The name does make sense. The class is all about hunting down things, Judging them guilty, be it of harasy or of just being something that you find should die(undead, tainted, goblins orc blooded) or what have you
The class is all about Judging. So when you judge them guilty you call upon your own "rightness" in that to grant you those powers. You know your god has granted you this power as you are "just"
Director of Games
|
It appears as though "judgment" suffers the same naming problem as the cavalier's challenge ability. A challenge doesn't require you to issue an actual challenge out loud, and a judgment doesn't require you to pronounce an actual judgment out loud.
Also, what does fast healing have to do with judging someone, out loud or otherwise? It's a nice ability to have, but makes no thematic sense whatsoever.
Well, thematically, sometimes a name works better in one regard that it does in another. This class feature is designed to allow the inquisitor to customize he abilities during a fight, making her a flexible combatant based on the type of enemy she is facing. Sometimes having a bit of constant healing is the way to go to best serve the needs of justice (fighting against an enemy with a weapon that deals bleed damage comes to mind)...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Think of the Judgments not as saying, "You are guilty! The gods will punish you!", but rather, "You are guilty! The gods have empowered me to punish you!". That provides all the justification that is needed for the ability to buff the Inquisitor in pretty much any fashion. Sometimes fast healing is just what is needed to enforce judgment.
As for not having to pronounce judgment verbally ... I don't get this complaint. There's nothing that says a fighter has to train with the weapons involved in his Weapon Training feature, after all; I don't see this as being any different.
does a paladin need to tell someone he is using his smite on them? It s the same thing.
I haven't read the class ability yet, but from looking at the conversation here I can see the OP's point. The way I would think of it/describe it is to say the inquisitor pronounces judgement on the opposition, and through his belief in his own righteousnous he becomes more powerful. Not sure if that helps or not...but it's all I've got for now.
|
does a paladin need to tell someone he is using his smite on them? It s the same thing.Where in the paladin class does it say that the paladin must announce that he is smiting?
But it doesn't say that the inquisitor does either - it says they have to pronounce judgement.... one of the definitions of pronounce is "to give an opinion or decision (usually fol. by on): to pronounce on an important matter. " I can give an opinion on something without verbally saying my mind, actions speak louder than words... attacking with righteous zeal gives those around the inquisitor what said character's opinion of the target is.
I pronounce things all the time. DOes not mean I say em outloud. You can if ya want. How often do you decide something but not say it outloud?
It just means you have chosen or decided this creature is guilty of your gods judgment. It never states you need to tell them, no more then a paladin does.
A fast silent prayer "xgrant me your judgment" fill roleplaying if you wish, or you can say it outloud but there is no need to do so. It's flavor text and little else
If the inquisitor makes a judgement of another creature, it really isn't affected one way or another if said creature can understand the inquistor or not. If the inquisitor says to a shoggoth, "By the light of Sarenrae, you have been judged! May her cleansing flame purge the world of your evil!", it doesn't really matter what the shoggoth thinks. The inquisitor's faith empowers him in a way to aid in the destruction of the shoggoth (be it through fast healing or increased damage).
not really. He has to say nothing, but nether does a paladin, yet from what I know about seeing them played more often then not do indeed say something
If the inquisitor makes a judgement of another creature, it really isn't affected one way or another if said creature can understand the inquistor or not. If the inquisitor says to a shoggoth, "By the light of Sarenrae, you have been judged! May her cleansing flame purge the world of your evil!", it doesn't really matter what the shoggoth thinks. The inquisitor's faith empowers him in a way to aid in the destruction of the shoggoth (be it through fast healing or increased damage).Your post is proving my point. You automatically assumed that the inquisitor actually has to say something to use the judgment ability. Which is true base on fluff but false based on mechanics. The fluff needs to agree with the crunch in clarifying that you don't actually need to say anything to use this ability.
I didn't say the inquistor has to say something. I just said that the inquisitor's judgement isn't affected by his enemy's perceptions of it. If a person is judged guilty in a court of law, of course his opinions will be different than the judge. However, it is the judge who decides what occurs. I could have just as easily said the inquisitor silently judges that a pack of kobolds need to be destroyed to protect the faithful of his deity, thus granting him power to enact that judgement. Making a judgement is a one-person thing. The act of judging has nothing to do with the thoughts of the people being judged.
not really. He has to say nothing, but nether does a paladin, yet from what I know about seeing them played more often then not do indeed say something
Exactly, wether or not the Inquisitor has to say something i know any inquisitor i play certainly will. I think its much more stylish to have my bad*** Inquisitor pronounce judgement loudly, but i dont think it needs to be a rules thing, its flavour and upto every player him/herself.
not really. He has to say nothing, but nether does a paladin, yet from what I know about seeing them played more often then not do indeed say somethingExactly, wether or not the Inquisitor has to say something i know any inquisitor i play certainly will. I think its much more stylish to have my bad*** Inquisitor pronounce judgement loudly, but i dont think it needs to be a rules thing, its flavour and upto every player him/herself.
Definitely. There's nothing about the name judgement that makes me think it requires the understanding of the creatures being judged, but any inquisitor worth his salt should be able to spout out one-liners before destroying the enemies of his faith :)
I do, however, agree with the OP about the Challenge ability. When a person challenges someone, they're basically asking for a response from the one being challenged. A judgement requires no action on the part of those being judged - which is why I think it is fine how it is.
|
Director of Games
|
Lets leave the challenge out of this... I am working on that ability, to clear up a couple of semantics issue.
As for judgments.. as an RP issue, you should probably say something when you use the ability, but it is not required. I am not going to attach a mechanical verbal component to this class ability, just because of the name. If the name inspires an RP response, then great, it is doing its job, but I am not about to mandate one. The name fits and we are running with it...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Good call Jason.
|
I don't see the problem.
"We're on a mission......from Gyadd...."
Or how bout this old thing:
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
Make sense now? Makes sense to me.
I don't see the problem.
"We're on a mission......from Gyadd...."
Or how bout this old thing:
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
Make sense now? Makes sense to me.
Sam L Jackson empowered you to lay down the law? Whoa, thats awesome!
Sam L Jackson empowered you to lay down the law? Whoa, thats awesome!I don't see the problem.
"We're on a mission......from Gyadd...."
Or how bout this old thing:
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
Make sense now? Makes sense to me.
Well, now someone has to find out what domains Sam Jackson grants his followers.
being bad*ss is not enough?
being bad*ss is not enough?
As far as I can tell, some demigods got to that level based on their bad*ssery alone.
Well, now someone has to find out what domains Sam Jackson grants his followers.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "not Scalykind".
:p
Well, now someone has to find out what domains Sam Jackson grants his followers.I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "not Scalykind".
:p
Or anything that has to do with the sea... :)
Ok someone needs to start a thread...Sam Jackson God of Badassery what domains does he grant
Charm, Destruction, Glory?
Lets leave the challenge out of this... I am working on that ability, to clear up a couple of semantics issue.
As for judgments.. as an RP issue, you should probably say something when you use the ability, but it is not required. I am not going to attach a mechanical verbal component to this class ability, just because of the name. If the name inspires an RP response, then great, it is doing its job, but I am not about to mandate one. The name fits and we are running with it...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Honestly, the name fits about half the powers but doesn't fit the other half unless you engage in some casuistry about how a cop putting on a bulletproof vest is the same thing as beating someone with a nightstick. Being bolstered and girded so you can enact judgment is not the same thing as enacting it.
It's also useful for both the players and the GMs if the names of the various powers mean the same thing in plain English as they do in game terms, as it saves a lot of confusion.
Following the logic that placing personal protections on yourself is a way of pronouncing judgment on someone else, all blessings and similar buffs should be called curses because they're unpleasant curses for the individuals who run up against those empowered by them, and cause lots of cursing. And since the best revenge is living well, the ultimate act of vengeance has to be a really great vacation.
Or you can go with the more standard meanings where vengeance is vengeance, curses are curses, and judgment is judgment.
Honestly, the name fits about half the powers but doesn't fit the other half unless you engage in some casuistry about how a cop putting on a bulletproof vest is the same thing as beating someone with a nightstick. Being bolstered and girded so you can enact judgment is not the same thing as enacting it.
I like the use of "girded" above - can we suggest some cool name that fits more with self empowerment than "judgement"? But more violent sounding than "Blessing?" "Quickening?"
Charm, Destruction, Glory?
Serpents. Travel.
Following the logic that placing personal protections on yourself is a way of pronouncing judgment on someone else
You're continuing to state this and continuing to be wrong.
Following the logic that placing personal protections on yourself is a way of pronouncing judgment on someone elseYou're continuing to state this and continuing to be wrong.
I continue to abide by dictionary definitions and accepted English usage, rather than Humpty-Dumpty logic where you make words mean whatever you want them to mean.
I continue to abide by dictionary definitions and accepted English usage, rather than Humpty-Dumpty logic where you make words mean whatever you want them to mean.
You mean like the continued use of "enchantment" to mean a specific school of magic, or a general term for any magic item enhancement, depending on the context?
I feel the entire problem goes away with just a slight change in the wording.
That solves the whole problem neatly, as far as I'm concerned, and with a minimum of effort or fuss.
Nice one!
I continue to abide by dictionary definitions and accepted English usage, rather than Humpty-Dumpty logic where you make words mean whatever you want them to mean.Following the logic that placing personal protections on yourself is a way of pronouncing judgment on someone elseYou're continuing to state this and continuing to be wrong.
Your incorrectness stems not from the definition of "judgment", but from your continued refusal to read the ability. The Inquisitor pronounces judgment and, to give him the ability to carry out that judgment, gains various bonuses. The judgment affects no one but the Inquisitor, ever. The ability in no way is meant to affect another person, and the name "judgment" is still appropriate because the Inquisitor is still making a judgment -- it's just that the act of making the judgment is what gives the bonus, not the judgment giving a penalty to someone else. It's almost exactly like a Paladin's Smite Evil, in that regard.
Okay, I think the sticking point for myself and others with the word Judgment is this particular definition (pulled from the current edition of the Random House Dictionary): a misfortune regarded as inflicted by divine sentence, as for sin.
The Destruction, Justice, Smiting and especially Piercing judgments all fit this, since they allow to the Inquisitor to layeth smackdown or even toss an actual curse of some form and have it stick.
The trouble is, the four offensive settings of the power are counterbalanced by five defensive settings, which really don't seem like anything that fits the above definition without convoluted rationalization.
Still not seeing the issue. You have placed judgment upon them. You god has backed you up by granting you power to carry that Judgment out. It does not matter if you want to hurt them more or heal from the attacks they throw at you. What matters is the judgment has given you the power to see it though
Your incorrectness stems not from the definition of "judgment", but from your continued refusal to read the ability. The Inquisitor pronounces judgment and, to give him the ability to carry out that judgment, gains various bonuses. The judgment affects no one but the Inquisitor, ever. The ability in no way is meant to affect another person, and the name "judgment" is still appropriate because the Inquisitor is still making a judgment -- it's just that the act of making the judgment is what gives the bonus, not the judgment giving a penalty to someone else. It's almost exactly like a Paladin's Smite Evil, in that regard.
I've read the ability. I think the ability is fine except that it's mislabeled.
When I'm at my gaming table, I like things to be what they say on the box. If an ability is called "Judgment" and is in the hands of an "Inquisitor," I expect it to be something like what I expect from simply knowing what the words mean without having to reference the rules. And if the first line has "an inquisitor can pronounce judgment upon her foes," I'm really expecting judgment upon her foes, not a Whitman's Sampler of random perks and buffs more than half of which are protection charms.
Smite Evil is a good power because it's exactly what it says on the box: It give a paladin the ability to smite evil things.
This? If I hear a player saying they invoke "Judgment of Purity," I expect some impure thing to get purified with prejudice, like a unicorn sticking a horn through a slatternly wench or purifying a poisoned well or something like that. Giving yourself a bonus to all saving throws especially versus poisons, curses and diseases? It doesn't readily spring to mind, I'm having to ask for the player to hand me the book to figure out what the hell they're doing, and it bogs down the game.
|
Kev, don't think of it as the misfortune being their defeat. When you think like that you've put yourself in a box.
Instead, consider the misfortune to be the inquisitor himself. This sinner in the hands of an angry god has empowered you to not only pronounce judgment, and therefore smite this foe, but has given you the tools to overcome anything they're capable of. When thought of like this, the self buffing judgments are now seen as turning a dangerous foe, into a highly dangerous foe, because he'll be harder to hit, harder to kill ect ect.
“Your knowledge cannot save you, Bloodspeaker,” Kisada roared, the pain of moments before now fueling his strength. “Your magic cannot save you. Nothing can save you.”
So you want the name to define the effect rather than the initiating action?
No, I want the name to reflect the effect listed and not to imply a different effect.
If the wording were changed as I suggested disconnecting the initiating action from the effects would you still have a problem with it?
Yes, because the wording is secondary from the actual name. It's the explanation rather than the title.
Right now both the title and the explanation don't match the effect as I (and many others) read it. Changing the explanation only fixes half the problem.
Change the wording and instead of the player saying they pronounce "Judgment of Purity", they would "Pronounce Judgment" and activate the "Purity Benefit".
"Purity Benefit" sounds like the stage name of a half-elven stripper, and while it might be sexy for her, doesn't sound half as sexy as an Inquisitor's power.
I think what would be better is to instead of defining them as "Judgments," just call them "Prayers" or maybe "Battle Prayers."
The vampire hunter or witchfinder general whispering a quick paternoster or thundering a "Hail Sarenrae" or even saying a silent prayer in the middle of battle has a lot going for it in the literature, and "Prayer of Healing" and "Prayer of Purity" and so on will be more easily understood by those around the gaming table who haven't read the class.
And "Prayer" is one of those things that doesn't have the implication of being done solely to others or solely to oneself, so you don't have to go into theological gymnastics about how a given god is punishing X by protecting Y.
Courts generally do not make judgments about themselves. It is customary for a judge to recuse himself if he's personally involved. When a court sits in judgment, it is generally in judgment of someone or something else, either a person accused of a crime or a law which is being evaluated in light of other superior laws.
And definition 6, that of a judgment being a personal opinion or belief? Well, following a famous line of reasoning, "Everyone believes in something. I believe I'll have another drink!"
Just because it's the same word does not mean it is being used in the same sense, and if every possible sense is to be allowed, then we can have "Judgment of the Martini" and let the Inquisitor summon cocktails in combat because there are some monsters which should not be faced sober, and Cayden Cailean will drink to that.
But the point is, you gather the meaning of a word from context. If you pronounce judgment on a foe, you are not sitting in judgment of yourself, nor are you positing a personal opinion. You are speaking the authority of the law, as empowered by whatever being made you judge and authorized you to speak on their behalf.
Courts generally do not make judgments about themselves. It is customary for a judge to recuse himself if he's personally involved. When a court sits in judgment, it is generally in judgment of someone or something else, either a person accused of a crime or a law which is being evaluated in light of other superior laws.
And definition 6, that of a judgment being a personal opinion or belief? Well, following a famous line of reasoning, "Everyone believes in something. I believe I'll have another drink!"
Just because it's the same word does not mean it is being used in the same sense, and if every possible sense is to be allowed, then we can have "Judgment of the Martini" and let the Inquisitor summon cocktails in combat because there are some monsters which should not be faced sober, and Cayden Cailean will drink to that.
But the point is, you gather the meaning of a word from context. If you pronounce judgment on a foe, you are not sitting in judgment of yourself, nor are you positing a personal opinion. You are speaking the authority of the law, as empowered by whatever being made you judge and authorized you to speak on their behalf.
You are pronouncing judgment on another creature, and the act of doing so makes you stronger. How is that not an appropriate effect?
And I'm suddenly thinking of Wyatt Earp from Tombstone as an Inquisitor. The scene where he takes out Wild Bill seems to scream the type of Judgement the Inquisitor uses. But that might be me.