You are pronouncing judgment on another creature, and the act of doing so makes you stronger. How is that not an appropriate effect?If you delete the name and flavor text of the ability, as well as the name and flavor text of the class, and hand what's left to someone who's never seen the inquisitor class before, they'd never in a million years guess that the ability was called something like "judgment."
That's how I've been evaluating the names of things throughout this whole playtest. If I handed the game mechanics to someone who'd never seen the name or the flavor text, how close would they get to guessing the name? If they wouldn't get even remotely close based solely on the game mechanics, then the game mechanics have the wrong name.
(And before someone else mentions it, yes, I do think many abilities of the core classes - the monk in particular - are horribly named. In fact, I think several of the core classes themselves are horribly named. But prior poor naming has no bearing on the standard I'm using to judge the new names and flavor text.)
Exactly. This is something I was trying to get at in another thread with the "Song of Cheesecake" critique: If you have some wonky power, it doesn't automatically become appropriate for a bard just because you take "Song of" in front of the name.
By the same token, things don't become appropriate for an Inquisitor just because you tack "Judgment of" in front of the name of the power.
Besides which, the "Judgment" thing is far less elastic than the "Song" thing. Theoretically you can have someone sing a song about anything under the sun, but if a player says "I throw 'Judgment of Purity'" I'll be frankly croggled if I haven't read the class statistics, and even after that I may be confused, since "Judgment of Purity" sounds like something a goldsmith should do, or Trappist monks checking out the beer kegs, or the royal midwife ascertaining the virginity of prospective brides, or anything other than an adventurer giving themselves a personal buff to their saving throws.
If it were called "Prayer of Protection" instead, you'd have an easier time figuring out what it does when someone mentions they're using it, and that has some pretty quick and easy implications of how it's roleplayed: "O {insert name of deity}, protect me from the fell powers of this {pick favorite pejorative adjective} creature. Amen." After that, the Inquisitor proceeds to beat on it with his weapon of choice and no one's confused.
The name of the ability is NOT Judgment of Purity, it's simply Judgment. It's the exact same thing as Smite, except it's more flexible. It's bonuses help you deal out Judgment to the heretics/monsters/whatevers.
You are pronouncing judgment on another creature, and the act of doing so makes you stronger. How is that not an appropriate effect?If you delete the name and flavor text of the ability, as well as the name and flavor text of the class, and hand what's left to someone who's never seen the inquisitor class before, they'd never in a million years guess that the ability was called something like "judgment."
If you delete the name and flavor text of ANY ability in ANY game it's going to be difficult to identify it for someone who's never seen it before. That's an impossible standard.
Under that guideline, you could name the Judgment ability anything. The only reason your ability is nameable is because you snuck flavor into the mechanics. Judgment doesn't have any flavor-added mechanics, so there's literally nothing to identify it. Here, look at what's left when we strip out name and flavor text:
[Ability]
Starting at 1st level, a [class] can use a swift action to activate [this ability]. Starting when [ability] is used, the [class] gains a bonus or special ability based on the type of [ability]. The bonuses granted by [ability] continue to improve on following rounds, reaching a maximum bonus that lasts until the [ability] ends.
There's nothing in that which points to your preferred name, "righteous indignation". There's nothing in it that points to ANYTHING specific. You've set the bar so high that it's unattainable without using cheap tricks.
The problem with mechanics defining flavor is that it straitjackets a character. If mechanics are created such that they only have one viable flavor, then each class only has one viable character archetype. That goes against everything Pathfinder stands for.
The problem with mechanics defining flavor is that it straitjackets a character. If mechanics are created such that they only have one viable flavor, then each class only has one viable character archetype. That goes against everything Pathfinder stands for.
Then you must really hate the following:
Grand Discovery (Su): At 20th level, the {unnamed class}
makes a grand discovery. He immediately learns two
normal discoveries, but also learns a third discovery
chosen from the list below.
Awakened Intellect: The {unnamed class}’s Intelligence score
permanently increases by 2 points.
Eternal Youth: The {unnamed class} has conquered aging, and
from this point forward suffers no penalty to his physical
ability scores from advanced age. If the {unnamed class} is already
suffering such penalties, they are removed at this time.
Fast Healing: The {unnamed class} gains fast healing 5.
Philosopher’s Stone: The {unnamed class} learns how to create
a philosopher’s stone, and can do so once per month at no
cost. Creating a philosopher’s stone takes 1 day of work.
Poison Touch: The {unnamed class} gains a poisonous touch,
as if under the effects of a poison spell. He can suppress
or activate this ability as a free action.
True Mutagen: The {unnamed class}’s mutagen now grants a +8
bonus to his natural armor score and a +6 enhancement
bonus to his Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.
Almost everything in this list screams "alchemist!" straight from the literature and folklore. Immortality like Nicholas Flamel? Check. Philosopher's Stone, also like Flamel? Check. Poisonous touch, as with Rapacini in "Rapacini's Daughter?" Check. Weird super-strength potion like Dr. Jekyll? Check.
These are multiple character archetypes, all supported by text of the character class.
My trouble with the "Judgment" ability is not that the Inquisitor should not have a Judgment power--it makes thematic sense--nor is it that the powers are inappropriate, unbalanced or otherwise unworkable for the class. The trouble is that it's like calling a pot holder an oven. Both belong in a kitchen--both are appropriate in a kitchen--but if it bakes cookies, it's probably an oven, and if protects your hands from hot cookie sheets, it's a pot holder, and if you keep pointing at a pot holder and calling it an oven, even if you get other people to agree to call it an oven due to some argument that all things involved in cookie baking are ovens, even the cookie cutters and rolling pin, I'm just going to get exasperated but still not agree.
If you call down judgment on someone, you're asking some otherworldly power to visit some unpleasant fate or tribulation upon them, anything from turning an ankle to having vermin emerge from their orifices. If you're in the business of self-fulfilling prophecy, you can ask your god to make your smackdown hurt more or hit better or anything of that order. But if you ask your god to keep you from turning your ankle or to protect you from having vermin emerge from your orifices due to your interactions with some unclean creature, that's nice, but it's not judgment, in the same way that a potholder is not an oven.
The problem with mechanics defining flavor is that it straitjackets a character. If mechanics are created such that they only have one viable flavor, then each class only has one viable character archetype. That goes against everything Pathfinder stands for.Then you must really hate the following:
Grand Discovery (Su): At 20th level, the {unnamed class}
makes a grand discovery. He immediately learns two
normal discoveries, but also learns a third discovery
chosen from the list below.
Awakened Intellect: The {unnamed class}’s Intelligence score
permanently increases by 2 points.
Eternal Youth: The {unnamed class} has conquered aging, and
from this point forward suffers no penalty to his physical
ability scores from advanced age. If the {unnamed class} is already
suffering such penalties, they are removed at this time.
Fast Healing: The {unnamed class} gains fast healing 5.
Philosopher’s Stone: The {unnamed class} learns how to create
a philosopher’s stone, and can do so once per month at no
cost. Creating a philosopher’s stone takes 1 day of work.
Poison Touch: The {unnamed class} gains a poisonous touch,
as if under the effects of a poison spell. He can suppress
or activate this ability as a free action.
True Mutagen: The {unnamed class}’s mutagen now grants a +8
bonus to his natural armor score and a +6 enhancement
bonus to his Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.Almost everything in this list screams "alchemist!" straight from the literature and folklore.
Only because you failed to remove the names and flavor text. Here's how it looks without them:
[Ability](Su): At 20th level, the {unnamed class}
gains [an ability]. He immediately learns two [abilities from a lower-level list], but also learns a third [ability]
chosen from the list below.
[Ability1]: The {unnamed class}’s Intelligence score
permanently increases by 2 points.
[Ability2]: The {unnamed class} from this point forward suffers no penalty to his physical ability scores from advanced age. If the {unnamed class} is already suffering such penalties, they are removed at this time.
[Ability3]: The {unnamed class} gains fast healing 5.
[Ability4]: The {unnamed class} learns how to create
an [artifact], and can do so once per month at no
cost. Creating [the artifact] takes 1 day of work.
[Ability5]h: The {unnamed class} gains a poisonous touch,
as if under the effects of a poison spell. He can suppress
or activate this ability as a free action.
[Ability6]: The {unnamed class}’s [ability] now grants a +8
bonus to his natural armor score and a +6 enhancement
bonus to his Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.
Doesn't sound anything like an alchemist to me. It's a pretty generic collection of abilities with no obvious unifying theme. That unifying theme is presented through the flavor text and names.
And weapon training is even more generic, despite having rules that reinforce a very specific name for the ability.
Seriously? I could think of half a dozen other names for the ability that aren't even remotely close to "weapon training". As a matter of fact, training isn't even close to the first thing I think of. Weapon Training is so generic (in name, in flavor -- not that there's much of that at all -- and in mechanics) that it could be called just about anything and no one could draw a reasonable objection to it.
And before someone raises the "you can just ignore flavor you don't like" argument: not if I'm playing with people who aren't using my own personal house rules. Changing a name or inventing new flavor for something that appears on the printed page is a house rule, even if the name or flavor on the printed page is entirely arbitrary. When talking to people who don't share my house rules for a class, I have to use the names and concepts appearing on the printed page because that's the standard lexicon for discourse between any two random gamers.
Yes, and there's all kinds of other sacrifices you make to play in random games with random gamers, too, or in organized play. I don't see how this sacrifice breaks the concept but those other sacrifices don't.
And regardless, I've never once known a DM who gave a flying rat's arse what the flavor text printed with the ability said as long as you could make the mechanic fit your own flavor text. If I want to say my Fighter's skill with weapons is all inborn talent (or memories being slowly restored) rather than training, who's going to stop me?
The same can't be said for your "mechanics must enforce flavor" approach. Your hellfire warlock forces the character to play a guy who blows things up with unholy flames and sends his victims straight to Hell, literally. There's no way you can play it any other way without changing the mechanics. It's a straitjacket.
(Note that you can't just replace "philosopher's stone" with a generic artifact place-holder. The character can only create one specific artifact, not any generic artifact, so you have to specify what the artifact does in place of naming it.)
Incorrect; the artifact's abilities have nothing to do with the class feature. Thus, there's no need to explain the artifact. It's just the ability to craft a specific artifact.
Increased intellegence, the ability to reverse aging, the ability to create a specific artifact, and the ability to poison things with a touch?
That pretty much defines an alchemist to me.
Not to me. Alchemists have never been strongly associated with poison (especially with having a Midas-like poison touch) in my mind, nor with the search for eternal youth (though I'm a Floridian, so I tend to think Ponce de Leon when people start talking eternal youth). And the mutagen thing isn't something I would ever associate with alchemists; I don't object to it, it's just not something I'd ever think of for a class that makes magical potions and tinctures. I've also never seen alchemists as being the smartest people in the world.
As a matter of fact, if you presented me with those four things listed above without the flavor text of turning lead to gold, I'd be ten times more likely to guess "some kind of fey-based class?" than "alchemist, for sure!".
Okay, other than weapon training or weapon skill, what would you call it?
(Granted, weapon focus and weapon specialization are both better names, but those are already taken.)
Keeping in mind that I'm horrible at naming things, so there's likely better ways to state these:
That's half a dozen, as I promised, and with less than 5 minutes thinking about it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I interpreted the flavor of the Judgments to be "You've been a bad little monkey, and so have been judged! Your punishment is me kicking your ass repeatedly!"
And then your god pushes the button on his great console in the sky and shapes you into the perfect implement to destroy that particular enemy. Hence the whole adaptability angle.
Okay, then I'm afraid I don't understand your definition of alchemist at all, because the alchemist is the only class in this playtest that I felt actually captured the essence of its class name. Granted, it abilities are a bit too gamist for my tastes, what with the unlimited supply of chemicals and the arbitrary Vancian limits on everything, but most everything I thought an alchemist should be able to do was in that class.
When I think of alchemists, I think of crazy potion-mixing fools and usually a bit of steampunk thrown in, or (and this is Full Metal Alchemist's influence) about magic based entirely on transmutation. The Alchemist class itself actually meshes with that pretty well; it's just that specific list of abilities which does not, once all the flavor is stripped.
Well, there's also the small matter of throwing bombs. You don't see fey doing that very often this side of Legend of Zelda. :)
Again, I was only referring to that specific list of abilities, not the abilities of the class as a whole. I still don't know that I would arrive at "alchemist" with the bombs, because bombs are even farther from what I think of when someone starts talking alchemy, but I do agree that it would rule out fey.
'Aptitude,' 'training,' 'skill,' and 'talent' can all be used as synonyms of one another. So four of your six are just synonyms for "weapon training."
Thesaurus.com disagrees with you:
Main Entry: training
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: preparation
Synonyms:
background, basics, buildup, chalk talk, coaching, cultivation, discipline, domestication, drill, education, exercise, foundation, grounding, groundwork, guidance, indoctrination, instruction, practice, preliminaries, principles, readying, schooling, seasoning, sharpening, teaching, tuition, tune-up, tutelage, upbringing, warm-up, workout
Training is actually opposite of talent and aptitude; you can never learn talent or aptitude, and training is the act of learning something. Training and Skill can be related, but in that case it's a cause-effect relationship, not a synonymous one.
Either way, the phrases all have the same basic meaning as weapon training: "I'm really good at using (certain) weapons."
Oh, sure. But the mechanics don't require you to be really good at using a specific weapon, nor do they dictate how or why you're so good with that weapon.
Not to me. Alchemists have never been strongly associated with poison (especially with having a Midas-like poison touch) in my mind, nor with the search for eternal youth (though I'm a Floridian, so I tend to think Ponce de Leon when people start talking eternal youth). And the mutagen thing isn't something I would ever associate with alchemists; I don't object to it, it's just not something I'd ever think of for a class that makes magical potions and tinctures. I've also never seen alchemists as being the smartest people in the world.
As a matter of fact, if you presented me with those four things listed above without the flavor text of turning lead to gold, I'd be ten times more likely to guess "some kind of fey-based class?" than "alchemist, for sure!".
I think that's because you haven't read more than lightly in the literature. Read the history of Nicholas Flamel or simply skip to Shelley's "The Mortal Immortal":
http://www.sff.net/people/DoyleMacdonald/l_mortal.htm.
Follow that with Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward":
http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/thecaseofcharlesdexterward.h tm.
Next look up the term "Mithridate" and "Panacea" and read Hawthorne's "Rappaccini's Daughter":
http://www.shsu.edu/~eng_wpf/authors/Hawthorne/Rappaccini.htm.
As for the mutagen thing, check out any version of Jekyll & Hyde and you'll find plenty to go from there (except the term "mutagen" which I think is too modern).
Except, of course, that prior to the APG, I'd never once heard of Dr. Jekyll being referred to as an Alchemist.
As for the rest: what percentage of D&D players do you expect to be completely immersed in niche literature? I'm certainly not, and that's no crime.
Except, of course, that prior to the APG, I'd never once heard of Dr. Jekyll being referred to as an Alchemist.
As for the rest: what percentage of D&D players do you expect to be completely immersed in niche literature? I'm certainly not, and that's no crime.
H.P. Lovecraft, Mary Shelley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Robert Louis Stephenson constitute "completely immersed"?
But fine. Let's redline the entire canon of western literature excepting books by currently living popular authors, and hell, let's redline everything except the most popular current living author, J.K. Rowling.
If you read the very first book of the Harry Potter series--Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone depending on the American or original British edition--you'd find that the Philosopher's Stone is an important plot element (it's even in the title) and the Cliff Notes version of the history of Nicholas Flamel (and his immortality) is conveniently summarized on a collectible card included with chocolate frogs in the course of the narrative.
I could also give you a stack of medieval alchemy texts three feet deep, but honestly, passing familiarity with almost any literature is more than enough.
And you don't have to be from Florida to know about Ponce de Leon. Just read Hawthorne's "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment" which I must have read five times in school for English class.
If you read the very first book of the Harry Potter series--Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone depending on the American or original British edition--you'd find that the Philosopher's Stone is an important plot element
And you'll note I specifically mentioned the PStone. Namely, I mentioned that without specific mention of it, the list of items you gave me don't scream "alchemist!" to me, in my opinion.
I could also give you a stack of medieval alchemy texts three feet deep, but honestly, passing familiarity with almost any literature is more than enough.
Nice subtle insult, there. I'm more than passingly familiar with fantasy, mythological, and historical (up to roughly the period of the American Civil War) literature. I'm not very familiar with horror literature (Lovecraft, Shelley) beyond the very high-level stuff that any gamer knows (Dracula, Frankenstein, basic Cthulu mythos stuff, etc).
And you don't have to be from Florida to know about Ponce de Leon.
Good thing I didn't say that, then, isn't it? I said that, being from Florida, which has (or at least, had when I was in school) state-mandated "Florida History" courses and texts from elementary school on up, Ponce de Leon is my immediate first thought whenever eternal youth is mentioned. Floridians are pretty thoroughly immersed in all the history and mythology about all the Spanish explorers in the area; the Fountain of Youth is also a subject that's actually taught here. So, it's worth noting that I am biased in that regard due to my schooling. Which is what I did.
Incidentally, The Picture of Dorian Gray is the second, mostly due to being forced to read it in-depth anyway for AP English Lit.
The point is that "judgment" implies that you or your higher power is going go and "do" something about the person/place/thing in question. As it stands half the time your god decides to be passive aggressive and buff you rather than doing anything direct. Since the ability is purely a self-buff, it should have a name recognizable as a buff ability rather than one that sounds like an offensive one.
Also, why am I only judging creatures I get into combat with? I can judge all sorts of people, townsfolk, henchmen, nobles, PC's...I will be activating it all the time (mostly on other PC's).
My main quibble though is not really the judgment ability, but the class itself. The class is "inquisitor," which is one who investigates, but almost all the abilities are based on converting the heathens though superior firepower. An inquisitor should be based on discovering deception and people trying to hide in plain sight rather than tracking down your enemies "bringing them to justice" (with extreme prejudice). A better description of the class would be crusader, champion, or zealot. These conform to the buff, gung-ho nature of the class. An inquisitor is more of a detective and usually tries to convert rather than kill. The class just lacks the more subtle abilities to pull off the inquisitor title.
My main quibble though is not really the judgment ability, but the class itself. The class is "inquisitor," which is one who investigates, but almost all the abilities are based on converting the heathens though superior firepower.
Perhaps you should read up more on what an Inquisitor is, both historically and in popular culture. Inquisitors never had anything to do with peaceful conversion; those people are called Missionaries. The Inquisitions which had conversion of the heathens as a stated goal typically did so via torture and force of arms.
When did I say peaceful? I did not say anything about it being pleasant, but historically the inquisition identified heretics and then used torture and corporal punishment to make them change their ways. Their goal was to turn heretics into true believers, killing only started if they caught you again or you did something really bad. Secondly, they only operated within lands with cooperating governments, they were the church's internal security, preventing attacks on the faith from within. These threats are usually social or intellectually based, and as such and inquisitor will be operating far more often in a noncombat(roleplaying: ring a bell) role as part of their duties. Inquisitors were drawn from holy orders and were priests, not soldiers (they had goons for that) and were not trained or skilled in combat.
The Inquisitor as designed clearly concentrates on combat abilities and tracking down things then killing them. This is obviously directed against external threats, which were traditionally dealt with by the church's military affiliates (the crusades were an excellent example: crusaders not inquisitors). This character concept would be right at home in the crusades, but out of place in an investigation of heresy (which almost always occurred in an urban setting and involved little to no combat). That is why I am saying the name does not resonate.
My main quibble though is not really the judgment ability, but the class itself. The class is "inquisitor," which is one who investigates, but almost all the abilities are based on converting the heathens though superior firepower.
Just to clarify, what this passage means is that I do not agree with the name because the class is built on "conversion though superior firepower." This being manly fighting and killing and all that jazz, not outwitting your opponent and then staging a grand spectacle to showcase their victory and serve as an example to others. The latter is what an inquisitor should do, the former is what an inquisitor does not do (they have people for that).
These threats are usually social or intellectually based, and as such and inquisitor will be operating far more often in a noncombat(roleplaying: ring a bell) role as part of their duties.
6+Int skill points and more class skills than any other class except the Bard ring a bell?
Inquisitors were drawn from holy orders and were priests, not soldiers (they had goons for that) and were not trained or skilled in combat.
The Inquisitor as designed clearly concentrates on combat abilities and tracking down things then killing them. This is obviously directed against external threats, which were traditionally dealt with by the church's military affiliates (the crusades were an excellent example: crusaders not inquisitors). This character concept would be right at home in the crusades, but out of place in an investigation of heresy (which almost always occurred in an urban setting and involved little to no combat). That is why I am saying the name does not resonate.
I will repeat myself:
Perhaps you should read up more on what an Inquisitor is, both historically and in popular culture.
Actually, you've ignored or just plain aren't aware of a lot of the historical facts of inquisitions, as well. "They were only internal" is a load of bull. So is "Inquisitors were all priests" and "the Inquisition didn't use the military arm of the church".
Well those seem like fine points, if I was discussing the Spanish Inquisition. I was instead talking about the official church office which was established in the late middle ages to combat heresy (this office is now know as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Preceding the Spanish Inquisition, this organization was make up entirely of priests, mainly Dominicans, and let local authorities do the heavy lifting while they called the shots. I consider this a better historical parallel because these inquisitors acted in the service of their faith, just as the class does.
You have a point that the Spanish Inquisition which has greater prominence in popular culture, but the class wouldn't fit in there either.
If you wouldn't mind I will use your points to illustrate this:
The Spanish Inquisition was set up as a tool of the Spanish government. The Inquisitor General was directly appointed by the ruler of Spain. The Spanish Inquisition was used by the monarchy to root out its enemies, as well as the heretics.
It specifically states in the class description that the inquisitor answers only to their god, not their king. So if the king acted against his religion, an inquisitor would be bound to defy him.
Inquisitors for the Spanish Inquisition were actually lawyers, not priests. In fact, the majority of them were secular. Their only job was to sit in on the trials of the accused, not to root out heretics.
Secular (uh oh, no spellcasting for you), perhaps I should mention where they answer only to their god again. Also, how many lawyers do you know practice extensively to kill people?
The Spanish Inquisition had command of its own military forces, or was able to requisition church and/or Spanish troops for its own use (which is just about the same thing). At one point, Torquemada would only travel with an escort of 300 armed bodyguards.
Yes, he had a lot of bodyguards, as I said before, Inquisitors call the shots and have goons to do their dirty work.
Yes, they do get 6+INT skill points, but then so do rangers, who are not usually described as social butterflies. Also, not that though they have an extensive skill list, perform is no where on it, perform (oratory) anyone? Now lets go through the rest of their abilities: Judgement (combat bonuses), Monster Lore (fighting monsters - not heretics), Cunning Initiative (initiative - in combat), Track (track people - when is the last time you used this in an urban area), Solo Tactics (tactics - in combat), Bane (deal damage - in combat), and Evasion (avoid spells - in combat). So in affect, you have a class with nearly all of its abilities can be used only in combat, or have no relevance to social situations. Special abilities really do make the character, as it is I could play a rogue, sorcerer, or bard as a better "inquisitor."
If I was to say what abilities an Inquisitor should have, I would say that it would be closer to a divine enchanter, probably with some leadership type special abilities and maybe rewards for defeating enemies of the faith, just like the cavalier oaths. What do you guys think? Maybe this should be a separate thread.
You have a point that the Spanish Inquisition which has greater prominence in popular culture, but the class wouldn't fit in there either.
It does when you realize that the Inquisitor is meant to take the popular culture stereotype of the Inquisition and run with it. Look at the Warhammer Fantasy Witch Hunters and the WH 40k Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters (both of whom are members of the Imperium's Inquisition). Hell, the art for the iconic is almost dead on for a Warhammer Fantasy Witch Hunter (except that Warhammer has guns and PF core doesn't).
My Spanish Inquisition points were merely to show that you're using a single, narrow definition of Inquisitor that was not only not always true but didn't adhere whatsoever to the popular culture image of an inquisitor. When someone says "Inquisitor" to a random person on the street, or a random fantasy gamer, 95 times out of 100 you're not going to get, "a priest dedicated to nonviolent conversion of heretics" as a response. The popular image of Inquisitions is violent, bloody, and with a heavy "Inquisitors are bad guys not afraid to get their hands bloody" overtone.
Yes, they do get 6+INT skill points, but then so do rangers, who are not usually described as social butterflies.
Rangers don't get Bluff, Diplomacy, or Sense Motive as class skills. Inquisitors do.
Judgement (combat bonuses)
Not exclusively. Several of the judgments could have noncombat uses for a roleplayer.
Monster Lore (fighting monsters - not heretics)
1. You forget that monsters are heretical in D&D. Most monsters worship Lamashtu or various demon lords. Also, the church of Pharasma considers all undead to be abominations.
2. Monster Lore, though it does say "Monster" in the name, works against any creature, using any Knowledge skill. That means you get to add your Wis to your check to know that the little scumbag Derro necromancer you caught doing banned rituals is violently allergic to daylight and would probably spill who his boss is after just a little exposure...Track (track people - when is the last time you used this in an urban area)
Who said anything about urban areas? Were people in the boonies immune to the Inquisition? Also, "urban area" wasn't your own question; you're supposedly listing all the combat-only abilities of the Inquisitor. Tell me, when was the last time you used tracking in combat? Oh, and to answer your question: I've done it before. There's nothing in the track text or survival skill that prevents them from working in cities.
Solo Tactics (tactics - in combat)
Not exclusively. The Allied Spellcasting one can be used for out-of-combat purposes.
Also, I notice you conveniently forgot a class ability: Domains, many of which (Animal, Artifice, Charm, Community, Darkness, Glory, Good, Knowledge, Liberation, Luck, Magic, Nobility, Travel, Trickery) have out-of-combat uses.
PS. My name is "Zurai", not "Zuria". It's not that hard when it's provided to you by the quote button and you could copy-and-paste it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Well those seem like fine points, if I was discussing the Spanish Inquisition. I was instead talking about the official church office which was established in the late middle ages to combat heresy (this office is now know as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Preceding the Spanish Inquisition, this organization was make up entirely of priests, mainly Dominicans, and let local authorities do the heavy lifting while they called the shots. I consider this a better historical parallel because these inquisitors acted in the service of their faith, just as the class does.
...
Actually I think they already have a class which perfectly fits the kind of Historically Accurate Inquisitor you're talking about:
It's called Expert, you can find it in the core rulebook, back in the NPC classes section :D
We are talking about two different things, I think the historical version should get at least some attention. Also, keep in mind that the average person is probably more familiar with the Inquisition from Monty Python than Warhammer (if you haven't seen it it's hilarious).
Also, I don't think you have bad points, but when you get down to it the inquisitor can inquire on even footing, but in my opinion it should be better.
P.S. Sorry about the name, you cannot highlight names without clicking though and losing everything I had typed already.
We are talking about two different things, I think the historical version should get at least some attention.
That's fair, but I think 6+ skill points and a massive list of skills (including Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Disguise, Linguistics, and Stealth) does a lot towards that purpose. So do the Domain powers if you pick the right Domain (Knowledge would be appropriate). Don't forget also that spells are considered class abilities, and there are lots of good spells for that sort of character.