Did the number of times you can use this per day get changed in addition to the bonus being changed to +1 per 5 levels.
This just seems really lackluster now. At lv 3 using a once a day ability to get +1 to hit one creature? That's a class defining ability?
In two play test games I'm in we had been using the +1,2,3 and it was useful and strong enough to be a once a day, last nights game with the new version seemed pointless.
|
Did the number of times you can use this per day get changed in addition to the bonus being changed to +1 per 5 levels.
This just seems really lackluster now. At lv 3 using a once a day ability to get +1 to hit one creature? That's a class defining ability?
In two play test games I'm in we had been using the +1,2,3 and it was useful and strong enough to be a once a day, last nights game with the new version seemed pointless.
It is supposed to be a neat little bonus feature they get, not the class defining ability. And to answer your question, I can't say, it doesn't appear that they changed the number of uses.
The way it was before was not only way too good at low levels, but it was a headache to keep track of for players other than the one using it, leading to ease of cheating... not that that SHOULD be a problem, but it often is.
At higher levels this is a pretty decent buff, yea it cuts out the additional +1 you would get after the countdown but gaining the full bonus from the start makes up for that in my mind.
This is how I see it at least.
Also keep in mind you have more then just the +1 to pick from. You have a whole list of options to use.
Also keep in mind you have more then just the +1 to pick from. You have a whole list of options to use.
yes, until lv 5 its a whole bunch of +1. At lv 5 its a whole bunch of +2.
Choices. +1 to:
Hit
Damage
fast heal
overcome spell resist
savings throw
energy resistance
again, its nice, but once per day up to lv 4, and +1 until lv 5. And not only is it once per day, but once per day till judged creature dies, and only releated to that creature.
|
In two play test games I'm in we had been using the +1,2,3 and it was useful and strong enough to be a once a day, last nights game with the new version seemed pointless.
Do what I'm going to do - houserule it. I can see and agree with why J has done this - I prefer the old way so that is what I'm going to play.
It is supposed to be a neat little bonus feature they get, not the class defining ability.
Errr... Judgments pretty much are the class defining feature, actually. Without Judgments, all the Inquisitor has is bane weapon, a couple tactics feats, and spells. Using the Final Playtest advancement chart, Inquisitors get Judgment upgrades on 9 of 20 levels (with two of those levels getting double upgrades). It's certainly the most visible and best-supported feature.
again, its nice, but once per day up to lv 4, and +1 until lv 5. And not only is it once per day, but once per day till judged creature dies, and only releated to that creature.
... No. I don't see this.
Judgment (Su): Starting at 1st level, an inquisitor can
pronounce judgment upon her foes as a swift action.
I don't see anything about single-target. Judgment applies to all attack rolls, saves, etc and etc. It doesn't have a target. It lasts until the end of combat, which means it lasts infinitely if you continue to draw attention and trigger combats.
(Or, say, you keep a kitten in a cage on your belt, and every round you melee the kitten and provoke an attack from it. In combat indefinitely! :P)
It lasting all combat is why it's extremely powerful to, at level one, use judgment and get a +1 , 2 , 3 to hit all foes in combat and all foes who join combat. For most inquisitors that's a huge bump considering most monster and human ACs at level 1 lie between 12, 14 and 18. Getting a +1 to hit all monsters in combat, swift action change it to +1 AC is still pretty powerful. Consider the paladin's ability to gain +1-4 to hit and +1-4 to AC and +1 to damage against one evil creature once per day, or the ranger's ability to gain +1 to hit and damage against 1 specific type of enemy. The only other power to come close to the power and versatility of +3 to hit all of the creatures in combat or +3 to AC against all of the creatures in combat is the barbarian's rage, which gives +2 to hit all creatures, +2 HP and -2 to AC.
In addition to that, it has the annoying "ramp up" phase which discourages attacking and encourages self buffing, which is nice but totally unnecessary.
The final playtest Inquisitor's judgment at level 1 is extremely powerful. It's even more powerful at higher levels. An inquisitor at 8 can judge in almost every single combat they enter (~3 a day) for +3 to atk and +3 to AC. Add on their easy access to self-buff spells like magic vestment and magic weapon, greater, and now the inquisitor has the same attack and damage bonuses as a fighter, except he can bane his weapon at-will, gets a huge bonus to initiative, has no-teamwork-required teamwork feats, can cast divine spells off-the-cuff and has access to all knowledges necessary to slay monsters.
On top of that, the inquis' judgment types mimicked a lot of paladin abilities, giving them access later to a lot of other class's abilities (paladin's break most DRs while judging, AC bonus and bonus to saves, barbarian's DR, red mantis assassin's fast healing, etc.). It still does. On the flip side, what kind of paladin can smite, and change their smite bonus to AC into DR3/evil?
Another problem with the judgment is that, while powerful at low levels, is that it didn't scale well at higher levels. An inquisitor at 20 still gets +3 to AC and +3 to hit, but creatures now have ACs over 50. A paladin can easily rock a +5-7 to hit, a +5-7 to AC and a +40 to damage, whereas an inquisitor was still swinging +5 to hit, +3 to AC and 2+4d6 to damage. Now at 20 the inquisitor can have +5 to hit, +5 to AC, DR3/evil. They don't gain the huge damage bonus a paladin does, but it stays in line with a paladin's smite, fighter's weapon training, and rangers favored enemy. Before it was comparable to greater rage, which is lackluster and disappointing at high levels. Now it scales well.
The only issue I have is that I hope they still don't get sacred bonuses to AC. It's really annoying that the paladin has to finagle with deflection bonus items because Paizo thought it was too powerful to get charisma mod and rings of protection or shields of faith to AC, but the inquisitor can just stack AC without caring. With the changes, they can in fact just cast shield of faith on themselves and judge for AC for +10 AC at level 20. That's stupid, considering they can already aspire to be one of the highest AC classes in the game.
The final playtest Inquisitor's judgment at level 1 is extremely powerful. It's even more powerful at higher levels.
...
Another problem with the judgment is that, while powerful at low levels, is that it didn't scale well at higher levels.
Make up your mind, would you?
EDIT: Also, no, creatures do not have ACs over 50 at level 20. In fact, the highest AC in the Bestiary is 44. Most creatures are significantly under that, even at CR 20+.
It lasting all combat is why it's extremely powerful to, at level one, use judgment and get a +1 , 2 , 3 to hit all foes in combat and all foes who join combat.
its not +1 +2 +3 any more, it is:
This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possessesLv 1-4: +1
Lv 5-9: +2
Lv 10-14: +3
Lv 15-19: +4
Lv 19: +5
Re Single Foe, maybe im reading into it too far but:
"One of her signature abilities is to declare judgment on one of her foes, granting her bonuses when fighting that enemy. "
IMHO the original mechanic made it more fun, they could have even made it scale. not sure about the concern re cheating, if you are playing with people that try to cheat, thats a whole other issue not related to class balance :P
The low use per day just limits the fun even more :(
The final playtest Inquisitor's judgment at level 1 is extremely powerful. It's even more powerful at higher levels.
...
Another problem with the judgment is that, while powerful at low levels, is that it didn't scale well at higher levels.Make up your mind, would you?
EDIT: Also, no, creatures do not have ACs over 50 at level 20. In fact, the highest AC in the Bestiary is 44. Most creatures are significantly under that, even at CR 20+.
I went through a lot of editing! I meant to say that it's extremely strong at 1, powerful at 10 and subpar at 20.
Also, yes, creatures have ACs over 50 if you do even an iota of work beyond pulling creatures right from the bestiary. Many of them have spells. Some of them do not work alone.
A pit fiend puts on +2 bracers of armor, has a barbed devil cleric cast shield of faith on him, his erinyes bard cohort inspires heroics in him, he slips on an amulet of natural armor +2 and wears a ring of force shield. Now he's at 51. CR 20. An average encounter for the 20th level character. Below average treasure. I think that's 20,500gp? If I wanted to continue giving him items I could give him the wealth of a PC, bump his CR to 21+ and give him 840,000 gp more of magical wealth. A boss encounter for experienced level 20 PCs.
A ancient gold dragon casts shield of faith on himself and gets 43. Foresight for 45. Mage armor for 49. Haste for 50. He's gargantuan. As his human form, he gains 4 Dex for 52 and becomes medium for 56. If he were to become a great wyrm and read a tome related to his casting stat-- or just cast miracle, since he gets it as a spontaneous spell-- he could easily learn shield of faith-- it's a level 1 spell-- and cast it on himself for 61. Almost nothing that rolls dice in the game can hit the great wyrm gold dragon on anything lower than a 20 as he shops for groceries among the mortal folk. Only other CR 20 creatures fully buffed rolling 19s and 20s. (Don't talk about his touch-- it's unimpressive.)
A solar puts on a buckler. Puts magic vestment on it. Shield of faith on himself. He has 51 AC. No penalty when using his bow.
And I'm just shooting for the easy examples-- creatures with shield of faith. Theoretically, PCs at 20 should get between 67,000 and 100,000 gp per encounter, and a ring of protection +5 is only 50,000 gp.
Now, an inquisitor has a 58 AC at 20. That's in-line, about, with the top end of beyond-CR 20 monsters. Except it's very unattainable by other classes. That's where the issue arises. The depressing thing is that by this level AC doesn't really even *matter* unless you're a melee class, but don't tell me that I can't knock a monster's AC to 70+ if I give them a bard and PC wealth.
It lasting all combat is why it's extremely powerful to, at level one, use judgment and get a +1 , 2 , 3 to hit all foes in combat and all foes who join combat.its not +1 +2 +3 any more, it is:
This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses
Lv 1-4: +1
Lv 5-9: +2
Lv 10-14: +3
Lv 15-19: +4
Lv 19: +5Re Single Foe, maybe im reading into it too far but:
"One of her signature abilities is to declare judgment on one of her foes, granting her bonuses when fighting that enemy. "IMHO the original mechanic made it more fun, they could have even made it scale. not sure about the concern re cheating, if you are playing with people that try to cheat, thats a whole other issue not related to class balance :P
The low use per day just limits the fun even more :(
Wow, that does suck then. I completely missed that. That's ridiculous. Then again, the inquisitor needed to be brought down a peg, but that's a peg too far for things they didn't need (bard divine spellcasting, seriously? for a melee class?). Now I don't know what their role is.
support fighter, like monk, rogue, or cleric.
True. I can see them fufilling a role similar to the rogue-- they bring a set of skills to the table necessary for monster hunting. On the flip side, they trade the rogue's raw d6 might for an indomitable amount of AC. That works out.
A ancient gold dragon casts shield of faith on himself and gets 43. Foresight for 45. Mage armor for 49. Haste for 50. He's gargantuan. As his human form, he gains 4 Dex for 52 and becomes medium for 56. If he were to become a great wyrm and read a tome related to his casting stat-- or just cast miracle, since he gets it as a spontaneous spell-- he could easily learn shield of faith-- it's a level 1 spell-- and cast it on himself for 61. Almost nothing that rolls dice in the game can hit the great wyrm gold dragon on anything lower than a 20 as he shops for groceries among the mortal folk. Only other CR 20 creatures fully buffed rolling 19s and 20s. (Don't talk about his touch-- it's unimpressive.)
My mistake-- calculated shield of faith twice. >< Let's go for plain old shield, since he can cast divine spells and arcane spells as arcane spells. +4 shield bonus. 60.
Aww.. I liked the +1,2,3. Now it seems like they got railroaded into something for what? A step closer to Paladin (of which they most certainly are not)?
edit: They took away its "fluctuation".. or "ramp up" time like it was said earlier. Now, they're not a "microwave of god" (3 rounds 'ding!' I'm done), they're more static.. Ew. Inquisitor was the one class out of the APG that I really liked.
Did any of the other APG classes take a turn for the better?
|
|
I... don't see the problem here. Inquisitor has a huge number or combat abilities that already make up for this. My main contention with any of the APG classes (cavalier aside) is that the playtest versions all appear to be significantly stronger than the normal PFC classes.
The judgment system before was... in-eloquent and that posed a problem of leaving it as a class without the kind of professional polish that Paizo is known for. Did is work? Yes, but it was not a pretty mechanic to say the least. Also the arguement that judgment was the class defining feature doesn't fly with me, seeing as how you had to ration its use. I see the inquisitor more as a mix between a paladin and a bard.
Also, was anyone else bothered by the fact that they can reselect their most recent teamwork as a standard action? This essentially gives them access to ALL teamwork feats when they need it with a 1 round delay.
The +1,+2,+3 was a book-keeping nightmare.
Book-keeping nightmare? Here, I'll solve it for you in one easy step: Buy nine glass beads, three each of three different colors. Use those to indicate how "advanced" each of your judgments are. Wow, that was hard!
Also the arguement that judgment was the class defining feature doesn't fly with me, seeing as how you had to ration its use.
So Bardic Performance isn't the class-defining ability of Bards? Rage isn't the class-defining ability of Barbarians?
|
Book-keeping nightmare? Here, I'll solve it for you in one easy step: Buy nine glass beads, three each of three different colors. Use those to indicate how "advanced" each of your judgments are. Wow, that was hard!
Bead 1 - mistaken for a jelly bean and eaten
Bead 2 - off the tableBead 3 - HEY STOP PUTTING THAT IN YOUR NOSE !
;)
|
|
So Bardic Performance isn't the class-defining ability of Bards? Rage isn't the class-defining ability of Barbarians?
The difference between the them is that bards and barbarians gain use of their features on a basis of 4 + Modifier.
The judgment works more like the pally smite than it does either of the two, and while it remains a large part of the class it is not the single most highly defining feature due to the fact that you have to use it very carefully and sparingly.
The difference between the them is that bards and barbarians gain use of their features on a basis of 4 + Modifier.
Not in 3.5, they weren't. Both were X/day mechanisms, just like Judgments were. So, I ask again: are Bardic Performance and Rage not class defining features?
So Bardic Performance isn't the class-defining ability of Bards? Rage isn't the class-defining ability of Barbarians?
The difference between the them is that bards and barbarians gain use of their features on a basis of 4 + Modifier.
The judgment works more like the pally smite than it does either of the two, and while it remains a large part of the class it is not the single most highly defining feature due to the fact that you have to use it very carefully and sparingly.
From the Paizo blog:
Inquisitor: Rooting out enemies of the faith, wherever they might hide, the inquisitor uses the powers of her faith to ruthlessly destroy her foes. One of her signature abilities is to declare judgment on one of her foes, granting her bonuses when fighting that enemy. The playtest version of this ability improved as the combat progressed. While this was a fun mechanic, it was ultimately rather unwieldy in play and was replaced with a simpler system. Now, whenever the inquisitor uses her judgment ability, she selects the type and gains a bonus based on her level. For example, take a look at this judgment of purity.
Purity: The inquisitor is protected from the vile taint of her foes, gaining a +1 sacred bonus on all saving throws. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, the bonus is doubled against curses, diseases, and poisons.
|
|
The difference between the them is that bards and barbarians gain use of their features on a basis of 4 + Modifier.Not in 3.5, they weren't. Both were X/day mechanisms, just like Judgments were. So, I ask again: are Bardic Performance and Rage not class defining features?
Since when were we talking about 3.X? I thought I was on the pathfinder forums... maybe I am mistaken...
But to answer your irrelevant question, yes. It always has been and so, but your comparison still pales as each class always has had multiple uses of these abilities each day encouraging liberal use of them.
This compared to pallys and inquisitors that have to make difficult decisions each time they are going to judge/smite since their uses are so limited. They have to rely on their other skill-sets 90% of the time, and in that respect it is nowhere near the same caliber of class defining feature-ship that bardic performance and rage are.
Since when were we talking about 3.X? I thought I was on the pathfinder forums... maybe I am mistaken...
We're talking about your assertion that class-defining abilities can only be unlimited use, and your continued shifting of the goalposts thereof.
But to answer your irrelevant question, yes. It always has been and so, but your comparison still pales as each class always has had multiple uses of these abilities each day encouraging liberal use of them.
Not even remotely close to being true. The 3.5 Barbarian got 1 Rage per day every 4 levels. They were very definitely not encouraged to spend them liberally until very high levels. In fact, the 3.5 Barbarian had fewer uses per day than the Final Playtest Inquisitor (which gets 1 Judgment every 3 levels and can apply multiple Judgments at once). Yet, you already admitted that it was their class-defining feature. Thus, you admit that limited usage doesn't prevent something from being a class-defining feature, making yourself a hypocrite.
This compared to pallys and inquisitors that have to make difficult decisions each time they are going to judge/smite since their uses are so limited. They have to rely on their other skill-sets 90% of the time, and in that respect it is nowhere near the same caliber of class defining feature-ship that bardic performance and rage are.
Read above for why you're dead wrong. Also read the posts by Paizo which all touted the Judgment as the class-defining ability for the Inquisitor. When they announced the class, the only things we knew about it were that it would have "bardic inspiration like" abilities that increased every round in combat and that it would cast divine spells. They didn't tell us about the bane abilities, they didn't tell us about the sense motive/intimidation/monster knowledge boosts, they didn't tell us about the tracking; they told us about Judgments. And now with the previews of the final APG classes, what is the one ability they point out and call a "signature ability"? Judgment.
|
Also, was anyone else bothered by the fact that they can reselect their most recent teamwork as a standard action? This essentially gives them access to ALL teamwork feats when they need it with a 1 round delay.
I suspected this ability was a playtest mechanic (i.e. a tool to make sure teamwork feats saw plenty of playtest). I also expected to see it removed by now, so it looks like I was/am wrong on that count.
maybe im missing something, but it seems to me that the change to judgement actually makes it more powerful at lvl 10+. Take the bonus to saving throws for instance, the previous high that you could get to your saving throw bonus was +3. Now at 10th lvl you get that max, and also get it the first round you activate the ability, instead of the third rnd. Also at 15th and then 20th lvl you get a higher bonus than you could ever achieve before. Its definitely weaker at lvls 1-4, and i'd say at 5-10 its about a wash. Yeah, you can only get a +2 instead of +3 but you do get that +2 on the first round of activation and most combats don't last very long
|
|
Things
Well I am sorry paizo killed your puppy then. You are obviously much attached to that ability and were looking for a adversary to spar with on the subject. Seems to me that the class has evolved, my suggestion is to learn to move on and mind a new pet.
I suspected this ability was a playtest mechanic (i.e. a tool to make sure teamwork feats saw plenty of playtest). I also expected to see it removed by now, so it looks like I was/am wrong on that count.
I think it very well may be one of the changes they make from final to print copy. Releasing this change in the preview would have been fairly dull to think about it. We will see.
ThingsWell I am sorry paizo killed your puppy then. You are obviously much attached to that ability and were looking for a adversary to spar with on the subject. Seems to me that the class has evolved, my suggestion is to learn to move on and mind a new pet.
Actually, I'm reserving judgment (pun not intentional but amusing anyway) on it until I see the final version. What I object to is your hypocrisy (you agree rage in 3.5 was a class defining ability, but still say that judgment can't be a class defining ability because you have to ration its use, despite it having more uses per day than 3.5 rage) and your ad hominem attacks.
My Kingmaker dwarven Inquisitor of Abadar just hit 3rd level, so I've got a dog in this fight too, but I think it's probably best to wait for the release of the book before getting all worked up. I'm sure the Judgment wasn't the only thing modified. A 3rd mano-a-mano class certainly isn't warranted, but I don't think we should jump to that conclusion just yet.
As it stands the Inquisitor has a hodgepodge of abilities that aren't (IMO) very unified, but the versatility of the class is what's attractive to me. Let's wait and see what Paizo's done to distinguish the class from the cleric, paladin and cavalier and clarify its mandate.
Zo
It wouldn't surprise me if the mechanics of the judgement had changed from the playtest. The +1 to damage might also be a +1 to hit now. And even if it isn't, popping divine favor and judgment in one round to give yourself a +2 to damage and +1 to hit on both your short swords doesn't seem too bad.
While I agree, we should wait for the final version, I have to say I really hate this nerf at low levels. At lvl 1, the inquisitor made a viable front line character. The bonus allowed him to be strong in 1 fight/day, with either +2 to hit (-1 for BAB) or +1 to damage (vs. power attacking) over a fighter. In exchange, he got a couple weak buffs, some nice skill boosts, but -2 HP, and had problems qualifying for the feats he wanted. Personally, I loved the mechanic and am very disappointed to see it go.
|
|
Actually, I'm reserving judgment (pun not intentional but amusing anyway) on it until I see the final version. What I object to is your hypocrisy (you agree rage in 3.5 was a class defining ability, but still say that judgment can't be a class defining ability because you have to ration its use, despite it having more uses per day than 3.5 rage) and your ad hominem attacks.
Again, we aren't playing 3.5 and barbarians aren't limited in this aspect so your point is moot. Trying to verbiage lawyer an arguement based on an outdated system is "walking up hill both ways" methodology, and a logical fallacy at that. Inquisitors don't exist in the past, heck the don't even exist in the present. They are creatures from the future.
Besides if you really wanted to continue down that then I would point out that while in 3.5 it was the "class defining ability" it was also their ONLY ability. The inquisitor in it's current state has a TON of other awesome mechanics for it to rely on.
|
my question is that all the APG classes were supposed to fill a niche not capable with the other classes. Inquisitors was a character that got stronger as combat went longer. Now the inquisitor just gets flat bonuses, what's its niche. We already have a divine tracker in the ranger, two partial divine spellcasters in the ranger and the paladin. What makes the inquisitor unique now to deserve a place in the APG. At this point it seems like paizos goals have shifted to now they need to include it because they already playtested it instead of because it filled a unique niche that no other class could.
I agree with lastknightleft. These classes are in the "Advanced" Player's Guide, I would expect to expend a little more effort in playing the character, or a little bit more effort in tracking things. It's my character, and if I can't track it, I shouldn't be playing it. I'm not going to toss more work on my GM.
my question is that all the APG classes were supposed to fill a niche not capable with the other classes. Inquisitors was a character that got stronger as combat went longer. Now the inquisitor just gets flat bonuses, what's its niche. We already have a divine tracker in the ranger, two partial divine spellcasters in the ranger and the paladin. What makes the inquisitor unique now to deserve a place in the APG. At this point it seems like paizos goals have shifted to now they need to include it because they already playtested it instead of because it filled a unique niche that no other class could.
I thought about it, and they kind of fill the "Monster hunter" niche. Whereas a rogue disarms traps and a bard has excellent overall skills, an inquisitor knows everything to know about any creature the party encounters, and goes first so he can let the party know what the monster does.
Besides that, no clue. Support fighter, like we said above. Kind of.
|
|
my question is that all the APG classes were supposed to fill a niche not capable with the other classes. Inquisitors was a character that got stronger as combat went longer. Now the inquisitor just gets flat bonuses, what's its niche. We already have a divine tracker in the ranger, two partial divine spellcasters in the ranger and the paladin. What makes the inquisitor unique now to deserve a place in the APG. At this point it seems like paizos goals have shifted to now they need to include it because they already playtested it instead of because it filled a unique niche that no other class could.I thought about it, and they kind of fill the "Monster hunter" niche. Whereas a rogue disarms traps and a bard has excellent overall skills, an inquisitor knows everything to know about any creature the party encounters, and goes first so he can let the party know what the monster does.
Besides that, no clue. Support fighter, like we said above. Kind of.
Except we already have a monster hunter too, in the ranger.I mean I get what your saying, but really, what your describing isn't really that much different than a knowledge heavy bard with improved initiative. Plus I don't really see "Monster Hunter" as a niche because any class can be built to be a monster hunter, some are more suited to it than others (bard, ranger) but it's not some unique thing unmanagable within the existing framework of the game, which when the classes in the APG were announced, that was the goal of each. That it fulfilled a mechanical niche not currently fillable by the standard classes. I don't see anything in the inquisitor that fits that description anymore.
Obviously final judgement will be held for when the book comes out, but seriously unless something new is revealed I think the inquisitor has become a class just to have X new classes now as opposed to the original goal.
I'm not sure how the math looks now -- I'll probably have to go over to the DPR Olympics thread to get their take -- but from a glance, the Inquisitor is more than prepared (and capable) to track down something wherever it may be and put an end to it, with the blessing of his god. He would not have to bring a cleric with him (like a rogue would), or ranger. What makes me wonder is what they replaced "Slayer" with. Still, you're right. A rogue could manage. A ranger could manage. A cleric could manage, though there would be morality issues
Though you have to admit, the fact that you can make nearly any class a Monster Hunter is a bonus for the system. Still, that increasing bonus was the class' signature "thing".
Would a rogue/cleric bypass the Inquisitor? Maybe, better damage but less versatility in finding and tracking it. Also see moral issues.
A cleric/ranger? I don't know on that one.
Perhaps this was as close to "Assassin" as "Good" was going to get? They're a bloodhound and executioner for their church, though realistically it is for their god, so the class' name serves better than "Zealot", which has far more negative undertones than the mottled gray of what it is now.
Obviously final judgement will be held for when the book comes out, but seriously unless something new is revealed I think the inquisitor has become a class just to have X new classes now as opposed to the original goal.
If a cleric/rogue can do the same, then i'll agree.
It's so weird, I've had a player in my group playing an Inquisitor since level 2 or 3 (it was months ago that we started). In the beginning we thought the class was pretty interesting, if something of a glass cannon in combat. The bookkeeping involved did appear to get a bit much for the player, and I had to keep an eye on which bonus he had on which round because sometimes he'd forget to change it, or switch it and take it to +3 immediately.
Anyway he just got to play level 10 for the first time last week, and it was ridiculous - he had +31 to hit without even flanking, and AC 34 which was five higher than the cavalier in the party (and the only warrior class). The enemy they were fighting had AC 35 (38 with expertise) and most of the party had a really hard time landing a hit on him, except for the inquisitor, who cut through him like a hot knife through butter.
So I decide that it's just a bit overpowered, considering all the other great abilities it has (detect lies, alignment, cleric spells, speed etc) so I go and make a house rule that turns out to be just like the change Paizo made, except mine was +1 for every 4 levels on judgments.
I haven't seen the new changes they've made, only the talk about this change that they did to the inquisitor. Were there any other changes?
Oh and even with this change, at 10th level our inquisitor will still be getting +27 without flanking, and with bane he's dealing plenty of damage. So it's gone from what I considered to be overpowered to more balanced (they're still glass cannons). Oh, and I consider Bane to be their main combat ability, not judgment. It's like Smite vs everything, which is appropriate for a monster hunting class. :D
Like the cavalier, their judgment/challenge/smite kind of ability does sound like it should be the main thing. But I didn't find the Inquisitor to be a kickass fighting machine until level 5 when bane came along and added +2/+2d6 to the mix. I consider it to be their main ability just because it makes such an impact on their combat capabilities, but really judgment *should* be where it's at. Or to put it another way, getting +3 damage on the third round of combat doesn't compare to getting +2/+2d6 whenever you want. And of course the new system is far more nerfed than that. The only problem I had with it was at level 10 when it doubled the bonus to 2/4/6. Then it's crazy time. Broken.
They probably could have ditched bane altogether and made the destruction judgment deal more damage. Probably could have smoothed out the progression too, suddenly getting bane at level 5 is such a plateau of power. Better than going through the levels like 'average damage, average damage, woah holy crap did you see what that guy just did?' :D
|
|
having seen it in play I will admit that the bane ability is one hell of a smack, and does seem to immediately impact the inquisitors power curve, such that an inquisitor starting at level 5 does feel like bane is the big hitter power as opposed to judgement (at least between 5 and 10, I haven't gotten to level 10 yet). That said, the judgement obviously comes across as what's supposed to be their signature ability.
Once again, my problem is that with the mechanics as stated, I see absolutely no *need* for the inquisitor to exist. Is it a cool class, yeah, is it unique in that what it does can't be reflected by other classes, (making it no better than the glut of cool classes that got released in 3.5) no.
Once again, my problem is that with the mechanics as stated, I see absolutely no *need* for the inquisitor to exist. Is it a cool class, yeah, is it unique in that what it does can't be reflected by other classes, (making it no better than the glut of cool classes that got released in 3.5) no.
Divine caster, bard progression. Seems like a gap in the lineup to me. Just like the oracle.
Like the cavalier, their judgment/challenge/smite kind of ability does sound like it should be the main thing. But I didn't find the Inquisitor to be a kickass fighting machine until level 5 when bane came along and added +2/+2d6 to the mix. I consider it to be their main ability just because it makes such an impact on their combat capabilities, but really judgment *should* be where it's at. Or to put it another way, getting +3 damage on the third round of combat doesn't compare to getting +2/+2d6 whenever you want. And of course the new system is far more nerfed than that. The only problem I had with it was at level 10 when it doubled the bonus to 2/4/6. Then it's crazy time. Broken.
They probably could have ditched bane altogether and made the destruction judgment deal more damage. Probably could have smoothed out the progression too, suddenly getting bane at level 5 is such a plateau of power. Better than going through the levels like 'average damage, average damage, woah holy crap did you see what that guy just did?' :D
I'm currently using a gnome inquisitor. I think the reason the Bane power is such a ramp-up of power for the inquisitor is that it adds 2d6 to the damage output.
Currently, my level 1 gnome is fairly useless for damage output and relys on some guard dogs and a dog mount for damage output.
Personally, I think they should have spread the damage from Bane and Greater Bane out a bit to help the damage curve a bit more.
Instead of calling the ability Bane as the Magic Item Weapon quality, they should have just given it a new name like Retribution.
They could then have started it at level; say level 2, with +1d6 damage and have it increase by 1d6 every four levels. This would have smoothed out the damage curve much more having
2nd level +1d6
5th level +2d6
9th level +3d6
13th level +4d6
17th level +5d6
It would also give that slight tweak to the top of the power curve.
I do like the judgment with the fast heal option as I am in a small group (ranger, rogue, alchemist, summoner) that does not have a dedicated healer. The flexibility on the judgment is great for helping fill in holes and round out a group.
|
|
Divine caster, bard progression. Seems like a gap in the lineup to me. Just like the oracle.
Once again, my problem is that with the mechanics as stated, I see absolutely no *need* for the inquisitor to exist. Is it a cool class, yeah, is it unique in that what it does can't be reflected by other classes, (making it no better than the glut of cool classes that got released in 3.5) no.
well in that case I've got a couple more gaps to fill, we need divine and arcane classes that only get spells up to level 8, then we need more classes that only get up to level 7 spells, don't forget 5th level spells as well as a cap I guess since the adept exists we only need one for arcane spells, luckily 4th level spells as the cap is covered on the divine side, but we don't have an arcane equivalent (while the other examples are overly silly to make the point, if you need to make a divine version of a bards spell progression then you need to argue that you need to make an arcane version of the paladin/ranger spell progression), oh and don't forget classes that only get a progression to 3rd levels spells, and 2nd level, I guess the rogue counts as a 1st level arcane caster with the right rogue tricks, so we need a divine caster similar to the rogue.
What level progressions spells use isn't a niche. The oracle is a spontaneous divine caster, that's something you can't get with the current rules. You want a divine caster with a progression similar to a bards, take cleric levels till you get sixth level spells and then multiclass out, tada. It's not a mechanical niche, anymore than a class that grants an ability to provide +DEX to attack and damage and AC against Lawful foes is a mechanical niche. That's just a slight alteration to smite.
Lastnightleft, have you looked at the spell selections? Sure, they could have reflavored everything about the Ranger, completely redone his spell list, and replaced some of his outdoor skills with social ones to make an Inquisitor variant. The inquisitor is a social skill monkey who is good at combat without using spells to buff himself up. He gets mostly divination and protection type spells, but includes some good buffs. Perhaps you could get these abilities together by multiclassing cleric-bard or something like that, but I see very few ways to do it well. The Inquisitor brings something new to the table. There were other ways of doing it, but this way brings us a unique and interesting class.
|
|
Lastnightleft, have you looked at the spell selections? Sure, they could have reflavored everything about the Ranger, completely redone his spell list, and replaced some of his outdoor skills with social ones to make an Inquisitor variant. The inquisitor is a social skill monkey who is good at combat without using spells to buff himself up. He gets mostly divination and protection type spells, but includes some good buffs. Perhaps you could get these abilities together by multiclassing cleric-bard or something like that, but I see very few ways to do it well. The Inquisitor brings something new to the table. There were other ways of doing it, but this way brings us a unique and interesting class.
Yeah like the dread necromancer, the swashbuckler, the knight, the spirit shaman, the duskblade, the blah blah blah.
Once again, I am going off of their original stated goal with these classes, which was to bring you something that is mechanically unique and fills a niche not currently possible with the base classes that exist in the game. Originally the inquisitor got stronger as combat progressed which was something that didn't exist, now all it is, is a paladin/ranger variant with more skills.
Look I like the inquisitor, I'm just very dissapointed that it no longer fulfills the original design goals, and once again I may even be wrong, they might have something in the final that makes it unique, but judgements aren't that anymore, because lots of classes have abilities that gain a flat bonus temporarily (smite, bardic music, etc.) and they haven't told us of some new ability.
Yeah like the dread necromancer, the swashbuckler, the knight, the spirit shaman, the duskblade, the blah blah blah.
The knight was ok, the rest were terrible classes that didn't need to be there. Even the knight should have been done with some fighter feats (and pretty much is in Pathfinder).
Once again, I am going off of their original stated goal with these classes, which was to bring you something that is mechanically unique and fills a niche not currently possible with the base classes that exist in the game. Originally the inquisitor got stronger as combat progressed which was something that didn't exist, now all it is, is a paladin/ranger variant with more skills.
Personally, I think he still has many unique abilities that cannot be covered by other classes, so I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not think the inquisitor's mechanical niche was to get stronger as the fight progresses. The judgements were not even his best mechanical boost when you compare it to bane and some of his spells. And his judgements can still do things that no other class can do, like Fast Healing.