What do you want out of an Inquisitor in 2E?

[RiverMesa]

Yeah, inquisitors don't strike me as the kind that would be dishing out regular divine spells (particularly with the divine list in PF2 being sorta lacking in the offense department...or in general, if some convos are to be believed), but a splash of divine focus spells tailored to their concept seems just right.

For names, I'm a fan of Confessor (not least due to Elden Ring), Avenger (not least due to 4e) or even Intercessor.

[Temperans]

So as someone that actually liked teamwork feats but who never played in a game that could make use of then (outside of Summoner), I do think teamwork feats are a significant part of what makes inquisitors work. It might not be the largest part, but its definitely a significant one.

Now why do I say this? While most people envision historical inquisitors as lone wolfs going to random towns to kill things. Most of them worked in groups inside of cities sentencing mostly to penance (there was a lot of killing still). Their nature was to work together to root out evil, but go in solo if they had to, hence the solo tactics mechanic.

Having said that, I dislike the idea of forcing a bunch of different subclasses when the inquisitor should be a very straight forward class. At worst the subclasses should determine what their focus is: Skill, Teamwork, Combat. Trying to do more would more likely than not cause problems by diluting the available pool of feats.

So what do I see as the key features? Martial weapons is a non-starter, an inquisitor that cannot fight is useless. Wave casting has too few spells, so free archetype-style casting: What is important is getting more utility not stronger spells. Judgement would be the main mechanics, which is honestly an even better fit for panache-style buff than even panache, if you ignore the limited uses.

Judgement I envision it working something like this: You get a use of Judgement equal to 1+ your spellcasting proficiency (Min 3, max 7). You pick from a handful of passive effects, and it lasts until end of turn. The paths could then work like rage powers giving different effects based on what path you picked.

[Rysky]

Historical inquisitors just harassed and tortured people.

Pathfinder Inquisitor is a supernatural skilled agent for their Deity. Their focus and belief is their main thing thematically, in Pathfinder terms their’s was Paladin Rogue more or less, they were tactical with many options for tackling problems, teamwork feats just felt tacked on. You can be tactical with them absolutely, but their inclusion or exclusion doesn’t radically alter the Inquisitor. Bane, judgements, litanies, and the various bonus to skills like knowledge and stealth and Sense motive and intimidation is why people played Inquisitor.

Also being a church Assassin/Investigator.

So yeah, teamwork feats have no weight or permeance.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

To further that, regardless whether 2e inquisitors get something resembling Solo Tactics, I don't think it should be specific to them. The cunning monster hunter who can use their allies' positioning to their advantage in a fight is a character type too useful and diverse to be exclusive to the class for divinely powered slayers and assassins. If any, I would expect the Ranger to be the poster child of solo tactics, but I feel like it could be just as useful as an archetype, possibly with class paths or feat options in certain classes to allow easy access to the more thematically fitting classes.

Of course, this is predicated on some manner of teamwork feat suite being written in the first place, whether with required team investment or exclusively in the form of solo fears designed around exploiting tactical opportunities set up by your allies.

[Temperans]

If you see then as a solo assassin class sure teamwork doesn't work. If you see them as a teamwork class that can benefit even with an untrained ally then the teamwork aspect does work. Both are valid opinions.

Regarding the rest, yeah won't deny the "paladin rogue" similarity. I am pretty sure they had an archetype that got smite. But that doesn't dismiss the teamwork aspect of the class. Not any more than the complaints about Rangers having magic or favored terrain/enemy being tacked on.

[NECR0G1ANT]

I always thought of 1E inquistors as selfish bards (from a gameplay perspective) for their class skills and emphasis on buffing.

I never like the name "Avenger" from 4E because it was generic, and now we have the MCU. I'd stay away from the term altigether.

[Rysky]

The issue with having a specific class having a “teamwork aspect” is… this is a teamwork based game.

“I’m made to work in a group!” You don’t say?

Party buffs and tactics are great, don’t need teamwork feats for that.

It be like making a Paladin and instead of focusing on their holy and smiting abilities they made the whole class about heavy armor instead… wait…

[Claxon]

Teamwork feats in 1st edition were one of the smallest least cared about facets of the Inquisitor in 1st edition (in my opinion). It was nice when you could occasionally get some mileage out of them, which was easier when you had groups of larger than 4, but my experience of a 4 man party with a cleric/wizard/rogue/Inquisitor set up meant there wasn't really much to use to the teamwork feats because there simply wasn't enough team.

Honestly, teamwork feats could be completely removed (or should I say never come to exist) from PF2 with no real detriment IMO.

[xNellynelx]

Claxon wrote:

Teamwork feats in 1st edition were one of the smallest least cared about facets of the Inquisitor in 1st edition (in my opinion). It was nice when you could occasionally get some mileage out of them, which was easier when you had groups of larger than 4, but my experience of a 4 man party with a cleric/wizard/rogue/Inquisitor set up meant there wasn't really much to use to the teamwork feats because there simply wasn't enough team.

Honestly, teamwork feats could be completely removed (or should I say never come to exist) from PF2 with no real detriment IMO.

The Sniping Duo archetype sort of has Teamwork feats, but done in a way I like alot. You designate a teammate (a spotter in this case). The feats provide benefits to you and your spotter, and the spotter doesn't need to spend any feats of their own to grant/gain the effects.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

xNellynelx wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Teamwork feats in 1st edition were one of the smallest least cared about facets of the Inquisitor in 1st edition (in my opinion). It was nice when you could occasionally get some mileage out of them, which was easier when you had groups of larger than 4, but my experience of a 4 man party with a cleric/wizard/rogue/Inquisitor set up meant there wasn't really much to use to the teamwork feats because there simply wasn't enough team.

Honestly, teamwork feats could be completely removed (or should I say never come to exist) from PF2 with no real detriment IMO.

The Sniping Duo archetype sort of has Teamwork feats, but done in a way I like alot. You designate a teammate (a spotter in this case). The feats provide benefits to you and your spotter, and the spotter doesn't need to spend any feats of their own to grant/gain the effects.

Right, I did just see Deadly d8's video on the sniping duo last week, I should have remembered that we already have a cool and interesting example of a teamwork-like set of feats, albeit ones specific to a certain style... Would be pretty cool to see an inquisitor take advantage of that archetype in a character concept somehow...

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think Teamwork is more appropriate for things like feats associated with organizations, because I don't think it fits in super well with a specific class. Like, a phalanx is using teamwork, but they aren't necessarily Divine Gishes-- but something like the Shield Wall feat that Luis showed from Knights of Lastwall, that's accessible to Fighters and Champions, makes a lot more sense in that regard, or to have archetypes based around it, which is how the Sniping Duo works right now.

[Temperans]

As long as the inquisitor has easy access to teamwork feats and able to use them for personal gain I am fine with it. Even if it's not a major focus of the class.

Also yes Sniping Duo and the Last Wall feats are very much teamwork feats already. So adding more feats but just for inquisitor would work just fine.

[Claxon]

Temperans wrote:

As long as the inquisitor has easy access to teamwork feats and able to use them for personal gain I am fine with it. Even if it's not a major focus of the class.

Also yes Sniping Duo and the Last Wall feats are very much teamwork feats already. So adding more feats but just for inquisitor would work just fine.

What constitutes easy access?

What if "Teamwork" feats are just feats anyone can take? Much like they were in PF1? In which case they weren't worth the paper they were printed on unless you had an ability to let you use them without someone else having the feat (Inquisitor) or if you could grant use of the feat to people on a temporary basis.

I think the way Teamwork feats work on the Inquisitor in PF1 isn't worth bringing into PF2.

I do think an archetype focused on teamwork feats that anyone could enter wouldn't be bad. Shit, maybe just add additional feats to the Marshal. To be honest, with the Marshal I'm not even sure Teamwork feats deserve to make a comeback.

[AnimatedPaper]

Since it seems to be a popular topic at the moment, and as this one is a bit under 6 months, old, I'm going to necro it.

There's also another thread with on the same topic.

For me, I stand by my first comment:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Honestly I just want a class archetype for the thaumaturge. Give them only 1 implement, chosen according to their deity, and then wave casting to make up for the other two implements, and I’d be fairly satisfied.

Although I'd probably want two implements now. But the designers can balance that out.

I've also said you might be able to get there with an investigator methodology, and I do want that too, but I think now Thaums will get you closer. Probably only going to be a pathfinder infinite product now though.

Further, I kind of don't see a narrative space for the inquisitor at the moment. Mechanical, sure, a proper divine offensive martial is lacking, but narratively I think a lot of "agent empowered by your deity to solve problems and occasionally use a big stick" could be handled by a smite focused warpriest and divine Thaums. And while I asked for a C. Archetype, that's not really needed; esoterica can be reflavored to be sacred items that specifically inflict a weakness to your deity's (and thus your) attacks.

But that just means we need a bigger (or smaller, more focused) narrative space to build a class around. What might that look like?

[S. J. Digriz]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

I've always noticed that the Inquisitor has been highly requested, but never understood exactly why. The class is a variety of discrete mechanics playing to a specific theme, but never had a cohesive mechanical identity nor a single defining feature like the Magus's Spellstrike. In addition, its flavor is often hard to distinguish from the 1E Warpriest or "X but Cleric Archetype" (substitute Ranger/Rogue/Fighter/Investigator/Thaumaturge).

With that in mind, what specifics do you want out of Inquisitor in 2E? Full class with new, revamped mechanics? Focused archetype? Class hybridized with 1E Warpriest mechanics?

I think that the Thaumaturge is good for a monster hunter class. There should be a cleric doctrine of inquisition, that has the spell/attack progression of the warpriest, provides light armor proficiency, and focuses on perception and skills. So, instead of being a cleric with an investigator/rogue/thaumaturge background, you could be a cleric with the inquisition doctrine if you wanted.

Really two cleric doctrines is kind of sad. There are all sorts of rogue rackets, sorcerer bloodlines, druid orders, etc. But only 2 cleric doctrines.

Other cleric doctrines could include evangelist, and secret cultist.

[Captain Morgan]

S. J. Digriz wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

I've always noticed that the Inquisitor has been highly requested, but never understood exactly why. The class is a variety of discrete mechanics playing to a specific theme, but never had a cohesive mechanical identity nor a single defining feature like the Magus's Spellstrike. In addition, its flavor is often hard to distinguish from the 1E Warpriest or "X but Cleric Archetype" (substitute Ranger/Rogue/Fighter/Investigator/Thaumaturge).

With that in mind, what specifics do you want out of Inquisitor in 2E? Full class with new, revamped mechanics? Focused archetype? Class hybridized with 1E Warpriest mechanics?

I think that the Thaumaturge is good for a monster hunter class. There should be a cleric doctrine of inquisition, that has the spell/attack progression of the warpriest, provides light armor proficiency, and focuses on perception and skills. So, instead of being a cleric with an investigator/rogue/thaumaturge background, you could be a cleric with the inquisition doctrine if you wanted.

Really two cleric doctrines is kind of sad. There are all sorts of rogue rackets, sorcerer bloodlines, druid orders, etc. But only 2 cleric doctrines.

Other cleric doctrines could include evangelist, and secret cultist.

That is because doctrines aren't subclass equivalents to anything like you listed. Detieies are.

[Temperans]

Inquisitor is nothing like a Thaumaturge outside the monster knowledge and bonus damage.

I really do not think that class would fit as just an archetype of Thaumaturge, specially given how Inquisitor is supposed to have access to spells and a bunch of other abilities that a Thaumaturge wouldn't have.

Simultaneously I think that making it a cleric doctrine wouldn't work but kind of for the opposite reason. Inquisitor is supposed to be a martial class with just some access to spells. In order for Inquisitor to work you would have to completely rewrite the cleric class and feats to the point it would be easier to just create a new class.

As for what would I want from an Inquisitor: Stances that act as self buffs, Deity based semi-exclusive abilities (domains but tailor made for inquisitor), a variety of ways to use teamwork to work with alies or alone, a variety of ways to go full on secret service/agent. To me an inquisitor is the ultimate spy with a literal deity given license to kill.

*******************

I would thing the best book for an Inquisitor is a book based around teamwork feats and abilities, as well as a book based on secret organizations.

[AnimatedPaper]

Temperans wrote:

Inquisitor is nothing like a Thaumaturge outside the monster knowledge and bonus damage.

I really do not think that class would fit as just an archetype of Thaumaturge, specially given how Inquisitor is supposed to have access to spells and a bunch of other abilities that a Thaumaturge wouldn't have.

And access to multiple spell traditions at full strength (via scrolls), and the correct martial proficiencies, and a decent amount of skills, and several of the other judgements Inquisitors had.

Can’t get all of that on 1 character, which is why I suggest a class archetype, but there is a bit more to the Thaum than just a damage buff.

[Temperans]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Inquisitor is nothing like a Thaumaturge outside the monster knowledge and bonus damage.

I really do not think that class would fit as just an archetype of Thaumaturge, specially given how Inquisitor is supposed to have access to spells and a bunch of other abilities that a Thaumaturge wouldn't have.

And access to multiple spell traditions at full strength (via scrolls), and the correct martial proficiencies, and a decent amount of skills, and several of the other judgements Inquisitors had.

Can’t get all of that on 1 character, which is why I suggest a class archetype, but there is a bit more to the Thaum than just a damage buff.

Inquisitors don't need access to multiple traditions and if needed you can always just make a class archetype for it.

The correct martial proficiences are the easiest part as you could do Master in martial and spells. There are already multiple classes that do it, they even have 4 different options for how many spells they can get: Full, Wave (be grudgingly), 2/3, and Focus.

Judgement are literally just stances, which almost every class has access to some type of stance or pseudo stance.

Skills is the only questionable part, but Inquisitors aren't the best at skills. They are just really good at a handful of select skills. Just like Investigator is good at knowledge and Alchemist good at alchemy.

[AnimatedPaper]

I think you have a very different idea in mind than many when you’re taking about the class, so… what did you have in mind?

You mention teamwork abilities, is that your primary draw? Because I’ll certainly concede that is not as Thaum strength (though not a wholly neglected niche). If not that, what is primary?

Perhaps more central to the way the designers approach classes, what characters would be narratively enabled by an inquisitor that are not currently enabled (this is still my question to everyone)?

For instance, for me, the skills are pretty important. Otherwise I could okay most “inquisitor” characters I’d want with a smite focused warpreist. Some variation of damage types would no go amiss, but narratively “agent of a deity” that most people seek is squarely cleric territory for me, even if they mechanically lack martial proficiencies. Partly why I favored “agent of the church” pitch instead, but other posts have made me second guess that idea.

[Temperans]

Like I said I see Inquisitor as more of an operative than even the Rogue. Rogue is in general a sneaky skill focus character that focuses on underhanded attacks. An Inquisitor in general in your face and/or hiding in plain sight (disguises) doing targetted action for their organization.

They are great at teamwork with other inquisitors and teamwork characters, but can do use the same tricks by themselves in pinch.

Their devotion for their god grants them access to unique inquisitions (based on the deity) ranging from: moving better, kill enemies efficiently, heal the faithful, gather information, etc.

Their judgements and spells being a direct connection to their deity. Granting them stances that buff their ability to deal with enemies (defense and offensive buffs), and access to some basic spells (more than a champion less than a cleric).

[keftiu]

I don't currently feel as though PF2 can represent what I want out of an Inquisitor with the options available to me. That's why I argue for it as a full class.

The closest thing I could build right now is a Ranger with the Multiclass Archetype for either Champion or Magus, but both options are pretty imperfect, and don't really come online in any notable way before Level 6 at the earliest. Trying to make Warpriest Cleric work, completely reflavoring the Thaumaturge, or just roleplaying a devout Rogue or Investigator is not scratching the itch.

My vision of the Inquisitor is an offense-focused class that plays right alongside the martials of the group, and functionally is one - full casting is not something I personally want or need, and I would be content with a wave caster or even less. Access to Domain focus spells feels important; access to the Deity-granted spells would be a lot of fun.

The meat of the class, however, should either come from a target-designating ability (akin to Hunt Prey) or the ability to smite with big, meaty hits of some sort (like how Spellstrikes work, but the Divine spell list doesn't play nice with them, so I don't expect the mechanic to come over), to sell the idea of playing as a holy weapon and a devoted avenger.

Teamwork Feats have gone the way of the dodo, and never felt essential to the class fantasy in my eyes. I also don't need as much focus on monster hunting as the 1e class did; a handful of Feats that gesture in that direction would be nice, as would some stuff for favored foes like Champion Oaths get, but it's not the heart of the Inquisitor to me. I have no interest in bending the rules of Alignment or the decrees of my faith - an Inquisitor should be as true as any Cleric.

What matters to me is the feeling of being an agent of my god, something the Alignment-fixated Champion fails to deliver and that the support-focused full caster of the Cleric doesn't deliver for many character concepts and deities. Cast the 2e Inquisitor (or Arbiter, or Intercessor, or what have you) as the divine troubleshooter - a hitter when your god needs one, but just as often an emissary, detective, or spy.

When the gods need a healer or mage, they send a Cleric. When they need a symbol or a shield, they send a Champion. But when they need a threat destroyed, a mystery solved, or a person convinced? That's where the Inquisitor steps in.

[PossibleCabbage]

I want to be able to play an Inquisitor who is not called "Inquisitor".

I want to be able to play an "Inquisitor" who has no patron deity whatsoever. The number of classes unavailable to animists, or people who worship their ancestors, or people in shamanic traditions, etc. is already too high. Gods generally aren't that interventionist anyway.

I want to make it clear that the Inquisitor is an independent problem solver who does not have special authority from divine or terrestrial organizations.

In the way that the Champion can be seen as "Cleric/Fighter" I would like to see "Oracle/Rogue".

[keftiu]

To be more succinct: I want to play a character defined by their faith without being a knight in heavy armor or a support mage. There's a mountain of concepts for the faithful that don't neatly slot into either of those categories.

[Captain Morgan]

I'm definitely feeling like the ultimate expression of your God's edicts is more interesting than trying to fill a particular role within your church. At least if this is a full class and not an archetype.

I'm also feeling like Divine spell slots are a bad idea. The spell list just doesn't give the right tools for damage dealing or skullduggery. And if you want to have both skills and martial weapon progression, spell slots eat up too much class budget. If anything, they could maybe have a feat that gives them once per day castings of their diety's granted spells.

Giving them free skill increases in the diety favored skill, and maybe Religion as well, might be nice. Weapons would be tricky. Favored weapons seem like such a given for the concept, but would be hard to balance a martial class around. Deadly Simplicity would help but you'd need more than that to make a crossbow work.

You'd almost certainly need to drop the class to 8 HP a level if you're going to fit out of combat utility and a strike enhancer onto the same class.

[Squiggit]

Yeah I'd assume 8 HP, that practically seems to be Paizo's new standard for classes anyways.

[Temperans]

I think that "ultimate expression of your deity" should be expressed through the Evangelist, Sentinel (probably going to need a rebrand), and Exalted prestige classes. Classes in my opinion should be more generic and with much broader scope than archetypes, focusing on some specific play pattern.

Divine slots can work if it's just low-level stuff. Spells that you use for self-buffs and utility not power. This means you can keep low mastery spell (since DC is less important), it would make Inquisitor pull double duty by making replicate both PF1 Warpriest and Inquisitor. Also yeah, they should get domain spells as normal, although Inquisitions should be purely martial pseudo magical (like Gunslinger and Inventor).

Agreed with the skill things, as for favored weapon obviously they should get free proficiency, I see no issue with a martial class getting free proficiency in a single weapon (although maybe advanced weapons are an issue). Deadly simplicity would 100% work, although if the new class is to pull double duty a full-on damage dice replace might make sense: I will admit this is debatable.

I see no issue with 8 HP, that is in fact exactly how much HP they used to get anyway.

[keftiu]

I love the idea of them getting Deity-granted spells, potentially as their only non-Focus spellcasting, but it would be tough to balance how irregular they are.

[AnimatedPaper]

Pulling this from a different thread.

graystone wrote:

I think 'champions of domains' makes more sense. So instead of a specific champion of nethys, pick one of the domains [Destruction, Glyph, Knowledge, Magic, Protection] so if you worship nethys you might be a destruction champion or a magic champion. Or a turnip god for a toil champion or a nature or earth one. To me it makes more sense to focus on a particular aspect of a god.

THIS is the kind of thing I meant when I asked for narrative roles. Because, bottom line, Clerics and Champions are their deity's agents on Golarian, and Thaums and Rangers have monster hunter down pat, but someone that advocates for a domain, possibly over and above an individual god that provides that domain (or has no god at all), that I could see needing a new class to enable.

Sorry, the rest of this post is going to be brainstorming as I try to imagine what this kind of class might look like.

Spoiler:

Let's see. Empowered by a single facet of divine magic, Advocates are less concerned with the whims of an individual deity than they are of the major aspects of life and the world that the deity represents. As they are less bound to their deities than a cleric or champion, with many Advocates having no patron deity at all, Advocates are often able to more directly address mortal concerns that relate to their sphere of interest. And, if necessary, Advocates are able to use words, actions, and arms to fight to promote that interest.

Or something along those lines.

Thinking: Martial proficiency, with the skilled martial chassis (d8, 6 skills, legendary perception). Physical key ability score. No better than medium armor, and more likely light armor. Spontaneous divine bound casting feels right to me, but honestly it could go either way.

Main subclass is their focus domain, all of which will need to be expanded slightly. You chose one domain at 1st, and you get the domain initiate or acumen feat. You'd also get a skill, bonus skill feats every 4th level that have to be picked from that skill's pool, and a bonus cantrip. At 7th level, you'd also get a bonus signature spell (or 2) according to your chosen domain; these need not be restricted to the divine list.

Not sure what other abilities they'd get; probably something knowledge or investigative related. Free skill bumps perhaps. Class feats would be general fighting feats, but also at least 3 for each skill that requires having a domain that grants that skill, or legendary in that skill. Ideally, these would all be group and team related. Not simply allowing the party to get improved rolls on their checks (that's far too easy), but unique reactions and in combat actions that your entire party can employ as long as you are there providing it.

-
Kind of rough as this is all off the top of my head, but I could see how this class could encompass a Creation focused Advocate that honors Casandalee, a Healing advocate sworn to the Laws of Mortality, an animist that is more concerned with Nature (turnips specifically) than any church, and even the more traditional Tyrannical Inquisitor of Asmodeus.

[Zabraxis]

I definitely want a skilled agent of a deity feel to the class and one of the social skills (whichever their subclass leans towards) covered w/o reliance on charisma. Martial & spell proficiency equal to a magus but I keep waffling on Wis KAS or Str/Dex by subclass. Combat-wise, they don't have to be DPS machines but should be respectable.

We've seen a few "roll for damage boost" classes maybe it's time to explore another "roll for accuracy" class on a non attack stat KAS class. Consistent damage per target rather than the investigators 1/rnd d6 burst w/ limited weapons. Call it Divine Focus or Guided Hand or some such.

I lean towards wave casting with the magus' Studious Spells mechanic. Initially I thought of limiting it to the deities cleric spells too but agree those can vary greatly both in number and usefulness. I think it might be better to have a fixed selection, perhaps based on the subclass selection (Spy: Disguise Self, Enforcer: Blistering Invective etc.)

Judgements might be class cantrips or a focus spell w/ a choose your own buff list w/ progressive class feats to expand their use . I do like the idea of class specific stances but worry how watered down they might have to be to prevent cherry-picking w/ inquisitor dedication.

For the skilled aspect, I was thinking a variation of the swashbuckler's Stylish Tricks with auto scaling based on the deities divine skill or religion (instead of acrobatics) though it might not work well for some deities. It's fewer skill feats than a rogue so it doesn't step on toes.

Same disclaimer as AnimatedPaper. Just a rough wishlist of things for the class.

[Temperans]

I see no issue with other classes being able to use judgement stance given that any class can use rage, any class can use monk stances, any class can use fighter stances, etc.

Judgement definitely do not fit as focus spells. Given how they would be going from X per day to 1/combat I already suspect they would get powered down any way. But I don't know, just seems like what they would do given Panache and stances in general are exactly what Judgements were.

[HumbleGamer]

Temperans wrote:

I see no issue with other classes being able to use judgement stance given that any class can use rage, any class can use monk stances, any class can use fighter stances, etc.

Judgement definitely do not fit as focus spells. Given how they would be going from X per day to 1/combat I already suspect they would get powered down any way.

There can be either judgements from focus spells, combat feats and spells.

That's the reason why, imo, a divine magus may cover for it in a proper way:

- spellstrike divine lance.
- spellstrike divine damage spell from spell slot.
- spellstrike focus spell from a domain ( the character would eventually mc in order to take a specific domain from their deity, if they want one) or from an archetype/dedication not God related.

Eventually, they may errata, at some point, and give the psychic refocus x2 to all classes since lvl 1.

Arcane cascade may be tweaked by the hybrid study, allowing the magus to do alignment damage.

[nick1wasd]

As far as popular media goes, I think the most iconic Inquisitor that comes to mind is Alexander Anderson from Hellsing. He has one job, and one job only... KILL THE PROTE-I MEAN VAMPIRE-N$#!S SO HARD THEY STAY DEAD THIS TIME! Knives for days? Knives for days. Can skulk in the shadows, but prefers not to, decked out in blessed equipment he's practically radioactive, and can quote scripture from memory like a lexicon (and doing so gives him supermode).

There's also Leliana from Dragon Age, she's sorta the more covert member of the church compared to Cassandra Pentaghast, so I guess she fits the bill as well.

[Karmagator]

nick1wasd wrote:

As far as popular media goes, I think the most iconic Inquisitor that comes to mind is Alexander Anderson from Hellsing. He has one job, and one job only... KILL THE PROTE-I MEAN VAMPIRE-N$#!S SO HARD THEY STAY DEAD THIS TIME! Knives for days? Knives for days. Can skulk in the shadows, but prefers not to, decked out in blessed equipment he's practically radioactive, and can quote scripture from memory like a lexicon (and doing so gives him supermode).

There's also Leliana from Dragon Age, she's sorta the more covert member of the church compared to Cassandra Pentaghast, so I guess she fits the bill as well.

I'd definitely take spawning infinite weird bayonets from nowhere and teleporting via holy book ^^.

And, ironically, in contrast to the usual 40k silliness, the Eisenhorn novels are a very good look at what an inquisitor could be like.

[richienvh]

For me, I'd want a mix between 4e's Avenger and PF1's Inquisitor.

I know that NPCs are never indicative of how Paizo intends to do things, but someone on reddit pointed me to this NPC in SoT that was an Inquisitor of Wakena.

Took a look at the sheet (the NPC is named Worknesh). It had a one-action judgement, a few intimidation abilities and one of them gave bonuses to their allies. Also noted that their judgement and abilities seemed to be centered around their deity, which was... interesting. The class would be huge if that were the case, though.

[NECR0G1ANT]

PF1's inquisitor was more of a Van Helsing-style monster hunter. The thaumaturge got that niche, and unless the 2e version of the inquisitor is a class archetype for thaumauturge or ranger, I don't think they'll be monster hunters anymore.

I would prefer that inquisitors are more heavy on the skill-and-martial side of things and less on the magic. Think swashbuckler or champion rather than magus.

[Zabraxis]

Temperans wrote:

I see no issue with other classes being able to use judgement stance given that any class can use rage, any class can use monk stances, any class can use fighter stances, etc.

Judgement definitely do not fit as focus spells. Given how they would be going from X per day to 1/combat I already suspect they would get powered down any way. But I don't know, just seems like what they would do given Panache and stances in general are exactly what Judgements were.

I'm definitely in favor of judgement being a stance after remembering magus' Arcane Cascade isn't available via magus dedication.

[keftiu]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

PF1's inquisitor was more of a Van Helsing-style monster hunter. The thaumaturge got that niche, and unless the 2e version of the inquisitor is a class archetype for thaumauturge or ranger, I don't think they'll be monster hunters anymore.

I would prefer that inquisitors are more heavy on the skill-and-martial side of things and less on the magic. Think swashbuckler or champion rather than magus.

The only bit of magic I personally *need* on an Inquisitor is some way to make my weapon hit harder. The utility from some Domain or other spells is nice, but not enough to neuter the rest of the class out of power budget considerations.

[Captain Morgan]

richienvh wrote:

For me, I'd want a mix between 4e's Avenger and PF1's Inquisitor.

I know that NPCs are never indicative of how Paizo intends to do things, but someone on reddit pointed me to this NPC in SoT that was an Inquisitor of Wakena.

Took a look at the sheet (the NPC is named Worknesh). It had a one-action judgement, a few intimidation abilities and one of them gave bonuses to their allies. Also noted that their judgement and abilities seemed to be centered around their deity, which was... interesting. The class would be huge if that were the case, though.

Lol that's just a Ranger reskinned with some spell slots slapped on. Judgement is Hunt Prey with the Hunter's Edge replaced by a combination of PF1 judements, Fury is Twin Takedown, and War Master's Instinct is just Master Monster Hunter. And it looks like the Battle Cry skill feat and either Bard or Marshall archetype.

You can build something really close as a PC, though multiclass slots won't be quite as generous. You could make this into a class pretty easily with some slight budget adjustments, but I question why you'd bother. It is cool, and a faithful recreation of the PF1 Inquisitor but it just makes me think should do something more original instead. You barely need an archetype for this.

[Temperans]

Reading the stat sheet of Worknesh, yeah you can clearly see how they are kind of using Ranger as base.

But I do not really consider that a true recreation of Inquisitor. A pretty good recreation for what you can do at the moment with PF2 if you spend all your feats.

But it lacks a lot of what people like about Inquisitor: Flexible Judgement, domains, martial options (not just flurry), etc.

[keftiu]

Having spent most of the last week digging into most of the sources on spirits and Shamans in Pathfinder, I've warmed up to the idea of Inquisitors/Arbiters/etc having an option to draw power from a non-deific source. Honestly, that's less the Inquisitor's problem, and more something a book needs to tackle more broadly - what, mechanically, can non-god faiths grant, and how close does it look to a Deity statblock?

I would definitely welcome the ability to play an Amurrun empowered by the spirits of creation to slay aberrations, or a Sarkorian who strikes at the demonic corruptors of their homeland with the holy rage of their ancestors.

[HumbleGamer]

keftiu wrote:

Having spent most of the last week digging into most of the sources on spirits and Shamans in Pathfinder, I've warmed up to the idea of Inquisitors/Arbiters/etc having an option to draw power from a non-deific source. Honestly, that's less the Inquisitor's problem, and more something a book needs to tackle more broadly - what, mechanically, can non-god faiths grant, and how close does it look to a Deity statblock?

I would definitely welcome the ability to play an Amurrun empowered by the spirits of creation to slay aberrations, or a Sarkorian who strikes at the demonic corruptors of their homeland with the holy rage of their ancestors.

Wouldn't be easier to make them not divinity tied and roleplay the way anybody wants, whether it's divinity power or something else?

[keftiu]

HumbleGamer wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Having spent most of the last week digging into most of the sources on spirits and Shamans in Pathfinder, I've warmed up to the idea of Inquisitors/Arbiters/etc having an option to draw power from a non-deific source. Honestly, that's less the Inquisitor's problem, and more something a book needs to tackle more broadly - what, mechanically, can non-god faiths grant, and how close does it look to a Deity statblock?

I would definitely welcome the ability to play an Amurrun empowered by the spirits of creation to slay aberrations, or a Sarkorian who strikes at the demonic corruptors of their homeland with the holy rage of their ancestors.

Wouldn't be easier to make them not divinity tied and roleplay the way anybody wants, whether it's divinity power or something else?

An Inquisitor without the divine isn't an Inquisitor at all. The Ranger, Rogue, Investigator, Magus, and Thaumaturge pretty handily cover non-divine character concepts adjacent to this one.

[HumbleGamer]

keftiu wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Having spent most of the last week digging into most of the sources on spirits and Shamans in Pathfinder, I've warmed up to the idea of Inquisitors/Arbiters/etc having an option to draw power from a non-deific source. Honestly, that's less the Inquisitor's problem, and more something a book needs to tackle more broadly - what, mechanically, can non-god faiths grant, and how close does it look to a Deity statblock?

I would definitely welcome the ability to play an Amurrun empowered by the spirits of creation to slay aberrations, or a Sarkorian who strikes at the demonic corruptors of their homeland with the holy rage of their ancestors.

Wouldn't be easier to make them not divinity tied and roleplay the way anybody wants, whether it's divinity power or something else?

An Inquisitor without the divine isn't an Inquisitor at all. The Ranger, Rogue, Investigator, Magus, and Thaumaturge pretty handily cover non-divine character concepts adjacent to this one.

I think it needs faith in "something" ( an idea, a concept, a goal, a god ) rather than a real existing god.

The god being real or not won't affect them from doing their job after all.

[Temperans]

HumbleGamer wrote:

keftiu wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Having spent most of the last week digging into most of the sources on spirits and Shamans in Pathfinder, I've warmed up to the idea of Inquisitors/Arbiters/etc having an option to draw power from a non-deific source. Honestly, that's less the Inquisitor's problem, and more something a book needs to tackle more broadly - what, mechanically, can non-god faiths grant, and how close does it look to a Deity statblock?

I would definitely welcome the ability to play an Amurrun empowered by the spirits of creation to slay aberrations, or a Sarkorian who strikes at the demonic corruptors of their homeland with the holy rage of their ancestors.

Wouldn't be easier to make them not divinity tied and roleplay the way anybody wants, whether it's divinity power or something else?

An Inquisitor without the divine isn't an Inquisitor at all. The Ranger, Rogue, Investigator, Magus, and Thaumaturge pretty handily cover non-divine character concepts adjacent to this one.

I think it needs faith in "something" ( an idea, a concept, a goal, a god ) rather than a real existing god.

The god being real or not won't affect them from doing their job after all.

It affects the magic, lore, feel, and overall mechanics of the class. I would say that is 90% of what a class is.

[Zabraxis]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think it needs faith in "something" ( an idea, a concept, a goal, a god ) rather than a real existing god.

The god being real or not won't affect them from doing their job after all.

That was paladins & clerics in 1e but they hard coded a deity to both classes and layered in anathema and tenets in the switch to 2e. I doubt Paizo will give inquisitors a pass.

[Lightning Raven]

What do I want out of an Inquisitor in 2e?

That they are implemented in the form of a class archetype for Investigators or Clerics, maybe even both. Granting access to Divine stuff for Investigators and enhancing the cleric's combat and interrogation skills.

[HumbleGamer]

Lightning Raven wrote:

What do I want out of an Inquisitor in 2e?

That they are implemented in the form of a class archetype for Investigators or Clerics, maybe even both. Granting access to Divine stuff for Investigators and enhancing the cleric's combat and interrogation skills.

At this point I'd prefer something similar rather than have a whole class who forces you into a specific approach.

Archetype might really be the solution.

[Squiggit]

I just can't help but feel like an archetype would just kinda suck. Archetypes are never good at shaping your whole character direction. It's impossible to fit all the stuff people want into anything as small as an archetype.

[keftiu]

Squiggit wrote:

I just can't help but feel like an archetype would just kinda suck. Archetypes are never good at shaping your whole character direction. It's impossible to fit all the stuff people want into anything as small as an archetype.

It doesn't help that all of the Class Archetypes we have seen have been relatively minor tweaks on the core class they're built on. An Elementalist Sorcerer is still a Sorcerer, just with a different spell list; a Spellshot Gunslinger is still a Gunslinger, just with elemental chip damage on their shots. I feel like an "Inquisitor" Cleric would still be 95% Cleric, and that would bum me out.