I'm going to have to say that I don't like this ability. Not because it's not thematic, but because it's a little ability that is kind of a pain in the rear to keep track of (especially given that it can be used rounds/day). Why not just eliminate this and bump up the power of the inquisitor's judgments to compensate? That seems like an easier, more streamlined way of doing the class powers.
I'm going to have to say that I don't like this ability. Not because it's not thematic, but because it's a little ability that is kind of a pain in the rear to keep track of (especially given that it can be used rounds/day). Why not just eliminate this and bump up the power of the inquisitor's judgments to compensate? That seems like an easier, more streamlined way of doing the class powers.
Bane: 7 Rounds Per day
Rounds Used today (in pencil) ||||At the end of day, rinse (erase) and repeat.
This is hard to track? I can put that in the margin of my character sheet's front page. How is it harder to track then bard songs or barbarian rages?
I'm going to have to say that I don't like this ability. Not because it's not thematic, but because it's a little ability that is kind of a pain in the rear to keep track of (especially given that it can be used rounds/day). Why not just eliminate this and bump up the power of the inquisitor's judgments to compensate? That seems like an easier, more streamlined way of doing the class powers.
I agree with this, I don't think tracking it is the problem, it's all the interaction of the ability, and the fact that it is a magical enhancement, what happens if you already have a Bane weapon? What about mw? How would this stack with the paladin's divine weapon? Alot of crap to think about, when it could be simplified...or maybe I'm crazy from lack of morning coffee....
I'm going to have to say that I don't like this ability. Not because it's not thematic, but because it's a little ability that is kind of a pain in the rear to keep track of (especially given that it can be used rounds/day). Why not just eliminate this and bump up the power of the inquisitor's judgments to compensate? That seems like an easier, more streamlined way of doing the class powers.I agree with this, I don't think tracking it is the problem, it's all the interaction of the ability, and the fact that it is a magical enhancement, what happens if you already have a Bane weapon? What about mw? How would this stack with the paladin's divine weapon? Alot of crap to think about, when it could be simplified...or maybe I'm crazy from lack of morning coffee....
How would a paladin's divine weapon stack with a bane weapon? If it's the same bane, it doesn't. If it's a different bane, it does. Pretty simple there. A +1 Elf Bane Human Bane longsword would be bane against both elves and humans, while poor half-elves would be double bane'd.
Picking out some mix of multiclassing abilities and saying 'Woah, that could get complicated' is cherry picking your arguments to find the most odd combination you can. It would be like mixing barbarian, monk and swashbuckler and asking why your rage doesn't work (or your flurry of blows, depending on which alignment you went with)?
Bane: A bane weapon excels against certain foes. Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus. It also deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe. To randomly determine a weapon's designated foe, roll on the following table.
Note that the bane property increases your enhancement bonus, it doesn't replace it, so if you have Bane Human and hit a half-elf, you get +2 to your enhancement bonus and +2d6 (untyped). If you have Bane Elf, you get a +2 to your enhancement bonus (increasing it to +3 in the example above) and you get a +2d6 (untyped). If you have +1 Bane Human And Elf, then the poor half-elf triggers both bane benefits (A +2 bonus to the enhancement from each bane, this is not a bonus stacking, this is an situational increase in a bonus of a given type) so a +4 to enhancement bonus and a +4d6 to damage.
I don't think it's at all complicated, honestly.
Yes, I'd rather see a boost to the damage judgment.
Right now, I feel like the class suffers from the 'too many little abilities' that the cavalier had, whereas I'd like it to have fewer, stronger abilities to keep track of like the paladin. Plus, judgment needs to be hardcore.
Bane: 7 Rounds Per day
Rounds Used today (in pencil) ||||At the end of day, rinse (erase) and repeat.
This is hard to track? I can put that in the margin of my character sheet's front page. How is it harder to track then bard songs or barbarian rages?
Because it's yet another little thing to keep track of, and the inquisitor has judgments, spells, and tactical feats to keep track of. (the paladin has spells, but, come on, those are like an afterthought most of the time).
Too many active abilities to track slows players way down, even knowledgeable mathematically competent players. If we somehow rolled this ability into the damage judgment, that's one less little thing.
Picking out some mix of multiclassing abilities and saying 'Woah, that could get complicated' is cherry picking your arguments to find the most odd combination you can. It would be like mixing barbarian, monk and swashbuckler and asking why your rage doesn't work (or your flurry of blows, depending on which alignment you went with)?
Yeah, guess your right, but I still thing it's an odd fit, and honestly, something simpler, that meshes more would be nice...
|
Bane: 7 Rounds Per day
Rounds Used today (in pencil) ||||At the end of day, rinse (erase) and repeat.
This is hard to track? I can put that in the margin of my character sheet's front page. How is it harder to track then bard songs or barbarian rages?
Because it's yet another little thing to keep track of, and the inquisitor has judgments, spells, and tactical feats to keep track of. (the paladin has spells, but, come on, those are like an afterthought most of the time).
Too many active abilities to track slows players way down, even knowledgeable mathematically competent players. If we somehow rolled this ability into the damage judgment, that's one less little thing.
Having actually played one yesterday, I can say it is not that hard to keep track of. I always have a piece of scrap paper handy to keep notes and any cleric/bard/ wizard buffs on. I just made sure to take to 15 seconds needed to write dawn the bane and tick mark beside it. Same with the judgements.
It is definitely a lot of little fiddly bits to keep track of. In particular if you pick up a cleric domain that can boost damage also (good, destruction, evil, chaos, law).
I'm going to turn it around and suggest instead that they should get rid of the destruction judgment and keep bane, possibly giving it a bit longer duration. Then the class only has one source of bonus damage and they can still keep the judgments as-is.
The really nice thing about bane versus destruction is the bane power can be turned on for a round or 2 rounds during combat then turned off. If you have 8 rounds of bane you can save it for when you are doing full attacks. So you can use Bane to snipe a single guard for a round then still have plenty of uses out of it.
Judgments you get X/day and that's it, so until you get 3-4 judgments/ day you are going to save them for the biggest encounters.
Bane: 7 Rounds Per day
Rounds Used today (in pencil) ||||At the end of day, rinse (erase) and repeat.
This is hard to track? I can put that in the margin of my character sheet's front page. How is it harder to track then bard songs or barbarian rages?
Because it's yet another little thing to keep track of, and the inquisitor has judgments, spells, and tactical feats to keep track of. (the paladin has spells, but, come on, those are like an afterthought most of the time).
Too many active abilities to track slows players way down, even knowledgeable mathematically competent players. If we somehow rolled this ability into the damage judgment, that's one less little thing.
Thats why it is in the "advanced" players guide. Like the summoner, and perhaps the witch and cavalier, its more complicated then the core classes. Advanced does imply a higher degree of complication. It is however not unmanagable. I find it more complicated to keep track of per day use magic items then something like this. I once played a gestault paladin/cleric/cleric prestige class that let me sack spells for short term bonuses. I also had 2 devotions from complete champion.
That was:
Spell from 2 classes
turn uses from 2 classes
short term buffs by sacking spells
2 once per day minute long buffs from devotions
several per day use magic items, like a healing belt and armbands of elusive action.
Seems like alot of fiddly bits, but just it took a well organized piece of scrap paper, and nothing went any slower. It took a little extra work, but it was quite doable.
Thats why it is in the "advanced" players guide. Like the summoner, and perhaps the witch and cavalier, its more complicated then the core classes. Advanced does imply a higher degree of complication. It is however not unmanagable. I find it more complicated to keep track of per day use magic items then something like this. I once played a gestault paladin/cleric/cleric prestige class that let me sack spells for short term bonuses. I also had 2 devotions from complete champion.
That was:
Spell from 2 classes
turn uses from 2 classes
short term buffs by sacking spells
2 once per day minute long buffs from devotions
several per day use magic items, like a healing belt and armbands of elusive action.Seems like alot of fiddly bits, but just it took a well organized piece of scrap paper, and nothing went any slower. It took a little extra work, but it was quite doable.
I'm sorry, that's a ridiculous, elitist argument, and it's an attitude we see a a lot of that hurts the entire genre of RPGs. Even for an 'advanced' players guide (which is pretty much just a name), there's some baseline of players you want include.
Besides, even if your argument were correct, it's a pretty lazy attitude toward design to throw in lots of mechanically sloppy minor abilities that don't really synergize and say "well, it's advanced, you should be able to keep track of it" a hassle is a hassle, no matter what your level of skill. Just because people are able to keep track of all that stuff, doesn't mean they want to or that it's good to. Streamlining and relative simplicity are always preferable.
You can brag about your mathematical prowess all you want, there's no way adding tons of extra steps doesn't slow the game down. And, if you really are organized enough that it didn't, I think you're above the mark of people this book is aimed at. Are we really wanting to see books designed around 5% of the player base?
'm going to turn it around and suggest instead that they should get rid of the destruction judgment and keep bane, possibly giving it a bit longer duration. Then the class only has one source of bonus damage and they can still keep the judgments as-is
This is an interesting idea. Admittedly, it's better than what's there now. My concern is that it doesn't cut down on little things to keep track of.
Why not change the damage judgment so it applies bane to your weapon (and then at 10th the advanced 4d6 version the class gets)? That way, it's almost bound to have more duration than it has now, and it's still only one thing to keep track of.
Naturally, we'd have to find some way for this to work with the 3 round base of the mechanic, but I don't think that'd be too hard.
Thats why it is in the "advanced" players guide. Like the summoner, and perhaps the witch and cavalier, its more complicated then the core classes. Advanced does imply a higher degree of complication. It is however not unmanagable. I find it more complicated to keep track of per day use magic items then something like this. I once played a gestault paladin/cleric/cleric prestige class that let me sack spells for short term bonuses. I also had 2 devotions from complete champion.
That was:
Spell from 2 classes
turn uses from 2 classes
short term buffs by sacking spells
2 once per day minute long buffs from devotions
several per day use magic items, like a healing belt and armbands of elusive action.Seems like alot of fiddly bits, but just it took a well organized piece of scrap paper, and nothing went any slower. It took a little extra work, but it was quite doable.
I'm sorry, that's a ridiculous, elitist argument, and it's an attitude we see a a lot of that hurts the entire genre of RPGs. Even for an 'advanced' players guide (which is pretty much just a name), there's some baseline of players you want include.
Besides, even if your argument were correct, it's a pretty lazy attitude toward design to throw in lots of mechanically sloppy minor abilities that don't really synergize and say "well, it's advanced, you should be able to keep track of it" a hassle is a hassle, no matter what your level of skill. Just because people are able to keep track of all that stuff, doesn't mean they want to or that it's good to. Streamlining and relative simplicity are always preferable.
You can brag about your mathematical prowess all you want, there's no way adding tons of extra steps doesn't slow the game down. And, if you really are organized enough that it didn't, I think you're above the mark of people this book is aimed at. Are we really wanting to see books designed around 5% of the player base?
I dont see how the abilities dont synergize well, and certainly the inquisitors abilities are cleaner then that of the cavalier as written.
What I am saying is that complicated does not mean bad, I happen to like complicated. Simple is often boring to me. And honestly, there is no mathematical prowess. Its a couple sheets of scrap paper with tick marks. Anyone can do that to the point where it would no more slow the game down then choosing a spell, or summoning a monster. Its all about preparation.
And I resent the elitist remark. The point here is these are rules outside the core. So if they require a little extra effort its not the end of the world. And mind you, it is not even close unprecedented book keeping. The bard has songs, and spells, heck even the fighter has to track what buffs the casters have put up on him. This is a simple bit of tickmarks for an ability i rather like. I do not wish to see it erased because someone thinks its too much to track, because that is just plain not true.
I my self am not particularly gifted at mathematics, heck sometimes i pull out a calculator at the table. My point with my example was that it existed before, it can exist again. There is precedent for this much book keeping. And I am very certain that adding up a level 10 fireball slows the game down more then tracking bane ever would.
I dont see how the abilities dont synergize well, and certainly the inquisitors abilities are cleaner then that of the cavalier as written.
The abilities don't synergize well because the bane ability adds yet another annoying resource pool/active abilityn to keep track of that doesn't work off of its other abilites. No, it's nowhere near as messy as the cavalier, but it's still a lot.
Compare it to say the paladin (probably the best class revision made in pathfinder) or the bard, who are both similar classes to the inquisitor. The paladin has spells, but they're mostly an afterthought. They also have auras, but those are passive abilities that don't come into play that incredibly often. Almost all of the actual 'keeping track' the paladin has to do falls within two resources: Smite and Lay on hands. Smite is a simple ability that gets better over time, and eventually can pass to teamates. Mercies simply build on the existing LOH mechanic. That's synergy. But, at the end of the day, the paladin has like two things to keep track of.
The bard, on the other hand, has passive abilities, but basically only has two resources to keep track of: Spells and music. All of their new music abilities build on that one resource, so the bard is an easy play.
The inquisitor, on the other hand, has Judgment, already far more complicated than music, lay on hands, or smite. Then they have spells (Which, more often than not, will include a lot more self-buffing than the bard), then they have bane, then they have like 7 tactical feats to keep track of (like the class isn't strong enough w/o bonus feats), which are a far bigger annoyance than most normal feats. At the end of the day, the class just has WAY too much going on, and it needs some major streamlining. Bane is one of those annoying little resources that could be rolled into that.
What I am saying is that complicated does not mean bad, I happen to like complicated. Simple is often boring to me. And honestly, there is no mathematical prowess. Its a couple sheets of scrap paper with tick marks. Anyone can do that to the point where it would no more slow the game down then choosing a spell, or summoning a monster. Its all about preparation.
I don't think complicated necessarily means bad, but there's a fine balance. I'm not advocating turning the inquisitor into a fighter or a WOD character. Obviously, the increased complexity is satisfying for people. But, you can't tell me that rolling some of the choices into less easier-to-use mechanics is going to make the class boring.
And I resent the elitist remark. The point here is these are rules outside the core. So if they require a little extra effort its not the end of the world. And mind you, it is not even close unprecedented book keeping. The bard has songs, and spells, heck even the fighter has to track what buffs the casters have put up on him. This is a simple bit of tickmarks for an ability i rather like. I do not wish to see it erased because someone thinks its too much to track, because that is just plain not true.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but I don't think the remark was at all out of line. There is an attitude on the forums (and indeed in a lot of the gaming community in general) that if you complain something is overcomplicated you either 'need to be better at math,' 'you're lazy,' or 'you just need to do more preparation.' It's an attitude that's intimidating to inexperienced players, drives away new players, and establishes an unfortunate hierarchy where one can be 'better' at role-playing games.
Some people do really like a lot of things to keep track of, and that's cool. But the game is supposed to be fun, and the majority of players don't think more things=more fun.
I my self am not particularly gifted at mathematics, heck sometimes i pull out a calculator at the table. My point with my example was that it existed before, it can exist again. There is precedent for this much book keeping. And I am very certain that adding up a level 10 fireball slows the game down more then tracking bane ever would.
Citing an overly complicated gestalt build isn't really precedent. That's your choice, it doesn't need to be built into the class. Fireball does take a long time to work out, but only because it effects so many people. And nobody's arguing the bane itself is too much, we're arguing the bane plus everything else is too much, and the bane is one of the things that can be simplified.
I dont see how the abilities dont synergize well, and certainly the inquisitors abilities are cleaner then that of the cavalier as written.The abilities don't synergize well because the bane ability adds yet another annoying resource pool/active abilityn to keep track of that doesn't work off of its other abilites. No, it's nowhere near as messy as the cavalier, but it's still a lot.
Compare it to say the paladin (probably the best class revision made in pathfinder) or the bard, who are both similar classes to the inquisitor. The paladin has spells, but they're mostly an afterthought. They also have auras, but those are passive abilities that don't come into play that incredibly often. Almost all of the actual 'keeping track' the paladin has to do falls within two resources: Smite and Lay on hands. Smite is a simple ability that gets better over time, and eventually can pass to teamates. Mercies simply build on the existing LOH mechanic. That's synergy. But, at the end of the day, the paladin has like two things to keep track of.
Ok, now, it seems that you are arguing that abilities that are, to you, useless and therefore not tracked are better than abilities that might be used but then have to be tracked?
I'm not being snyde, I'm asking because that is how it comes across, and if that's not what you meant, then you need to be aware of how the argument comes across as made.
I'd rather have, personally, abilities that are useful but have to be kept track of than abilities that are useless and never used (say, the new mr hyde abilities of the alchemist, which strike me as so weak they'll never be used).
The bard, on the other hand, has passive abilities, but basically only has two resources to keep track of: Spells and music. All of their new music abilities build on that one resource, so the bard is an easy play.The inquisitor, on the other hand, has Judgment, already far more complicated than music, lay on hands, or smite. Then they have spells (Which, more often than not, will include a lot more self-buffing than the bard), then they have bane, then they have like 7 tactical feats to keep track of (like the class isn't strong enough w/o bonus feats), which are a far bigger annoyance than most normal feats. At the end of the day, the class just has WAY too much going on, and it needs some major streamlining. Bane is one of those annoying little resources that could be rolled into that.
Just out of curiosity, how do you handle multiclassed characters then? Are they not just as complicated? Keeping track of music/spells/rage with a barbarian/bard? Or flurry of blows/AC/Smite/Spells/Weapon Focus with a Paladin/Monk? Favored Enemy/Favored Terrain/Spells/Channels/Spells with a Ranger/Cleric?
I think any multiclass character is as complicated as an Inquisitor. Now, you'll add some complexity when you multiclass Inquisitor, but not enough to make it unplayable.
The abilities don't synergize well because the bane ability adds yet another annoying resource pool/active abilityn to keep track of that doesn't work off of its other abilites. No, it's nowhere near as messy as the cavalier, but it's still a lot.
I dont happen to find something to keep track of as annoying. That is an opinion you are stating as fact. You have a right you your opinion, but the truth is its still an opinion. And if you really think it is too much, I'd ask, give it a try. Get a piece of scrap paper or a white board, and use that to track the abilities in a playtest. If you really find it is too difficult and slows down the game come back here and report your experience.
Compare it to say the paladin (probably the best class revision made in pathfinder) or the bard, who are both similar classes to the inquisitor. The paladin has spells, but they're mostly an afterthought. They also have auras, but those are passive abilities that don't come into play that incredibly often. Almost all of the actual 'keeping track' the paladin has to do falls within two resources: Smite and Lay on hands. Smite is a simple ability that gets better over time, and eventually can pass to teamates. Mercies simply build on the existing LOH mechanic. That's synergy. But, at the end of the day, the paladin has like two things to keep track of.The bard, on the other hand, has passive abilities, but basically only has two resources to keep track of: Spells and music. All of their new music abilities build on that one resource, so the bard is an easy play.
The inquisitor, on the other hand, has Judgment, already far more complicated than music, lay on hands, or smite. Then they have spells (Which, more often than not, will include a lot more self-buffing than the bard), then they have bane, then they have like 7 tactical feats to keep track of (like the class isn't strong enough w/o bonus feats), which are a far bigger annoyance than most normal feats. At the end of the day, the class just has WAY too much going on, and it needs some major streamlining. Bane is one of those annoying little resources that could be rolled into that.
Honestly I would rather see the judgement ability simplified then the bane ability gotten rid of. It seems to me that is the big jumble of the class, not bane. Bane is probably the simplest part of the class which is why I dont think it is the part that needs work.
As for the tactical feats they are no harder to track then many normal feats. Since you dont have to worry about whether your ally has the feat, you just need your ally in the right position. Its not any harder to track then a feat that only works when charging, or when flanking. They are just feats.
I don't think complicated necessarily means bad, but there's a fine balance. I'm not advocating turning the inquisitor into a fighter or a WOD character. Obviously, the increased complexity is satisfying for people. But, you can't tell me that rolling some of the choices into less easier-to-use mechanics is going to make the class boring.
I am not against simplifying the class, I just think that bane is not the place to do it. Judgement is complicated round by round tracking. Bane is a simple count of rounds used.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but I don't think the remark was at all out of line. There is an attitude on the forums (and indeed in a lot of the gaming community in general) that if you complain something is overcomplicated you either 'need to be better at math,' 'you're lazy,' or 'you just need to do more preparation.' It's an attitude that's intimidating to inexperienced players, drives away new players, and establishes an unfortunate hierarchy where one can be 'better' at role-playing games.
Some people do really like a lot of things to keep track of, and that's cool. But the game is supposed to be fun, and the majority of players don't think more things=more fun.
And there are lots of options for people who find simpler to be more fun. You have stated a whole bunch of classes that could be played similarly, that are simpler. Why should there not be options for people who find complex satisfying?
Citing an overly complicated gestalt build isn't really precedent. That's your choice, it doesn't need to be built into the class. Fireball does take a long time to work out, but only because it effects so many people. And nobody's arguing the bane itself is too much, we're arguing the bane plus everything else is too much, and the bane is one of the things that can be simplified.
I cited an overly complicated example because this playtest is about ingame experience. In that example I had something fairly similar to keep track of that was probably more complicated then the inquisitors abilities. I was able to do it, my experienc in game tells me it can be done in a reasonable way. The argument was against 'slowing the game down' not whether or not people who dont like tracking stuff will like it or not. I was able to take a class more complicated and run it without interfering with play by using a simple sheet of scrap paper. If you feel otherwise, I ask that you try it. Roll up an inquisitor, grap a sheet of scrap paper and play the class. Come back here and tell us what you found.
And again I'd say that bane is not the real problem of the inquisitor. Its judgement. Bane is very simple to keep track of, where as judgement is probably significantly harder. Spells (given the variety of potential buffs and effects), and judgement are both harder to manage. Even the tactical feats are probably more challenging. So why are you focusing on what is simplest about the class in order to simplify it?
Too complex...NO, Too messy...YES.
The tactical feats favor melee fighting, yet the class screams ranged. The Bane property is cool, but selecting the target type, and being able to change it as a swift action is clunky and odd. I really like the spell list and getting Cleric domain features. I think the judgments work decently well, as is.
BUT, when you add the escalating judgment bonuses WITH the swappable tactical feats, WITH the alterable Bane ability, WITH a decent spell-list you're gonna want to use, and WITH a possible domain power, the class does get a little...not complex, but...finicky maybe?...wait no, fickle, that's it.
The class is a little fickle, and unfocused.
At the risk of painting an even larger target on my head, I would like to see a split progression in this class (yes, like the ranger). Two builds that favor two different fighting styles, supported by feats and class features. If you build a ranged Inquisitor you'll notice that none of the tactical feats are useful to you, and you will find yourself wasting the class feature on feats that will rarely be used.
So maybe melee and ranged paths, or marshal and divine paths. Marshal and melee paths taking more use of the tactical feats, and the others grant their own boons. OR something, just throwing out ideas...
Still love the class, the flavor, the ideas, and the spell list...
Too complex...NO, Too messy...YES.
The tactical feats favor melee fighting, yet the class screams ranged. The Bane property is cool, but selecting the target type, and being able to change it as a swift action is clunky and odd. I really like the spell list and getting Cleric domain features. I think the judgments work decently well, as is.
BUT, when you add the escalating judgment bonuses WITH the swappable tactical feats, WITH the alterable Bane ability, WITH a decent spell-list you're gonna want to use, and WITH a possible domain power, the class does get a little...not complex, but...finicky maybe?...wait no, fickle, that's it.
The class is a little fickle, and unfocused.
I would personally say it's a very eclectic class, not fickle. And I agree, it is a very eclectic class, but I don't see that as a necessarily bad thing, nor do I think it's any more or less eclectic than a multiclass character. I actually built a level 10 character once who had 2 levels in five different classes. It was very 'eclectic'. It wasn't the master of any one thing, but, the character was a great background type and worked VERY well as an NPC (which was how I'd used it, being the GM). That was a hard character to keep track of.
Too complex...NO, Too messy...YES.
The tactical feats favor melee fighting, yet the class screams ranged. The Bane property is cool, but selecting the target type, and being able to change it as a swift action is clunky and odd. I really like the spell list and getting Cleric domain features. I think the judgments work decently well, as is.
BUT, when you add the escalating judgment bonuses WITH the swappable tactical feats, WITH the alterable Bane ability, WITH a decent spell-list you're gonna want to use, and WITH a possible domain power, the class does get a little...not complex, but...finicky maybe?...wait no, fickle, that's it.
The class is a little fickle, and unfocused.
At the risk of painting an even larger target on my head, I would like to see a split progression in this class (yes, like the ranger). Two builds that favor two different fighting styles, supported by feats and class features. If you build a ranged Inquisitor you'll notice that none of the tactical feats are useful to you, and you will find yourself wasting the class feature on feats that will rarely be used.
So maybe melee and ranged paths, or marshal and divine paths. Marshal and melee paths taking more use of the tactical feats, and the others grant their own boons. OR something, just throwing out ideas...
Still love the class, the flavor, the ideas, and the spell list...
I for one think its varried nature is one of the best things of the class. It looks to me like they always have something different and interesting to contribute.
Also, why are you looking at the most simple feature of the class to reduce its complexity?
I for one think its varried nature is one of the best things of the class. It looks to me like they always have something different and interesting to contribute.
Also, why are you looking at the most simple feature of the class to reduce its complexity?
Not complex, lacks focus...or "eclectic", if you will. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but it seems like a class that doesn't have a clear enough focus. Really, the decidedly melee focused feats/ranged prof. probably bothers me the most, if you build a ranged inquisitor, you basically have to waste a potentially awesome feature.
Honestly, I'll have to build a few, and maybe throw an NPC at my players before I can really judge it too much. I understand that any problems with the class will become evident during playtesting, and I am looking forward to seeing various results...
I for one think its varried nature is one of the best things of the class. It looks to me like they always have something different and interesting to contribute.
Also, why are you looking at the most simple feature of the class to reduce its complexity?
Not complex, lacks focus...or "eclectic", if you will. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but it seems like a class that doesn't have a clear enough focus. Really, the decidedly melee focused feats/ranged prof. probably bothers me the most, if you build a ranged inquisitor, you basically have to waste a potentially awesome feature.
Honestly, I'll have to build a few, and maybe throw an NPC at my players before I can really judge it too much. I understand that any problems with the class will become evident during playtesting, and I am looking forward to seeing various results...
Its abilities may not be focused, but its purpose is, and I love it for it.
Why oh why is there such a debate over the ranged vs melee class abilities? Honestly, have we really fallen into the MMO archetype system? Where a melee character can't use a bow, and a ranged or spellcaster character should wash his hands in acid before taking up a sword?
Personally, I quite like the variety that the different abilities offer. I mean, most fights start at range, right? So take advantage of those first few rounds with your ranged class abilities. Then, once the fight comes to you, or the party goes to it, draw that sword and dig in with the more melee-oriented class abilities. Versatility is NEVER a bad thing.
The inquisitor is NOT unfocused or sloppy. It's quite focused on dealing as much damage as quickly as possible, to any enemy it may encounter. Similar to, say, a rogue? This ridiculous debate over the "clunkiness" of the class doesn't do a damn thing for the game.
Finally, the Bane ability is probably the simplest thing to keep track of. +2 to attack and +2d6+2 to damage. That's really a lot easier to keep track of than a Bull's Strength or Cat's Grace. If the class does need to be cleaned up, it's not here.
Why oh why is there such a debate over the ranged vs melee class abilities? Honestly, have we really fallen into the MMO archetype system? Where a melee character can't use a bow, and a ranged or spellcaster character should wash his hands in acid before taking up a sword?
Personally, I quite like the variety that the different abilities offer. I mean, most fights start at range, right? So take advantage of those first few rounds with your ranged class abilities. Then, once the fight comes to you, or the party goes to it, draw that sword and dig in with the more melee-oriented class abilities. Versatility is NEVER a bad thing.
The inquisitor is NOT unfocused or sloppy. It's quite focused on dealing as much damage as quickly as possible, to any enemy it may encounter. Similar to, say, a rogue? This ridiculous debate over the "clunkiness" of the class doesn't do a damn thing for the game.
Finally, the Bane ability is probably the simplest thing to keep track of. +2 to attack and +2d6+2 to damage. That's really a lot easier to keep track of than a Bull's Strength or Cat's Grace. If the class does need to be cleaned up, it's not here.
I think that the class just has alot of tacked on things, like domains (which I like) and the tactical feats, the feats are just unnecessary, the class has enough power to not need them...Now, giving the cavalier those feats is an awesome idea.
(Sorry my previous posts seem more opinionated than intended, I actually agree with most of what your saying here...)
Ok, now, it seems that you are arguing that abilities that are, to you, useless and therefore not tracked are better than abilities that might be used but then have to be tracked?I'm not being snyde, I'm asking because that is how it comes across, and if that's not what you meant, then you need to be aware of how the argument comes across as made.
I'd rather have, personally, abilities that are useful but have to be kept track of than abilities that are useless and never used (say, the new mr hyde abilities of the alchemist, which strike me as so weak they'll never be used).
to be honest, I think paladin spells should have been gotten rid of, but were kept for backwards compatibility. Abilities you won't use aren't any better than abilities that are a hassle.
And at no point was I writing an indictment against everything that needs to be kept track of. I just think the inquisitor has too much going on.
As for multiclass combination, there's not a lot to be done for that. That system is what it is, and yes, it does turn into a hassle. But, generally, complicated feature-loaded classes like the inquisitor don't multiclass well anyway (compared to say a rogue, fighter, or wizard).
Honestly I would rather see the judgement ability simplified then the bane ability gotten rid of. It seems to me that is the big jumble of the class, not bane. Bane is probably the simplest part of the class which is why I dont think it is the part that needs work.
See, i don't get this. Judgments are the only unique feature the class has going for it. Bane isn't unique, any jerk with a sword can get that enhancement. So, if we're going to err on the side of something, shouldn't it be the class's unique ability?
There may be a lot of fiddly bits to track with this class. It can't possibly compare to any core class. Certainly not a druid with Augment Summoning and Natural Spell in Wildshape form spontaneously casting a metamagic version of Summon Nature's Ally...
/sarcasm off
Gee, 'cause all of those things are things you track in rounds, like Bane and Judgment. It's not like wildshape lasts for hours at a time, or the augment, convert, and metamagic all apply to one system instead of adding a new subsystem.
/sarcasm off