|
I've diligently waited on all three release mornings for the new play-test classes, refreshing every so often to see whether or not the new classes were available for me to check out. I've been really excited about all of them (though I'll admit I was most excited for the witch initially), and I've paid very close attention when each class was coming out so I could be among the first to read through each new PDF and learn what each class was really all about.
So far I've only actually play-tested the summoner and the oracle, but--I'll be honest--that's because those were the two classes that grabbed me the most. I know the feedback Paizo is looking for is mostly based on actual play experience, but I think the notion of first impressions is an important consideration too. Why? Well, it doesn't matter how fun and balanced a class is if nobody's interested in playing it. I don't think every class needs to be built with every type of player in mind, but I do think classes should look as compelling on paper as they actually are fun to play, and of course every class should have meaningful reasons for its existence, both mechanically and flavourfully.
With all that in mind, here's where I'm heading. The cavalier, the oracle, the summoner, and the witch are all really compelling, even upon first read. Like I said, I think the oracle and the summoner are the more compelling of the four, at least for me, but I read through all four of those classes on the days of their release and was excited about the prospects of all of them. That's really great design. There are kinks that need working, of course, but overall each of those four classes has a flavour niche and does something interesting mechanically. They all look like a lot of fun. The alchemist and the inquisitor, on the other hand, seem to me to fall flat on their faces.
It's not that I don't like the concepts. I honestly think both classes fill big flavour gaps and have their niches in that department. I just think both classes read, mechanically, as incredibly boring and all over the place. I wasn't sure what to expect from the inquisitor at all, and when I read the class description, right before I read the class abilities, I was unbelievably excited about what the class might have to offer. A holy assassin? Awesome! It was just that after I read the abilities, I was totally underwhelmed. I don't think either of the these two most recent classes fills any mechanical niche or has any clarity of purpose. They both seem totally unfocused, but not versatile in the way that a cleric or wizard is.
And maybe I'm wrong about these classes, but I'll probably never know, and that's exactly my point. They don't leave good first impressions, and it doesn't matter how well they actually play if nobody wants to go through the trouble of playing them.
I don't mean this to be insulting in any way, as I know Jason put a lot of care into designing these classes, and I'm sure he did a great job and that these classes are actually incredibly fun to play. I just thought I'd relay my feelings on this because I do want to see these and all the other classes be the best they can be. I hope this criticism is interpreted constructively, anyway! I <3 Paizo, and I think you guys can do a good job cleaning these classes up. I just wanted to call it as I saw it to help you do that.
It would help if the Inquisitor was anything like, I dunno, an actual Inquisitor instead of Buffy The Insert Monster Here Slayer. Holy Assassin would be a better name than Inquisitor. It just...doesn't...inquisit. It's a jumble of abilities attempting to be "Cleric-Bard" and it just...it fails, miserably.
It doesn't help that Pathfinder's first look at Tactical Feats comes as an attached class ability to a class that has no business having it thematically, or that the spell list is bland and looks like a Divine Bard list, or that the flavor fails to match up to the class abilities, or that the central ability "Judgement" isn't actually judging anything and would probably be better called "Faith". I think I've said all this like three times over three threads, but it bears repeating - calling a class and its ability something that doesn't make sense with the class creates a very bad dissonance.
Personally, the inquisitor is the only one I've look at and wanted to play. It just looks like a very fun class to play, I love the concept. It's just the Van Helsing type character I'm looking for.
Of course I'm one of the (appearantly rare) few to whom fluff is more important than crunch. I really don't care to super optimize my character, I just waqnt to have fun playing him. And if that means I can't solo the Tarrasque by myself I'm okay with that.
So I will say, thank you for saving the best for last Jason. I'm really looking forward to trying this fellow out.
|
|
It would help if the Inquisitor was anything like, I dunno, an actual Inquisitor instead of Buffy The Insert Monster Here Slayer. Holy Assassin would be a better name than Inquisitor. It just...doesn't...inquisit. It's a jumble of abilities attempting to be "Cleric-Bard" and it just...it fails, miserably.
It doesn't help that Pathfinder's first look at Tactical Feats comes as an attached class ability to a class that has no business having it thematically, or that the spell list is bland and looks like a Divine Bard list, or that the flavor fails to match up to the class abilities, or that the central ability "Judgement" isn't actually judging anything and would probably be better called "Faith". I think I've said all this like three times over three threads, but it bears repeating - calling a class and its ability something that doesn't make sense with the class creates a very bad dissonance.
Well, far be it from me to argue with someone who's essentially supporting what I'm saying, but I think Jason has addressed all those points adequately. 'Inquisit' isn't a word; I believe you're looking for 'inquire,' and either way the name seems like a pretty clear nod to actual Roman Catholic church inquisitors, who may not have pulled any triggers themselves but did indeed condemn heretics to death on personal judgment alone, without possibility of trial or actual 'inquisition.' The name is historically accurate (and for that matter incredibly cool), even if it isn't being used literally.
Beyond that, though, inquiring is something you'll be doing during role-playing, not combat. How much inquiring the class does or doesn't do is entirely dependent on how you role-play the character. The mechanics are back-up to help you exact judgment based on your inquisitions.
As for judgments: come on! An inquisitor without judgments would be no sort of inquisitor at all. The way Jason has explained it makes perfect sense: you decree your judgment and you are rewarded by your deity with the tools necessary to carry out the sentence.
|
|
Personally, the inquisitor is the only one I've look at and wanted to play. It just looks like a very fun class to play, I love the concept. It's just the Van Helsing type character I'm looking for.
Of course I'm one of the (appearantly rare) few to whom fluff is more important than crunch. I really don't care to super optimize my character, I just waqnt to have fun playing him. And if that means I can't solo the Tarrasque by myself I'm okay with that.
So I will say, thank you for saving the best for last Jason. I'm really looking forward to trying this fellow out.
I love fluff and crunch both, and they're both important parts of the game. If you're a fluff-only sort of guy, then I'm sure the inquisitor is perfect for you, and like I've said: I think the name and concept for the class are incredibly cool. However, realistically, the mechanics do matter and have a lot to do with how fun the combat parts of each game are. Without combat and mechanical distinctions, classes are merely role-playing suggestions anyway. If you aren't planning on getting into any fights or don't care what you do when you do get into them, then it doesn't really matter what class you pick, only what your character concept is. And, whereas I'm sure some people need Paizo to give them multiple-choice character concepts rather than coming up with their character on their own, it doesn't seem as important as that Paizo give them multiple-choice mechanical relevance.
I know Inquisit isn't a word. It's me more or less having fun with the English language.
It's a cool name, sure. The thing is, when you hear "Summoner," "Alchemist," "Cavalier," "Oracle," they pretty much tell you what they do. Summoners summon. Alchemists use alchemy. Cavaliers are knights. Oracles are chosen of the gods. Even "Witch" tells you what it does - an arcane caster who draws power from Nature.
What does "Inquisitor" tell you? "Monster-Hunter?" Or "Guy Who Goes Around Looking For Information?" It doesn't scream "Monster-Hunter" to me, and this class could've been more adequately titled "Slayer" and I'd have no problems with it. As it stands, I expect from Inquisitor class abilities that reinforce being an Inquisitor, not a jumbled mish-mash of tactical feats, self-buffs, bard spells, and smiting. To be perfectly honest, were I going to rewrite this class, I'd drop the tactical feats and make Judgements Debuffs. Maybe call them "Torments." Then leave the Inquisitor's buffs as "Faith" or something like that, and add in some ability to force the truth out of people, Detect Heathens, or whatever. Leaving in bane, of course; it works well for the name.
The end result of such a class would ideally be a sort of inverse bard, where the central class ability is about debuffing the foes to make them easier to take down/subdue, beating them until they spill the truth, and self-buffs to enable you to withstand even the toughest lashes of heresy and corruption.
This class is not an Inquisitor. Whatever words you justify it with, it is a Slayer. It buffs itself, it exploits weaknesses, and it kills monsters. There is nothing wrong with being a Slayer, but Inquisitor evokes a very specific image that this simply fails to uphold.
As far as "your deity rewarding you with the tools to carry out the sentence," we have those. They're called "Divine Spells," "Domain Powers," and "Channel Energy." It's pretty much exactly that, in fact. Verbatim.
I don't really hate this class, but the name to me feels wasted on something that is more accurately a monster-killer than a church Inquisitor.
EDIT: It occured to me that this sounded like me claiming Divine Spells, Domain Powers, and Channel Energy were the only tools deities rewarded you with, and was perhaps a bit snarky and cruel. This was not the intent; it's just, Judgements could be better titled as "Faith" (as I've said like a billion times) and do the same thing, and it would be less dissonant.
I know Inquisit isn't a word. It's me more or less having fun with the English language.
It's a cool name, sure. The thing is, when you hear "Summoner," "Alchemist," "Cavalier," "Oracle," they pretty much tell you what they do. Summoners summon. Alchemists use alchemy. Cavaliers are knights. Oracles are chosen of the gods. Even "Witch" tells you what it does - an arcane caster who draws power from Nature.
What does "Inquisitor" tell you? "Monster-Hunter?" Or "Guy Who Goes Around Looking For Information?" It doesn't scream "Monster-Hunter" to me, and this class could've been more adequately titled "Slayer" and I'd have no problems with it. As it stands, I expect from Inquisitor class abilities that reinforce being an Inquisitor, not a jumbled mish-mash of tactical feats, self-buffs, bard spells, and smiting. To be perfectly honest, were I going to rewrite this class, I'd drop the tactical feats and make Judgements Debuffs. Maybe call them "Torments." Then leave the Inquisitor's buffs as "Faith" or something like that, and add in some ability to force the truth out of people, Detect Heathens, or whatever. Leaving in bane, of course; it works well for the name.
The end result of such a class would ideally be a sort of inverse bard, where the central class ability is about debuffing the foes to make them easier to take down/subdue, beating them until they spill the truth, and self-buffs to enable you to withstand even the toughest lashes of heresy and corruption.
This class is not an Inquisitor. Whatever words you justify it with, it is a Slayer. It buffs itself, it exploits weaknesses, and it kills monsters. There is nothing wrong with being a Slayer, but Inquisitor evokes a very specific image that this simply fails to uphold.
As far as "your deity rewarding you with the tools to carry out the sentence," we have those. They're called "Divine Spells," "Domain Powers," and "Channel Energy." It's pretty much exactly that, in fact. Verbatim.
I don't really hate this class, but the name to me feels...
You are failing to put real world inquisitors in a fantasy setting. In fact inquisitor fits perfectly in a ravenloft setting for instance. My friend is setting up a victorian era vanhelsing/ravenloft game and my first thought on seeing this class was 'jackpot'. Sure, real world inquisitors dealt mostly with heretics and investigation/torture. But these were holy agents of the church. If there WERE vampires, goblins, orcs, trolls, constructs, and all sorts of abominations out there, guess where the holy agents of the church would have been pointed? They would be out there putting an end to the heracy at the end of something sharp and pointy.
You have to keep in mind that while the classic image of inquisitor is the guy who lead the trials, the vast majority of inquisitors were out there rouding up heretics, and killing those that resisted, you know, soldiers. You know what that entails? Tracking, fighting, and in a fantasy setting a little help from your god (divine spells). They are soldiers of a holy order, just like the vast majority of members of the actual inquisitions.
|
|
Well, we definitely agree on the mechanical relevance of the class, and I think you might be onto something with the idea of a divine debuffer. I actually think that's an incredibly well thought-out idea, and count me on board for hoping the class gets completely overhauled and becomes a focused divine debuffer.
However, I still think the flavour concept for the class and its name and abilities are fine. Divine spells have a variety of uses and purposes. For the cleric, divine spells are his prayers answered, whether or not he uses those powers to carry out judgment in the name of his deity. For the oracle, they're powers granted against the oracle's will to use as she wants. I'm not saying divine spells can't be powers given by the gods as tools to exact judgment, just that they aren't always exactly that, and that they aren't necessarily the only options for accomplishing that goal. There's really nothing wrong with the way the word 'judgment' is being used.
You're absolutely on to something about redirecting the class toward debuffing, though. As it stands it doesn't appear to be focused on anything, whatever its flavour niche may be.
Alright, I'll grant you that. But at the same time, Paladins do that. Paladins -are- the magical soldiers for their god. So why do we need two sets of magical soldiers, when we could have one church inspector and one magical soldier?
Alright, I'll grant you that. But at the same time, Paladins do that. Paladins -are- the magical soldiers for their god. So why do we need two sets of magical soldiers, when we could have one church inspector and one magical soldier?
But, that's the thing. They were NOT going for a church inspector. They were going for a "Slayer"-type dude. If you don't like the name, change it. It says so in the Rulebook, if you don't like something, change it. Don't try to adapt the class to the name, adapt the name to the class.
|
Alright, I'll grant you that. But at the same time, Paladins do that. Paladins -are- the magical soldiers for their god. So why do we need two sets of magical soldiers, when we could have one church inspector and one magical soldier?
But Paladins can only work for LG,LN, and NG deities. and there are still things that a stalwart like a Pally can't/won't do for their church. You still need someone to fight in the shadows and do the dirty deeds.
I can do that, but at the same time, it doesn't alleviate the feel that this is a somewhat tweaked bard.
Magical debuffing would go a long way towards making me feel less like "this is c+p divine bard" and more like "this is a freaking Inquisitor."
Offhand, the idea of Torments would be something you invoke to remove a special ability.
Torment (Su): The Inquisitor must face down all manner of heretics and demons, but that doesn't mean he has to do so on their terms. A canny inquisitor wields his faith not merely as his shield but his sword, stripping away the advantages of his monstrous and heretical foes with merciless resolve and putting them one by one to the judgement of his god.
An Inquisitor may activate a Torment as a move action. Each Torment affects a 1+Inquisitor's Wisdom targets until tenth level; at tenth level, Torments expand as the Inquisitor's faith has been proven in the fight against his god's foes, enabling him to affect twice this number.
Flensing: The Inquisitor strips away his foe's resistances with the strength of his god, clutching his (un)holy symbol and thrusting it at his foes to force them to feel his patron's wrath. The target's Damage Reduction, Energy Resistances, or Spell Resistances (choose one) are stripped away by a rate of 1 point per Inquisitor's Charisma. At tenth level, the Inquisitor may choose two effects; at twentieth level, all three apply.
Wrath: The Inquisitor wields his wrath as a holy weapon, calling down the rage of his god to deal 1d6+Charisma damage to a his targets in punishing retribution. This damage increases to 1d8 at level 5, 1d10 at level 10, 1d12 at level 15, and 2d6 at level 20.
Terror: Presenting his holy symbol to his foes, the Inquisitor calls his god's anger to strike the fear of the divine into their heathen hearts. Targets must make a DC (10+1/2 Inquisitor Level + Charisma) will save or become shaken. (Improves as the others do at 10th and 20th level, I just don't have my books right now).
And so on, and so forth. It would seriously alleviate one of my major complaints - the spastic lack of focus in the class abilities.
Though I doubt it'll get a rewrite. So Torment will be shuffled away for my own classes, hehe.
Alright, I'll grant you that. But at the same time, Paladins do that. Paladins -are- the magical soldiers for their god. So why do we need two sets of magical soldiers, when we could have one church inspector and one magical soldier?But Paladins can only work for LG,LN, and NG deities. and there are still things that a stalwart like a Pally can't/won't do for their church. You still need someone to fight in the shadows and do the dirty deeds.
These aren't doing dirty deeds. They're killing monsters and heretics. As the class stands, they have no mechanical focus on anything but killing monsters. Paladins kill monsters.
As far as Paladins being LG/LN/NG, you can with little effort tweak that. If "you don't like it change it" is good for the goose...
EDIT THE TWO:
For the record, if you can tell me in a non-contradicting statement. what the mechanical niche of the Inquisitor is and how it relates to being a divine soldier better than a Paladin, I'll withdraw all arguments and slink off into the shadows to plot against the Alchemist.
So far, I'm hearing that Inquisitors are soldiers of the church who go around in the shadows beating up monsters, but what's their mechanical niche? They're soldier-caster-frontliners? They're self-buffing-smiting-monster-killers? Boss-killers?
What do they bring to the table that I couldn't tweak a Bard to do better?
Why do we need Bards in that mix at all? Isn't Ranger-Rogue enough of a spastic split? Does everything need to have spellcasting to make it valid?
Again, what does this class do, -mechanically-, that is so central to its overall theme? What is its niche in the party?
A bard is a buffer, skillmonkey, and an everyman. What is the Inquisitor's niche?
|
All 6 new klasses (Kaualier-Orakle-Summoner-Witkh-Alkemist-Inquisitor) are easily Kore Klasses with Kultural Templates - and efen at their worst- prestiege klasses. If I want A Kaualier I will look at the Priest, Fighter, Thief for possible kore klasses. The Alkemist is more open to all four kore klasses - anyone kan brew a poison, or whitewash but if you want mage or priest spells then you go mage or priest.