Exactly..if it gives someone that much trouble remembering the numbers, write it out on a card. I have known players that play fighters that require number crunching. And being a GM requires constant bookkeeping. If you can't keep up with the math on a single character..maybe its not the right classYou can't write it out for them on a card, because you have four different on-off switches by level 6. That would requires sixteen different cards.
No, no it wouldn't.
You're assuming that there's only one card in front of the player. Just give them one card per active buff. If you're willing to go the extra mile, and it's really more of an extra 50 feet it's so easy, you can actually do some of the things (like Bane and Judgments) with a couple cards with cardstock dials on them so that you can adjust which creature type/Judgment is active.
So really, you'd want 1 card per buff spell on their Spells Known list, 1 or 2 cards for Bane (depending on how many subtypes you can fit on a dial, so probably 2), 1 card for Judgments, and 1-5 cards for Teamwork feats (depending on their level, since they probably won't actually buy them with their standard feats). Keep track of duration by placing a die on each card and adjusting them every round.
This class is obviously not everybody's cup of chai. I'm glad that the APG isn't going to be full of classes decided entirely in a board room according to a canvass of maximum player approval.
and 1-5 cards for Teamwork feats (depending on their level, since they probably won't actually buy them with their standard feats).
I don't think the Solo Tactics Teamwork Feats are that big a problem re: fiddliness. Any Inquisitor player probably will want to write them all into their Feats in a light color to select from later, writing over the ones that become 'fixed' in black pen or whatever.
1 card for Judgments ... Keep track of duration by placing a die on each card and adjusting them every round.
Well, this is the fiddlyness that is the core issue IMHO. No other class' bonuses change round-to-round so much like this, the bonus 'targets' might change, but they are binary. Once you switch Judgements mid-fight, they aren't even in sync anymore ( so don't spill that counter-card! ;-) ). Yes, the way you suggest is probably the best way to run it as-is, but I think that still seems like a bit too much enforced fiddlyness to some people, certainly none of the other core classes have such a dynamic.
Basically, I think there might be other ways to STILL achieve the 'escalating bonuses the longer the fight lasts' without having to track individual amounts of bonuses. Like starting out with one Judgement bonus, adding a 2nd Judgement the next round, a 3rd Judgement the 3rd round. Basically, 2nd Judgement would not apply 2 Judgments (at their lowest level) the very first round, but it would let the first Judgment come out 'maxed' and the subsequent (2nd) round a 2nd judgement could kick in. If only ONE Judgement was 'escalating' and the rest were pretty much always 'maxed', I think it would help alot.
And instead of the 'escalating' Judgements changing their QUANTITATIVE bonus round-to-round, they could change their QUALITY: The 'basic' (1st round) version of Piercing applies to one attack per round. Next round to your AoO's. Next round to all attacks. (2nd Judgement allows your 1st Round Judgement to jump directly to the final escalation).
No other class' bonuses change round-to-round so much like this
Crusader is actually worse, because their options in combat change every single round regardless of what the Crusader's player chooses to do, and their to-hit and to-damage bonuses depend on how much damage they took in the previous round (in other words, it's not deterministic). With an Inquisitor, your bonuses don't change every round, only in the first three; they are generally going to remain static after round 3 because there's not really much incentive and quite a bit of disincentive to switch Judgments.
And I've played in several different campaigns with Crusader characters with no problems. Players either bring a small stack of cards and shuffle them, or roll dice at the start of their round, and they just write down their delayed damage. It doesn't take any noticeable amount more time or mental effort to keep them straight.
Zurai made me think of a good way to track bonus hit and damage with his description of cards.
It might even be part of a player advice on game ettiquete for the APG.
Ask players to use a deck or half a deck of cards and buff trackers.
Red cards to represent bonuses to hit and Black cards to represent bonuses to damage.
Players could either switch out the card to show a shift like going from a two of diamonds to a three of diamonds or they could use a pair of five cards like they do in Euchre and just reveal 'card spots'.
You could also use different dice but I find dice tend to get knocked by various people far more then a pair of cards laying flat on the table.
You could also use a face card like a Jack, Queen, or King to remind you of a special condition bonus.
Last, you could use a Joker to represent that your current total is a negative instead of positive.
Cards would also be good as a GM could easily look at the player and the cards laying on the table to see what kind of bonuses they have or the player could do the same to look at a monster that the GM is running.
Cards are also pretty cheap as I can buy a pack for a dollar at the local dollar store or for almost the same price purchase a used set from a casino.
There will certainly be some enthusiastic note-taking involved, but it's nothing that an advanced player can't manage with a reasonable effort and some applied focus. Just like any character with multiple, variable buffs going in a complicated fight ...
All that aside, the Inquisitor strikes me as the "bard that doesn't suck" that I've always wanted to play. Apologies in advance to all the accomplished bards out there; I just find the "sing a song to influence a roll" to be a bit too Sesame Street for my tastes. The Inquisitor, on the other hand, gives me the chance to put a character on the field that acts like a real spy or agent-provocateur. More "modern Bond" than classic, to be sure. I get the skills, reasonable chance to contribute in melee, some utility spell casting, and no singing. Couldn't be happier.
We'll see how the test goes this coming weekend.
There will certainly be some enthusiastic note-taking involved, but it's nothing that an advanced player can't manage with a reasonable effort and some applied focus. Just like any character with multiple, variable buffs going in a complicated fight ...
All that aside, the Inquisitor strikes me as the "bard that doesn't suck" that I've always wanted to play. Apologies in advance to all the accomplished bards out there; I just find the "sing a song to influence a roll" to be a bit too Sesame Street for my tastes. The Inquisitor, on the other hand, gives me the chance to put a character on the field that acts like a real spy or agent-provocateur. More "modern Bond" than classic, to be sure. I get the skills, reasonable chance to contribute in melee, some utility spell casting, and no singing. Couldn't be happier.
We'll see how the test goes this coming weekend.
You do realize that Bards don't have to sing, or even make noise, right? The class feature isn't even Bardic Music any more. My own Bard is a fortuneteller and dancer (though all the performances are done with perform: fortunetelling).
I think this is an excellent case for simplifying the class.
I don't. I think it's a ludicrous case for it. I have to be even more intricate with a simple pure-class wizard or cleric, and my notes sheet for a druid is an order of magnitude worse. I WISH I could do a druid that easily.
Heck, even my Bard has that much to keep track of.
And that's not even touching feats.
"This is ADVANCED, Mark!"
As to your comment about adding THAC0... don't be ridiculous.
BAB is the new THAC0. My gaming group in NC converted THAC0 to an attack roll bonus back in the late 80s. Official D&D caught on eventually.
:)
As to your comment about adding THAC0... don't be ridiculous.BAB is the new THAC0. My gaming group in NC converted THAC0 to an attack roll bonus back in the late 80s. Official D&D caught on eventually.
:)
I remember this idea coming out in a Dragon Magazine Article (acutally I still have that magazine somewhere around here) back before Dragon was turned over to Paizo and D&D 3e was created.
It was a good article and simplified the rolling and thinking (though I also remember the protests to convert to THAC0 when 3e came out hehe. The boards were full of people wanting to keep THAC0 and complaints that their AC would never be -7 again ~ much less the godly -10 ;> ). It was that article that led to 3e.
Heck, even my Bard has that much to keep track of.You're plumping that list with things which are unrelated to attack rolls or are from magic items or spells, and you've added in a bunch of extra non-core stuff to confuse things. When you pare that down, your bard has to keep track of bardic performance and spell buffs to tell what numbers to use when swinging a sword. That's two things.
Let's break this down by class, and assume that party-wide buffs and magic item effects are an issue shared by all. What does each class need to keep track of to swing a sword (or equivalent)?
Barbarian - Rage
Bard - Inspire Courage, spells.
Cleric - Domains (depending on build), spells.
Druid - Wild shape, spells.
Fighter - Nothing at all.
Monk - Special case; he has no conditional modifiers, but his single attack and full attack are different.
Paladin - Smite, spells (occasionally)
Ranger - Favored enemy, spells (rarely)
Rogue - Sneak attack
Sorcerer - Spells
Wizard - Spells Inquisitor - One of three judgement values, if bane is on and if it is applicable, and spells. One of these things is not like the others. The situation is similar for resource pools. Plus, all of the solutions are lovely for a player and not so hot for a harried GM. This isn't 4e where you can make every PC class have a billion BS modifiers because the ratio of PC classed characters to players is 1:1.
The biggest offender, to my mind, is Bane. It's very out of place; it's a super-fiddly power for something that feels like an afterthought. If variable Judgements and spellcasting are something that is non-negotiable, the rest of the class needs to be less bookkeeping and resource-managing headache. The math would come out nicely if Judgement always added +damage, and Destruction were replaced with a Bane ability that gave +damage against a named enemy type, I think. You don't even need to replace the Bane abilities to keep from having empty levels.
Personally, I don't see how bane is the problem. It takes your swift action, which most people don't even use, and is either on or off. Almost all the time you will only be attacking 1 creature type in a round, and you can customize it for the same swift action. You put a tick mark every round you use it. How is that complicated?
I think the inquisitor is a lot easier than most other caster classes. He doesn't have to worry about anyone else. Usually he will be a self buffer, so there is less of the anoying aspect of the bard reminding people about their bardic performance. His limitted spell list results in him knowing quickly what he is going to use, with a lot less deliberation than full casters. Thats if he is even going to bother casting, since many of his spells will be non-combat and he is primarily a full attacker. And if you can't count to 3 for judgements, I think you have bigger problems.
You forgot switching Teamwork feats as a standard action.The biggest offender, to my mind, is Bane. It's very out of place; it's a super-fiddly power for something that feels like an afterthought. If variable Judgements and spellcasting are something that is non-negotiable, the rest of the class needs to be less bookkeeping and resource-managing headache.To me, Bane is relatively simple to keep track of; it's just a "Smite X" ability where X is a monster type instead of an alignment.
The Judgements seem much more finjicky, since they change each round and the bonus is fairly puny; tiny bonuses always make me ask myself "Did I add this already? Maybe I added it twice?". Not to mention that the bonus resets whenever you switch to a new Judgement.
You forgot switching Teamwork feats as a standard action.The biggest offender, to my mind, is Bane. It's very out of place; it's a super-fiddly power for something that feels like an afterthought. If variable Judgements and spellcasting are something that is non-negotiable, the rest of the class needs to be less bookkeeping and resource-managing headache.To me, Bane is relatively simple to keep track of; it's just a "Smite X" ability where X is a monster type instead of an alignment.
The Judgements seem much more finjicky, since they change each round and the bonus is fairly puny; tiny bonuses always make me ask myself "Did I add this already? Maybe I added it twice?". Not to mention that the bonus resets whenever you switch to a new Judgement.
I would say that Judgements are the problem. The teamwork feats, not a big deal its like tracking any other conditional feat. Bane, again its just a tickmark per day mechanic, like bardic song. Judgements on the other hand are a pain. I would love to see them made into static bonuses by level rather then the scaling over time that they are. The thing that makes the inquisitor particularly fidly is not all the possible buffs, it is that these buffs change on a round by round basis. Its not cast a spell and thus have +x to y for Z rounds. Its round 1 +x, round 2 +x+1, round 3 +x+2, round 4 icould could stay +x+2 or it could become something completely different. That is very different from rage/bard song/ typical spell buffs which are a flat amount for a set period of time.
Heck, even my Bard has that much to keep track of.You're plumping that list with things which ... are from ... spells
Is there a reason that inquisitors have four different conditional bonuses to attack and damage, two of which vary depending on the situation?
They have judgements, which change over time. They have their weapon bane ability, which only works on one enemy type at a time. They have Divine Favor et al. in their spells. They have teamwork feats.
So you're allowed to count spells, but I'm not? Nice double standard.
And now that I read more thoroughly, you're counting every possible spell as one 'thing', yet counting every class ability as its own 'thing'. That's enormously misleading.
I present to you the <undisclosed at this time> class.
It has a class feature that grants it +1/3 level to attack and damage for 1 minute X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants it Large size and the accompanying bonuses for rounds/level X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants it an extra attack at its highest attack bonus and +Y to hit and damage for rounds/level X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants its weapons special properties for hours/level X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants it +1 to attack rolls for minutes/level X times per day.
Great Scott! That's 5 different class features that affects its chance to hit and/or its damage! It must be the "fiddliest fiddly class that ever fiddled"!
... Except, of course, that it's the bog-standard Cleric, casting divine favor, righteous might, divine power, greater magic weapon, and bless, respectively. So, according to Mr. Black, they only count as one thing.
|
... Except, of course, that it's the bog-standard Cleric, casting divine power, righteous might, divine favor, greater magic weapon, and bless, respectively. So, according to Mr. Black, they only count as one thing.
I think the reason he does not count them the same as the Inquisitor's class features is the fact that, barring Dispel Magic, all of those items are large, static bonuses. They do not change per combat, let alone per round.
... Except, of course, that it's the bog-standard Cleric, casting divine power, righteous might, divine favor, greater magic weapon, and bless, respectively. So, according to Mr. Black, they only count as one thing.I think the reason he does not count them the same as the Inquisitor's class features is the fact that, barring Dispel Magic, all of those items are large, static bonuses. They do not change per combat, let alone per round.
Then he shouldn't count anything except Judgments at all. In fact, he's not even complaining about Judgments, he's complaining about Bane of all things, which is a static bonus (+2 to hit and +2d6 or +4d6 to damage depending only on your level). So, no, that's not the reason. The reason is that he knows counting spells as anything but one item would completely blow his argument out of the water, so he masked it even though it's plain for anyone to see that spells offer more complication to attack and damage bonuses than any class ability in the game.
Counting spells as a fraction of what he counts class abilities as is nothing but a smokescreen. Its only purpose is to make people draw false conclusions.
As for Judgments "oh no they change every round" -- first, they only change twice. Second, as I have already pointed out, that isn't unique; Crusaders have attack and damage bonuses to change every round in a non-deterministic and unpredictable fashion, which is far worse. And, yet, no one I've ever played with has had the slightest issue with Furious Counterstrike (I do know people who won't play Crusaders because of the random maneuver recovery).
And now that I read more thoroughly, you're counting every possible spell as one 'thing', yet counting every class ability as its own 'thing'. That's enormously misleading.
I present to you the <undisclosed at this time> class.
It has a class feature that grants it +1/3 level to attack and damage for 1 minute X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants it Large size and the accompanying bonuses for rounds/level X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants it an extra attack at its highest attack bonus and +Y to hit and damage for rounds/level X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants its weapons special properties for hours/level X times per day.
It has another class feature that grants it +1 to attack rolls for minutes/level X times per day.Great Scott! That's 5 different class features that affects its chance to hit and/or its damage! It must be the "fiddliest fiddly class that ever fiddled"!
Indeed it would be, if those buffs were likely to come up in every battle. In fact, I agree that having a boatload of short-duration sometimes-stacking-sometimes-not-stacking cleric buff spells (like Bless, Prayer, Shield of Faith and Divine Favor, for instance) are something to be avoided rather than emulated.
Long term buffs (like Greater Magic Weapon or the various Oracle armor abilities) aren't really a problem; you just work that into your standard stat block.
|
|
Then he shouldn't count anything except Judgments at all. In fact, he's not even complaining about Judgments, he's complaining about Bane of all things, which is a static bonus (+2 to hit and +2d6 or +4d6 to damage depending only on your level).
Doing my best to avoid speaking for other people, so I'm just responding to this before I head back to class. Bane is hardly a static bonus unless the fight consists of all one type of enemy. Maybe it's switchable enough that you can get it on every different type of creature you're fighting, but it is still a fiddly bit on a fiddly class.
Then he shouldn't count anything except Judgments at all. In fact, he's not even complaining about Judgments, he's complaining about Bane of all things, which is a static bonus (+2 to hit and +2d6 or +4d6 to damage depending only on your level).Doing my best to avoid speaking for other people, so I'm just responding to this before I head back to class. Bane is hardly a static bonus unless the fight consists of all one type of enemy. Maybe it's switchable enough that you can get it on every different type of creature you're fighting, but it is still a fiddly bit on a fiddly class.
It's a static bonus as long as you're only attacking one creature type each round, which with a medium BAB class is almost certain. 99.9% of the time.
Then he shouldn't count anything except Judgments at all. In fact, he's not even complaining about Judgments, he's complaining about Bane of all things, which is a static bonus (+2 to hit and +2d6 or +4d6 to damage depending only on your level).Doing my best to avoid speaking for other people, so I'm just responding to this before I head back to class. Bane is hardly a static bonus unless the fight consists of all one type of enemy. Maybe it's switchable enough that you can get it on every different type of creature you're fighting, but it is still a fiddly bit on a fiddly class.
It's not static but its flat. You can decide each round what you are baning against, the bonus is obvious and simple, and all you have to track is how many rounds you have used. I still think judgement is the thing that is unreasonably fiddly. If you make bane a flat bonus I think it would make the class quite tolerable. Bane, spells, and teamwork feats are not the problem in my opinion.
Is it really that hard to count to 3?
It's not static but its flat. You can decide each round what you are baning against, the bonus is obvious and simple, and all you have to track is how many rounds you have used. I still think judgement is the thing that is unreasonably fiddly. If you make bane a flat bonus I think it would make the class quite tolerable. Bane, spells, and teamwork feats are not the problem in my opinion.
Right. Nothing else in Core seems to change it's amount of bonus round to round. There may be alot of different effects flying around, but they are all binary: you either get X bonus or you don't, you don't have to ALSO be tracking whether it is X, X+1, X+2, which can reset in mid-battle, so you are tracking one at X+1, another at X+2...
So how to retain the 'building over time' aspect of Judgement but simplify that aspect?As I said, why not instead of incrementing the AMOUNT of the bonus, increment WHAT the bonus applies to? Instead of starting out the 1st round with multiple bonuses at their lowest bonus, you start out with ONE bonus at it's fixed (per class level) bonus amount, and next round add another bonus at the same fixed amount. And/or the first round an attack bonus applies to only ONE attack, next round it applies to Full Attacks, next round to AoO's. (etc). That leaves the bonuses completely binary (like most everything else in the game) and thus one less hassle to fix. Even if one is inclined to build some 'master spreadsheet' cross-referecning multiple buff-conditions, binary buffs are alot simpler to do. Would that RUIN the class? I tend to think not. /shrug