I feel like the Inquisitor is kind of very strong with the Bane ability and especially the spell Flame of the fairhful. Don't you think it is kinda overpowered ?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*looks at cleric, druid, wizard*
No.
Flame of the Faithful is weak, IMO. You have to spend a standard action when you might be attacking and it doesn't last long.
Bane is a swift action and gives a much larger bonus, and so is more worrisome. I wish Paizo would codify roles. Inquisitors seem like "strikers"; 3/4 BAB, generally not great physical stats due to high Wisdom requirements... so compare with a fighter without a bane weapon. The inquisitor might be doing more damage but with lower BAB and fewer attacks. Of course, it also casts spellss...
The Bane ability is part of what makes the Inquisitor a viable martial combatant. All classes expected to engage in martial combat have ways of boosting attack and damage (whether a Fighter's Weapon Training or a Ranger's Favored Enemy), this is just theirs.
As for Flame of the Faithful, if it is breaking your game, there have to other factors involved. It is a 2nd level Inquisitor spell and Standard action for flaming or flaming burst for 1 round/level. So, +3.5 damage on a normal hit. Really not game changing compared to the other buffs and spells that are available, even at that level.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor is an incredibly solid class, but broken isn't a word I would use to describe it. Inquisitor is nice because it was built solidly enough that a player can explore a lot of different aspects of the game while playing, and has a certain buffer protecting them from making too many mistakes; compare that to a monk who can go really wrong, really fast with just a few bad choices.
I've never seen someone roll up to a table and say "Hey, tonight I'm playing an Inquisitor!" and have the statement received with anything other than acceptance, which I think speaks pretty well of the class. I'm of the opinion that the Inquisitor is one of the most mechanically "perfect" classes out there, able to shape to fit a variety of party rolls, perfectly self-sufficient, and with some good options for contributing to party resources. I think the fact that it's comparatively hard to screw up and very easy to customize/optimize to fit a number of combat and social roles can create this "Isn't that class too strong?" impression; when you see the same class represented as a rampaging rage-priest of Gorum, a mage-slaying pistol wielder, and a Repeating Crossbow wielding sniper the range of the class can seem really potent. And it is, but it's not like you're all of those things at once. And it won't be unseating any other class from their preferred niche (i.e. unlikely to out-tank a Fighter, out-damage a Barbarian, out-heal/buff a cleric, or even out-skill a Rogue) or ruining any games, or detracting from anyone else's fun, or even touching a 9-level progression caster in how thoroughly they can subvert a campaign's intended plot, so definitely not broken.
Inquisitor is a great class.
It is not in any way overpowered. I can't think of a single thing about it that people even MIGHT consider OP.
You guys make some very good points. I rechecked and indeed it is jot that OP. I just tought at first that adding bane+flames of faithful seemed very strong. Adding to that other spells.
In the two years since I started playing nobody else in our group of six has tried the Inquisitor but me. The favored class bonus for half-orc Inquisitors is very nice indeed.
He is by far the character I have grown most attached to....so he will likely die before 5th level :(
You guys make some very good points. I rechecked and indeed it is jot that OP. I just tought at first that adding bane+flames of faithful seemed very strong. Adding to that other spells.
It's not a bad combo I guess at low levels, but it requires the burning of two resources (Bane and the spell) and a whole round to give your weapon an extra 1d6 Fire damage...not all that great really.
Definitely agreed with all the above sentiments. Inquisitor is definitely a very versatile class with powerful abilities; however, that is also balanced out when the same inquisitor is out of resources. Granted that situation probably does not come up all that often in most campaigns (especially at higher levels), but an inquisitor without his Judgements, Bane, and spells is basically a skillful 3/4 BAB fighter without all the feats.
Like many of the others have said, it's all about comparing relative power against other classes in that classes niche. Is an inquisitor going to out melee a fighter? By dipping into all his buffing resources, the inquisitor will at best be on an even keel. When comparing an inquisitor to casters... Again the inquisitor will not come out on top when compared to an oracle or cleric. Not to even mention wizards/sorcerers.
Just my two cents on the topic of the day.
It's a well put together class. Definitely not broken. My Inquisitor can out damage the party Ranger for a few rounds a day if given time to buff. With no time to buff they have a very similar damage output.
The Ranger can keep hitting for high damage after my spells and bane are long gone, but I generally still have plenty of other abilities/skills to stay useful.
Currently playing one in The Dragon's Demand.
I'm actually being outshined by everyone at the moment. But my chance is coming. (We're only level 2.)
Just about every class can be over or underpowered in the hands of the right player. Inquisitor can be powerful but you're not just taking out the Terrasque just by virtue of choosing the right class.
I have to admit, this is weird, because me and my group found the Inquisitor stupid broken powerful. By third level he was out damaging 2-3 characters combined. Then as we gained levels adding Bane on top of all his buffing spells just seemed straight up overkill, moreso than even the Cleric or Sorcerer. Well, as they say YMMV.
You are seriously comparing sorcerer's damage to inquisitors?
I think inquisitors are so well rounded they certainly appear to be OP.
Around level 5-7, Inquisitors seem overpowered, just because it seems like they can do everything at that level range. They are super versatile, have lots of skills, spells, and can do significant damage at that level. I thought it was true, especially in a PFS format where there are limited combats before resting again.
However, they kind of taper off after that. The other martials catch up and exceed the Inquisitor, and full casters just start to take over at level 7+.
My only experience with them was with a level 7 npc I made up. She was an archer inquisitor and due to the situation was able to fully buff up against the party of PCs. She was one of six lieutenants the party was supposed to fight.
She was the best at dealing damage overall among a party of npc's that included a cavalier, a cleric (not built for damage), a ray sorcerer, an alchemist, and a monk. Granted, the poor cavalier couldn't hit (challenged the heavily armored fighter PC and rolled poorly). The inquisitor was so good at dealing damage that I rp'd the neutral monk refusing the orders of the evil cavalier and took him out of the combat.
I still wouldn't say the class is overpowered, just effective (in part due to archery mechanics and in part due to her buffs). In this example she was able to nova. That wouldn't always be the case if she was a PC. It also ate up a fair bit of her resources to buff up like she did. I would like to play one sometime.
*looks at cleric, druid, wizard*
No.
Looks at Synthesist and Master Summoner.
No.
;-)
But actually the Inquisitor is really good in the "sweet spot". To me, that makes it a well designed class. It does fall behind Full casters at the highest levels, tho.
I feel like the Inquisitor is kind of very strong with the Bane ability and especially the spell Flame of the fairhful. Don't you think it is kinda overpowered ?
No. It's a very flexible and versatile class, yes, but not a powerful one. You can make what you want of it - caster, skills monkey, combatant - and it works well in that function with a few added tricks.
The problem with the Inquisitor is that it's solid enough to make weak classes look bad. With two traits to add Acrobatics and Disable Device to the skills list, I had a better rogue than the rogue is, with added spells and other abilities.
The Bane ability is part of what makes the Inquisitor a viable martial combatant. All classes expected to engage in martial combat have ways of boosting attack and damage (whether a Fighter's Weapon Training or a Ranger's Favored Enemy), this is just theirs.
Except monks, remember.
|
|
The thing about the Inquisitor is that he's almost always going to be competent. He's relatively hard to screw up between a great package of class abilities, 3/4 BAB, good skills, in and out of combat utility abilities...... He's kind of proofed against poor system mastery (at least more than a lot of other classes). This means the lower the relative system mastery of a group, the better he's going to seem.
His versatility is also pretty amazing, as the one class encompasses a huge variety of playstyles and character concepts. This can also contribute to the feel that the class is extremely powerful, when the reality is just that it's an extremely well-built and well-balanced class.
I feel like the Inquisitor is kind of very strong with the Bane ability and especially the spell Flame of the fairhful. Don't you think it is kinda overpowered ?No. It's a very flexible and versatile class, yes, but not a powerful one. You can make what you want of it - caster, skills monkey, combatant - and it works well in that function with a few added tricks.
The problem with the Inquisitor is that it's solid enough to make weak classes look bad. With two traits to add Acrobatics and Disable Device to the skills list, I had a better rogue than the rogue is, with added spells and other abilities.
I think the other possible issue with the Inquisitor for some campaigns is that because of their flexibility and versatility, it's hard to screw an Inquisitor up or make one that isn't fairly optimized. If you're in a campaign where the rest of the party is running weaker characters...
I honestly think Inquisitor is probably the best designed and best balanced class in the whole game.
Bard, Paladin and Barbarian come close, though.
I honestly think Inquisitor is probably the best designed and best balanced class in the whole game.
Bard, Paladin and Barbarian come close, though.
Strongly second this. Every level seems to brings a little bit of an extra bonus, rather than a few big bonuses spread far apart. This keeps each step interesting and fresh, rather than a grind to a desired level for a specific power......well, I guess there is Bane to reach for. I especially love the Teamwork feat you can change as a Standard action.
My current (3rd level) Inquisitor is a half-orc follower of Erastil. Plant with Growth Subdomain. With Enlarge he swings that greataxe with 18 strength and 3d6+6 damage. We are partway through module one of Runelords so when he hits something....it usually dies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly think Inquisitor is probably the best designed and best balanced class in the whole game.
Bard, Paladin and Barbarian come close, though.
Strongly second this. Every level seems to brings a little bit of an extra bonus, rather than a few big bonuses spread far apart. This keeps each step interesting and fresh, rather than a grind to a desired level for a specific power......well, I guess there is Bane to reach for. I especially love the Teamwork feat you can change as a Standard action.
My current (3rd level) Inquisitor is a half-orc follower of Erastil. Plant with Growth Subdomain. With Enlarge he swings that greataxe with 18 strength and 3d6+6 damage. We are partway through module one of Runelords so when he hits something....it usually dies.
Lol, I 100% agree that the Inquisitor is not overpowered, but that post made me do a double take. It seemed to say "The Inquisitor is not overpowered. My 3rd level Inquisitor kills everything in one hit."
Well, I guess since the majority of our fights have been against goblins Enlarging was a bit of an overkill. Greataxe with 16 strength would be enough but I liked the Reach aspect of enlarging.
Also, it is awesome to think of a 12 foot tall half-orc swinging an axe with a blade the size of a fridge door.
There have been a few other, bigger fights besides goblins....no spoilers.
I honestly think Inquisitor is probably the best designed and best balanced class in the whole game.
Bard, Paladin and Barbarian come close, though.
I'll second this as well, although I will add the Psychic Warrior in there as well. Both the PW and the I are good examples of jack-of-all-trade characters, in a system that normally rewards hyper-specialisation. You don't have to be half as good as a specialist in this system to be passable, you need to be 3/4 as good, and both these classes pull it off.
I'm playing one in kingmaker right now, and the inquisitor can shine when you turn all of the options on.
But bane, spells, judgments are all limited, and when you burn through those in the depths of the deepest dungeon, you're back to a mediocre fighter.
The best way to challenge an inquisitor is to keep them busy. They can absolutely rock a 15 minute adventuring day.
My current (3rd level) Inquisitor is a half-orc follower of Erastil. Plant with Growth Subdomain. With Enlarge...
Inquisitors don't get domain spells. Sadly. I really don't get it 'cause they have limited spells known.
EDIT: ontopic, agreeing it's a really good, but ultimately one of the most balanced classes.
But bane, spells, judgments are all limited, and when you burn through those in the depths of the deepest dungeon, you're back to a mediocre fighter.
The best way to challenge an inquisitor is to keep them busy. They can absolutely rock a 15 minute adventuring day.
Right. Many folks come here on the boards to show their hyper specialized Rocket tag builds or complain that spellcasters are over-powered even at lower levels, when what the real problem is that they don’t do a four encounter hours long “day”.
That’s how the system was designed. it's OK if you don't want to play that way, sure. But then complaining that the game is poorly designed as you don't play the game as it was meant to is not helping.
My current (3rd level) Inquisitor is a half-orc follower of Erastil. Plant with Growth Subdomain. With Enlarge...Inquisitors don't get domain spells. Sadly. I really don't get it 'cause they have limited spells known.
EDIT: ontopic, agreeing it's a really good, but ultimately one of the most balanced classes.
True, no Domain spells. This Enlarge is a Domain Power. Swift Action and lasts for only one round. Comes in handy.
I have to admit, this is weird, because me and my group found the Inquisitor stupid broken powerful. By third level he was out damaging 2-3 characters combined.
I really gotta ask how. At level 3 inquisitor has nothing special combat wise besides a few first level spells, a free teamwork feat, and 1/day Judgement. What exactly did the rest of the damage dealers in that party look like?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbow wielding Sorcerers, sounds like.
I have to admit, this is weird, because me and my group found the Inquisitor stupid broken powerful. By third level he was out damaging 2-3 characters combined.I really gotta ask how. At level 3 inquisitor has nothing special combat wise besides a few first level spells, a free teamwork feat, and 1/day Judgement. What exactly did the rest of the damage dealers in that party look like?
Actually, this thread has shown me where the problems are. It is a two part issue, really. One, we roll for stats, and don't use point buy. We are a bunch of old school gamers and the Inquisitor in question had some really good stats. As a side note, we really hate point buy, and it really seems a lot of class balance is based around this. This is one area where I'm coming to the conclusion that 3.5 / Pathfinder has yet to find its equlibrium point on, but I digress.
Secondly, if memory serves, we were not doing 4 encounters per day. I think the poster up-thread who said you have to keep Inquisitors busy was spot on in that analysis. When you combine these two aspects together, THAT is where we got a misconception about the class's power level. I'm totally willing to give it another go and see what happens.
I have to admit, this is weird, because me and my group found the Inquisitor stupid broken powerful. By third level he was out damaging 2-3 characters combined.I really gotta ask how. At level 3 inquisitor has nothing special combat wise besides a few first level spells, a free teamwork feat, and 1/day Judgement. What exactly did the rest of the damage dealers in that party look like?Actually, this thread has shown me where the problems are. It is a two part issue, really. One, we roll for stats, and don't use point buy. We are a bunch of old school gamers and the Inquisitor in question had some really good stats. As a side note, we really hate point buy, and it really seems a lot of class balance is based around this. This is one area where I'm coming to the conclusion that 3.5 / Pathfinder has yet to find its equlibrium point on, but I digress.
Secondly, if memory serves, we were not doing 4 encounters per day. I think the poster up-thread who said you have to keep Inquisitors busy was spot on in that analysis. When you combine these two aspects together, THAT is where we got a misconception about the class's power level. I'm totally willing to give it another go and see what happens.
There are several classes that are far more powerful if you only have a one or two encounters a day, inquisitor, magus, and paladin when they get to use all their toys at once tend to be really powerful. I honestly wish that the game was just based around per encounter abilities, with the option to 'rest up' between fights and nix the whole per day nonsense that throws off the balance of the game depending on the circumstances of the adventure.
There are several classes that are far more powerful if you only have a one or two encounters a day, inquisitor, magus, and paladin when they get to use all their toys at once tend to be really powerful. I honestly wish that the game was just based around per encounter abilities, with the option to 'rest up' between fights and nix the whole per day nonsense that throws off the balance of the game depending on the circumstances of the adventure.I have to admit, this is weird, because me and my group found the Inquisitor stupid broken powerful. By third level he was out damaging 2-3 characters combined.I really gotta ask how. At level 3 inquisitor has nothing special combat wise besides a few first level spells, a free teamwork feat, and 1/day Judgement. What exactly did the rest of the damage dealers in that party look like?Actually, this thread has shown me where the problems are. It is a two part issue, really. One, we roll for stats, and don't use point buy. We are a bunch of old school gamers and the Inquisitor in question had some really good stats. As a side note, we really hate point buy, and it really seems a lot of class balance is based around this. This is one area where I'm coming to the conclusion that 3.5 / Pathfinder has yet to find its equlibrium point on, but I digress.
Secondly, if memory serves, we were not doing 4 encounters per day. I think the poster up-thread who said you have to keep Inquisitors busy was spot on in that analysis. When you combine these two aspects together, THAT is where we got a misconception about the class's power level. I'm totally willing to give it another go and see what happens.
You know, I agree with both your assessment and desire for more 'per encounter' style design. Truthfully, it worked exceptionally well for Star Wars Saga Edition.
My 2nd lvl inquisitor does most damage in our party, not because of his abilities, but because I have 18 str, greatsword and Power Attack (others are druid with 20 str, archer paladin with no deadly aim or rapid shot yet, and a sorcerer).
@GoldEdition - yea, sorry, missed that bit, I only saw that growth domain had enlarge person as bonus spell, didn't bother to read the powers.
You know, I agree with both your assessment and desire for more 'per encounter' style design. Truthfully, it worked exceptionally well for Star Wars Saga Edition.
If it wasnt for the gross mishandling of the products released (with options for everyone scattered through every friggan book) saga might have been my favorite iteration of d20. I would love it if somehow paizo got saga edition transfered to them along with the star wars liscense (which now belongs to fantasy flight but thats beside the point this is my hypothetical wonderland) because its probably the only thing that would get paizo's CEO to consider a second system/world.
As a side note an inquisitor is probably one of the best classes to play solo. It's just got such great balance and has most bases at least partially covered. Probably struggle with swarms without resorting to baning a fask of acid if that's legal.
Vote for balanced
If it wasnt for the gross mishandling of the products released (with options for everyone scattered through every friggan book) saga might have been my favorite iteration of d20. I would love it if somehow paizo got saga edition transfered to them along with the star wars liscense (which now belongs to fantasy flight but thats beside the point this is my hypothetical wonderland) because its probably the only thing that would get paizo's CEO to consider a second system/world.
You know, I agree with both your assessment and desire for more 'per encounter' style design. Truthfully, it worked exceptionally well for Star Wars Saga Edition.
Agreed on all points. We are very much on the same page here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, this thread has shown me where the problems are. It is a two part issue, really. One, we roll for stats, and don't use point buy. We are a bunch of old school gamers and the Inquisitor in question had some really good stats. As a side note, we really hate point buy, and it really seems a lot of class balance is based around this.
Secondly, if memory serves, we were not doing 4 encounters per day. I think the poster up-thread who said you have to keep Inquisitors busy was spot on in that analysis. When you combine these two aspects together, THAT is where we got a misconception about the class's power level. I'm totally willing to give it another go and see what happens.
Oh gosh, if one PC has a 40 pt build and the other has a 10, then even if PC #1 is playing a expert or warrior he’ll rule the game.
And, 4 encounters per day will also keep the casters in line, too.
Good to see you'll give it another go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor is an incredibly solid class, but broken isn't a word I would use to describe it. Inquisitor is nice because it was built solidly enough that a player can explore a lot of different aspects of the game while playing, and has a certain buffer protecting them from making too many mistakes; compare that to a monk who can go really wrong, really fast with just a few bad choices.
I've never seen someone roll up to a table and say "Hey, tonight I'm playing an Inquisitor!" and have the statement received with anything other than acceptance, which I think speaks pretty well of the class. I'm of the opinion that the Inquisitor is one of the most mechanically "perfect" classes out there, able to shape to fit a variety of party rolls, perfectly self-sufficient, and with some good options for contributing to party resources. I think the fact that it's comparatively hard to screw up and very easy to customize/optimize to fit a number of combat and social roles can create this "Isn't that class too strong?" impression; when you see the same class represented as a rampaging rage-priest of Gorum, a mage-slaying pistol wielder, and a Repeating Crossbow wielding sniper the range of the class can seem really potent. And it is, but it's not like you're all of those things at once. And it won't be unseating any other class from their preferred niche (i.e. unlikely to out-tank a Fighter, out-damage a Barbarian, out-heal/buff a cleric, or even out-skill a Rogue) or ruining any games, or detracting from anyone else's fun, or even touching a 9-level progression caster in how thoroughly they can subvert a campaign's intended plot, so definitely not broken.
Quoted for absolute truth. I could not have said it any better.
|
There are several classes that are far more powerful if you only have a one or two encounters a day, inquisitor, magus, and paladin when they get to use all their toys at once tend to be really powerful. I honestly wish that the game was just based around per encounter abilities, with the option to 'rest up' between fights and nix the whole per day nonsense that throws off the balance of the game depending on the circumstances of the adventure.If it wasnt for the gross mishandling of the products released (with options for everyone scattered through every friggan book) saga might have been my favorite iteration of d20. I would love it if somehow paizo got saga edition transfered to them along with the star wars liscense (which now belongs to fantasy flight but thats beside the point this is my hypothetical wonderland) because its probably the only thing that would get paizo's CEO to consider a second system/world.
You know, I agree with both your assessment and desire for more 'per encounter' style design. Truthfully, it worked exceptionally well for Star Wars Saga Edition.
First, "for encounter" abilities would get us a crowd of people trying to find the right cheat to call ever round of a fight "a encounter", look the "once per rage" abilities of the barbarian and the obsessive research for ways to have the rage "reset" every round.
Second, I found interesting a mechanic where some people has a class has the ability to go nova for a limited number of encounters while other classes have a endurance advantage. It mean that the first kind of class need to conserve its abilities for the right fight, the other don't.
The problem isn't the existence of this kind of mechanic, it is the existence of the video game mentality "I stop to sleep and rest just before the BEEEG door, as I am not in his aggro zone nothing will happen". Especially when the GM pander to it.
The request to be able to "rest" between fights seem to point exactly in this direction "Pathfinder should be like a single player videogame, where I rest as needed and nothing happen".
Reducing the difference between what people going nova can accomplish and what they get not being nova against what endurance builds can do can be a good idea, resetting the game so that each fight become a different event that you always meet with full resources will change it completely.
Inquisitors are OP when it comes to fun. They're way more fun than most of the other classes due to the breadth of their abilities.
As far as damage dealing goes, they're glass cannons. They can dish a ton of damage. If you decide to focus fire them, they go down pretty quick.