Isn’t the Thaumaturge Second Edition’s Inquisitor?

[keftiu]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

"Holy Assassin" is a troublesome thing itself, since not a lot of deities straight up condone murder if the ends justify the means. The classes who receive divine power should be held to a higher standard than "random worshipers who don't get divine powers."

Reconnaissance, espionage, infiltration? Sure. Assassination? Well, Rogues aren't assassins, Rangers aren't assassins, Swashbucklers aren't assassins. So this is a weird thing to bake into a class.

I think the important thing is you have to be extra careful when you have a divinity giving their tacit or explicit endorsement to something that is probably bad. This hypothetical divine gish should be a little less obligated to color between the lines champion or cleric, but not as unrestricted as like "a fighter" or "a wizard" in that particular faith would be.

Why is a Champion driving a sword through someone's gut in Iomedae's name any less fraught than an Inquisitor hopping out of a shadow and doing the same?

[Lollerabe]

I really just can't get worked up over a fantasy class' name. Barbarian and ruffian are hardly names with a heroic history either. But hey, here we are.

A divine inspired striker class with high mobility and a focus on single target Nova damg would be awesome tho.
I'm not entirely sure how Paizo would go about it, but as others have also mentioned I def didn't think swashbuckler was a unique enough concept to become a class, and that worked (sort of).

[NECR0G1ANT]

A lot of the monster-hunter class mechanics of the 1E inquisitor were given to the Thaumaturge. The name "inquisitor" is bad because RL inquisitions were evil.

That just leaves some limited spellcasting and the idea of a divine skilled class. I kind of doubt we'll be getting a class out of that.

[Zabraxis]

I am so sick of all the arguments about the name. Call it Floofenatrix for all I care, just give me a skillful, divine striker w/ limited spell casting and a social skill mechanic. Maybe a wisdom based Social Graces lore to cover the social skills to make up for Thaumaturge stealing Monster Knowledge & Bane (if they can switch Knowledge checks to Cha for Thaum they can switch social skills to wis for Floofenatrices.) There's still plenty of design space to work in mechanically to fill that role.

The complaints about the flavor of the class I get but I never saw anyone play an inquisitor anywhere close to the zealous edgelord flavor text. I saw more Paladins by far play Lawful Stupid to an asinine degree.

[keftiu]

This thread of people decrying the Inquisitor for its name and an assumed edgy flavor and folks who actually want the Inquisitor saying neither of those things matter to them. It kind of feels like beating my head against the wall.

[PossibleCabbage]

keftiu wrote:

Why is a Champion driving a sword through someone's gut in Iomedae's name any less fraught than an Inquisitor hopping out of a shadow and doing the same?

Ethically there's a pretty big difference between "killing someone in a context where they are able to defend themselves and are actively participating in an attempt to kill you" and "killing someone who is completely unaware of you."

There's an assassin archetype you can bolt onto any class, so there's no need to make this a fundamental part of any class. Much like there's no need to make "rides a horse" or "has a secret identity" a fundamental part of a class anymore.

[Themetricsystem]

Bear in mind my perspective is HEAVILY biased by my experience, ethics, and beliefs so take with this whatever measure of salt that is probably appropriate.

The name and even sourcing it to the Spanish inquisition has very little to do with my objections with it but they do very neatly wrap up the design and intent of the class in a neat little package.

Any idea of a cool holy assassin conjures up nothing in my mind except for deeply corrupt, despicable, and unjustifiable acts that, if I believed in any concept of objective evil, I would describe as being just that. There are VERY few things in this world that are demonstrably more damaging than the work of religious missionaries, let alone violent and subversive ones. Simulating awful stuff has always been a big part of RPGs, I won't deny that, but if this is brought forward they need to find a way of either watering it down so much that it is nearly unrecognizable versus the PF1 implementation or they need to restrict it to Evil, or at best LN and CN deities/alignments.

That's all I'll say on the matter though as going much further into this will border on the guidelines related to politics and RL religion and I've already danced around those enough for one day.

[keftiu]

Where I'm struggling is that the vision I'm presenting for what excites me about the class and the vision people are balking at as unacceptable... have almost nothing in common, which is why I feel like I'm being talked past.

Look to the examples I gave earlier - Inquisitors of Milani fighting against mortal and supernatural oppressors, Inquisitors of the Old Sun Gods trying to free their city from Walkena, Inquisitors of Sarenrae hunting Rovagug's servants and spawn - and tell me how those are unacceptable characters. Let me know what Imrijka did in the fiction that was so far over the line to make all of her stories completely untenable.

There are valid targets for Good characters of faith - I assume your Champions and Clerics have killed many of them in play. There are ways to be sneaky and underhanded without being a monstrous, awful person - look to any number of Rogues and Investigators. In a world with demons, undead, cruel fey, aberrations, people capable of magical mind-control, those who fleshwarp the unwilling, and any number of other threats that Goodly deities might want to take a stand against through agents other than those who wear full plate.

[Temperans]

Is it just me finding it weird that we have:

* Barbarians (aka "savage person" usually from a different culture)

* Rogue Thief, Ruffian, and Thug (Aka "robbers and murderers" the type of people who would assault innocent people for a few coins)

* Assassins (Aka murderes usually for hire)

* Rangers trained to hunt targets (aka bounty hunters usually okay with murder)

* Champions (aka murderous knights)

* Sorcerers of various evil bloodlines (aka people who slept or were corrupted by evil)

* Bard (mind controllers and manipulators)

* Fighters (aka Soldiers, who are known to commit atrocities when not properly disciplined)

* Swashbuckler (aka pirates)

* Etc.

But somehow "holy assassin, spy, and overall secret service" is this huge bad thing that should never be printed? How can you even reconcile that class not existing when you can literally play as a heretic of every deity commiting unspeakable evil in their name?

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

* P.S. I will never understand the logic behind removing anything anyone finds offensive when the primary combat loop of the game is "murder our enemies and steal their stuff".

Heck most parties main way to deal with things are: Maiming, electrocuting, bisecting, burning alive, exploding, poisoning, impaling, drowning, freezing to death, or otherwise brutalizing said enemies.

[Lollerabe]

I just hope they won't force me into a certain weapon type and/or psychical stat.

I heavily dislike the swashbuckler, rogue and investigator being forced into using finesse weapons.

Why can't I be a rogue with a Warhammer ?
Or a swashbuckler with a flail for that matter.
I never vibed with the 'this is how we envision X, therefore so should you'.
Especially when it's not a balance concern either

[Zabraxis]

I don't see why the evil aspects and good aspects can't coexist in the same class. There are good and evil Champions and I haven't seen arguments about evil Champions (with some pretty repugnant tenants) ruining the class or having no place in the game. I don't see why there can't be a Holy Assassin subclass and a Divine Negotiator subclass at the same time.

[keftiu]

I want to be clear - I have no interest in an Inquisitor who bends either the rules of the Alignment system or the tenets of their own deity's faith. Such a thing doesn't work under 2e's design paradigm, and isn't at all key to the fantasy here.

[keftiu]

Apologies for the double post, but I have an illustrative example, if that's alright with folks - a character I've wanted to play for ages.

I love Androids, Casandalee, and Numeria - a nice infusion of gonzo sci-fi into a fantasy setting, and in fact the first things that drew me to Golarion originally. Let's say I want to reflect that in a character: an Android devoted to Casandalee's young faith, hailing from a land where her people have historically been oppressed and mistreated.

Cleric feels pretty narrow; if I don't want to be handing out Heal all the time, it's something of a poor fit, and I don't really want to play a full caster. The only Champions allowed by my god's alignment grid are Redeemers (and her faith has nothing to do with redemption) or Desecrators (which is a flavor fail across the board and unlikely to fit in most parties), and either option would be tromping around in full plate - a pretty poor fit for a character who may have lived in servitude until recently, and needed to develop a more subtle set of skills. Oracle is a mismatch, as I want my character's strength to be in her explicit faith in Casandalee, rather than a mysterious divine patron.

A hypothetical Inquisitor fits in nicely here; they could draw on the strength of their goddess, but likely have learned a number of martial tricks to survive this long with the odds so stacked against them in Numeria. Casandalee wants harmony between synthetic and organic life, so appropriate foes in the region include Technic League remnants (who think all Androids should be their property, as it used to be) and violent Kellid traditionalists (who think all robots and other synthetics need to be destroyed)... but if the party wants to go fight Dominion of the Black infiltrators, demons crossing from the Sarkorian border, or the velstrac cult hiding in Chesed, this Android is game to fight them - protecting organics helps foster better relations between them and Androids like them, and they're still ultimately a Good character, so they think these fights are worth having.

No torturing of innocents. No persecuting fellow members of the faith for stepping out of line. No disruptive, singular focus in what kind of enemies the campaign can include. Just a character who is an empowered agent of their faith without being a knight in shining armor.

Does that make any sense?

[Leon Aquilla]

Tag me as someone who feels like Inquisitor still has a place at the table, especially since almost everyone says "Cloistered Cleric > Warpriest" re: Cleric optimization

[HumbleGamer]

Lollerabe wrote:

I just hope they won't force me into a certain weapon type and/or psychical stat.

I heavily dislike the swashbuckler, rogue and investigator being forced into using finesse weapons.

Why can't I be a rogue with a Warhammer ?
Or a swashbuckler with a flail for that matter.
I never vibed with the 'this is how we envision X, therefore so should you'.
Especially when it's not a balance concern either

For what it counts, Swashbuckler can use anything they want.

If you opt for a str build ( gymnast, for example ) you are -1 behind other swashbucklers in terms of hit, but you get extra damage from either STR and Exemplary finisher, making things fair.

Investigators are in a similar spot, as they can use devise a stratagem with any existing weapon, but can use their int modifier only if the weapon is agile or finesse ( but nothing stops you from using a STR build rather than a INT one, as devise a stratagem is just a clunky true strike ).

As for the ruffian rogue, not sure whether they can get access to weapons( making them simple ones ) in order to perform sneak attack.

I mean ( for example )

Quote:

For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons.

if this means you can perform sneak attack with a ruffian, possibilities increase.

Mauler dedication seems to fit too.

ps: I do agree with what you said. Just wanted to mention that you can walk around some of those forced mechanics, somehow.

[Captain Morgan]

This thread has made me increasingly feel like the Inquisitor should be an archetype, not a class. And I think I played more Inquistors in PF1 than any other class.

1. It is really a profession, which PF2 represents as archetypes.

2. Deciding to hunt down the enemies of your church feels like a decision your character comes to later in life, not a thing that defines your build from day one. This also means you can play into your campaign long enough to see if those enemies play a role in it. Thematically, Inquisitor worked really well as a later level multiclass, which in PF2 would be an archetype.

3. An archetype would let you explore the thematic space on any class chassis. If you want the monster hunter aspect, take it on a Thaumaturge or Ranger. If you want the spy or socialite, take it on a bard or rogue. And if you want it as a straight murder machine, take it on a barbarian or fighter.

4. A robust set of archetype feats would really let you lean into the parts of the concept you're interested in-- focus spells, knowledge bonuses, what have you.

5. I think it might be too strong a class to survive a PF2 transition. 6th level casters were defined by their versatility and being pretty good at everything. None stayed like that once converted to second edition. Bards and War Priests became full casters and lost skill dominance and martial prowess respectively. The summoner and magus lost the extra spell slots that let them problem solve. The alchemist deals way less damage. We won't get skill monkey, stronger striking than a champion, and casting all on the same package.

An offensive divine class could still work, but I'm seeing less and less reason to tie it to the PF1 Inquisitor. The Inquisitor also had bending the doctrines of their church built into theme and mechanics. PF2 has moved in the opposite direction with codifying anethema. And I think the public is collectively less comfortable with the narrative of people with authority breaking rules in order to hurt people. (See: protests against police violence.) If a good god is going to give someone powers designed exclusively to kill, they should be holding those agents to a higher than average standard.

[keftiu]

Captain Morgan wrote:

An offensive divine class could still work, but I'm seeing less and less reason to tie it to the PF1 Inquisitor. The Inquisitor also had bending the doctrines of their church built into theme and mechanics. PF2 has moved in the opposite direction with codifying anethema. And I think the public is collectively less comfortable with the narrative of people with authority breaking rules in order to hurt people. (See: protests against police violence.) If a good god is going to give someone powers designed exclusively to kill, they should be holding those agents to a higher than average standard.

Again, I don't think I've heard a single pro-Inquisitor voice say that bending the rules is core to what they want out of a class.

A lot of energy in this thread isn't being directed at a reasonable concept of what a 2e take on the Inquisitor would look like, in mechanics or themes. The team that threw the Cult of the Dawnflower out of canon unequivocally and said "no, Asmodeus does not have Paladins" in no uncertain terms is not going to have Good characters burning innocent peasants in the town square. Divine characters can use methods other than chivalrous dueling to hurt the bad guys without being crooked cops, or anything of the sort.

Likewise, nobody expects a perfect copy of the 1e Inquisitor's mechanics. We've literally all watched the Champion, Investigator, Oracle, Psychic, and Swashbuckler change radically - to say nothing of the Occultist becoming a whole new class. Something that plays like a Magus, but with some kind of Smites instead of Spellstrikes, would get 90% of the way there without coming anywhere near breaking the power budget.

[Lollerabe]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Lollerabe wrote:

I just hope they won't force me into a certain weapon type and/or psychical stat.

I heavily dislike the swashbuckler, rogue and investigator being forced into using finesse weapons.

Why can't I be a rogue with a Warhammer ?
Or a swashbuckler with a flail for that matter.
I never vibed with the 'this is how we envision X, therefore so should you'.
Especially when it's not a balance concern either

For what it counts, Swashbuckler can use anything they want.

If you opt for a str build ( gymnast, for example ) you are -1 behind other swashbucklers in terms of hit, but you get extra damage from either STR and Exemplary finisher, making things fair.

Investigators are in a similar spot, as they can use devise a stratagem with any existing weapon, but can use their int modifier only if the weapon is agile or finesse ( but nothing stops you from using a STR build rather than a INT one, as devise a stratagem is just a clunky true strike ).

As for the ruffian rogue, not sure whether they can get access to weapons( making them simple ones ) in order to perform sneak attack.

I mean ( for example )

Quote:

For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons.

if this means you can perform sneak attack with a ruffian, possibilities increase.

Mauler dedication seems to fit too.

ps: I do agree with what you said. Just wanted to mention that you can walk around some of those forced mechanics, somehow.

Eh precise strike dosent work with non finesse

So you are indeed forced into certain weapons, as you otherwise don't have a class anymore.

Same for investigator (and a strength build is hardly feasible on them either way).
And no unfortunately ancestry weapons dosent change a weapons category (simple, martial etc) only have you calculate your prof with them.

So you cant use say a meteor hammer on a ruffian, even if you have mauler

[PossibleCabbage]

I do think there's a good creative space to map the Magus's Wave Casting onto the other 3 traditions which distinguish themselves from the Magus by leaning into "what Primal is about" and "what Occult is about" etc. So there should absolutely be a Divine one of these. I know they're not interesting box checking for the hell of it, but these are good boxes to check.

I agree entirely with Captain Morgan that "Inquisitor" is absolutely an archetype, and probably an Archetype 6+ at that. Since it's not a job you would trust someone inexperienced or low in the hierarchy with (from either the divine or terrestrial levels.) But that just means that "Divine Gish" needs a different thematic space. Probably the mechanical niche that we don't see anywhere in PF2 that we could port over from the 1e Inquisitor is "you make the team better at teamwork" as a thing for the divine Gish to do. Divine's probably the hardest one of these to do (the divine list is easily the worst for "doing damage").

[Leon Aquilla]

"I don't feel comfortable with a divine-aligned class that burns people at the stake and tortures them" is a really weird strawman for people to be creating when I don't remember Imrijka doing anything of the sort in any Pathfinder-related media. I'm pretty sure F. Wesley Schneider designed her as more of a Van Helsing-esque character (the movie, not the Stoker character)

Quote:

A lot of the monster-hunter class mechanics of the 1E inquisitor were given to the Thaumaturge. The name "inquisitor" is bad because RL inquisitions were evil.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith still exists today. Be careful that your opinions about the name of a fictitious class don't bleed into violations of the forum rules.

[HumbleGamer]

Lollerabe wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Lollerabe wrote:

I just hope they won't force me into a certain weapon type and/or psychical stat.

I heavily dislike the swashbuckler, rogue and investigator being forced into using finesse weapons.

Why can't I be a rogue with a Warhammer ?
Or a swashbuckler with a flail for that matter.
I never vibed with the 'this is how we envision X, therefore so should you'.
Especially when it's not a balance concern either

For what it counts, Swashbuckler can use anything they want.

If you opt for a str build ( gymnast, for example ) you are -1 behind other swashbucklers in terms of hit, but you get extra damage from either STR and Exemplary finisher, making things fair.

Investigators are in a similar spot, as they can use devise a stratagem with any existing weapon, but can use their int modifier only if the weapon is agile or finesse ( but nothing stops you from using a STR build rather than a INT one, as devise a stratagem is just a clunky true strike ).

As for the ruffian rogue, not sure whether they can get access to weapons( making them simple ones ) in order to perform sneak attack.

I mean ( for example )

Quote:

For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons.

if this means you can perform sneak attack with a ruffian, possibilities increase.

Mauler dedication seems to fit too.

ps: I do agree with what you said. Just wanted to mention that you can walk around some of those forced mechanics, somehow.

Eh precise strike dosent work with non finesse

So you are indeed forced into certain weapons, as you otherwise don't have a class anymore.

Same for investigator (and a strength build is hardly feasible on them either way).
And no unfortunately ancestry weapons dosent change a weapons category (simple, martial etc) only have you calculate your prof with them.

So you cant use say a meteor hammer on a ruffian, even if you have mauler

Totally missed the precise strike part.

That's really unfortunate.

For the ruffian I had the feel it worked that way, though I hoped to be wrong.

[keftiu]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

"I don't feel comfortable with a divine-aligned class that burns people at the stake and tortures them" is a really weird strawman for people to be creating when I don't remember Imrijka doing anything of the sort in any Pathfinder-related media. I'm pretty sure F. Wesley Schneider designed her as more of a Van Helsing-esque character (the movie, not the Stoker character)

I don't understand why they keep talking around this. The Inquisitor they're mad at isn't the Inquisitor anyone is asking for.

[Squiggit]

Captain Morgan wrote:

It is really a profession, which PF2 represents as archetypes.

Not really? The difference between a "profession" and a "class" is just a matter of how much mechanics get put behind it.

Bard, Rogue, Investigator, Inventor, and Fighter are also 'job descriptions' that could reasonably be applied to any number of characters from an arbitrary number of classes. But they're also classes.

There's just frankly no way you can encapsulate the core mechanical and thematic design space of the class in an archetype. Archetypes are tiny. A ranger with one new focus spell and an extra trained skill is a miserable approximation for the inquisitor or any flavor of divine gish.

[Lollerabe]

Didn't the whole 'it dosent warrant a separate class' rhetoric kind of die with the APG?

Both the swashbuckler and investigator seems/seemed way more archetype-ish than an inquisitor imo.

[HumbleGamer]

Swashbuckler and investigator feel like a rogue with several issues.

[keftiu]

For those I’m butting heads with - would you accept a Divine striker gish with some sort or Wisdom-based smite they could bake into weapon Strikes, if it was named the Arbiter? Give it a handful of knowledge abilities in Feats, maybe some Judgment-like debuffs or “targeting abilities” as Focus Spells, and the option to get some mix of Domain spells, Deity favored weapon bonus, and/or Deity granted spells.

The lean Divine offense, to contrast the Champion’s defense and a Cleric’s support. Functionally plays like a mix of Ranger and Magus.

No inquisit-ing flavor, but maybe something like Champion Oaths for favored foes; Arbiters of Pharasma should be good at beating up on undead.

[Captain Morgan]

Arbiter feels like a better name and thematic starting point. I like the idea of a class given divine authority to travel the world and settle disputes, including violent and non-violent ones, and who can be trusted to dole out punishment when absolutely necessary. A divine book would be a good place to layer another level onto anethemas and edicts, which should be important to such a character. And that character should also have some built in Phylactery of the Faithful mechanics so they can know their God's will without getting "gotcha'ed" by the GM.

You'd want the class to be capable of dealing lethal and non-lethal damage in equal measure. My gut says they should be wisdom based because wisdom is associated with sound observation and judgement, but you'd need the charisma to get people to listen to your judgement as well. Maybe there's room for a wisdom to diplomacy or intimidation route there, at least when acting within the purview of your deity's edicts.

Might also be a good route to explore "mark of justice" design space. Some sort of curse mechanic that sickens someone for breaking a code might be a nice way to create alternatives to murder.

Squiggit wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

It is really a profession, which PF2 represents as archetypes.

Not really? The difference between a "profession" and a "class" is just a matter of how much mechanics get put behind it.

Bard, Rogue, Investigator, Inventor, and Fighter are also 'job descriptions' that could reasonably be applied to any number of characters from an arbitrary number of classes. But they're also classes.

There's just frankly no way you can encapsulate the core mechanical and thematic design space of the class in an archetype. Archetypes are tiny. A ranger with one new focus spell and an extra trained skill is a miserable approximation for the inquisitor or any flavor of divine gish.

See, that's the thing. I think the Inquisitor is a narrower thematic space than the other classes you mentioned while also being too broad mechanically to fit into a PF2 class.

Thematically...

A bard impresses creatures.
A fighter fights creatures.
A rogue tricks creatures.
An investigator investigates creatures.

An inquisitor punishes enemies of their church. Where the other classes basically just do a thing that can be applied to any particular target, the Inquisitor does a thing intended for a very specific sort of target.

Mechanically, they included:

-Divine casting, except what set them apart was access to a bunch of occult spells.
-Solid armor and weapon proficiency.
-Three class features which enhance martial performance: judgement, bane, and teamwork feats. When combined with their basic proficiency they are more or less full martial.
-Bonuses to monster knowledge checks.
-Bonus to intimidate.
-Bonus to Sense Motive.
-Bonus to initiative.
-Bonus to track.
-Better alignment detection than a champion.
-Discern Lies.
-Tons of skill ranks.
-Some of the best save enhancing tools in the game.
-DR bypassing.

And that is just the base class, with archetypes opening up a helluva lot more. No single PF2 class is going to combine martial defenses, the skills of an investigator, and casting from both occult and divine traditions and then still have enough left in the class budget to deal the damage people want from a divine striker. None of that feels especially close to the PF2 magus, for example.

I think why some of us feel the Thaumaturge is the new Inquisitor is because it crams about as much of the Inquisitor mechanics as you can fit into one PF2 class. A new divine striker should maybe be built from the ground up. And if you print a big enough archetype you can give people plenty of options to get whichever pieces of the Inquisitor their character concept is missing.

[Temperans]

What? Half the stuff you deacribed wouldn't even get translated to PF2 directly.

Bonus to skills are usually done by getting it trained by default, not by giving a bonus. And its not really unthinkable to have Inquisitor start with 4 trained skilled.

The different focus much like literally every single PF2 class would be part of class feats. Which means that there is more than enough space for inquisitor to get bonus versus monsters (oh hey rangers already have that so inquisitor can share). Bonus to detect liers is literally just a feat that lets you roll pereception to sense motive as a free action or upgrsdd the success by 1, which is not unreasonable for a class focused on detecting body language.

Better alignment detection than the champion, what? In PF2 the basic alignment detection is to use an alignment damage spell to see if they get hurt, while all the detect spells are uncommon and unusable without permission. Are you going to sit there and tell me "guy who is really good at detecting alignment" is impossible because Champions and other characters can ping for alignment damage?

Bonuses to track are literally in Investigator and Ranger, so what is the Issue with Inquisitor getting access to having good tracking?

Bypass alignment is literally the entire point of having an Inquisitor. You don't send them against people who are already against you like with champion, you send them against people hiding with your followers which might share similar DR.

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

Honestly, the fact it has so much stuff is why its a "class" and not an archetype like you are arguing. It would be the equivalent of saying swashbuckler should not be a class because it does too much, yet here the swashbuckler is arguably underpowered.

The logic of "inquisitor is a profession" dies when you realize that the only class that are not professions are: Sorcerer (you are born with it), Psychic (you are born with it), Kineticist (its usually created by severe trauma), and Shifter (weird magic). All other classes are the name of jobs, career paths, professions, or somewhere in between.

Also no, you cannot say "but heretics don't exist in PF2". Champions literally get a 1st level feat that potentially makes you a heretic. So any argument that "inquisitors are too brutal" and "there is nothing for inquisitor to hunt" is just off base. Even more weird is the continued "its wrong to have inquisitors because history" while simultaneously letting all the other bad things stay and ignoring those parts of history.

You cannot just allow heretics, all sort of good and evil charactere, all sort of good and evil magic, all sort of good and evil locations. But then a single class that is about finding the heretics and the enemy of your religion/country is suddenly too much for this game that lets you play as an actual undead (specially lich which is one of the most evil undead)!?

[Captain Morgan]

Focusing on any one feature and saying "well this class gets a bonus to monster knowledge so it is fine" is missing the point. The problem isn't any one feature. The problem is all of them on the same class. The Inquisitor is basically a reflavored Thaumaturge with casting too. Something needs to give there.

Temperans wrote:

Bonus to skills are usually done by getting it trained by default, not by giving a bonus.

No, bonuses to skills are usually done by bonuses to skills, extra skill increases, or bonus feats. See Rangers, Investigators, and Rogues. Trained skills are a closer analogue to class skills than PF1's 6+Int ranks a level or add half your level to these skills.

Quote:

The different focus much like literally every single PF2 class would be part of class feats. Which means that there is more than enough space for inquisitor to get bonus versus monsters (oh hey rangers already have that so inquisitor can share). Bonus to detect liers is literally just a feat that lets you roll pereception to sense motive as a free action or upgrsdd the success by 1, which is not unreasonable for a class focused on detecting body language.

"You can make those into feats instead of features" is not a compelling reason to make a full class instead of an archetype.

Quote:

The logic of "inquisitor is a profession" dies when you realize that the only class that are not professions are: Sorcerer (you are born with it), Psychic (you are born with it), Kineticist (its usually created by severe trauma), and Shifter (weird magic). All other classes are the name of jobs, career paths, professions, or somewhere in between

Fighter or barbarian isn't a job. Mercenary, guard, or soldier is a job. Wizard isn't a job either. Scholar, book seller, or magical craftsman is. The only things that really map directly to career paths are the investigator, alchemist, and Inventor.

Quote:

Also no, you cannot say "but heretics don't exist in PF2"

No one said this. Heretics exist, but they aren't a part of every campaign and thus building a whole class motivated around rooting feels like a bad idea to me. Being a mercenary works for just about any campaign. Being an inquisitor does not.

[Albatoonoe]

Maybe the name can be "Adjudicator"? It is one of the cooler words in the English language.

I think a roguish spellcaster that inflicts debuffs on enemies will definitely occupy its own space. I think what I'd want changed for a new Inquisitor is less focus on the "solo" aspects. Let the judgements be general debuffs that other characters can exploit. I think it is more thematically and mechanically sound.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Just as long as they don't call it a "Justicar." I am SO tired of that glorified TYPO being used in sci-fi/fantasy media. The word is "justicIar!" Pronounced like "justice-eer!" DON'T FORGET THE SECOND "I!"

[keftiu]

Captain Morgan wrote:

No one said this. Heretics exist, but they aren't a part of every campaign and thus building a whole class motivated around rooting feels like a bad idea to me. Being a mercenary works for just about any campaign. Being an inquisitor does not.

For what feels like the thousandth time this thread: the PF1 Inquisitor was not this. Please, tell me where Imrijka was denouncing other Pharasmins - but until then, that’s never been the heart of the class, and isn’t an effective argument against it in PF2.

[Captain Morgan]

keftiu wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

No one said this. Heretics exist, but they aren't a part of every campaign and thus building a whole class motivated around rooting feels like a bad idea to me. Being a mercenary works for just about any campaign. Being an inquisitor does not.

For what feels like the thousandth time this thread: the PF1 Inquisitor was not this. Please, tell me where Imrijka was denouncing other Pharasmins - but until then, that’s never been the heart of the class, and isn’t an effective argument against it in PF2.

Heretics was the wrong word to use. I just went down that rabbit hole because Temp was talking about it. But I think the same argument applies whether you mean heretics or just enemies of the church: not every campaign will include them. Imrikja "treads with her goddess's blessing, bringing judgment to all who would violate the laws of life and death." Which works fairly well because that is broad enough to include all undead and arguably most murderers, but I don't think that works for all gods.

Also, if the iconic's backstory doesn't align with the class description or title, maybe one of those things should change? I liked the artbiter idea you put forward quite a bit. That has potential.

[keftiu]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Heretics was the wrong word to use. I just went down that rabbit hole because Temp was talking about it. But I think the same argument applies whether you mean heretics or just enemies of the church: not every campaign will include them. Imrikja "treads with her goddess's blessing, bringing judgment to all who would violate the laws of life and death." Which works fairly well because that is broad enough to include all undead and arguably most murderers, but I don't think that works for all gods.

I’m surprised to see so much worry about this ITT, honestly. There’s plenty of deities whose Clerics and Champions wouldn’t fit a given campaign, and there’s plenty of campaigns where a Gunslinger, Investigator, or Psychic would feel inappropriate - that’s just part and parcel of any game with as many options as PF2.

Sure, the Inquisitor of Arshea isn’t going to have transphobes to fight in every game, but the Inquisitor of Ketephys can pursue the holy hunt in just about any context. Deity choice should be part of any good session 0. I would never play my Inquisitor of Casandalee from upthread in a game set in Qadira or Cheliax.

Quote:

Also, if the iconic's backstory doesn't align with the class description or title, maybe one of those things should change? I liked the artbiter idea you put forward quite a bit. That has potential.

I do hope we don’t lose her as the Iconic, in whatever form the class does take in 2e. One of the first things that made Pathfinder pop to me, as a baby nerd in the 4e era, was seeing this cool orc lady who felt like a sacred secret agent. It clearly left an impression on me!

You might be able to build an Arbiter out slightly more into subclasses for different spins on the theme - maybe one for diplomats and bodyguards, engaged in efforts for peace, while another could drill down harder into being a slayer of foes. This could be a fun place for an anti-caster option?

[Temperans]

I see no reason why anything about the flavor ans lore should change if people are not going to change any of the other classes to remove "all things that would make it hard to play".

Seriously if "inquisitor is hard to play because deity has no enemies here" then Champion shouldn't exist because most deities wouldn't have champions in the first place: Specially not indifferent evil deities.

[NECR0G1ANT]

keftiu wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

No one said this. Heretics exist, but they aren't a part of every campaign and thus building a whole class motivated around rooting feels like a bad idea to me. Being a mercenary works for just about any campaign. Being an inquisitor does not.

For what feels like the thousandth time this thread: the PF1 Inquisitor was not this. Please, tell me where Imrijka was denouncing other Pharasmins - but until then, that’s never been the heart of the class, and isn’t an effective argument against it in PF2.

The PF1 Inquisitor was more of a specialized monster hunter than a church militant. Thaumaturges have the monster-hunter niche and I think paizo may ditch the name, although the mechanics and story you seem to want could be a class. It could also be an archetype like the evangelist was a prestige class in 1E.

Lollerabe wrote:

Didn't the whole 'it dosent warrant a separate class' rhetoric kind of die with the APG?

Both the swashbuckler and investigator seems/seemed way more archetype-ish than an inquisitor imo.

No, the 2E APG was when we learned some 1E classes would never become 2E classes (Cavalier). Staff have said elsewherethat not every 1E class will be a full class in 2E.

[Captain Morgan]

Oh, I have nothing against the iconic. I'm all for keeping her and just rebranding.

Thematically, the Champion and Cleric can just kind of... Bum around. Which is itself weird and I try to tie their church into the story. But spreading the good word is a better general vibe for operating independently compared to monster hunting.

Investigator kind of works in anything because almost any adventure has a mystery to uncover, though mechanically they are better suited to a certain set of stories. Gunslinger and Inventor definitely don't fit everything, but that is why they are uncommon. I don't really see a problem with a psychic as they are basically just a different flavor of magic.

And again, I do like the Inquisitor thematically. I just like it better as an archetype. I don't think you can be a divine caster, an occult caster, a skill monkey, and a barbarian level striker all on the same class, so I'd rather just be able to put the hat on whatever existing class package I actually care about for that particular character.

[HumbleGamer]

I think that either gunslinger and inventor fit any adventure.

Being uncommon is just because they rely on firearms and not fantasy stuff, which some groups ( or DM) may find unwanted for their adventure.

But this doesn't mean they don't fit any adventure.

To sum up: "are there firearms and innovations on golarion? Then they can be anywhere, especially on the hero party"

+

"We want to give DM the right to forbid those stuff if they want to, without any need to justify it with the group. Reason why they are uncommon. To prevent unnecessary debates"

I still think that a divine magus would serve in a proper way for that purpose.

Then any player could roleplay it the way they want ( inquisitor, paladin, arbiter, mercenary, divine fighter, war priest, etc...).

[keftiu]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think that either gunslinger and inventor fit any adventure.

Being uncommon is just because they rely on firearms and not fantasy stuff, which some groups ( or DM) may find unwanted for their adventure.

But this doesn't mean they don't fit any adventure.

To sum up: "are there firearms and innovations on golarion? Then they can be anywhere, especially on the hero party.

It’s gonna be tough fitting a Gunslinger into Quest for the Frozen Flame.

[HumbleGamer]

keftiu wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think that either gunslinger and inventor fit any adventure.

Being uncommon is just because they rely on firearms and not fantasy stuff, which some groups ( or DM) may find unwanted for their adventure.

But this doesn't mean they don't fit any adventure.

To sum up: "are there firearms and innovations on golarion? Then they can be anywhere, especially on the hero party.

It’s gonna be tough fitting a Gunslinger into Quest for the Frozen Flame.

Just wait for numerian stuff!

[Perpdepog]

keftiu wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think that either gunslinger and inventor fit any adventure.

Being uncommon is just because they rely on firearms and not fantasy stuff, which some groups ( or DM) may find unwanted for their adventure.

But this doesn't mean they don't fit any adventure.

To sum up: "are there firearms and innovations on golarion? Then they can be anywhere, especially on the hero party.

It’s gonna be tough fitting a Gunslinger into Quest for the Frozen Flame.

Not really. Just give them a crossbow.

[HumbleGamer]

Perpdepog wrote:

keftiu wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think that either gunslinger and inventor fit any adventure.

Being uncommon is just because they rely on firearms and not fantasy stuff, which some groups ( or DM) may find unwanted for their adventure.

But this doesn't mean they don't fit any adventure.

To sum up: "are there firearms and innovations on golarion? Then they can be anywhere, especially on the hero party.

It’s gonna be tough fitting a Gunslinger into Quest for the Frozen Flame.

Not really. Just give them a crossbow.

I have the feel they meant to address the firearm part rather than the gunslinger themselves ( I mentioned either gunslinger and inventor because of firearms/innovations, because they being uncommon is more related to "tech" Stuff in a fantasy complex rather than "rarity" Issues).

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Besides, even crossbows aren't really the kinds of weapons meant for Quest for the Frozen Flame. The Realm of the Mammoth Lords is meant to be the "prehistoric/Ice Age fantasy" location on Golarion, where they don't bother with fancy things like "metalworking" or "agriculture." The ranged weapons you're most likely to have access to are flint-tipped bows and spears.

The only way I'd be able to rationalize it is taking the Ex-Crusader campaign background and saying I brought the crossbow with me from Mendev, making that crossbow literally the only one of its kind in the Realm. That's problematic if you don't have regular access to southern metalworkers to supply you with steel boltheads so you can fletch your own bolts and potentially spare parts in case the crossbow is in need of repair.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think part of the disconnect is that the name "Inquisitor" suggests "someone who works at the behest of the church hierarchy in order to enforce official dogma" whereas the actual way the inquisitor is portrayed in every official piece of fiction and at almost every gaming table is "someone who is completely independent of the official church".

If you made clear that from the lore of the class that you have no official mandate from either terrestrial or planar sources, you're just an independent problem solver who has access to divine power (since like a Champion, Cleric, Divine Witch, Oracle, Divine Summoner, or Divine sorcerer does not have a direct line to their deity or the pope), a lot of the problems go away.

[keftiu]

I’ve never assumed a greater degree of worldly, hierarchal church power than a Champion or Cleric gets - that’s more the matter of a Background, IMO. Happy to cosign it.

The old AD&D Templar class gaining legal powers as they level is not something I expect to see in a PF2 class anytime soon.

[Leon Aquilla]

Wringing hands about the class name "Inquisitor" implying official sanction seems like a huge nothingburger when the Cleric is sitting right there and that word literally is a synonym for clergy, yet nobody's worried about anyone playing "Reverend Strawman" the Cleric in their game.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, Cleric could just be the local village preacher who helps the common people with their lives and their relationship with forces beyond their control who never meets or answers to another person of their faith other than the person who trained them and their neighbors. That, to me, falls within the purview of "Cleric."

But to be an Inquisitor you need to have an Inquisition, which means that somebody important has decided "there is a matter to look into" and has told you to look into it. These aren't things about the class, but they're things about the name of the class that are actually unrelated to what the class is about.

It's sort of like how "Rogue" is a better name for a class than "Thief" since "larceny" is probably not what you're actually about.

[keftiu]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, Cleric could just be the local village preacher who helps the common people with their lives and their relationship with forces beyond their control who never meets or answers to another person of their faith other than the person who trained you and your neighbors. That, to me, falls within the purview of "Cleric."

But to be an Inquisitor you need to have an Inquisition, which means that somebody important has decided "there is a matter to look into" and has told you to look into it. These aren't things about the class, but they're things about the name of the class that are actually unrelated to what the class is about.

It's sort of like how "Rogue" is a better name for a class than "Thief" since "larceny" is probably not what you're actually about.

Druids were a specific, localized religious group that definitely didn't turn into bears, Sorcerers weren't ever really "people with supernatural bloodlines" before D&D, and Thaumaturge means "person who does magic," which the PF2 Thaumaturge doesn't do. Class names can clearly go beyond their literal definitions - as the Cleric example neatly shows - so I don't personally assume a ton of organization and sanction behind every Inquisitor.

YMMV, clearly, but it's another data point.

[PossibleCabbage]

You could also say that "Thaumaturge" is an example of changing the name of an old class and some of the mechanics because the name and some of the old lore didn't fit that well.

Like if you're the "person who understands the secret magical resonance of certain items which you leverage to do things" you don't necessarily need to be psychic or cast spells (or occult ones in particular.)

Really all that needs to happen to the Inquisitor is to go through the same sort of transformation that the Occultist did in becoming that Thaumaturge. The Occultist was one of my favorite classes in PF1 and I'm happy about how the Thaumaturge turned out, so it's not like this sort of thing can't preserve what's important while editing or changing the trouble spots.

[keftiu]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

You could also say that "Thaumaturge" is an example of changing the name of an old class and some of the mechanics because the name and some of the old lore didn't fit that well.

Like if you're the "person who understands the secret magical resonance of certain items which you leverage to do things" you don't necessarily need to be psychic or cast spells (or occult ones in particular.)

Really all that needs to happen to the Inquisitor is to go through the same sort of transformation that the Occultist did in becoming that Thaumaturge. The Occultist was one of my favorite classes in PF1 and I'm happy about how the Thaumaturge turned out, so it's not like this sort of thing can't preserve what's important while editing or changing the trouble spots.

I'm not opposed to an Arbiter or Intercessor, so long as it lets me play the characters I want and gets into my hands soon. I never would've thought Gunslinger, Kineticist, Magus, and Psychic would all beat the 2e Inquisitor out the door.