straight edge's page

Disclaimer: this is NOT a post concerning power gaming or munchkin players. This is a post exploring the feasibility of using one class’ full abilities. Also, I find the class fascinating.

I am currently playing a 1 barbarian / 6 inquisitor in a home game. We rolled for stats and I rolled quite well. Plus, I’m using a house-ruled race. So, my character works quite well.

I noticed however that the inquisitor seems to have a basic design flaw. If made using a 15- or 20-point buy (or rolling poorly) the multiple ability dependability (all but cha) limits fully using its combat abilities. The class requires several high stats that just aren’t possible with a point buy or an unlucky roll. The class has two non-spell combat components—judgment and bane weapon. The former works fine (maybe even too good) while bane works great IF the proper bane is used. Arguably, especially in a living Pathfinder game, an inquisitor can only apply bane after a successful knowledge check. This is were things get ugly.

Inquisitors identify monsters based on int, wis, and skill ranks. As this is an essential roll every combat, the six knowledge skills used to know what your fighting should be nearly maxed out. But, the class gets six points per level with one extra from favored class. This leaves very little room for other important class skills such as survival, sense motive, and intimidate (let alone stealth or perception). The sheer volume of skills needed forces players to compromise their character’s skills, leaving the possibility that the inquisitor, is in fact, not that great at identifying monsters or deficient in other areas—bad news for a skill based class like this. Knowledge: Local also presents a thorny problem. This is neither a class skill nor does wis add to identifying monsters. As such, inquisitors are inexplicably poor at applying the correct bane property to humanoids while making awful giant hunters. This appears to be an error of omission rather than intentional.

I think they should have just created one monster lore knowledge skill. While this is definitely a very powerful skill, the current system makes no sense as it penalizes non-specific monster hunters (as opposed to characters that hunt only the undead or aberrations or the like). Furthermore, rangers instinctively get their favored enemy bonus even if most rangers couldn’t identify their favor enemy to save their (or their group’s) life.

Perhaps the most salient design flaw is that the inquisitor is an amalgam of two unrelated concepts—the Catholic Inquisition (the iconic character even wears red) and the Hugh Jackman-style Van Helsing steam punk monster hunter (the iconic character even has his hat). This requires the class to have a great intimidate and sense motive, impeccable understanding of orthodox cannon, detect lie as an immediate action, and a battery of language dependant spells. But, the class also needs to be a gadget-driven knight errant who sneaks through the night ridding the world of evil, using knowledge and reason to defeat their foes, hence the tracking and bane abilities.

Any thoughts? Am I off base? Why did the class make it through so much play testing with such a basic flaw?

Activating a spell-like ability is always a standard action unless specifically stated otherwise.

Thanks. Plenty to chew on.

Has anyone seen bleed used in living pathfinder on a construct or undead?

I agree with Alex B. in the above senario. If the monsters chose to do this, than the archer would be a weak option.

Sorry for the double post.

here is the link about the fighter's damage output and surviving a CR appropriate creature without backup.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/anArcherFighterSGTToIllustrateAPoint

The comment about resources was a direct comment on class abilities not abilities shared by all characters: hp, fighting until exhausted, dehydration, other limits of the flesh. Discussing fighters as limited in resources because of HPs is to claim that a shared problem all classes have somehow effects fighter more so. I was holding shared limiting returns constant in that line of arguement. Fighters can use every class ability they get all the time. Rogues main dps bump is unlimited but in limited situations, acting as limiter fighters lack. Rangers and paladins have spell casting that runs out. Paladins eventually run out of smites. Barbarians run out of rage points. Fighter bonus feats and armor/weapon training always stays usable, even if the fighter is near death.

After 2-5 combats lasting 4 to 5 rounds apeiece, the fighter class has complete use of all of its options, limited only by gear.

Tom pointed out that Bane only lasts 20 rounds then runs out... how many rounds of combat can a typical fighter last against a CR appropriate enemy without some other class backing him up with healing?

Someone just proved that a level 20 fighter can two round a balor more tahn 50% of the time, without gearing against evil outsiders.

For the record, I love fighters, played 'em to level 20 in 3.0 without the broken book Sword and Fist. I played an RPGA fighter to 10th level. I thought 3.x fighters were a great class.

I also find inquisitors attractive. I like their flexablilty. Its bane ability is obviously a flexible favored enemy. Rangers might be in danger of being over shadowed with the new class.

Edit: spelling

But going back to the original post, I think the favored soul definately influinced this inquisitor's weapon choice. Take a level of fighter or ranger to get the martial feats.

Firearms predate the great sword of Conan fantasy and plate mail of DnD fame. Blame "Papa" Tolkien on the lack of firearms. He knew languages and myths but not history.

In fact, the era lacking in firearms would also not have heavey warhorses or rapiers. A whole tone of things would be taken away from d20 to match the pre-gun powder era.

Alix B said:
I agree and Id go further and say that if the cleric and the sorceror were built decently they would have WAY better things todo with there time, also how big is the party? cause if you have to caster buffing a ranger who is keeping the baddies at bay? this combo actualy seems really weak unless their are also 3 fighter keeping mobs off the support teams nuts.

How is 125 damage per turn at 9th level a "weak" choice? A ranger doesn't even need to move around to deal all this damage. Plus they get archer feats before other classes can qualify for them, making their shots better. As far as blocking goes, the casters could be using tricks to slow down the enemies, such as dropping summoned monsters directly in charge paths.

Edit: format

Primary adn secondary are now determined by attack type. I cannot find it in the book but Pazio made a chart. Hooves are secondary so horses benefit from the free feat. Claws and bite are primary so the feet is not needed for those animals.

As a side note, aren't horse kicks deadly while their bites are not even close? Shouldn't horse deal tremendous hoove damage? If I understand horse properly, they can snap a person's neck. That would seem to be a "primary attack."

I imagine the size in swap place will be switched to space if the feats make it into the new book.

Enchanter Tom, you forgot Bane damage in the above post. This ability can be considered auto use on any slightly dangerious foe.

As far as fighter versus spell caster prep time, the fighter is always ready to fight by putting on gear. This is the d20 trade off for being a spell caster. If the inquisitor was not a spell caster, than the comparison would be apt. But your hypothetical misses the importance of the structural dialectic the melee combat caster must endure: use limited class abilities now or wait for tougher foes. Also, fighters have no limited abilities. Inquisitors have diminishing returns on damage and general usefulness. A more apt comparison might be paladin but again, the paladin is less spell caster and more melee than the inquisitor. The cleric is more caster but can be a powerful melee combantant with proper prep work.

Fighters have high constant damage potential. That is their single benefit over every other class. Every other one has to use increasingly limited resources to keep up with the fighter. Except two things: fighters can never fly and cannot heal themselves instantly.

Edit: spelling

Bane's damage increase per attack is +2 +2d6. Average is +9. After 14th, it's +16 on all attacks. Plus there's the +2 extra attack bonus. Now, by level 15 to 18, if someone wanted, they could have a +5 enhancement bonus out of the +10 total. Alternatively, the inquisitor could have a +10 weapon with +3 enhancement and have vorpal, vicious, and spell storing. Add in the domain holy and the weapon's total enhancement is effectively +14 plus the extra 2d6 from improved bane. The bane would make the weapon function as a +5 enhacement weapon at all times.

To answer the original post: the ability would be too low if the inquisitor did not have the other damage increases. Overall it is just fine. A cautious monster hunter uses its divinations to anticipate and buff before combat as much as possible.

Edit: spelling

The elf could be dealing more damage with more strength. By giving up just one ranger ability, each arrow could do +2 damage. He could have saved up for a +str item. At least it wasn't against his favored enemy! Also, with a +9 BAB, deadly aim should be -3 to attack and +6 to damage, not +4.

By the way, what is the Quiver of Efficiency and in which book is it located?

If the cleric and sorcerer are concerned about their archer friend stealing the glory, they could simpley ignore the offending ranger when casting spells or using special abilities.

My math:
9 BAB +6 Dex +1 W. Foc. +1 Enhancement +1 Point Blank =18 +1 Haste= 19
19 -2 Rapid Shot -3 Deadly Aim= 14
Which indicates the player is taking a penalty without the bonus.

Shouldn't all 5 arrows deal the same damage because no sneak attack or crit damage was involved? Deadly Aim and Point Blank shot are not precision based damage as far as I know. Which is to say that creatures immune to crits still take each type of damage.

1d8+3d6+10= 4.5+10.5+10= 25x5= 125 average if all five hit

From the base PF book:

"Bleeding Touch (Sp): As a melee touch attack, you can cause a living creature to take 1d6 points of damage per round.

This only works against living enemies so all constructs and undead would be immune. This suggests but not clerifies bleeding.

If anyone has any sort of link to an official ruling, please post it.

Only the inquisitor gets the bonus with solo tactics. The other party members grant the inquisitor the ability to use its bonus feats.

oops, misread the solo tactics :(

But appearently rogues with 1 level of divination mage is common.

So, to revise, a suprise round only happens if the at least one beligerant fails their perception check. If this does occur, one level of divination school wizard plus the tactical feat gives someone a guarinteed full-round action when normal suprise round actions are standard or move only.

Which means that if both a rogue and an inquisitor take one level of wizard, both get to take a full-round action. This make the rogue able to make maybe two full-round sneak attacks before facing retaliation.

It was a brief idea based on a misunderstanding.

Fighters since 3.0 have only been as good as their feats and items. I played a 1 barb/ rest fighter 1/2 orc in Living Greyhawk and never felt under powered. I took reckless rage and extra rage but other than that I focused on the shock troop/ combat brute tactical feats. But feats make the fighter. Pazio added some excellent feat chains that really buff up what a fighter can do. Also, weapon and armor training adds a lot of extra umph.

So, with only the base pathfinder feats, PF fighters are way better than 3.5 fighters with feats only from the base books. Even with feat selection being equal, no question the new fighter is way better.

Edit: spelling and clearity

While smite evil has some great uses against iconic enemies, all inquisitor crit attacks ignore DR/- AND get +4d6 from bane and +2d6 from holy; their non-judgement abilities. So, judgement dealing less damage is offset by their other, better, damaging abilites. Judgement offers flexability at the cost of focus. Improved Bane and Exploit Weakness do one thing: kill things.

Constructs and oozes destroy paladins as they do not (almost always) get to smite 'em. Inquisitor will deal massive damage to any type of creature. As anyone who played RPGA Living Greyhawk can recount, non-evil foes abound. Plus, they have better divination spells than paladins so the class has a better chance of being prepaired through pre-combat spell casting to know which enemies it will face. Additionally, the +wis to knowledge skills encourages Inquisitors to be walking encyclopedias of every monster, which takes no action. Paladins are stuck wasting standard or move actions to determine if the abberation is neutral or evil before smiting.

So, while paladin versus dragon, undead, or outsider (evil) may be tough to beat, inquisitor versus anything is really tough to beat. I hate math but the class adds a lot. While the paladin has some clear advantages against certain foes, the halmark of power (as the changes made for 4th ed DnD reveals) is flexability. The inquisitor has this in spades. So the judgement by itself is weak, the judgement does not stand alone.

Edit: spelling and clearity

So, say there's a party that has a character with at least 3 levels of inquisitor and the lookout tactical feat. Everyone in this party also has one level of mage with the divination school. Does the party always get a full round action every combat, no matter what?

If so, I'd say everyone in the Pathfinder Society will quickly do this, as this makes a whole lot of sense.

Edit: spelling

While I don't have the time to playtest the new classes, I like what I see at first glance of the Alchemist and Inquisitor.

My only problem is the names.

Alchemist is fine, but I'm not liking the name "Inquisitor". I am sure many here would agree to the class name being changed to "Avenger" to be more in line with what it represents and it invokes more of the meaning and role behind the class with such a title.

As for Tactical Feats, maybe "Teamwork Feats" or "Unity Feats" would be a better term. D&D has Tactical feats already, despite being from a non-OGL source. It'll be awkwardly confusing.

Agree!

From the class description: "Greater Bane (Su): At 12th level, whenever the inquisitor uses her bane ability, the amount of bonus damage dealt by the weapon against creatures of the selected type increases to 4d6."

Same: "Exploit Weakness (Ex): At 14th level, the inquisitor learns
to take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself.
Whenever the inquisitor scores a critical hit, she ignores
any damage reduction the target might have. In addition, if
the target has regeneration, the creature loses regeneration
on the round following the critical hit and can die normally
during that round (if the creature’s regeneration can be
bypassed). Finally, if the inquisitor deals energy damage to
a creature with vulnerability to that energy type, she deals
+1 point of damage per die rolled."

Fighters, even with higher level feats cannot do this. Add in spells of rightous might and divine power and this creates one serious self-contained damage class. At 14th level, this class is a clear winner. The bane weapon class ability trumps the paladin's divine bond. Plus the flexability to be back-up healer and team support.

This class will beat out paladins in the WTF!?!? damage output.

How can a construct end bleed damage? The heal skill and magic healing wont work. Does this mean that constructs who take bleed damage automatically die?

Undead are in a similiar boat. Though they can recieve negative energy to heal them, there is no comiserate skill as there is with living creatures, i.e. heal (wis).

I was thinking of the rogue ability and the bearded devil wounding ability. I am assuming that no natural healing makes something immune to the heal skill generally. How does the game justify heal being applicable to something that that cannot possibly be within the skills purview. The heal skill does not include mechanical knowledge. This would seem to empower bleed attacks against the very foes who should be most resilient to them, undead and constructs, let alone oozes.

What is the official ruling from Pazio? My searches for such a ruling ended in vain thus far.

"1) A heavy spiked shield does 1d6 damage, bashing adds 2 sizes, it becomes huge ... how does this end up at 2d6 damage I've read about ?"

1d6->1d8->2d6

A very creative NPC created the spell "Awaken Assassin Vine," cast it on the creature in question, and went about their merry way, all the while dreaming of what great havoc this new spell will mean for adventurers the world over.

A giant anvil then promtly fell upon this unamed NPC, snapping the poor wretch's neck. Really, it was the NPC's fault for being unamed.

But this smart plant now roams the world. Killing things like all good assassin vines do, but now it can ponder "Why?".

Who or what is immune to bleeding damage?

Constructs lack immunity to bleeding. They may be immune to ability damage sustained by bleeding but they are potentially susceptible to hp loss from bleed (ex) attacks, same with undead.

This makes no sense as both undead and constructs generally lack a circulatory system. Additionally, constructs cannot benefit from the heal skill or magical healing.

Thoughts?