| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people who want an Inquisitor aren't happy with their current options. The people who don't say it can already be done. I'm personally more inclined to follow the lead of the folks who actually want the damn thing.
For a very similar comparison: Psychic was my #2 most-wanted 2e class, behind Inquisitor, and I unhappily made do with Aberrant Sorcerers for three years. You know what I did when Dark Archive dropped? Converted six characters to being Psychics and breathed a massive sigh of relief, because they didn't feel like thrown-together approximations of their core concepts anymore.
There are a number of divine characters I'd love to play in this game I like a lot, and most of my current options don't look anything like how they should until Levels 6 or 8. That's most of something like Abomination Vaults! Imagine telling a Magus fan to be content with a Fighter taking a Wizard multiclass - that's the current conversation, and it's endlessly frustrating.
EDIT: You want a narrative niche for the Inquisitor? They're a divine character who serves their gods with wits, subtlety, and aggression, clearly distinct from the Champions in shining plate armor who defend their values and the Clerics who act as channels for supportive/healing godly magic.
There are a number of divine characters I'd love to play in this game I like a lot, and most of my current options don't look anything like how they should until Levels 6 or 8. That's most of something like Abomination Vaults! Imagine telling a Magus fan to be content with a Fighter taking a Wizard multiclass - that's the current conversation, and it's endlessly frustrating.
EDIT: You want a narrative niche for the Inquisitor? They're a divine character who serves their gods with wits, subtlety, and aggression, clearly distinct from the Champions in shining plate armor who defend their values and the Clerics who act as channels for supportive/healing godly magic.
Okay, but how? What characters are you talking about, and where are the options lacking? I assume Squiggit was just trying to score an easy point, but his comment about Divine lance being lackluster to build around is an example of what I mean.
That's the kind of information that is useful for the developers to read and gets us closer to getting the class in game. The more examples you can name, the stronger the argument for it being a class instead of an archetype.
I also strongly disagree with your characterization of both champions and clerics, but I am interested in the rest of what you're saying. What kind of class ability would convey "divine character who serves their gods with wits, subtlety, and aggression"? A channel smite that is actually able to affect a wider variety of foes seems like a start for the last, to my taste, but what about Wits and Subtlety?
Edit: Also, I think you're completely misunderstanding my intention in posting. I want this class. I agree with people that want this class. I agree with your specific desire to see this class, and I'm not trying to argue against it.
I'm trying to get people to say where they're hurting for options and what they want to see in a new class that solves that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, but how? What characters are you talking about, and where are the options lacking? I assume Squiggit was just trying to score an easy point, but his comment about Divine lance being lackluster to build around is an example of what I mean.
That's the kind of information that is useful for the developers to read and gets us closer to getting the class in game. The more examples you can name, the stronger the argument for it being a class instead of an archetype.
I'm losing my mind. I've proposed over a dozen Inquisitors of different gods, between this and the "is the Thaumaturge the 2e Inquisitor" thread.
Elves who use Ketephys's blessings to slay Tanglebriar demons. Androids who bring Casandalee's wrath to those who oppress synthetic life. Revolutionaries who fight with and for the downtrodden, Milani guiding their footsteps and their blades. Bright Lions, who cannot openly fight the regime in Mzali, instead working the will of the Old Sun Gods in more subtle, opportunistic ways.
Any character who gets their hands dirty for their god who isn't bound to chivalric codes of conduct and doesn't wear full plate fits well as an Inquisitor. Your current options for a divine class are either tied to being a full caster or being a defensive class more defined by your choice of Alignment than anything to do with your deity, or else not playing a divine class at all. Can an Investigator be especially devout? Sure, but it's not the same as something built from the ground-up to enable the fantasy.
If you're looking for non-Golarion Inquisitors from fiction, I've likewise shared a variety of those, too, but I'll gladly do it yet again if that's what it takes.
I also strongly disagree with your characterization of both champions and clerics, but there's something there with the rest of what you're saying. What kind of class ability would convey "divine character who serves their gods with wits, subtlety, and aggression"? A channel smite that is actually able to affect a wider variety of foes seems like a start for the last, to my taste, but what about Wits and Subtlety?
I'm no d20 game designer, but even I can see a martial with Medium armor prof, martial weapons, either some sort of "mark target" Judgment or big explosive damage dealer (like a Spellstrike, but probably not using those mechanics) to hammer home that you're an agent of holy wrath. Focus Spells, whether Domain or unique to the class, give the feeling of having some divine tricks in your back pocket without making you a proper caster or eating much class budget. Throw in some Feat support for being more mobile, hurting specific kinds of foes (like the Champion's Oaths against undead and demons, but not tied to a class-specific defensive Reaction), and other techniques of the trade learned in the field as a sublime spy/assassin/cop/revolutionary/whatever.
Edit: Also, I think you're completely misunderstanding my intention in posting. I want this class. I agree with people that want this class. I agree with your specific desire to see this class, and I'm not trying to argue against it.
Then please don't say that an Eldritch Trickster Rogue "would be exactly that," or tell people in the same post that the concept should just be an Archetype like Vigilante. PF2 has enough options to kludge together almost any character concept - but if a Wizard with some Performance skill feats isn't a Bard, then I don't get why the Inquisitor fans should settle for their class just being a modified Cleric or reflavored Ranger.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of feeling talked past. I've been making the same points for weeks now, and the crowd opposed to the Inquisitor-as-2e class aren't refuting any of them.
I'm likewise frustrated with being talked past.
Then please don't say that an Eldritch Trickster Rogue "would be exactly that," or tell people in the same post that the concept should just be an Archetype like Vigilante. PF2 has enough options to kludge together almost any character concept - but if a Wizard with some Performance skill feats isn't a Bard, then I don't get why the Inquisitor fans should settle for their class just being a modified Cleric or reflavored Ranger.
A Eldritch Rogue with cleric as their selected magical source is a divine empowered spy/trickster. It just is. This is not to say that you should be happy with that, but I was directly addressing the point that the space is completely unfilled when there's at least one option that: is in the "Core set" of rulebooks, requires no reflavoring or bending of rules, and doesn't even need an archetype to work.
I also didn't say this should be an archetype. I outlined how it could be, what some of the benefits (as I see them) would be with no mention in that post if it would be better or worse as one as opposed to a class (though I did say page space would be smaller).
I get that you're frustrated, but assuming I'm antagonistic, and so seeing my posts as something to counter rather than consider, is only going to increase your frustration.
Here's me giving a detailed example of a Golarion character I desperately want to play and can't with 2e's options.
This is sort of what I was hoping to solicit (one of your other post on the same page is equally good). I still disagree with a lot of what you're saying about champions and clerics; your vision of playing those classes is a lot narrower than mine, but I am interested in reading your specific pain points.
I'm tired of feeling talked past. I've been making the same points for weeks now, and the crowd opposed to the Inquisitor-as-2e class aren't refuting any of them.
Well I would hope not. The closest I'll come to "refuting" is what I already said, that I have a wider vision of how to play a cleric and champion than you seem to, and so can apply those classes to a wider variety of character types. But that's me, that I can cheerfully play most of the characters you describe using the existing skill feat and archetype structure doesn't help you, since you don't like those options.
I'm no d20 game designer, but even I can see a martial with Medium armor prof, martial weapons, either some sort of "mark target" Judgment or big explosive damage dealer (like a Spellstrike, but probably not using those mechanics) to hammer home that you're an agent of holy wrath. Focus Spells, whether Domain or unique to the class, give the feeling of having some divine tricks in your back pocket without making you a proper caster or eating much class budget. Throw in some Feat support for being more mobile, hurting specific kinds of foes (like the Champion's Oaths against undead and demons, but not tied to a class-specific defensive Reaction), and other techniques of the trade learned in the field as a sublime spy/assassin/cop/revolutionary/whatever.
Like this? Aside from martial proficiencies and (presumably class) feat support for being more mobile, you've described a Warpriest cleric using CRB options. But again, this isn't to "refute" you, especially since the proficiencies and feat support I just brushed aside are no minor things. It's just pointing out how exactly I would apply the class to create that kind of character, not what you should do.
This is why I keep pushing for more. Simply adding martial proficiencies to a cleric's feat selection doesn't seem like enough to justify a new class.
And, again, I want to see this class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm no d20 game designer, but even I can see a martial with Medium armor prof, martial weapons, either some sort of "mark target" Judgment or big explosive damage dealer (like a Spellstrike, but probably not using those mechanics) to hammer home that you're an agent of holy wrath. Focus Spells, whether Domain or unique to the class, give the feeling of having some divine tricks in your back pocket without making you a proper caster or eating much class budget. Throw in some Feat support for being more mobile, hurting specific kinds of foes (like the Champion's Oaths against undead and demons, but not tied to a class-specific defensive Reaction), and other techniques of the trade learned in the field as a sublime spy/assassin/cop/revolutionary/whatever.Like this? Aside from martial proficiencies and (presumably class) feat support for being more mobile, you've described a Warpriest cleric using CRB options. But again, this isn't to "refute" you, especially since the proficiencies and feat support I just brushed aside are no minor things. It's just pointing out how exactly I would apply the class to create that kind of character, not what you should do.
This is why I keep pushing for more. Simply adding martial proficiencies to a cleric's feat selection doesn't seem like enough to justify a new class.
Please, look at what I have in bold, and tell me again that what I want is a Warpriest Cleric. Being a full caster is not something the 1e Inquisitor had or the 2e Inquisitor needs, and the class power budget that goes to that handicaps their weapon proficiency, while lacking any real ways to focus on damage dealing at all other than playing like a worse martial with some buffs.
You can staple something together out of it together out of Champion, Ranger, and/or Rogue multiclass archetypes, but that gets back to my earlier point of not being able to enjoy your class fantasy at level 1.
And, again, I want to see this class.
It's an interesting way of showing it. Can you tell us what you want from the class?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the same way that a fighter with wizard multiclass would make a pretty poor substitute for a magus, and at the same time it is trivially easy to argue that a class which is competent at blending wizardry with martial skill has no unique narrative identity beyond what could be achieved with that combination, a rogue with cleric multiclass does not satisfy the need even if it technically qualifies. At a certain point there is no getting away from talking about mechanical wants like spell strike, even if the designers don't pick classes based on mechanical niches. At this point it doesn't seem to bring much to the discussion to say that an archetype can satisfy the narrative demands while also denying the mechanical desires already put forth.
I'm no d20 game designer, but even I can see a martial with Medium armor prof, martial weapons, either some sort of "mark target" Judgment or big explosive damage dealer (like a Spellstrike, but probably not using those mechanics) to hammer home that you're an agent of holy wrath. Focus Spells, whether Domain or unique to the class, give the feeling of having some divine tricks in your back pocket without making you a proper caster or eating much class budget. Throw in some Feat support for being more mobile, hurting specific kinds of foes (like the Champion's Oaths against undead and demons, but not tied to a class-specific defensive Reaction), and other techniques of the trade learned in the field as a sublime spy/assassin/cop/revolutionary/whatever.Like this? Aside from martial proficiencies and (presumably class) feat support for being more mobile, you've described a Warpriest cleric using CRB options. But again, this isn't to "refute" you, especially since the proficiencies and feat support I just brushed aside are no minor things. It's just pointing out how exactly I would apply the class to create that kind of character, not what you should do.
This is why I keep pushing for more. Simply adding martial proficiencies to a cleric's feat selection doesn't seem like enough to justify a new class.
Please, look at what I have in bold, and tell me again that what I want is a Warpriest Cleric. Being a full caster is not something the 1e Inquisitor had or the 2e Inquisitor needs, and the class power budget that goes to that handicaps their weapon proficiency, while lacking any real ways to focus on damage dealing at all other than playing like a worse martial with some buffs.
You can staple something together out of it together out of Champion, Ranger, and/or Rogue multiclass archetypes, but that gets back to my earlier point of not being able to enjoy your class fantasy at level 1.
And, again, I want to see this...
Please, PLEASE, stop assuming I'm antagonistic. Or at least stop mischaracterizing what I'm saying.
I made it extremely clear that I'm not saying what you should do; I'm saying what I would be satisfied with doing. And to me, Channel Smite which is a limited version of Spellstrike, satisfies the ask of "either some sort of "mark target" Judgment or big explosive damage dealer (like a Spellstrike, but probably not using those mechanics)".
It's an interesting way of showing it. Can you tell us what you want from it, rather just poking holes in my ideas?
I'm likewise frustrated with being talked past.
A Eldritch Rogue with cleric as their selected magical source is a divine empowered spy/trickster. It just is. This is not to say that you should be happy with that, but I was directly addressing the point that the space is completely unfilled when there's at least one option that: is in the "Core set" of rulebooks, requires no reflavoring or bending of rules, and doesn't even need an archetype to work.
It might not be what you're asking for but ...
From a flavor perspective, just as a fighter w/ a wizard dedication is NOT a magus, a rogue w/ a cleric dedication is not an inquisitor. An ET is still bound by the same anathema as a cleric which is precisely something noted as being more fluid in a an inquisitor.
Mechanically, Eldritch Trickster is quite possibly the worst subclass in game and one of the few true trap options IMO. The class actively encourages the sneak attack w/ spells with the variable KAS and early access to Magical Trickster but does nothing to actually make spell attacking worthwhile (regardless of spell list.) After 4th level, you're 3-5 attack behind when factoring in Potency Runes for 12/20 levels. You can choose to ignore the spell sneak attacking but the subclass turns into a Ancient Elf that anyone can take at that point. And it's utterly uncalled for in a free archetype game.
Actually, no, that's exactly what I'm asking for. In the same way that a fighter/wizard can do similar actions as a magus but couldn't fuse magic and strikes the same way, saying how and why the current options in the niche fail to satisfy is an interesting thing to be talking about.
That's also a really good about the anathema being deliberately looser on an inquisitor. I had forgotten that part, so thank you for pointing out that problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus implies a template for a gish that in the case of the Magus is applied to only the arcane tradition. I would like to see a similar gish for the other three traditions, with class features that reflect "what's specific about *this* tradition" for each.
I'm just more interested in the Primal and Occult gish than the Divine one, and I kind of strenuously dislike the name "Inquisitor."
When I sit down and try to figure out "how I would reflect a gish that uses the divine tradition and what makes that different from the Magus" I genuinely don't come up with a lot of features that the 1e Inquisitor had (like judgements, monster lore, teamwork, skills, etc.) Like it feels like the "skills gish" should be the Occult one.
Please, PLEASE, stop assuming I'm antagonistic. Or at least stop mischaracterizing what I'm saying.
I made it extremely clear that I'm not saying what you should do; I'm saying what I would be satisfied with doing. And to me, Channel Smite which is a limited version of Spellstrike, satisfies the ask of "either some sort of "mark target" Judgment or big explosive damage dealer (like a Spellstrike, but probably not using those mechanics)".
I apologize for reading a different intent into your posts.
Channel Smite only begins at Level 4, and only damages things that can take positive damage if you have a healing font - handy for undead, but it's not helping you fight demons, tyrants, or even a common bandit.
The Advocate you propose seems close enough to an Inquisitor I could enjoy, but I'd sooner see the bounded casting traded out for more unique class features that help them shine as a martial. Trying to split that difference is tricky, and Magus already nailed the most classic way to do it. I just don't see divine slots being all that handy on someone who's going to be in the mix as often as a Ranger or Rogue, and they open you up to lots of Attacks of Opportunity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I see Inquisitor getting 6th and 8th level spells to get buffs, and not wavecasting.
Because of how tight the math is and because of how DCs work, you're never going to get a (non-multiclass) caster that gets progression slower than the cleric, wizard, etc. You're just going to get fewer spells and perhaps worse proficiencies.
So far we've seen wavecasting and the psychic in terms of "fewer spells slots, same progression" and those work fine. But if something isn't going to get better spellcasting than a multiclass archetype there's no reason to have that be a class. Multiclass spellcasting is allowed to scale poorly because you're guaranteed to get something useful at every level from your class features from your first class.
I could honestly see "Inquisitor" as a divine class without slot-based casting (just give it the "skills" package from the rogue/investigator instead of the "martial" package the champion got) but we'd still need a divine gish.
Channel Smite only begins at Level 4, and only damages things that can take positive damage if you have a healing font - handy for undead, but it's not helping you fight demons, tyrants, or even a common bandit.
I agree, the damage type is a real limiter for this build. A solve that would involve bending the rules would be allowing "expend" to count as "cast" when using the other feats that improve Heal/Harm casting like Holy Castigation. There's other potential redesigns, the kind I would expect to see on an archetype, but I'm not sure how much this could change without stepping on the toes of Magus. I don't see that as too much of a problem, the Ranger, Thaums, and Investigators all essentially "mark" a target, but all are different enough that it only seems similar if you squint.
I just don't see divine slots being all that handy on someone who's going to be in the mix as often as a Ranger or Rogue, and they open you up to lots of Attacks of Opportunity.
Also true. Even on this character, I see the slots as more of a battery for their smite than something you'd use on their own merits.
Admittedly the idea of a divine spell slot battery appeals to me, and would help separate it from the Magus, but it does seem a bit insufficient at low levels especially.
Spell slots that are mostly used as a battery for juicy Smites sounds like a novel mechanical space for a divine gish. I quite like the idea of an Inquisitor who is mostly using their link to the divine as a weapon, but can still drop a darkness or a see invisibility when the situation demands it.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm likewise frustrated with being talked past.
A Eldritch Rogue with cleric as their selected magical source is a divine empowered spy/trickster. It just is. This is not to say that you should be happy with that, but I was directly addressing the point that the space is completely unfilled when there's at least one option that: is in the "Core set" of rulebooks, requires no reflavoring or bending of rules, and doesn't even need an archetype to work.
It might not be what you're asking for but ...
From a flavor perspective, just as a fighter w/ a wizard dedication is NOT a magus, a rogue w/ a cleric dedication is not an inquisitor. An ET is still bound by the same anathema as a cleric which is precisely something noted as being more fluid in a an inquisitor.
Mechanically, Eldritch Trickster is quite possibly the worst subclass in game and one of the few true trap options IMO. The class actively encourages the sneak attack w/ spells with the variable KAS and early access to Magical Trickster but does nothing to actually make spell attacking worthwhile (regardless of spell list.) After 4th level, you're 3-5 attack behind when factoring in Potency Runes for 12/20 levels. You can choose to ignore the spell sneak attacking but the subclass turns into a Ancient Elf that anyone can take at that point. And it's utterly uncalled for in a free archetype game.
Actually, no, that's exactly what I'm asking for. In the same way that a fighter/wizard can do similar actions as a magus but couldn't fuse magic and strikes the same way, saying how and why the current options in the niche fail to satisfy is an interesting thing to be talking about.
That's also a really good about the anathema being deliberately looser on an inquisitor. I had forgotten that part, so thank you for pointing out that problem.
Current options in the niche fail to satisfy this sort of class identity for a few reasons, from my perspective as someone who doesn't desperately desire the class but would find it fun:
- Existing classes that could fit the concept of "a divinely appointed character that focuses on offence in combat, and focuses on more subtle or information-focused skills" don't fit well; a champion is fundamentally defensive and doesn't really do subtle skills, and a cleric is not going to be good at the offensive martial side of things for sure. Other classes are either not divine (e.g. investigator/rogue) or not tied to a deity (oracle, divine sorc, divine summoner) and on top of that don't fit the desired concept well anyway.- As with most ways you can approximate a character concept not directly supported by a class, any of the ways you put it together inevitably end up taking a while. If you're playing a level 1-10 AP, you really don't want your character to only start feeling like your character past the halfway point.
- In terms of direct mechanical niches that are not filled, the big one here is offensive divine characters. Spells are not required here (I don't think) but feeling magical definitely is. At least to me, I think that magical-feeling interesting offensive divine characterisation is the bit I want, and the specific mechanics for it could vary (with the previous points detailing why existing options don't work well here even without a specific mechanical idea in mind). The key offensive capabilities of the Inquisitor in PF1 were judgements (divine self-buffs you could invoke with a minor action cost) and bane (large boost in per-hit damage tied to a specific enemy type) - I think bane is the less thematically interesting, and the most easy to replicate in PF2 already. Tying into the judgements, you could do a few interesting things with it to tie a fun unique mechanic for this class. One that I like the core of would be to make judgements a baseline buff you can give yourself against an enemy, but if that enemy does something against you or your deity, the judgement gets stronger. Something like a minor offensive buff going to a moderate offensive buff if they attack you or go against your deity's edicts, and a bigger buff if it's against your deity's anethma?
Obviously that's going off the top of my head - there might be too much variation in deity's edicts and anathemas for that to work. Perhaps it'd be better to keep the broad sorts of inquisitors from pf1, and give each a different action the enemy takes to heighten the effects of the judgement: an inquisitor (or arbiter, or justicar, etc) of shadow might have heightened judgements for those who use light magic, who Seek them when hidden, and those who choose to leave a threatened square to go after them. You could even have it that if there are repeated heightenings of the judgement, you get to have some sort of big smite/bane hit against them.
Push comes to shove though, I don't have particularly strong opinions on exactly how they do the unique mechanic of the proposed class, it's just a mechanical and narrative niche that I want to see easily accessible from level 1. Similar to magus, to be honest - if they'd made magus into a class where you can give up spell slots for the combat to give yourself unique magical effects on the fly, I'm sure they could've made it an interesting one too. There are lots of ways one could fulfil the class fantasy, I just hope it is fulfilled!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If folks did want Judgments to come back from 1e, they’re a natural fit as Stances, potentially Focus Spell-initiated Stances to give them things like bonus damage on foes of certain Alignments.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I'd really like to see a class play around with stances and stance swapping as a mechanic, but I'm not sure that's this class here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I'd really like to see a class play around with stances and stance swapping as a mechanic, but I'm not sure that's this class here.
I thought that was the monk's thing. Like so much of the monk's kit is easily poachable by other classes, I do *not* want stance savant, master of many styles, and fuse styles to end up that way too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I'd really like to see a class play around with stances and stance swapping as a mechanic, but I'm not sure that's this class here.I thought that was the monk's thing. Like so much of the monk's kit is easily poachable by other classes, I do *not* want stance savant, master of many styles, and fuse styles to end up that way too.
Monks get stances, but monk stances are more like a vehicle for just picking your unarmed strike of choice. You spend most of your career picking the one you like and sitting in it, not really engaging with the mechanic beyond that.
MOMS is level 16, not really something you can make the centerpiece of a character... and tbh most of the time I've seen it in play it's just been a way to save an action at the start of combat.
So I'm not really sure I'd call it a monk's thing.
Ack, the website ate my edit! I made a case for the Stancequisitor with two examples.
Let’s take the Tanglebriar-trained elf earlier, an Arbiter sworn to Ketephys. At the outset of combat (potentially on rolling Initiative, thanks to a class feature or feat), their first action is spending a Focus Point to enter “Ceaseless Hunter” Stance that boosts their accuracy, followed by hitting an enemy spellcaster with silence to neutralize them. Next turn, they move up into cover, and convert their other 2nd-level spell slot into a big tasty Smite with their composite longbow. They can spend the rest of the fight popping off bow Strikes, and their remaining slots can either go to buffing the melee party members or further Smites.
Or imagine one of our Bright Lions, an Intercessor of Luhar, who leaps out of a midnight alley to slay one of Walkena’s lieutenants. She opens the fight entering “Righteous Fury” Stance, which gives a flat damage boost, intending to kill her target fast. The first Smite she hands out is a nasty one, but her target lives long enough to call for help - two zombies and a priest appear, hammering her with javelins and fiery spells. On her next turn, she spends a second Focus Point to shift into “Enduring Vigil” Stance, granting her limited fast healing and a bonus to saves, and drops a darkness to cover her exit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play around with stance-dancing (or something equivalent)... then give people a bonus for leaving the stance.
For example...
We'll call them Invocations for the moment, and they have a number of parts. At the most basic, you can enter one with a focus point and a single action, and it'll give you some sort of buff that will last for the entire fight and fade at the end.
That's not the fun part, though. The fun part is that each invocation has a (fairly beefy) reaction attack, that's only available when you're in some other invocation. It fires off a significant attack (stronger than a standard strike) and switches you over to the new invocation (with the new invocation's buff). Basically, the most effective way to fight is to set yourself up so that when the enemies break the rules, you can be there to punish them. Balancing what your reaction triggers are, what attacks come out of them, and what your invocation buffs are in each stance is the core of building your fighting style.
And the further fun is that you don't have to have it be the sorts of things that people *normally* react to. Sure, there are Invocations out there that let you punish people for attacking your friends... but there might also ones that let you punish them for falling prone within reach of you, or becoming intimidated, or ending their turn within reach while you are concealed from them.
You might even have a feat (level 6 or so?) that would let them spend an action to refresh their reaction, so you can get a reaction trigger on your own turn, and then refresh it to get another on someone else's.
/***********/
Overall, it leads to a fairly high-skill character - you need to be constantly keeping track of the things that are going on around you, so you know when you can trigger one of your punishments, while also looking ahead to how to get into position and/or set things up so that you can exploit and/or create openings later. Thematically, I think it would be a pretty solid fit with the idea of "I am the dagger in the hand of my god."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ya know what I've seen this thread lot of time lately, so how about I throw my figurative hat on this pile :p Year ago in december I did comment on why I didn't like 1e inquisitors much (Prelate Hulrun type "I'm doing bad things because I'm zealous arse and my goddess doesn't punish me for killing innocents by burning them as witches" just doesn't feel fitting in setting where gods do police their followers by taking away their powers, just like how Cult of Dawnflower felt off), but assuming that aspect of them doesn't return*, I actually have my own say on what I think inquisitor is and what it should be.
*(I don't even mind the "HERESY" meme thing, though it feels weird when "Inquisitor: Okay, I'm here to police your Seperatist Cleric, Gray Paladin and... Is that a Heretic Inquisitor? DOUBLE HERESY!" when all form of in universe heresy create question of "So uh, I guess god doesn't mind it in this case because they haven't taken power away? So close enough?" I guess that would leave Inquistors to only police blasphemers and anathema breakers and straight up enemies of the faith?)
So let's get back down here, what was 1e inquisitor to me in practice? "Okay, I set up my banes, I activate my judgements, I do ranged full attack, I deal massive damage aaaaaaand dragon is now dead". But what were its abilities flavor wise?
1e inquisitors was mostly ranged focused monster hunter class with free teamwork feats(implying they operated always in organized groups) and ability to "pronounce judgement". Ultimage Magic introduced "Inquisitions" as something you could take in place of domains. So without spell casting, lie detecting and monster hunting bonuses, what is the core of 1e inquisition?
YELLING AT PEOPLE LOUDLY TO MAKE THEM REALLY FEEL YOUR ZEAL
...Ahem, I'm not wrong since even with stealthy inquisitors, they have flavor of "AND NOW ITS TIME TO PRONOUNCE YOUR JUDGEMENT" x'D Heck that is very much flavor of bane and exploit vulnerability as well: 1e inquisitors move in teams, interrogates people, tracks down the target, identifies the target, kicks open door, declares bane and judgement to their target.
In 2e(and arguebly in 1e), lot of the detective and monster hunter flavor is covered by investigator and thaumaturge, the main part that is missing is variant of the good old cavalier duel challenge, aka that you are declaring the target(s) to be guilty and that you are going to punish them.
This is also arguably what clerics and champions are missing. Good Champions are about protecting allies while Evil champions are about punishing enemy for daring to harm you, clerics on otherhand don't really do proclaiming judgement outside of casting divine wrath :p I think key part of Inquisitor "fantasy" is the feeling of "accusing the guilty" similar to how investigator is all about solving the mystery. Its part of why it can't be filled with neutral champions(its bit too narrow scope for LN/N/CN alignments only and nature of champion reactions is that they trigger when enemy attacks someone) and clerics, they don't really have any form of "mark a prey" mechanic
(note: lot of 1e judgements were just passive buffs you activated, which I always thought kinda ruined flavor. I mean what does even "I proclaim judgement of healing upon you! now I shall be healed while I punch you!" mean?)
(because I make too many sidenotes: lot of 1e inquisitor flavor works really well for antagonistic npcs. Like inquisition IS scary, so bunch of well oiled talented hunters with funny hats chasing after you is thematic good opponent)
So yeah, what would 2e equivalent of inquisition be like to me? Well if idea was to directly translate 1e inquisitor, it'd be weird combination of ranger (hunt prey, tracking bonuses) and thaumaturge (you identify enemy and force a weakness upon them) with divine flavor. Teamwork based abilities wouldn't be in 2e because 2e already assumes party teamwork even more than 1e did :P But since it would be lame to have 2e inquisitor just be combination of two different classes, here is another take:
Basically divine martial equivalent of bard with main gimmick on focus cantrips that buff allies and debuffs target. I'm not getting paid to homebrew this so I'm not going to figure out all details of how to make that distinct, but I'm personally not fan of stance inquisitor idea because it while it reflects 1e mechanics, it doesn't reflect the "I declare judgement upon thee" flavor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, CovusMask may have convinced me that the Inquisitor perhaps to be the least sneaky person in existence. Even Salim wasn't that subtle, just stubborn.
|
|
Nah, see, its not that inquisitors aren't sneaky, its just that once they have located you, they kick door down and announce your guilt rather than sniping you down. The firing squad shooting at you with crossbows is more their style SINCE NO ESCAPE ONCE YOU ARE IN THEIR SIG- ahem yeah as said inquisition memes are lot of yelling
|
|
True, but you still "proclaimed them" flavor wise which is weird. As said 1e inquistors were more of mechanic pack where class features didn't fully support flavor but were good enough for overall concept
Anyway, I figured out I should open up my reasoning there for "martial divine bard": basically they need to be able to support their allies to facilitate teamwork and coordination, declare targets and punish them somehow and need to be competent enough warriors that they aren't just "squishy buffer" on the side.(so that hypothetical party of just inquisitors would still be scary even if they aren't most versatile party) Their sneaky investigator natures are easily represented by giving them either higher amount of skills or bonus skill feats for specific skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for adding verbal components to judgement.
The more I think about it, the more I think there are actually two distinct classes here-
1) Take the Champion chassis, then substitute "skills package" that the Rogue/Investigator get for the "martial armor/weapon/save proficiencies" so you have focus spells, but not spell slots.
2) Divine version of the Magus, so you have spell slots and strong combat mechanics but you aren't super skilled.
I think trying to do both in one package is probably a mistake. The PF1 Inquisitor had the issue of "a big pile of unrelated mechanics stuffed into one box" that became especially problematic with archetyping (so trade away the stuff that doesn't work with your basic schtick for stuff that does). PF2 has so far held the line on classes not being thematically or mechanically muddled.
The more I think about it, the more I think there are actually two distinct classes here-
1) Take the Champion chassis, then substitute "skills package" that the Rogue/Investigator get for the "martial armor/weapon/save proficiencies" so you have focus spells, but not spell slots.
2) Divine version of the Magus, so you have spell slots and strong combat mechanics but you aren't super skilled.
I think trying to do both in one package is probably a mistake. The PF1 Inquisitor had the issue of "a big pile of unrelated mechanics stuffed into one box" that became especially problematic with archetyping (so trade away the stuff that doesn't work with your basic schtick for stuff that does). PF2 has so far held the line on classes not being thematically or mechanically muddled.
I think skills package, with divine focus spells and the ability to use divine scrolls/wands/staves (but not actual spell slots) is the way to go
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't personally need an Inquisitor to be a slot-using gish, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. In my perfect vision of the future, it comes alongside a 2e Shaman (who is presumably doing novel caster design of its own), so I'm content with our Arbiter or Intercessor being more of a quirky martial.
The more I think about it, the more I think there are actually two distinct classes here-
1) Take the Champion chassis, then substitute "skills package" that the Rogue/Investigator get for the "martial armor/weapon/save proficiencies" so you have focus spells, but not spell slots.
2) Divine version of the Magus, so you have spell slots and strong combat mechanics but you aren't super skilled.
I would much rather they just make it a class archetype for the ranger where they give up the edge and the random class stuff they get for wave casting and feats to add riders on hunt prey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just balls to the wall offensive zealot without resorting to Fighter + Cleric/Champion.
I'm just not sure why you "I'm a zealot" can't just be a roleplaying thing you can attach to any class. If it's like "I need magic powers backing up my zealotry" then that's kind of where class starts to edge into uncomfortable territory.
"Getting a new class" is never a bad thing, give me Pathfinder with 10,000 classes, and I get that people miss a lot of the offensive punch that the Paladin had which the Champion lacks. But "I believe really hard, so now I have the magical ability to hurt people even more" is not really ideal. Like let's not forget that Salim Ghadafar, Inquisitor of Pharasma, is an atheist- possibly no one was less enthusiastic about their god than Salim.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But "I believe really hard, so now I have the magical ability to hurt people even more" is not really ideal.
That ship sailed when they put Clerics who get damage spells from their god in the game, no? I don’t understand how an Inquisitor stabbing someone is more fraught than a Champion stabbing someone.
I agree that maybe the hypothetical Inquisitor covers too many classes. It's trying to do too many things, which in PF2 would be unsatisfying as then those things would be diluted for balance. The class was half (non-nature) Ranger, half Cleric, a third (divine) Magus, w/ a touch of Marshal which adds up to more than any one class can do, at least not well or w/o heavy use of Archetypes which take most of one's career to develop.
Are we looking for a new martial? That could probably be a Ranger variant w/ Divine Focus Spells (maybe from Domains?) instead. Or Champion trading the defense/armor for skills.
Or a new gish? That could be a divine Magus variant or something similar which needs to charge up its "smite-like" attacks, but trading some Magus trickery/buffs (or maybe instead Wavecasting!) for skills.
I can't see getting a workable blend of all of that.
And if those seem a bit underwhelming (at least in terms of originality), well, they do to me too, and likely to Paizo staff, which might be why we haven't seen an Inquisitor yet.
---
In early APs (one boss IIRC and the Svartalfar Killer), there were Magus-like enemies which kinda gave us an idea of what Paizo had been dabbling with. Is there anything similar for the Inquisitor?
In early APs (one boss IIRC and the Svartalfar Killer), there were Magus-like enemies which kinda gave us an idea of what Paizo had been dabbling with. Is there anything similar for the Inquisitor?
I don’t imagine that would be what the class winds up based on though, unless it really does wind up a class archetype of the ranger.
|
|
In early APs (one boss IIRC and the Svartalfar Killer), there were Magus-like enemies which kinda gave us an idea of what Paizo had been dabbling with. Is there anything similar for the Inquisitor?I don’t imagine that would be what the class winds up based on though, unless it really does wind up a class archetype of the ranger.
That doesn't sound too far off from divine martial support I was suggesting though, like sounds like they retained the support element of buffing helping allies and intimidation abilities sound like applying debuffs.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we get a Pathfinder 2nd Edition Inquisitor, it will happen when nobody's expecting it . . . .
I'm going to show myself out now . . . Quietly.
"Getting a new class" is never a bad thing, give me Pathfinder with 10,000 classes…
It might be better to go with no classes. For example, make everything a skill, make the skill system open-ended, so it's easy to add new skills if you need 'em, and let people mix and match skills as they see fit.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Getting a new class" is never a bad thing, give me Pathfinder with 10,000 classes…It might be better to go with no classes. For example, make everything a skill, make the skill system open-ended, so it's easy to add new skills if you need 'em, and let people mix and match skills as they see fit.
I think trying to make a classless Pathfinder is one of the quickest ways Paizo could destroy itself. Half the reason people come to d20 fantasy over other systems and settings is for the familiar shape of play, and that includes picking from one of a number of archetypal, iconic classes.