Hello everyone, I was planning to play a inquisitor for my next campaign.
Here is what I planned :
- Inquisitor of Erastil (LN)
- Human
- Probably monster tactician archetype (with summon nature's ally instead or monster, for RP reason).
- Ranged inquisitor, fight with longbow and use the summons with teamwork feats to control the ennemy.
- Spell selection oriented for out of combat use (investigation, utility, survival, ...) and the must-have buff spell.
- conversion inquisition and max rank in social skill.
- rogue-like and scouting skill.
Not really sure about feats : classic ranged combat feat (point blank, precise shot, rapid shot and many shot are mandatory).
But then I don't know between more advanced combat feat (deadly aim, weapon focus -> snap shot -> improved snapshot, point blank master) OR summons feat (spell focus -> augmente summoning -> superior summoning).
Anyway, I'm here because I finally met the other players and here is our team :
# alchemist with ranged weapon
# paladin (he didn't choose a god yet)
# ranger (he didn't choose a combat style yet)
So, i'm afraid that the ranger and I have the same role in the party. I'm going to try to convince him to not take archery as combat style (I need a good IRL diplomacy check).
But still ... We have a lot of skill and role in common ...
What are your advice about that ? Should I consider another class (but I really like this one ...) ? Should I change my build or we can both play like this without issues ?
PS : I'm probably going to take healing spell, but only for out of combat or emergency.
PS 2 : I'm pretty sure nobody will try to min/max or optimize his character.
Actually it looks like every single character has the same role. You are all strikers, primarily focusing on DPR.
That means you are lacking in battlefield control and support. Both you and the alchemist have classes that could fill either of those roles but you would have to build for it.
I would suggest that the alchemist would probably be better at battlefield control, especially if he takes preservationist. Alchemist bombs can be built to do some very good control things as well, which is why I think he would be better at it than you.
You could focus your character on being party support for the first round or two of combat providing some party buffs, and emergency medic if someone goes down. The other rounds when nothing serious was going on, you could provide additional damage with your bow. The downside of being the support guy, is while an inquisitor can do that role (yeah flexible 6th level casting classes) it will be really hard to be anywhere near as effective as you would be as a bard (for example.)
One thing you might consider, especially if you really like the Monster Tactician Archetype (which is fairly good battlefield control although I don't think there is any way to reduce it from being full round casting time which is problematic) is for everyone to be an Archer.
A preservationist alchemist and monster tactician inquisitor providing a front line before going ranged and a ranger and paladin full attacking with bows every round would be pretty cool, and probably fairly effective.
And both the ranger and the paladin should be able to switch to melee and be effective if needed.
One thing you might consider, especially if you really like the Monster Tactician Archetype (which is fairly good battlefield control although I don't think there is any way to reduce it from being full round casting time which is problematic) is for everyone to be an Archer.
Actually, just like Summoners, the Monster Tactician's Summon Monster class feature is a spell-like ability they can cast as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).
I'd say that summoning is a soft form of control. And with the right options, you can even use summoning to be a decent combat healer/buffer.
I'm curious though, if you are using the Monster Tactician with Nature's Ally instead, what are you choosing with the free Expanded Summon from that archetype?
Actually, just like Summoners, the Monster Tactician's Summon Monster class feature is a spell-like ability they can cast as a standard action, and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level).
One thing you might consider, especially if you really like the Monster Tactician Archetype (which is fairly good battlefield control although I don't think there is any way to reduce it from being full round casting time which is problematic) is for everyone to be an Archer.
Oops, you are right, I missed that. Makes them pretty good at control.
The issue then is that your party lacks someone in the support role since alchemists really can't do any 'group spells'. Although investing as a party in thinks like a wand of haste could help out with that.
|
If you're willing to be flexible with your character I would suggest trying a bard with the Animal Speaker archetype. This will preserve your nature theme, social and investigation abilities, capacity to be an archer, and ability to summon (albeit less effectively) and it will give you more ability to buff, which your party is lacking. You can still roleplay a worshipper of Erastil even if you're not a divine caster.
If you're set on the inquisitor I'm not sure how much can be done, aside from de-emphasizing your scouting/survival skills in favour of knowledge skills the ranger doesn't get (which you could do with the bard anyway). You've built a very ranger-like inquisitor, and aside from weapon choice there's not that much that the ranger can do to modify its role. Maybe take urban ranger to grab trapfinding and switch a Knowledge skill - you can take Nature/Religion while he has Local/Dungeoneering.
It may not decrease your enjoyment of the game too much, though. Monster Tactician is actually a pretty useful archetype in this situation since your summoning ability does give you a unique trick at the cost of some individual combat ability - which means that even if he is an archer, the ranger will be more effective at it. Roleplaying can help distinguish the two characters as well. If you've got strikingly different personalities you'll feel less redundant even if 90% of your functions overlap.
I'm curious though, if you are using the Monster Tactician with Nature's Ally instead, what are you choosing with the free Expanded Summon from that archetype?
I Still need to see that with my DM.
Actually it looks like every single character has the same role. You are all strikers, primarily focusing on DPR.
Yeah I know ... but they don't want to change class (maybe the ranger but I don't know for what class).
For the full ranged team, I can put the idea on the table. The paladin want to use a sword but I think he can do great with a bow with only few feats.
For the group buff I think we should rely on magic item, a wand of Haste for the alchemist is a good start. Thanks !
If you're set on the inquisitor I'm not sure how much can be done, aside from de-emphasizing your scouting/survival skills in favour of knowledge skills the ranger doesn't get (which you could do with the bard anyway). You've built a very ranger-like inquisitor, and aside from weapon choice there's not that much that the ranger can do to modify its role. Maybe take urban ranger to grab trapfinding and switch a Knowledge skill - you can take Nature/Religion while he has Local/Dungeoneering.
Yes, I didn't say it but i'm going to put some rank in knowledge (at least 1 in every knowledge the other player don't take).
I'm not really SET with the inquisitor but I really wanted to try this build, and the ranger and paladin knew my build before they made their choices.
Another point I forgot : Is there a paladin archetype/build where he can be a little stealthy ? (or just don't wear heavy armor ...) Because the other character are pretty good at this and the paladin will be a big issue if we try to be stealthy.
There is a fairly strong archery archetype for paladins, Divine Hunter.
|
|
Divine Hunter would be a shoe-in for a paladin in an archery-themed group, since its team support abilities all improve ranged combat.
It's usually difficult to dabble in archery, since you need two feats to avoid a penalty for shooting into melee. Would be less important if the whole party is at range, but summoned critters could still complicate things. For a paladin it's extra-difficult since their stat setup and armour proficiency encourages a middling Dex. I might suggest Dervish Dance for a paladin who wanted to use a sword and bow, since it would deal with the stat concerns without needing too many feats. The added bonus to being dex-based is a decent Stealth bonus even without investing ranks in the skill.
I'm not really SET with the inquisitor but I really wanted to try this build, and the ranger and paladin knew my build before they made their choices.
I feel you. You want a balanced party but you can't carry that on your own. You don't have to give up the inquisitor if it's important to you. As mentioned above the alchemist can cover a good portion of control and maybe some support if built appropriately, and if you focus on buff spells a bit more you can improve that support. You might reconsider swapping Summon Monster for Summon Nature's Ally - you can still preferentially summon celestial animals, and the ability to also call celestials will increase versatility a bit. Maybe ask your GM if you can add from Nature's Ally instead of the Expanded List - or the reverse and expand a few celestials into your Summon Nature's Ally ability.
Yeah I know ... but they don't want to change class (maybe the ranger but I don't know for what class).
Any idea what, specifically, he's interested in?
You might reconsider swapping Summon Monster for Summon Nature's Ally - you can still preferentially summon celestial animals, and the ability to also call celestials will increase versatility a bit. Maybe ask your GM if you can add from Nature's Ally instead of the Expanded List - or the reverse and expand a few celestials into your Summon Nature's Ally ability.
Keeping Summon Monster (and restrict my use to the celestial beast most of the time) and add beast from SNA instead of the expanded list seems nice, I'm going to try this with my DM.
Any idea what, specifically, he's interested in?
Druid I think but not sure.
Other question : is the feat augment summons really THAT usefull for my build ? Because if i don't take it I can take deadly aim and extended bane.
A ranged striker/party medic might be a good role.
|
|
Druid would be an improvement on ranger, especially if the group doesn't go archery themed. The druid could assist with support and battlefield control and still be an OK backup combatant. He should consider the Nature Fang archetype, which gives access to ranger combat styles, though unfortunately a little later than usual. A one-level dip in fighter or zen archer may be advisable for bow proficiency and a bonus feat.
Other question : is the feat augment summons really THAT usefull for my build ? Because if i don't take it I can take deadly aim and extended bane.
I'd take Augment Summons. Your archetype makes summoning a significant tactic for you. Deadly Aim is not great for 3/4 BAB classes since you may have accuracy problems, especially since you've traded away judgment. Extended Bane is nice, but not as big a deal as the summoning bonus.
I'm digging this thread to give an update. I threw the idea of a full ranged team, and they seems to like it. So now we have :
# gunslinger
# alchemist with ranged weapon
# wizard (the blasting kind, with evocation school)
# me (Monster tactician with ranged weapon)
So I think I need to heal the party, but I'm going to do mostly out of combat heal ...
I'm going to take a backup melee weapon but i'm not going to invest feat or expensive enhancement on it (same with the gunslinger).
What kind of combat tactic would you use with this kind of group ?
I mean the basic rule is to kill them before the they can reach melee range, and try to control and slow them (the wizard and alchemist are really usefull for this + the summoned monsters). But how would you do that exactly ?
And if a fighter/barbarian catch one of us in melee, what are the best tactics ?