game because they like it that way. Some may stay with the Beginner Box and subsequent-box-like products (if they appear of course). Either way good for Paizo because it's more players, a wider player-base, more product sold.

I have a question for everyone clamouring for more of the same due to "too many options"...

Why don't you just cut out anything you don't like about the Core Rulebook?

Don't want AoOs? Leave them out. Only want your spellcasters to have a small pool to pick from? Go through the CRB and pick out the ones you'd like them to have. Set a few levels with predetermined abilities, like pre-selected feats or whatnot. If you're comfortable enough to play from levels 6-10, you're probably comfortable enough with the rules to have a fair idea of what to select from. Heck, I'm sure community members could provide you with a nice selection of simple spells and feats and abilities that would be appropriate if you're unsure.

The game fundamentally changes when you start getting closer to the teens. For example, iterative attacks at BAB +6, which also bring in some more complicated feats, spells like fly are active for much longer times allowing bypassing of many lower level threats, some powerful divinations like scrying come into effect, teleport effects, polymorph effects... And if you avoided the game changing options and effects, you might as well just stick to playing the lower levels, because you're basically still functioning at 5th level at that point. Indeed, all the clamour about "there's too many options in Core, give us BB2 for levels 6-10" seems utterly bizarre to me for this reason. Isn't adding an increase of levels exactly the type of thing that is going to add complexity and options?

I just don't get it.

First of all I agree the game changes when you approach the tens. And not in a good way mind you. Feats stack up, lists of spells become cumbersome etc. Of course there are problems here and there like flying etc. but this I do not think this is unsolvable. With polymorph effects it would also be confined to what BB2+BB1 monster you have therefore limiting potential for abuse.

And of course people can modify levels 6-10. However for many this is simply too much work for a given campaign. Actually the same reason they are not fans of the full Pathfinder rules - too much work and rules memorization. And while true that more levels equals more complexity I still think that adding say iterative attacks does not rise it up too much. Also I am gonna add a thing - if I (and I think many people too) would modify the CRB in a way you describe I would NEVER buy a book to do it. There is the PRD to do this. Therefore that would equal no additional product sold for Paizo. That is not what I am advocating here. What I am saying is there are people who would pay for a BB2 type product because it fits their game style. Call it the Intermediate box set and there you go.

So my point is - yes adding levels and options will add complexity but if done in BB2 style it is still much better for some people than what is in the full game. That is not to say the full game is bad - it's just crunch heavy. ESPECIALLY with Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat etc.

Skywaker wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

And there's a reason we stopped where we did: after 5th level, things start getting *much* more complicated. Multiple attacks. Lots of people flying. Spells that can't be communicated in four lines of text. I'm pretty confident that we *couldn't* cover levels 6 through 10 in the same space; I think even covering 6 through 8 in that page count would be a challenge.

I have no doubt it would be a challenge, but that alone seems like a weak reason for rejecting the product.

The thing with a second product is that you don't have to replicate all the material already provided in the PF BB. So, equipment, ability scores, races, combat and skills all give up extra pages for these more complex issues.

Also, the GM book gets a lot slimmer too as you don't need to repeat the GM advice. I could see the Player book becoming 96 pages and the GM book becoming 64 pages in a second set. That's a lot of extra space inside the same sized product.

It's not just about coding the second box. Hard decisions need to be made on thing such as modules, adventure paths, which assume the full Core Rules set and possibly more. a Beginner Box with no sequel will seqgue you into the Core Rules Set. A Beginner Box 2 essentially makes it into a new product line and the support issues begin. If you can't cope with the full rules set by the time you're running 5th level characters, you might has well just say you're running an E5 game.

I will throw my hat into the ring here and say that in most cases it is not that you cannot cope with the full rules set - you just do not want to cope with it. People that are clamoring for a BB2 or Expert set like the simplified rules design - perhaps even more so that the full thing. And believe me - new players would rather stay with the BB style presentation and rules amount if they could choose to do so. Same thing goes with people that left Pathfinder because of the inherent crunch of the system. The difference between the full rules and the BB is rather huge and I cannot imagine a new player learning even a portion of it in time for say...the next session? The BB-style rules are simple, quick while still retaining enough PF flavour for people to like. And none of them best of yet they are still compatible with the full rules.

I completely agree. My wife and 8 year old son wouldn't play the full version of Pathfinder, too many options & too many rules. But this they can play and enjoy. I would love to be able to take them beyond level 5. I think to level 10 would be good for the next box. It could also include haflings, half elves, and gnomes. And add in another four classes. Maybe paladins, druids, bards, and sorcerers?

Heck when I discovered the Beginner Box, I read lots of reviews on it. I bought the PDF version and was so impressed when I finished reading it that I went right out and bought the retail version. I have not been excited about role playing in years, but this product has brought back the joy. I look forward to playing this whenever my family has a chance.

I totally agree that the next boxset should go up to level 10. I would include halfings and gnomes and possibly the bard, paladin, sorcerer and ranger. I do not want to include the druid because they are not suitable for all campaigns and can be problematic in play (wildshape and companions). They have been people all over the fandom, not only on the Paizo boards, expressing interest in such a set. Call it the Expert Set and then you can follow up to the Master Set. Plus this does not divert from Paizo's customers as the people you gain with this are either not playing any RPG at all, not playing the full version of Pathfinder because of the rules crunch or not staying with Pathfinder because the BB only takes them to 5th level and after that it's option-heaven. This is why I think it is a viable choice.

And of course Paizo still gains the people that play the BB and then go into the full game. Win-win situation.

Do not get my wrong - I would LOVE to see modules for the Beginner Box. Absolutely love to if they were as well laid out as the adventure included in the box. That one just screams - "Play me!".

However I still think that Paizo should reconsider the option of more Beginner Box products. That might pull in new players AND get some players back into Pathfinder. Why? Simply because the single most repeated complaint about Pathfinder is the complexity of the rules and options. Imagine playing the Beginner Box for five levels...everything is fine and dandy and nicely laid out. And then - wham! - you move into the full Pathfinder game and have tons of options and additional rules to get into if you want to keep playing. Most new players I know would just quit at that point or move into another rules-lite system. And you do not want that if you are Paizo.

As a long time lurker and occasional poster on these boards I want throw my two copper pieces in.

I love Pathfinder. I love what Paizo is doing with the Adventure Paths and with Golarion. It provides a solid setting to play and ample opportunities to do so. With much much higher value for money than say...Wizards?

Also I love the presentation and art style. Especially the mad goblins.

But I think many people find the FULL Pathfinder game to be cumbersome and clunky at high levels and the sheer number of options mind-numbing. If you want to play with things Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic things can get very silly very quick (as I found out with the ninja and my own Pathfinder campaign). I would not want to be a new player in Pathfinder campaign and have to comb through pages and pages of feats. Beginner Box style play has none of that.

I saw that many people here on the Paizo boards share my sentiments - so add me to the group that would like to see more Beginner Box style products. Hell, even a whole like if need be ala BECMI. I see no problem in that. At least a Intermediate/Expert box with more stuff and levels/monsters up to 10th level.

I agree with the idea that the Inquisitor is primarily a striker class but there is a way to kind of get a bit of both worlds.

This build leans very Dex heavy with only like 10-12 in str for weight/loads.

What I did for my inquisitor was make him a follower of Sarenrae.

This makes you proficient with scimitars.

At level 1 pick up Weapon Finesse. For now just pick up a rapier or an elven curveblade if you're elven (which I was).

At level 3 things get much easier. Pick up Dervish Dance (a feat from one of the side books. Guide to Qadira or something). This single feat kind of sets you on track to damaging while pumping dex. It not only lets you treat a scimitar as a finessable weapon but it ALSO allows you to add your DEX to damage over your STR.

Will you do AS much damage as if you had picked up a two handed weapon for time and a half STR? Not quite but you gain some decent AC from having a high dex, plus you make prime use of some light armor in the process.

Plus later down the road, an animated shield really gives a nice strong boost here.

Pick up Weapon Focus Scimitar as you go for any help to hit and focus on healing/aid spells over damaging ones as you go, given your classes extensive damage capabilities without it.

The Dervish Inquistor really works out great in a game (tested and approved). You don't have to worry about STR so much which is a really nice thing to be able to do with a sufficient melee class.

This is also cool option and I imagine this kind of inquisitor as more of a holy warrior/templar kind of thing. Very cool. I also thought of this guy being human - an extra feat cannot hurt.

Also - does the Dervish Dance feat (as I don't have the book you mentioned) adds DEX modifier to damage on top of STR modifier or does it change it to the DEX mod? Just curious.

Zdan wrote:

WOW! Thanks for this rundown - I might actually consider that kind of tactic. But wouldn't you go with Precise Strike also as a teamwork feat? That's +4 if flanking and you need only one companion so it's less situational.

I like having big "gotcha" moments instead of static decency. I kind of build my characters for that. :P

Sword + Board is powerful; so is 2h with the falchion. Either or is decent.

While my party probably will not be as melee-heavy (a inquisitor, fighter, cleric and sorcerer) to make us of this combo it is indeed great. I was thinking of playing a cavalier but I will stick with inquisitor - the flavour and fluff appeal to me more.

If anyone has other ideas how to buff an inquisitor I'm all ears.

Extremely solid advice coming in: Magic vestment on your armor and on your shield can result in some serious AC bonuses. A rod of extend metamagic, lesser can get you a +2 shield and a +2 suit of armor for 16 hours at level 8.

Inquisitor is all about the magic vestment.

With a mithral breastplate (for maneuverability) and a Dex of 14 or so, you can easily rock 30 base speed, 6 (armor)+ 2 (Dex) + 2 (armor enhance) + 1 (light shield) + 2 (shield enhance) + 3 (deflection, shield of faith) + 2 (sacred, judgment bonus) for 28 AC at 8th level. Add in a +2 amulet of natural armor, one more Dex mod, Dodge, Shield Focus and a dusty rose prism ioun stone and you could have up to a 34 AC. Add in expeditious retreat and you could easily be rocking a 60 ft move for 16 minutes as well.

Travel Domain for 40 base speed or 70 ft. with exp. retreat, and it gives you a rapier as a weapon.

I would heavily suggest Paired Opportunist and Outflank, as well as Gang Up, if you're in a melee heavy party. They have extremely crazy synergy.

Quote:

Benefit: Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also

has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks
of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten.
Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your
ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as
you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would
normally deny you the attack of opportunity).

Quote:

You are considered to be flanking an opponent

if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent,
regardless of your actual positioning.

Quote:

Whenever you and an ally who also has this

feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus
on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever
you score a critical hit against the f lanked creature, it
provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.

Your goal is to form a cross on every opponent you face.

OxO
.Z.

O...

WOW! Thanks for this rundown - I might actually consider that kind of tactic. But wouldn't you go with Precise Strike also as a teamwork feat? That's +4 if flanking and you need only one companion so it's less situational.

So the basic breakdown would be if I should go sword and board and be more armored or go two-hander and be more of damage dealer. I can see many sources of damage for the inquisitor (buffs, bane, judgement) so probably the sword and board option is best.

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

The domains I looked at for inquisitor were

Travel
Rage (sub domain from APG)
Restoration (sub domain from APG)

I believe Sub-Domains are for Clerics only.

While I would also tend to support that notion I just looked in the book and it's not explicitly stated anywhere that they are.

BIG thanks for the suggestions! They will be put to good use when I put my inquisitor together. I wish someone would build a melee inquisitor from level 1 to 20 as an example but that might be too much to ask. Still - thanks!

Travel as a domain huh? I thought to go with War or something along that route...oh well...

Zdan wrote:

Hello!

As I am starting another PF campaign soon and just recently bought the APG for Pathfinder I seek some advice for character build. I must say I fell in love with the inquisitor class and would love to play a half-orc inquisitor, a sort of loner/divine-order type of monster slayer. Would prefer him to be close-range based as I dislike archery type characters.

I must add that I play in a high-powered game so you can assume high stats (among them an 18 and two 16 for example) for the build.

So can anyone help me in building a viable damage-dealing inquisitor?

It isn't hard. I have a very effective Inquisitor I made on a 20 point buy. You're already halfway there by playing a Half-Orc. Rock a Falchion, don't worry about a shield. Your AC is low-ish, so you're a striker, not a tank. I find it worthwhile to invest in Acrobatics (keep it at max ranks, Skill Focus) despite it not being a class skill.

Strength is your top priority. Wisdom and Constitution are next. 14 to start for both is my preference, but I got by with a 13 Con. until I bumped it up at Level 4.

Dex is nice. Again, a starting 14 would be ideal. Charisma is least important: You get a huge bonus on their most important Cha.-based skill. Intelligence is not vital, but any bonuses you can manage from it WILL help you.

For feats: Weapon Focus and Dazzling Display are fairly high priority. Your Intimidate skill will get pretty ridiculous, and you'll be able to easlily debuff several opponents in most fights. You are a skirmisher, so Precise Strike and Outflank should absolutely be your first two free Teamwork feats.

Other than the aforementioned Acrobatics, your monster-identifying Knowledge skills are vital. They don't have to be maxed, but they should be well taken care of. Perception is a no-brainer. Throw a point in Survival every now and then unless there's a Ranger in the group.

For spells you want to focus mostly on self-buffs and healing. Divine Favor and Weapon of Awe are both...

Big thanks! This is very helpful and I will probably follow those guidelines when making him. Anymore suggestions on feats that I should take?

Also is there a possibility of him dealing out damage and having a good AC? Just asking if there is a way to build a inquisitor like that as I like options.

Also what domains would be best?

Hello!

As I am starting another PF campaign soon and just recently bought the APG for Pathfinder I seek some advice for character build. I must say I fell in love with the inquisitor class and would love to play a half-orc inquisitor, a sort of loner/divine-order type of monster slayer. Would prefer him to be close-range based as I dislike archery type characters.

I must add that I play in a high-powered game so you can assume high stats (among them an 18 and two 16 for example) for the build.

So can anyone help me in building a viable damage-dealing inquisitor?

Thanks Mairkurion.

I also stumbled upon an idea of Centaur PrC - could be called Fey Charger or Fey Knight. A centaur knight type of class taking advantage of their natural anatomy and giving abilities akin to knight abilities but with a fey/centaur bent - meaning for examples abilities with charging, movement etc. That type of class is on my mind. What do you guys think?

Sorry to derail this thread slightly, but am the only one who remebers Centar from myth being scholars... why do we have to have a -2 INT?

A balance issue? This is the only reason I can think of. They both scholars, sages and wisemen as much as warriors or archers. I personally would go with -2 CHA (maybe). But that is just my take. I see the centaur culture as a warrior/sage one where both roles bring the centaur equal respect and honour.

Thanks for the welcome guys. Glad to be here and supporting Pathfinder. Just need to find money for my pre-order of the PFRPG. Going against the grain really because 4e is the craze in my country (relatively speaking). But I find Pathfinder much much better and with the creators actually listening to the playerbase. Awesomesauce really.

If you ask me, Centaurs in D&D are a little wonky, but if you remove the racial HD, keep the ability score mods to PFRPG's +2/+2/-2, and tone down their base speed and natural armor, I don't think they are all that great. To further illustrate the point, here is my attempt at the Centaur PC race which includes some of the negative implications of their unique anatomy.

Centaur
+2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int. Centaurs are strong and have keen senses, but their bestial nature limits their intelligence.
Monstrous Humanoid: Unlike many races, Centaurs are not humanoid in type, but Monstrous Humanoid.
Large Size: As Large size creatures, Centaurs take a -1 penalty to Armor Class, -1 penalty on attack rolls, a -4 penalty on Stealth checks, +4 bonus on grapple checks. A Centaurs’ lifting and carrying limits double those of Medium characters.
Long: As a long creature, a Centaur’s natural reach is only 5 feet.
Speed: Centaurs have a base speed of 40 feet.
Undersize Weapons: Despite their Large size, Centaurs have upper bodies comparable in size to those of a Medium Humanoid. As a result, a Centaur wields manufactured weapons and makes unarmed strikes as if it were a Medium creature.
Unusual Shape: Centaurs combine the features of horses and humanoids and must wear specially constructed armor to accommodate their size and shape. Triple the base cost of any armor meant to be worn by a Centaur. Additionally, Centaurs cannot climb ladders, ropes, or steep inclines.
Stability: As four legged creatures, Centaurs gain a +4 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bullrushed or tripped when standing on the ground (but not when climbing, flying, riding, or otherwise not standing firmly on the ground).
Tough Hide: Centaurs have a thick hide which grants them a +2 natural armor bonus
Darkvision: Centaurs can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and centaurs can function just...

See this is the thing I am looking for - I would play such a race without and second thought. It does not seem overpowered to me - it rather seems underpowered but that does not bother me much. A thing I would add is the posibility of using feats such as Spirited Charge as if they were mounted at all times - it makes perfect sense. Other than that - no problems here.

There are centaurs in Absalom. Just don't ask them for a lift.

There are stated out centaurs or centaurs as a race in that book? Or just some history/fluff? I like both things so a combo of both would be beyond awesome.

Currently:

Heaven And Hell - The Devil You Know

This album slays. Totally worth the wait. Dio is a metal god and Iommi never ceases to amaze me with his riffing ability.

Right now the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Once finals are over, I'll be rereading A Canticle for Leibowitz.

A Canticle For Leibowitz is an amazing piece of post-apocalyptic science fiction. Very moving and realistic.

Currently reading:

"The Savage Tales Of Solomon Kane" by Robert E. Howard
The Thomas Covenant cycle by Stephen R. Donaldson
and Swedish Death Metal by Daniel Ekeroth

As for multiclassing in and out of racial levels - of course I do. The idea is for a option to play a centaur from 1st level not to put in 6 levels in centaur and then be a paladin/fighter/caster. The problem I see with racial levels would be that it would really limit the character class choice of the centaur - essentially pushing him to a fighter/barbarian role (I could not imagine him as a caster for example). This does not bother me per se because I like to play such a character but to other player who would like to play a paladin or cleric it might be a problem.

As for the racial levels and Races Of The Wild - I do not own that and it would be very clunky to cross-reference it with Pathfinder material. I am hoping the Pathfinder writers find a way to fit it in the bestiary etc. or maybe possibly make the centaur a normal, playable race from the 1st level. 4e DnD is doing this with githyanki, githzerai and stuff like minotaur or ogre so I don't see a reason why it should not be done. But it is just me - any solution (barring ECL) would be really fine.

I kind of imagine my centaur like the one in the first Chronicles Of Narnia movie - that centaur was all-kinds of kick ass.

Not sure if or where centaurs would be in the Pathfinder setting, haven't read enough to know, but you can be sure rules for centaurs will be in their Beastery. I have a feeling that in effect the beastery will give options to use some monsters races as player races. ECL's though I think will end up being in, otherwise you'll get a very weak Centaur. For what it's worth however I'll agree that they are an iconic part of fantasy gaming, and I've always alowed them and Lizard folk, and many others as player race.

TTFN DRE

Thanks for your answer. I hope the Bestiary will give out such rules as options - some people really like that kind of character. On the plus side the centaur has always been linked with the side of good and as such would be perfect as a PC race. And they had been rather prominently featured in fantasy and fantasy gaming - either as a race or as a monster.

As for ECL - I undestand your concerns but many players (including me) would love to play a centaur from the start of the campaign or adventure. I do see your concerns as valid though - I just do not like the ECL as a mechanic, period. I hope there is some away to work around it because as a mechanic it seems clunky at best.

Also I wonder how Centaurs and mounted combat/spirited charge-type feats would be treated...?

First of all - hello to all Paizo and Pathfinder maniacs out there! First post on these boards - a fellow RPG-er from Poland here and excited as hell about the Pathfinder RPG.

However I have a question/suggestion/discussion idea I want to raise here. Since we all know WoTC likes to throw weird ideas for races around and ignore the basics and Paizo seems to stick by the basics here as far as races go (dwarf, elf, half-orc etc.) - would it be possible to somewho implement a centaur race into the PFRPG? Maybe without the ECL nonsense? Or if absolutely necesarry make them take a couple levels in a centaur "class" maybe?

A centaur race strikes me as iconic piece of fantasy and rpg lore. And I would love to revisit my old character idea of a centaur paladin - playing that type of character was fun as hell. What do you say? Would you see the centaur as a viable PFRPG race? And how would you go about it? Or maybe someone from the PFRG staff will see this and put them in a sourcebook somewhere (hint hint!)?

Your thoughts?