I suppose a class that requires attention to detail rather then a static number for every attack would have to appear in some sort of Advanced Players Guide.
Perhaps a fighter would be a better choice? But make sure and stick with just a two-handed sword since it has the fewest attacks and modifiers. Just nice flat progression.
|
I find myself keeping track of everybody's numbers at my table, but then again I helped most of them make their characters so I often know them better than they do. In fact, at our last session, one person forgot their character sheet (it was a spur of the moment session, not scheduled) and even though he wasn't able to remember anything, I completely re-created his entire character for him on a piece of loose paper.
So, maybe I should take a whack at the inquisitor ;)
There is a reason these classes are in the Advanced Players Guide. They require a bit more work than your average class to use. I don't an issue with this.
+1
Adding a bunch of random math to exactly the same game you're playing anyway does not make it "advanced", it makes things complicated. Don't mistake excessive fiddling for complexity which is at all interesting.
...to you. I don't think the math is at all random. Seems rather predictable and thought out in fact. And it doesn't just make mechanical sense, but even fits the fluff. I find that highly interesting.
This is a rogue which smites instead of sneak attacking. That's interesting, but it's also overengineered, because there are about three conditional/limited smites, and that's far too much going on.
...in your opinion. For beginner players perhaps. Some of us advanced players, who can manage their character sheets and pay attention to the combat, might find it a fun new dimension to the game.
Perhaps a laptop-based chargen like TOS+ or Hero Lab would help. Erian_7 on this board has a decent excel-based chargen, though currently without a combat tracker.
Zo
Perhaps a laptop-based chargen like TOS+ or Hero Lab would help. Erian_7 on this board has a decent excel-based chargen, though currently without a combat tracker.
I think that recommendation well validates the original complaint if it is indeed necessary.
We had a small playtest including a very new player running an inquisitor at 10th level. We weren't min-maxing our combat, but we did all right -- and he did _very_ well.
And, of course, just because one _can_ make it complex in playing the class doesn't mean one _has_ to do so. I haven't had opportunity to look at it closely, but the fact that our rawest recruit seemed to handle it well seems favorable to the class as it stands.
My $.02
...when flanking with an ally depending on that ally's feats.
The Inquisitor doesn't care about his allies feats. Thats why they have solo tactics.
As for the other fiddly bits, I personally can't wait to get my inquisitor up to the point where he gets to play with all of them. I enjoy piling up situational modifiers and have no problem keeping track of them. Personally, I don't think its any issue.
|
Hey, and maybe they'll add rules for THAC0 in 3e, too!Adding a bunch of random math to exactly the same game you're playing anyway does not make it "advanced", it makes things complicated. Don't mistake excessive fiddling for complexity which is at all interesting.
This is a rogue which smites instead of sneak attacking. That's interesting, but it's also overengineered, because there are about three conditional/limited smites, and that's far too much going on.
Just pointing out, as others have, that this is your opinion. You don't like it? Don't use the class. No one is forcing this on you. Its not in the core rulebook, nothing says you have to allow it in your games. Plenty of people here who have played the game a while and can handle such conditional modifiers are interested in such things. It adds complexity, which you feel is unneeded, that others will find interesting and/or challenging and/or differnt and/or fun to try and play. Basically it boils down to not using the class if it seems to much work, plenty of other people seem excited about it and don't mind the bookwork.
|
I have sometimes felt that the Wizard class can be a bit much (complicated) for new players, so I recommend something easier to play with a magical feel, like WotC's Warlock. In this vein, with regards to the Inquisitor, you may find that the ranger class is better suited to a monster-hunter, or if you like the religious aspect of the Inquisitor, try the Paladin. You may find these an easier play, with less bookwork and number crunching. I find myself having a similar distaste for classes with multiple bonuses, and so I take classes that have straight bonuses that don't vary very often. I actually think the Oracle works well in this arena!
That said, when I DM, I have a player who just loves the number-crunching, and thinks the Inquisitor is the greatest class ever built (he has played wizards previously, funny enough). So, maybe it is not for you (or me), but another may really enjoy it.
I actually agree with the sentiment that fiddly-for-fiddlyness'-sake should be stream-lined if possible, and I believe it IS possible for the Inquisitor. I mean, there's plenty of sentiment like that in judging the Superstar entries, so why not hold Paizo to the same standard here?
I also think that telling people "You don't like it? You don't have to play it" is a pretty counter-productive attitude to take during a play-test where people are SUPPOSED to share their opinions, which inevitably will diverge from one another's. Feel free to disagree, but don't try to shut down others' subjective opinions, please.
I also do feel like some of the basics of the Inquisitor could be bumped up - Full BAB and d10 HD seem reasonable, for one. The d10 is pretty non-disruptive to introduce IMHO, it basically just makes melee a little less scary place to be, and having Warrior-class BAB doesn't seem to un-reasonable, given Inquisitor's DON'T have an infinite, per-attack bonus like Sneak Attack to up their damage output. The rest of the warrior classes now really have enough other abilities, offensive and otherwise, that letting the Inquisitor have some "Batman" spells and Full BAB doesn't seem too much. As is, perhaps after several rounds Inquisitors' to-hit might match Fighters/Pally's/Rangers, but waiting for a fight to be mostly over to MATCH their counterparts seems a bit underwhelming. Most fights don't last more than several rounds, certainly not against one target that you are engaging (Judging).
Maybe it would help if Bane applied to ALL the Inquisitor's attacks (not just a single weapon), making 2WF more viable. because even with Judgement + Bane they will not really be doing more than Ftr/Pally/Ranger(FavoredEnemy), and the rest of the time they just won't be hitting as much. (Lower HP to boot).
I also had a question about Bane: Is it necessary for the Inquisitor to accurately ID the target's creature type to choose their Bane Type, or is it automatically apply to the appropriate type of their intended target? I mean, if some Caster has either an Illusion or Alter Self up (as a Lizardman, f.e.), and the Inquisitor doesn't see thru it, would that waste a Bane attempt? Or is the Inquisitor's (accurate or not) knowledge/opinion irrelevant?
I agree that the Inquisitor has plenty of pieces that they can stitch together in a fight.
I did an example in the last playtest where I had an Inquisitor at level 11 doing +7d6 + extra in damage and asking if that was correct.
You do have a variety of buffs that you can save up for the 'big' monster killer battles or distribute throughout the day.
Several of the benefits are also 'tunable' like the judgements and tactical feats (the most recent bonus tactial is alterable).
I find this good because it is the opposite of the Ranger which is so 'set' that if the 'adventure' is not matching the Ranger's selection of enemies that they perform poorly.
I agree that there are quite a few things to keep track of and choose to stack up on a particular turn if you choose to run an Inquisitor. I don't find this buffing much different from regular play with other classes.
I was looking at the "Dog/Summoner" playtest and which featured a Summoner against four classes from the Pathfinder Core Book at level 8. The group with Bard, Cleric, Barbarian/Fighter, and Paladin were using a variety of buffs from several sources as the Bard and Cleric added on to the Barbarian Rage and Paladin Smite/Channels. There was so much of this going on that a couple of times they lost track of what buffs were active and who was in the area of effect.
I think that the Judgements power could be stream lined from the growing buff over 3 rounds to a single set buff from the start of the fight. I also can see the reason for this was to prevent players from switching one judement to the next on each round of the fight. There was a trade off on the flexability of the judgements.
Bane was another type of trade off compared to the Smite ability of the Paladin. Paladin Smite when started goes the entire fight but you can't choose to turn it off and on for when you need it. Bane is an ability that you can 'tune' to an opponent and choose to use as you feel you need it. The usage measured in rounds is opposed to what many people state they hate is the 4th ed style of abilities that are measured in so many uses per encounter. The Inquisitor gets the flexability of using all their power (mana? Chi?) in one particular fight or spread it out over several fights.
I find it interesting that many people would call for a mana or points system because they want abilities they can more freely distriubute through the day and yet have a trouble with something like the Bane ability. I like the mechanic as a simple straight way to keep track of the allocation of this power while still leaving the allocation/control in the hands of the player.
Summary
1> Yes, Inquisitor has tools to modify their character from round to round but this goes on with all characters due to their various talents (Rage, Bardic Songs, Spells, Feats, Magical item activations, Ki, tactical positioning, attack types).
2> I like the Inquisitor for the ability to 'tune' their abilities and allocate their resources. You have lots of control and ability to adapt to situations (need a magic weapon to kill a monster then wait a few rounds and the Inquisitor's judgement can provide the solution). This flexability comes with a trade off of not being as 'set' and 'straight forward' as the usage of some combat manuvers and feats. I find the trade off on the gain in flexability is worth the extra bit of hassel on a round to round play.
Just pointing out, as others have, that this is your opinion. You don't like it? Don't use the class. No one is forcing this on you. Its not in the core rulebook, nothing says you have to allow it in your games. Plenty of people here who have played the game a while and can handle such conditional modifiers are interested in such things. It adds complexity, which you feel is unneeded, that others will find interesting and/or challenging and/or differnt and/or fun to try and play. Basically it boils down to not using the class if it seems to much work, plenty of other people seem excited about it and don't mind the bookwork.
I'd just like to pop right in to say that this is a lousy argument we see way to often. If everything that was criticized in playtesting would be dismissed as "your opinion, don't like it, don't use it" there would be no need for playtesting to begin with. I think the class is looking pretty good myself but he's making some valid points, even though I don't see them as a problem myself.
But hey, that's just my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Dropping some of the buffs from the spellcasting list, going to full-BAB d10,
Right, spending a couple Standard Actions so you can SIMULATE the combat stats of Warrior classes, but not have the real BAB for Iteratives and Feat Req's is just not a good trade for a Class BUILT for fighting, without full spellcasting.
and turning the Bane into a flat bonus for identifying foes with K skills would be a good jump towards streamlining the class.
First, it's kind of obvious that with how Bane works (to one weapon, not per attack), Ranged is hugely more optimal, given Rapid Shot, etc, and going this route makes the lower HD-type not as much an issue, but I don't think this class is so inherently about Ranged combat that going melee should be so discouraged. Making Bane per-hit ('independent' of weapon used) would make Ranged/ 2-Handed/ 2WF more equal options. The focus on Ranged IS kind of wierd given Solo Tactics generally need adjacent allies to work with, so enabling more Melee options seems like good sense.
I also think Bane could be helped by making it more granular, in other words give half the initial bonuses twice as early, and give +50% bonuses in between where Bane and Greater Bane are now. Why not?
Drop to-hit from the judgements and I think you'd be in the same ballpark damage-wise. A fixed to-hit (possibly modified by one teamwork feat), with varying damage from judgements and the Knowledge/bane ability. Even if you didn't want to fiddle with the BAB, possibly make judgements a free fixed (scaling with level? statbased?) +to-hit just for using them, with choosable benefits based on that (since you're a sucker if you don't pick to-hit as your first judgement anyway.
I don't think the Piercing (to-hit) Judgement needs to be gotten rid of even with Full BAB, though perhaps it doesn't need to get as strong (or the bonus type stacking looked at). The comparison is Weapon Training + Grt Wpn Spec, Barbarian Strength + Crit Confirm, Favored Enemy and Paladins... Having the Inquisitor's to-hit EVENTUALLY over-take those Classes' after several rounds of combat doesn't seem like a problem to me.
Another way to do it could be to have different levels of Judgement, Greater Judgement, etc. When you get the higher levels you can use them OR you can use the previous lower levels, using a "Point" system or just a 2-for-1 system where 'lower' Judgements only use half a Judgement usage... Letting you Judge lots more enemies, but probably the lower-level guys, and if you go all out you use it up faster.
Or even something that isn't that different than the current approach with per-round escalation: you start out at the lower level (which scales w/ level, as now), and you CAN put more intention into it to upgrade it the higher level (like it automatically increases per/round now) OR you can SAVE your power and just let it "sit" at the initial level.
That would let the Inquisitor use their growing number of Judgement types against more opponents, but their "peak output" would still be reserved for a few "big encounters" each day... While not forcing tracking of detailed per-round bonus escalation on fights where you don't care as much, and making the escalation the result of an intentional CHOICE to escalate the next round. Would something like that make it feel less fiddly/scatter-brained to you, MiB?
Perhaps a laptop-based chargen like TOS+ or Hero Lab would help. Erian_7 on this board has a decent excel-based chargen, though currently without a combat tracker.I think that recommendation well validates the original complaint if it is indeed necessary.
I guess... The complaint may be valid, though I wasn't speaking to that. It's just easier to use a laptop to keep track of combat modifiers when haste spells and smite evils are being flung around. Hardly necessary, certainly useful.
Zo
|
Just pointing out, as others have, that this is your opinion. You don't like it? Don't use the class. No one is forcing this on you. Its not in the core rulebook, nothing says you have to allow it in your games. Plenty of people here who have played the game a while and can handle such conditional modifiers are interested in such things. It adds complexity, which you feel is unneeded, that others will find interesting and/or challenging and/or differnt and/or fun to try and play. Basically it boils down to not using the class if it seems to much work, plenty of other people seem excited about it and don't mind the bookwork.
Just pointing out, this is a playtesting forum. Everything concerning "problems" that we find is an opinion. Noting that as a mechanism to dismiss the argument isn't useful. With that said, I agree with MiB's points. Pathfinder simplified quite a few feats and abilities to be on/off switches. This makes it a lot easier to pre-calculate attack and damage bonuses for any given attack a character will make. (The best example is Power Attack, I think). It seems odd that only one class drastically breaks from this design philosophy.
I also think his suggestions have merit. They make it much easier to pre-calculate your bonuses with less time wasted during the game. The class still ends up with some variability, but will hopefully not slow down the game too much (like Power Attack used to.) You may disagree that such calculations slow down games unnecessarily. However, the rules were changed specifically because this was a problem, so my guess is that the developers disagree with you.
|
|
Just pointing out, this is a playtesting forum. Everything concerning "problems" that we find is an opinion. Noting that as a mechanism to dismiss the argument isn't useful. With that said, I agree with MiB's points. Pathfinder simplified quite a few feats and abilities to be on/off switches. This makes it a lot easier to pre-calculate attack and damage bonuses for any given attack a character will make. (The best example is Power Attack, I think). It seems odd that only one class drastically breaks from this design philosophy.
I also think his suggestions have merit. They make it much easier to pre-calculate your bonuses with less time wasted during the game. The class still ends up with some variability, but will hopefully not slow down the game too much (like Power Attack used to.) You may disagree that such calculations slow down games unnecessarily. However, the rules were changed specifically because this was a problem, so my guess is that the developers disagree with you.
*throws hands up in the air* Fine, I guess everyone else is allowed to express their opinion except people who disagree with said opinion. Telling me that this opinion isnt useful just dismisses the opinions that nothing is wrong with that class, which is just as valid as MiB thinking the class needs to be "streamlined" aka dumbed down. My opinion, is that Paizo obviously wants to make some more complex classes with this book, that seems to be the whole intention of these new base classes, so it appears the developers at {aizo disagree with YOU. If they were so against making complex classes, the wizard would be like the 4e wizards. I am of the opinion that the class does NOT need to be streamlined. At no point did I say his suggestions dont have merit, just that I wouldn't expect them to dumb down the class nor did I feel that they should.
|
Do you have trouble keeping track if you both have a Bard song and cleric bless going. The inquisitor is no more difficult than that. I always play with a piece of paper to keep track of all bonuses, play notes (like NPC names), etc.
Keeping track of Inquisitor stuff is no more difficult than a barb rage, bard song, cleric channels, or any other ability that is kept track of by rounds.
|
|
There's a sticky post with Vic Wertz asking for people not to armchair develop, with about two dozen inane +1 posts from many of the names you see in this thread, so I've been trying to keep from launching into that.
I'm sorry that a post that sums up my opinion is "inane", I figured to acknowledge that rather than rehash what has already been said, but you obviously know more than the rest of us, please continue! I will now bow out of this conversation, and leave you expressing how this class is too much work for you.
I like the math, it's the reason I play 3.5/Pathfinder, not 4E.
This is the same problem I had with the cavalier: conditional bonuses. EXTREMELY conditional bonuses. Less is more; I agree, reduce the complexity.
|
|
*throws hands up in the air* Fine, I guess everyone else is allowed to express their opinion except people who disagree with said opinion. Telling me that this opinion isnt useful just dismisses the opinions that nothing is wrong with that class, which is just as valid as MiB thinking the class needs to be "streamlined" aka dumbed down. My opinion, is that Paizo obviously wants to make some more complex classes with this book, that seems to be the whole intention of these new base classes, so it appears the developers at {aizo disagree with YOU. If they were so against making complex classes, the wizard would be like the 4e wizards. I am of the opinion that the class does NOT need to be streamlined.
You're right. That's exactly what I said.
Or perhaps it was that if your opinion is that we shouldn't present rational arguments (that you may or may not find persuasive) based on our observations of the current presented rules, that you kindly go somewhere other than a playtesting forum.
If your argument is that your observations lead you to a different conclusion, that's fine. Plenty of other people have been able to do that. I find the analogy to bard buffs somewhat persuasive, though I remain unconvinced the inquisitor modifiers won't slow down the game. Given there are rather easy remedies (that have been pointed out) to streamline this, it seems like a good idea to me. There's debate about whether we need the streamlining, or about how much. But there's no debate about whether this is the correct forum to bring up the issue.
At no point did I say his suggestions dont have merit, just that I wouldn't expect them to dumb down the class nor did I feel that they should.
You're right, you said:
Just pointing out, as others have, that this is your opinion. You don't like it? Don't use the class. No one is forcing this on you.
Entirely different...in some fantasy land where the standard rules of debate and rational argument have been abandoned for playground rules.
Dropping some of the buffs from the spellcasting list, going to full-BAB d10, and turning the Bane into a flat bonus for identifying foes with K skills would be a good jump towards streamlining the class. Drop to-hit from the judgements and I think you'd be in the same ballpark damage-wise.
No, full BAB would be a huge boost to the Inquisitor's damage, unless you're talking about taking away buffs that are very much in the Inquisitor's thematic arena, like divine power and righteous might. Which would be stupid.
+1 to the OP.
The inquisitor is so finicky for abilities that I actually quit reading the first three or four times I tried to get through it, because I couldn't imagine wanting to spend that much time adjusting stats mid-combat. As it stands now, I can confidently say I will never run an inquisitor as either a PC or NPC; there's just too many variables to adjust each round.
I say this as a player who *enjoys* the complexity of playing wizards and bards. Their effects are splashy and meaningful, whereas a lot of the inquisitor's bonuses are too niggling for it to be fun to track.
I've brought this up in a previous post. I think that the Inquisitor is for people that LIKE to fiddle with their characters. This class is not for anyone who doesn't like a class with a lot going on. As to your comment about adding THAC0... don't be ridiculous.
I've brought this up in a previous post. I think that the Inquisitor is for people that LIKE to fiddle with their characters. This class is not for anyone who doesn't like a class with a lot going on. As to your comment about adding THAC0... don't be ridiculous.
I liked THACO...
I like the inquisitor more the way it is now. I like the fact that it has a lot of things to keep track of, and that you wont usually have all of them active at any given time.
MiB, your recomendation of streamlining the class would be a complete re-write.
Currently, at lower levels you wont be using judgement every fight, but you may use your bane ability for a couple rounds or cast a buff on yourself in the fights that you don't. Therefore, working it into the judgement would severly hamper utility.
If you made flat, always on bonuses, they would have to be nerfed hard. The Inquisitor's damage output is very good when it gets everything going. It currently is ballanced by the fact that they don't always get it.
Personally, I think the biggest issue with the class is is with people's perceptions. Judgement is seen as the big ability because of how much space it takes up, but, for much of the career, Bane is the important part.
Personally I don't find Inquisitor any more fiddly than managing buff bonuses from various casters in a group. Bard imparticular.
That's just it. I already find myself forgetting about +1 bonuses from Bless or bardic music from time to time; playing a whole class around adding together multiple +1 or +2 bonuses (and, even worse, bonuses that change from round to round like the the inquisitor's Judgement ability) sounds like a headache.
Personally I don't find Inquisitor any more fiddly than managing buff bonuses from various casters in a group. Bard imparticular.That's just it. I already find myself forgetting about +1 bonuses from Bless or bardic music from time to time; playing a whole class around adding together multiple +1 or +2 bonuses (and, even worse, bonuses that change from round to round like the the inquisitor's Judgement ability) sounds like a headache.
I use notecards for buffs. They help if the player has the buff in front of them.
I suppose a class that requires attention to detail rather then a static number for every attack would have to appear in some sort of Advanced Players Guide."It's not stupid! It's advanced!"
:)
Actually, that's really how I feel about it.
I use notecards for buffs. They help if the player has the buff in front of them.Personally I don't find Inquisitor any more fiddly than managing buff bonuses from various casters in a group. Bard imparticular.That's just it. I already find myself forgetting about +1 bonuses from Bless or bardic music from time to time; playing a whole class around adding together multiple +1 or +2 bonuses (and, even worse, bonuses that change from round to round like the the inquisitor's Judgement ability) sounds like a headache.
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 class
|
|
Though I fall on the side of the inqusitor not being to complicated, I would not like to encourage the pretension that "the Advanced" players guide is for an elite group. Now while some complixities may frighten away new players a bit, I think the majority of the material we've seen once cleaned up a bit will be for everyone.
For example if a new player would love to play a knight but doesn't want all the religious drapery of paladin, the Cavalier is a good choice. It gives enough to play around with and isn't the feats upon feats that is the fighter.