Isnt Dragon Age "templar class" = inquistor in BG?

raxtoren

Templar class has one spell, dispell magic and disrupt magic. Thats it.

And they are considered "fighter/warriors" in Dragon Age.

Just wierd how its considered a Paladin class... And also, in Dragon Age, templars like Alistair are specced tank with shield- which make sense for a great tank, who isnt gonna be interupted or stunned by magic.

FrozenDervish

"Spiritual successor"

the_spyder

I think there is an underlying template that inspired both classes. That of the Knight Templar of the middle ages. Basically a Knight of the church (for good or ill). Both classes were probably inspired by this concept.

But yeah, as @frozenDervish indicates. Dragon Age was the "Spiritual successor" to the BG series. Too bad DA2 was such a departure.

FinneousPJ

Dragon Age was a positive surprise for me.

the_spyder

Dragon Age: Origins was a positive surprise. As was Awakenings. DA2, not as much. But that is merely my personal opinion.

I am cautiously optimistic about DA3 but plan on seeing how it launches and what the reviewers/fans have to say before I put any money down on it.

raxtoren

DA2 was... everything I feared DA1 would be when I realized they were the publisher. Action-oriented rpg, with same area and textures... wtf?!

I have nothing against a spin-off, that is more action oriented and just focused on one city, but please don't call it "Dragon Age 2" they truly tricked/milked their consumers on the idea of what they thought they would be getting, namely a truly Dragon Age 2, just like DA1 was but just new content.

FinneousPJ

I haven't played DA2 for the very reasons stated in this thread already. Indeed I meant DA O and Awakening were positive.

the_spyder

I just feel partially to blame that this thread has turned into another DA:O vs DA2. that was not the intention of the OP (or so I imagine). I hope it can get back on track to the question about the Inquisitor.

Personally I haven't played Inquisitor in BG series, although i really want to try a Cavalier sometime. I just prefer mages much more. Even in DA:O, my main was a wizard class. Still, I can absolutely see where the OP is coming from in that the classes are similar. But I do think that it is a common template and you can see that type in a lot of these types of games.

Schneidend

I'd give DA2 a chance, @FinneousPJ. A character-driven story that focuses on one city rather than a save the world plot is a nice change of pace.

raxtoren

Schneidend said:

I'd give DA2 a chance, @FinneousPJ. A character-driven story that focuses on one city rather than a save the world plot is a nice change of pace.

Problem is that, A the story was horrible / B no matter what choices you did in the end, nothing changed the outcome, at all.

Dee

I'd say it's a conceptual compromise between Inquisitor and Wizard Slayer. An official religious organization that categorically distrusts magic-users.

BelgarathMTH

I was about to say something similar to what @Dee just said: one of the Templar abilities drains mana on hit, which reminded me of the Wizard Slayer class. But the religious elements and the Dispel are Inquisitor powers. So yeah, Wizard Slayer/Inquisitor hybrid.

Come to think of it, that would make a good modded player character choice for Baldur's Gate. That might make playing a Wizard Slayer a bit more appealing.

The Wizard Slayer would get potential Weapon Grandmastery, chance of spell failure on hit, Dispel, True Sight, some magic resistance, but no magic items other than weapons, armor, and healing potions.

The Inquisitor would be the same, except required to be Lawful Good, only two pips in any weapon, and can use any magic items normally useable by a fighter, but no innate magic resistance or chance of spell failure on hit.

ZanathKariashi

Technically the proper Wizard slayer (not the gimp version in BG) is already very close to a templar.

Receives special training and rituals to make them extremely powerful vs mages, but disdain using any magical items or having magic used on them. (20% Magic resistance base at creation +2% per level (+1% after 20). Cannot use ANY magical items or equipment, and healing spells and potions are only 50% effective (Spells that deal pure magical damage are also only 50% effective), and must by-pass their passive magic resistance as it cannot be lowered willingly, like most other creatures with MR can do).

Can channel that infused anti-magic through their melee weapons, allowing them to potentially dispel magic on hit, as they grow in power they can begin to by-pass protections requiring a level of magical enhancement and are completely unaffected by spells protection specifically from normal OR magical weapons. Their melee strikes have a chance to infuse a spark of anti-magic in the target, potentially disrupting spell-casting for several rounds. (Dispels on hit with caster level equal to character level. Attacks can by-pass magical to-hit requirement equal to +1 per 3 levels (can ignore Protection from normal weapons at lvl 3, and is never affected by protection from magical weapons), maximum of +5. Target must save a -4 or suffer 25% spell failure penalty for 5 rounds, non-stacking).

As they grow in power, they can infuse their armor and shields with anti-magic, granting them greater protection vs magical effects. (For every 3 level they have a +1 bonus to saves vs magical effects. Maximum of +5 each from worn armor and a worn shield, total of +10). (technically the shield bonus is only supposed to work with effects generated in a line of effect that passes through the shield's guarded area...but...easier to just say it's another passive +5)

At level 12, once per day, can unleash an anti-magic field, as per the spell (Effects of magic items cease to function, summoned (but not called, animated, or gated) creatures wink out of existence, all magical effects from spells or supernatural sources are negated, as long as they remain within the field. Artifacts and Demi-god level or higher creatures are completely unaffected (though any projected abilities maybe be suppressed normally), and 10th/Quest level spells have a 50% chance of ignoring the field but must be cast from outside of the field), except lasting 1 round per 2/levels, with a range of 10ft centered on and moving with the Wizard Slayer.

Due to their training focused entirely on fighting mages, they lack the general martial prowess of generic fighters and may only specialize in melee weapons. (technically they're limited to proficiency, but since that book doesn't use the C&T expanded proficiency chart, I'll be generous and say specialization).

Cannot dual-class as into a magic wielding class. (Technically they can, but they would be unable to benefit from spell-casting or any supernatural effects the class grants, such as spell casting, turning undead, lay on hands, the divine health bonus (+2 all saves, immunity to diseases) that paladins receive), etc.



I.e. they could dual-class as a thief but couldn't use scrolls or wands.

(if dual-classing into a bard they can't use scrolls or wands either BUT, they CAN learn spells (or rather, study them would be more a appropriate term), but just like Dwarf and Halfling bards, instead of the ability to cast spells, they get a passive +4 save bonus if that particular spell is used against them due to greater understanding of how it works). Bard songs and counter song are non-magical.)

SpaceInvader

ZanathKariashi said:

But disdain using any magical items or having magic used on them. (20% Magic resistance base at creation +2% per level (+1% after 20). Cannot use ANY magical items or equipment, and healing spells and potions are only 50% effective (Spells that deal pure magical damage are also only 50% effective), and must by-pass their passive magic resistance as it cannot be lowered willingly, like most other creatures with MR can do).
...
Due to their training focused entirely on fighting mages, they lack the general martial prowess of generic fighters and may only specialize in melee weapons. (technically they're limited to proficiency, but since that book doesn't use the C&T expanded proficiency chart, I'll be generous and say specialization).

Cannot dual-class as into a magic wielding class. (Technically they can, but they would be unable to benefit from spell-casting or any supernatural effects the class grants, such as spell casting, turning undead, lay on hands, the divine health bonus (+2 all saves, immunity to diseases) that paladins receive), etc.

I.e. they could dual-class as a thief but couldn't use scrolls or wands, or a ranger, but couldn't cast spells. (their "charm animal" ability that BG gives isn't technically magical and is actually not even a spell in PnP..it's just an action they attempt when dealing with any wild or unruly animals, due to training at handling animals and understanding their behavior).

@ZanathKariashi Good luck playing that, especially in BG1. This version of the WS would cause even more frustration, if any.