The definition of an "inquisitor" is as follow:
An inquisitor was an official (usually with judicial or investigative functions) in an inquisition – an organization or program intended to eliminate heresy and other things contrary to the doctrine or teachings of the Catholic faith. Literally, an inquisitor is one who "searches out" or "inquires" (Latin inquirere < quaerere, 'to seek').
In some cases, inquisitors sought out the social networks that people used to spread heresy.
There were multiple national inquisitions with different approaches and targets.
The definition of an "inquisition" is as follow:
The Inquisition was a judicial procedure and a group of institutions within the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, witchcraft, and customs considered deviant. Violence, torture, or the simple threat of its application, were used by the Inquisition to extract confessions and denunciations from heretics. Studies of the records have found that the overwhelming majority of sentences consisted of penances, but convictions of unrepentant heresy were handed over to the secular courts, which generally resulted in execution or life imprisonment. The Inquisition had its start in the 12th-century Kingdom of France, with the aim of combating religious deviation (e.g. apostasy or heresy), particularly among the Cathars and the Waldensians. The inquisitorial courts from this time until the mid-15th century are together known as the Medieval Inquisition. Other groups investigated during the Medieval Inquisition, which primarily took place in France and Italy, include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites, and the Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, replacing the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.
You're... technically hunting a specific group of individuals in the named of a church. This sounds like a Champion or even a Divine Ranger.
Leaving alone power levels of the pf1 class, the core concept of the Inquisitor was a divine skill monkey with limited casting and more martial prowess.If I may...
What prevents the Inquisitor to be an archetype or a "sub-class" for the Champion or Cleric?
I think the reason we're never going to get an Inqusitor in PF2 is that if you asked several people you would get completely different answers for "what is the core concept of the Inquisitor".
You could say "divine skill monkey", you could say "monster-hunter", you could say "church troubleshooter", you could say "aggressive divine martial", you could say "incredible scary face", etc. Which is too many different things to put in one class's set of themes.
So it's much more likely we're going to see those themes divided between like 4-5 classes (including class archetypes) than stuffed into one.
I mean, these aren't concepts that are mutually exclusive. An inquisitor can easily be a "divine skill monkey" thats a "church troubleshooter" the same as a rogue is a mundane skill monkey and the class that everyone assumes is a thief for some reason (not the subclass, an actual burglar).
An hyphothetic PF2e inquisitor isn't going to have Monster Lore or its equivalent because the thaum already covers that side of the class (inquisitors even had a feature called exploit weakness at 13th level I think), so the focus would clearly be on skill monkey-ing and being a divine bounded caster that likely uses feats similar to Sniping Duo to represent teamwork feats. With that said, at this point and after WoI reveal I already made peace with myself that they aren't going to make an "inquisitor" (I don't care if its called like that or not) class in PF2e. The new avenger rogue archetype or even that other one that they just mentione but didn't mention the class named vindicator are likely going to be the equivalent of the inquisitor for PF2e. Would that be enough? It depends. Certainly class archetypes don't have a good rep in PF2e since most of them are bad, but I'm hoping to be wrong on that one.
|
So it's much more likely we're going to see those themes divided between like 4-5 classes (including class archetypes) than stuffed into one.
Arguably, we've already seen this. One of the many things inquisitor dabbled in was teamwork feats. To me, the commander feels like it's targeting that niche.
I do also suspect we are never going to see an "inquisitor", but rather its chassis spread across multiple options. I'd bet my left kidney that the palatine detective archetype exists to fulfill the "Divine Detective" angle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, between Avenger, Palatine Detective, and Battle Harbinger, I feel like we're going to see almost every thing we could want the Inquisitor for except maybe a distinct class named Inquisitor that does all those things at once. We will have to see after Divine Mysteries comes out if the thirst for the Inquisitor is still there or has been slaked some.
Although, I fail to see the point of bringing up the definition of inquisitor as if it pertained to the class that shared that name in 1e. Perhaps as an argument to change the name of any such class inspired by the same design space, certainly, but not in a conversation about class concepts yet desired.
The definition of an "inquisitor" is as follow:
An inquisitor was an official (usually with judicial or investigative functions) in an inquisition – an organization or program intended to eliminate heresy and other things contrary to the doctrine or teachings of the Catholic faith. Literally, an inquisitor is one who "searches out" or "inquires" (Latin inquirere < quaerere, 'to seek').
In some cases, inquisitors sought out the social networks that people used to spread heresy.
There were multiple national inquisitions with different approaches and targets.
The definition of an "inquisition" is as follow:
The Inquisition was a judicial procedure and a group of institutions within the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, witchcraft, and customs considered deviant. Violence, torture, or the simple threat of its application, were used by the Inquisition to extract confessions and denunciations from heretics. Studies of the records have found that the overwhelming majority of sentences consisted of penances, but convictions of unrepentant heresy were handed over to the secular courts, which generally resulted in execution or life imprisonment. The Inquisition had its start in the 12th-century Kingdom of France, with the aim of combating religious deviation (e.g. apostasy or heresy), particularly among the Cathars and the Waldensians. The inquisitorial courts from this time until the mid-15th century are together known as the Medieval Inquisition. Other groups investigated during the Medieval Inquisition, which primarily took place in France and Italy, include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites, and the Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, replacing the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.You're... technically hunting a specific group of individuals in the named of a church. This sounds like a Champion or even a Divine Ranger.
B-but those are *not* what a Pathfinder Inquisitor is. In terms of “skill monkey” or “monster hunter” or “church troubleshooter” or “incredibly scary face” or “aggressive divine martial”. For me, Inquisitors were not even any of those - I thought of them as “teamwork class”.
I think you are completely missing the point. A Pathfinder Inquisitor, as ostensibly released initially in PF1’s Advanced Player’s Guide was an amazingly broad chassis of sometimes thematically unrelated mechanical abilities that mean many things to many people. I had no interest in the Church part of Inquisitors, and often dispensed with a deity completely.
I definitely wouldn’t want it to be shunted into various archetypes, class-archetypes or subclasses in PF2. But I’m pretty sure it already has and/or will be.
I think one of the reasons the Inquisitor was created to begin with was that early PF1 APs were chock full of antagonists who were multiclass Cleric/Rogues, because they wanted an enemy with both cleric and rogue powers. But if you know a little about PF1 you realize that basically any way of significantly mashing those classes together ends up with a weaker character than either a pure one or one with a dip in the other. This is similar to how the Magus was created because the Eldritch Knight was challenging to build.
I would be nearly willing to guarantee that War of Immortals is going to have options for a "sneaky person who has god powers." It's just more likely to be a class archetype than a full class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's much more likely we're going to see those themes divided between like 4-5 classes (including class archetypes) than stuffed into one.
Which sort of guarantees a lot of people don't get what they want because the combination of ideas is kind of what makes a class in the first place.
Which sort of guarantees a lot of people don't get what they want because the combination of ideas is kind of what makes a class in the first place.
But all of the PF2 classes so far have had fairly concise theming- you can describe what most of them are about in one or two sentences and get everything.
If the same were possible with the Inquisitor, I think we would have had one already.
But all of the PF2 classes so far have had fairly concise theming- you can describe what most of them are about in one or two sentences and get everything.
I mean, you can stretch out the explanation of almost any class awkwardly if you want to.
There's nothing particularly concise or thematic about "two weapon fighter" "archer" "animal companion guy" "Monster hunter" "survivalist" "primal focus caster" and "difficult terrain expert" being mashed together into a coherent class. Some of those elements don't even really make sense together. The class is only really cohesive in the sense that it's a reference to itself in older versions of the game.
Or how about "int-based rage" and "focus-like special attacks" and "maybe builds its own robot" and "gadget crafting" and "custom armor" .. what a total mess. Some of these aren't even really themes, or barely connect into what appears to be the central theme.
"Monster hunter" "pre-eminent knowledge expert" "reality warping martial" "trinket collecting occultist" "omni-tradition magical dabbler" "charisma focused" ... ??? Are we just throwing things at a dart board now?
On the other hand, some of the game's most central classes are almost defined by not having real themeing. The wizard is the spell casting dude, there's no central cohesion to the class at all beyond being someone who casts spells. The spells don't even necessarily really go together. In other media you see casters with tight flavor or cohesive spell lists, not in D&D/PF.
.. And then some of the tightest themed classes also happen to be ones that get complaints about the most, singled out for being too specific or so bound up in a certain idea that it diminishes variety.
... Point is the bit about 'impossible themeing' feels sort of circular, because the classes we have are all over the place for good and bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character that just focuses on striking, and has feats to support that, not 'striking and applying conditions/debuffs' just focuses on applying the dead condition by pure damage.
My friend. Barbarian and Fighter are right there. Rogue? Gunslinger? Weapon Thaum?
What are you looking for that isn't supported by existing options?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the thing that PF2 will never do is "let you commit all your resources into being the best at a single trick."
You're never going to be able to spend all your feats on any one thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feat support for that build. Power Attack is a trap outside of extremly narrow situations, and most other feats are to do with applying conditions, which I don't enjoy, or movement, which is useful I admit, or tanking which is again, not something I enjoy.A character that just focuses on striking, and has feats to support that, not 'striking and applying conditions/debuffs' just focuses on applying the dead condition by pure damage.
My friend. Barbarian and Fighter are right there. Rogue? Gunslinger? Weapon Thaum?
What are you looking for that isn't supported by existing options?
If what you're looking for is a feat that just directly boosts the damage of a class above the cap of already-existing classes, I think it's highly unlikely we'll see that in PF2. Feats are only allowed to add pure damage in a non-situational at-will way, like Double Slice, if they're boosting a play style that has damage lower than that of something like using a d12 2-handed weapon. And even then, you have a lot of people who saw Double Slice early in PF2's lifespan and built entire parties around it! Realistically, any feats that one could take to consistently push the damage-dealing capabilities of a character beyond the existing caps without any restrictions, limitations, or anything like that will just become an auto-pick from a mechanical perspective, which they're trying to move away from. PF1's Weapon Focus style feat design of "get a permanent untyped +1 bonus on your major combat action" is not something that's coming back to PF2 design.
There are plenty of feats that support the sort of build you're talking about, though! Letting yourself parry for a +1/+2 to AC as a 3rd action while still holding a d12 weapon in both hands is a big boost to this playstyle; being able to move twice and still strike for 2 actions helps a great deal if used tactically; getting heavy armour if you didn't have it is a big, big boost; picking up useful ranged options from cantrips if your mental stats support it is a very big deal. In my opinion, they all count as feat support for the build - but not feat support that allows you to push past that top-level damage maximum, which is pretty much a load-bearing assumption of PF2's design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feat support for that build. Power Attack is a trap outside of extremly narrow situations, and most other feats are to do with applying conditions, which I don't enjoy, or movement, which is useful I admit, or tanking which is again, not something I enjoy.A character that just focuses on striking, and has feats to support that, not 'striking and applying conditions/debuffs' just focuses on applying the dead condition by pure damage.
My friend. Barbarian and Fighter are right there. Rogue? Gunslinger? Weapon Thaum?
What are you looking for that isn't supported by existing options?
Meet Axes McSlash. Greataxe fighter I threw together in a handful of minutes with nary a condition in sight.
There is absolutely feat support for what you're describing.
|
|
Meet Axes McSlash. Greataxe fighter I threw together in a handful of minutes with nary a condition in sight.
There is absolutely feat support for what you're describing.
Thanks actually, that's an alright build.
@Arcaian: Thanks for trying, but those just sound like the style of builds I am resigned to making, not that I actually want to play, the irony being I used to complain about 'doing the same thing over and over' until I realised I vastly prefer that style of play.
I am a simple player it seems, give me that big damage number dopamine hit, if I want skirmish wargames, I can play (and do) actual skirmish wargames.
If it's a simple combat routine that you're looking for, have you considered a Flurry archer ranger? You can do almost entirely Strikes on your turn and still be contributing to the combat well. Similarly, a ranged combatant Magus has a very simple combat routine.
B-but those are *not* what a Pathfinder Inquisitor is. In terms of “skill monkey” or “monster hunter” or “church troubleshooter” or “incredibly scary face” or “aggressive divine martial”. For me, Inquisitors were not even any of those - I thought of them as “teamwork class”.
I think you are completely missing the point. A Pathfinder Inquisitor, as ostensibly released initially in PF1’s Advanced Player’s Guide was an amazingly broad chassis of sometimes thematically unrelated mechanical abilities that mean many things to many people. I had no interest in the Church part of Inquisitors, and often dispensed with a deity completely.
I definitely wouldn’t want it to be shunted into various archetypes, class-archetypes or subclasses in PF2. But I’m pretty sure it already has and/or will be.
...but you literally just said that that was what you already did. There was this grab-bag of themes called "inquisitor", you took one of them that you really liked, and you generally carved off a bunch of the rest to get other things. So... you want the "teamwork class" part of it... which means that if they correctly carve the "teamwork class" part off into an archetype, you can take that archetype with... whatever class you like. You were saying that that was what you wanted with your actions. How is it not what you want?
Personally, the themes from inquisitor that I like are
- Divine-powered Batman.
- Special Forces Nun.
- Dirty back-alley knife fights in service to your deity of choice.
...and the sort of gothic noir "hunting down secret cults" thing that rises naturally out of those themes... while your buddy the thaumaturge brings in the occult noir version of the exact same thing.
I'm feeling pretty positive about where Paizo is going on this one, honestly.
There's nothing particularly concise or thematic about "two weapon fighter" "archer" "animal companion guy" "Monster hunter" "survivalist" "primal focus caster" and "difficult terrain expert" being mashed together into a coherent class. Some of those elements don't even really make sense together. The class is only really cohesive in the sense that it's a reference to itself in older versions of the game.
Ranger is "Aragorn: The class". It always has been.
Somewhat more broadly, it's also the old military role of "scout", back when they did a lot of trekking through the wilderness, with a bit more nature-magic awesome poured in.
Or how about "int-based rage" and "focus-like special attacks" and "maybe builds its own robot" and "gadget crafting" and "custom armor" .. what a total mess. Some of these aren't even really themes, or barely connect into what appears to be the central theme.
Inventor is "wild west/steampunk mad scientist". It's pretty obviously so, and everything else follows from it. It's the themes that are tight, not the powersets.
"Monster hunter" "pre-eminent knowledge expert" "reality warping martial" "trinket collecting occultist" "omni-tradition magical dabbler" "charisma focused" ... ??? Are we just throwing things at a dart board now?
Thaumaturge gets a bit messy with it, but the general idea of someone who makes magic by studying a bunch of random lore, coming up with their own weird ideas of how things work, and then BSing the world until it agrees is actually fairly tight. They've got some randomness to their powers, but thematically it's still reasonably coherent.
On the other hand, some of the game's most central classes are almost defined by not having real themeing. The wizard is the spell casting dude, there's no central cohesion to the class at all beyond being someone who casts spells. The spells don't even necessarily really go together. In other media you see casters with tight flavor or cohesive spell lists, not in D&D/PF.
The wizard's theming is the man or woman who wields magic by studying it, and knowing it intimately. They're all books and study and colleges and erudition. Their powerset in some ways is pretty simple, but, again, the theme is quite solid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember being thrown off by the Cha thing when I first read it. Int seems to be such a better thematic fit, IMO. My guess is they made it Cha for the practical reason that they wanted their "eclectic magic collector" class to be good at spells and effects acquired through ancestries, (non-class) archetypes, etc. And in PF2E, that's Cha.
It's charisma because of the way Thaumaturge magic works. Int-based magic works by you Knowing Things, and being able to leverage your grasp of the source code of the universe to make things happen. Charisma-based magic works by you convincing the universe that it should work this way, and having the universe go along with you on this one.
The most obvious difference is in the esoterica. If a thaumaturge ties the sign of a powerful (and appropriately-themed) celestial to the hilt of their sword by hempen thread that they have woven themselves while saying prayers, that legit will cause that sword to deal additional damage to the enemy they have prepared that blade against. If someone else watches what they were doing exactly, copying the motions, and even prays with the same fervor using the same words... nothing.
If it were int, then knowing what to do would make it work. It does not.
If it were wisdom, then having the same faith and the same relationship with higher powers would make it work. It does not.
It works because the Thaumaturge says it works, and for no other reason. Thus, charisma.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also didn't like at first that thaums were Cha-based, though after playing one for I think two years I much prefer them being Cha-based. If they were Int-based they would have been just another RK class with some martial capabilities and supernatural powers, while being Cha-based gives it this "I literally mold reality to my liking" vibes which is a very weird flavor choice for a martial class. This makes it very unique which is really cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snip
Kind of demonstrating the point. Incongruities are self referential or easy enough to gloss over until we just kind of shrug and accept the package as cohesive for its own sake (several of the mentioned components of the ranger are neither aragorn nor military scout, and much of the mechanical realization of the inventor is stumbling far away from normal mad science tropes after all).k
The key difference between the inquisitor and the other examples then isn't so much the construction, but the conscious decision to emphasize the incongruities, instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt as with other classes. It's a perception thing. Which is fine, no one has to like a class, but it's clearly not the objective truth some people want it to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Sanityfaerie: Sure that may have been what *I* usually did but it wasn't what *everyone* could only do. The inquisitor had a lot of options, that worked both as a class, and as a concept to lean into in a myriad of ways. I'm just pointing out that what you see as Paizo "delivering" I see them as "watering down".
As for "how is it not what I want" I think "x the class = archetype!" pretty much summarises my disdain. I don't like archetypes in PF2, whether multiclass or otherwise, and the "class archetypes" I have seen are...woeful. I want the class, to do with what I like. Especially casting spells without a deity. That was my most favorite thing. ;)
Now if you want to talk about how the PF1 Inquisitor couldn't be replicated in PF2 because of various constraints or realities of the the differing rulesets then sure, I can see that.
Or to quote Squiggit, "it's a perception thing".
I think the concept of the inquisitor as-is in PF1e isn't really feasible in PF2e because the class did a lot of everything and didn't really focus on anything. It also had archetypes to poach features from literally everyone, so it was a really good jack of all trades. Also, if you were to make a conversion for the inquisitor into PF2e, I think the most logical thing to do would be to mix it with some concepts of the 4e avenger (since it seems Paizo wants to bring some 4e content over to PF2e), which would effectively be the very requested Wis-based support martial that everyone asks for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the concept of the inquisitor as-is in PF1e isn't really feasible in PF2e because the class did a lot of everything and didn't really focus on anything. It also had archetypes to poach features from literally everyone, so it was a really good jack of all trades. Also, if you were to make a conversion for the inquisitor into PF2e, I think the most logical thing to do would be to mix it with some concepts of the 4e avenger (since it seems Paizo wants to bring some 4e content over to PF2e), which would effectively be the very requested Wis-based support martial that everyone asks for.I still don't understand why Paizo want to cross pathfinder with the thing that it was created to reject.
If Paizo want to do '4e done right' then spin it off into its own thing.
Realistically, because 4e was created by people who had been working on the 3.x engine for a decade+ and so created a new system designed to be better at the areas 3.x is weak in. PF2 was created by people who had been working on the 3.x engine for nearly a decade, and was created in large part in response to the weaknesses of the 3.x engine. There is some directly inspiration by 4e, but it's not like it's a 1:1 copy or anything; they're both systems made directly in response to the flaws of 3.x but that want to remain pretty close to a d20 trad RPG, which means there's a good chance they have similar-ish solutions to the flaws of 3.x.
(since it seems Paizo wants to bring some 4e content over to PF2e),
Not sure where you're getting that from? Commander isn't actually based on 4e, if that's what you're thinking of.
The commander has been mentioned by Mike Sayre to be inspired by the 4e warlord.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, here's an Idea for a new class: Teleportation.
They aren't a spell caster (maybe some focus spells) but their whole thing is teleportation. Subclasses based on whether they want to enhance their own ability to pop around, Reposition others (including against their will), or leave your teleportation portals open.
Okay, here's an Idea for a new class: Teleportation.
They aren't a spell caster (maybe some focus spells) but their whole thing is teleportation. Subclasses based on whether they want to enhance their own ability to pop around, Reposition others (including against their will), or leave your teleportation portals open.
This just triggered 3.5 flashbacks and someone who built a homebrew class based on the movie Jumper.
|
|
Well There's three forms I can think off: Nightcrawler/Jumper all about moving yourself around.
Blink, where it's about moving other things and others around (though you can still do some teleportation)
And Portal, opening gates that others can see and aim through.
And yeah, this would be hella difficult to balance around, so probably would never happen, but it's my craving.
Some constrained, short-distance ability to be this already exists (Laughing Shadow Magus, I'm looking at you. Also things like Mirror Thaumaturge, Shadowdancer). So it's not out of the question to create a class that starts at that power level and builds upon it. But I'm guessing there would be a significant mismatch between 'player expectations' (superhero high) and 'Paizo implementation'.Okay, here's an Idea for a new class: Teleportation.
They aren't a spell caster (maybe some focus spells) but their whole thing is teleportation. Subclasses based on whether they want to enhance their own ability to pop around, Reposition others (including against their will), or leave your teleportation portals open.
It's already possible to do repositioning of others through certain spells. probably best by combining air spells for reposition with Sky Geomancer that can move allies 10 ft whenever he casts an air spell: Gust of Wind, Propulsive Breeze, Blastback, Blazing Dive, Unseasonable Squall, and ofc Airlift. I hope to build a Tempest Oracle doing just that, playing chess by moving pieces/characters around, if (hopefully) the Remaster grants Oracles additional spells befitting their mysteries.
|
|
So my teleporter class would probably be limited to agile and finesse weapons and light armor, under the excuse of "limiting the amount of matter to transport" and one of it's abilities would be to, once per turn, teleport up to half their movement speed, which would eventually become full movement. In addition, after they teleport, if they successfully strike before the end of their turn they can add additional precision damage. Teleport rules are otherwise Line of sight/precise sense, or "Anchor" places, with a limited number of "Anchors". At first can only teleport themself, but eventually can bring willing passengers.
The Hopper (teleport self specialization) would get ways to teleport themselves more frequently, letting them dance in and out of combat and land strikes, and (hopefully) leave before an enemy can land a strike. However, their teleportation, extra excited as it is telegraphs it's arrival and departure, giving it a trait that would allow for (I forget the new term for Attack of opportunity)
The Sender can use their teleport on a creature or object of of their size or smaller, and still cannot teleport them into open air (though they can do that at later levels) or solid objects (gotta be able to see your destination). Unwilling creatures make a (unknown save) On a Crit success nothing happens, but that turns teleport fails. on a regular success, they become sickened 1. On a fail, they are teleported to your choice of viable destination in range, and sickened one. On a Critical fail, same as regular fail but they are also Off Guard until the end of their next turn.
Gate Maker gets training in ranged weapons, and can use their teleport to open a gate that stays Open up so long as it is sustained. The Ends of the gates are fixed to start with, but at higher levels can be moved as part of the sustain action. Gates are only big enough for a Medium Creature to comfortably walk through, but can be enlarged as part of the sustain action.
I was thinking a similar thing. I don't see "teleporter" being a concept that could be a class on its own. An archetype or class archetype is more fitting.
I know this is a thread for classes, but I would love a set of archetypes modeled after a remastered version of captivator. An archetype that gives slightly better progression than a multi class caster archetype but is limited to spells with certain traits. I imagine a remastered captivator will be limited to illusion and mental spells. I could see a similar archetype being based around detection, prediction, and fortune, another based around summons, another around polymorph and morph, etc.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand why Paizo want to cross pathfinder with the thing that it was created to reject.
If Paizo want to do '4e done right' then spin it off into its own thing.
Pathfinder was never created as a rejection of 4e, it was created because they lost the license to publish Dragon Magazine and 4e content was not available under the OGL. So they published a fantasy TTRPG periodical using the rules they had available to them.
"Doing 4e right" is simply the process of "identifying the problems with the previous ruleset, and fixing them with the benefit of history to inform you."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the concept of the inquisitor as-is in PF1e isn't really feasible in PF2e because the class did a lot of everything and didn't really focus on anything. It also had archetypes to poach features from literally everyone, so it was a really good jack of all trades. Also, if you were to make a conversion for the inquisitor into PF2e, I think the most logical thing to do would be to mix it with some concepts of the 4e avenger (since it seems Paizo wants to bring some 4e content over to PF2e), which would effectively be the very requested Wis-based support martial that everyone asks for.I still don't understand why Paizo want to cross pathfinder with the thing that it was created to reject.
If Paizo want to do '4e done right' then spin it off into its own thing.
You are over 6 years too late.
PF2 has included bits of 4e from the very start.
Design Manager
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The commander has been mentioned by Mike Sayre to be inspired by the 4e warlord.
What I've actually said is that the conceptual space predates the warlord; the first "commander" class I really liked was the 3E marshal (which was neat but not good). The 4E warlord was a neat class but it's also one I haven't even looked at in over a decade.
The commander's primary inspiration point is the best parts of the PF1 cavalier; you might notice the banner, the teamwork orientation, the built-in mount option...
I wrote a fairly long thread about how one of the interesting aspects of the commander is that the evolution of a concept like the cavalier into the mechanical framework of PF2 naturally mirrors the 4E warlord in a lot of ways because of the shared evolutionary paths. PF1 was a very individualistic and basic addition oriented framework while PF2 and 4E are both more tactical and teamwork-oriented games. So when you look at the best parts of e.g. teamwork feats from PF1 that make good fits for PF2, you're not looking at math fixers (because PF2 has tighter math) but rather potent combination actions and tactical maneuvers like Coordinated Charge, Target of Opportunity, Escape Route, Pack Flanking, etc. (and you'll see that the commander has equivalents to pretty much all of that functionality.)
4E probably did a lot to popularize the concept of a warlord-type class, particularly in the realm of popularizing the word "warlord" to refer to the concept, but it's not the originator of the archetype. The idea that PF2 is "borrowing from 4E" is, IMO, a kind of flawed comparison based on a limited data set that ignores the fact that 4E's ideas were all drawn from the same 50-year gaming traditions as PF2 and while there were iterations of ideas that were more popular or had a particular spin, they're all concepts derived from fantasy tropes that are even older than the gaming genre. There's obvious parallels in the systems sharing the same lineage and looking to solve the same problems, but PF2 isn't trying to be 4E, or 5E, or any edition of D&D. It's the evolution of PF1 retaining crunch, depth, and breadth while streamlining out unnecessary complexity and evolving to appeal to a much larger modern audience.
I was thinking a similar thing. I don't see "teleporter" being a concept that could be a class on its own. An archetype or class archetype is more fitting.Please no, the archetypes are so bad, if it's not worth a class don't do it...
Absolutely. The archetypes are….so…bad.
And I call shenanigans on “the teleporter not being a full class”. There absolutely is enough inspiration just in popular culture (and this thread!) to make a full class. Making it balanced on the other hand….
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't understand the hate for archetypes. I mean, there's a bunch of classes I wont' archetype with, but that's because in those classes, I crave all of the class feats I can get. Free Archetype appeals to me.
Now, class archetypes were in an ugly place for a good long while, but it looks like the recent ones are better? I'm cautiously hopeful for the newer class archetypes.
If you're talking about anything other than the pre-remaster class archetypes, I really don't understand how you describe them as "are so bad".