Just how many toes is the Inquisitor stepping on?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


It seems every other class discussion thread has some comment about the inquisitor doing that class's job better. Slayer being outclassed by Sanctified Slayer, Hunter being outclassed by the Sacred Huntsmaster (sorta, Hunter has a few niches in the spell list to help it out), and recently Warpriest getting outclassed in general.

I know it's not a super OP class compared to cleric, wizard, that sort of thing but good lords! Just how many classes are being outclassed by this class?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, Inquisitor was meant to be the Divine Bard and Paizo did a great job designing it. It's a Jack of All Trades platform that can be built to be a Master at many aspects. Just like a Cleric tends to be more martial than a Wizard, it makes some sense for an Inquisitor to be able to a outfight their arcane counterparts.

The Exchange

Blackpowder Witch wrote:
Well, Inquisitor was meant to be the Divine Bard and Paizo did a great job designing it. It's a Jack of All Trades platform that can be built to be a Master at many aspects. Just like a Cleric tends to be more martial than a Wizard, it makes some sense for an Inquisitor to be able to a outfight their arcane counterparts.

Exactly. If you want to be the absolute best slayer, play a slayer. But if you want a slightly less effective slayer who can also buff and identify monsters, play a Sanctified Slayer.

If you want to be the most lethal ranged character, play a Musket Master Gunslinger. If you want to be a bit less lethal but be able to cast spells be an inquisitor and take the black powder inquisition.

The inquisitor is never going to be quite as good as the class it is "replacing" in that class's speciality (unless you give the inquisitor an extra 4 or 5 rounds to buff) but it is going to be effective in a broader array of situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

MY toes. ALL of my toes.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

The Inquisitor steps on no toes. It is an incredibly well designed class that has the misfortune to be surrounded and succeeded by ones that are less so.

Dark Archive

+1 to Rynjin, Inquisitor is my favourite class in all of it's main archetypes, and even some 3rd party ones(looking at you radiance house). It's so wonderful, and fun to play at pretty much all levels from my experience while also never getting overpowered to the point of just wrecking. The problem is that other classes aren't designed like that one, they are fun to play at certain levels or just need outside help to function correctly. The other classes need to get on the Inquisitors level, as it is the class that made me switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other classes have no toes.

But if they did, the Inquisitor would not stoop nor deign to step on them. She would rather suggest they take a turn in the iron maiden to think about their multiple sins, heresies and malfeasances as described by Rynjin above. To whit - the Inquisitor does as the Inquisitor wills and all else be damn'd.

Well. Either that or thumbscrews.

Or, to but it another way - it is not the Inquisitor's problem. Find fault elsewhere - the Inquisitor is already looking. Hope she does not find you wanting...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
The Inquisitor steps on no toes. It is an incredibly well designed class that has the misfortune to be surrounded and succeeded by ones that are less so.

Read: the inquisitor is the optimizer dreams since does everything good enaugh to not having to care about the others. Skills, raw damage, combat shenanigans, healing, spells, buffs, the iquisitor has it all. The only better class are the ones with absurd power shenanigans like infinite clones and free wishes.

The inquisitor is symptomatic of the general boards-users trend of wanting a class to be good at everything instead of each class having his own role in the party. It's basically the class for those that wants to play singleplayer. That's why nearly everyone here exalt it as being the epitome of how every class shoud be.

Witch, incidentally, it's the exact opposite of how a class shoud be to me.


The inquisitor has the potential to be good at many things, but it can't be good at everything all in one build, unless you have very high point buy, and/or extra loot.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I played a low-level 15-point buy half-orc inquisitor of Desna for a while and it was fun before he got eaten by an owlbear. I mostly used by greataxe and healed, and spammed guidance, which made feel like I was always contributing, except when the oracle spammed guidance too. :-P

I was really good at going first: Improved Initiative + Reactionary + 2 Dex + 3 Wisdom = +11 to initiative. That, with the speed increase from the Travel domain let me get into position at the beginning of combat. It also helped me buff in surprise situations.


I feel the inquisitor is similar to the bard and investigator, Both of those can also just focus on combat and still be really great at skills. Even the core bard can be a mighty force on the battlefield, so it's not like it's been something newly added.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Inquisitor steps on no toes. It is an incredibly well designed class that has the misfortune to be surrounded and succeeded by ones that are less so.

Read: the inquisitor is the optimizer dreams since does everything good enaugh to not having to care about the others. Skills, raw damage, combat shenanigans, healing, spells, buffs, the iquisitor has it all. The only better class are the ones with absurd power shenanigans like infinite clones and free wishes.

The inquisitor is symptomatic of the general boards-users trend of wanting a class to be good at everything instead of each class having his own role in the party. It's basically the class for those that wants to play singleplayer. That's why nearly everyone here exalt it as being the epitome of how every class shoud be.

Witch, incidentally, it's the exact opposite of how a class shoud be to me.

Now tell us how you really feel.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Inquisitor steps on no toes. It is an incredibly well designed class that has the misfortune to be surrounded and succeeded by ones that are less so.

Read: the inquisitor is the optimizer dreams since does everything good enaugh to not having to care about the others. Skills, raw damage, combat shenanigans, healing, spells, buffs, the iquisitor has it all. The only better class are the ones with absurd power shenanigans like infinite clones and free wishes.

The inquisitor is symptomatic of the general boards-users trend of wanting a class to be good at everything instead of each class having his own role in the party. It's basically the class for those that wants to play singleplayer. That's why nearly everyone here exalt it as being the epitome of how every class shoud be.

Witch, incidentally, it's the exact opposite of how a class shoud be to me.

Considering that from an optimizer's point of view it still jobs hard to literally every class with nine levels of spell casting (and the summoner's original incarnation, which might as well have had nine levels of spell casting) and the Inquisitor was specifically designed to be a class that works excellently with the rest of the party thanks to Solo Tactics meaning it reaps enormous benefits from having buddies around to team up with, I'm not seeing your point.

It is the divine counterpart to the Bard, combining a roguish chassis with divine power in the way that a bard combines a roguish chassis with arcane power. It is a jack-of-all trades class. It fights pretty well, but it doesn't fight as well as the full BAB classes. It has enough skill ranks that it can cover several roles competently, in this case usually party face (with a more intimidating/sense motive investigative bent than the Bard's more friendly/tricky approach) and knowing a lot about monsters while Bards know a lot about EVERYTHING. It has a good spell list, but it's got nothing on clerics and oracles for the power of the gods flowing through your veins.

It is, in essence, one of the best-designed classes in the game in that it is incredibly well-rounded, able to fill more than one role competently, and will rarely leave the player feeling useless because their class was not designed to be a functioning part of the group when there is nothing to hit, like certain classes that will not be named.

It's not the Inquisitor's fault that the Warpriest's spell list was not well-thought-out, and generally speaking I feel like teamwork is more effective when it grows organically from the players are using the things their classes are good at together, rather than when it is forced on the party trying to cover something their teammates are incompetent at.

The Inquisitor slinging a buff onto the party's point man and using Solo Tactics to keep up with him as they charge into the fray together is teamwork. A cleric preparing nothing but "Remove X" and "Delay Y" spells and spending his turns getting the Swashbuckler out of trouble because he keeps failing saves is not teamwork, in my view. It's not the party organically working together, it's one guy giving up his chances to contribute to what's going on to bail another guy out because of design oversights making his class prone requiring someone else to drop what they're doing and come help him.


I've only played Inquisitor three times but I have to admit that my general impression was that it does way too much. Particularly when I decided to solo Carrion Crown for two books. Its not so much that it does everything well but it doesn't really suck at anything. Good skills, good saves, combat effectiveness, casting. Plus it can trade Charisma for Wis for social skills. About the only thing it doesn't do is the wacky kind of casting that arcane casting does. Heck, even a wizard is very frequently in one-shot range with his hp.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

And the way Inquisitors have a limited number of spells known encourages them to work with their other party members to both make sure there is no unnecessary overlapping of spells and that there is access to critical spells.

Inquisitors can select spells for scouting, buffing, divining, de-buffing, healing, and hurting others, but can rarely select ALL of those options. This also encourages teamwork.


@OP: less than the warpriest

edit - that is to say, very few regardless--inquisitor is a divine bard, warpriest is a divine magus, and oracle is a divine sorcerer (though some folks seem to think cleric/paladin are the end-all be-all and the other are superfluous in one manner or another, but i digress)

honestly im quite liking the spread for the arcane and divine classes (though i'd like to see a divine arcanist) if you discount the 'nature' divine casters (ranger/druid/etc). paizo just needs to work on the martial side.

Grand Lodge

Eh... I don't think that the Sanctified Slayer outclasses the base slayer, and I'd say its dead even between the regular hunter and the Sacred Huntmaster.

The only archetype that apes the style of another class, that ends up doing what the other class does better is probably the Daring Champion Cavalier, and even then it's by a fairly small margin.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:

Eh... I don't think that the Sanctified Slayer outclasses the base slayer, and I'd say its dead even between the regular hunter and the Sacred Huntmaster.

The only archetype that apes the style of another class, that ends up doing what the other class does better is probably the Daring Champion Cavalier, and even then it's by a fairly small margin.

sacred fist warpriest over regular unarmed monk seems a pretty straight upgrade (or at least simpler for a player to understand/use)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Inquisitor steps on no toes. It is an incredibly well designed class that has the misfortune to be surrounded and succeeded by ones that are less so.

Read: the inquisitor is the optimizer dreams since does everything good enaugh to not having to care about the others. Skills, raw damage, combat shenanigans, healing, spells, buffs, the iquisitor has it all. The only better class are the ones with absurd power shenanigans like infinite clones and free wishes.

The inquisitor is symptomatic of the general boards-users trend of wanting a class to be good at everything instead of each class having his own role in the party. It's basically the class for those that wants to play singleplayer. That's why nearly everyone here exalt it as being the epitome of how every class shoud be.

Witch, incidentally, it's the exact opposite of how a class shoud be to me.

Haha, oh wow.

Yeah, because the Fighter in his complete lack of ability to do literally anything but hit stuff is SUCH good class design, same as the pre-Unchained Rogue being completely incapable of contributing in any meaningful way.

No, classes SHOULD be all-rounders, with various areas that they excel in. If your class is completely incapable of contributing in 30% or more of the game, that's HOURS you can be sitting around twiddling your thumbs while everyone else gets to enjoy themselves.

If the class isn't balanced against the Inquisitor and the Bard, then it's pretty much failed to be a good class. The classes that are stronger than those two have far too much narrative power, to the point that they can completely sidestep actual problem solving with "I've got a spell for that!" The classes that are weaker than those two have far too little narrative power, often being completely reliant on solving problems with a blade or ineffectual mundane means.

To point, I hope you only play/DM for people who play Rogues, Fighters and Monks, because the second you decide a Wizard is okay to take along with those classes you've shot your argument in the foot.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Roleplaying can counter a class's supposed weakness. For example, in 3.5, I played an elf druid archer with a fighter/rogue/wizard/arcane trickster and a human sword and board (ahem...khopesh and shield) fighter, and the fighter was the party face. He just spoke up. He didn't need Stern Gaze or Versatile Performance or even Skill Focus Diplomacy. He just spoke up. He didn't use charm person or a circlet of persuasion.

The druid was super versatile (tank, archer, blaster, buffer, counter-speller, healer, battle field controller, summoner, transporter, scout, crafter) and even had some ranks in Diplomacy, but the fighter talked. The arcane trickster dual-wielded and had tons of flanking buddies thanks to the druid's animal companion and summoned beasties, and with all the skill tricks and magic spells, was also extremely versatile. But the fighter was a pretty straight forward fighter (didn't do lots of fancy combat maneuvers, pretty much stood there and took and gave hits), but was very effective. Probably had Weapon Focus/Specialization and Improved Critical in khopesh, Power Attack, probably Cleave and Great Cleave, maybe Iron Will. Pretty generic, mechanically, but excellent at roleplaying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

Roleplaying can counter a class's supposed weakness. For example, in 3.5, I played an elf druid archer with a fighter/rogue/wizard/arcane trickster and a human sword and board (ahem...khopesh and shield) fighter, and the fighter was the party face. He just spoke up. He didn't need Stern Gaze or Versatile Performance or even Skill Focus Diplomacy. He just spoke up. He didn't use charm person or a circlet of persuasion.

The druid was super versatile (tank, archer, blaster, buffer, counter-speller, healer, battle field controller, summoner, transporter, scout, crafter) and even had some ranks in Diplomacy, but the fighter talked. The arcane trickster dual-wielded and had tons of flanking buddies thanks to the druid's animal companion and summoned beasties, and with all the skill tricks and magic spells, was also extremely versatile. But the fighter was a pretty straight forward fighter (didn't do lots of fancy combat maneuvers, pretty much stood there and took and gave hits), but was very effective. Probably had Weapon Focus/Specialization and Improved Critical in khopesh, Power Attack, probably Cleave and Great Cleave, maybe Iron Will. Pretty generic, mechanically, but excellent at roleplaying.

So if we ignore the rules then all the classes can be awesome! :D That's good to know. I'll be sure to tell my GM next time he asks for a diplomacy check that instead of making a roll I want to tell a story for my check instead, thus getting around my "supposed weakness" of having a 7 int and 7 charisma. Also I should be able to identify monsters if I look them up online. No need for any skill ranks, I'm sure the rogue will love that since he gets so many of them and they are useless if you want them to be!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I guess we were more flexible with the social interactions. The DM probably gave sizable bonuses for good roleplaying. :-)

It's not like the fighter was throwing his khopesh like a boomerang and cutting off all the heads of a hydra in a single stroke. :-D

I think it was a flaming khopesh, so that might have actually worked...

The PF fighter at least has a better selection of skills than the 3.5 fighter. You can get a lot of mileage out of Knowledge dungeoneering and Survival. Heck, I've seen a fighter use Knowledge engineering--and not with siege engines! And if you use the optional trait rules, you can get some fun and exciting class skills, like Acrobatics, Perception, Diplomacy, etc.

Dark Archive

SmiloDan wrote:

Roleplaying can counter a class's supposed weakness. For example, in 3.5, I played an elf druid archer with a fighter/rogue/wizard/arcane trickster and a human sword and board (ahem...khopesh and shield) fighter, and the fighter was the party face. He just spoke up. He didn't need Stern Gaze or Versatile Performance or even Skill Focus Diplomacy. He just spoke up. He didn't use charm person or a circlet of persuasion.

The druid was super versatile (tank, archer, blaster, buffer, counter-speller, healer, battle field controller, summoner, transporter, scout, crafter) and even had some ranks in Diplomacy, but the fighter talked. The arcane trickster dual-wielded and had tons of flanking buddies thanks to the druid's animal companion and summoned beasties, and with all the skill tricks and magic spells, was also extremely versatile. But the fighter was a pretty straight forward fighter (didn't do lots of fancy combat maneuvers, pretty much stood there and took and gave hits), but was very effective. Probably had Weapon Focus/Specialization and Improved Critical in khopesh, Power Attack, probably Cleave and Great Cleave, maybe Iron Will. Pretty generic, mechanically, but excellent at roleplaying.

I agree that roleplaying can do what you said, but it shouldn't have to is the real problem. Also it depends on the DM; Personally I run it so that just talking is that: just talking, while using diplomacy/bluff/intimidate is attempting to manipulate the person to whom you're talking. Other DM's let you say whatever you want, but then you have to roll a check and get a bonus or penalty depending on what you said. The class cannot be roleplayed in to being better than the wizard at high levels, unless somehow the wizard with 22 Intelligence is actually really dumb.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Inquisitor steps on no toes. It is an incredibly well designed class that has the misfortune to be surrounded and succeeded by ones that are less so.

Read: the inquisitor is the optimizer dreams since does everything good enaugh to not having to care about the others. Skills, raw damage, combat shenanigans, healing, spells, buffs, the iquisitor has it all. The only better class are the ones with absurd power shenanigans like infinite clones and free wishes.

The inquisitor is symptomatic of the general boards-users trend of wanting a class to be good at everything instead of each class having his own role in the party. It's basically the class for those that wants to play singleplayer. That's why nearly everyone here exalt it as being the epitome of how every class shoud be.

Witch, incidentally, it's the exact opposite of how a class shoud be to me.

No.

Read: Like the Bard, the Inquisitor is a very good all-rounder class. He excels in one area (what that area is depends on what you build him for), but does not have any glaring weaknesses (save one: An inability to cast any sort of spell that grants Flight save Divine Pursuit which is actually a pretty big pain in the ass at high levels).

They work well with or without any party. You can't "solo" everything, but nor are you chained by the other players' class choices.

If the other people want to play Sorcerer, Shaman, and Witch, you can fulfill both the combat roles and the skill roles for that party.

If you're rolling with a Fighter, a Barbarian, and a Blaster Sorcerer, you can tone the combat down a bit and focus on skills and buffing.

My personal favorite archetype is the Preacher. I'm not a big fan of Teamwork Feats, but being able to force enemies to re-roll that nasty Nat 20 when it would hit an ally, or make them (or myself) re-roll a key attack roll. Likewise, I prefer to use the Tactics Domain whenever possible, helping my slower allies move up in the Initiative order.

You can play an Inquisitor as a very team oriented class, and are in fact encouraged to do so in many ways given the options available to them.

BUT, and this is key: You are also not punished for NOT playing a team oriented character, like some classes (Rogue, for instance).

This is why it's well designed. It's a versatile class that isn't pigeonholed into an overly narrow niche in the party. The Fighter fights, the Rogue rogues, and the Cleric buffs/heals in many parties.

Which turns out to bite them in the ass when one person dies and realizes "Yeah, I wasn't having fun with that character. I'm gonna make something else."

So many times, you're left without a specific niche.

Meanwhile the party made up of the Inquisitor, Alchemist, Bard, and Shaman, or some other such configuration has several members who can pick up the slack in any given area.

If the Alchemist dies and wants to make a Barbarian, the group has lost a few buffs, but gained a powerhouse offense character, which is a net gain.

If they lose the Bard and he comes back with a buffer Cleric who throws down in melee on the side, they have essentially the same niche filled.

And so on, and so forth. The only thing that would really cripple a party like that is a TPK, and everyone coming back as a bunch of non-complementary classes.

Which is exactly WHY they're well designed.


Malwing wrote:
I've only played Inquisitor three times but I have to admit that my general impression was that it does way too much. Particularly when I decided to solo Carrion Crown for two books. Its not so much that it does everything well but it doesn't really suck at anything. Good skills, good saves, combat effectiveness, casting. Plus it can trade Charisma for Wis for social skills. About the only thing it doesn't do is the wacky kind of casting that arcane casting does. Heck, even a wizard is very frequently in one-shot range with his hp.

I really dont see the inquisitor soloing an AP without a generous GM.

Also a wizard's hit points and the inquisitor's hit points should not be very far apart if the wizard actually cares about hit points.

The difference between d6 and d8 on average is 1 hit point per level. The inquisitor will likely have about a 14 con, and the wizard being SAD can also get a 14 or even higher.

I am going to call anecdotal evidence on this on.


The Inquisitor has a very solid Ceiling too...

The thing about the inquisitor is that he can do all things well and he is really freaking hard to screw up. But his variability when it comes to power tends to have small fluctuations. At its peak it is still weaker than many other classes when optimized.

But see, that is just a good class! It is well designed, probably one of the best designed in the game.


I personally like classes that are more versatile than just a fighter or a wizard, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. Many new players enjoy those classes or even *gasp* a rogue! But in my opinion, the Inquisitor has a bit too much packed into it.

Judgement Houserule Derail:
As a fan of houserules, I have quite a few of them... The one thing I've houseruled on the Inquisitor is that Judgements only effect a single target. Since Judgements, Challenges, and Smites all progress at the same exact levels, I felt it made sense for Judgements to effect only a single target. In my current game, I have a Samurai and an Inquisitor running along side each other. Judgement is vastly more flexible, only slightly less powerful from levels 8 onward, and available significantly more often than Challenge, I felt it warranted an adjustment. (If I had to put a number on it, I would wager that Judgement's bonuses come into effect 4 to 6 times as frequently as the bonuses of Challenge. Full disclosure - the Inquisitor player is considerably more "mechanically inclined" than the Samurai player. This exacerbates the situation, but is not, in my opinion, fully responsible for it.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:

It seems every other class discussion thread has some comment about the inquisitor doing that class's job better. Slayer being outclassed by Sanctified Slayer, Hunter being outclassed by the Sacred Huntsmaster (sorta, Hunter has a few niches in the spell list to help it out), and recently Warpriest getting outclassed in general.

I know it's not a super OP class compared to cleric, wizard, that sort of thing but good lords! Just how many classes are being outclassed by this class?!

In a multi-enemy fight the Inquisitor can even outclass the Paladin. Sure the latter has smite, but on how many of the undead mooks are you going to use it on when you still haven't gotten a clue how far you've got to go before you meat the major Bad or his Lieutennant. The Inquisitor can use bane on every single undead/demon/devil in the combat while only calling upon one use.


PIXIE DUST wrote:

The Inquisitor has a very solid Ceiling too...

The thing about the inquisitor is that he can do all things well and he is really freaking hard to screw up. But his variability when it comes to power tends to have small fluctuations. At its peak it is still weaker than many other classes when optimized.

But see, that is just a good class! It is well designed, probably one of the best designed in the game.

Accepting that it's true that they aren't the equal of an optimised character specialising in one area of play, how often do you need that optimised character? How often is the Inquisitor "good enough" at what the specialist does and better at a lot of other things?


LazarX wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:

It seems every other class discussion thread has some comment about the inquisitor doing that class's job better. Slayer being outclassed by Sanctified Slayer, Hunter being outclassed by the Sacred Huntsmaster (sorta, Hunter has a few niches in the spell list to help it out), and recently Warpriest getting outclassed in general.

I know it's not a super OP class compared to cleric, wizard, that sort of thing but good lords! Just how many classes are being outclassed by this class?!

In a multi-enemy fight the Inquisitor can even outclass the Paladin. Sure the latter has smite, but on how many of the undead mooks are you going to use it on when you still haven't gotten a clue how far you've got to go before you meat the major Bad or his Lieutennant. The Inquisitor can use bane on every single undead/demon/devil in the combat while only calling upon one use.

One use per turn, in the case of bane. Which also precludes changing up your judgement types or performing other swift actions.


LazarX wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:

It seems every other class discussion thread has some comment about the inquisitor doing that class's job better. Slayer being outclassed by Sanctified Slayer, Hunter being outclassed by the Sacred Huntsmaster (sorta, Hunter has a few niches in the spell list to help it out), and recently Warpriest getting outclassed in general.

I know it's not a super OP class compared to cleric, wizard, that sort of thing but good lords! Just how many classes are being outclassed by this class?!

In a multi-enemy fight the Inquisitor can even outclass the Paladin. Sure the latter has smite, but on how many of the undead mooks are you going to use it on when you still haven't gotten a clue how far you've got to go before you meat the major Bad or his Lieutennant. The Inquisitor can use bane on every single undead/demon/devil in the combat while only calling upon one use.

judgement last for entire combat and the inquisitor has as many uses as the pally has smites. Bane lasts rounds. Judgement is a nice power increase but it really only about as powerful as the pally being full BAB class versus the inquisitor being a 3/4th BAB class.

Liberty's Edge

MechE_ wrote:

I personally like classes that are more versatile than just a fighter or a wizard, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. Many new players enjoy those classes or even *gasp* a rogue! But in my opinion, the Inquisitor has a bit too much packed into it.

** spoiler omitted **

So, considering chain challenge is a thing, and mid-high level cavaliers can challenge nearly everything they fight, do you also have a feat to allow inquisitors to chain their judgements?


Deighton Thrane wrote:
So, considering chain challenge is a thing, and mid-high level cavaliers can challenge nearly everything they fight, do you also have a feat to allow inquisitors to chain their judgements?

Judgement Houserule Derail Reply:
Negative. Our group uses the following source books - CRB, APG, UM, UC, UE, ARG, ACG. So as far as we're concerned, chain challenge isn't a thing. (We have a mix of casual and experience players and limiting source books to only the most commonly used ones has helped to narrow the effectivity gap within the group.) As for Challenge uses, it has not been my experience that Challenge is usable on "nearly everything [Cavaliers] fight", even at mid to high levels. Our group tends to have very few combats with 2 or fewer creatures and tends to go a minimum of 5 or 6 encounters per day.

Stepping on toes to me means it is better than the other class(es) at its job.

Until someone shows some proof this seems to be an exercise in hyperbole.

I don't see one inquisitor build stepping on several toes at once. It might step on one toe with every build, but that just means the chassis of the class is flexible, which is different than one build being able to do everything at once, and making the other class not matter. And that is how I see the argument being presented.


The Inquisitor's perceived superiority over other classes is counterbalanced in his class description - the way he is designed to be roleplayed.

If Players & DM would game him as designed, as a FOCUSED investigator and champion of his faith, his abilities being perceived superior to other general-adventurer PC's are moot.

Whether using a certain base of operations or as a wanderer chasing after enemies of the faith, an Inquisitor would be disinterested at the promise of adventure and wealth for it's own sake. He/she would self-limit their endeavors, projects and quests to those designed to reveal and destroy the enemies of his faith.

Granted, he/she may travel with others and mask their true intentions, but they would not form a bond with a party, as that could compromise their core duties... and such actions (joining a party of "not-like-minded") would never last.

I think Investigators would be MUCH rarer and more balanced a class if DM's and players gamed them the way they were designed to be roleplayed instead of ignoring or just giving a cursory nod to what should be his/her PRIMARY focus.

Scarab Sages

HyperMissingno wrote:
Hunter being outclassed by the Sacred Huntsmaster (sorta, Hunter has a few niches in the spell list to help it out),

I really think Hunter and Sacred Huntmaster are evenly matched. Hunter has early access to Ranger spells and the Druid list, but the inquisitor list has Battlemind Link, quite possibly one of the best buffs for a teamwork feat oriented pair available.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
mardaddy wrote:

The Inquisitor's perceived superiority over other classes is counterbalanced in his class description - the way he is designed to be roleplayed.

If Players & DM would game him as designed, as a FOCUSED investigator and champion of his faith, his abilities being perceived superior to other general-adventurer PC's are moot.

Whether using a certain base of operations or as a wanderer chasing after enemies of the faith, an Inquisitor would be disinterested at the promise of adventure and wealth for it's own sake. He/she would self-limit their endeavors, projects and quests to those designed to reveal and destroy the enemies of his faith.

Granted, he/she may travel with others and mask their true intentions, but they would not form a bond with a party, as that could compromise their core duties... and such actions (joining a party of "not-like-minded") would never last.

I think Investigators would be MUCH rarer and more balanced a class if DM's and players gamed them the way they were designed to be roleplayed instead of ignoring or just giving a cursory nod to what should be his/her PRIMARY focus.

Actually, an inquisitor of Desna would probably have a lot of reason to join up with adventurers, as one of their duties would be to wander about, and make sure that travel is safe for people. And who travels more than adventurers? And why couldn't protecting the adventurers as they travel be her sworn duty? Also, I don't see why forming bonds with able combatants that you could call upon to aid you in your service to your god wouldn't be something that an inquisitor does regularly, even if it means not always being on a mission for the church.

For that matter, it wouldn't make any more sense for a paladin or a cleric to join a group of adventurers, since they too are supposed to be serving their god, but that happens all the time. If anything the inquisitor would be more likely to adventure since they have more leeway to operate however they choose, without direct supervision, or recourse from their church or their god.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
mardaddy wrote:
I think Investigators would be MUCH rarer and more balanced a class if DM's and players gamed them the way they were designed to be roleplayed instead of ignoring or just giving a cursory nod to what should be his/her PRIMARY focus.

This doesn't actually make any sense. An Inquisitor of Pharasma has no reason not to be part of a PC group in an anti-undead campaign. Being part of the group is, definitionally, doing their job.

Ditto Inquisitors of an Good deity you'd care to name in something like Wrath of the Righteous. Or Inquisitors of Erastil in any rural 'bandit and monster hunting' game. Or Inquisitors of Desna or Cayden Cailean in a revolutionary group. Or Inquisitors of Gorum in any game at all (since they just wanna fight). Frankly, Inquisitors of some deity probably have a vested interest in any campaign you'd care to imagine.

And that's ignoring the fact that Inquisitors are people. You think, say, a LG Inquisitor of Erastil is gonna desert, say, their little brother (another PC) while they're in danger? Or other Inquisitors inherently ignore the fact that they have human connections with other PCs?

Being an Inquisitor is a calling, certainly, but it's not any more of one than being a Cleric, and they're certainly allowed to have personal lives and loves, and to go and do things that aren't specifically missions for their God.


@Mardaddy
Don't bring roleplay as a balance measure. We don't need paladin 2.0 considering how well that ended.


Dekalinder wrote:

@Mardaddy

Don't bring roleplay as a balance measure. We don't need paladin 2.0 considering how well that ended.

With an extremely well-balanced, capable martial class that people feel the need to have stupid arguments about?


With hundreds of threads titled "help me challeng my paladin" or "help! the paladin is destroing my campaign" in witch the 2 most common answers are 1) don't let him use his class ability (smite) and 2) shove a stick up his ass so the class becomes balanced


Dekalinder wrote:
With hundreds of threads titled "help me challeng my paladin" or "help! the paladin is destroing my campaign" in witch the 2 most common answers are 1) don't let him use his class ability (smite) and 2) shove a stick up his ass so the class becomes balanced

These threads spring from a couple of things.

1.) Newbie GMs that are still making the classic rookie mistakes like trying to make big solo boss battles, a video game and movie mainstay and the battle the paladin is absolutely at their best at, the only kind of boss battle. This has nothing to do with the paladin and everything to do with the GM not understanding solo bosses are rarely threatening in Pathfinder without being grotesquely overpowered or having additional GM fiat powers to avoid getting nova'd to death by superior action economy.

2.) People that have never played paladins not understanding that you role-play one the same as any other class, you simply have a specific angle you're supposed to respect. These threads are sometimes answered by people who have also never played paladins enforcing an overly narrow view of what the class is and is not allowed to do.

So I'll amend, a perfectly well-balanced and capable class that leads to stupid arguments AND QUESTIONS on the internet from people that don't take the time to grok how the class operates.

You wanna talk about poor class design trying to be clumsily patched with role-play, let me direct you to our friends the core fighter and rogue.


@Deighton, I think that Domain of Travel would make any deity who has that domain the exception.

@Deadmawalking, I think you gave bad examples. A Pharasmin Investigator WOULD be focused on anti-undead, so would definitely join a campaign focused on that with a PC party for that role.

On the other hand, I think what Mardaddy means is a Pharasmin Investigator would not be as interested chasing after a dragon's hoard or clearing a cave of kobolds, or trying to solve a cliffhouse mystery (unless there was some other "seek-out-and-destroy-the-undead" related hook.)

Wrath of the Righteous has a focused goal of defeating a specific evil, exactly what an Investigator of some good-aligned deity would be assigned to jump in by his superiors.


xenlev wrote:
@Deadmawalking, I think you gave bad examples. A Pharasmin Investigator WOULD be focused on anti-undead, so would definitely join a campaign focused on that with a PC party for that role.

@xenlev: Read DMW's post again. No reason NOT to...


Marduddy seems to be trying to shoehorn inquisitors into emotionless robot-like beings. Inquisitors can support their deities and adventure. A reason a Pharasmin inquisitor might go after kobolds is because he could be good aligned, and they may be causing trouble in town. The book does not say inquisitors are only interested in rooting out the enemies of the faith. If for some reason there is a lull in the action, and they are interested in ____ it is not unreasonable as long as it does not go against their deity.

Dark Archive

I agree with Wraithstrike. In addition even though many DM's would make their Inquisitor NPC's Robo-douche 9000's that doesn't mean PC's have to be so one dimensional. Inquisitors are as diverse as real people, and that's why I love the heretic archetype for the class; it really brings home how others in the same faith could think you aren't doing it right and go after you because you aren't the same kind of worshipper as they are.


Dekalinder wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Inquisitor steps on no toes. It is an incredibly well designed class that has the misfortune to be surrounded and succeeded by ones that are less so.
Read: the inquisitor is the optimizer dreams since does everything good enaugh to not having to care about the others. Skills, raw damage, combat shenanigans, healing, spells, buffs, the iquisitor has it all. The only better class are the ones with absurd power shenanigans like infinite clones and free wishes.

"Good enough" isn't really a phrase most would consider very optimizer-esque. Inquisitor can do a large number of things well, but when it comes down to wanting to be the very best like no one ever was at something besides being good but not best at everything, you choose another class. People like being competent in many areas as it means that very rarely find yourself in the position of knowing that you might as well go relax somewhere away from table for an hour because you certainly aren't going to be able to reasonably participate.

Liberty's Edge

xenlev wrote:
@Deadmawalking, I think you gave bad examples. A Pharasmin Investigator WOULD be focused on anti-undead, so would definitely join a campaign focused on that with a PC party for that role.

Yep. That's what I said.

xenlev wrote:
On the other hand, I think what Mardaddy means is a Pharasmin Investigator would not be as interested chasing after a dragon's hoard or clearing a cave of kobolds, or trying to solve a cliffhouse mystery (unless there was some other "seek-out-and-destroy-the-undead" related hook.)

My point was that, while this is true, it limits God choices, not forbids the Class. There are Gods who would be on board with any of those missions, even if Pharasma wouldn't. Just select a deity appropriate to the plot and you're good to go.

Well, and also that an Inquisitor of Pharasma who is, say, married to another of the PCs doesn't need deity based reasons to adventure with said husband, since she has personal ones.

xenlev wrote:
Wrath of the Righteous has a focused goal of defeating a specific evil, exactly what an Investigator of some good-aligned deity would be assigned to jump in by his superiors.

Indeed. Which was sorta my point.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Just how many toes is the Inquisitor stepping on? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.