The judgement's power is in it's flexibility. All of them progress regardless of which you use. So if you ever need to use a different option it's there. Also being able to change basically every round as needed could have some perks. Mook, more damage, boss more accuracy.
People tend not to value small flexibility and prefer the more impact-full options that you trade it for even if they have worse action economy or are limited to a certain bonus.
Summoner's SLA, Slayer's studied target, or an animal companion and animal focus.
For me it's the limitations on how often I can do it. Smite and challenge are fine on this limited thing, they insta-kill a single, often boss, target. So them being able to nova a few times a day against an enemy is a good feature. The inquisitor's ability to get a small flexible bonus for the entire fight doesn't seem as awesome as the others. Is this the fight I want to use it on? cause if I wait a round that's a round I'm missing the benefit of.
Inquisitor judgement is a great feature. It's flexible and lasts an entire combat. It may not stack up to uber-optimized power-gamers, but that seems more an issue of player expectation than the class.
I was under the impression we were having a discussion about mechanics, not roleplay opportunities. If we're discussing mechanics, then a debate about the merits of the base Inquisitor class versus the archetypes seems appropriate, and shouldn't be dismissed as "power gaming".
OP came here for advice and a lot of us are choosing to focus on OP's opening sentence ^_^. Myself included, initially at least because it just drew that kneejerk reaction out.
Personally, I believe that Archetypes enrich the classes by enabling more builds without having to go into the pre-requisite and PRC frenzy of 3.5.
I use Archetypes just to get rid of undesirable class features and create focus. Whether or not that directly translates to Power is up to the Player based on what he wanted to focus on, and pay in order to acquire.
I agree that I prefer Menhir Savant to vanilla or the other Druid archetypes because it dumps features I did not want.
For Fighter a fun combo would be Ustalavic Duelist stacked with Dervish of Dawn. Both focus the Fighter into a broad jack of all trades burly combatant to a lightly-armored and finesse-based well... duelist which looks like a homebrewer's idea of a Swashbuckler -but with ten bonus feats to further develop -Light Weapon Lowell to make a bad pun. Got rid of generalist class abilities and focused them towards a build.
Any archetypes that would lose the most... for Spellcasters any of the ones that reduce spells per level such as Cross-Blooded for Sorcerer. BLUF a caster needs their spells and to sacrifice quantity for versatility one may as well opt for Wizard. For the ranged side of the house let's take a look at Gunslinger. A Musket Master would end up losing to a Pistolero because that revolver/pistol bunny would just exploit any way to get free action reloads to keep firing at their BAB's limit, and the Musket Master can only apply their archetype features best to a Musket, not an advanced two-hander like a Pepperbox Rifle and the tech weapons. Unless the range was to the Musket Master's preference, the Pistolero is just able to dump more lead downrange, and against Touch AC, that reduced accuracy down the chain really amounts to squat except additional chances to roll a misfire and even that can be mitigated.
It's really all subjective unless OP is specifically asking for DPS/PVP Olympics advice. What does my character want to do, and how focused do I want to be are the questions I ask myself when I build a character. Sometimes I can get high power and versatility, other times I have to compromise.
Inquisitor judgement is a great feature. It's flexible and lasts an entire combat. It may not stack up to uber-optimized power-gamers, but that seems more an issue of player expectation than the class.I was under the impression we were having a discussion about mechanics, not roleplay opportunities. If we're discussing mechanics, then a debate about the merits of the base Inquisitor class versus the archetypes seems appropriate, and shouldn't be dismissed as "power gaming".Nothing in the original statement even hinted abut roleplay.
It's a matter of preferring versatility or straight power. For people building with a goal to do one thing well, versatility isn't usually the word used.
You are correct it's a discussion of mechanics. But wanting two different things doesn't make it suddenly "a roleplaying choice"
You're absolutely right, it's just that many people throw around the term "power gamer" as an insult against those they don't believe do enough roleplaying. As this is a discussion about mechanics, I didn't think that term was appropriate for use, that's all I meant.
I'd question how useful an ability is that's only useful against a single target, in a game where the action economy means that a single target usually dies before getting to do much.
...Disagree. The hunter has a much better spell list to play with than the inquisitor, the inquisitor doesn't gain bonus tricks for their AC, have less teamwork feats than the hunter, and slower access to Animal Focus and Raise Animal Companion.
Granted the Inquisitor is more powerful individually with bane, but the Hunter's companion is more powerful and they have better ways to buff it.
They are about equal in overall power, and which one is "better" is really just a matter of personal taste.
Except the Sacred Huntsmaster can by RAW select feather subdomain to advance the animal companion at double speed (the feature specifies it stacks levels if you get an animal companion from a different source, class feature and domain ability must surely be different sources?).
Note that RAI is probably that you use the rules for animal companion + animal domain specified with the Divine Hunter archetype (Hunter), but they didn't change the Sacred Huntsmaster in the errata so I guess it is legit.
And he can get a mount* in addition to his AC, as long as his AC is something that he could not take as a mount.
It has been ruled that AC levels only stack if the type of AC you have is on both lists.*via the chivalry inquisition
I'd question how useful an ability is that's only useful against a single target, in a game where the action economy means that a single target usually dies before getting to do much.
I guess Smite Evil just sucks then
I'd question how useful an ability is that's only useful against a single target, in a game where the action economy means that a single target usually dies before getting to do much.I guess Smite Evil just sucks then
No. But consider what percentage of your damage in a given adventuring day is attributable to smite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spike damage and Nova'ing are very useful situationally. When something needs to die fast then Smite is amazing, even if that's only a small fraction of the overall damage done in the adventure. You can often afford to cruise through filler encounters and save the big guns for a "Boss Fight" - Smite is the big guns.
The point is that smite is situational. I'd really say judgement is better at low level since its duration means it is useful in any big fight, while smite is only useful in a big fight with a boss, meaning that it is more likely to get hoarded and wasted in a given adventuring day. As uses increase, smite becomes better, but now you will tend to burn it on fights where it was hardly needed. Meanwhile, as uses of judgement increase, you are likely to use them all, as most adventuring days don't have much more than 4 battles anyway.
You can't have an effective druid level higher than your character level for an animal companion. The Sacred Huntmaster with animal domain doesn't work.
For PFS, it's CL+1, else the Huntmaster feat from ARG would be worthless.
The point is that smite is situational. I'd really say judgement is better at low level since its duration means it is useful in any big fight, while smite is only useful in a big fight with a boss, meaning that it is more likely to get hoarded and wasted in a given adventuring day. As uses increase, smite becomes better, but now you will tend to burn it on fights where it was hardly needed. Meanwhile, as uses of judgement increase, you are likely to use them all, as most adventuring days don't have much more than 4 battles anyway.
Boils down to personal preference I guess. For my part, I don't feel I get any benefit from judgement so I hardly ever use it. Otoh, Smite turns the paladin in our party into an absolute holy terror, particularly against the boss in the fight.
I feel judgement would be a much better power if it was rounds/day like Bane is. Gives the player much more control over its application in combat.
For the Inquisitor, Sanctified Slayer and Sacred Huntsmaster are both clear wins over the base class. Mostly because Judgement is an absolute turd and both of those archetypes replace Judgement with something that doesn't suck.
Judgements are AWSOME! I don't know how you came to this conclusion, but I must say respectfully that you are way off base.
I do feel like Judgement isn't useable enough times a day for my taste. Sanctified Slayer 100% of the time for me, along with Preacher most of the time.
Limited number of combats per day for a relatively minor enhancement makes Judgments mediocre at best. I don't know if I'd call them a "turd," but I definitely wouldn't call them "awesome," either. Some like the "flexibility" they allow, but I'd prefer the Sanctified Slayer's ability that can be used outside of combat, too, rather than the in-combat-only Judgment ability.
It would of course vary from game to game, but just 2 uses per day is enough to be available for probably half of the "meaningful" combats you are going to have in a given adventuring day.
I do believe the out of combat usefulness is probably the best part of Studied Target. Its main downside is that it requires an action to activate for every target. Comparatively, Judgement can go up at the beginning of a combat and no matter how many foes you face, it stays up.
After 7th level, it's a Swift Action or Move Action, and Inquisitor isn't starved for Swift Actions the way a class like Warpriest is.Limited number of combats per day for a relatively minor enhancement makes Judgments mediocre at best. I don't know if I'd call them a "turd," but I definitely wouldn't call them "awesome," either. Some like the "flexibility" they allow, but I'd prefer the Sanctified Slayer's ability that can be used outside of combat, too, rather than the in-combat-only Judgment ability.It would of course vary from game to game, but just 2 uses per day is enough to be available for probably half of the "meaningful" combats you are going to have in a given adventuring day.
I do believe the out of combat usefulness is probably the best part of Studied Target. Its main downside is that it requires an action to activate for every target. Comparatively, Judgement can go up at the beginning of a combat and no matter how many foes you face, it stays up.
Yep, at that point you've traded the swift you'd have used for judgement for the swift for studied. You use a swift for bane, and when you kill one it's just a swift for the other assuming it's not a different creature type.
Personally I don't feel that studied combat is clearly better than judgement. I think the summons or the animal companion are though.
