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.
|
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.
Avenger is used in 4e for a holy fighter. It may be too close in concept to also use the same name.
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.
I considered this as well. Tactical Feats were introduced (IIRC) in Complete Warrior and are used in a great many 3.5 supplements. As written, the Inquisitor can take any of those feats as bonus feats, even though the 3.5 Tactical Feats and the APG Tactical Feats have basically nothing at all in common. I, too, think the better way to handle this would be to change the APG feat classification from "Tactical" to "Cooperative" or some other similar nomenclature.
Unless, of course, the intent is for the Inquisitor (and Cavalier, seemingly) to be able to snag bonus 3.5 Tactical feats, without having to directly reference them, wink wink nudge nudge.
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!
it screams Inquisitor to me. I was not sure about giving it spells but this is very much in theme with the name to me
I had the same objection to the term "Tactical Feats". I'm glad I'm not alone.
I think the trouble is that the Inquisitor is an inquisitor in the same way that Judge Dredd is a Judge: If you wanted to stat up the wise judge of the Chinese fairytales, you wouldn't use a class designed for Judge Dredd, and by the same token, if you were wanting someone to root out evil of anything beyond the Pantomime Devil variety--"Blargh! Blargh! I iz EVIL! Look, I haz pitfork 'n everything! Come get me, goody-shoe-twos!"--you would need an inquisitor statted up with something other than the current Inquisitor class.
Which is to say, this is a zealot and bully boy that the Office of Inquisition would send out to break heads and use in the case of Pantomime Devils, vulgar warlords, and ecumenical hippies who fail to tithe, but in the case of subtle fiends and demonologists with more than two brain cells to rub together, they'd need to send someone else.
|
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.
I really don't like "Avenger"... simply because it implies "Vengeance"
The class isn't there for that. Inquisitor IDs the class as a type of person who roots out evil(Or good) wherever it may be... regardless of the methods used. Anything goes if you get the job done. And that really does fit what the class does.
I have broached this subject before (link).
The upshot is...I see this class as a holy warrior, crusader, etc. It doesn't fit with the historical context, but Piazo isn't going to change the name and I will still use it in games I run.
As much as I hate the name, I love the concept. It presents a practical replacement for the paladin as a divinely powered fighter, but without the "paladin code" which either gets holier than swiss cheese or becomes a huge annoyance for anyone who is not a puritan (everyone).
My point is this, Piazo can call their classes and abilities whatever they want as long as they deliver a good product. I will buy the sourcebook for the squidly-doodle if I think it will be a good addition to my game, I just won't call it that when I play.